They debased currency, built goods in cheap countries, and imported cheap labor, all to levitate an illusion of wealth, because a comfortable population won't disturb peace for change. Do you really think this can be continued indefinitely?

They've done it over a hundred times before. They'll do it again.

You think they stopped autocompleting conservative or controversial queries for any reason other than ideology? They're actively trying to influence the information people expose themselves to. Not sure what's so hard to believe that they do it in other ways than through autocomplete and blacklisting.

Self-awareness isn't as common as you'd think.

Even at half off, they still average $350k net taxpayer cost. A John Deere is far cheaper, and far more efficient.

While physical difference are unimportant, they do speak to underlying differences. Do you believe asian eyes are simply an epigenetic difference, that change with a flip of the "genetic switch" of dominant vs recessive?

I don't, even though downey's do look a bit asian.

Think about the fact that we're talking about effectively 1, maybe 2, generations.

Well, no. We're talking about a fairly divergent evolutionary path coming back together. Enough that we're not just talking about epigenetic divergence, but likely genetic mutation. Russians and Slavs are and always have been around an SD lower than Western Europeans.

Thanks for pointing out that it was the fox expirments, though. apparently, it's about to fucking crash, so all the behavioral enhancement towards domestication are about to be lost. pretty sad.

It's not mind-boggling at all. Academia is the lens for interpretation. Even if their methods for data collection are sound (a big assumption), their data interpretation has become absurdly biased. They're so used to interpreting things "correctly" that the idea of letting the data speak for itself leads to conclusions they're specifically trained not to reach.

arrrgh

A shame it's netflix, but I appreciate the review none the less.

It's not the 13% they're chasing. It's the 64% that is susceptible to self-destructive altruism. An amazing trait for civilization building, but an easily exploitable one, as well.

Eh... as much as I like ZH articles, and dislike Midler, the headline is retarded. It's just a joke.

Been awhile since this discussion, but I wanted to circle around back to this, since I'd forgotten something possibly relevant:

This is why I have to bring up the East Germans. The 1 SD IQ difference of East & West Germans can't possibly come about because the East & West Germans developed such stark genetic differences in only 50 years. It has to be because of environmental pressures from tyranny & communism cultivating an environment utterly destructive to the kind of people who would need high IQ for social status and prosperity. On the other side of the wall, a freer modern society would have lots of use for high IQ individuals, which would cause them to be more likely to both develop their IQ (and not be stunted), and also promote their survival and offspring (females chose males with typically similar or high IQ in mate preference).

Do you think the Russian rape of East Germany could explain this difference? Not fully, of course, but at least partially? I mean, we can see this sort of divergence just during the rationing during the war in Britain, though not as stark. Environment of course plays a role, but the persistence after liberation and normalization would speak to genetic factors, and there were genetics introduced to E Germany that wasn't really seen in the Allied controlled partitions.

As to the dogs, they would generally be considered a different breed at that point, and each group would likely retain much of the epigenetic behavioral tendencies without the abusive/passive environmental stimuli, as long as you kept their breeding separate.

Curious, would you happen to know the name of the experiment? Sounds like interesting reading, and I'm just coming up with the 2 headed dog thing.

Well, in the german context, it meant both the state, and the germanic territory the state considered its rightful dominion based on history.

Blood and soil nationalism doesn't fit very neatly with a group of black people in the Rockies, though.

ethno-state

National

You're using these words very loosely. Maybe they aspire to become a nation, but an acorn isn't a tree. It will probably operate on shared labor and resources, so it's basically just a kibbutz. You kind of need people to put systems of government into practice. Without that, it's just talk.

Yeah. That's not National Socialism at any level, though. That's just a kibbutz.

Racial Communism is National Socialism.

Not even close. But I agree, 2 is likely.

Eh... that's a pretty big stretch. Oprah may have been assimilated by the Syna... err... Cathedral, but Scientology seems more interested in following the Mormonist path than the Zionist path. Creating parallel institutions, rather than subverting existing institutions.

Scientology is pretty reasonable compared to Wokeism. If nothing else, it's been a great smokescreen.

Not saying that the big gay monster isn't abusing children in a much more friendly social environment than 10 years ago. If immigration decreased under Trump, it would stand to reason that there were fewer anchor babies being born. Not sure the stats on that, though.

Sort of... we're accustomed to a certain standard of living that is difficult to support with children. Non-western immigrants do not have this problem, because the western standard of living so much better. They'll still have children, because their relative view of poverty is much different.

The biggest problem is the move from an agrarian culture to an urban/technological one. Children used to be an asset, and would increase productivity after the initial investment. Government policy has done a lot to make them a liability (other than the single mother scenario). Technology has also completely changed the labor dynamics of agriculture. We're victims of our own success in a lot of ways.

Capability, mostly.

I like Elon, but Lorne Michaels troupes haven't been funny for a decade or two.

You are on the wrong side of history.

Oh man. Of all the ways to state that, you had to use those words.

Judeophilia wasn't particularly common, and Churchill was certainly a judeophile. He hits at the heart of anti-semitism multiple times in his writing, while still adoring them. His views on Zionism vs Bolshevism still seem relevant, despite it not being a complete picture.