1) a man who writes “build, baby, build” can’t accept that the main driver of zoning regulations is the desire to keep out blacks and other trouble makers
2) since this was written in 2010, mass immigration occurred throughout the western world and its considered such a failure that nearly every government has fallen and Trump is initiating mass deportations
3) gay marriage is such a “niche market” that lbgtq2+ just dominated the last decade of culture and civil rights law.
Old Caplan posts from a decade ago are always great to look at because their predictions are always spectacularly wrong.
By contrast, Steve sailer is Nostradamus. Predicting things like world war transgender back when Obama was opposed to gay marriage.
For the last 10 years or so I've seen nothing but a rise in advocacy for the right to segregate and free association - which is the right to exclude. If you live in an open borders world - which Libertarians seem to keep advocating everywhere - the former become absolutely meaningless. You do not have a country, let alone a nation. Individuals don't exist in Nature. So when you say silly things like, "It's my right to live in a borderless society as I have the freedom to associate," what you're really saying is "I assume that in-group preference doesn't exist despite all measurements we have to the contrary, that everyone's just gonna choose the most "ethical" and "moral" way of doing things - which is, somehow, meritocratic achievement which Whites - not Jews or Jewish Kalergis - but Whites - came up with as far as codifying it into law - and, eventually, the whole thing will collapse because of this. Factions really do exist, as Madison argued. One doesn't need an in-group majority to control factions. One simply needs the Whites to fight it out within their "meritocratic" societies where they've been coerced into acceptance of affirmative action for decades - and then one corrals those who have strong in-group preference into a coalition opposing the Whites and their society (which, ironically, provided all necessary for the achievement, such as it is, of the latter) and dominates over them.
What would one exclude anyone from, exactly? If you're a global minority (Native Europeans - Whites) living among a global majority everywhere you used to have your own nations as a global minority, especially if you're the group net subsidizing other groups, where's your sovereignty? Again, individuals do not exist in Nature. Anywhere. And biology, believe it or not, really does exist. It's relevant. Libertarians have this weird notion that their so-called "Higher Law" can be divorced from biological laws. I guess I keep reading to see what really stupid things prominent Libertarians keep saying. I can't decide whether such seemingly smart people really are this obtuse, or if it's deliberately duplicitous. After all, who is providing the funding and the leadership and the narrative for open borders? Is there a common denominator? What about modification of the standards of the in-group (Samuel Flowerman)? Joyce over at Occidental Observer would say he has the sources to definitively show - yes.
From the point of view of some, a change for the better is liberation from slavery in any of its forms, no matter how highly civilized and sophisticated they may be; from the point of view of others, a change for the better is the consolidation of the ruling elite and the enslavement of the rest of the population in highly civilized and sophisticated forms that are not recognized by the slaves as a means of exercising control over them, so that the slaves, intoxicated with the illusion of freedom, do not rebel; from the point of view of others, a change for the better is the demolition of the existing "elite", in whose ranks there was not enough room for them, and transformation into a new "elite", in other words, slaves dream not of freedom, but of their slaves. So which of these "changes for the better" should form the basis of long-term state policy? - since nothing has been done in state policy to identify and suppress highly civilized means of slavery, then by default "changes for the better" should be understood as the improvement of the slavery system. Everyone makes an idol of the state. Some consider him the most beneficent deity, whom people should worship with all their heart and soul, others consider him the worst of devils, the scourge of humanity and deserving of being sent back to the hell from which it came. The state is a mixed form of human relations, the child of force, robbery and deception. Political parties, ugly criminal communities of thieves, bandits and voluntary slaves. The population votes for people who carry out a policy of its reduction with all the necessary attributes: impoverishment, unemployment, homelessness, etc. They vote with amazing consistency - and here we must admit the presence of a system. Having lived under an "anti-people" president and being brought into order, they vote again for this president. What exactly does the population vote for? In the end, the word "self-liquidation" suggests itself. People explain their motives for participating in elections, choosing their words with great difficulty - and this is natural, their actions do not fit into normal human logic. It remains to assume that there is another logic, where other preferences operate, lying on levels invisible to the naked eye. And this is biology and archetypes. The biological habitat of the endangered is two cubic meters of land per individual. The majority can no longer choose anything - they have no ticket to the future. Modern society is suppressed by the feeling of its own degradation. Fear of the "other", the "foreigner", capable of using their weakness to expand their own area, reaches hypertrophied proportions. And the fear of losing their world "without degeneration" causes a sharp rejection of the real picture of the world and everyone who talks about this picture.
1) a man who writes “build, baby, build” can’t accept that the main driver of zoning regulations is the desire to keep out blacks and other trouble makers
2) since this was written in 2010, mass immigration occurred throughout the western world and its considered such a failure that nearly every government has fallen and Trump is initiating mass deportations
3) gay marriage is such a “niche market” that lbgtq2+ just dominated the last decade of culture and civil rights law.
Old Caplan posts from a decade ago are always great to look at because their predictions are always spectacularly wrong.
By contrast, Steve sailer is Nostradamus. Predicting things like world war transgender back when Obama was opposed to gay marriage.
The skunk at the garden party. Welcome, friend.
For the last 10 years or so I've seen nothing but a rise in advocacy for the right to segregate and free association - which is the right to exclude. If you live in an open borders world - which Libertarians seem to keep advocating everywhere - the former become absolutely meaningless. You do not have a country, let alone a nation. Individuals don't exist in Nature. So when you say silly things like, "It's my right to live in a borderless society as I have the freedom to associate," what you're really saying is "I assume that in-group preference doesn't exist despite all measurements we have to the contrary, that everyone's just gonna choose the most "ethical" and "moral" way of doing things - which is, somehow, meritocratic achievement which Whites - not Jews or Jewish Kalergis - but Whites - came up with as far as codifying it into law - and, eventually, the whole thing will collapse because of this. Factions really do exist, as Madison argued. One doesn't need an in-group majority to control factions. One simply needs the Whites to fight it out within their "meritocratic" societies where they've been coerced into acceptance of affirmative action for decades - and then one corrals those who have strong in-group preference into a coalition opposing the Whites and their society (which, ironically, provided all necessary for the achievement, such as it is, of the latter) and dominates over them.
What would one exclude anyone from, exactly? If you're a global minority (Native Europeans - Whites) living among a global majority everywhere you used to have your own nations as a global minority, especially if you're the group net subsidizing other groups, where's your sovereignty? Again, individuals do not exist in Nature. Anywhere. And biology, believe it or not, really does exist. It's relevant. Libertarians have this weird notion that their so-called "Higher Law" can be divorced from biological laws. I guess I keep reading to see what really stupid things prominent Libertarians keep saying. I can't decide whether such seemingly smart people really are this obtuse, or if it's deliberately duplicitous. After all, who is providing the funding and the leadership and the narrative for open borders? Is there a common denominator? What about modification of the standards of the in-group (Samuel Flowerman)? Joyce over at Occidental Observer would say he has the sources to definitively show - yes.
From the point of view of some, a change for the better is liberation from slavery in any of its forms, no matter how highly civilized and sophisticated they may be; from the point of view of others, a change for the better is the consolidation of the ruling elite and the enslavement of the rest of the population in highly civilized and sophisticated forms that are not recognized by the slaves as a means of exercising control over them, so that the slaves, intoxicated with the illusion of freedom, do not rebel; from the point of view of others, a change for the better is the demolition of the existing "elite", in whose ranks there was not enough room for them, and transformation into a new "elite", in other words, slaves dream not of freedom, but of their slaves. So which of these "changes for the better" should form the basis of long-term state policy? - since nothing has been done in state policy to identify and suppress highly civilized means of slavery, then by default "changes for the better" should be understood as the improvement of the slavery system. Everyone makes an idol of the state. Some consider him the most beneficent deity, whom people should worship with all their heart and soul, others consider him the worst of devils, the scourge of humanity and deserving of being sent back to the hell from which it came. The state is a mixed form of human relations, the child of force, robbery and deception. Political parties, ugly criminal communities of thieves, bandits and voluntary slaves. The population votes for people who carry out a policy of its reduction with all the necessary attributes: impoverishment, unemployment, homelessness, etc. They vote with amazing consistency - and here we must admit the presence of a system. Having lived under an "anti-people" president and being brought into order, they vote again for this president. What exactly does the population vote for? In the end, the word "self-liquidation" suggests itself. People explain their motives for participating in elections, choosing their words with great difficulty - and this is natural, their actions do not fit into normal human logic. It remains to assume that there is another logic, where other preferences operate, lying on levels invisible to the naked eye. And this is biology and archetypes. The biological habitat of the endangered is two cubic meters of land per individual. The majority can no longer choose anything - they have no ticket to the future. Modern society is suppressed by the feeling of its own degradation. Fear of the "other", the "foreigner", capable of using their weakness to expand their own area, reaches hypertrophied proportions. And the fear of losing their world "without degeneration" causes a sharp rejection of the real picture of the world and everyone who talks about this picture.