I saw a video about the big tsunami off the coast of Japan a few years back (the one where the nuke reactor got flooded). I was very impressed with the level of discipline of the police and the people. I feel like if there were similar tsunamis off the coasts of most US or Canadian regions the outcome would be much worse.
Fwiw I guarantee I'm not on Epstein's list.
Not because I'm more moral than the people on it, but because I'm poor and lack political power.
For similar reasons I'm not on the Panama papers, and I'm also not on the elite college admission scandal. All the scandals I'm not a part of would blow your mind.
I also did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and at no time did I act inappropriately with Salma Hayek.
Ke$ha has never ever once insinuated I acted in an inappropriate manner.
None of the kids who accuse Kevin Spacey have accused me.
I have never been implicated in that sex cults for elites that popped up a few years back nor will I be.
In spite of a lengthy trial, my name did not come up regarding Diddy's parties a single time.
I have never been connected to the famous skull and bones club that included individuals such as John Kerry and George W. Bush.
I did not profit a single dime from the collapse of FTX or Silicon Valley Bank.
In the unlikely event that I am connected to any of these scandals, I am hereby officially and totally denying any involvement in the strongest possible terms.
Again, because I'm broke and powerless.
Not because I'm more moral than the people on it, but because I'm poor and lack political power.
For similar reasons I'm not on the Panama papers, and I'm also not on the elite college admission scandal. All the scandals I'm not a part of would blow your mind.
I also did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, and at no time did I act inappropriately with Salma Hayek.
Ke$ha has never ever once insinuated I acted in an inappropriate manner.
None of the kids who accuse Kevin Spacey have accused me.
I have never been implicated in that sex cults for elites that popped up a few years back nor will I be.
In spite of a lengthy trial, my name did not come up regarding Diddy's parties a single time.
I have never been connected to the famous skull and bones club that included individuals such as John Kerry and George W. Bush.
I did not profit a single dime from the collapse of FTX or Silicon Valley Bank.
In the unlikely event that I am connected to any of these scandals, I am hereby officially and totally denying any involvement in the strongest possible terms.
Again, because I'm broke and powerless.
With respect to the western trajectory, I'd agree with respect to the middle east and India, but Japan, China, and South Korea are all ahead of the curve in a number of ways. China is already broken demographically. Japan is 20 years ahead of the curve and represent a surprisingly well managed crisis, but one we don't have the scenario or the discipline to emulate. South Korea is still at a 0.71 birth rate.
One thing with east Asian civilization is that it's been heavily influenced by the west. China being Marxist is a direct cultural export from western Europe. South Korea is a highly Americanized civilization, as is Japan to a lesser but still significant degree.
Keep in mind that birth rates are not like pumping oil out of the ground -- it takes 18 years to raise an 18 year old. The kids who were never born cannot be born now. All that can be born now are the people who will be born after the kids who were never born.
For civilizations that aren't western, the western collapse could end up having major knock-on effects.
Indian civilization is insanely resillient so the worse I'd expect there is a return to Indian norms and a rejection of western norms.
Africa isn't a place civilizations typically exist, so once the subsidies of the west in terms of capital and talented people disappear, I'm not convinced most of what is considered civilization will continue to exist in much of Africa. There are regions of Africa which have historically been capable of suporting civilizations of course, famously Egypt, but also Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. North Africa in general is essentially permanently colonized by Arab muslims, so they're much different than central or southern Africa. It's a huge continent and incredibly diverse so you can't realy make the mistake of assuming it's just one thing. To demonstrate this, you can look at different regions of the world and the stories that have been written down. China has had continuous civilization, and we have works like the Analects from millennia in the past. The middle east has the epic of gilgamesh. Northern Europe has a number of codified legends. America had many writings from the Aztecs before they were destroyed by the Spanish, of which the dresden codexes are some of the few remaining examples. Egypt has hieroglyphics telling stories older than any of them, but much of Africa doesn't have the same.
Arabs are in a countercyclical moment, they're still recovering from the fundamental collapse of the ottoman empire, so I'd tend to agree they're going to look quite different, probably much better off in the coming age.
To illustrate the concept of these knock-on effects, the great depression mostly hit America, but was a direct causal element in World War 2.
One major thing overall is that global trade relies on the west keeping the trade routes safe and clear, and once that guarantee disappears, trade becomes a much different beast.
Civilizational collapse isn't always bad. the collapse of the western roman empire was actually one of the best things to happen in history to the people living under its boot -- according to archeological finds, people got considerably healthier and taller almost immediately after its collapse because people were no longer under its bot. Of course, it isn't always good either -- many bronze age collapse civilizations saw die-offs like 95%.
Population collapse by itself does mean that civilization will be so fundamentally different in the future that it can't be considered the same thing -- much in the same way the world wars ended the modern west and replaced it with the postmodern west we live in today, but with different results this time. It's a mass extinction event, and a lot of memes and political factions will die off because they aren't survivable.
One thing with east Asian civilization is that it's been heavily influenced by the west. China being Marxist is a direct cultural export from western Europe. South Korea is a highly Americanized civilization, as is Japan to a lesser but still significant degree.
Keep in mind that birth rates are not like pumping oil out of the ground -- it takes 18 years to raise an 18 year old. The kids who were never born cannot be born now. All that can be born now are the people who will be born after the kids who were never born.
For civilizations that aren't western, the western collapse could end up having major knock-on effects.
Indian civilization is insanely resillient so the worse I'd expect there is a return to Indian norms and a rejection of western norms.
Africa isn't a place civilizations typically exist, so once the subsidies of the west in terms of capital and talented people disappear, I'm not convinced most of what is considered civilization will continue to exist in much of Africa. There are regions of Africa which have historically been capable of suporting civilizations of course, famously Egypt, but also Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. North Africa in general is essentially permanently colonized by Arab muslims, so they're much different than central or southern Africa. It's a huge continent and incredibly diverse so you can't realy make the mistake of assuming it's just one thing. To demonstrate this, you can look at different regions of the world and the stories that have been written down. China has had continuous civilization, and we have works like the Analects from millennia in the past. The middle east has the epic of gilgamesh. Northern Europe has a number of codified legends. America had many writings from the Aztecs before they were destroyed by the Spanish, of which the dresden codexes are some of the few remaining examples. Egypt has hieroglyphics telling stories older than any of them, but much of Africa doesn't have the same.
Arabs are in a countercyclical moment, they're still recovering from the fundamental collapse of the ottoman empire, so I'd tend to agree they're going to look quite different, probably much better off in the coming age.
To illustrate the concept of these knock-on effects, the great depression mostly hit America, but was a direct causal element in World War 2.
One major thing overall is that global trade relies on the west keeping the trade routes safe and clear, and once that guarantee disappears, trade becomes a much different beast.
Civilizational collapse isn't always bad. the collapse of the western roman empire was actually one of the best things to happen in history to the people living under its boot -- according to archeological finds, people got considerably healthier and taller almost immediately after its collapse because people were no longer under its bot. Of course, it isn't always good either -- many bronze age collapse civilizations saw die-offs like 95%.
Population collapse by itself does mean that civilization will be so fundamentally different in the future that it can't be considered the same thing -- much in the same way the world wars ended the modern west and replaced it with the postmodern west we live in today, but with different results this time. It's a mass extinction event, and a lot of memes and political factions will die off because they aren't survivable.
We live in an era of civilisational collapse. It's already baked into the cake, it's already happening, the world 100 years from now is not going to look like the world today. All you need to do is look at birth rates, and how long they've been as low as they have been. Therefore, the highest calling as a parent it's not maximizing their individual happiness, or their market success, is building them into an individual with the strength, adaptability, grit, and emotional stability to carry forward meaning, virtue, and civilization through a collapse even if institutions that we rely on fail. In this way, parenting is not just an act of personal love (though of course it is), but an act of love for all of humanity, helping to carry forward the flame I got everything you feel worth preserving in your family and our culture.
In case you think I'm a doomer or a prepper, there's a few points. First, if you end up making your kid anxious and nihilistic then they aren't mentally emotionally stable, strong, adaptable, and they will lack grit. Civilizations end all the time, that doesn't mean the end of everything and everyone. Arguably the World wars ended Western Civilization as it once existed, and we are living in the aftermath of that right now. Second, preparing a child for collapse looks pretty similar to preparing them for no collapse. You still want to raise a kid who is strong, adaptable, has grit, and has emotional stability.
In an archetypical way, every generation sees a collapse and rebirth as the new generations pick up with their parents left them. In some ways, there was a massive collapse in the 1970s, in the world of the 1980s is nothing like the world of the 1960s. By the way people playing the baby boomers for what the world turned into in the 1980s, but they didn't really have much of a choice with the world collapsing around them.
Another important thing is that people might misunderstand and think you raise your kid hard and mean if you think that a collapse is coming. I don't think that there's any evidence of that being the right way to do things. Your kids grow up seeing the world through the lens that you give them with the way that you treat them in their childhood. If you show them that you are anxious, that you are scared, that you are weak, when they are going to assume that that's the way that the world works and how you have to live. By contrast, if you show them love, and joy, and competence, if you show them how to live in a world without relying on massive institutions and every moment of every day, then that will be the way that they grow up. The sort of child who makes it through the collapse will have a secure attachment to their parents, many wonderful memories playing outdoors, maybe learning to weld, to build things, they will remember going through their life being able to do things and figuring out the struggles along the way. And so when they aren't getting their hand held they will know that they are strong enough to deal with things.
This whole concept was hinted at in the last chapter of my first book, the graysonian ethic, which warns my son that nobody owes you anything, and you have to have a combination of gratitude and skepticism for the things you do get. My next book which I'm releasing in the next month or two once editing is complete is actually about the collapse, looking at a world 100 years in the future. The key is that just because civilization collapses doesn't mean that's the end of everything, or that we go into a mad Max dystopia. It means whoever remains will need to lay a New foundation of meeting, values, and make sense of world that no longer makes sense under the old paradigm.
In case you think I'm a doomer or a prepper, there's a few points. First, if you end up making your kid anxious and nihilistic then they aren't mentally emotionally stable, strong, adaptable, and they will lack grit. Civilizations end all the time, that doesn't mean the end of everything and everyone. Arguably the World wars ended Western Civilization as it once existed, and we are living in the aftermath of that right now. Second, preparing a child for collapse looks pretty similar to preparing them for no collapse. You still want to raise a kid who is strong, adaptable, has grit, and has emotional stability.
In an archetypical way, every generation sees a collapse and rebirth as the new generations pick up with their parents left them. In some ways, there was a massive collapse in the 1970s, in the world of the 1980s is nothing like the world of the 1960s. By the way people playing the baby boomers for what the world turned into in the 1980s, but they didn't really have much of a choice with the world collapsing around them.
Another important thing is that people might misunderstand and think you raise your kid hard and mean if you think that a collapse is coming. I don't think that there's any evidence of that being the right way to do things. Your kids grow up seeing the world through the lens that you give them with the way that you treat them in their childhood. If you show them that you are anxious, that you are scared, that you are weak, when they are going to assume that that's the way that the world works and how you have to live. By contrast, if you show them love, and joy, and competence, if you show them how to live in a world without relying on massive institutions and every moment of every day, then that will be the way that they grow up. The sort of child who makes it through the collapse will have a secure attachment to their parents, many wonderful memories playing outdoors, maybe learning to weld, to build things, they will remember going through their life being able to do things and figuring out the struggles along the way. And so when they aren't getting their hand held they will know that they are strong enough to deal with things.
This whole concept was hinted at in the last chapter of my first book, the graysonian ethic, which warns my son that nobody owes you anything, and you have to have a combination of gratitude and skepticism for the things you do get. My next book which I'm releasing in the next month or two once editing is complete is actually about the collapse, looking at a world 100 years in the future. The key is that just because civilization collapses doesn't mean that's the end of everything, or that we go into a mad Max dystopia. It means whoever remains will need to lay a New foundation of meeting, values, and make sense of world that no longer makes sense under the old paradigm.
It's crazy to think that The Matrix, Fight Club, and Office Space all came out almost on top of each other. Culturally talking about horrible it was that there were boring middle class jobs and wishing for an adventure. Well, civilization has lost the middle class jobs, but never gained an adventure.
Realistically, fat chicks get boyfriends and husbands every single day. That OkCupid data from quite a few years back now shows that most women will end up getting a hit from at least some men, unlike most men who don't get a hit from almost any women.
But the thing is what other imperfections are there. For example, a lot of women who are like a six or a four think that they are entitled to a 9.5 from a man.
In a lot of ways that often happens with men, fat broke losers end up getting women all the time, the question becomes what else are they bringing you to the table to stay attractive or stay competitive? The answer isn't always immediately obvious either.
I might rent a Nissan Micra or a Fiat 500, but there's no way I'm going to buy one of them, it's a piece of crap thing to own. Similarly, I might rent a Ferrari or lamborghini, but I'm not going one of them either because I literally can't afford to pay that thing for more than a couple days. The Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic are the two best selling cars on the market for a reason.
Ironically, it might be a better indicator of exactly what's going on here that she is claiming to be a nice girl and saying that guys don't like nice girls on social media. Once you've passed the age of 16, that stops being a legitimate cry for help and starts being a more complex and potentially pathological signal.
One of the things I wrote about a lot in graysonian ethic is that the winning strategy is to be looking for someone who the rest of the market undervalues. Now this can either be because you value something that nobody else does, or it can be because you did more research and you found out about certain attributes that are attractive that aren't immediately apparent, but overall that's always a good way to win in the market -- everything from buying cars to buying stocks to determining who you want to marry, it's about finding something that is valuable that no one realizes is valuable yet.
But the thing is what other imperfections are there. For example, a lot of women who are like a six or a four think that they are entitled to a 9.5 from a man.
In a lot of ways that often happens with men, fat broke losers end up getting women all the time, the question becomes what else are they bringing you to the table to stay attractive or stay competitive? The answer isn't always immediately obvious either.
I might rent a Nissan Micra or a Fiat 500, but there's no way I'm going to buy one of them, it's a piece of crap thing to own. Similarly, I might rent a Ferrari or lamborghini, but I'm not going one of them either because I literally can't afford to pay that thing for more than a couple days. The Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic are the two best selling cars on the market for a reason.
Ironically, it might be a better indicator of exactly what's going on here that she is claiming to be a nice girl and saying that guys don't like nice girls on social media. Once you've passed the age of 16, that stops being a legitimate cry for help and starts being a more complex and potentially pathological signal.
One of the things I wrote about a lot in graysonian ethic is that the winning strategy is to be looking for someone who the rest of the market undervalues. Now this can either be because you value something that nobody else does, or it can be because you did more research and you found out about certain attributes that are attractive that aren't immediately apparent, but overall that's always a good way to win in the market -- everything from buying cars to buying stocks to determining who you want to marry, it's about finding something that is valuable that no one realizes is valuable yet.
The only thing people are regretting is the fact that he's not going even further. They want him to do all of the things that he said he was going to do not just some of them.
https://fortune.com/2025/07/12/us-debt-outlook-student-loan-crisis-budget-deficit-interest-payments-gdp/
Economic advisor for one government under one of the two parties responsible for the federal debt says the debt has gone too far.
Economic advisor for one government under one of the two parties responsible for the federal debt says the debt has gone too far.
I was definitely making a joke about greater globohomo rather than the actual individual involved. With what she's saying I certainly don't have anything to complain about.
"the UN special rapporteur on violence against 'uh.... who knows' and 'I guess whoever says I'm the special rapporteur for them?'"
We wouldn't get "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court" for sure.
Many people wouldn't even be able to read.
Many people wouldn't even be able to read.
[Admin Mode] Had to do some infrastructure work tonight, basically I had some key infrastructure in an awkward place up in a drop ceiling. I moved it to a shelf I built, still in the ceiling (up in some floor joists) but more accessible in a utility room.
If you just try to tax "the rich" more, the rich aren't going to get taxed. You're just going to be stealing more from the poor to hand to the rich unless you deal with the fundamental problem.
I've got a huge problem with who gets defined as "the rich". The guy who shovels shit in a mine and saves money for retirement can end up first of all being charged over half of their last dollar made on tax (especially if you include vat and sin taxes), because on paper the guy shovelling shit is "rich" and "one of the millionaires and the billionaires". Surprise surprise, it turns out that when you implement tax the rich policies the guy shoveling shit for a living ends up paying.
You've made the mistake of assuming that the government isn't the ruling class. And what does the ruling class do? It rewards its cronies. So what's going to happen if you give the ruling class more power? They're going to use it to further reward their cronies and harm those who disagree with them.
Totalizing state power is the definition of fascism. State worship is within the definition of fascism. Public corporations (the so-called NGOs) working in lockstep with the state is within the definition of fascism. And I don't mean internet fascism as in people I don't agree with doing things I don't agree with, I mean actual Benito Mussolini's economic policies sort of fascism. I've written at length about this in an upcoming book, but there's more to life than the state and the markets. These two forces individually want to control everything, but end up happy to work together to split everything in the world up between the two of them instead. This is where the marxists are correct that the state is the tool of the rich, but the liberals are also correct that the rich are the tool of the state. Both are true, and both use each other against the broader culture.
If you want the government to help the poor, there are two things that they can do: first, it can get its boot off of the poor's neck. A bunch of police coming to a lower class comedians house and arresting him for teaching his girlfriend's dog to do a Nazi salute isn't helping the poor. Second, with a fraction of the money it already has they could do plenty, just stop giving the money to your buddies, stop giving the money to ultra megacorps, and spend the money that they are already taking in on the things that they use to explain why they need more money all the time.
I've got a huge problem with who gets defined as "the rich". The guy who shovels shit in a mine and saves money for retirement can end up first of all being charged over half of their last dollar made on tax (especially if you include vat and sin taxes), because on paper the guy shovelling shit is "rich" and "one of the millionaires and the billionaires". Surprise surprise, it turns out that when you implement tax the rich policies the guy shoveling shit for a living ends up paying.
You've made the mistake of assuming that the government isn't the ruling class. And what does the ruling class do? It rewards its cronies. So what's going to happen if you give the ruling class more power? They're going to use it to further reward their cronies and harm those who disagree with them.
Totalizing state power is the definition of fascism. State worship is within the definition of fascism. Public corporations (the so-called NGOs) working in lockstep with the state is within the definition of fascism. And I don't mean internet fascism as in people I don't agree with doing things I don't agree with, I mean actual Benito Mussolini's economic policies sort of fascism. I've written at length about this in an upcoming book, but there's more to life than the state and the markets. These two forces individually want to control everything, but end up happy to work together to split everything in the world up between the two of them instead. This is where the marxists are correct that the state is the tool of the rich, but the liberals are also correct that the rich are the tool of the state. Both are true, and both use each other against the broader culture.
If you want the government to help the poor, there are two things that they can do: first, it can get its boot off of the poor's neck. A bunch of police coming to a lower class comedians house and arresting him for teaching his girlfriend's dog to do a Nazi salute isn't helping the poor. Second, with a fraction of the money it already has they could do plenty, just stop giving the money to your buddies, stop giving the money to ultra megacorps, and spend the money that they are already taking in on the things that they use to explain why they need more money all the time.
The world you were raised in no longer exists. Our lives keep going unless we reject them.
In my home country of Canada, inciting someone to commit suicide is the official policy for dealing with pesky veterans and disabled people.
