>I am predicting that Hispanic culture bends towards the norm of South Texas, and white culture bends towards the norm of Vermont. Hispanics are assimilating into working-class white culture, while whites are becoming more educated and liberal over time.
Actually, I'm not sure about this. On the ground level I have noticed an absence of hispanics in uni, but I recollect an old Alt Hype video where he mentions that minorities are actually more enthusiastic about college than White people. This seems backed by the data.
Hispanics steadily increased their college participation rate over the past 2 decades, while Whites have stayed fairly constant. If Colleges continue to decline in prestige, and colleges continue to be liberal, then they will continue to become browner even if racial preferences in admissions have been prohibited on paper.
Also, White people are not going to become more like Vermont because White Vermontese don't have enough kids. In fact, educated White people in general are vastly below replacement while White conservatives are actually among the more fertile groups in the country. Political views are mostly explained by genetics and family upbringing, so it is reasonable to assume that each subsequent generation will be genetically more conservative. Not to mention, stupider. Because, you know, that's also highly heritable and selected for (among all races). So, less college-goers.
>More Americans are going to college than ever before, but the type of degree they obtain is changing. In the 1960s, the ratio of STEM degrees to non-STEM degrees was 1:2. Now, it is closer to 1:9. This dramatic shift, which doesn’t seem to be slowing down, has political implications.
I'm glad someone pointed this out! STEM majors have a long history of being more Republican (or more accurately, more centrist than the uber-lib humanities)
>America is recreating a clerical hierarchy to rival the medieval world. Just as 10% of medieval GDP went to the church, 10% of modern GDP is going to DEI. This isn’t “productive labor,” but neither was monastic prayer. It is “moral labor” which holds the social fabric together on a non-rational basis.
I recall listening to a lecture on Neo-Confucianism. The saying of the Buddha-Skeptics went something like this: "Back in the day, there were four social classes and four corresponding households -- the bureaucrats, the blacksmiths, the farmers, and the merchants. Now there are six social classes -- the bureaucrats, the blacksmiths, the farmers, the merchants, the Buddhist monks, and the Taoist monks. We are now feeding two more households with the same amount of grain". Because, you know, the Blacksmith gave in return for food something tangible, while the Monk gave nothing in particular in return to the peasant, and something intangible to the curious well-to-do man. Before the Buddhists came, the scholars and the bureaucrats were the same class. The people who were writing poetry and operating government, who were discussing metaphysics and were managing irrigation, were the same people. This is how it was in China. In Europe, it was the captains of the battlefield and the burghers who were simultaneously philosophers. But suddenly this class of "professional introspective people" came about and their sole purpose was spreading the meme of Buddhism or Taoism. Not necessarily a bad thing -- if you're a Buddhist aristocrat, it makes sense to consider this the greatest possible use of your leftover coinage. But, it is quite similar to the "cathedral" in modern Amerikwa.
Monasteries were a little bit more productive. Monks did produce a lot of value in the economy, because they didn't really have much to do but work. And they became extremely wealthy, because the money of the monastery stayed in the monastery. You couldn't "invest" in it. You don't get a dime if you take off the robes, and you can't give anything to your illegitimate children if you have any. Monks didn't spend all of their time meditating or praying, they also did some practical inquiry and that's why half of Europe's great cheeses come from some monastery (lol) among other things.
Not sure what the Buddhist monks were up to. Probably training for the Tenkaichi Budōkai. On your topic of the English population, I think it's because the Black Plague kept coming in waves for a century or two after the "big one" ~1350. Also, the hundred-years war. coincided with the first few bad bouts of plague, making the crash even worse.
>Because whites and Jews are more neurotic than non-whites
Not sure if this is true. Whites are more depressed than non-whites and maybe on paper more anxious, but a lot of evopsych people talk about how neuroticism is r-selected and beneficial in such environments. Not fully on board with r-K in humans but their arguments made sense that being a neurotic is quite beneficial in a low-IQ, low-trust society.
The decline in white enrollment could possibly be due to white conservatives opting out. It could also be due to white men -- I think white women are increasing enrollment, but white men are falling. Differential fertility rates will not impact voting much over the next 20 years, because the highest voter participation rate is 40-60, not 18-30. It will have an impact in 40 years. Monasteries in the west were definitely more productive than Buddhist monks. However, I would argue universities are more productive than medieval monasteries.
"Neuroticism predicted worse mental functioning (lower vitality, social functioning, emotions, and mental health) in Black patients but not for the White patients."
This implies that neuroticism is basically "natural" for whites, but "unnatural" for blacks. That's not the right word to use, but whites are "high-functioning neurotics," while blacks are "low-functioning neurotics.
I wouldn't say whites are declining per se, so much as they have just reached a point where everyone who is in a position to benefit from college is already going to college.
the low population growth in europe before the 1500s could also be due to the prevalence of contraceptives, i recall a pope even issued a decree in 1487 punishing all contraceptive users with death. There’s even been some discussion that the witch hunts were more about anti birth control measures than religious mania
Gdp growth,techno optimism and beneficial AI implementation could become the new right religion with youth being less religious.Ramaswamy and Musk promoting Emil type hereditarians might attract east Asian EHC in the coming years,they did get both Bezos and Zuck to disassociate with the Dems, they have a chance winning the culture war.
I agree with this article, while retaining my abhorrence of leftism (indeed, the more clearly the nature of leftism is stated without pejoratives, the more repulsive I find it). However, you shouldn't say Franco was a 'literal fascist'. The truth is it's complicated, but if you want to call him a fascist, you should drop the 'literal'.
I would like to make a point about Franco’s failure, in my opinion the reason why his party did so poorly is because he didn’t actually create a coherent ideology for the future, this was a leftover from the civil war of a big tent collation that defanged the most extreme parts of all the ideas that were on the right to create a collation, many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands were inspired by these ideas but Franco was such a fence sitter that he failed to capitalize on any of them
You say "pay off their debt" but I'm advocating making college free, so that's irrelevant. America is the most productive country in history, while medieval Europe was people picking their noses in between the seasons. People had fewer work hours per capita.
I worry about this--it seems like the genetic perspective on politics is creating the substratum of belief forming rather than the belief itself. A lot of current wokes come from evangelical conservative families, the only thing that's changed is the value, Christianity vs wokeism.
I could see a world in which if leftists continue to control the institutions and youth, they could easily hijack conservative children.
The difference between conservative/religious/right-wing whites and progressive/leftist whites is large. This difference started to get noticeable only a few decades ago and the trend is that the difference will be much larger. The ideology of leftists is very anti-natalist. The more extreme, the lower the birth rate is.
In elections that are close, this will start to matter very soon. The long term « win condition » of democrats is to either stop being stupid soon or to « convert » children from the enemy more efficiently than they have been.
The left has been very successful at moving the culture leftward, both by converting the youth AND persuading older generations to shift left culturally. Again, compare how far left Gen Z and Millennials are culturally to Gen X and the Boomers -- i.e., their parents. Of course, it's not all because leftists are such fantastic propagandists; the field is tilted in their favor because of technological change and cultural drift.
If you want to make the bull case for rightward drift (or more religious drift) based on differential fertility by 2040, your argument is that maybe Gen Alpha will be to the right of, or more religious than, the Millennials. But even if that's true, they'll probably be to the left of the Boomers and Gen X, and less religious than them. And in 2040, they'll still be a small percentage of the electorate, both due to low numbers in absolute terms and low youth turnout. The more relevant effect will be that roughly 50% of the Boomers will be dead and the electorate will be more centered on the Millennials and Zoomers, whose turnout will have increased from today due to the effects of aging.
I mean there is a big realignment in both parties so calling stuff left-wing or right-wing is becoming blurry and difficult. Republicans are becoming the party of the « common sense » low iq poorer religious conspiracionist anti-bureaucracy people, democrats the party of mentally ill status-seeking educated bureaucrats with retarded beliefs (which makes them infertile). Progressives have won a decisive victory on gay mariage and are transing people (which will not help their mental health or fertility), the right has also won some stuff too (gun rights in the US are probably stronger overall than a few decades ago, the right has seen some victories to push for homeschooling to avoid propaganda, has identified civil rights as an issue and might do something about it this administration, etc..)
I actually do think that leftists are way better activists and propagandists, which helped them « convert » many people to woke stuff. Technology alone was not enough. But I am doubtful that it will continue unless they find a better and way more efficient approach to their propaganda. I feel like now, there is a real ideological vanguard on the right. Also, people/subcultures that were susceptible to the current left wing ideas are already converted, so only people/subcultures that had some immunity to them remain.
>calling stuff left-wing or right-wing is becoming blurry and difficult.
I don't think this is true. At least not on cultural issues. Social ideas that were far-left yesterday are now in the center today. There aren't any examples in the opposite direction. Gun laws might have improved, but this is due to the Federalist Society and effective lobbying. The popularity of the 2A has been roughly flat, or at least range-bound, but it hasn't really improved. Though this is still better than any other cultural issue. Abortion used to look like another exception, but now we can plainly see that it is not.
>But I am doubtful that it will continue unless they find a better and way more efficient approach to their propaganda.
Eh, I'd just say be ready to be disappointed. At least if you're young enough to live to see the Boomers and Gen X die off. I just don't see any reason to expect existing leftists to lurch rightward once the conservative generations are out of the picture, and you haven't really provided one.
Rightist values are centered on reproduction and survival. They have fallen into decline because we're living under greatly relaxed selection pressures, and because technological change has disrupted family formation. We are not adapted, biologically or culturally, to our current technology set, which is why we are entering into population decline. Nature is currently searching for a solution to that problem, but it is moving very slowly because, again, selection pressures are greatly relaxed. Death rates are low, life expectancy is high.
Your instincts are correct that the survival orientation of rightist values will ultimately ensure that they return to prominence; they are nature's solution to a population that is insufficiently focused on reproduction and survival. But you're wrong that any of this will have been felt by 2040. We mostly know what the electorate will look like in 2040 because most of its members are part of the current electorate. 2140 is another story.
Millennials and Zoomers are much farther left than their Boomer and Gen X parents. Maybe the generations after that will start to drift right -- I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but maybe -- but they'll still be a small part of the electorate in 2040.
I don't agree that that's our most likely future. Especially not by 2040! But even if you're right, I don't see how it relates to my point. More radicalism, OK, but left or right radicalism? If the Millennials or Zoomers are leading it, the most likely answer is "left."
>I am predicting that Hispanic culture bends towards the norm of South Texas, and white culture bends towards the norm of Vermont. Hispanics are assimilating into working-class white culture, while whites are becoming more educated and liberal over time.
Actually, I'm not sure about this. On the ground level I have noticed an absence of hispanics in uni, but I recollect an old Alt Hype video where he mentions that minorities are actually more enthusiastic about college than White people. This seems backed by the data.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cpb.pdf
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rea.asp
Hispanics steadily increased their college participation rate over the past 2 decades, while Whites have stayed fairly constant. If Colleges continue to decline in prestige, and colleges continue to be liberal, then they will continue to become browner even if racial preferences in admissions have been prohibited on paper.
Also, White people are not going to become more like Vermont because White Vermontese don't have enough kids. In fact, educated White people in general are vastly below replacement while White conservatives are actually among the more fertile groups in the country. Political views are mostly explained by genetics and family upbringing, so it is reasonable to assume that each subsequent generation will be genetically more conservative. Not to mention, stupider. Because, you know, that's also highly heritable and selected for (among all races). So, less college-goers.
>More Americans are going to college than ever before, but the type of degree they obtain is changing. In the 1960s, the ratio of STEM degrees to non-STEM degrees was 1:2. Now, it is closer to 1:9. This dramatic shift, which doesn’t seem to be slowing down, has political implications.
I'm glad someone pointed this out! STEM majors have a long history of being more Republican (or more accurately, more centrist than the uber-lib humanities)
>America is recreating a clerical hierarchy to rival the medieval world. Just as 10% of medieval GDP went to the church, 10% of modern GDP is going to DEI. This isn’t “productive labor,” but neither was monastic prayer. It is “moral labor” which holds the social fabric together on a non-rational basis.
I recall listening to a lecture on Neo-Confucianism. The saying of the Buddha-Skeptics went something like this: "Back in the day, there were four social classes and four corresponding households -- the bureaucrats, the blacksmiths, the farmers, and the merchants. Now there are six social classes -- the bureaucrats, the blacksmiths, the farmers, the merchants, the Buddhist monks, and the Taoist monks. We are now feeding two more households with the same amount of grain". Because, you know, the Blacksmith gave in return for food something tangible, while the Monk gave nothing in particular in return to the peasant, and something intangible to the curious well-to-do man. Before the Buddhists came, the scholars and the bureaucrats were the same class. The people who were writing poetry and operating government, who were discussing metaphysics and were managing irrigation, were the same people. This is how it was in China. In Europe, it was the captains of the battlefield and the burghers who were simultaneously philosophers. But suddenly this class of "professional introspective people" came about and their sole purpose was spreading the meme of Buddhism or Taoism. Not necessarily a bad thing -- if you're a Buddhist aristocrat, it makes sense to consider this the greatest possible use of your leftover coinage. But, it is quite similar to the "cathedral" in modern Amerikwa.
Monasteries were a little bit more productive. Monks did produce a lot of value in the economy, because they didn't really have much to do but work. And they became extremely wealthy, because the money of the monastery stayed in the monastery. You couldn't "invest" in it. You don't get a dime if you take off the robes, and you can't give anything to your illegitimate children if you have any. Monks didn't spend all of their time meditating or praying, they also did some practical inquiry and that's why half of Europe's great cheeses come from some monastery (lol) among other things.
Not sure what the Buddhist monks were up to. Probably training for the Tenkaichi Budōkai. On your topic of the English population, I think it's because the Black Plague kept coming in waves for a century or two after the "big one" ~1350. Also, the hundred-years war. coincided with the first few bad bouts of plague, making the crash even worse.
>Because whites and Jews are more neurotic than non-whites
Not sure if this is true. Whites are more depressed than non-whites and maybe on paper more anxious, but a lot of evopsych people talk about how neuroticism is r-selected and beneficial in such environments. Not fully on board with r-K in humans but their arguments made sense that being a neurotic is quite beneficial in a low-IQ, low-trust society.
The decline in white enrollment could possibly be due to white conservatives opting out. It could also be due to white men -- I think white women are increasing enrollment, but white men are falling. Differential fertility rates will not impact voting much over the next 20 years, because the highest voter participation rate is 40-60, not 18-30. It will have an impact in 40 years. Monasteries in the west were definitely more productive than Buddhist monks. However, I would argue universities are more productive than medieval monasteries.
Here's some evidence for you on neuroticism:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40615-014-0035-1
"Neuroticism predicted worse mental functioning (lower vitality, social functioning, emotions, and mental health) in Black patients but not for the White patients."
This implies that neuroticism is basically "natural" for whites, but "unnatural" for blacks. That's not the right word to use, but whites are "high-functioning neurotics," while blacks are "low-functioning neurotics.
I wouldn't say whites are declining per se, so much as they have just reached a point where everyone who is in a position to benefit from college is already going to college.
That latter part makes an insane amount of sense
the low population growth in europe before the 1500s could also be due to the prevalence of contraceptives, i recall a pope even issued a decree in 1487 punishing all contraceptive users with death. There’s even been some discussion that the witch hunts were more about anti birth control measures than religious mania
lmao
Gdp growth,techno optimism and beneficial AI implementation could become the new right religion with youth being less religious.Ramaswamy and Musk promoting Emil type hereditarians might attract east Asian EHC in the coming years,they did get both Bezos and Zuck to disassociate with the Dems, they have a chance winning the culture war.
Use your space bar
I agree with this article, while retaining my abhorrence of leftism (indeed, the more clearly the nature of leftism is stated without pejoratives, the more repulsive I find it). However, you shouldn't say Franco was a 'literal fascist'. The truth is it's complicated, but if you want to call him a fascist, you should drop the 'literal'.
Putting "literal" before things as a form of emphasis, is a bad habit from my native dialect of woke reddit liberal.
I would like to make a point about Franco’s failure, in my opinion the reason why his party did so poorly is because he didn’t actually create a coherent ideology for the future, this was a leftover from the civil war of a big tent collation that defanged the most extreme parts of all the ideas that were on the right to create a collation, many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands were inspired by these ideas but Franco was such a fence sitter that he failed to capitalize on any of them
Effectively Franco was a British agent, considering his relationship with Canaris.
Interesting I’ve never heard this before
You say "pay off their debt" but I'm advocating making college free, so that's irrelevant. America is the most productive country in history, while medieval Europe was people picking their noses in between the seasons. People had fewer work hours per capita.
I worry about this--it seems like the genetic perspective on politics is creating the substratum of belief forming rather than the belief itself. A lot of current wokes come from evangelical conservative families, the only thing that's changed is the value, Christianity vs wokeism.
I could see a world in which if leftists continue to control the institutions and youth, they could easily hijack conservative children.
>Religious or ‘conservative’ whites along with religious Jews are the ones reproducing. Vermont is on its way out.
Very relevant in 2140, but not at all relevant in 2040, when the median voter (by age) will be a Millennial.
The difference between conservative/religious/right-wing whites and progressive/leftist whites is large. This difference started to get noticeable only a few decades ago and the trend is that the difference will be much larger. The ideology of leftists is very anti-natalist. The more extreme, the lower the birth rate is.
In elections that are close, this will start to matter very soon. The long term « win condition » of democrats is to either stop being stupid soon or to « convert » children from the enemy more efficiently than they have been.
The left has been very successful at moving the culture leftward, both by converting the youth AND persuading older generations to shift left culturally. Again, compare how far left Gen Z and Millennials are culturally to Gen X and the Boomers -- i.e., their parents. Of course, it's not all because leftists are such fantastic propagandists; the field is tilted in their favor because of technological change and cultural drift.
If you want to make the bull case for rightward drift (or more religious drift) based on differential fertility by 2040, your argument is that maybe Gen Alpha will be to the right of, or more religious than, the Millennials. But even if that's true, they'll probably be to the left of the Boomers and Gen X, and less religious than them. And in 2040, they'll still be a small percentage of the electorate, both due to low numbers in absolute terms and low youth turnout. The more relevant effect will be that roughly 50% of the Boomers will be dead and the electorate will be more centered on the Millennials and Zoomers, whose turnout will have increased from today due to the effects of aging.
I mean there is a big realignment in both parties so calling stuff left-wing or right-wing is becoming blurry and difficult. Republicans are becoming the party of the « common sense » low iq poorer religious conspiracionist anti-bureaucracy people, democrats the party of mentally ill status-seeking educated bureaucrats with retarded beliefs (which makes them infertile). Progressives have won a decisive victory on gay mariage and are transing people (which will not help their mental health or fertility), the right has also won some stuff too (gun rights in the US are probably stronger overall than a few decades ago, the right has seen some victories to push for homeschooling to avoid propaganda, has identified civil rights as an issue and might do something about it this administration, etc..)
I actually do think that leftists are way better activists and propagandists, which helped them « convert » many people to woke stuff. Technology alone was not enough. But I am doubtful that it will continue unless they find a better and way more efficient approach to their propaganda. I feel like now, there is a real ideological vanguard on the right. Also, people/subcultures that were susceptible to the current left wing ideas are already converted, so only people/subcultures that had some immunity to them remain.
>calling stuff left-wing or right-wing is becoming blurry and difficult.
I don't think this is true. At least not on cultural issues. Social ideas that were far-left yesterday are now in the center today. There aren't any examples in the opposite direction. Gun laws might have improved, but this is due to the Federalist Society and effective lobbying. The popularity of the 2A has been roughly flat, or at least range-bound, but it hasn't really improved. Though this is still better than any other cultural issue. Abortion used to look like another exception, but now we can plainly see that it is not.
>But I am doubtful that it will continue unless they find a better and way more efficient approach to their propaganda.
Eh, I'd just say be ready to be disappointed. At least if you're young enough to live to see the Boomers and Gen X die off. I just don't see any reason to expect existing leftists to lurch rightward once the conservative generations are out of the picture, and you haven't really provided one.
Rightist values are centered on reproduction and survival. They have fallen into decline because we're living under greatly relaxed selection pressures, and because technological change has disrupted family formation. We are not adapted, biologically or culturally, to our current technology set, which is why we are entering into population decline. Nature is currently searching for a solution to that problem, but it is moving very slowly because, again, selection pressures are greatly relaxed. Death rates are low, life expectancy is high.
Your instincts are correct that the survival orientation of rightist values will ultimately ensure that they return to prominence; they are nature's solution to a population that is insufficiently focused on reproduction and survival. But you're wrong that any of this will have been felt by 2040. We mostly know what the electorate will look like in 2040 because most of its members are part of the current electorate. 2140 is another story.
The difference in birth rate*
Man they really should add an edit option for comments.
Millennials and Zoomers are much farther left than their Boomer and Gen X parents. Maybe the generations after that will start to drift right -- I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but maybe -- but they'll still be a small part of the electorate in 2040.
I don't agree that that's our most likely future. Especially not by 2040! But even if you're right, I don't see how it relates to my point. More radicalism, OK, but left or right radicalism? If the Millennials or Zoomers are leading it, the most likely answer is "left."