If climate change and global warming are real, what are the most realistic and required solutions? Is globalism required to solve it?

LGBTQIAIDS · 2023-07-26T09:53:20+00:00

Indeed. If it's all that they drum it up to be, it seems that humans will just have to accept, short of some major technological breakthrough, that much of the world will become unlivable. (And that a heap of wars will probably be fought by people from unlivable areas trying to take areas that remain livable: watch as China desperately seizes Siberia from Russia.)

I don't know about India, but neighbouring Bangladesh is one part of the world that is already believed to be suffering from the alleged effects of climate change. If these effects worsen, watch as a deluge of Bangladeshi climate refugees flood into Burma, China, and India. Another place is the densely populated island of Java, where intense flooding in Indonesia's capital, Jakarta, is often blamed on climate change. Who knows where Indonesian climate refugees will go.

LGBTQIAIDS · 2023-07-26T09:39:45+00:00

Is globalism required to solve it?

That's almost funny, since it's exactly how cosmopolitan humanist types would frame it: 'Give us the global government that we want, yes, give up your cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, and so forth, and become consumerist, individualized humanists like us, and then we will "solve" this problem that we are constantly fearmongering about'.

No realistic 'solution' outside of something like carbon capture technology becoming vastly more effective. There are only hypothetical ones that will never actually happen, such as the first-world forcibly preventing the third-world from 'developing' or everyone simply accepting a big hit to their living standards. The Left would become the biggest climate change deniers almost overnight if any of those solutions were seriously entering policy agendas. 'The climate situation is not so bad that it justifies racial discrimination!' It is not the case that for every problem there are one or more solutions that are conveniently there just waiting to be implemented: that would be to make the metaphysical claim that the cosmos is structured in such a way that there can be no such things as insoluble problems, rather like how we already believe that there are no such things as causeless effects.

LGBTQIAIDS · 2023-07-26T09:16:33+00:00

Poor example of rationalization, i.e. 'Vox did poorly but they would have done better if they followed my public policy preferences'. Typical 'silent majority' theory.

It seems remarkably clear that people for whom climate change and abortion 'rights' are deal-breakers aren't prospective 'Far-Right' voters. I doubt that anyone out there really thinks: 'I'm Far-Right on everything except on abortion "rights" which are so important to me that they outweigh all of my other preferences combined such that I'll now have to vote for some other party with which I disagree with on practically everything else.'

Likewise, imagine someone reasoning: 'I'm Far-Right on everything, but climate change is so important to me that it outweighs everything else, so now I'm going to vote for [insert other party].'

Let's face the obvious fact here: Spain is just another of many (possibly all given time) countries lost to degeneracy. Spain is particularly egregious on feminism. Now, degenerates aren't going to vote for remoralization of any kind because they stand to lose from it, hence the constant fearmongering about the 'Far-Right' (codeword for 'revitalization' or 'those who might force us to be better people') coming from the Western media in this election. They do, however, benefit from further degeneration all round, since the more that all types of degeneracy are entrenched, the less likely that remoralization will ever target the types of degeneracy that they personally engage in. (Hence, for instance, the Left openly pushes for child trannies because this obviously helps to safeguard battles that they've already won on like homosexuality: those who otherwise might attack homosexuality are fully preoccupied with investing energy into child trannies, who are serving as a sort of 'shield' absorbing the impact from attacks that would otherwise be directed at less extreme degenerates.)

As for the actual results, people went back to the two-party duopoly. The main factor is that the almost defunct 'centrist' (but also centralist/anti-secessionist) Cs party's voters overwhelmingly went to PP because it is the closest to the Cs, with some going in the other direction to PSOE. One factor might be the departure of Cs leader Albert Rivera from politics, with Cs being a personalist, poorly institutionalized party going through the usual troubles that such groups go through when their leaders are gone.

Likewise, regional parties lost voters to the two-party duopoly. Those voters overwhelmingly would have gone back to PSOE, probably because of fears that the election would be too close for third-party voting to be a good idea. This is especially so because PSOE is also centralist/anti-secessionist, meaning that regional party voters can't trust that their third-party vote would lead to the PSOE+regional parties coalition that they otherwise desire, and thus settle with the hope of a PSOE majority government.

This would also explain the losses in Sumar's (Podemos plus some other loony-Left parties) voter share which, again, would also explain the rise in PSOE's voter share, except that it's scared Far-Left voters rather than scared regional Leftist voters who are fearing that a PSOE-dominated coalition is unlikely and therefore have settled with the hope of a PSOE majority.

Vox voters would have undergone the same reasoning but from the opposite direction. Seeing that Feijoo is dragging the PP to the Left, making the possibility of a PP-Vox coalition less and less likely, and yet preferring a PP majority over a PSOE majority, they have simply settled on the idea of giving PP a majority so as to avoid the problems that might come out of cobbling together a PP-run coalition. This was probably exacerbated by the fact that Feijoo keeps ruling out the possibility of a coalition with Vox, naturally driving into Vox voters the fear that if the PP doesn't get a majority it will mean a PSOE-dominated government.

In short, elections expected to be close lead people to re-embrace two-party duopolies. The end results are completely disastrous and unavoidably so. The regional parties won't support Feijoo and want a wildly disproportionate level of influence in return for supporting Sanchez. More than what he can give them. My final guess: Sanchez's position is weakened but he stays on as Prime Minister in charge of a highly chaotic minority government over which regional/secessionist parties have great influence. To reach 50%, Sanchez would need all of the following on side: Sumar, ERC, Junts, EH Bildu, and EAJ. That's practically impossible, since Sanchez continues to rule out the possibility of serious referendums on independence, and, if he allowed them, they would win. PSOE would go down in history as the party that destroyed Spain, and they are too centralist to accept that. But Junts is particularly insistent that it will not support anyone without a referendum. Meanwhile, Feijoo/PP have no path to 50% whatsoever. A new election also won't solve the problem unless more regional voters switch their vote to the two-party duopoly.

LGBTQIAIDS · 2023-07-20T12:16:03+00:00

Indeed. Some Muslim countries like Bahrain, Iran, and Qatar are below replacement level, and the UAE is far below replacement level. So we can rule out any strong version of this claim, e.g. that Muslim culture automatically ensures high fertility. The question is thus whether any weaker version of this claim is correct.

I suspect that it is not. Tajikistan, for instance, banned the hijab back in 2017. In February 2004, Turkmenistan banned men from wearing long hair and beards for anti-Islamist reasons, although that regulation has been said to have been loosening over time. Uzbekistan defeated a Taliban-friendly Islamist insurgency of its own.

These countries (excluding Kyrgyzstan) have usually been much closer to following the authoritarian, nativist, and personalist path, although Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan seem to have moved on a liberal path since the departures from power of Nazarbayev and Karimov. That leaves Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as the more 'based' countries of Central Asia, at least insofar as governments are concerned.

In Tajikistan's case, I suspect that the persistence of nativism is responsible. Tajikistan has been just as anti-Russian as anti-Muslim, for example, President Emomali Rahmon's name was Emomali Rahmonov until he had the last two letters removed for nativist reasons, and, in April 2016, Tajik parents were banned from giving Russian-style names to their newborn children. Basically, Tajikistan's governmental policies have moved the country somewhat closer to those of an ethnostate.

One reason that I suspect that Islam is not responsible is that Turkmenistan is probably the least anti-Muslim country of all five Central Asian countries. For instance, it was one of the few countries around the world to have been on good terms with the Taliban. But Turkmenistan's demographic trends are actually rather unimpressive compared to those in the less Islamic Kazakhstan in particular. Should Islam be the determinant of these trends, Turkmenistan should really be the most impressive of the five rather than the least, and Kazakhstan should really be the least impressive of the five rather than the most.

In Kazakhstan's case, this miracle of sorts clearly happened during Nazarbayev's long rule. Since I think that nativism is more likely to be the determinant, I do wonder if Nazarbayev was more of a nativist than I thought.

LGBTQIAIDS · 2023-07-11T09:31:54+00:00

That's basically also my view on these authority dilemmas. The answer has to be situational: you don't support any such measures unless your side is in power.

Once your side is firmly in power, then you completely U-Turn and support totalitarianism.

Notice how when one does those political compass quizzes, the answer on some questions is totally situational? Are we living in an ideal society? Or are we living in some degenerate society? I wouldn't care much for free speech, say, in the ideal society, but it is clearly of more value when the people running the show are your enemies who think that everything that you say should be banned.

Bringing this back to e-Verify, the answer to me seems almost deceptively simple: so long as Tweedledum and Tweedledee remain in power, nothing good can come of it, and so there is no rational reason to support it.

LGBTQIAIDS · 2023-06-05T13:19:34+00:00

But in 2060, blacks will be 15% and hispanics will be 27%.

I doubt that will happen; it'll be much closer to the reverse. Those figures are probably just projecting current population trends into the future or something. But Latino birth rates are already well below replacement level in numerous countries, such as Chile, Costa Rica, and El Salvador. Similarly, south and south-east Asians will probably far outnumber East Asians for similar reasons.

What you'll probably see instead is less Latinos and more Africans. (And less Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans; more Filipinos, Indians, and Pakistanis.) As time passes, the 'African-Americans' and Latinos will probably be submerged by massive waves of African immigration. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out: many Africans aren't fond of the 'akata', and many 'African-Americans' would look out of place in Africa. A lot of Hispanics don't like the 'mayates' either. Even though they seem to accept the mixed-mayates who regard themselves Latino, they're not fond of the much less-mixed Haitians and other blacks who are more culturally and racially distant.

LGBTQIAIDS · 2023-06-05T13:06:37+00:00

It's Heimbach, Zoltanous and a bunch of other weirdos who used to be 'Dissident Right' and who, one by one, unable to popularize their own ideas and desperate to find a way forward, began to take the crude joke of National Bolshevism seriously. I've thought about writing an article against this moronic ideology, but I don't think these people pose a genuine threat to warrant the time. Nevertheless, I already know much of what I would write. One obvious point to make in such an article is that their beloved Lenin himself explicitly condemned this idea. Another is that the original National Bolsheviks weren't nationalists at all (indeed, one of the two founders was even Jewish): they simply saw that nationalism was popular in the Weimar Republic and decided that it was good strategy to co-opt certain popular nationalist talking points about how badly done Germany was by the Versailles treaty and France's invasion of the Ruhr, and perhaps a few other things. That was it. The KPD would have none of it and expelled both men immediately, they then joined an even more radical group, the KAPD, and were swiftly expelled from there for the same reason. From there they drifted into obscurity.

If I had to rank agreements and disagreements while skimming through this pathetic 'platform' (which is practically a manifesto and of no use to anyone who just wants the gist of their ideas), I'd probably say I might 'support' their stance on ten and don't care for their stance on the other fifteen. I suspect that if I spent more time reading it, I'd assign more to the "don't care" category and possibly some into an 'oppose' category.

I think it's clear what's going on here: some of these people (particularly Zoltanous) are known degenerates, are struggling with it, and this 'platform' is simply a schizophrenic output of these inner struggles, which they're losing, which is why they're succumbing to accepting some incredibly stupid fragments of ideology, e.g. racial egalitarianism. Since sociocultural Leftism remains a bit too much for enough of them, and economic Leftism comes off as being less obnoxious by comparison, it's natural for economic Leftism to seep in to 'Far-Right' ideology first, with the sociocultural Leftism coming along later, piggybacking in on many of the same arguments that they've already accepted, especially in on those already made in favour of economic and racial equality. They'll accept sociocultural Leftism for at least two reasons: a) as they squirm about trying to increase their support base and are unable to popularize their social conservatism and cultural nationalism, in part because of the lack of charisma of people like Heimbach, to Leftists, they'll see it as necessary to simply give up on it and; b) as the more extreme degeneracy of the future makes the degeneracy of the 2020s less insufferable in comparison.

Any attempt to synthesize elements of the 'Far-Right' with the degenerate pseudoscience of Marxism is pointless. The genuine 'Far-Right' of the time knew it. Lenin and other Marxist bigwigs knew it, which poses to this lot a massive problem if and when they're confronted with the relevant quotes. Few neo-Marxists want anything to do with people with backgrounds like Heimbach (no matter how much his view has changed, he's already irredeemably tainted in their eyes); practically no one who is genuinely 'Far-Right' wants anything to do with this ideology masquerading as a science or its contemporary adherents either.

LGBTQIAIDS