Posted On: Thursday - January 23rd 2025 9:11AM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity Humor Science
(Note: The "Science" topic key was applied above, but that's only due to the lack of a "Math" tag. We're not adding a freaking math tag.)
I liked Calculus I and Calculus 3. The 2nd class, in between, involved a lot of tricky integration concepts and procedures that you just couldn't see in your head. The beauty of Newton's ideas, in 2D in I, then 3D in 3, can be nicely visualized. Taking that infinitely small differential element in either rectangular or polar coordinates, defining it correctly, applying stresses, heat fluxes, whatever, then defining boundary conditions, and summing an infinite number of them up - the process called integration - to get a nice useful equation out of it is a thing of beauty.
We did infinite series also in the first class. For the life of me, I never saw where all those fit in. I could do the math, though, and some of the results were amazing. There are convergent series and divergent series. I left my math book somewhere, so from this wiki page (would they lie about math, even?!) we read:
More precisely, a series converges, if and only if there exists a number ℓ, such that for every arbitrarily small positive number ε, there is a (sufficiently large) integer N such that for all n ≥ N,On this page, the examples of divergent series all sum to ∞, but I don't think that's part of the definition. (I would know for sure if I
|Sn − ℓ| < ε
If the series is convergent, the (necessarily unique) number ℓ is called the sum of the series.
Peak Stupidity has discussed a magical mathematical result, The Eleven, a number of times already.* The unique constant, 11 million, still crops up in immigration invasion mathematical discussions. Here's one, from within this otherwise informative ZeroHedge
It's so weird, right?! This is why infinite series can be really cool. Illegal aliens have come into America in net rate numbers ranging from 1/4 million to a million, yearly, for half a century, at least. (Operation Wetback put the kibosh on the practice for a few years, but people forget - that's why you need a BORDER.) An estimate was made with that number 11 million, back in 2000. Since then the same rate, with a series of 1/2 a million this year, 1 million the next, etc. has been holding, and yet this convergent series still sums to 11 million, no matter what the value of n! Math is cool! It's hard, but it's cool.
Oh, what about that Dark Brandon/Mayorkas surge of 12 million in less than 4 years?
PS: In math, we have to be VERY CAREFUL with definitions. What does Nate Hochman above mean by "some"? In this context "some" = " the sum of all non-retarded people".
PSS: Yes, this mass- (if it really becomes one) deportation program is very exciting for patriotic Americans. It's been 70 years since the last time, Operation Wetback** under Dwight Eisenhower, but at least half a century since there should have been another. Again, Bring Back VDare!! (Will they start the site back up if Leticia James is bounced?)
* There's discussion about a
** There was not a lot of Political Correctness back in 1954, was there? One wonders why.
*** Ha, at first I'd written a semi-homophonic era, errr, error.
Comments:
Adam Smith
Friday - January 24th 2025 11:48AM MST
PS: Good afternoon, everyone!
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ, 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.
About that wrongful interpretation of Amendment XIV...
Here's an interesting little case y'all might have heard of...
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-anthony-120
＜From US v Anthony 1873＞
The fourteenth amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. This question is now at rest. The fourteenth amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States, to wit, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The latter qualification was intended to exclude the children of foreign representatives and the like. With this qualification, every person born in the United States or naturalized is declared to be a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein he resides.
After creating and defining citizenship of the United States, the fourteenth amendment provides, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This clause is intended to be a protection, not to all our rights, but to our rights as citizens of the United States only; that is. to rights existing or belonging to that condition or capacity. The expression, citizen of a state, used in the previous paragraph, is carefully omitted here. In article 4. § 2, subd. 1. of the constitution of the United States, it had been already provided, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases. 16 Wall. [83 U. S.] 30. recently decided by the supreme court. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ, 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠. The rights of citizens of the states have been the subject of judicial decision on more than one occasion. Corfield v. Coryell [Case No. 3,230]; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. [79 U. S.] 418, 430; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. [75 U. S.] 168. These are the fundamental privileges and immunities belonging of right to the citizens of all free governments, such as the right of life and liberty, the right to acquire and possess property, to transact business, to pursue happiness in his own manner, subject to such restraint as the government may adjudge to be necessary for the general good. In Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. [73 U. S.] 35, 44, is found a statement of some of the rights of a citizen of the United States, viz., to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon the government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions, and to have free access to its seaports, through which all the operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, the land offices, the revenue offices, and the courts of justice in the several states. "Another privilege of a citizen of the United States," says Mr. Justice Miller, in the Slaughterhouse Cases [supra], "is to demand the care and protection of the federal government over his life, liberty, and property, when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government." "The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," he says, "are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the federal constitution."
The right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States. The qualifications are different in the different states. Citizenship, age, sex, residence, are variously required in the different states, or may be so. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it by the laws of the state where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States. If the state of New York should provide that no person should vote until he had reached the age of thirty years, or after he had reached the age of fifty, or that no person having gray hair, or who had not the use of all his limbs, should be entitled to vote. I do not see how it could be held to be a violation of any right derived or held under the constitution of the United States. We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell [supra].
＜A few paragraphs later...＞
The case of Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. [83 U. S.] 130, decided at the recent term of the supreme court, sustains both of the positions above put forth, viz., first, that the rights referred to in the fourteenth amendment are those belonging to a person as a citizen of the United States and not as a citizen of a state; and second, that a right of the character here involved is not one connected with citizenship of the United States. Mrs. Bradwell made application to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor at law in the courts of Illinois. Her application was denied, and, upon a writ of error, it was held by the supreme court, that, to give jurisdiction under the fourteenth amendment, the claim must be of a right pertaining to citizenship of the United States, and that the claim made by her did not come within that class of cases. Justices Bradley, Swayne, and Field held that a woman was not entitled to a license to practice law. It does not appear that the other judges passed upon that question. The fourteenth amendment gives no right to a woman to vote, and the voting by Miss Anthony was in violation of law.
＜/From US v Anthony 1873＞
I only bring this up because there are different classes of citizens with different status under the law. Someone can be a 14th amendment citizen without being a citizen of a state. Likewise, someone can be a citizen of a state without being a 14th amendment citizen. You can also be a foreign national (with respect to the United States) and still be granted a U.S. passport.
And very few people, federal judges included, understand these differences. And I believe this is a problem.
Anyway...
I hope you all have a great afternoon! ☮️
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ, 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠.
About that wrongful interpretation of Amendment XIV...
Here's an interesting little case y'all might have heard of...
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-anthony-120
＜From US v Anthony 1873＞
The fourteenth amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except as that condition arose from citizenship of some state. No mode existed, it was said, of obtaining a citizenship of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state. This question is now at rest. The fourteenth amendment defines and declares who shall be citizens of the United States, to wit, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The latter qualification was intended to exclude the children of foreign representatives and the like. With this qualification, every person born in the United States or naturalized is declared to be a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein he resides.
After creating and defining citizenship of the United States, the fourteenth amendment provides, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This clause is intended to be a protection, not to all our rights, but to our rights as citizens of the United States only; that is. to rights existing or belonging to that condition or capacity. The expression, citizen of a state, used in the previous paragraph, is carefully omitted here. In article 4. § 2, subd. 1. of the constitution of the United States, it had been already provided, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." The rights of citizens of the states and of citizens of the United States are each guarded by these different provisions. That these rights are separate and distinct, was held in the Slaughterhouse Cases. 16 Wall. [83 U. S.] 30. recently decided by the supreme court. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ, 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡. 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠. The rights of citizens of the states have been the subject of judicial decision on more than one occasion. Corfield v. Coryell [Case No. 3,230]; Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. [79 U. S.] 418, 430; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. [75 U. S.] 168. These are the fundamental privileges and immunities belonging of right to the citizens of all free governments, such as the right of life and liberty, the right to acquire and possess property, to transact business, to pursue happiness in his own manner, subject to such restraint as the government may adjudge to be necessary for the general good. In Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. [73 U. S.] 35, 44, is found a statement of some of the rights of a citizen of the United States, viz., to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon the government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions, and to have free access to its seaports, through which all the operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, the land offices, the revenue offices, and the courts of justice in the several states. "Another privilege of a citizen of the United States," says Mr. Justice Miller, in the Slaughterhouse Cases [supra], "is to demand the care and protection of the federal government over his life, liberty, and property, when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government." "The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," he says, "are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the federal constitution."
The right of voting, or the privilege of voting, is a right or privilege arising under the constitution of the state, and not under the constitution of the United States. The qualifications are different in the different states. Citizenship, age, sex, residence, are variously required in the different states, or may be so. If the right belongs to any particular person, it is because such person is entitled to it by the laws of the state where he offers to exercise it, and not because of citizenship of the United States. If the state of New York should provide that no person should vote until he had reached the age of thirty years, or after he had reached the age of fifty, or that no person having gray hair, or who had not the use of all his limbs, should be entitled to vote. I do not see how it could be held to be a violation of any right derived or held under the constitution of the United States. We might say that such regulations were unjust, tyrannical, unfit for the regulation of an intelligent state; but, if rights of a citizen are thereby violated, they are of that fundamental class, derived from his position as a citizen of the state, and not those limited rights belonging to him as a citizen of the United States; and such was the decision in Corfield v. Coryell [supra].
＜A few paragraphs later...＞
The case of Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. [83 U. S.] 130, decided at the recent term of the supreme court, sustains both of the positions above put forth, viz., first, that the rights referred to in the fourteenth amendment are those belonging to a person as a citizen of the United States and not as a citizen of a state; and second, that a right of the character here involved is not one connected with citizenship of the United States. Mrs. Bradwell made application to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor at law in the courts of Illinois. Her application was denied, and, upon a writ of error, it was held by the supreme court, that, to give jurisdiction under the fourteenth amendment, the claim must be of a right pertaining to citizenship of the United States, and that the claim made by her did not come within that class of cases. Justices Bradley, Swayne, and Field held that a woman was not entitled to a license to practice law. It does not appear that the other judges passed upon that question. The fourteenth amendment gives no right to a woman to vote, and the voting by Miss Anthony was in violation of law.
＜/From US v Anthony 1873＞
I only bring this up because there are different classes of citizens with different status under the law. Someone can be a 14th amendment citizen without being a citizen of a state. Likewise, someone can be a citizen of a state without being a 14th amendment citizen. You can also be a foreign national (with respect to the United States) and still be granted a U.S. passport.
And very few people, federal judges included, understand these differences. And I believe this is a problem.
Anyway...
I hope you all have a great afternoon! ☮️
Moderator
Friday - January 24th 2025 10:50AM MST
PS: Also, I meant to write about deporting more foreign Nationals. Lots of the Chinese ones may be industrial spies... until the Chinese have us beat so bad they no longer need any of that info.
Trump seems to agree on this too, ending all the massive influx of Chinese and Indian students, parents and in-laws of such, etc. These are all avenues for overstaying visas, or even legally-the-whole-way, getting some post-Doc, extending the work visas, until, as Ann Coulter says, the immigrant wins.
Trump seems to agree on this too, ending all the massive influx of Chinese and Indian students, parents and in-laws of such, etc. These are all avenues for overstaying visas, or even legally-the-whole-way, getting some post-Doc, extending the work visas, until, as Ann Coulter says, the immigrant wins.
Moderator
Friday - January 24th 2025 10:47AM MST
PS: "If an illegal alien manages to get permanent residency, or citizenship I suppose that reduces the number by one. How many are doing this? Yes, that's not supposed to be possible. So what?"
Good question, Mr. M and one I've thought about. Accumulation = Number in - Number out. Since they're humans, there's also "internal generation", births of more illegal aliens* in the engineering sense and degeneration, deaths of illegal aliens. There's then the conversion of illegals to legal, as illegal as that is, haha!
Back to the definition and that magical 11 million, are we talking "Number of people who've come in as illegal aliens and stayed" or "Number of illegal aliens IN the country." They'd be the same but for what you wrote. I go with the former, and it seems like the definition most people would use to get this total number that need to be deported. Can we deport citizens? When it comes to criminals, they DO get deported at times. Breaking into the country is a criminal act.
* but for that wrongful interpretation of Amendment XIV.
Good question, Mr. M and one I've thought about. Accumulation = Number in - Number out. Since they're humans, there's also "internal generation", births of more illegal aliens* in the engineering sense and degeneration, deaths of illegal aliens. There's then the conversion of illegals to legal, as illegal as that is, haha!
Back to the definition and that magical 11 million, are we talking "Number of people who've come in as illegal aliens and stayed" or "Number of illegal aliens IN the country." They'd be the same but for what you wrote. I go with the former, and it seems like the definition most people would use to get this total number that need to be deported. Can we deport citizens? When it comes to criminals, they DO get deported at times. Breaking into the country is a criminal act.
* but for that wrongful interpretation of Amendment XIV.
M
Friday - January 24th 2025 8:31AM MST
PS
I wonder what component of that steady state is jiggling the definition around.
If an illegal alien manages to get permanent residency, or citizenship I suppose that reduces the number by one. How many are doing this? Yes, that's not supposed to be possible. So what?
Or it just becomes "number of illegal aliens with some sort of contact with the government". The ones that fly under the radar just aren't counted, and the bureaucracy is pretty careful not to be too eager to notice.
I wonder what component of that steady state is jiggling the definition around.
If an illegal alien manages to get permanent residency, or citizenship I suppose that reduces the number by one. How many are doing this? Yes, that's not supposed to be possible. So what?
Or it just becomes "number of illegal aliens with some sort of contact with the government". The ones that fly under the radar just aren't counted, and the bureaucracy is pretty careful not to be too eager to notice.
Moderator
Friday - January 24th 2025 6:05AM MST
PS: Do you mean Mr. Sailer has written about this particular post? (I don't see it on his site, though I do see he's picked up my Blitzkrieg terminology from comments under his UR post - though I'm sure it others would have used the term.)
Anyway, that was a pretty good read. He came to the same conclusion I've had about The State becoming involved in supporting women and the ill effect of feminism. (I didn't know which "wave", but he says 2nd. Aren't we on the 4th now?)
It probably deserves a post here. I've got a lot else ready to go or ready to write about.
Anyway, that was a pretty good read. He came to the same conclusion I've had about The State becoming involved in supporting women and the ill effect of feminism. (I didn't know which "wave", but he says 2nd. Aren't we on the 4th now?)
It probably deserves a post here. I've got a lot else ready to go or ready to write about.
Moderator
Friday - January 24th 2025 5:43AM MST
PS: Thanks, I'm reading it now, Mr. Hail.
Hail
Thursday - January 23rd 2025 10:02PM MST
PS
-- Marriage Prisoner's Dilemma and the West --
Of interest. An essay I recently read that deals with the mechanics of the family-formation crisis.
Although not necessarily breaking new ground, I find the presentation effective: calm, reasonable, reflective, clear and (at least seemingly) accurate. Data-heavy but absent jargon. He "translates" a lot of academic data into normal-speak.
As in all of the best kind of work of this kind, he simplifies complex ideas into easy-to-understand conceptual models. And he is not shy about identifying a uniqueness of the White-West.
The essay is 3500 words. It is this:
____________
"Human Reproduction as Prisoner's Dilemma: The decline of marriage in the West," APORIA Magazine, Jan 22, 2025.
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/human-reproduction-as-prisoners-dilemma
______________
(For those keeping score, I believe that Mr. Steve Sailer has praised Aporia magazine. We beseech thee, fear not being a fool to rush in; a "sailer" hath already there tread.)
-- Marriage Prisoner's Dilemma and the West --
Of interest. An essay I recently read that deals with the mechanics of the family-formation crisis.
Although not necessarily breaking new ground, I find the presentation effective: calm, reasonable, reflective, clear and (at least seemingly) accurate. Data-heavy but absent jargon. He "translates" a lot of academic data into normal-speak.
As in all of the best kind of work of this kind, he simplifies complex ideas into easy-to-understand conceptual models. And he is not shy about identifying a uniqueness of the White-West.
The essay is 3500 words. It is this:
____________
"Human Reproduction as Prisoner's Dilemma: The decline of marriage in the West," APORIA Magazine, Jan 22, 2025.
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/human-reproduction-as-prisoners-dilemma
______________
(For those keeping score, I believe that Mr. Steve Sailer has praised Aporia magazine. We beseech thee, fear not being a fool to rush in; a "sailer" hath already there tread.)
I would guess more people these few weeks are perusing everything written about Amendment XIV, in the law books, in SCROTUS records, on wiki (ughhhh) than ever before probably in all of American history since the thing was ratified.