ryan-Halsey

Cant believe nobody asked what mattered: Asuka or Rei

The parts I heard in full were the closing statements. I'll begin with Halsey since I agreed with his more but disagree with him more generally (obviously).
Halsey does seem to back down when challenged effectively, despite the trash-talk. I agree with his closing statement about Israel being an example of what to expect from groups like the UN. Though his debate with Enoch was nowhere near what he described to us, and he clearly dislikes the JQ because he is a chauvinistic Jew himself. But I see that as backing down and managing his appeal

I agree with Dawson more generally, just saying that before I do a rough response to him. And I know I am simplifying his positions for the sake of presentation but he did say what I am responding to, there was just more around it and I recognize that, however it's easier to address piecemeal. Most of what his theories rested on, about stigma and welfare, are pretty unsubstantiated outside the fact that groups which are dysfunctional receive welfare, support terribly wasteful economic policy, and feel entitled. Amounts to: "Liberal policies killed Detroit but not Portland or wherever, and of course it has nothing to do with the people who came to inhabit Detroit and supported that happening. And the reason poor blacks are more dysfunctional than poor whites or leftist whites is, uh, lack of stigma or whatever." And reverts to the silly Libertarian solution that people will not just accept failing individually but as groups rather than vote for redistribution.

Dawson trivializes how genes influence ideology and how race affects party identification beyond ideology, ie even conservative blacks vote Democrat. He frames this as the opposition suggesting ethnicity is 100% deterministic (which is simply wrong and usually just someone unfamiliar with the subject and reacting to casual takes on genetics), though he backed off when challenged on this. And, since he brought up North Korea... North Korea is substantially more powerful of a nation than similarly poor African nations and could take them in a fight... because they have a high IQ and can maintain a fairly sophisticated military despite their shitty economy. Yes, if high IQ people take the shittiest economy possible they'd fail, but it seems more likely that high IQ people would pick more sophisticated economics than low IQ ones. It's thinking you can lead a horse to water and make it drink ultimately, which seems foolish to bet the future on. Particularly since there's no reason to think the criteria Dawson thinks are more important will resonate with them any time soon anyway, it's going to get easier to resent white people and vote for more gibs

Japan and Singapore advanced quickly but Africa keeps getting shafted by the IMF for some reason. Poor Africa I guess, how unlucky. A lot of what he said was either ideologically blinkered (even though I largely agree, a lot of what he decries is just gonna keep being a thing) or kind of basic sidestepping but I cant remember it all. I agree with most of his stated positions but race is a persistent wrench people dont want to acknowledge and as such make silly pronouncements about how it doesnt really matter under the assumption that you can essentially lead a horse to water and make it drink (like he seemed to suggest if blacks just saved money and studied more then they'd be fine, as if IQ and psychometric variables dont affect that)

You can always say environment and policy matters, but as Ryan aid with regard to the Irish, groups dont perform as poorly even with similarly shitty environments. Even when Blacks didnt have substantially higher single motherhood rates they werent doing as well. This is what he is missing in my opinion. It's the same Thomas Sowell regurgitation that people like Sargon love, where differences among whites are exaggerated to make the differences between blacks and whites seem bridgeable. Poor welfare using whites remain more law abiding than well off blacks, and the idea that stigma or lack of entitlement explain this cant be verified. It just sounds like an appealing blank slatist narrative to people who dont want to be racist but also dont want to feel guilty like Progressives demand.
He even notes that policies and ideologies sway within populations, and they do, but generous molly-coddling white welfare states remain the most livable states to be in while nobody likes Detroit.

He lives in a high IQ ethnostate which isnt libertarian in very many respects but is a highly collectivist and conformist culture (reflected in their welfare even, gotta be a part of the group dynamic). Just an amusing note.