Don’t vote. It only encourages them

November 3rd, 2014

You will undoubtedly hear that the election is nail bitingly close.

That is a lie. To sustain the illusion of a two party state, large numbers of Democrats are elected as republicans. They reliably vote Democrat whenever it matters. Observe, for example, the “bipartisan” budget passed by the supposedly Republican controlled house.

And what is the issue of the election? Once in a while Republicans point out that Obama is up to his armpits in foreign wars and losing, that the economy has been depressed and is sinking further under Democrat rule, that the streets are unsafe, that the young have no job prospects, that middle class means a hundred thousand dollars in college debt while working at starbucks, that Obamacare turns out to be unaffordable, and so on and so forth. So what are Democrats on about?

They have microtargeted campaigns for low information voters – women, homosexuals, blacks, and hispanics. But if you add up all the microtargets, their one issue is “We hate straight white males.”

To which the Republican reply is “We hate straight white males too. In fact we hate them even more than you do.” And sometimes, not very often, they add “But we also worry about losing wars and the economy sucks.”

Before this election, the anti straight white male party had a majority. After this election, the anti straight white male party will have a bigger majority and more extreme policies.

And similarly for the election after that, and the one after that. You face a government that hates you, and every year it will hate you more. Hence the visibly second class citizenship for whites that we see on the streets, that the recent catcalling video inadvertently highlighted.

Yes, political competition continues, and will continue, but it is competition within the permanent majority party as to hates straight white males even more.

Politicians will use public money to buy votes. They naturally want to buy the cheapest votes, so democracy tends to universal franchise. But they still want cheaper votes, so create an underclass. Then they import an underclass. The final outcome, as in Ivory Coast, is that the former natives get ethnically cleansed with the help of UN troops.

No good person should vote in an election with universal franchise, as it is a declaration that he is equal to his inferiors. Since, in fact, he is not equal to his inferiors, he must therefore be oppressing them, and will be punished for that oppression. Strangely, he remains unequal. Obviously the punishment was not sufficiently severe.

That is what you have been getting for voting, and will continue to get for voting. You have been punished, you will be punished, and the punishments will grow progressively more severe. When you vote, you affirm that you are equal. Since, in practice, you are not equal, you affirm that you deserve the punishment that you will receive.

tasmanian aboriginal skull

November 2nd, 2014

Tasmanian aboriginal skull

At least that is what the article says, though maybe they photographed a Neanderthal skull in error.

On the other hand, Erectus walks among us gives an example of an almost equally primitive looking aboriginal skull, and suggests that our most recent common ancestor with the Australian aboriginals is not very recent.

Human skull

The difference seems to be at least as great, as the difference between a human skull and a Neanderthal skull, and the cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull considerably greater.  Observe the sloping brow and the ridges surrounding the eye sockets, very similar to what makes a Neanderthal skull Neanderthal. Indeed, I wonder if this is a Neanderthal skull somehow mislabeled.

If, as seems likely, Neanderthals had very limited interfertility with humans, we would, on the face of it, suspect that Tasmanians would have very limited interfertility than humans, assuming the skull to be correct, and, from cranial capacity, a substantially lower technological capacity than Neanderthals.  In fact, however, Tasmanian technology was better than Neanderthal.  Tasmanian art was about the same as Neanderthal art.

Race and species

November 2nd, 2014

One of the many politically incorrect aspects of Darwinism is that races are the origin of species.  There is no objective way of distinguishing a large race difference from a small species difference, any more than one can distinguish a large hill from a small mountain.

To say that two closely related kinds are two races of the same species, or two distinct species is a fact about scientific terminology, not a fact about the external world.  As Lamarck argued, we draw sharp lines on a world that lacks sharp lines.  For any two kinds, an intermediate kind likely exists, or once existed.

Everyone agrees that if two kinds are not interfertile, that they will not have sex, or cannot have sex, or if they have sex but no offspring ensues, then that is truly two species, not two races of the same species.  But if we said that two kinds that can and will interbreed, given the opportunity, must belong to the same species, then we would be in a world with very few species.  We would not only say that dogs and wolves are the same species, which most people would think pretty reasonable, but that wolves and coyotes are the same species, which is a bit of a stretch, and that lions and tigers are the same species, which is just silly.

Such a standard is also unworkable, because there is very commonly a kind in the middle, such that kind A is interfertile with kind B, and kind B interfertile with kind C, but kind A is not interfertile with kind C, in which case we would like to call all three kinds different species, since we obviously have to call A and C different species.

That blacks are the same species as whites is not a fact about human kinds, but rather the fact that Darwin declined to draw an arbitrary line through the Sahara, not a fact about human kinds but a fact about scientific nomenclature.

We will first consider the arguments which may be advanced in favour of classing the races of man as distinct species, and then and then the arguments on the other side.

The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spokenof in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a differentconsideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of thespecific distinctness of the parent races.

Now if we reflect on the weighty argumentsabove given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperabledifficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term “sub-species”might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term “race” will perhapsalways be employed.

Through the means just specified, aidedperhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. Butsince he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as theymay be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, areso distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any furtherinformation, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species

Our naturalist would then perhaps turn t geographical distribution, and he would probabldeclare that those forms must be distinc species, which differ not only in appearance, butare fitted for hot, as well as damp or dry countries, and for the Artic regions. He mightappeal to the fact that no species in the group next to man–namely, the Quadrumana, can resist low temperature, or any considerable change of climate; and that the species which come nearestto man have never been reared to maturity, even under the temperate climate of Europe. He wouldbe deeply impressed with the fact, first noticed by Agassiz (7. ‘Diversity of Origin of the HumanRaces,’ in the ‘Christian Examiner,’ July 1850.), that the different races of man are distributed over the world in the same zoological provinces, as those inhabited by undoubtedly distinctspecies and genera of mammals. This is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, andNegro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the Hottentots; but plainly with the Papuansand Malays, who are separated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which divides thegreat Malayan and Australian zoological provinces. The Aborigines of America rangethroughout the Continent; and this at first appears opposed to the above rule, for most ofthe productions of the Southern and Northern halves differ widely: yet some few living forms,as the opossum, range from the one into the other, as did formerly some of the giganticEdentata. The Esquimaux, like other Arctic animals, extend round the whole polar regions. Itshould be observed that the amount of difference between the mammals of the several zoologicalprovinces does not correspond with the degree of separation between the latter; so that it canhardly be considered as an anomaly that the Negro differs more, and the American much less from theother races of man, than do the mammals of the African and American continents from the mammalsof the other provinces. Man, it may be added, does not appear to have aboriginally inhabitedany oceanic island; and in this respect, he resembles the other members of his class.

In determining whether the supposed varieties ofthe same kind of domestic animal should be ranked as such, or as specifically distinct, that is,whether any of them are descended from distinct wild species, every naturalist would lay muchstress on the fact of their external parasites being specifically distinct. All the more stresswould be laid on this fact, as it would be an exceptional one; for I am informed by Mr. Dennythat the most different kinds of dogs, fowls, and pigeons, in England, are infested by the same species of Pediculi or lice. Now Mr. A. Murray has carefully examined the Pediculi collected indifferent countries from the different races of man (8. ‘Transactions of the Royal Society ofEdinburgh,’ vol. xxii, 1861, p. 567.); and he finds that they differ, not only in colour, butin the structure of their claws and limbs. In every case in which many specimens were obtained the differences were constant. The surgeon of a whaling ship in the Pacific assured me that whenthe Pediculi, with which some Sandwich Islanders on board swarmed, strayed on to the bodies of theEnglish sailors, they died in the course of three or four days. These Pediculi were darkercoloured, and appeared different from those proper to the natives of Chiloe in South America,of which he gave me specimens. These, again, appeared larger and much softer than Europeanlice. Mr. Murray procured four kinds from Africa, namely, from the Negroes of the Eastern andWestern coasts, from the Hottentots and Kaffirs; two kinds from the natives of Australia; two from North and two from South America. In these latter cases it may be presumed that the Pediculi camefrom natives inhabiting different districts. With insects slight structural differences, ifconstant, are generally esteemed of specific value: and the fact of the races of man beinginfested by parasites, which appear to be specifically distinct, might fairly be urged asan argument that the races themselves ought to be classed as distinct species.

All spotted owls are obviously the same race and same species.  Californian spotted owls are no more a species than Californian blondes are a species.

Spotted owls differ from barred owls no more that whites differ from east Asians and, as with whites and east Asians, are connected by a cline.  The environmentalists want to exterminate the cline, to make spotted owls and barred owls conform to a plausible species definition.

Similarly coyotes and wolves.  The American government  exterminated the cline for political reasons.  Coyotes are pigmy wolves, and can freely interbreed with large wolves, and are fully interfertile.

Whites and East asians are fully interfertile.

Whites and blacks are interfertile, but *not* fully interfertile.

Whites and Australian mainland aboriginals are interfertile.  We don’t know if they are fully interfertile, because by the time Australia was settled, it had already become politically incorrect to study such matters.

Whites and Tasmanian aboriginals were not interfertile.  Tasmania was initially colonized by white males, and initially had zero single white women.  Very large numbers of Tasmanian aboriginal women were purchased or captured by lonely white males.   A fertile age Tasmanian woman cost about the same as a good dog. Not one mixed race child ensued.  Sex with white people was a substantial part of the reason that Tasmanian aboriginals became extinct.

[Correction some mixed race children did ensue. James Bonwick was there, and wrote a book about it “The lost Tasmanian race.” He tells us it was rare for half caste children to be born “even under the most favorable circumstances”, indicating dramatically reduced, but non zero, fertility]

All existing people who claim Tasmanian aboriginal ancestry and can plausibly trace it to someone who looks plausibly nonwhite (a very small subset of those who claim Tasmanian aboriginal ancestry), trace it back to one woman who is obviously (from her photograph and the date at which she had children) a mainland aboriginal who came over with the white colonists after the Tasmanian aboriginals became extinct.  If Truganini was the last Tasmanian aboriginal, and she was certainly the last person who looked Tasmanian, the Tasmanian aboriginals became extinct without the birth of a single mixed race child, despite massive fornication.

That Tasmanian aboriginals were the same species as ourselves is not a fact about scientific nomenclature, but a lie.  And, if they cannot be classed as the same species, then if we apply to humans the same standards as we apply to other groups of kinds, we also have to categorize kinds that are comparably different as different species.

 

Gamergate and corruption

October 30th, 2014

Gawker media’s primary audience is nerds.

Their primary income comes from advertisers, who pay them to show ads to nerds.

And this is what Gawker has to say about nerds.

Ultimately GamerGate is reaffirming what we’ve known to be true for decades: nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission

Upon receiving a hostile reaction from their audience:

@hamiltonnolan @Based_Tet@max_read Max just told me I’m getting a raise because I made gamers cry

And, when the advertisers did not like that, that is nothing compared to what they said about advertisers.

Intel is run by craven idiots. It employs pusillanimous morons. It lacks integrity. It folded to misogynists and bigots who objected to a woman who had done nothing more than write a piece claiming a place in the world of video games. And even when confronted with its own thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, it could not properly right its wrongs.

And, did I mention that Gawker is anticapitalist?

It is apparent that many of the writers attacking gamergate do not have skin in the game with their own publications. They are willing to burn their boss’ companies and quite likely it will help their career. They’ll keep riling up the mob because they think it means greater notoriety and promotions later on. The longer that they keep riling up the mob, the worse terms that they will get for the companies that they work for, but they are fine with that.

To bypass the first amendment, the government has been systematically installing political commissars in every company. This has the unintended effect that nominally private companies tend to wind up controlled by the state sponsored left.

In any nominally private organization controlled by the left, people get power and promotions not for actions that benefit shareholders, but for actions that benefit the left.

If shareholders lose control, the logical behavior then is to max out every company credit card and company line of credit, pile up everything moveable and take it to the pawnbroker, rip the copper wiring out of the walls, and set fire to company headquarters to collect the insurance.

Hollywood has long been controlled by the left, and by and large, for the most part there are no longer continuing corporations, Hollywood studios, that own production assets, have valued brand names, and regularly produce one movie after another.  Rather, people usually get together case by case to produce a movie.

Surviving Hollywood corporations tend to be notoriously under attack for insufficient leftism, for example Disney, and often their movies contain subtle hints of less than total capitulation  But even they are tending to outsource their real production to off the radar contractors, while they stuff their nominal production departments with politicals, a process that ends in the company being eaten out by the politicals, and replaced by teams of contractors that come together contract by contract, project by project.

Tim Cook has not ripped the copper out the walls and set fire to Apple headquarters – not yet, but he has rather casually burned Apple’s major asset – that it was the high quality, high status brand name, that its stuff just worked.

The modern world was created by the joint stock corporation with the CEO kept answerable to the shareholders by double entry accounting.  When King Charles the Second let joint stock corporations off the leash they, in addition to pillaging the third world, used science to build technology, and the resulting technology enabled science, massively raising everyone’s standard of living, including that of third worlders and even of slaves shipped from the third world to the first.

Sarbanes Oxley has destroyed double entry accounting, and politicizing corporations has disempowered the shareholders.  In America and Europe, the social technology that brought us science and the industrial revolution is being dismantled.

The social technology that made the west wealthy and knowledgeable survives in Hong Kong and Singapore, and is spreading to China. It has been successfully transplanted to Dubai by their high IQ aristocracy (Some aristocracies eugenically breed themselves smart), and, surprisingly, is doing fine in Nigeria. (I conjecture that in Nigeria a hidden consortium of white and east asian capitalists bribe the government into doing the right thing, always a dangerous mode of existence since the government is always tempted to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.)

Despite official truth that GDP per head is rising, everyone can see the reality that it is falling.

Why women ruin everything

October 28th, 2014

Dalrock complaints that women ruin everything.  They want to enter male spaces and make the space feminine, as a power play, not out of any interest in the things of value in that male space, which they inevitably destroy.

This is a key issue in gamergate, where feminists demand that the games should be no fun and no one should play them.

Women want to rule, even though it makes them unhappy – it is a fitness test.  They are looking for men that can defeat them, master them, and put them in their proper place.

Natural selection wants men to fight against subordinate status so that they will win.  Natural selection wants women to fight against subordinate status so that they will lose only to worthy men and and thus get impregnated by those worthy men.

When women push their way into male spaces and then set about destroying those male spaces, they are looking for worthy men who will uphold the space and put them in their place.  It is a fitness test.  They hope to find the lord of this space who will not put up with a woman’s nonsense.

What women really want is to be allowed into a male place on subordinate and unequal terms, to be allowed to speak only if spoken to, and any male wishing to speak the them has to get the permission of their owner first.  They will fight like hell against this status, but if they win, they are unhappy, and if they lose, are happy.  Women are like poorly behaved dogs.  The dog will push to be leader of the pack, a job he can never perform, and does not really want.  He wants a master to follow while making his master follow him.

A woman is like a badly behaved dog, a dog that will take his master for a walk, rather than the master taking the dog for a walk, but the dog is much happier when walked by his master, rather than walking his master, much happier with a firm master.

The reason that women need to be subordinated for successful reproduction

October 25th, 2014

Examining difference in fertility, it is clear that fertility is primarily controlled by female status relative to their husbands.  The more women are subordinated, the higher the fertility.  Japan is a good test case.  Not only did fertility dramatically drop when General McArthur emancipated women, but in feudal Japan, fertility among high status families was below replacement when women were high status, indicated by upward mobility and room at the top.  Later in the feudal era, when women were low status, fertility well above replacement, leading to a massive oversupply of elite children relative to available elite positions.  It is difficult to assess Japanese feudal fertility exactly, but it seems to have been similar in patriarchal feudal Japan as it was in the immediate postwar period in patriarchal industrial Japan, the same laws leading to similar fertility in industrial and feudal Japan.

Modern contraceptive technology changes little, for we have always had infanticide, always had non reproductive sex, long had abortion.  Early feudal era upper class Japanese women, late Spartan women, women of the upper classes of the Roman empire, and late Bronze age Egyptian women also had well below replacement fertility.

Societies with emancipated women do not reproduce very successfully.

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive male status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status) and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women.  Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers.  Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

Both sides of the war are better off if a cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is coercively imposed.  One could in principle have legal enforcement of the marriage contract, with women being severely unequal inside marriage, but equal (eg, no child support, no special privileges, freedom of association permitted) outside marriage.  But a society in which women are equal is going to find it hard to uphold and protect marriage.  Further, because women are not in reality equal, women cannot be equal in a society with freedom of association, because people will not want to associate with bastards, because most of the high status associations will choose to be male only, and so on and so forth.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men.  Women have to be compelled to mate with their husbands, and forbidden to mate with anyone else.

Fertility is determined by the extent that we have a cooperate cooperate equilibrium starting early in a woman’s fertile years.

A ship can have only one captain, and household only one head.  If men and women equal, requires separation.  If separation, one side or the other is denied the opportunity to invest in their children.

So, patriarchy.  If men own women, except that they may not resell them, cruelly mistreat them, rent them out, abandon them, nor even allow them to rent themselves out, then both men and women know who their children are and live with their children.  The converse system, women owning men, would not work, because men would not know who their children were, would be denied the opportunity to invest in their children, and would therefore revolt.

It might be argued we have the converse system now, and yet men are not exactly revolting, but they are dropping out and refusing to participate.  They will not support or protect women on current terms.

We have always had fertility control in the form of infanticide, and have fully adapted to it.  We have had fertility control in the form of abortion for around three and half thousand years, and have substantially adapted to it.  We have had condoms for long enough that men have evolved to dislike them and women are beginning to evolve to dislike them.

Children by previous lovers get in the way, hated by their mother’s new lover, inconvenient to their mother.  Such inconveniences are, as in fairy tales, apt to be eradicated.  This is the most ancient fertility control solution.  Tomcats notoriously apply it.  Humans and cats are behaviorally adapted to optimal application of this solution.

With cryptic estrus and lengthy infancy, if males and females each freely pursue their biologically optimal strategy without regard to the interests of the people they mate with, very few will successfully reproduce, because almost all infants get infanticided.  Prisoner’s dilemma, defect defect equilibrium.  Successful reproduction requires enforcement of the cooperate cooperate equilibrium.

In a species with cryptic estrus and lengthy infancy, women have to be subjugated for the species to successfully reproduce.  Matriarchal societies did not vanish from history because conquered. They vanished from history for failure to reproduce.

In modern times, we are more civilized, and contracept children or abort them to avoid the embarrassment of mummy’s latest boyfriend grabbing the child by its feet and smashing its head against the bedpost, but modern mummies have a strange tendency to acquiesce in such “accidents”, when they discover just how much their former husband’s children cramp their style.  There is a very high rate of “accidents” among fatherless children.

If children go with the mother, Gnon demands future male lovers commit infanticide.  Civilization avoids this bloody embarrassment with the delicately civilized abortion.

Cooperate cooperate equilibrium is that the man and the women are stuck with each other.  He owns her, but does not own her in the sense that he can resell her to the highest bidder, nor punish her without cause or in ways likely to cause injury.  There is an approximately equal distribution of women between the men, socialist rationing of women, and each man respects all other men’s property rights in their women, with severe punishment for violators,  the male who sleeps with another man’s wife punished by law, the wife punished by her husband at her husband’s discretion.

Under this circumstance, men can invest in their wives and children with confidence in paternity and without fear of losing them, without fear that any attempt to support them will result in them supporting their wife’s bad boy lover instead.

In defect/defect, investment in children is inadvisable, for the woman will probably wind up a single mother, and a man a cuckold.  Any children with her are likely by previous lovers, so should be mistreated or eradicated, and any children he might have with her are likely to be similarly mistreated by future lovers.

Neoreaction and Identitarianism

October 22nd, 2014

Neoreactionaries rightly look down on identitarians as low class, vulgar, stupid, and, worst of all, leftist.

“You think construction workers should vote!  Worse, some of you think women should vote.  You are so ignorant of history that you hate capitalism, forgetting how Europe became rich.  And a lot of you are so stupid you think the Joos brought down the two towers.”

This tempts neoreactionaries to say to progressives

“See, we are not like those horrible identitarians. We are like you progressives, smart and civilized”

Then the neoreactionary slobbers all the progressive’s boots like a puppy and rolls over like a puppy to expose his stomach.  Then he pees himself in his excitement.

But, of course, neoreactionaries are identitarians, among other things.

And to remind myself, and everyone else, that neoreactionaries are identitarians, I say that for the white race to survive, it has to reverse the emancipation of women, for we cannot have families if women are equal, and whites cannot reproduce successfully without male headed families, and that for the white race to survive, we must end universal suffrage, for universal suffrage gives politicians an overwhelming incentive to buy the cheapest possible votes, and the cheapest possible vote bank is to import an unproductive foreign alien underclass to live on crime and welfare to outvote and ethnically cleanse the natives.

And when any identitarian hears me say “for the white race to survive”, he knows that I also am an identitarian.

Chinese growth prospects

October 22nd, 2014

A politically correct Harvard paper “Asiaphoria Meet Regression to the Mean” by the politically correct authors Lant Pritchett and Larry Summers tells us, or seemingly tells us, that China’s rapid growth is unlikely to last. They examine fifty or so periods of rapid growth, and, almost always, sad to say, there is regression to the mean. In the long run, the periods of rapid growth make little difference.

These are, unlike your usual Harvard intellectual, genuinely smart people, and, for smart Harvard people, surprisingly truthful. And, if you take a powerful microscope, read between the lines, read what is unwritten, you will read the truth. If you listen to what they are not saying, you will hear the truth.

There are a near infinite variety of ways to have bad or negative economic growth. There is one way to have good economic growth, and if your country is Cathedral Compliant, it is not allowed to do things that one way.

Instead of just noticing that periods of rapid economic growth tend to come to a sad end, Lant and Larry took a look at these sad ends.

nearly every country that experienced a large democratic transition after a period of above-average growth (more than the cross-country average of 2 per cent) experienced a sharp deceleration in growth in the 10 years following the democratizing transition.

In other words, the reason that periods of rapid economic growth come to a sad end is that the Cathedral comes after you. It is not regression to the mean, but Cathedral reconquest.

Lant and Larry notice that China is anomalous, different from all their other examples, in that unlike all their other examples, with the partial exception of Singapore, large and long economic growth has not resulted in “Democracy” – their prediction that China will not continue to grow is not a prediction that some mystery factor like “exhaustion of the low hanging fruit” will end China’s growth. It is in fact a highly pious prediction that the Cathedral will soon enjoy its inevitable victory, due, no doubt, to the forces of history.

When making highly pious predictions, Lant and Larry are less reliable than usual.

The really smart people

October 16th, 2014

That nurses became sick “shows there was a clear breach of safety protocol” – but they are able to draw this conclusion without knowing what the breach was.

Ebola demon

The underlying reasoning is clear:

Quarantine is racist.

Therefore ebola is not very infectious.

Therefore business as usual.

Oops. Two nurses are infected with ebola.

Obviously the nurses’ fault. They must be racist. This is a tragedy because it makes people think forbidden thoughts about Africans.

China’s real GDP passes US

October 13th, 2014

For many years, US statistics have been obviously fake, understating inflation by about two and a half percent a year, thus overstating real GDP growth by about three percent a year, and understating the fall in living standards by about three percent a year.

Thus, according to official statistics, US real GDP is still higher than that of China.

Yet, by every measure of actual stuff and technological capability, Chinese production is substantially greater than US production, though Chinese GDP per head is still below the US. China produces more cars, more concrete, more electricity, Chinese buy more cars, more concrete, more electricity, China exports more stuff, China imports more stuff. China produces and consumes more beer, more pork, and far, far, far more steel.

And it is not just tee shirts. China exports twice as much high tech stuff as the US does. China produces and consumes more high tech stuff than the US does. We sell them low tech stuff like wheat, we import high tech stuff like phones. China has the fastest trains in the world, and very large numbers of ordinary people using those very fast trains. China has the coolest airports, and these airports have far more people using them than the US.

OK, what about GDP per capita?

Officially, US GDP per capita is growing. In actual fact, it is obviously falling. Last time I walked around familiar places in America everything was shabbier, older, dirtier, more in need of a coat of paint. US GDP is falling at about two percent a year (used to be falling at about one percent a year, but the decline is visibly accelerating).

US population growth is about 0.6% per year (white population collapsing rapidly due to inability to reproduce without an enforceable system of marriage) so real GDP per capita is falling at about two and half percent per year. This represents a rapid acceleration in the rate of decline.

Chinese real GDP per capita is rising at about seven and a half percent a year. Assuming current trends continue, rather than continuing to accelerate, Chinese real GDP per capita will exceed US real GDP per capita in sixteen years, in 2030.