Fission byproducts

Without immigration, America likely will stagnate in the latter half of this century. Its simply the reality.

This argument resurfaces on here every 6 months, and it’s always 90% male doctors hand-wringing about the term “provider.” Seems male doctors are much more concerned about loss of status and how that might impact “the patient-doctor relationship.” Someone should study this.

You seem like a good faith debater, so let me ask a simple question. Do you think an increasingly Asian elite will have no cultural effects? Or do you think there will be cultural effects, they’ll just be mostly good? Many Americans assume either that Asians assimilate well so we don’t need to worry about anything changing, or that Asians are great and we could frankly benefit from becoming a little more like them. I think both of those positions are honorable but reflect a lack of knowledge of the facts. What I don’t like is people who just say how dare you question this really consequential and rapid demographic change. This is a democracy, we get to talk about this stuff. My position, since you asked me to be clear about it, is that if America’s elite becomes over 40% Asian (as Harvard’s freshman class is), we will come to resemble China and India in various ways. I like both countries but I wouldn’t want to live there or raise my children there. Some of those changes will be bad. If you want to know specifically which changes, I’ve talked about some of them previously—grind culture, cheating. There are others but I don’t want to belabor the point.

Starting tonight, America is experiencing the LOWEST drug prices FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER. MUST WATCH: President Trump breaks down the MASSIVE savings on common prescriptions. Americans are finally winning big ⬇️⬇️

If the medical profession chooses to believe that it is ethical to deny children medical care because their parents may decline one or more recommended vaccines, then we are truly lost.

Many "libertarians" are simply cultural leftists with a penchant for anti-authority. This leads them to oppose being told what to do by regulators, teachers, and doctors, yet still hen peck each other into egalitarian compliance. In other words, they are, as Ayn Rand observed, "hippies of the right." Ask what it means to be free, to be for liberty. They clamor, it means "to not be told what to do", to "not be forced." That's not "to be" anything. That's a negative. They have no idea what they're for. Most of them just absorbed moral preferences from wherever they came from. Many are nihilists who just use politics to cope with lack of meaning. To completely reject authority itself is to even reject one's own authority to judge for one's own life what is good and bad. This devolves into "all is good!" All except for that which says "something is better than something else", and THAT is bad! Take the logic deep enough into anti-authority and "non-aggression", and the agency of the individual completely disappears. Any one man could impact another for any action, "aggress" against him with his words, his choices, his bigotry, and he therefore must feel shame for his individualism. Ergo, all must be permitted. Any individual resistance to this chaos cannot exist, because otherwise "liberty" is limited even by the "authority" of even the sentiment of guilt from a single man's utterance of "no." Liberty in this sense is framed as escaping external inability, not as a goal of physical self-reliance and spiritual independence, of master morality, and thus conflict is inevitable when disagreement arises among the uniform flock of non-aggressors. The free man is a violent man.