Perceived taxes more left-wing than actual

OLD but gold

Welfare is too low, right socialists?
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/09/public-attitudes-tax-distribution/


interesting they misreport data before your eyes
“Here, the pie chart changes once again, with increased amounts going on health and education and reduced amounts going on the EU budget and government administration, relative to perceptions.”
by comparing ideal to perceived, not actual


Do they really want increases in health and education, if your control is their own delusions?

Compared to ACTUAL spending:

Health -2%
Welfare -15%
Education -1%
State pensions -1%
Debt interest -3%
Defence +3%
Criminal justice +2%
Transport +3%
Business +1%
Housing +3%
Gov Admin +1%
Environment +3%
Culture +2%
Foreign aid +1%
EU protection racket +2%

“I don’t think they found out the actual figures in between the two questions.”
Blind leading the blind.

Note: donut charts are used to lie about taxes and make them seem less.

If they were actually honest…

End the welfare cliff!

Socialist shortages in the NHS

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/last-year-worst-ever-nhs-medicines-shortages-expert/

Who could’ve predicted that socialism might fail?

I notice they haven’t studied whether the race you are impacts how much treatment you get. I’ve noticed white people being denied various things (by non-white doctors, usually) but rolling out the red carpet for anyone swarthier than tan (especially if they’re from the same country, then they throw everything in the book at them).

The NHS will be killed by the nepotism of giving out expensive treatments to people who don’t need it like candies.

R-types literally believe in endless resources, availability never ends.

Places like India have Third World health because of doctor nepotism.

We live in a society (yes, going there) where we fund all the whore pills, abortions and STD antibiotics a little degenerate’s heart desires but god help you if you’ve got a non-sexual infection or cancer, then you’re suddenly low priority. Why fund a child’s cancer treatment, we need to give the local club manwhore a fuckton of free “sexual health” services because he refuses to wear a condom! Let the WW2 veteran die in a corridor on a waiting list because some irresponsible slattern wants her third abortion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11844314/Thousands-of-cancer-patients-to-be-denied-treatment.html

Seriously. Why are sexual health concerns given unwarranted priority?

The NHS should care about patients over PR.

https://www.nursingtimes.net/clinical-archive/womens-health/how-common-are-repeat-abortions/5045092.article

How is that ethical?

PC medicine is bad medicine. People must be held responsible for deliberately making their health poor again and again and again and again, at least to prioritize people who didn’t choose their situation.

For example, a diet of curries will cause a lot of health problems. Why isn’t this medical fact common knowledge? It isn’t PC to ‘shame’ people for…. provoking known disease in their bodies. That’s also a factor in earlier male deaths in India, by the way. Mainly as a leading cause of male obesity, look around. Does lying help them live longer? No but it allows the system the excuse to expand and become more toxic on the host society.

https://www.indiatimes.com/health/healthyliving/gastronomical-problems-spicy-food-and-the-explosive-effect-238724.html

Stop swallowing propaganda.

The NHS isn’t free, it’s taxpayer funded and doesn’t even provide full coverage (to foreigners reading, they frequently deny service, which as you can guess is often politically motivated).

If anyone else charged for a service then failed to fully provide it, they’d be arrested. Not Our NHS!

If you speak of their “professionals”, that decapitate babies, in anything less than saintly tones, you’re an evil bigot.

BUT – there’s nothing to complain about, is there, here take these happy pills! You don’t need them though!

Our death pathways are the envy of the world – if by world you mean Hitler’s Germany.

Health “care” is newspeak. 

We even have Death Panels deciding who deserves to live and die! So proud.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080817/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe

The best system in Europe by outcomes is the Netherlands so don’t swallow the propaganda because they have a free system of choice but have to buy personal insurance (which makes more sense than paying for some stranger’s ambiguous coverage and having uncertain coverage for your own situation and further, funding “treatments” you find pure evil).

Picture the medicine shortage as the economy goes sideways with correction.

What cannot last, won’t.

White people more ill

Guess we deserve all the positive discrimination, according to the last post‘s link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4619848/
The science is settled. We’re genetically oppressed, hire us, BBC.
Celtic blood is especially prone.
RH-Neg blood is also connected to Ancient Hebrews, choose your opinion wisely.
It could even be a fine test for Jewish pretenders. If you’re one of the original tribe, you won’t mind a glance at your sheet?
Recessive genetics (islands and nomads) are more fragile and deserve special legal status because we don’t want to be anti-science, do we?

According to this proof, the Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Indians merit less positive discrimination than the British, Basque, other European and American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh_blood_group_system#Population_data
I guess Mother Nature isn’t a white supremacist. Tell me, where’s the data for immigrant RHF? Does Magic Dirt transform them? Who is needy?

“Rhesus-positive and Rhesus-negative persons differ in the presence-absence of highly immunogenic RhD protein on the erythrocyte membrane. The biological function of the RhD molecule is unknown. Its structure suggests that the molecular complex with RhD protein transports NH3 or CO2 molecules across the erythrocyte cell membrane. Some data indicate that RhD positive and RhD negative subjects differ in their tolerance to certain biological factors, including, Toxoplasma infection, aging and fatique. Present cross sectional study performed on 3,130 subjects) showed that Rhesus negative subjects differed in many indices of their health status, including incidences of many disorders.

Which direction?

Rhesus negative subjects reported to have more frequent allergic, digestive, heart, hematological, immunity, mental health, and neurological problems. On the population level, a Rhesus-negativity-associated burden could be compensated for, for example, by the heterozygote advantage, but for Rhesus negative subjects this burden represents a serious problem.”

Since wikipedia tends to delete certain data once I link, here’s a spare.

Read it and weep.

Time preference + health

I did a little extra. I’m spoiling you.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp3674.pdf
It’s biological.

“Psychological and Biological Foundations of Time Preference: Evidence from a Day Reconstruction Study with Biological Tracking”
“The paper finds that financial discounting is related to a range of psychological variables including consideration of future consequences, self-control, conscientiousness, extraversion, and experiential avoidance as well as being predicted by heart rate variability and blood pressure”
There’s a connection. Thought suppression is a variable.
“The correlations reveal that lower discounting in the financial discounting task is associated with high scores on conscientiousness, self-control, consideration of future consequences, cognitive/affective mindfulness, and low scores on experiential avoidance and extraversion.”
Prosocial traits.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w0539
Connected to health status.
“This paper reports the results of an exploratory survey designed to measure differences in time preference across individuals and to test for relationships between time preference and schooling, health behaviors, and health status. …The implicit interest rate revealed in their replies is weakly correlated with years of schooling (negative), cigarette smoking (positive), and health status(negative). Family background, especially religion, appears to be an important determinant of time preference.”
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c6546.pdf

Religion connected to time preference! Gasp!

Please do an atheism study, oh my.

http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=econ
The heavily hedonic aren’t actually happier than you either.
“Our result indicates that, compared to neutral affect, mild positive affect significantly reduces time preference over money. This result is robust to various specification checks, and alternative interpretations of the result are considered. Our result has implications for the effect of happiness on time preference and the role of emotions in economic decision making, in general.”

They’re getting their cake now so don’t give them yours later.

Suggesting the natural state is low TP, more prosocial. You’d expect this since we are here and our ancestors didn’t die in an orgy of chaos.

https://ericsjackson.blogspot.com/2012/05/time-preference-and-civilization.html

“In general civilization tends to be characterized by low time preference. Indeed, the ability to even consider future well-being may mark the transition to civilization”

This following has nothing to do with the post.

https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/WWC/Individualism+vs.+Collectivism+~+Identity+Politics+in+the+LGBT+Movement
“Thus, there is ultimately a need for both collectivism and individualism within the LGBT movement”
You wouldn’t believe that line was true unless I linked to it.

Health risks in mixed race children

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Hybrid vigour, right?

Results. Mixed-race adolescents showed higher risk when compared with single-race adolescents on general health questions, school experience, smoking and drinking, and other risk variables.

Conclusions. Adolescents who self-identify as more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks. The findings are compatible with interpreting the elevated risk of mixed race as associated with stress.

Might’ve already posted it but who cares?

It’s still real.

Still trying to pin it on nurture, I see.

Immune response reduces female attractiveness

More evidence for the attractiveness = health brigade.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/4/20130255

“Instead, plasma cortisol level was negatively associated with attractiveness, indicating that stressed women look less attractive. Fat percentage was curvilinearly associated with facial attractiveness, indicating that being too thin or too fat reduces attractiveness. Our study suggests that in contrast to men, facial attractiveness in women does not indicate immune responsiveness against hepatitis B, but is associated with two other aspects of long-term health and fertility: circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and percentage body fat.”

That’s great except-
cortisol is part of the immune response process.
Directly.
So…. yeah.
https://www.verywellmind.com/cortisol-and-stress-how-to-stay-healthy-3145080

Biologists know this.

I’m at the stage where I can spot Royal Society errors in under five seconds.

Sort your variables out. Acute cortisol release is anti-inflammatory.

Fat also lets your body free up energy quickly to fight illness. You need “some” depending on your body (race, sex, energy needs, diet).

Some (correct) biologists want it relabeled as an organ.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/923153.stm

“Researchers have found that fat plays an important role in protecting bones and organs, regulating hormones and the immune system and managing women’s reproductive systems.”

Women just need more fat (as a %) for pregnancy (it’s most of a year, come on).

Try studying men, I doubt it doesn’t manage theirs too.

Like the free metabolic energy is scared of testicles or something.

Study the signals, quit with the noise.

To prove my grief, read this sack of shit Intro.

Can you tell me what’s wrong with it?

“The growing field of evolutionary psychology reports a large body of evidence to suggest that standards of beauty are not arbitrary cultural conventions, pointing to, for example, cross cultural agreement in preferences for cues to health and fertility [1]. Furthermore, a number of studies suggest that facial preferences emerge early in childhood, before any cultural standards of beauty are likely to be assimilated, suggesting we have a strong inborn universal standard of facial beauty [2]. Evolutionary psychologists interpret preferences as strategies evolved owing to the selective benefits accrued to those who chose their mates based on these criteria (reviewed in Rhodes [3]). To argue that such preferences are adaptive, however, it is necessary to show that preferred traits serve as cues to fecundity, health or other traits that enhance fitness, and contribute to higher reproductive success.

Nature or nurture, fucking PICK ONE.

Studies linking facial attractiveness and health records in men, however, have found only weak or no association between facial attractiveness and health (reviewed in Rhodes [3]).

method?

Recently, Rantala et al. [4] found that men’s ability to produce antibodies in response to the hepatitis B vaccine correlated positively with facial attractiveness, suggesting that men’s facial attractiveness indicates immunity in humans.

Vaccines. Evolution. Don’t use those two ideas in the same sentence.

I can and shall laugh at you derisively.

Thus, by choosing men with attractive faces as partners, women may get direct benefits by avoiding contagion and indirect benefit by increasing health and immunity of their offspring.

???

Because, in humans, both sexes are choosy,

rlly

one could predict that female facial attractiveness may also be associated with immune defence and sex hormone levels.

Y

However, to our knowledge, studies testing association between female facial attractiveness, immune defence and stress hormone levels are lacking. Studies linking facial attractiveness with indices of health have led to mixed results:

Where’s “health” on a blood test?

while certain studies

cherrypicker

have found some evidence

no
measurement error

that facially attractive women are healthier [5–7], other studies have found no association [8–10].

method?

Rantala et al. [11] found that the link between facial attractiveness and immune response in men was mediated by their facial adiposity, not their masculinity (facial masculinity was however associated with immune response, independently of facial adiposity). Thus, we could expect that adiposity in women is associated with the strength of immunity and attractiveness. The aim of this study was to test whether facial attractiveness in women is associated with the strength of their immune response, circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and adiposity.”

Proof you don’t publish Asians and assume they’re all smart.

This is in the Royal Society.

Guess the race of the diversity hire running this English historical society now?

Estrogen is inflammatory. Testosterone is anti.
(So guys bitching about women with endometriosis are idiots, they have more).

HOWEVER

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991007083730.htm

“Braude’s new idea is that testosterone signals infection-fighting white blood cells to go out of the blood stream and into the skin. He says it’s also possible that testosterone merely triggers the stress response, and other steroids from the adrenal gland then execute the redistribution.”

a woman with elevated testosterone won’t be more attractive

women are not men!

Rich v. Poor America

The inequality thing isn’t wrong.

The causes attributed are.

Class is a major HBD factor.

TALK ABOUT IT.

For example, show me a rich Silicon Valley douchebag who didn’t have a rich parent. Who didn’t go to a good school and various special camps. Is it really merit and American spirit if they moved up just one class from the middle? Based on investments and decisions their parents made?