The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Identifying the Enemy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A recent in-depth YouGov poll contains a fascinating series of questions about perceived differences in which major political party cares more about members of various demographic groups than the other does. In most cases, self-identified Democrats say Democrats care more about the group in question and self-identified Republicans say Republicans care more about the group in question.

Groups for which members of each party say their own party cares more about (in no particular order of importance, merely the order that the survey displayed the results):

– People like me
– American workers
– All people
– Regular Americans
– Families
– Legal immigrants
– The middle class
– Poor people
– Black people
– Hispanics
– Women
– Jews

Since partisans like to think of themselves as the good guys, this trend is unsurprising. That a certain group votes overwhelmingly for one party doesn’t keep members of the other party from thinking their party treats said group better–by more than a 2-to-1 margin, for example, Republicans say the GOP cares more about blacks than Democrats do.

The exceptions–where Democrats say Republicans care more about the group in question than they do, or vice versa–are thus telling when it comes to who it is considered cringeworthy to purport to care about.

Groups Republicans don’t care about:

– Illegal immigrants

Groups Democrats don’t care about:

– Wealthy people
– White people
– Men
– Christians
– Corporations

Normies know it’s uncouth to care about the rich and the corporations they run, but how many realize Democrats essentially pride themselves on not caring about whites, men, and Christians? The white Christian male trifecta is as deplorable as it gets.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Politics, Polling 
Hide 341 CommentsLeave a Comment
341 Comments to "Identifying the Enemy"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Well, you may have figured that I was going to come on here, A.E., as a naysayer or devil’s advocate regarding your gleanings, if I may, of your social studies and politics polls yet again. Hey, it’s what I do, right?

    On these results, I would like to put forth an interpretation that is not really at odds, but just doesn’t make the Blue Squad voters out to be quite as hateful (not speaking for the evil ones behind the scenes here). There may be many who don’t have anything against white, Christian men (just to bring up your trifecta), but think the other Democrat Party special ones, or even just policies, are more important.

    For example there are quite a few old-time D’s around (like commenter Paleo Liberal – he’s at least under iSteve posts) who are in a 4 or 5-decade old mindset that the D’s are the party of the Working Man. (Yeah, right!). Oh, and we still have to finish solving The Racism. Then, there are probably millions of non-white, male or female, and even Christians that have nothing against whites, Christians, and/or males in any of all 7 combinations. They may even subconsciously understand that without white, usually Christian, men running things, this country is bound to slide into being a 3rd-world hole. Still, though, gimme my free stuff, and what about that poor dead kid in the cage at the border, and whatever else the TV infotainment tells them are the current problems. (It always seem to come down to TV, that stupidity does…)

    So, they don’t all pride themselves in NOT being the party of those 5 groups, A.E., but they think what the TV tells them is important is obviously more important than the well-being of white Christian men. Then, true, there are the truly vindictive and hateful ones that we read the tweets and NY Times articles from.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  2. My list of people I don’t give a tin shit about:

    Democrats
    Republicans
    Politicians
    Bureaucrats
    Poverty Pimps
    TV Talking Heads

    There are other groups that I fail to give a shit about, but they are minor irritants compared to those on the list above.

    • Replies: @Truth
  3. Pray tell why I should care for people rich enough to care for themselves?

  4. iffen says:

    No poll results on who cares the most for unwed mothers or raging sluts?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  5. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    No poll results on who cares the most for unwed mothers or raging sluts?

    Speaking of raging sluts, I found this article the other day. Apparently, even young evangelical women are embracing slutdom. It seems serious Christian men are hard to come by, and (as usual), they are taking advantage. They complain of church girls being too “intense,” while they prefer to keep it casual. Fornication is discreetly condoned as girls see it as increasingly necessary even to get a foot in the door.

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/70-per-cent-of-single-women-want-Christian-men-to-man-up-and-ask-them-out

  6. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    I don’t know what all the answers are, Rosie. This hyper-competitive tsunami that we’ve created, and which we deemed ideal because of the benefits that it bestowed, seems to be folding back on itself. Regardless, I continue to believe that if we had economic changes that facilitated family formation for the working class we could solve the bulk of the problem.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  7. @Rosie

    Women’s morals deteriorating as they increasingly sleep around only with desirable men, men at fault. Another shocking insight, was there anything a woman ever did wrong that you couldn’t blame men for Rosie?

    Taking a woman’s anecdote on why her relationships aren’t working out is risible, the person who knows least about why a chronic slut can’t “find a good man” is she herself. Trying to untangle the truth from the web of rationalisations, projection, and denial is an impossible task.

    Maybe why male members of the congregation find the women “intense” is because they tend to be ultra-feminist scolds with loose morals who blame their rebellion on men not “manning up”. You’re a prime example, there’s a lot of Christian preening but I think we know your opinion on being subject to your husband. Is such an intensely prideful woman a meek, loving, and obedient helpmeet to her husband? Doubtful, and from such a morally weak position the henpecking is toothless.

    There’s plenty wrong with the Catechesis of both men and women, but that anti-Christian feminism has so deeply infiltrated the Church that every solution posed by a “Christian” figure ends with the same solution as a NY Times article (i.e. shitting on [white] men) is a clue as to why Christian relationships are in a worse state than before.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Rosie
  8. As a wealthy, White, male, Christian owner of a corporation, I am beginning to have misgivings about the Democratic Party….

  9. Whitney says:

    “but how many realize Democrats essentially pride themselves on not caring about whites, men, and Christians?”

    My question is how many people don’t realize this?

    I read a comment from somebody who went on a date and he was trying to say the most innocuous thing possible and his date immediately said “oh no, are you alt-right?”. And he realized he was so far down that path but he couldn’t even pretend to be a normie anymore. I feel that way. It’s getting to the point where everything I say is skirting the danger zone

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @Mr. Rational
    , @anon
  10. L Woods says:
    @Whitney

    Basically you just have to never stray close to saying anything intelligent (a good rule of thumb with women anyway). Alcohol helps (at least until it swings the other way and demolishes your inhibitions). That’s the real reason I drink before dates — not because I’m apprehensive (I’m not), but to lower the inhibitive self respect that precludes me from playing the shallow, artificial caricature that “fits in” with the normies and pleases women.

    And yes, I’ve had dates storm out and suffered general social ostracism merely for displaying indifference to the leftist Outrage of the Week.

    • Replies: @Whitney
  11. Whitney says:
    @L Woods

    I am a woman 😁

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @TomSchmidt
  12. Rosie says:
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Another shocking insight, was there anything a woman ever did wrong that you couldn’t blame men for Rosie?

    Taking a woman’s anecdote on why her relationships aren’t working out is risible, the person who knows least about why a chronic slut can’t “find a good man” is she herself. Trying to untangle the truth from the web of rationalisations, projection, and denial is an impossible task.

    The problem for you is that it’s not mere anecdote. A female-biased sex ratio correlates with more permissive sexual mores, as women lack bargaining power to impose committed monogamy in accordance with their mating preferences.

    You men have been blaming us for your moral deficiencies for millennia. We’re done with that.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4448795/

    Is such an intensely prideful woman a meek, loving, and obedient helpmeet to her husband? Doubtful, and from such a morally weak position the henpecking is toothless.

    Any woman who stands up for herself and other women is immoral and therefore should be ignored. How convenient!

    The simple fact of the matter is that “purity culture” is a failure. You all can keep shaking your fist about it till the heat death of the universe if you like, but the fact remains nonetheless.

  13. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    I don’t know what all the answers are, Rosie.

    It’s really not that complicated. Men need to recognize that women are human. Yes, it really is that simple. Some of the men around here will tell you on one hand that they recognize that women are human beings, but then they’ll turn right around and tell you that the two most important things about a woman are, in no particular order:

    1. Her physical appearance,
    2. Her virginity or lack thereof.

    Thus they reveal the truth of the matter: they regard women as merchandise.

  14. @Rosie

    the two most important things about a woman are, in no particular order:

    1. Her physical appearance,
    2. Her virginity or lack thereof.

    Thus they reveal the truth of the matter: they regard women as merchandise.

    Rosie thinks that genes (appearance) and character/judgement (virginity) should not be a factor in men’s appraisal of women as mates.  Never mind that children inherit more than half their DNA from the woman.  Never mind that the risk of divorce is smallest when marrying a virgin.  Nope, Rosie says “man up and marry that ugly slut!”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @L Woods
  15. Rosie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Nope, Rosie says “man up and marry that ugly slut!”

    Or don’t.

    It’s not my problem either way.

  16. @Achmed E. Newman

    Subtlety can certainly get lost when polling is being conducted, but these questions had nothing to do with ranking which groups each party cares most about–each group was considered separately. Who cares more about X, Republicans or Democrats? To most partisans, their party should ideally care about everyone more than they other party does.

    Instead, Democrats are essentially admitting that Republicans care more about most voters than Democrats do!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  17. L Woods says:
    @Whitney

    Then count yourself (relatively) fortunate — not too many (straight) dudes are going to throw a tantrum/call the mob on you on account of your unfashionable political leanings.

    • Replies: @Whitney
  18. @Whitney

    Methinks he knoweth, and careth not.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  19. L Woods says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Nope, Rosie says “man up and marry that ugly slut!”

    Color me cynical, but I suspect she may not be entirely disinterested in this regard.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  20. L Woods says:
    @TomSchmidt

    Nah. I always assume commenters on a site like this are male.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  21. @Rosie

    Any woman who stands up for herself and other women is immoral and therefore should be ignored.

    I’ve known only a few men who want a doormat. A woman who stands up for herself and her long-term interests is a good bet, so long as she considers long-term interests. Introverted, frugal women are probably best in this regard.

    But a woman who stands up for “other women” over the interests of her husband and children? How well do you see that working out, at least for the husband and children?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  22. @L Woods

    Would you have written differently if you knew Whitney whas a whoman?

    • Replies: @L Woods
  23. “As a wealthy, White, male, Christian owner of a corporation, I am beginning to have misgivings about the Democratic Party….”

    Laugh . . . and laughing.

    Sometimes I would that I was a democrat so I could abandon any sense of moral accountability.

    ———————————–

    US citizens should care about US citizens and as members of the planet then about other members of the human family.

  24. L Woods says:
    @L Woods

    You know, “Rosie” sounds awfully similar to “Roissy.” I’m going to take this opportunity to once again push my conspiracy theory that “she” is actually a masterful male troll.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  25. “The simple fact of the matter is that “purity culture” is a failure.”

    I get your frustration here Rosie. But I am not about to drop a standard merely to satiate some idea of culture you think has failed.

    a. purity is not a culture it is an existence, a way of being, it is to be sought regardless of the hurdles. Purity is — it is an intrinsic value. One to be sought and as a matter of foundation to other values: honesty, integrity . . . it care not where culture goes, does or does not do it has no such structure. The culture as it is – can embrace relations in the street and purity would remain.

    b. your position is one that undervalues a woman’s existence and her ability to stand as an individual — the fact that some evangelical parents have failed or are failing to instill the value that scripture makes abundantly clear is the very essence of Christ and God himself is disappointing, but hardly a condition to embrace.

    c. on a personal note: i once had a woman friend who said to me she appreciated that I cared not about a woman’s looks. It was not true but it was a deep compliment about how i saw women — since the 2000’s that has changed, women on their own accord lack integrity, sincerity, and sense of the need for fair play and will readily take advantage, if they can get away with it. I have become aware that my housemate will succumb to some pressures in this regard. She expressed some feelings of strangeness about how she is perceived regarding my celibacy — it was a sentiment that sent the back of my hairs on edge as we are not a “couple” and she is free to date whomever she so will. But that self control has become so low a commodity that anyone feels strange about it — that’s a sentiment based on what the “culture” thinks. In more ways than one, that makes her a danger to me.

    d. I have no intention of shifting any more than my conscience can bare and neither should anyone male or female and we should reject in full the pressure by those who think that the error in this regard requires full on surrender —

    I am surprised that you play down as opposed to up

    No.

    And I suspect that many of the men are playing to a double standard bid — but that is hardly an excuse for you to support something less merely because so many are

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @peterAUS
  26. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    This is nuts. This should be priority way beyond politics since this is in your community’s hands and not anyone else’s.

    I just came back from helping out at a mosque cleanup (still under construction) with a bunch of the brothers. In our community, most of the guys are married by 28, many of even the 25 year olds have had their first kid (mashaAllah). If a guy gets to 30 and isn’t married, it becomes the community’s problem and all hands are on deck to get the guy hitched.

    I’m serious; you have to turn that franchise around. If you think it’s bad now, wait until the next generation!

    Peace.

    *On a side note, my daughter just received her first suitor (23 year old young man from a good family), his father reached out to me. She turned it down gracefully – proud of her for the maturity she exhibited – says she’s not ready yet and doesn’t want to move to Virginia.

  27. Note: My comments about my housemate should not be construed that she is anyway to my knowledge engaged in undermining my position on celibacy, however, that i have to consider how it makes her feel in relation to the society at large is of concern.

  28. Somebody asked Ralph Nader if he was ever concerned about the rich. No he said. The rich are doing fine.

    We have never had a Labor Party. But the Democrats had a working relationship with Labor from FDR to Bill Clinton. It was the New Democrats that kicked Labor to the curb in favor of corporate bucks.

    Today’s Democrats actually hate the (white) working class although they love love love the Spanish speaking proles. They know nothing of Capital and Labor. They likewise know nothing of economics. For them there is only the government and the white oppressor. Peculiar since many of them are white oppressors.

  29. Rosie says:
    @TomSchmidt

    But a woman who stands up for “other women” over the interests of her husband and children? How well do you see that working out, at least for the husband and children?

    Well, the thing is that half of our children are girls. We have to think about their future.

    I also worry about my boys’ ability to find a wife who wants to stay at home and feels supported by the larger society in doing so. They have all loved being homeschooled, and are probably going to want to provide the same childhood for their own kids, if they are able.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  30. Rosie says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    And I suspect that many of the men are playing to a double standard bid — but that is hardly an excuse for you to support something less merely because so many are<

    The problem with the double standard is that it reeks of dishonesty. Men attempt to justify it on the grounds that partner count is correlated with divorce for women but not men. I fail to see the relevance of this. If men really believe that fornication is that damaging to women, then they should support criminalization. Say what you will about Islamic law, but…

    The woman and the man guilty of fornication/adultery,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

    — Qur’an, Sura 24 (An-Nur), ayat 2[11]

    at least it’s even-handed.

    Essentially, they claim that premarital sex is just as damaging to women as forcible rape. (You’re either ruined or not.) Yet, vehemently resist any penalty to men, who, after all, are usually the ones who are most insistent about it. Indeed, there is not one single other issue on which men agree that the more reluctant accomplice is the guiltier.

    Now, on surrender, I couldn’t agree more with your view that we shouldn’t reject chastity as an ideal. The problem is that uncompromising perfection is the enemy, not the ally, of the good. One of the things I learned about prostitution in Asia is that it can sometimes start with a housekeeping job.

    The “man of the house” demands sexual favors as a condition of continued employment. Feeling helpless, the woman acquiesces. Then, she comes to see herself as a “damaged goods. Then, she decides, “Well, I’m already a prostitute, so I might as well make better money at it so I can help out my relatives or sve for the future or whatever.” This also happens with weight. Thinness standards are so outrageous right now, that plenty of women just give up.

  31. @L Woods

    I was thinking “no way”, but then there’s Titania McGrath to consider….

    • Replies: @Rosie
  32. Rosie says:
    @L Woods

    Color me cynical, but I suspect she may not be entirely disinterested in this regard.

    No, indeed. I am pro-White. and as such, I would rather see more White children being born than not, especially since I already have numerous White children who are better off in a world with more Whites than less.

    You, on the other hand, have shown yourself to be an egoistic nihilist straight from the pits of Hell.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  33. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    at least it’s even-handed.

    Men getting their rocks off blaming women for the decline of a society is a big, fat, bright billboard stating more clearly than anything else; patriarchy is dead.

    No patriarchy worth it’s salt would blame women for its decline because that would implicitly state that women and men are equivalent in their responsibility of the guardianship of the public morals and direction of society. It’s about as inane as expecting women to pull “their fair share” in the defense of a society – only a metrosexual or pansy would posit any such thing.

    Any freedoms that men are blaming women for abusing are on men – YOU GAVE THEM THOSE FREEDOMS.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    , @Truth
  34. Rosie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    I was thinking “no way”, but then there’s Titania McGrath to consider….

    Mr. Rational, since you think physical appearance is such a reliable proxy for overall genetic fitness, where were you the other day when Mark G. was going on about how women shouldn’t be able to have babies with men they find sexually attractive?

    Lemme guess…

    It just so happens that physical appearance accurately reflects a woman’s fitness, but not a man’s.

    There is always a just-so story.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  35. indocon says:

    Since Trump came on stage in 2015 several themes of unz.com have at least started to see some mentions in print and broadcast media, just think of how a little coverage legal immigration and refugee’s got prior to that, Scott Walker was the first presidential candidate in my memory who even dared mentioned the question of legal immigration before being told to shut up by his funders.

    One topic that has stubbornly not gotten any mention is this concept of coalition of fringes, of how core the hatred of straight whites is to modern liberal and democratic tribes.

  36. @Rosie

    since you think physical appearance is such a reliable proxy for overall genetic fitness

    It’s a pretty accurate guide to both the quality and quantity of offspring she can have, yes.  That’s what sex is all about.  Or didn’t anyone tell you?

    where were you the other day when Mark G. was going on about how women shouldn’t be able to have babies with men they find sexually attractive?

    Let her have all the babies she wants, by the most attractive man she can get to commit to her.  None of this “alpha fux, beta bux” crap.  That leads to haremization and men tuning out of society, which is bad for society.  It gets you the Middle East.

    It just so happens that physical appearance accurately reflects a woman’s fitness, but not a man’s.

    Quite right.  A man’s appearance does not accurately reflect the magnitude and quality of the resources he can offer.  A homely nerd with $10 million from selling his startup company is going to look the same as he did when he was living in his mother’s basement building said company, but he’s a much better catch.

    There is always a just-so story.

    There’s always a woman whining about how she can’t have what she wants.

    • Agree: Mark G., Jay Fink
    • Replies: @Rosie
  37. L Woods says:
    @Talha

    Please try to explain to boomercons and other sundry Good People the concept of women not meriting equal freedoms to men.

    • Replies: @Talha
  38. L Woods says:
    @Rosie

    Of course I am. How else would I know women so well?

  39. @Audacious Epigone

    No, I DO get that there is no ranking, A.E. My point is just that there have got to be some D’s who say (just as one example): “It’s a shame that my party is worse than the R’s in terms of caring about the Christians, but it’s more important to me that we D’s care about the Indians and the poor immigrants, and the …”

    See what I mean? Yeah, the guy, OK, dumbass, may care quite a bit about the Christians, and know the D’s are out to shut their religion down as much as possible, but he may think, well, all the rest of the things that I care about are D-party things so that overrules.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  40. Talha says:
    @L Woods

    Please try to explain to boomercons and other sundry Good People the concept of women not meriting equal freedoms to men.

    That battle is over – you lost it. Lick your wounds, dust yourself off and win the next one; your own daughters.

    Your own daughters should be on board and confident with man like their father driving the car and being able to simply ride along. If your daughters do not see you as a reliable guardian for women and their rights because of how you interact with and treat women, well – you just lost that battle. At that point, simply get out of the way of the next generation of men that finally put humpty dumpty back together again.

    Look, I’m no father of the year (and some people around here think I’m an inbred, goat-loving retard), but ask yourself this (based on what I wrote about my daughter’s first suitor); Would I be able to have a serious conversation with my daughter where she trusts me and has confidence in me enough where I could introduce a young man as a prospective life partner for her and we could have a mature, reasonable conversation about the matter? If not – retrace your steps and ask how you might have messed up something that was literally under your own nose and how you can potentially patch it up.

    If you can’t convince your own daughter – game over – forget convincing others.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @SunBakedSuburb
  41. Rosie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Quite right. A man’s appearance does not accurately reflect the magnitude and quality of the resources he can offer.

    Oh but it does accurately reflect his potential for acquiring resources. Physical attractiveness is better correlated with intelligence for males than for females. Are you going to sit here and tell me that young women should judge young men purely based on their looks?

    I didn’t think so.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289610001315?via%3Dihub

    (BTW, you do want young women to marry young men, don’t you? Since premarital sex is bad, we don’t want men pumping and dumping through their twenties, right?)

    There’s always a woman whining about how she can’t have what she wants.

    I have everything I want, except a future for White children.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  42. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    Look, I’m no father of the year (and some people around here think I’m an inbred, goat-loving retard), but ask yourself this (based on what I wrote about my daughter’s first suitor); Would I be able to have a serious conversation with my daughter where she trusts me and has confidence in me enough where I could introduce a young man as a prospective life partner for her and we could have a mature, reasonable conversation about the matter?

    Talha, our own fathers told us point blank that men are untrustworthy dogs and we should prepare to take care of ourselves! Of course, we listened to them!

  43. Whitney says:
    @L Woods

    It’s perfectly reasonable to assume commenters around here are male. Also, it’s not men I’m worried about saying the wrong thing around. It’s other women

  44. peterAUS says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    …regarding my celibacy …

    I see you don’t mind talking about such things here.
    The world has changed, for sure……….

    I’ll try to explain:
    In “my time” a man wouldn’t talk about those things with anyone, let alone with strangers.
    A woman (attractive) was always a “target”, at least for friendly flirting. She expected that.
    Sidenote: attractive didn’t mean just good looking. In “my time” me and men I knew recognized that “magic” even a bad looking woman (by today’s standards) had. Something…making her incredibly attractive. Can’t define that, sorry.
    A woman was hard to get into bed. Those easy to get were avoided like plague.
    Yes I know, sounds prehistoric. At the same time…hehe….almost no divorces in the circle I’m coming from. For me, as we speak, more than 30 years of marriage and going well.
    The world of men/women/sexuality I see around is….alien …to me. Have a theory, of course, but “to each..”. Free will and such.

    But, just curious: could you clarify that “celibacy” of yours?
    You mean no sex whatsoever with women? If so….why?

    I am asking because I can see a similar attitude with some young men (and women…) I know.
    Totally alien to me …so….would appreciate some clarification there.

  45. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    our own fathers told us point blank that men are untrustworthy dogs and we should prepare to take care of ourselves!

    Then they gave you only partial advice and sent you into the world to fend for yourselves.

    The correct fatherly advice is: all men are untrustworthy dogs EXCEPT for any that I have personally vetted and have gained my trust, let me take care of making sure you don’t end up making a mistake.

    As I’ve mentioned, my wife is a convert so my father-in-law was not expecting anything of the sort (their advice to my wife when sending her off to college was basically “practice safe sex”), but when I came personally to ask his permission to court his daughter, he took to the role naturally once he was confident everyone was on board to let him do his job as a father.

    Part of a healthy patriarchy is men recognizing the rights of other men (like fathers) in an honor-bound agreement to negotiate access to the women under their care and guardianship. If a man is not willing to give another father that right, don’t expect to have any man honor your right as a father when it comes to your daughter. And if you are willing to be man number X in a steady line of men despoiling someone’s daughter, expect the same regard from men for your daughter – what goes around comes around.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  46. AmRusDebate says: • Website

    “Do not care” is a euphemism. They hate, and wish to annihilate Whites.

    Democrats are majority White – it follows that most Democrats who are White, hate themselves, hate Whites.

    Republicans care about Whites?

    Give me a break!

    Only one who publicly give a hoot about Whites is Tucker Carlson. Rep. King tried to care, backed down, “apologized”.

    Neither GOP nor DNC consider Whites an entity which exists. Recipe for disaster. Doom. Worst than planet of the apes.

    The gist: Whites hate themselves, and with all their vaunted IQ, are congenitally incapable of organizing a mainstream form of self-representation.

    Until this takes place, the rate at which White throats are being cut, will only increase.

    Most readers understand exactly what the I am talking about.

    I hope this comment doesn’t get too censored. I think Epigone has a knee-jerk “oh no, too raw” reaction, and a good old puritanical sense of censorship. This is precisely one of the reasons why Whites aren’t getting anywhere. Chaff chaff chaff, but don’t touch my comfort! That’s where they fold. Hope I’m wrong.

  47. @Rosie

    Physical attractiveness is better correlated with intelligence for males than for females. Are you going to sit here and tell me that young women should judge young men purely based on their looks?

    I just gave you a scenario (with a whole bunch of real-life examples) in which the exact opposite was true.  Yes, there are rules… and exceptions to every one of them.

    I didn’t think so.

    You didn’t read it.

    I have everything I want, except a future for White children.

    No, you also want respect for sexually wanton women.  This is going away and there’s nothing you can do about it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  48. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    You men have been blaming us for your moral deficiencies for millennia.

    Moral deficiencies! What do you mean by moral deficiencies. Oh, never mind …

    • Replies: @Rosie
  49. @Rosie

    Thank God we still have Dalrock around as a Christian antidote to your crap.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  50. iffen says:
    @Talha

    everyone was on board to let him do his job as a father

    What would your response have been if he had said, “There is no way in Hell my daughter is going to marry a goatherd.”

    • Replies: @Talha
  51. Talha says:
    @iffen

    “Thass rayciss’!!!”

    No, actually it would have been; “Thanks for your time, I’ll see myself out.”

    Remember, one of the advantages of getting these formal things out of the way ahead of time is that you avoid any potential emotional entanglements. At that point, she was an attractive and pious girl who I was interested in for marriage and who I had had a couple of conversations with about our individual outlooks on life and life goals. If her father would have blocked me, I would have simply moved on to someone else – I was in the market for marriage and there were plenty of good sisters in the community also looking.

    My guess is that he was happy as a father to meet someone that was giving him his due respect straight out of the gate.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Rosie
  52. Mark G. says:

    With the two party system, voting is a binary choice. A vote for a third party is usually a wasted vote. I think everyone identifies the enemy and votes based on that. You have racial, religious, gender etc. categories. You also have ideological categories and people rank ideological categories from most to least attractive. For example, I generally class people as libertarians, paleocons, neocons and liberals and rank them in that order of attractiveness. So if Ron Paul were running for president I would vote for him. If he wasn’t running, I would vote for some sort of Pat Buchanan paleocon. In the last election there was no libertarian who had a realistic chance. Trump was taking some Buchanan like positions and that made him stand out from the pack of neocons like Jeb Bush so then I voted for him in the primary. Then, since I like liberals the least, the choice between Trump and Hillary was a no brainer for me. I think everyone does something like this “which is better” analysis.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  53. @Rosie

    Back in the 1950s, parents would tell their daughters, “don’t worry about getting an education, you’ll get married and your husband will take care of you.” Now, even conservative parents warn their daughters, “men are no good nowadays, get an education, get a job, don’t depend on a man.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
  54. @Talha

    Brings to mind the old old joke about the rake who sends his daughter to a convent school because he wants to protect her from men like himself.

    At the end of the scale, Moslems typically regard woman as property and marriages to Western women usually fail, even if she converts. Moslem men in the West fornicate with kuffar whores before and while they are married to their obedient and faithful wives. In the old country, they screw boys and goats.

    On another note, Mayor Pete B was stationed in Afghanistan, land of the dancing boys known as Bacha Bazi, for seven months. I wonder what he thought of that.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Rosie
  55. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Remember, we are just inbred retards who marry our cousins who are also our pet goats, so this kind of behavior is expected from us. We can’t help it, we are mentally challenged – victims of circumstance…have pity upon us – what would Jesus do?

    Regarding bacha bazi – I think someone got infected and brought it back here:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  56. iffen says:
    @Talha

    My guess is that he was happy as a father to meet someone that was giving him his due respect straight out of the gate.

    Perhaps.

    I married “out” as well. I’m from the Deep South and she’s not.

    • Replies: @Talha
  57. anon[208] • Disclaimer says:
    @Whitney

    It’s getting to the point where everything I say is skirting the danger zone

    Yes – I find I can’t say one word about politics anymore around neighbors, co-workers, or my family back home. You are required to either shout your hatred of white/male/Trumpism or keep your mouth shut. Normal people (progressives) today have a cult mentaility. Disagreement is treated as blasphemy and cannot be tolerated.

  58. Talha says:
    @iffen

    To be honest, her family are liberals from Berkeley. They couldn’t care less whether I was White, Black, Pakistani or Chinese. Remember, their youngest also converted and married an Egyptian. Of course the oldest one who actually did marry a White guy ended up getting screwed over when he cheated on her and split within the first couple of years. Unfortunately, she’s basically almost 45 and pretty resigned to dying alone at this point…pretty sad, but all the kids love her as an aunt.

    After all that, I’d say they probably care even less that a couple of goatherds are trying to live up to their commitments to their other two daughters….but maybe I’m wrong and they have a dart board hidden somewhere with my face on it.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
    , @iffen
  59. Rosie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Yes, there are rules… and exceptions to every one of them.

    Of course! Now, we’re going to talk about exceptions! Men get to expect to be judged on their merits taken as a whole. Women… to the meat market with you!

    This is going away and there’s nothing you can do about it.

    Au contraire. What is going away is White men, but yes, there is something you can do about it! Stop deliberately insulting and alienating the only people who GAF about you. For a start, stop defending patently outrageous double standards that you know perfectly well are indefensible.

  60. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    Moral deficiencies! What do you mean by moral deficiencies. Oh, never mind …

    Only the moral deficiencies they claim themselves, to wit: their out-of-control sexual urges, as a result of which women (but never men) should be stigmatized for sexual misconduct.

    I wonder if these people think men should ever hire ex-convicts. Personally, I think once you’ve done your time, you should have the right to reintegrate into society without people throwing your past in your face all the time.

  61. Rosie says:
    @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Thank God we still have Dalrock around as a Christian antidote to your crap.

    Among civilized people, the norm is that, I we disagree with something someone says, we tell them so and state our reasons. There’s a good boy.

  62. Rosie says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Brings to mind the old old joke about the rake who sends his daughter to a convent school because he wants to protect her from men like himself.

    Precisely. This whole “men are innocent victims” crap is 100% fake and gay. Every one of these dudes sings a whole different tune when talking to his own sisters, daughters, nieces, etc.

    Now, the question is…what has gone wrong?

    I think the problem is secularism.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  63. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    If her father would have blocked me, I would have simply moved on to someone else – I was in the market for marriage and there were plenty of good sisters in the community also looking.

    That is very sensible, but you are a God-fearing man, Talha, and as such, I don’t think you really understand what is under discussion here.

    In case you hadn’t noticed, the manosphere has constructed a bizarre mythos under which male desire is always rational, prosocial, and salutary. Therefore, they are morally justified in doing whatever they damned well please. They are not on the least bit interested in submitting to any higher authority themselves, but only telling us that we must submit to them, because you see they don’t need any authority. Their instincts are infallible.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  64. @Achmed E. Newman

    I just read over my comment along the way and it could be interpreted wrong as a big insult. I meant it as if it should read “that guy dumbass may care …” I’m not calling you a dumbass by any means. I hope you took it the right way. I should have used the strike-through. I am a big strike-through guy.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  65. @Talha

    ” … you lost the battle.”

    Very wise words. I waited until thirty to have my daughter, and fortunately I was mature enough to follow a path similar to what you described.

  66. @Rosie

    Do you remember that line about the moccasins I wrote you about, Rosie?

    Women need to recognize that men are human. One of the women around here will tell you on one hand that they recognize that men are human beings, but then she’ll turn right around and tell that the two most important things about a man are, in no particular order:

    1. His height.
    2. His high-earning career or lack of any job.

    Thus she reveals the stupidity of the matter: She treats men as ATMs.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rosie
  67. Rosie says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Back in the 1950s, parents would tell their daughters, “don’t worry about getting an education, you’ll get married and your husband will take care of you.”

    The more enlightened ones said, “Get an education so you can find a good man and be a good wife and mother.”

    In the early twentieth century, there was no gender gap in college attendance rates. Women went to college at the same rates as men, and then they became homemakers and mothers. The familiar patterns in educational preferences, were evident even then, of course, with men more likely to study physics and women excelling in foreign languages.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/30033687?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  68. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    1. His height.
    2. His high-earning career or lack of any job.

    Thus she reveals the stupidity of the matter: She treats men as ATMs.

    And if a woman was having trouble finding a mate, I would certainly encourage her to seriously consider whether she was sabotaging herself with shallow and unnecessary requirements.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  69. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Therefore, they are morally justified in doing whatever they damned well please.

    When patriarchy fails or becomes dysfunctional, you’ll know it because there are no men playing the role of keeping the younger ones in line (this is by far the major cause of the deterioration in Black communities in the US). There is a reason why the term is playboy it connotes a level of immaturity.

    they don’t need any authority

    I can think of no better scene in a movie that describes the loss of patriarchy and how a resurgent patriarchy will eventually view the chaos it comes upon:

    “What’re you guys doing?”

    It is as you stated earlier, loss of a benevolent sense of patriarchy* is rooted in the loss of the importance of the institution of the family, which is simply downhill from loss of religion across society.

    Peace.

    *I was debating on another forum with a bunch of atheists – the secular humanist types – and a bigger bunch of limp-wristed, effeminate losers, I have rarely come across. Feeling entitled magically to protection of society by some idiotic, theoretical, lovey-dovey nonsense they have convinced themselves of. Any indication on my side of being comfortable with; a) masculinity or b) guardianship over women or c) the idea of violence in its proper place was met with “Soooo patriarchal!”

    Let a cowardly bunch like that take root in society and you can kiss any chance of reviving patriarchy goodbye. They are the epitome of this quote by the German war-hero of WW1 (Ernst Jünger):
    “Long periods of peace and quiet favor certain optical illusions. Among them is the assumption that the invulnerability of the home is founded upon the constitution and safeguarded by it. In reality, it rests upon the father of the family who, accompanied by his sons, appears with the ax on the threshold of his dwelling. This truth is not always apparent, however. Nor is it to be construed as an objection to the constitution. It is simply that the old saying still holds: the man must vouch for his oath; the oath cannot vouch for the man.”

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  70. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Thus she reveals the stupidity of the matter: She treats men as ATMs.

    BTW Mr. Newman, the other day Mark G. was bashing women for not caring enough about money. Where were you then with your claim that women are all prostitutes looking for an ATM?

    This is how it goes around here. It is taken as given that we should be put down and insulted; the only dispute is precisely what is wrong with us.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  71. “The problem with the double standard is that it reeks of dishonesty. Men attempt to justify it on the grounds that partner count is correlated with divorce for women but not men. I fail to see the relevance of this. If men really believe that fornication is that damaging to women, then they should support criminalization.”

    But none of that has bearing on your choices or any woman’s either. There have always been relations outside of marriage (excuse the generalization) but why that would cause you to defend it in either direction is curious. Laws that criminalize people’s adult consensual choices that do not have as pure money for service or conducted in most public spaces has been out of practice in most states, even if they have said laws.

    You can’t have this work both ways . . . .

    defend a woman’s wanton behavior and then blame men that she has so engaged. And at the same time want to criminalize the behavior as an answer to reign in men or for some kind of revenge. I think you have standing on this: that men who hire prostitutes should be held as accountable as women – that is a fair call. And i don’t think most men here would find that objectionable.

    But in this day and age an increasing number of men are going to expect more and more that women take responsibility for their relational choices.

    “Look what you did to me.”

    “What you made me do.”

    Simply has less force.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  72. @Rosie

    You just don’t get it. I wasn’t bashing women for caring about men’s money. That’s who they are. Men are who we are. You can’t beat Mother Nature. Better feminists than you have tried their best and screwed up society miserably while still failing in their goals.

    (I’d have probably agreed with Mark G., as I think I agreed with most of his comments.)

  73. @Rosie

    It’s in her nature, but, you’re right, you’ve got to lower your standards if you’re having no success.

  74. “I see you don’t mind talking about such things here.
    The world has changed, for sure……….

    I’ll try to explain:
    In “my time” a man wouldn’t talk about those things with anyone, let alone with strangers.
    A woman (attractive) was always a “target”, at least for friendly flirting. She expected that.. . .

    But, just curious: could you clarify that “celibacy” of yours?
    You mean no sex whatsoever with women? If so….why? . . .
    I am asking because I can see a similar attitude with some young men (and women…) I know. Totally alien to me …so….would appreciate some clarification there.”

    Laugh.

    I came out of the closet about thirty years ago in response to what I was hearing from students regarding what they were being told in their life sciences and social science and health classes regarding relational conduct.

    (at my age people consider my state an admission of leaning homosexual — uhhhh entirely false)

    You are correct, there was a time when one’s relational condition was a private matter. Liberals have decided the best way to deconstruct, amoralize, demoralize or in any other manner destroy our traditional values was to spill a host of information that could best be categorized as “pornographic” material and dress it up as education. The nonsensical argument is that humans had managed to forget the how to’s and what nots of such expression — that despite a global increase in population.

    It has been and remains push back as well as a reminder of my own accountability for the same.

    Laugh.

    That is the question. And since the issues regarding Pres. Clinton and Justice Thomas which broke the molds on what constitutes the meaning technically verses our colloquial understanding of relations there has been no definitive position. Because among celibates there is also some debate about what constitutes crossing the line to (and I have no idea how) actually engaging in full on relations — which for me is an absolute no, I don’t get into specifics in open forums such as this. It can be a land mine. No offense intended. Nor is there some nefarious intent to be disingenuous. In addition there are some nefarious people who have dangerous agendas. Suffice it to say in my view even oral gymnastics is out and I don’t mean kissing. I am careful here as conscience rules the day. I have a Catholic background for which I am grateful.

    I think there may be some misread about the younger generations approach to relations which seems to be veering away from the fields tilled by my generation and the two prior. As opposed to something negative, I think they have seen what has been wrought and are in a manner calling it into question. That their waiting, hesitation is not so much out of loss but rather reconsideration of the role that relational expression has. There is some suggestion that they also question the rationale of killing children in the womb as a result of relations and would prefer to avoid the entire mess.

    The common refrain among liberals and others is that celibacy doesn’t work — well yah and duh — if you don’t practice the lifestyle. And it is a lifestyle. In my view it does not mean a walk for lack of desire. Though there are many people for whom this is the case — fortunately for them — that drive is non-existent or diminished such that it simply is very little or of no issue. On my case,sadly I have plenty of desire.

    Laugh.

    And why I have to give credit to my Catholic background — but I would reject any notion that any desire at all is a violation of celibacy. There is nothing unhealthy about not having relations and the numerous analysis from the counseling community are a not only wrong, but nonsense. Relational expression is best and intended to bond men and women in marriage and beyond marriage have other ameliorating aspects. Note: I have certainly spent more than my fair share in tussling in cars seats. And have been know to have more than frothy conversations – enough said. And the issue of chasteness/purity are even tougher hurdles than refraining from relations. But it is a lie straight from the pit that celibacy is in any manner negative or unmanageable.

    And I appreciate your observance that you are experiencing such behavior among younger generations — it’s a healthy sign.

    I applaud your thirty years of marriage and would you have thirty years plus more.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @peterAUS
  75. @Rosie

    Normal sex ratio would indicate that 100/105% of our children are girls, you know, not quite half.

    Good for you on homeschooling.

  76. “I am asking because I can see a similar attitude with some young men (and women…) I know.”

    “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart far from it.”

    Proverbs 22:6

  77. Talha says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    On my case,sadly I have plenty of desire.

    If you are planning on living that way (I guess marriage is out for some odd reason?) – may I suggest a rigorous fasting routine. It helps diminish carnal desire and is used by plenty of young Muslim men (including myself when I was at that age) to make celibacy more manageable in that stage of life.

    Just a thought.

    Peace.

  78. Truth says:

    Hey guys, for all my conserva-commie buddies in the Unzista universe. This is the greatest 3:30 yet produced on the Camacho administration. Get ready to stand at attention and remove your hat!

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  79. Truth says:
    @Twodees Partain

    How about white people pretending to be Black?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  80. peterAUS says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Gracias.

    I was hoping, though, to see that issue related to young heterosexual men in (contemporary) West.
    Some other time, perhaps.

  81. Truth says:
    @Talha

    You are absolutely right. In EVERY society the women get theor behavioral cuws feom the men they grow up around.

  82. Truth says:

    Man, you people with this back and forth, “men vs women, who’s better” BS. You read more like silly teenagers in the cafeteria than mature adults.

    Why don’t you try actually communicating, instead of constantly one-upping each othee

    Geez…

    Tell ’em Talha.

    • Replies: @Talha
  83. Jay Fink says:
    @Rosie

    I agree with you about the double standard. I never did like it and yeah the math doesn’t work. Not sure if you heard of Roosh…he is a former PUA who now says when men use the double standard to shame women it is actually an expression of repressed guilt.

    I don’t agree that thinnesss standards are outrageous now. Instead we completely lost the standards we once had. Obesity has become the new normal.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  84. @Rosie

    Thinness standards are so outrageous right now, that plenty of women just give up.

    What thinness standards? Less than 55% body fat?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  85. Talha says:
    @Truth

    men vs women

    These arguments arise in the context of assumptions that it’s a zero sum game between males and females that “gotta get mine”.

    It seems to be the natural progression of a society promoting hyper-individualism that the arguments be framed this way.

    Unfortunately, consideration due to the concept of mother (really, do what some guys say about women apply to their own mothers?), father (do internet thots not care that they are breaking their fathers’ hearts?), daughter, sister, etc. is sorely missing.

    Peace.

  86. Dumbo says:
    @Rosie

    Typical women, reject 80% of their suitors then complain that men should “man up” and “ask them out”. (Please note that this does not mean you, the average Joe, this means the bad boy alpha she not so secretly has a crush on.) Then they will sleep around with those desirable guys who pump them and dump them, then they will complain that “there are no good men around”.

    Jews and women, probably the two creatures with less self-awareness in God’s green Earth.

  87. iffen says:
    @Talha

    I think that I have to drop my goat herding allusion. You seem to be taking it seriously and as some sort of personal criticism.

    I don’t agree that we need a return to patriarchy. The patriarch is not an uninvested individual and his interests do not always coincide with the best interests of the wife or the child. You are just presenting the ideal. You are not giving the full picture which would include routine exploitation and at the extreme includes selling children into prostitution or slavery and disposable wives. This doesn’t mean that I believe we shouldn’t cultivate virtuous behaviors conducive to producing strong healthy families.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Audacious Epigone
  88. iffen says:
    @Talha

    BTW, you are like all of us. You want to have your cake and eat it too. If we didn’t worship individualism in the U.S., you wouldn’t be allowed to practice your religious faith without interference. So stop taking only the dessert; eat your veggies as well.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  89. iffen says:
    @Talha

    And one more thing concerning your “happy family” patriarchal model. Have you ever stopped to wonder why in patriarchal agrarian societies men have serial young wives and produce 15-20 children while two generations later those descendants produce 0, 1, 2, or 3 children?

    • Replies: @Talha
  90. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Who said patriarchy cannot become predatory or exploitative? Which is why I am talking about a benevolent guardianship model. It is like every human institution that can become abusive; marriage, government, etc.

    The better question is; should the baby be thrown out with the bath water?

    Or, in other terms; is it better to have a dysfunctional patriarchy (that may have become exploitative) that can still be reformed, or to have no such hierarchical institution at all?

    We’re about to find out.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  91. Talha says:
    @iffen

    why in patriarchal agrarian societies

    When we become an agrarian society , your question might be relevant.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  92. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Not true; if I try to take a second wife, I will be in violation of bigamy laws in the state of Illinois and can be sent to jail.

    Hyperindividualism is not a necessary prerequisite in allowing someone else to practice their faith – only rule of law and a legal provision for the same.

    I’m not at all suggesting the US become Afghanistan; but I am suggesting they consider peeling back to a prior incarnation of its own society (with adjustments for lessons learned) before the great experiment began.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  93. @Truth

    That’s a pretty small group. You’re the only one of them on this site that I’ve spotted so far, so: minor irritant.

  94. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Which is why I am talking about a benevolent guardianship model.

    Almost any model will work if the participants are benevolent.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  95. iffen says:
    @Talha

    When we become an agrarian society , your question might be relevant.

    I was talking about the American past, in particular the South. They had serial wives and 20 children because it was economically beneficial for the patriarch.

    • Replies: @Talha
  96. iffen says:
    @Talha

    back to a prior incarnation of its own society

    We can’t go back. We can’t have serfs and slaves again. We can’t have women as property again. You can’t put the tootpaste back into the tube. You have to find some way to make “it” work.

    Hyperindividualism is not a necessary prerequisite in allowing someone else to practice their faith – only rule of law and a legal provision for the same.

    Yeah, we have a pretty good idea of what it’s like for non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @dfordoom
  97. @Oleaginous Outrager

    Face it, there’s no way to explain this to Rosie, and that’s not her fault. She doesn’t have the equipment to understand. When the curves are hidden by too much fat, then what exactly is the point?

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
  98. “I was hoping, though, to see that issue related to young heterosexual men in (contemporary) West.
    Some other time, perhaps.”

    This is a confusing response. it would be a mistake to take my comments about “tusseling” as something more than more than it is.

    No. I am not young. I am heterosexual.

    You might want to visit some celibacy sites the Catholics has organization that actually meets annually I think. But since I am not a practicing Catholic — I have never attended.

    You might consider discussing the matter with incels — but what they describe is not celibacy.

    I could not and would not get into any details with someone online and or someone I did not know personally.

    Unless I have failed to understand you — I have gone even a tad across the line than I might normally on this issue. I practice celibacy and certainly will defend it on every level.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  99. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Ok, well why would it be economically beneficial now to do the same?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  100. Talha says:
    @iffen

    We can’t have serfs and slaves again. We can’t have women as property again.

    Three straw men in two sentences.

    what it’s like for non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

    Another straw man; “it’s either hyper-individualism or Shariah law”. Really, there is no other model to implement with regards to religious minorities other than what we find in the US (at this point in time) or in Afghanistan?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  101. “If you are planning on living that way (I guess marriage is out for some odd reason?) – may I suggest a rigorous fasting routine. It helps diminish carnal desire and is used by plenty of young Muslim men (including myself when I was at that age) to make celibacy more manageable in that stage of life.”

    Excuse my frankness,

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I am familiar with fasting – to discipline the body and mind. Why you are interjecting some manner of advice about my celibate life is beyond me. For people of faith according to a life with and in Christ — celibacy is not a choice. It is a mandate until married.

    I don’t think you have been attending to this discussion. Opinions may vary, but desire is not unhealthy or wrong. Rather presumptuous interjection — and I have no place to set a’right in this exchange. Christians, especially those who have Catholic backgrounds and or heavy leans on scripture and even people moderately concerned about their fitness are familiar with the various programs of fasting ——

    though I suspect your intent was to be helpful . . .it is off kilt given the content.

    • Replies: @Talha
  102. @Rosie

    Women often sought the coveted “MRS” degree.

    Also, there was an attitude that a truly well-educated person possessed a well-rounded education. He or she was knowledgeable about a great many subjects, such as current events, history, literature, science, could speak any number of foreign languages, etc. The classic liberal education. Nowadays, a person might earn a phD and yet be ignorant of the years WWII was fought and not care.

    Thanks for the link. I didn’t know that women went to college at rates equal to men from 1900-1930. Women were more likely to graduate from high school, too.

    One drawback of coeducation is that students tend to place more stress on socializing and less on education.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  103. Talha says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Ok, sorry for interjecting with advice – carry on.

    Peace.

  104. @Talha

    Just when you think that liberals can’t get any sicker, they do. The next cause championed by the adherents of the cause-of the-month club may be pedophilia.

    It’s ironic that the Western world always condemned homosexual behavior while the Moslem world tacitly condoned it in order to keep the males away from the females. Yet now, in the West, homosexuality is considered a valid lifestyle choice. In the Moslem world, it’s just something a man does, like drink coffee or play golf. It’s not a part of his identity. That’s the historical norm worldwide.

    Taiwan recently legalized gay marriage so the poz has spread.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @AaronB
    , @dfordoom
  105. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    I keep hearing this, but I don’t know if that’s true:
    https://www.amazon.com/Images-Ancient-Greek-Pederasty-Classical/dp/0415564042

    I think this varies within the Muslim world. My brother spent a year or so in Saudi and he did accidentally come across a couple of his male co-workers exchanging messages about a sexual tryst, but they were in no way open about it nor did he see it as something ubiquitous.

    People have all sorts of sins that they are attracted to, everyone has specific proclivities; the key is to never ever let them become publicly acceptable or no longer considered a sin.

    The Poz must indeed be stopped.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  106. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    Its the either/or thinking that is at the core of European secular thinking – it boxes their minds in narrow categories they cannot escape.

    Nearly all – literally all, I think – of the “problems” discussed on this site are only issues from the either/or perspective.

    They are all dissolved in a traditional and/both perspective.

    Problems are meant to be transcended, not solved.

    This restricted thinking derives from Aristotelian logic – where the law of non contradiction obtains.

    It’s funny, because both Islam and Judaism incorporated Aristotle into their traditions, but in an and/both fashion, as one part of a larger whole.

    Somehow Europeans chose Aristotle in an exclusive fashion – in an either/or fashion.

    Its like the extremely stupid HBD debate. Both HBD and not placing restrictions on human potential are true, both restraint and freedom. Or the even stupider is Judaism racist debate – it is both extremely racist and extremely non racist.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    , @iffen
  107. AaronB says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Islam both formally condemned homosexuality while tacitly accepting it. As did Christianity.

    In this way, the needs of society and the individual were accommodated.

    Today, there is an extreme one sided formal advocacy of homosexuality, and the needs of society are neglected.

    Which is a more inclusive, holistic, and healthy state of affairs?

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  108. Talha says:
    @Talha

    The Poz must indeed be stopped.

    I hate to say this, but the world often works on emulating short term success; the West is successful and thus the path of pozzification will be emulated by others as long as this remains the case.

    Now, I see two possible outcomes:
    1) the West drops the poz on its own and becomes even more successful, in which case others will want to follow suit and ape this further success by dropping the poz.
    2) it will decline and collapse under the weight of the poz, in which case others will re-evaluate whether or not it’s a good idea to switch tracks seeing that the world’s fastest bullet train just went off a bridge where the tracks were out.

    Anyone’s guess, but if Ibn Khaldun and Glubb are correct in their assessments, #2 is simply more likely.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  109. @Talha

    I’ve read that the majority of Moslems in the US now support gay marriage and wonder if that’s because the next step is legalizing polygamy.

    • Replies: @Talha
  110. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Islam both formally condemned homosexuality while tacitly accepting it.

    The big thing in Islam is the issue of public sin. When a society decides to sin publicly and worse – publicly regard the sin as not a sin; that society has opened itself up to the wrath of God and very serious consequences.

    Private sin is an issue everyone has problems with and each has their own proclivities and trials that they have to conquer and control for the good of their own soul.

    I guarantee you that any serious Muslim scholar if approached with the question; “I have a friend who I know has engaged secretly in homosexual behavior, what should I do?”…will answer;”Do not expose his faults, pray for him and advise him to repent if your words will affect him.”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  111. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Yes, this is an unfortunate issue. Many Muslims are being extremely short sighted in their quest to do anything necessary in order to ensure we do not get kicked out of the West – that is at the root of the issue and is unfortunately guiding way too many of our politics. I agree with the below assessment:
    https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/07/03/time-to-call-a-moratorium-on-muslim-political-involvement/

    Peace.

  112. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    This public/private dichotomy, or inner/outer, seems like the best multi-dimensional way of handling any situation.

    The secular Western attempt to collapse the private into the public, the outer into the inner, and create one dimension, results in an impoverished intellectual and social sphere.

    I think this tendency also accounts for why modern people appear so much stupider the earlier generations – it has nothing to do with HBD, but the momentum towards analyzing each problem into one dimension, which is necessarily stupider.

    In HBD, there is a clear desire to analyze the problem of human performance entirely in one dimension, which gives the movement its peculiar flavor of stupidity and it’s inability to integrate so many crucial facts.

    Its like searching for the One Ring 🙂

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  113. @Rosie

    I think that it has less to do with secularism, though that’s part of it, but advances in medical technology and the welfare state.

    The first effective contraceptives were invented in the latter half of the 19th Century – rubber condoms and diaphragms, though they were difficult to get.

    Penicillin was widely and effectively used during WWII to treat VD. For the first time in history, picking up a venereal disease was no big deal – just get a shot. What kind of effect do you think that had on the morals of some men?

    There aren’t negative consequences for a variety of behaviors today. Type II diabetes was a death sentence as one time if you didn’t change your diet, but now people take medication in order to continue their self-indulgence. That’s certainly one reason why we see so many landwhales waddling around now.

    A century ago, if you walked out on your spouse and kids, you walked out on your old age pension. Now, with Social Security and a variety of programs geared to assist the elderly, your family is unneeded. The welfare state in general renders the family obsolete and weakens the sense of personal responsibility to others. After all, the government will take care of your loved one.

  114. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Yeah, I’ve noticed this really weird “bi-polar” approach to things in a lot of European history. A lot of developments are in contrast or reaction to very extreme tendencies or events; two things I can immediately think of:
    1) the rise of secularism in the aftermath of the 30 Years War
    2) extreme German self-flagellation for WW2 actions

    We have to let gay people screw themselves in public parades because otherwise…slavery!

    Peace.

  115. @Rosie

    I noticed that, too. It’s one thing to criticize feminism, but advocating that women be stripped of the right to vote and even “White Sharia”?

    Blasting women because not many remain chaste before marriage and glorifying male promiscuity. Trashing women who have abortions, too. Like these whoremongers would be willing to marry their conquests or even support their illegitimate children. In their case, abortion would be okay.

  116. @iffen

    Individualism and equality. “Discrimination” is a big no-no in today’s society, at least towards an ever-growing list of certified victims, which includes Moslems now. Christians are not included, as well as men, straights and Whites.

  117. @AaronB

    I think this tendency also accounts for why modern people appear so much stupider the earlier generations

    Reaction-time studies show that it’s true, though we also have the gross mis-education (indoctrination) in public schools to thank for a lot of the specific stupidities which pass for wisdom and insight these days.

    it has nothing to do with HBD

    Anyone who’s seen Rachel Jeantel’s testimony knows otherwise.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  118. @iffen

    The difference between a benevolent despot and a tyrant is how he uses his absolute power.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  119. AaronB says:
    @Mr. Rational

    How would you know what is innate and what isn’t?

    Reaction times don’t solve the issue. Adult reactions times measure many years of mental habit and training, even assuming they actually reflect mental ability at the specific time the test is given.

    What we do see is a cultural movement to think stupidly – to think in one dimension, to reduce everything to a minimum of factors, to think in terms of materialism, HBD, etc.

    This movement started before IQs began to drop, well before, and was in some sense an extension of the scientific revolution.

    Maybe HBD has to do with it – but we certainly don’t have at present anything near like the tools or even conceptual framework to determine that.

    So we’re just assuming, based on our cultures drive to think stupidly in one dimension.

    To get past this, you have to seriously engage with the thinking styles and patterns of pre modern cultures – and realize what a world of rich complexity was lost.

    It is heretical to say this, but science depended on stupider thinking, using fewer factors, simpler.

    Science could only begin once the culture has gotten significantly stupider.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  120. @Talha

    I’ve read about what goes on in the Moslem world. A good book you can read is John Bradley’s “Behind the Veil of Sex: The Business and Culture of Sex in the Middle East.”

    John Bradley also wrote a chapter of sex in Saudi Arabia in a previous book about Saudi Arabia.

    In the Moslem world, as long as a man doesn’t do it in public and scare the horses, as the old saying goes, what he does behind closed doors is his business. It goes without saying he is expected to marry a woman and have kids.

    I remember reading about the Egyptian police busting passengers of some sort of gay cruise on the Nile, but can’t find anything online. My memory may be faulty, but I found this:

    http://www.adonisholiday.com/cruises/Coda/Egypt_Gay_Cruise_Tour_2019.html

    I’ve also read about the spread of so-called temporary marriages between men and women throughout the Moslem world. I am interested in what goes on in that part of the world.

    In ancient Greece, as with other societies, homosexual activity between an older male and a younger male (a beardless boy in the case of vase you posted), was tolerated. An affair between two grown man was sick. It also goes without saying that men were expected to marry and produce children.

    • Replies: @Talha
  121. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    benevolent despot and a tyrant

    The underlying assumption in getting rid of patriarchy full-stop is that fathers are more likely to be tyrannical than benevolent to those under their care – an assumption that men have absolutely zero reason to respect.

    Of course the position of a father can be and is abused by a subset of men; that is where you bring in the law to guard the rights of the abused.

    Peace.

  122. @AaronB

    Problems are meant to be transcended, not solved.

    I don’t like to use the word “problem.” There is either a situation that needs to be lived with (if you live in Minnesota, you must live with the cold winters) or a situation that needs to be remedied (me losing 5 pounds so that my skinny jeans fit better).

  123. @AaronB

    I think that Christian societies historically have been less accomodating. One reason was the easy availability of female prostitutes to satisfy men’s lusts. Forty years ago, one man calling another a “fag” or “queer” was fighting words and gays were regarded as lisping, limp-wristed pansies.

    You are correct that the West has gone from one extreme to another.

  124. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    what he does behind closed doors is his business.

    Exactly, it is between him and his Lord. In this way, public decorum is not broken with and Vice is not publicly promoted as something good or acceptable. And the only one guilty of hypocrisy is the individual himself who sins in secret while putting on a veneer of piety in public – again, between him and his Lord.

    the spread of so-called temporary marriages between men and women throughout the Moslem world.

    Temporary marriage is a Shiah thing; it is prohibited by all Sunni schools.

    What I have read about in some of the Sunni world is the phenomenon that people get married formally with an informal intention that they will dissolve it in a limited time. Though this is a sin and something you are not supposed to do, there is nothing anyone can do about this formally since this is an intention in the heart and a legal contract can only be annulled by something explicitly stated. For instance, a gold digger marrying a elderly rich man with a secret intention to cheat on him with the pool boy does nothing to the legality of the marriage contract – huge sin though.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  125. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    I used an extreme example and yes, a father can be better trusted to look after his family’s best interests rather than, say, a government bureaucrat.

    In many cultures, the patriarch legally and literally has the power of life and death over family members. In today’s society, you might be arrested if you smacked a misbehaving toddler on the bottom.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  126. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Oops. I didn’t mean to respond to myself – I meant Talha.

  127. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    This restricted thinking

    You are the restricted thinker. All you have is muh spirituality and HBD is stoopid. All Talha has is, “try muh Islam” it works some of the time for some things. All Thomm has is, ” I wish I wasn’t a Hindu, but a high IQ white instead.” And commenters too inumberable to list have, “It’s dem Jews what done it.”

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Truth
  128. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Children cost the patriarch money now, not make it for him.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    , @Talha
  129. @Talha

    These temporary marriages are a way for couples to date, men to patronize prostitutes or for married men to have a sweetie on the side. Clerics in Iran proposed establishing “chastity houses” so that an, ahem, patron, could marry an, ahem, resident, and they could legally and morally be intimate. One problem is that after a temporary marriage ends a woman is supposed to remain celibate for a period of time (3 months in Iran?) for an obvious reason. Prostitutes ignore that rule.

    • Replies: @Talha
  130. @iffen

    Universally, at one time, children were a source of wealth. Now they cost, so not surprisingly, the birthrate is much lower.

    Plus, a low infant mortality rate, affluence and the welfare state render a large number of children unnecessary.

    • Replies: @iffen
  131. iffen says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Yes.

    I was trying to get Talha to understand that the patriarch looks out for the patriarch.

    Some of us believe that the rights of the children and wives are just as important.

  132. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Well there you go, so I personally think it’s a moot point in introducing an objection based on a hypothetical scenario that may only come to fruition in a Mad Max alternate future.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  133. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Damn. It’s not hypothetical.

    Patriarchs used to have oodles of children because they were a source of wealth. They don’t now because they are are drain on wealth. It’s all about the patriarch. It ain’t “fair” to the wife and kids.

    • Replies: @Talha
  134. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Having lots of kids or wives doesn’t necessarily mean they are automatically being oppressed as you are positing. That is simply an opinion that, for instance, that the families of an Ottoman Bey in Algeria having multiple wives and children lived an oppressed life.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  135. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    You gotta ask the Shiahs about all that business. Temporary marriage has been a bone of contention between us for centuries; we (Sunnis) also see it as tending towards legalized prostitution.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  136. @Talha

    A poor woman might prefer to be the fourth wife of a rich man than the one and only wife of a poor man. The big losers in polygamy are poor men. Unless there is a surplus of women, if one man has two wives that means another man doesn’t have a date on a Saturday night, or any other night. Good incentive to go to war in order to get women and segregate the sexes in order to keep bachelors from stealing other men’s wives.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Rosie
  137. Talha says:
    @iffen

    All Talha has is, “try muh Islam”

    Well, that would be great, but in the above discussion, I was simply talking about the benefits of reviving a patriarchy – I never said the Muslim way to do it is the only way to. Patriarchy has has multiple manifestations in practically every historical culture ever.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  138. @Talha

    It seems to be of more recent vintage in the Sunni World.

    • Replies: @Talha
  139. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    The big losers in polygamy are poor men.

    Correct, which is why Islam actually tried to mitigate the fallout by limiting it to four wives – this is a unique setup in human cultures. Other cultures are either strictly monogamous or no-holds-barred polygamous and the local chief might marry 50 wives if he can support them all.

    Good incentive to go to war in order to get women and segregate the sexes in order to keep bachelors from stealing other men’s wives.

    No doubt, but the last couple of hundred years have shown that monogamous cultures have no trouble finding reasons to go to war – so there’s that.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  140. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Yes, the issue has to do with the prohibitive cost of marriage in certain Muslim cultures and unrealistic expectations. My Egyptian brother in law was telling me it is extremely difficult for the common young man to get married in Egypt because the assumption is that you will already own a house or condo and spend lavishly on a wedding. People need to lower their Disney-princess expectations and lower the bar.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    , @Rosie
  141. @Achmed E. Newman

    Rosie’s correct at that. And I’m skinny (130 lbs at 5’10”) so I don’t take it personally. But art history proves that modern fashion went too far. Compare 19th century nude paintings to today’s swimsuit model: round cheeks, no visible collarbones, no stick thin arms, no flat belly, and no thigh gap. The artists, Bouguereau and Ingres, were not some lone fat fetishists but immensely popular Salon painters who represented the mainstream men’s tastes. They also followed the Ancient Greek canon that was little different (the Venus of Milo is athletic with visible abs but she has a heavy chin and bottom, and the Crouching Venus has painstakingly sculpted fat rolls on her waist.) Some women of the era were documented to be superskinny, like Empress Sisi of Austria, but you wouldn’t guess it from their portraits because artists smoothed out or covered up the unfashionably bony parts of their body. The parts other than the corseted waist, that is… but men knew it was artificial and once the corset was taken off, the natural waist wasn’t supposed to be Disney princess-like.

    TL;DR. 1, 2: traditionally attractive, easily achievable for everyone who eats well and exercises.
    3: made attractive by modern pop culture, might make women despair over how hard it is and give up.

  142. iffen says:
    @Toronto Russian

    Why are all the women lily white while the men are swarthy and more?

    • LOL: Talha
  143. iffen says:
    @Talha

    I was simply talking about the benefits of reviving a patriarchy – I never said the Muslim way to do

    Patriarchy, Muslim or otherwise, has been tried and found to be wanting.

    • Replies: @Talha
  144. peterAUS says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    This is a confusing response.

    I am not young.

    I practice celibacy and certainly will defend it on every level.

    Let’s try to clarify:
    1. At what age you started to practice celibacy?
    2. Why did you start to practice celibacy?
    3. Why do you practice celibacy?
    4. Do you personally know other people, male or female, below 35, who practice celibacy?
    5. If so, would you be able to answer questions 1 2 and 3 for them?

    Not to sound interrogating, I know, personally, several men and women, under 35, white-collar professionals, who aren’t in any (sexual) relationship. And, I am quite sure that men haven’t been using professional services (hookers in my time..). Women too.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Anounder
  145. AaronB says:
    @Toronto Russian

    The ideal is in between. The women in paintings are too fat, the modern woman is too thin.

    Anyone who has been to Japan knows that it is highly attainable for most women to be as thin as the one in the modern photo. Americans in the 70s were not too far off, and probably a majority of Israeli women are that thin, at least when young – although overweight is rising recently.

    The main obstacle is that asceticism has been completely abolished from our spiritual and public life.

    Traditionally, most meals were supposed to be somewhat bland and simple, and delicious food was reserved for the weekends and holidays.

    This controlled cravings, as food wasn’t that exciting, and you naturally settled into eating a healthy amount.

    Japan has a long tradition of asceticism, and most everyday food is rather bland and unexciting. Breakfast might be white rice and miso soup.

    I was recently watching a Japanese film where the husband comes home late after a long day at work and asks his wife to prepare him white rice and tea as a meal!

    Such simple eating is inconceivable in modern America, where all asceticism is gone and maximizing pleasure rules the day.

    In Israel, food was scarce and not very good for a few decades after the founding of the state, and there was a tradition of hardy pioneering simplicity as well.

    The classic israeli breakfast today derives from the kibbutz, and is very simple. Eggs, some low fat soft cheese, bread, a salad of chopped tomatoes and cucumbers. That’s it.

    And that is the typical israeli dinner as well, although lunch can be a more elaborate affair. But at breakfast and dinner are rather Spartan.

    The thing, eating simply actually prevents cravings from getting out of control. If every meal is pizza, burgers, or eggs and bacon, it’s hard to control oneself.

    That kind if food is good for weekends, festivals, holidays, and once or twice per week.

    If we reintroduce asceticism to some degree as a public virtue, our weight would go down. But that would mean abandoning the pleasure principle as the main driver of our life.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Rosie
  146. Talha says:
    @iffen

    My contention is not that it is perfect, rather that it is better than its absence in society. A bit like I would argue that even imperfect government is better than anarchy.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @AaronB
    , @iffen
  147. peterAUS says:
    @peterAUS

    For people of faith according to a life with and in Christ — celibacy is not a choice. It is a mandate until married.

    Apologies.
    Cancel the questions from post 143.
    Moving on.

  148. iffen says:
    @Talha

    No, just because the SJW idiocracy rails against the real (and imagined) evils of patriarchy does not mean that we need to try and bring it back.

  149. Rosie says:
    @Jay Fink

    he is a former PUA who now says when men use the double standard to shame women it is actually an expression of repressed guilt.

    Precisely.

    I don’t agree that thinnesss standards are outrageous now.

    Girls are getting very mixed messages right now. There is a lot of talk about fat “acceptance,” but when you actually look at women on TV, in movies, and in magazines, they are still very thin. Girls will compare themselves with those images.

    The situation has gotten better though. Lean, somewhat muscular bodies are more in style for women, now. This is a good thing, because it helps burn calories, and most women will not wind up looking masculine unless they’re taking PEDs.

  150. @Talha

    Black men were/are most prone to polygamy. This guy, a Moslem, had 90:

    https://www.pulse.ng/gist/final-journey-islamic-preacher-with-90-wives-dies-at-93/w4eehq3

    I know that in Islam a man has a responsibility towards his wife/wives and children, so that cuts down on the polygamy. A man can’t afford more than one wife.

    As a rule in traditional African societies, women do the farming and support themselves and their children, so it is feasible for a man to have multiple wives. The sexes aren’t segregated and married women entertain other men. Men don’t care because they don’t support their families. Descent is traced in the female line.

    Patterns of family life have changed due to widespread conversion to Christianity and Islam. What is seen in the ghetto, where marriage has practically disappeared and women are responsible for themselves and their children, is a reversion back to old African patterns of family life. Of course, welfare didn’t exist in the old days. They get plenty of foreign aid of some kind nowadays.

    Steven Sailer had written a great deal about this.

  151. @Toronto Russian

    On the one head, I agree with the 176,047 others, T.R. On the other head, I do know that the figure of that bikini girl is not attainable by most women. I just can’t agree with the old painters either, and I’m not the only one. What I do know, and possibly you don’t, Toronto Russian, is how young American women looked in the early 1980’s. One who would be thought of as fat then was maybe 10 to 15 lb.. over the weight of a woman with a decent curvy figure. Now the standard for just being fat is closer to 30-40 lb over.

    They wore plenty of bikinis back then, believe me. Maybe the girls in the paintings never went to the gym. (Did they even have elliptical machines back during the Greek Republican period? Hell, they DISCOVERED ellipses, so …) Seriously, there’s nothing that firms up the rear end better than a little bicycle riding. It’s not all just about the weight either, but the tightness. Then again, I shouldn’t have to explain this to most commenters here, I hope…

    • Replies: @Rosie
  152. Rosie says:
    @AaronB

    If we reintroduce asceticism to some degree as a public virtue, our weight would go down. But that would mean abandoning the pleasure principle as the main driver of our life.

    Hmmm. Interesting take. Personally, I do just the opposite. I want my food to be delicious, and I am willing to eat smaller portions. One thing that’s nice about having a large family is that you’re really not tempted to overeat all that often. Everyone gets one piece of pizza, or one cupcake, or whatever.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  153. @Talha

    Under Islamic law, people aren’t allowed to get a few friends and family members together for a little inexpensive wedding. Obviously, it’s gotten worse.

    Weddings can be awfully expensive in the US, too. People spend on a wedding what could be a down payment on a house.

    • Replies: @Talha
  154. @Toronto Russian

    BTW, T.R. on your point 3, I do agree that the social media make it all worse. Women can’t blame anyone but themselves for that crap either – just put the damn phone down, and quit tweeting for a day or so, maybe a year …

  155. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    I don’t think any woman would accept a benevolent patriarchy in a secular context.

    No person will accept any limitations on their freedom, or any duties and responsibilities, in a secular system.

    Sacrifices must be made for a reason.

    In a secular system, at best you can have an armed standoff – reciprocal rights and duties are negotiated, with no common vision, and each party trying to out negotiate the other and get a better deal.

    And this tense standoff is fragile and liable to continual upset as power shifts.

    In a secular system, any concession of rights or duties is sullenly accepted, never embraced – and always seen as temporary.

    With regard to reintroducing patriarchy in a religious system, also, women’s contribution must be recognized and spelled out – in which case, patriarchy might not be the best word.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Talha
  156. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    What I do know, and possibly you don’t, Toronto Russian, is how young American women looked in the early 1980’s.

    I think like 50% of women smoked cigarettes, too. Nicotine is a well-known appetite suppressant, and starlets are rumored to chew nicorette gum to stop their stomachs from howling with hunger.

    BTW: Men do not universally prize thinness. In South Asia, young girls are forced to take steroids by their traffickers to beef them up.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10173115

    See also:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  157. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    One of the interesting features of religion is that it is more “feminine” – secularism might be the extreme development of the masculine principle.

    And traditional religious cultures are “softer” and more accommodating to feminine characteristics and virtues – this allows them to also give full respect to the masculine principle, as part of the whole.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  158. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    Interesting. Let me ask you, do you tend to eat the same foods every day?

    I find that if I limit the variety of my food but eat delicious food, then that also reduces cravings. But variety plus deliciousness seems to drive cravings through the roof.

    So I find some sort of limitation on the pleasure principle is needed.

    Then there is the question of what you consider delicious, maybe its moderate compared to what average Americans eat.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  159. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    People need to lower their Disney-princess expectations and lower the bar.

    Some couples are doing “destination weddings” now. I think that’s a great idea, because you can have a fabulous day and a wonderful honeymoon without breaking the bank.
    The drawback is that you can’t have all your friends and family, but really they don’t mind. If they care about you, they don’t want you going into debt just so they can have a fun evening out.

    • Replies: @Talha
  160. Rosie says:
    @AaronB

    Let me ask you, do you tend to eat the same foods every day?

    No, not really. I serve a standard rotation of your typical family favorites: mac and cheese, tune casserole, pizza, burgers, etc.

    One thing I do is always try to limit starches to just one serving or two at most. We eat a lot of pizza and sandwiches, because I really like bread. If I eat pasta, I always want bread and butter with it, which really adds up.

    Another thing we do is just control portions ahead of time. When baking brownies, you use two 8 × 8 pans. Only bake one and save the other for the next day. This is especially nice in winter when you’re less active and really need to watch it. For summer, when you don’t want to run the oven, cookies are better. The store-bought break and bake ones are fine.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  161. @Rosie

    It was under 30% (women smokers) in the 1980’s, Rosie, and I guess I hung with a good crowd, as not 1 in 20 women I knew around smoked. Almost all were in good bodily shape though. Starlets and models are a different story. I don’t care what kind of strange stuff they do.

    Your S. Asia sob story is silly. One does not see whores in Asia that look like the women in the paintings above. Maybe these girls started out emaciated. I’m not interested in “Fed to Wed”, as men have fought wars that have killed and maimed hundreds of millions over the centuries. I’ve not heard any sob stories on any of that from you, Rosie.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  162. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    With self control and a good culture, I do think the diet you describe need not result in American style obesity.

    But I would be very surprised if such a diet diet, with variety plus deliciousness, can result in the kind of thinness one sees in Japan or in the picture of that modern woman.

    I would expect cravings to be too high.

    So granted you and your family are not at all obese, would I be correct in thinking that you are not quite thin either?

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @Rosie
  163. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    Lol, its hard to discuss this stuff over the net without visuals.

    Everyone probably has a different idea of what thinness means.

  164. Rosie says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    One drawback of coeducation is that students tend to place more stress on socializing and less on education.

    I think one way they dealt with that was through common-sense measures like curfews and visitation rules.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  165. @AaronB

    Science could only begin once the culture has gotten significantly stupider.

    Because stupider people like Australian abos are SO much more scientific than we are!  /sarc

    Ye gods, your thinking is so messed up you can’t even match your verb tenses correctly.

    How would you know what is innate and what isn’t?

    Because we know what responds to training/education/environment and what doesn’t.

    Reaction times don’t solve the issue. Adult reactions times measure many years of mental habit and training, even assuming they actually reflect mental ability at the specific time the test is given.

    Reaction time represents sheer cerebral processing speed.  Whites consistently react faster than blacks, but White reaction times have been slowing since the 19th century when good measurements first started being made.  There is a high correlation between reaction speed and “g”.

    What we do see is a cultural movement to think stupidly – to think in one dimension, to reduce everything to a minimum of factors, to think in terms of materialism, HBD, etc.

    Downstream of IQ.  Low-IQ people cannot carry out high-IQ activities, including those related to culture.  But high-IQ peoples can have their culture subverted and debased.  A demand for “fairness” and “equality” instead of excellence will do that too.

    This movement started before IQs began to drop, well before, and was in some sense an extension of the scientific revolution.

    Maybe HBD has to do with it – but we certainly don’t have at present anything near like the tools or even conceptual framework to determine that.

    Sez you.  We have already quantified things like reaction time and mental processing speed (FWIW, the IQ increases behind the Flynn effect are in the less g-loaded subtests).  Soon we’ll be doing genomic studies which pin down how allele-frequency changes caused the observed changes.

    So we’re just assuming, based on our cultures drive to think stupidly in one dimension.

    To get past this, you have to seriously engage with the thinking styles and patterns of pre modern cultures – and realize what a world of rich complexity was lost.

    A world of superstitions and spirits in which there was no notion that nature followed anything like laws.  Also one in which there was nothing resembling modern architecture, air conditioning or even indoor plumbing.  YOU can go live like a savage, and die of eminently treatable causes by age 35.  I’ll keep civilization, TYVM.

    It is heretical to say this, but science depended on stupider thinking, using fewer factors, simpler.

    Science depends on more accurate, less emotional and above all non-self-deluded thinking.  Science is slipping in the West precisely because the required accuracy and honesty is being buried under “social justice”; it’s now considered “racist”.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  166. Rosie says:
    @AaronB

    So granted you and your family are not at all obese, would I be correct in thinking that you are not quite thin either?

    That is probably fair to say.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  167. Rosie says:
    @AaronB

    One of the interesting features of religion is that it is more “feminine” – secularism might be the extreme development of the masculine principle.

    I think this is very true, especially for contemplative and mystical traditions. The great sages have always been very woman-friendly, Pythagoras, Plato, the Buddha, etc.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  168. AaronB says:
    @Mr. Rational

    I’m not against science. It can be quite useful.

    And yes, you cannot be too stupid to do science.

    But let us be honest – science is simplified thinking, thinking in clear, simple ideas.

    In other words, it’s about seeing less, seeing things more simply – Occams Razor sums up this attitude quite well, explain things with the fewest possible principles.

    It is time to admit the paradox that to think scientifically one must make oneself stupid – stupid in a purely technical sense, not as a pejorative.

    And that this stupid thinking has its uses and can be quite effective in certain domains, but if mistaken for the whole of thinking, for the whole range of the intellect, impoverished ones mind.

    It is one of the interesting paradoxes of history.

  169. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    I hear, makes sense.

  170. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    Feminine terminology suffuses religion.

    In Judaism, the “shechina”, the Holy Spirit that descends to earth and mediates between Israel and God, is seen as feminine.

    And Israel is seen as the “bride” of God, and I believe Christendom saw itself as the “bride” of Christ.

    And the mystics were all about feminine terminology.

    • Replies: @iffen
  171. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Look, Talha, I’m not in the proselytizing biz. We (the US) have monumental problems. I accord you the same consideration as I do the WNs. You are citizens and have the right to propose your solutions. You say that we need Islamization while the WNs say we need fascism (they don’t dare call it that). My point is that neither will be adopted, and even if they were, neither will work.

  172. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    Hey! The lightning bug population seems to be down this year. You are not capturing more than your fair share to replace escaped moonbeans, are you?

    • LOL: Rosie
  173. Rosie says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    A poor woman might prefer to be the fourth wife of a rich man than the one and only wife of a poor man.

    I think that probably depends on how poor he really is. If a man is so poor that a woman would rather become a second wife than marry him, then there is probably something wrong with the society, i.e. too much income disparity. If you don’t fix the income disparity, then you’ll get unofficial polygamy, and mistresses, kept women, or whatever you call them, have no rights.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  174. @Rosie

    Now colleges allow boys and girls to share dorm rooms.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  175. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I’ve not heard any sob stories on any of that from you, Rosie.

    Good Lord, I wasn’t meaning for it to be a sob story. I was simply pointing out that men don’t universally prize thinness, and perhaps men should seriously consider whether their ideas of beauty are based in nature or programming.

    My sense is that men end up liking what is rare and difficult to attain. Where food is scarce, they like fat women, where food is plentiful, they like skinny women.

    It was under 30% (women smokers) in the 1980’s, Rosie, and I guess I hung with a good crowd, as not 1 in 20 women I knew around smoked.

    Well I guess you’re just better than me, then, because ALL of the women in my working-class milieu smoked cigarettes.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Rosie
  176. @Rosie

    A society where the majority are middle class only occurred in the 20th century. Even if this country a century ago, a 20-year-old girl would marry a 70-year-old Civil War veteran because he had a pension. Today, a 25-year-old Phillippina will marry a 60-year-old American because he will provide her a higher standard of living than she has in the Phillippines. Even better, if they live in the US, they can sponsor her relatives for admission into the US.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  177. Rosie says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Now colleges allow boys and girls to share dorm rooms.

    Which is insane. It would be so much easier for girls to stay out of high-pressure situations if boys just weren’t allowed in their quarters.

  178. Rosie says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Even better, if they live in the US, they can sponsor her relatives for admission into the US.

    This is the crux of it. Even if a man can support a wife, he may not be able to do much to lift the rest of her family out of poverty, which might be a priority for her, especially if her family is suffering very grinding poverty.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  179. Truth says:
    @iffen

    I’m feeling a little neglected here, Sport.

    • Replies: @iffen
  180. @Rosie

    Not necessarily better, but probably younger. ALL of the women smoked? Regularly? The percentage of women who smoke wasn’t over 40% even in the 1940’s, from the stats I looked at.

    My sense is that men end up liking what is rare and difficult to attain.

    No, I meant to write this in one of my comments above: It’s pretty consistent what men want for a woman’s figure. As I wrote, the fat hides the curves. Being starving-like skinny means no curves either. You can’t fool Mother Nature. You can fool men’s appetites with clothing that hides this or that, though… but only for a while.

    The current trend of putting heftier women in the ads and magazine covers is a good experiment in proving or disproving your theory, Rosie. It’s like the interracial couples in the TV commercials – a pushing of an agenda. We can turn off TV. We don’t need to get the magazines. I would say that these businesses will learn the hard way, but at this point, I think the agenda takes precedence over profits. That’s the way any good Communist would handle it.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  181. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Today in things we always knew and science has confirmed:

    Even people without any diagnosed disorder might benefit from nicotine. Psychologist Jennifer Rusted of the University of Sussex in Britain calls the drug “the most reliable cognitive enhancer that we currently have.” In addition to improving visual attention and working memory, nicotine has been shown by Rusted to increase prospective memory: the ability to remember and implement a prior intention. (When your mother asks you to pick up a jar of pickles at the grocery store on the way home, she’s saddling you with a prospective memory challenge.)

    Who doesn’t miss college days chain-smoking with your friends and talking about life, the universe, and everything?

    Maybe when my mind starts to go I’ll rekindle that old flame.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix

  182. iffen says:
    @Truth

    That’s the way of things. I commented that I was concerned about your intellectual honesty. I was really concerned about the honesty part but have since concluded that it was the intellectual part that was the drag. I’ve written you off as some sort of nutjob who thinks most Hollywood stars like Lucy are really men and who thinks that all the white women he has met are trying to get him to take it out and stick it in. Correct me where I may be wrong.

    You do have a white wife, right?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Truth
  183. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    I was really concerned about the honesty part but have since concluded that it was the intellectual part that was the drag.

    Lol you’re in good form today, iffen!

    • Replies: @iffen
  184. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    Nicotine does indeed have a wide range of positive effects.

    I use this product, hugely popular in Sweden. It has none of the bad health effects of smoking, and is totally safe.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

  185. @Rosie

    Traditionally, getting married was like going into business with someone, or joining a family business. Plus, especially in third world societies, people have an obligation to help their families.

  186. Talha says:
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    a little inexpensive wedding.

    Actually that’s what is encouraged; a simple wedding. In fact, the wedding, when seen properly from a spiritual perspective, is (like many Islamic celebrations) a chance to feed the poor and derive benefit from their prayers. We have unfortunately forgotten this, so we are paying the price:
    “The worst food is that of a wedding banquet (walima) to which only the rich are invited whilst the poor are not invited…”

    Finally, it should be remembered that, the simpler the Walima (and the marriage ceremony as a whole) is kept, the better it will be. At times, people spend thousands upon thousands in feeding people, a sum which can be used for other indispensable needs of the Muslims. And if the intention behind spending such an amount is to show-off, then this will be regarded a grave sin.

    The idea here is to feed people with sincerity and simplicity. If one feeds people with the simplest of meals but it is from the heart, that is far better (and the food is also more enjoyable) than feeding them quality food, where the intention is not so sincere.

    Sayyida A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The most blessed marriage (nikah) is the one with the least expenses.” (al-Bayhaqi in his Shu’ab al-Iman & Mishkat al-Masabih).

    https://www.seekersguidance.org/answers/hanafi-fiqh/the-fiqh-of-the-marriage-feast-walima/

    Peace.

  187. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    Yeah, Truth will likely come out hiding behind Socrates or Plato, but he won’t show himself.

    • Replies: @Truth
  188. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    In a secular system, at best you can have an armed standoff

    Beautifully stated, I’m going to borrow this.

    also, women’s contribution must be recognized and spelled out

    100% agreed.

    patriarchy might not be the best word.

    Yeah, it’s not really a word native to my framework, but there really is no simple analog for the concept of qawwaam in English, so I have to work with what I have.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @AaronB
  189. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    Beautifully stated, I’m going to borrow this.

    Agreed.

    Yeah, it’s not really a word native to my framework, but there really is no simple analog for the concept of qawwaam in English, so I have to work with what I have.

    As for me, I could care less who is running things so long as my basic human rights are respected.

    I care about dignity more than equality, rights more than power.

    If the menfolk want to call it “patriarchy,” that’s no skin off my back.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Audacious Epigone
  190. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    I always joke with my daughter I’m going to get her married in a Burger King parking lot, but in all seriousness, she knows I’m not going to kill myself to get her married.

    It was very nice, one of my spiritual teachers just got his eldest daughter married off and the reception was nice and also simple. I was very glad since it sets a good, down-to-earth example for a lot of the young fathers that look up to him in the community.

    Peace.

  191. Truth says:
    @iffen

    1. Most Hollywood “sex kittens” including Lucy, are men.

    2. Every white woman that I have ever met does not want me to stick it in. As a matter of fact, i’d say no more than 20-25% do.

    3. No white wife. I’m like a red-blooded all-American white man; I prefer Asians…

    • Replies: @iffen
  192. Truth says:
    @iffen

    Old Sport, your response to my earlier post was a bit like looking at the shadows of animals, illuminated by a fire on the walls of a cave, and thinking you are…

    OH shit you got me!

    Son of a bitch!

  193. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    If the menfolk want to call it “patriarchy,” that’s no skin off my back.

    The problem in our day and age is that inequality with respect to specific rights and obligations is automatically assumed to be equated with superiority. This is a bad assumption.

    Now I might support a system in which men have certain legal rights different than women and even in a legal guardianship role over them, but that is simply because of the differences in our genders and the natural respective roles we hold in the creation of family and society as a whole. I would never, ever claim this means men are thus superior to women. If I did and my mother was in earshot to hear something that silly out of my mouth, she would be fully within her rights to set me straight with some shoe-to-the-head therapy.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  194. iffen says:
    @Truth

    I think that I am on safe ground to say that no one other than you thinks of Lucy as a sex kitten.

    i’d say no more than 20-25% do.

    Dang, you ain’t doing any better than me.

    Ah, yes. The tight.

  195. “Let’s try to clarify:
    1. At what age you started to practice celibacy?
    2. Why did you start to practice celibacy?
    3. Why do you practice celibacy?
    4. Do you personally know other people, male or female, below 35, who practice celibacy?
    5. If so, would you be able to answer questions 1 2 and 3 for them?”

    a. from childhood

    b. as noted part of my faith and practice – in the Catholic tradition

    c. for a myriad of reasons:

    1. expected as part of my faith
    2. it does help keep relationships unmuddled
    3. it is healthful
    4. accountability

    d. Not on a personal level, as mentor, instructor and coach academically

    I would only do so in a very general terms.

    I think you will discover that among people of faith, if they stopped believing today – they would not automatically stop being celibate.

  196. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    I’m glad you enjoyed.

    Maybe in due time, we can introduce the Muslim word into our vocabulary, as we do when there is no exact English equivalent.

    Anglicize the spelling a bit, Kawam maybe.

    We already took assassin from Arabic, we should balance it out with a good word 🙂

    Judaism has the system, but not the word. I’d be happy to borrow the word from you guys.

    • Replies: @Talha
  197. AaronB says:
    @Talha

    I’ve been seeing attempts lately to describe the idea that men and women are equal but complementary as misogynist. You can’t suggest we have different qualities.

    If our qualities complement each other, but are equal, that means feminine qualities deserve equal respect and honor – but we know secularists despise feminine qualities, so they ate horrified by the idea that feminine qualities deserve honor and respect.

    In their heart of hearts, they do not believe that feminine qualities deserve honor.

    Therefore to ascribe feminine qualities to women is necessarily to denigrate them, as only masculine qualities deserve respect in the secular system.

    And they cannot believe that you really admire feminine qualities, so you must be engaging in a cynical ploy.

    It makes sense if you take as your premise the idea that only masculine ideas are respect worthy – competition, individualism, ruthlessness, winner take all, dominance, etc.

  198. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    I remember a few years back reading a book on Taoism, where the author was describing the yin and yang system, and noting with surprise that the Chinese divided masculine and feminine qualities into two columns, but did not consider the feminine qualities bad.

    Apparently this was a matter for surprise and comment, and the author pointed out how in the modern West, the items in the feminine column would all be considered bad.

  199. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    Qawwaam is a word that encompasses custodianship and caretaking and guarding. It is derived from the tri-letter root (qaama) to stand up/arise. It is also related to everything from qiwaam, which is provider/supporter, to qaweem, which is sound/authentic/true, to qiyaam, which is the name for night vigil prayer, to qaa’imah, which is a pillar or support, to istiqaamah, which is integrity/honesty/sincerity…

    There is a lot of loaded meaning in that word which is not done justice by “patriarchy”, but that’s how language is.

    Peace.

  200. Talha says:
    @AaronB

    I agree here, which is why feminism is always about comparing and using the masculine as a yardstick by which to measure whether or not they have achieved success.

    Peace.

  201. dfordoom says: • Website
    @AmRusDebate

    Democrats are majority White – it follows that most Democrats who are White, hate themselves, hate Whites.

    No it doesn’t follow at all. Whites who are Democrats do not hate themselves and they do not consider themselves to be white. They consider themselves to be liberals, to be citizens of the world, to be anything other than white.

    They also consider themselves to belong not just to an intellectual elite but to a moral elite as well. They most certainly do not hate themselves.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @AmRusDebate
  202. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mark G.

    I think everyone does something like this “which is better” analysis.

    I more or less agree but when it comes to voting it’s not so much “which is better” as a “which is least loathsome” analysis. The assumption is that all politicians are lying treacherous scum but some are worse than others.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  203. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    We can’t go back. We can’t have serfs and slaves again. We can’t have women as property again. You can’t put the tootpaste back into the tube. You have to find some way to make “it” work.

    Sometimes “it” cannot be made to work. The society in question is then doomed to collapse.

    I have serious doubts as to whether the current system can be tweaked enough to make it work.

    Some things are just really bad ideas right from the start. Feminism is one of those things. It’s based on ludicrously mistaken ideas of human nature and of how societies work. Maybe you can’t go back, but that doesn’t mean that feminism can ever be made to work. In such a situation it’s foolish to try to make something fundamentally unworkable workable.

    Sometimes if you can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube you just have to throw it away and buy another tube.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
  204. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Just when you think that liberals can’t get any sicker, they do. The next cause championed by the adherents of the cause-of the-month club may be pedophilia.

    The sexualisation of children has been going on for quite a while already. I’d say that World War P is already well underway.

    It was always inevitable. Liberals are trapped by their own ideology. They really don’t have any way of avoiding such outcomes without abandoning their own ideology.

    The interesting question will be – which way will feminists jump on this issue? They’ve already largely caved in on the tranny stuff even though it’s an outrageous attack on the fundamental basis of feminism. So I expect that they’ll cave in on this issue as well.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  205. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Some things are just really bad ideas right from the start.

    You know, I have told you before that perhaps you should consider moving someplace else if you hate Western civilization so much, but I don’t know where that would be. I don’t think there is anyplace in the world at all where married women aren’t allowed to own property, not even the most isolated third-world backwater.

  206. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    The interesting question will be – which way will feminists jump on this issue? They’ve already largely caved in on the tranny stuff even though it’s an outrageous attack on the fundamental basis of feminism. So I expect that they’ll cave in on this issue as well.

    Your view of “feminism” as a coherent, independent Thing is completely inaccurate. The contemporary feminist movement is completely controlled by globohomo and has no independent agenda of its own.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  207. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Today in things we always knew and science has confirmed:

    Even people without any diagnosed disorder might benefit from nicotine.

    If the West collapses it’s possible that the biggest single reason for that collapse will be the decline of cigarette smoking.

    Do you really think that putting a man on the Moon in 1969 would have been possible without scientists and engineers who smoked?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  208. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Your view of “feminism” as a coherent, independent Thing is completely inaccurate. The contemporary feminist movement is completely controlled by globohomo and has no independent agenda of its own.

    Yes, I agree with that.

  209. @dfordoom

    The assumption is that all politicians are lying treacherous scum but some are worse than others.

    I remember when the terms “congresscritters” and “congressscum” were in vogue.

    Ah, those were the days!

  210. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Do you really think that putting a man on the Moon in 1969 would have been possible without scientists and engineers who smoked?

    That is a damned good point.

  211. Anounder says:
    @peterAUS

    Do not respond to the Boomer.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  212. Anounder says:
    @Rosie

    >fathers

    You mean cuucks who pedestalize women. Preach that women represent The Good. A distinctly untraditional attitude.

  213. Anounder says:
    @Rosie

    Thinness standards are so outrageous right now, that plenty of women just give up.

    What thinness? Amurica teaches women that it’s okay to look like a slut in a rap video. Not just in how they dress, but how their bodies look. I’m talking rear-end worship.

    (White) Women are now doing whatever they can to give themselves bodies like Black and Mestizo women (who are more built like hogs as a rule). Squats and other exercises to pump up the thighs and buttocks. Diets. Injections.

    There is no actual worship of “thinness” in today’s America.

  214. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    I have serious doubts as to whether the current system can be tweaked enough to make it work.

    Yes, some days I have those doubts as well.

    but that doesn’t mean that feminism can ever be made to work

    I think that you need to look at the specifics. Allowing women to become doctors instead of forcing them to be nurses works okay. Paying women equal pay for equal work works okay.

    Encouraging women to engage in sexual behavior that mimics the LCD man is not working well.

    • Replies: @Anounder
  215. Anounder says:
    @iffen

    What you permit women to do has to recognize that your lady off the street has from first menstruation onward only about a decade of reliable fertility. Then it all goes downhill from there. Having your daughter be learning to play daughter until she’s 25 is on the right track to degenerate society since she’ll be too old to retain peak fertility.

    It’s actuality that the lands with the highest fertility don’t let women do anything that impedes their functioning of providing more inhabitants of society. Hence Japan having notoriously low births since their women are feral sluts while women in non-overly degenerated Muslim communities have kids with no worry of generational gaps.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Rosie
    , @Jay Fink
  216. iffen says:
    @Anounder

    Shhh!

    They don’t like to be lumped with breeding livestock. It makes’em grumpy and they won’t put out.

  217. “Do not respond to the Boomer.”

    Now that is the kind of intellectual, educated, indepth, astute, well informed, critically thought out response to structural, ideological, ethical and pragmatic differences.

    • Replies: @Anounder
  218. @dfordoom

    if you are race X, but you deny you are race X, it can only be because you are weary and loath race X.

    I know that Jarred Taylor gave orders against the “self hating” concept, but just as he can’t fight off a Fareed Zakaria, so he should be ignored where the real world is concerned.

    Whites are not liberals because they love liberalism, they are liberals because they hate their own Whiteness. Anyone referencing their own race uniquely in negative terms, while that of others in uniquely positively, is suffering from profound self-rejection, self-hatred. The essence of modern politics among Whites, is self-hatred.

    The only way to disagree with this argument is to say that race is a social construct and not real.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Mr. Rational
    , @dfordoom
  219. iffen says:
    @AmRusDebate

    The only way to disagree with this argument is to say that race is a social construct and not real.

    Works for me.

  220. @AmRusDebate

    The only way to disagree with this argument…

    … that lefties won’t go apoplectic over, you mean.

    That’s also surrender.  If Whiteness doesn’t exist, White people can’t legitimately argue in their own interests.  Push the Overton window to the right though the lefties stroke out.

  221. Rosie says:
    @Anounder

    What you permit women to do has to recognize that your lady off the street has from first menstruation onward only about a decade of reliable fertility.

    Anounder’s plan for your daughters:

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anounder
  222. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    1. Be born a girl in Ethiopia.
    2. Get married off at onset of puberty.
    3. Get fistula while delivering a stillborn baby.
    4. Starve yourself nearly to death so as to avoid shitting your bed.

  223. Jay Fink says:
    @Anounder

    Things aren’t perfect by any means but I would rather live in any low fertility country over a high fertility Muslim or sub-Saharan African country. The best places on this earth have low fertility.

    • Replies: @Anounder
  224. Anounder says:
    @Jay Fink

    Those “best” places have no real desire to keep themselves alive. No real desire to recognize the importance of fear in preventing degeneracy.

    Your 25 and over woman off the street in Japan acts like a 15 year old slut since she senses she has nothing to fear. In a less degenerate era she’d be risking violence or shaming for her behavior. Be delegated to being a harlot. Today, she has nothing to fear on that front. Getting used by whatever man she allows until she’s too old/overweight/in debt to keep it up. Then she’ll find a man she despised when younger to give her resources or she goes live with her pet.

    The Japanese are afraid to die but also don’t really wish to live. Same goes for Whitey.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  225. Anounder says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Alright Boomer. How’d the Civil Rights Movement work out?

  226. @dfordoom

    If you see sex simply as a form of entertainment devoid of any higher purpose, and unwanted pregnancies can be either avoided or solved, yes, pedophilia may be accepted.

    There was move this way with teenage numphets in the 1970s. Also, homosexual relationships traditionally involved older men and very young men or boys.

  227. Mark G. says:
    @Anounder

    The Muslim and African countries with high birth rates will keep having children until there are so many people there they will all starve to death. Looking at things long term, how is that better than countries with low birth rates? You can tell the best places to live by looking at how people vote with their feet. Very few people are trying to get into African or Muslim countries. Also, you aren’t really advocating violence against women when you say women would be risking violence for their behavior if this were a less degenerate era? If you are advocating violence against women then you should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    , @Rosie
    , @dfordoom
  228. @Toronto Russian

    artists smoothed out or covered up the unfashionably bony parts of their body

    And old school “photoshoppers” did the same.

    As roundness was considered feminine, retouchers would lessen the degree of shadow under a woman’s cheekbone by shaving away at the negative. The 1901 photographic guide Finishing the Negative advised that “In the case of ladies, it is safe to err on the side of over-roundness,” while The Complete Self-Instructing Library warned, “A high cheek-bone suggests more of the animal nature in the individual; a lower cheek-bone, which gives by far more beauty to the face, denotes mildness of character and a more congenial nature.”
    (…)
    “In portraits of ladies in décolleté gowns the bust should be absolutely smooth. All protruding bones should be entirely removed,” instructed Wilson’s Photographic Magazine. According to a writer in The Photo-Miniature, “The usual custom is to obtain what may be termed a marble or alabaster polish to the shoulders,” but while he called this approach “a case of overdoing it,” he still asserted that “Where the bones or muscles of a neck show they may be almost entirely removed.”

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/84687/8-odd-beauty-standards-turn-century-photographs

    How a fashionable painter “enhanced” a model who was a bit too thin and angular…
    Portrait of a lady vs photos of Hollywood actresses: the bones (and the slouching) are dead giveaway of the time when it was photographed.

  229. Anounder says:
    @Mark G.

    The Muslim and African countries with high birth rates will keep having children until there are so many people there they will all starve to death.

    They will still have a reliable population source.

    You can tell the best places to live by looking at how people vote with their feet.

    Are you hinting Murica or West Europe are the best to live? Well that’s an arrogant thing to say.

    >Very few people are trying to get into African or Muslim countries.

    Did I say they were absent of degeneracy and disorder? They are. They have no caliphate.

    Also, you aren’t really advocating violence against women when you say women would be risking violence for their behavior if this were a less degenerate era? If you are advocating violence against women then you should be ashamed of yourself.

    It’s actuality that in non-degenerate civilization female sexuality was regulated differently than male sexuality. Threats of violence was always part of it. Just read the Torah, Quran, or Manava Dharma Shastra.

  230. Anounder says:
    @Rosie

    I have birth levels backing me. You?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  231. Rosie says:
    @Mark G.

    If you are advocating violence against women then you should be ashamed of yourself.

    If someone goes out and acts on his advice, I hope it doesn’t get it that he posted on this site.

  232. Rosie says:
    @Anounder

    I have birth levels backing me. You?

    Here’s the deal. When infant mortality plummets, women don’t need to have 8 children a piece anymore, mmmkay.

    This is a portrait of the Mozart family:

    Mom, Dad, brother, sister, like the Bernstein Bears.

    Ms. Mozart had seven children. Only two survived. Wolfgang and Constance had six, with only two sons surviving.

    If you go on having six to eight kids per family indefinitely, you’re going to wind up facing ecological catastrophe.

  233. dfordoom says: • Website
    @AmRusDebate

    Whites are not liberals because they love liberalism, they are liberals because they hate their own Whiteness. Anyone referencing their own race uniquely in negative terms, while that of others in uniquely positively, is suffering from profound self-rejection, self-hatred.

    What you interpret as hatred of whiteness is actually class hatred. It’s the hatred of the mostly white upper and middle classes for everybody below them in class terms.

    The essence of modern politics among Whites, is self-hatred.

    The essence of modern politics among Whites is class hatred.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  234. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mark G.

    The Muslim and African countries with high birth rates will keep having children until there are so many people there they will all starve to death.

    Fertility rates are already plummeting in the Muslim world. They’re plummeting everywhere except sub-Saharan Africa.

    Looking at things long term, how is that better than countries with low birth rates

    You’re looking at this as an either/or problem. It isn’t. The point is that you don’t want very high fertility rates, and you don’t want very low fertility rates either. You want something in the middle. Approximately replacement rate. And that’s what we don’t have anywhere.

    We have terrifyingly high fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa. We have terrifyingly low fertility rates in western Europe, east Asia, etc. What we need to do is to increase fertility rates in Europe and east Asia. But that’s the one thing that seems impossible to do. It seems that once you have urbanisation, capitalism, consumerism, atheism, feminism and the cult of homosexuality then you’re just not going to be able to get your fertility rates back up to survival levels.

    That’s why people are worried – it’s the prospect that the collapse in fertility rates may be irreversible. No-one is saying that we want very high fertility rates in European or east Asian countries.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  235. peterAUS says:
    @Anounder

    And proper Catholic to boot.

    Well, takes some effort to get to know who you are communicating with here.

    And, BTW, I am not saying I, you, or he is right/not right.
    “To each….” and “free will”.

    I just take this “modern sexual thing” as fucked up (pun intended) as most of the things around us.
    At least youngsters have social media and smartphones. We, in my time, didn’t have those things. See, the progress.

    My wife and I walk often around here. We do comment on couples, in their (sexual) prime, both WALKING and staring/typing into their devices. Not even looking at each other. Progress….hehe.
    We, oldies, couldn’t do it. We, poor souls, were forced to focus on each other. We’ll stop here; R18 and such.
    Funny, a? Progress, sexual liberation and such I mean.

  236. peterAUS says:
    @dfordoom

    It’s the hatred of the mostly white upper and middle classes for everybody below them in class terms.
    The essence of modern politics among Whites is class hatred.

    Spot on.

  237. @AmRusDebate

    Rules are no calling for or engaging in explicitly illegal activity, no dehumanizing, and no crude racial slurs. Other than that, have at it. Permitted comments obviously do not equal endorsements.

  238. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    No-one is saying that we want very high fertility rates in European or east Asian countries.

    But don’t you say that feminism must be discarded in toto?

    I don’t see why anyone would say that unless they think we need to have enormous families.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  239. @AmRusDebate

    A lot of the throat-cutting is self-induced. Outside of accidents, the leading cause of death for white men aged 18-65 is suicide (and some of those accidents are probably actually more considerate suicides).

  240. @Achmed E. Newman

    I am a big strike-through guy.

    Great pickup line, my man!

  241. @EliteCommInc.

    But in this day and age an increasing number of men are going to expect more and more that women take responsibility for their relational choices.

    What other options do they have, particularly the bottom 80% or so of men?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    , @Rosie
  242. @Truth

    If only Trumpism really had converted the Republican party into actual republicans.

    I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, anti-interventionist campaign Trump in 2016, and am pulling for a Tulsi miracle in 2020.

    I think Unz commenters are far more consistently anti-interventionists than mainstream Democrats or Republicans are. The former are currently trying once again to revive the cold war.

  243. @iffen

    I think that I have to drop my goat herding allusion.

    I second that.

  244. @Talha

    My money is on 2) as well.

  245. @Audacious Epigone

    What other options do they have, particularly the bottom 80% or so of men?

    Speaking of bottom fractions of men…

    Something I have noticed of late is that if you so much as talk about cooking in front of a late teen or 20-something woman, they immediately perk up.  Just putting this out there.

  246. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    But don’t you say that feminism must be discarded in toto?

    I don’t see why anyone would say that unless they think we need to have enormous families.

    The fact that it’s one of the factors depressing fertility rates is just one of the many things wrong with feminism. Feminism is bad because it sets men and women at each other’s throats. It’s bad because it poisons family life, which is bad for children (regardless of how many children people have). It’s bad because it encourages women to live like pretend men, which can only make them angry and miserable. Feminism is bad because it encourages degeneracy, which is one of the factors eating away at our society.

    But that doesn’t mean I think we need enormous families. Obviously we don’t. We just need roughly replacement level birth rates.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  247. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    But that doesn’t mean I think we need enormous families. Obviously we don’t. We just need roughly replacement level birth rates.

    And here I’ve been told all this time that the White race will perish unless take away all of women’s rights going back to…what? Being allowed to learn how to read? Being allowed to drive? Pick our own husbands?

    It is profoundly irresponsible and destructive of you to demonize “feminism” without explaining what you mean by the term. As a matter of fact, I don’t think people should attack “feminism.” If you’ve got some constructive ideas as to what you think needs to change, please do share with the class.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  248. Rosie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    defend a woman’s wanton behavior and then blame men that she has so engaged. And at the same time want to criminalize the behavior as an answer to reign in men or for some kind of revenge.

    I don’t understand this statement.

    The whole idea behind the decriminalization of fornication was that it was “victimless” and doesn’t hurt anyone. But now I am constantly told that, yes, it is very harmful by people who nevertheless insist on the action remaining permissible.

    I can think of only one reason for this: Men want women to suffer consequences for promiscuity but not men. However much lipstick you put on that pig, it remains a pig, totally repugnant to generally fair-minded White people.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Audacious Epigone
  249. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Men object to criminal sanctions because, unlike socil stigma, they cannot be imposed without regard to the constitutional provision for equal protection of the laws.

    Curiously, there is a precedent for legal sanctions against men (considered the wrongdoer) but not women (considered the victim) for fornication:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+22%3A16-17&version=ESV

    As usual, dissident right men want to pick and choose which parts of the old ways they want to keep.

    • Replies: @iffen
  250. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    It is profoundly irresponsible and destructive of you to demonize “feminism” without explaining what you mean by the term.

    To me it’s the doctrine that men and women are the same and that women should do all the things that men do. Because, as far as feminists are concerned, things that are masculine are really cool and things that are feminine suck.

    It’s the doctrine that traditional sex roles are oppressive. Which seems to be based on a belief that being female is really awful and that women can only be happy if they become men.

    If you’ve got some constructive ideas as to what you think needs to change, please do share with the class.

    OK, we should abandon the doctrine that equality means men and women are the same and we should return to traditional sex roles.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  251. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    and we should return to traditional sex roles.

    What if a woman doesn’t want to return to traditional sex roles? Are you proposing exclusion from paid employment?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  252. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    As usual, dissident right men want to pick and choose which parts of the old ways they want to keep.

    Giv’em hell Rosie.

  253. @Rosie

    This is even worse for young men than it is for young women.

  254. @Achmed E. Newman

    Pushing interracial couples won’t fail anything like putting plus-sized women will. The latter might even be helpful in terms of moving copy, beats me. Most white men can sexually appreciate attractive non-white women. Most men do not sexually appreciate fat women, though.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  255. @Rosie

    I don’t drink, smoke, use any illicit substances, etc but cigarette smoking is the most tolerable vice habit to be around–the users retain their sobriety, so I can still talk to them.

  256. @Rosie

    I care about dignity more than equality, rights more than power.

    This is beautiful, too.

  257. @AaronB

    The roles are biologically complementary. Why wouldn’t we expect psychological and behavioral roles to be similarly complementary? There isn’t any way to take these feminists seriously.

    • Agree: Talha
  258. @Rosie

    Think you have the wrong person tagged as a response to.

  259. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    What if a woman doesn’t want to return to traditional sex roles?

    Women as a whole never wanted to abandon traditional sex roles. They were pushed into it. Feminism was pushed by capitalists as a way of destroying trade unions and demoralising the working class. It was pushed by a small handful of crazy privileged middle-class women.

    Are you proposing exclusion from paid employment?

    At the moment most women don’t really have a choice. Married women have to work for economic reasons, whether they want to or not. I’d prefer women to be given a genuine choice to be stay-at-home wives and mothers.

    Mothers should certainly not be working full-time.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
  260. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    I don’t drink, smoke, use any illicit substances, etc but cigarette smoking is the most tolerable vice habit to be around–the users retain their sobriety, so I can still talk to them.

    Yep. Drinking and drugs are personally destructive and socially destructive. Smoking is not socially destructive. In fact if anything it’s socially useful. It makes people more productive.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
  261. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    In fact if anything it’s socially useful.

    It helps keep the Social Security fund solvent as well.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  262. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    In fact if anything it’s socially useful.

    It helps keep the Social Security fund solvent as well.

    Yep. Everybody wins!

  263. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    I’d prefer women to be given a genuine choice to be stay-at-home wives and mothers.

    I don’t disagree, but then you’re not really demanding a total rollback of feminism.

    One of the unfortunate side effects of the Protestant Revolution was that women lost one of their vocational options: Holy Orders. Nuns used to do the same jobs that women do now, nursing, teaching, counseling, administrative work, etc.

    The difference is that now they do this without the community they once had, leaving them lonelier and more vulnerable to seduction. I can’t say I have a ready answer to this, though I certainly can say what I think the solution is not.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  264. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    How about we try super generous paternal leave, day care at major employers, flex time for parents (and old people), extensive quality play care centers for children age 5-6 and under, extensive quality after school programs for older kids, and major tax incentives (refundable tax credits) for stay at home parents.

  265. Talha says:
    @iffen

    This sounds a lot like what a place like Sweden has. Takes a heck of a lot more taxes – and not sure it works.

    Other European countries are trying these kinds of things out (some are willing to throw anything and everything at it) – I’d wait at least 5 years to see if any of them are able to swing the TFR back to replacement before going to bat to make the US more big-tax/socialist because it’s already going to be a tough fight and it would be great if we could point to Poland or Austria or something.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  266. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Good points, Talha. I’m not secure in my estimation of what they are doing. I have the impression that they have a more rational and extensive “welfare” system.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @dfordoom
  267. @Audacious Epigone

    Sorry for the late reply, A.E. The interracial couple business will turn people off the TV completely, which is a good thing. The fat women ads will simply not work as ads. But, then do ads work anyway. Even that cute lizard selling the insurance – he’d pretty funny, but it didn’t make me switch my car insurance.

    Definitely, when woman have the right figure, the race or ethnicity doesn’t mean much, in “that way”. However, the interracial couple business sure doesn’t help us get sexually excited, especially after the TV is switched off in disgust.

    BTW, I wrote that I and the family don’t watch any TV at home, but on trips out of town, I will try to catch Seinfeld on TBS (it’s pretty damn random though, anyway, on when it’ll be on – there’s nothing resembling the set schedules of 1980’s TV). I watched it recently. I have to not only mute the commercials, as I have for years, but even mostly look at the computer and check for that Seinfeld apartment building once in a while to see whether the show is back on. The commercials are basically one big agenda advertisement of some super-diverse world that the elites think America must become. It’s downright disgusting – not the people, but the agenda.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  268. @Audacious Epigone

    Yep, and pipe, cigar, and clove cigarette smoke smell great 2nd-hand. I don’t know what the problem is, for me.

  269. @iffen

    How about we NOT steal responsible working people’s money to do maintain a bureaucracy to “run” these programs, and let people have kids, raise their kids, and take care of their parents the way they see fit. Freedom, what a concept!

    I don’t disagree on tax incentives bit, but that’s only because we haven’t gotten rid of the abomination known as Amendment XVI.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  270. @Achmed E. Newman

    Dang, I need to use my 5 minutes wisely. Sorry about the typos.

  271. @Audacious Epigone

    I’m allergic to whatever TF is in cigarettes.  I have literally spent a week-plus recovering from a couple of days of brief exposure to whatever TF they give off, and have been incapacitated from a couple of hours of being in a field of smokers in an open-air demonstration.

    Maybe tobacco isn’t bad and I’ve never had a reaction to vaping, but cigs are fucking evil and need to be banned.

  272. @iffen

    So, Mr. Socialist, tell me:  WHO PAYS FOR ALL THIS?

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  273. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    I have the impression that they have a more rational and extensive “welfare” system.

    SAHM tend not to like daycare subsidies. It actually reduces the value of our labor in the home. The more expensive daycare is, the less incentive men have to support their wives’ wishes to stay home. Of course, that’s not what all women want, and many men are very supportive regardless of the economic considerations. Still, it’s important to take all of that into account.

    • Replies: @iffen
  274. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    One of the unfortunate side effects of the Protestant Revolution was that women lost one of their vocational options: Holy Orders. Nuns used to do the same jobs that women do now, nursing, teaching, counseling, administrative work, etc.

    Agreed. Catholicism offered both men and women the choice of a useful celibate life, and for a certain proportion of people it was a very healthy choice.

  275. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    I have the impression that they have a more rational and extensive “welfare” system.

    Which seemed to work reasonably well until the Swedes decided to virtue-signal themselves to death.

    The welfare state works well if you can keep the degeneracy at bay. And of course it only works with closed borders.

    • Replies: @Talha
  276. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    How about we NOT steal responsible working people’s money to do maintain a bureaucracy to “run” these programs, and let people have kids, raise their kids, and take care of their parents the way they see fit. Freedom, what a concept!

    Of course for some people that kind of freedom will end up being the freedom to starve, or freeze to death in cold weather. But hey, a few starving women and children is a small price to pay for lower taxes.

    Libertarianism will be a swell concept once all the useless mouths have died off. I mean what use are old people anyway? And sick people are icky.

    • Agree: iffen
    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  277. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    The welfare state works well if you can keep the degeneracy at bay.

    I think this chicken and egg scenario is really what needs to be debated; does the welfare state underwrite the movement towards degeneracy or is it independent of it? Is there a fine-tuned balance? An optimum sweet spot?

    In practice, at least in the West, before you know it, tax payers are eventually paying for on-demand abortion and sex-change operations as “muh fundamental human rights”.

    Peace.

  278. @dfordoom

    Yes, because that’s what happened daily in old early 1960’s America: freezing, starvation, and old people just dying willy-nilly of old age (OK, I’ll give you the latter.)

    Nobody’s ever heard of responsible people, savings, insurance, and charity, I guess. I really can’t blame anyone under 40 for that. They know of but nothing but Big Brother, the Federal government. I hope at least you LUV, LUV, LUV your big brother, Mr. Doom.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  279. @Talha

    … does the welfare state underwrite the movement towards degeneracy or is it independent of it?

    Of course, the former is true, Talha. We at the 50-odd year point in this experiment.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  280. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    SAHM tend not to like daycare subsidies.

    Given that most women work, I go for the greatest good. I would be in favor of anything that could aid SAHMs, especially for the first 2-3 years after birth.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  281. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Well, you have merged health care into child care. We should have mandatory basic health insurance with subsidies for those not earning enough to pay the premiums. Government regulations should break the health insurance company monopolies and require the offering of a multitude of different policies. For example, you should be able to find a policy that did not offer abortion or sex-change operations for adults (me too) therefore you wouldn’t be paying for those services in your premiums.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  282. iffen says:
    @Mr. Rational

    So, Mr. Socialist, tell me: WHO PAYS FOR ALL THIS?

    Well we could try increasing taxes on the extremely wealthy. The extremely wealthy always say that it won’t work, but I would like to try it one time.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  283. iffen says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Nobody’s ever heard of responsible people, savings, insurance, and charity, I guess.

    Twinkie, is that you?

  284. iffen says:
    @Mr. Rational

    And if we did come up short, we could tax universities, NGOs, churches, foundations and trusts, all entities created by local, state and federal governments, and eliminate the tax breaks for 501(c)(3) and similiar entities.

  285. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    We at the 50-odd year point in this experiment.

    The thing about experiments is that you have to control for all the variables, or else you can’t be sure of your conclusions.

    The Soviet Union was outright communist and they didn’t have all this degeneracy, probably because Stalin turned on the Jews. The question that remains is whether degeneracy is inevitable in a welfare state not controlled by a hostile elite.

  286. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    Given that most women work, I go for the greatest good. I would be in favor of anything that could aid SAHMs, especially for the first 2-3 years after birth.

    That’s why I like the UBI.

    • Agree: iffen
  287. @Rosie

    I’ll admit to this point, Rosie. It’d been hard to have a controlled experiment on the same nation, same population, same economic times, etc. I know that I would have opted for the control group, had I known such a better experiment was going on.

    On the USSR, Rosie, I don’t think there was any wherewithal, you might say, to start the degeneracy. IOW, if you have to worry about just having a heated space to live and getting to the store to stand in line for 2 hours for a head of cabbage, there is not really the inclination to go off on all kinds of wild-ass stupidity such as the feminism, the genderbending, the … well, hell, it’s all right here, categorized and all.

    Even more importantly, who would even speak out FOR some new degeneracy in the USSR when you really daren’t speak out about anything.

    American society’s very prosperity, tolerance, and freedom are what allowed the degeneracy to, well, degenerate. ;-}

    Good morning, Rosie.

  288. @iffen

    We should have …

    What do you mean by “we”, Kemosabe? Are you an irresponsible mooch off the system, Iffen? That’s not intended to be an insult, just a question. If the answer is “NO”, then you, along with Mr. Newman here, are not part of this “WE”. Get it?

    Government regulations …

    Yes, they’ve worked SO SO WELL for everything else – border control, a balanced Federal budget, great schooling for the kids (thank you, Jimmah!), freedom of association, …

    … you should be able to find a policy that did not offer abortion or sex-change operations for adults (me too) therefore you wouldn’t be paying for those services in your premiums.

    Have you never, ever dealt with a government agency (any kind) in your life, Iffen? Have you not worked in small business and seen a life in which people actually work at the purpose at hand and avoid bureaucracy? You rightly don’t like the way Big Insurance works when regulated like crazy by the Feral Gov’t (which it most certainly is). Then you think a government can do it better?! I just don’t think you’ve gotten around much, if you think like this.

    Finally, you want to talk about what you should have to pay for and opting out and such. I’ll just reiterate here – The responsible people paying taxes are paying for all of it! If you are one, then I don’t know why you hate yourself so much as to want to lay this burden down on you and your family, along with others who do realize how stupid an idea Socialism is.

    • Replies: @iffen
  289. iffen says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    “We” would be the nation state. Some of us think that the less capable, the aged, the disabled, the temporarily disadvantaged, etc. should be given a helping hand. If you don’t think so, so be it. Since the federal government has appropriated 95% of the political power and much of the wealth unto itself, and plays a major role in deciding who acquires and accumulates wealth, then the appropriate response is to force the government to use its power for the benefit of all the citizens.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  290. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    I think this chicken and egg scenario is really what needs to be debated; does the welfare state underwrite the movement towards degeneracy or is it independent of it? Is there a fine-tuned balance?

    Yes, that’s a concern. Personally I don’t think the welfare state is a major cause of the Poz. The Poz is essentially a deliberately engineered cultural factor.

    Of course the welfare system needs to be set up to reward moral behaviour and discourage immoral behaviour – so people who actually get married (and that would obviously include deserted wives and widows) should receive more welfare while welfare should not be paid to women who deliberately choose to be unmarried mothers.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Talha
  291. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    “We” would be the nation state. Some of us think that the less capable, the aged, the disabled, the temporarily disadvantaged, etc. should be given a helping hand

    The more I think about it, lolbertarians should be able to opt out of the welfare state at 21. Let them decide: Do you want to be a part of society, or do you want to be an autonomous individual? If they choose the latter, they sink or swim. We’ll see how that works out for them.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  292. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    while welfare should not be paid to women who deliberately choose to be unmarried mothers.

    There aren’t any of those, at least not more than a negligible number among White women. As I’ve said before, if White women were inclined to deliberately choose single motherhood in order to get welfare, Sweden would have a much higher birthrate.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
  293. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, because that’s what happened daily in old early 1960’s America: freezing, starvation, and old people just dying willy-nilly of old age (OK, I’ll give you the latter.)

    Nobody’s ever heard of responsible people, savings, insurance, and charity, I guess. I really can’t blame anyone under 40 for that. They know of but nothing but Big Brother, the Federal government. I hope at least you LUV, LUV, LUV your big brother, Mr. Doom.

    As I’ve tried to point out in earlier discussions on this topic you’re overlooking the fact that society in the 1960s was very very different from society today – people were more likely to be Christians, they were more likely to get married rather than just shack up together, women were much less likely to be irresponsible enough to choose to be unmarried mothers, housing was more affordable, men could get decent jobs that paid them enough to support a family, drugs were much less of a problem, we didn’t have the problems of an ageing population, men could earn enough to support a family and still save. It was still an intact society. People were less selfish. I can still remember that society.

    Like most libertarians you refuse to accept that we no longer have the society we had half a century ago. Liberalism has created a society which simply cannot function without a welfare state. Libertarians played a big part in the destruction of the functional society that we had in the early 60s.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  294. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    So, Mr. Socialist, tell me: WHO PAYS FOR ALL THIS?

    Well we could try increasing taxes on the extremely wealthy. The extremely wealthy always say that it won’t work, but I would like to try it one time.

    Yes, it’s really funny how the rich keep telling us that taxing the rich won’t work.

    You know I’ll make a prediction here. Taxing the extremely wealthy would not only work, it would be insanely popular and an absolute guaranteed election winner.

    It’s also amusing that people who whine about paying taxes to fund welfare usually don’t seem to care about trillions of taxpayer dollars being spent on endless imperialist wars.

  295. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Of course the welfare system needs to be set up to reward moral behaviour and discourage immoral behaviour

    I like this a lot. Of course it depends on some kind of a wide consensus in society on what exactly is considered moral. Unfortunately, when you posit that, the pink hats with placards come out in full force claiming you are pushing religion down their throats – not that society has to listen to them, but be ready for that fight.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  296. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    The thing about experiments is that you have to control for all the variables, or else you can’t be sure of your conclusions.

    The Soviet Union was outright communist and they didn’t have all this degeneracy, probably because Stalin turned on the Jews.

    They tried the degenerate craziness very briefly very early on but quickly realised what a disaster it was. Unlike our liberal democracies the Soviet communists were capable of recognising an obvious mistake and correcting it.

    But then Stalin was a lot smarter than our modern democratic leaders.

  297. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    lolbertarians should be able to opt out of the welfare state at 21

    The Amish have that deal as far as I remember:
    Mennonite and Amish Social Security Exemption
    The Amish do not collect unemployment, social security, or welfare benefits because doing so would be against their religious beliefs.

    As such, they have been exempt from paying into these systems.

    This is rooted in their religious belief to insure their kind (specifically the following Bible verse has been cited by the Amish to explain this:

    Timothy 5:8 says “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”).

    In order to receive the exemption, they must waive all rights to receiving Social Security benefits in retirement, they must be self-employed, and they must be a member of a recognized religious sect.

    They also must file the Social Security Tax Exemption Form 4029 – Application for Exemption from Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits with the IRS.”
    https://www.frugalconfessions.com/amish-finances/do-the-amish-pay-taxes/

    Peace.

  298. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Of course the welfare system needs to be set up to reward moral behaviour and discourage immoral behaviour

    I like this a lot. Of course it depends on some kind of a wide consensus in society on what exactly is considered moral. Unfortunately, when you posit that, the pink hats with placards come out in full force claiming you are pushing religion down their throats – not that society has to listen to them, but be ready for that fight.

    Yes, it would be an enormously difficult battle. But unlike some of the crazy schemes proposed by the alt-right I think it would be potentially winnable. Because it would be potentially popular – married couples who are struggling would be pretty happy to get a better deal, and the argument that if someone chooses to be a single mother then they should pay to bring up their own kids – if you can’t afford it, then don’t become a single mother. I think you’d be surprised how many people would go along with that.

    If you screw up your life with drugs, don’t expect welfare unless you give up the drugs. Again I think that could be popular.

    So you’d start with measures like that that would be likely to attract some support.

    What are the alternatives?

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Rosie
  299. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    I think it would be potentially winnable…I think you’d be surprised how many people would go along with that.

    It’s worth a gamble for sure. It would definitely allow the silent moral majority (if they are indeed out there) vote for an “Economic policy” rooted in their vision of a moral society without necessarily engaging in religious arguments, but just what is a better future vision for their society and a larger emphasis on individual responsibility without resorting to “get a job, you loser”.

    I’d definitely be on board.

    Peace.

  300. @Rosie

    We tried that. Let me look it up … oh yeah 1776. It worked great for damn close to 200 years! Some would argue only through Lincoln, many others would say through just about 100 years ago (FED created, 16th – 18th Amendments, etc.), and still others would go right up through the Barry Goldwater R-candidacy as the last effort to keep it.

    Do you want to be a part of society, or do you want to be an autonomous individual? If they choose the latter, they sink or swim. We’ll see how that works out for them.

    How downright silly, there. Do you not think there are plenty of people who want that? The whole point of the big US Feral Gov’t is to stop anyone from living just like that! They WILL NOT LET YOU. It doesn’t mean dropping out of society, it means dropping out of being a hanger on the US Feral Gov’t teat. Society can exist plenty well with a government 5 % of the size of this beast, and there’s something called American History, Rosie and Iffen, that one can read to learn this. It’s like you two never read an American history book in your lives or never met anyone who lived in the 1950’s. Geeze!

    • Replies: @iffen
  301. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    It’s also amusing that people who whine about paying taxes to fund welfare usually don’t seem to care about trillions of taxpayer dollars being spent on endless imperialist wars.

    Yes. They are similiar to the type that I have encountered over the years who continuously whine and complain about the extravagant money paid to professional athletes (even though they never attend games themselves.) If there is a strike they go into high gear. This in spite of the fact that the athlete frequently comes from a similiar background, could even be a neighbor’s kid. The saddest part is that they never mention the billions in taxes that rich owners extract from the communities by playing one against another and reaping the profits from stadium and other subsidies.

  302. iffen says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It’s like you two never read an American history book in your lives or never met anyone who lived in the 1950’s.

    Akshully, I lived in the 1950’s and I talk to myself all the time. I just try to not get into any serious arguments with myself.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  303. @dfordoom

    Yes, we don’t have the society we had then. You are right on that. What you are wrong on is that we also have a heavy-handed Feral Gov’t that is involved in almost all aspects of life. It was absolutely not like that 50 years ago, due to respect for the US Constitution. Yes, I know, the 50 million newcomers don’t have that respect, but then neither did the millions of white Americans who let the country get dragged into a Socialist hell. It’s not easily reversible, but adding more Socialism is certainly not the answer.

    The lack of Libertarianism is what caused much of the degeneracy we have today, as it’s not so much that people under a free society (as I wrote to Rosie) can come up with all this crap – it’s that they can use the governments to push this stuff into society via coercion – Exhibit A is the government indoctrination camps they still call “public schools”.

    A majority of Americans, right on through the 1960’s and up to today, didn’t and don’t want the globo-homo agenda (I’ll just use that as a stand-in term for a whole lot of bad stuff). The thing is that the 60’s cultural upheavals could have just been gotten over, but these same people infiltrated all the institutions – universities (first), media, government at all levels, and lower education too. If they didn’t have so much influence, do to these institutions having so much power and being under the thumb of Aunt Samantha, we would not have to put up with it all.

    • Replies: @Anounder
  304. @iffen

    Haha, on the last part!

    You lived then? What do you remember? Was it not a freer country then, in so many ways?

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @iffen
  305. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    if you can’t afford it, then don’t become a single mother.

    I guess you would have left Rosie and Mom to starve on the streets.

    I can’t respect or take seriously anyone who seriously maintains that, especially since there i no compelling justification for it. It’s just irrational, punitive hatred.

  306. Talha says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    All the little UNZ children gather eagerly around Grandpa Iffen at the fireplace, leaning in to hear his wise words between puffs on the pipe. They will sleep soundly tonight; dreams of freedom and lollipops until the dawn.

    Peace.

  307. @dfordoom

    Taxing the extremely wealthy would not only work, it would be insanely popular and an absolute guaranteed election winner.

    Yes, I think it would. So would banning certain books and speech that we all don’t like. So would banning scary-looking guns. So would a lot of things. It doesn’t mean they are smart ideas.

    First off, you and Iffen say “we should try it.” What the hell, man, can’t you do math? Work out the numbers. Try a 50% tax on the income, or even some odious wealth tax that takes their money directly, on the thousand big-wig richies. (I’ll do the math with you later if you want to, seriously.) See how all this money adds up. If you flat out take the money of 1000 billionaires (are there that many?) would you have enough? How about next year, after they retract into their shells like big old turtles?

    You wonder what kind of incentive this would be. Maybe not ALL the richies are your Zuckerburgs and Google nerds. Not all go to Epstein’s island, and not all are out to get Americans. Just as example, what about the Cathey family of Chik-filet, a pretty conservative bunch? Are they rich enough for the US government to write a Bill of Attainder for? How about the next guy with a great idea who says “ahh, screw it. The government will take my money anyway.” I will write a book review soon on my blog, on how, though the Chinese are said to have invented damn near everything, if you believe “The Man who Loved China” that is, they never seemed to have made anything pay off till very recently Could that be due to negative incentives? Just sayin’…

    It’s also amusing that people who whine about paying taxes to fund welfare usually don’t seem to care about trillions of taxpayer dollars being spent on endless imperialist wars.

    It sure it is amusing, as are lots of things swimming around in one’s head that have no basis in reality. You could ask me, Mr. Rational, or any one of the commenters under iSteve (we all seem to have the same views on the stuff you/I wrote about above) – NOT A SINGLE ONE would state that we should keep spending the money on endless imperialist wars. That was a flat-out lie you wrote depending on who “people who whine” means. I figure it referred to commenters on this very thread, as hey, who is your audience?

  308. @dfordoom

    It’s also amusing that people who whine about paying taxes to fund welfare usually don’t seem to care about trillions of taxpayer dollars being spent on endless imperialist wars.

    There’s the issue of visibility.  The wars are way over there, happening to someone else.  Our fighters are volunteers.  The nuisance of welfare queens and the plague of hood rats is right here and too often in your face.

  309. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    I can’t respect or take seriously anyone who seriously maintains that, especially since there i no compelling justification for it. It’s just irrational, punitive hatred.

    If you decide you’re going to become a single mother then you’re making a choice. You don’t have to do it. You can’t claim to be a victim. If you cannot support a child on your own then it’s an irresponsible choice. What’s irrational about that argument?

    I made it clear that I do not include deserted wives and widows in that category because they are not in that situation by their own choice. I also would not include women who were married but divorced, assuming they were not the guilty party.

    So under my system (which will be implemented as soon as I take office) not a single woman would be disadvantaged, except through her own choice to be selfish and irresponsible.

    And it also made it clear that I would like to see married people who were struggling get more help.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  310. Rosie says:

    I’m tired of all my taxes going to support male criminals. Let their families bring them food. If they can’t afford it, don’t commit crimes.

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09062/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  311. @Rosie

    He’s absolutely right though. Don’t become a single mother, if you can at all help it. You may have to choose the “Beta” guy. You may have to honor that oath about good times and bad – I know that’s a real toughie with you women nowadays. You may have to have life insurance, just in case your husband does die early.

    It’ll make people have to be RESPONSIBLE out of necessity. What a concept? Responsible people will come out ahead in life. EGADS!

    Oh, and then there’s REAL CHARITY, for the worst case. However, nowadays, your other husband, the Feral Gov. has got your six, so no real charity can even work anymore.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  312. @Rosie

    Hey, that’s an excellent idea. They’re probably sick of the PB&J anyway.

    Like a stopped clock, you got this point by accident … still Kudos!

  313. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    If you cannot support a child on your own then it’s an irresponsible choice.

    I need to leave here. There is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion about right and wrong with psychopaths.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    , @AaronB
  314. iffen says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Was it not a freer country then

    Not for me.

    I had to live by some inviolable rules that were unsparingly enforced.

  315. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    He’s absolutely right though. Don’t become a single mother, if you can at all help it. You may have to choose the “Beta” guy. You may have to honor that oath about good times and bad – I know that’s a real toughie with you women nowadays.

    This is very typical unz, just your usual unsubstantiated insults scapegoating women.

    In any event, there is no obligation to stick around in “good times and bad.” There is an obligation to “love, honor, and cherish” your wife. When husbands don’t do that, we leave. That’s how contracts work.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  316. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    I should give you credit, though, Achmed. You at least have attempted (and failed) in the past to establish a necessity for your punitive attitude toward single mothers. Doom here doesn’t even bother with that. He just thinks it’s morally righteous, quite apart from any necessity, to make sure they get what’s coming to ’em, good and hard.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  317. @Rosie

    If you cannot support a child on your own then it’s an irresponsible choice.

    I need to leave here.

    Can’t stand the idea of any woman, let alone your own mother, being declared an irresponsible person can you?

    There is no point in attempting to have a rational discussion about right and wrong with psychopaths.

    Rosie, there’s a difference between having a rational discussion and letting you declare your moral rectitude without challenge.  Your (obviously emasculated) husband does not represent all men.  Nor should he, the poor bastard.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  318. Rosie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Can’t stand the idea of any woman, let alone your own mother, being declared an irresponsible person can you?

    Why did you not mention my father?

    Never mind, I know the answer. It’s always women’s fault.

    Same shit, different day.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  319. @Rosie

    There aren’t any of those (women who deliberately choose to be unmarried mothers), at least not more than a negligible number among White women.

    Wish you were right. I’ve seen it happen, and in that case the woman’s mother was the one who told her not to marry the man involved (a fairly decent sort with no particular skill but willing to work) because welfare paid more. Unemployed or low wages whites are going the same way that Blacks did after LBJ convinced couples to divorce to maximize welfare payments.

    If anybody’s interested, I’m not in favor of this, just observing what’s happening. Men who can’t support a child don’t tend to get married (apparently at the woman’s choice), and the number of White men who fall into this category is increasing. I’m _really_ not in favor of this trend.

    Counterinsurgency

  320. AaronB says:
    @Rosie

    I don’t think this unz website is actually good for anyone.

    It exposes you to the worst side of humanity, and it seems to be getting worse – every commenter I have known, becomes a worse human being after a few months.

    I used to read Heartiste for a while – then I read something by the late Lawrence Auster, who said he refused to read that site, because it just made feel like a worse and dirtied human being after doing so.

    I realized Heartise made me feel dirty in the exact same way, and I completely stopped reading him.

    Unz started out not so bad, but it has almost reached Heartiste levels of dirtiness, and I increasingly feel defiled spending time here.

    This site may serve a spiritual purpose in a way, that the spiritual darkness and dirtiness on display here shocks one into repenting and searching for the Divine, the source of good – but after that, you just become grimy hanging around here.

    Do yourself a favor and get out, find a good group of Christians if you can.

    My commenting has dropped by 80%, and I keep to a few topics these days, but I was just thinking today how bad this place is getting, and that it is beginning to need the Heartiste treatment.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @AaronB
  321. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    All you need to do is dump out that stagnated jar of moonbeams and lightning bugs and get a fresh collection, then you will be okay.

    Man up dude. Don’t let this “material” world get you down, concentrate on the spirtual world.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  322. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    While ridiculous White “men” argue about whether it’s a good idea to let women and children go hungry in the streets:

    • Replies: @iffen
  323. AaronB says:
    @AaronB

    Btw, I want to say I did not mean Audacious Epigone, who seems like a decent and reasonable person.

    Or dfordoom for the most part, who leaves many valuable comments.

    Just the generality of commenters, authors, and the general atmosphere on unz – demonic.

  324. AaronB says:
    @iffen

    I sometimes feel you just want me to pay attention to you iffen 🙂

    Well, you’re a good guy iffen – I appreciate you’re not an anti semite, don’t seem to be a racist, and seem to bear no one serious ill will.

    Its just unfortunate that you have a limited outlook – but that’s not your fault.

    • Replies: @iffen
  325. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    They waved papers in the air, chanted, and demanded to hold talks with Prime Minister Édouard Philippe over their immigration status.

    They be democracy lovers Rosie. What do you want?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  326. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    Well, you’re a good guy …

    [It’s] just unfortunate that you have a limited outlook

    and that is your fault.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  327. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    They be democracy lovers Rosie. What do you want?

    Generally, the point of democracy is that you get to vote in your own country, not someone else’s.

  328. AaronB says:
    @iffen

    Perhaps it is my fault that you have a limited outlook.

    I have been doing my best to broaden your mind, but I have failed, and perhaps I am at fault for that.

    I will reflect on that, iffen, thank you.

    • Replies: @iffen
  329. iffen says:
    @AaronB

    Now, in additon to your other faults, you have added tedious and nonsense.

    You are at fault for the failure to broaden your mind.

    BTW, you forget to put in your last comments how stoopid HBD is.

  330. @Rosie

    That’s not what they said at my wedding. Course, the preacher was just reading if off the internet and may have got a hacked version.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  331. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    That’s not what they said at my wedding. Course, the preacher was just reading if off the internet and may have got a hacked version.

    They don’t have to say it. Contracts are mutual by their nature, and it goes without saying. If you’re not fulfilling your end of the bargain, you’re wife doesn’t have to either.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  332. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    You at least have attempted (and failed) in the past to establish a necessity for your punitive attitude toward single mothers. Doom here doesn’t even bother with that. He just thinks it’s morally righteous, quite apart from any necessity, to make sure they get what’s coming to ’em, good and hard.

    You entirely missed my point. I was talking about single mothers who choose to be irresponsible. Nobody is forcing them to do so. Any negative consequences that flow from that are the person’s own responsibility.

    I made it very clear that women who find themselves single mothers through no fault of their own should of course receive welfare.

    Let’s say a man wants a fancy sports car that costs $100,000. He can’t afford it but he wants it anyway. Then he finds that he can’t make the loan repayments. Should other people be forced to subsidise his car loan repayments?

  333. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    They don’t have to say it. Contracts are mutual by their nature, and it goes without saying. If you’re not fulfilling your end of the bargain, you’re wife doesn’t have to either.

    And as I made clear, if a woman is divorced because her husband actually broke the marriage contract (which means something like committing adultery or beating her up or deserting her or failing to provide financial support) then of course I think she should be entitled to welfare.

    If she’s divorced because she wanted to “find herself” or she “needed more space” or she’s committed adultery or she was bored then she would be the one breaking the marriage contract.

    So I’m puzzled as to exactly that it is about my proposal that you disagree with?

  334. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    He just thinks it’s morally righteous

    Yeah, weirdly enough I do like the idea of people trying to behave in a morally righteous manner. It’s what we used to call civilisation. Moral rules exist to benefit society. Mostly moral rules are there to protect women and children, which is as it should be.

    Government is supposed to be for the benefit of society, so it seems to me to be logical for governments to encourage moral behaviour. At the very least governments should not be encouraging immoral behaviour, which is what they’re doing at the moment.

  335. Anounder says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    What you are wrong on is that we also have a heavy-handed Feral Gov’t that is involved in almost all aspects of life.

    The point of non-liberal and non-degenerate government is to to get involved in just about all of life. That is how it was done under Muslim empires for example. See also modern China which is ultimately less degenerate and more fertile than Murica.

    It was absolutely not like that 50 years ago, due to respect for the US Constitution.

    The same one that couldn’t keep Negroes out? Or stop Shays’ Rebellion?

    The lack of Libertarianism is what caused much of the degeneracy we have today, as it’s not so much that people under a free society (as I wrote to Rosie) can come up with all this crap

    Libertarianism is just a more autistic liberalism and liberalism did indeed grow degeneracy.

    Liberals like you believe in the noble savage and deny that man is evil by nature and hence needs to be regulated to not fall into filth.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS