The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Politics"
 All Comments / On "Politics"
    Certainly seems so to me. AltRight.com's Vincent Law was pretty optimistic at the start of 2017: "Overall assessment of the situation: Feels great, man." Only problem is - it appears that he either left them or was fired, which means that AltRight.com is no longer even worth following (Greg Hood is good but posts too...
  • @Toronto Russian

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women ”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    I wouldn't say so. A façade of old-fashioned male courtesy (giving flowers, opening doors etc) and sweet feminine charm is often just a façade. There's a lot of trouble, especially among the poor small-town and rural people. A lot of selfish, irresponsible and violent behavior. For example, it was unusual for me to see how Western families care for their sick children together. In Russia it's very common that a father abandons a sick child. Or any child if it's an inconvenience. "Dad has disappeared" is a disturbingly usual line in people's life stories. It appears something of the so-called Sub-Saharan African family pattern exists in Russia - women who do all the work, volatile men, even horticulture (ogorod). But children, unlike in Africa, aren't an economic asset - you have to send them to school, can't get away with making them herd goats or something - so there are much fewer of them.
    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report. That's not only husbands beating their wives, the policeman says, but also sons beating their mothers. If this isn't a sign of deep disfunction in family relationships, I don't know what is.
    https://youtu.be/JWtfLjpGqDk
    By the way, it reminded me of Pushkin's words "The government is Russia's only European." While state TV tells people violence is not normal and victims should get help, much of the general population is still in "If he beats you, he loves you" stage.
    Of course alcohol causes or makes worse a lot of disfunction, so it's a positive and hopeful development that alcoholism is going down. Being sober is now actively promoted by local organizations. Here are some activists for sober New Year celebration:
    https://pp.userapi.com/c625731/v625731770/13665/pCAz3uslMQU.jpg

    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report.

    This is an astonishingly brazen lie of TV . For the 2017 in Russia were 10,000 murders (any murders)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    I've often said that evangelical religions provide an incredible energy and there's much to be said for them. There were Muslims in Chinese dynastic courts and the recorded evidence shows that they consistently advocated a more aggressive and outgoing policy as its evident that religion certainly provided an impetus to do things which were difficult to materially justify but would nonetheless have proved fruitful.

    Of course, Zheng He was Muslim and his exploration goals were influenced by a desire to create a path to Mecca for fellow Muslims. The Islamic Golden Age was impressive and arguably played a vital role in the Scientific Method - and in that, all of modern life.

    Evangelical religions do seem to inspire an expansive energy which at its best, inspires greatness and dreams beyond material ken. But of course, it also comes with its price of vast religious wars.

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.

    Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance.

    Maybe as a reaction (not entirely unjustified) to the Renaissance? Calvinism is basically the Islam of Christianity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @for-the-record
    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    In my mother's day (and to some extent when I was young, I believe) there were lot of humiliating restrictions on women -- not being able to take out a loan, needing her husband's signature to get a credit card, even serving on juries in some states. These affected women in general, not only a tiny handful.

    Saying that feminism has gone too far is one thing, denying its historical basis is going too far.

    serving on juries

    Is this a “right” more than a tiny fraction of people actually want?

    Sorry, I just had to pull that out– I’m not raising a new argument on any side of the general issue here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Perhaps I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I don’t really see the evidence for this.
     
    I don't have much evidence. I'll admit that. All I can say is that my understanding is that women were at the forefront of private poor relief efforts in early industrial society. I think they called it "social housekeeping" because public roles for women were novel at the time, and they wanted to emphasize the feminine and traditional aspects of their work.

    From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.

    Again, I'm not saying that I have an iron-clad case for women's suffrage as a necessary condition for the welfare state fully worked out, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were so, and I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken there was a time when women voters were seen as protective against unnecessary warfare.

    Florence Nightingale cannot be praised enough, but it’s not quite fair to generalize about the time before her– Surgeon-General Larrey is, surely, not a name to be ignored? And don’t forget the enormous network of nuns who made the Catholic hospital system possible in the US– a very necessary role at the time. It is a common modern error to dismiss all time before the present as utterly barbaric, when some softening of perspective would be more appropriate.

    Personally I’m not too concerned about suffrage for anybody– there is, I think, a good rationale for limiting the franchise to one vote per household (man and wife must agree? or half a vote each?), but I am not really against our current system– it’s flawed, like every system made by mankind. You probably know, incidentally, that had female suffrage been put to a vote among women at the time it was introduced, at least in the UK or the US, it would have been soundly defeated (which is not necessarily an argument against it).

    I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences.

    Certainly– even if only because the enormous upheaval necessary before such a thing could be even thinkable would be necessarily catastrophic.

    Another point about those 500 men– for most of history giving birth was quite as dangerous as going to war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous[164] • Disclaimer says:
    @Toronto Russian

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women ”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    I wouldn't say so. A façade of old-fashioned male courtesy (giving flowers, opening doors etc) and sweet feminine charm is often just a façade. There's a lot of trouble, especially among the poor small-town and rural people. A lot of selfish, irresponsible and violent behavior. For example, it was unusual for me to see how Western families care for their sick children together. In Russia it's very common that a father abandons a sick child. Or any child if it's an inconvenience. "Dad has disappeared" is a disturbingly usual line in people's life stories. It appears something of the so-called Sub-Saharan African family pattern exists in Russia - women who do all the work, volatile men, even horticulture (ogorod). But children, unlike in Africa, aren't an economic asset - you have to send them to school, can't get away with making them herd goats or something - so there are much fewer of them.
    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report. That's not only husbands beating their wives, the policeman says, but also sons beating their mothers. If this isn't a sign of deep disfunction in family relationships, I don't know what is.
    https://youtu.be/JWtfLjpGqDk
    By the way, it reminded me of Pushkin's words "The government is Russia's only European." While state TV tells people violence is not normal and victims should get help, much of the general population is still in "If he beats you, he loves you" stage.
    Of course alcohol causes or makes worse a lot of disfunction, so it's a positive and hopeful development that alcoholism is going down. Being sober is now actively promoted by local organizations. Here are some activists for sober New Year celebration:
    https://pp.userapi.com/c625731/v625731770/13665/pCAz3uslMQU.jpg

    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report.

    On the plus side, such a society has a high selection of eliminating Rosie genes such that the remaining women are much less on the bitch side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @for-the-record
    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women"get along" much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn't transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% -- 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female "advancement" does not inevitably lead to the social "decline" that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women ”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    I wouldn’t say so. A façade of old-fashioned male courtesy (giving flowers, opening doors etc) and sweet feminine charm is often just a façade. There’s a lot of trouble, especially among the poor small-town and rural people. A lot of selfish, irresponsible and violent behavior. For example, it was unusual for me to see how Western families care for their sick children together. In Russia it’s very common that a father abandons a sick child. Or any child if it’s an inconvenience. “Dad has disappeared” is a disturbingly usual line in people’s life stories. It appears something of the so-called Sub-Saharan African family pattern exists in Russia – women who do all the work, volatile men, even horticulture (ogorod). But children, unlike in Africa, aren’t an economic asset – you have to send them to school, can’t get away with making them herd goats or something – so there are much fewer of them.
    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report. That’s not only husbands beating their wives, the policeman says, but also sons beating their mothers. If this isn’t a sign of deep disfunction in family relationships, I don’t know what is.

    By the way, it reminded me of Pushkin’s words “The government is Russia’s only European.” While state TV tells people violence is not normal and victims should get help, much of the general population is still in “If he beats you, he loves you” stage.
    Of course alcohol causes or makes worse a lot of disfunction, so it’s a positive and hopeful development that alcoholism is going down. Being sober is now actively promoted by local organizations. Here are some activists for sober New Year celebration:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report.
     
    On the plus side, such a society has a high selection of eliminating Rosie genes such that the remaining women are much less on the bitch side.
    , @melanf

    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report.
     
    This is an astonishingly brazen lie of TV . For the 2017 in Russia were 10,000 murders (any murders)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    Yes, mine was a question about the unique phenomenon and it seems to be a particular pathology associated with women. Of course, men have their own particular pathologies as well.
     
    Fair enough. FWIW, I suspect this phenomenon is a very extreme and pathological manifestation of an otherwise healthy attraction to independent men who are willing to break the rules on the sly or challenge authority openly when it is necessary for survival. There is definitely something attractive about a man who is willing to stand up and say, "F-ck you!" when appropriate. Defiance is kind of sexy, and I think that is why Anglin has a small female following.

    The women I’ve been blessed to have the company of were very decent and honorable and a source of wisdom – normal.

     

    Thank you for saying this. It really means a lot.

    Thank you for saying this. It really means a lot.

    No problem – as I’ve said before, any movement/ideology that cannot attract these normal women (ones with a healthy attitude toward the concept of family and also spirituality, since studies show again and again that women are more spiritual creatures than men) is just whistling past its own grave.

    Something in me also suspects that if Anglin were to have used that kind of language or expressed those views in front of his great grandmother (when she had strength and vigor) – she would have knocked out all his teeth.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Hey Rosie,

    Yes, mine was a question about the unique phenomenon and it seems to be a particular pathology associated with women. Of course, men have their own particular pathologies as well.

    One who speaks like Anglin does about women has either no respect for the one who gave birth to him or has some serious issues as far as the women he hangs around. The women I’ve been blessed to have the company of were very decent and honorable and a source of wisdom - normal.

    People like him or, the ones on the flip side of the coin like femi-Nazis who approach the divide and differences between men and women with the default assumption of competition and antagonism rather than mutual sacrifice and cooperation will likely never form a healthy family and deserve their likely end which is to have their genes excluded from the future of the human enterprise.

    Peace.

    Yes, mine was a question about the unique phenomenon and it seems to be a particular pathology associated with women. Of course, men have their own particular pathologies as well.

    Fair enough. FWIW, I suspect this phenomenon is a very extreme and pathological manifestation of an otherwise healthy attraction to independent men who are willing to break the rules on the sly or challenge authority openly when it is necessary for survival. There is definitely something attractive about a man who is willing to stand up and say, “F-ck you!” when appropriate. Defiance is kind of sexy, and I think that is why Anglin has a small female following.

    The women I’ve been blessed to have the company of were very decent and honorable and a source of wisdom – normal.

    Thank you for saying this. It really means a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Thank you for saying this. It really means a lot.
     
    No problem - as I’ve said before, any movement/ideology that cannot attract these normal women (ones with a healthy attitude toward the concept of family and also spirituality, since studies show again and again that women are more spiritual creatures than men) is just whistling past its own grave.

    Something in me also suspects that if Anglin were to have used that kind of language or expressed those views in front of his great grandmother (when she had strength and vigor) - she would have knocked out all his teeth.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hey Rosie,

    Yes, mine was a question about the unique phenomenon and it seems to be a particular pathology associated with women. Of course, men have their own particular pathologies as well.

    One who speaks like Anglin does about women has either no respect for the one who gave birth to him or has some serious issues as far as the women he hangs around. The women I’ve been blessed to have the company of were very decent and honorable and a source of wisdom – normal.

    People like him or, the ones on the flip side of the coin like femi-Nazis who approach the divide and differences between men and women with the default assumption of competition and antagonism rather than mutual sacrifice and cooperation will likely never form a healthy family and deserve their likely end which is to have their genes excluded from the future of the human enterprise.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yes, mine was a question about the unique phenomenon and it seems to be a particular pathology associated with women. Of course, men have their own particular pathologies as well.
     
    Fair enough. FWIW, I suspect this phenomenon is a very extreme and pathological manifestation of an otherwise healthy attraction to independent men who are willing to break the rules on the sly or challenge authority openly when it is necessary for survival. There is definitely something attractive about a man who is willing to stand up and say, "F-ck you!" when appropriate. Defiance is kind of sexy, and I think that is why Anglin has a small female following.

    The women I’ve been blessed to have the company of were very decent and honorable and a source of wisdom – normal.

     

    Thank you for saying this. It really means a lot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    But I was thinking along the lines of say a female version of Jeffery Dahmer. That guy actually got groupie fan mail from women which sounds completely nuts to me. Do you think men would ever do that to some cannibal female killer? Even if she was a 9 or 10? I’m not so sure…
     
    It's called hybristiphilia, and it's a mental disorder. Extreme outliers do not represent the mainstream, which is why articles like this are so ridiculous.

    https://dailystormer.name/mass-shooter-nikolas-cruz-getting-flooded-with-love-letters-from-top-shelf-pieces-of-ass/

    Anglin says:


    Women, you see, are complete filth.

    They are driven solely by animalistic pussy-drives, in particular the drive to fill their pussies with the seed of the most extreme psychopathic murderers alive.

    If you want to live in some fantasy dreamworld where “they’re not all like that” then go ahead, but if you don’t accept the truth you’re just going to go through your entire life getting fucked over by these skanks.
     

    Help me out here, people. Does the fact that 99.999999999% of women did not send Cruz a love letter not by definition prove that we're not all like that? It makes sense when you think about it. If women were as Anglin claims, I'm guessing none of us would be here today. Almost all serial killers are men, but if they were a reflection of the character of men in general, once again I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Help me out here, people. Does the fact that 99.999999999% of women did not send Cruz a love letter not by definition prove that we’re not all like that?

    Only one out of a billion, seems you are exaggerating a bit as he surely received more than 1/6 of a letter from American women.

    Or perhaps we should make an allowance for women’s difficulties with basic math? [Sorry, couldn't resist!]

    But your point is right, of course, it is only relatively very few women, just as (fortunately) only very few men are serial killers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Good point about pretty females getting lighter sentences (exihibit A for supporting face veils in court?).

    But I was thinking along the lines of say a female version of Jeffery Dahmer. That guy actually got groupie fan mail from women which sounds completely nuts to me. Do you think men would ever do that to some cannibal female killer? Even if she was a 9 or 10? I’m not so sure...

    Now some males supporting attractive and slutty females seems fairly par for the course. Hell, there would likely be a market for guys paying for a pay-per-view mud wrestling competition between the perps. Would that be surprising?

    Peace.

    But I was thinking along the lines of say a female version of Jeffery Dahmer. That guy actually got groupie fan mail from women which sounds completely nuts to me. Do you think men would ever do that to some cannibal female killer? Even if she was a 9 or 10? I’m not so sure…

    It’s called hybristiphilia, and it’s a mental disorder. Extreme outliers do not represent the mainstream, which is why articles like this are so ridiculous.

    https://dailystormer.name/mass-shooter-nikolas-cruz-getting-flooded-with-love-letters-from-top-shelf-pieces-of-ass/

    Anglin says:

    Women, you see, are complete filth.

    They are driven solely by animalistic pussy-drives, in particular the drive to fill their pussies with the seed of the most extreme psychopathic murderers alive.

    If you want to live in some fantasy dreamworld where “they’re not all like that” then go ahead, but if you don’t accept the truth you’re just going to go through your entire life getting fucked over by these skanks.

    Help me out here, people. Does the fact that 99.999999999% of women did not send Cruz a love letter not by definition prove that we’re not all like that? It makes sense when you think about it. If women were as Anglin claims, I’m guessing none of us would be here today. Almost all serial killers are men, but if they were a reflection of the character of men in general, once again I suspect we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Help me out here, people. Does the fact that 99.999999999% of women did not send Cruz a love letter not by definition prove that we’re not all like that?

    Only one out of a billion, seems you are exaggerating a bit as he surely received more than 1/6 of a letter from American women.

    Or perhaps we should make an allowance for women's difficulties with basic math? [Sorry, couldn't resist!]

    But your point is right, of course, it is only relatively very few women, just as (fortunately) only very few men are serial killers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor

    white knight for attractive female teachers that get accused of sleeping with male students
     
    Because obviously they did no harm to the male students. The only instance I would give the same prison term as for a guy teacher sleeping with a female (or, for that matter, male) student, is if the female teacher engaged in femdon BDSM with the male student.

    That a female teacher sleeping with a male student is supposed to get the same sentence as a male teacher sleeping with a female student is preposterous.

    By the way depending on the circumstances I wouldn’t put to prison even male teachers, unless it was some egregious case. Let’s be realistic: most students sleeping with their teachers are already not virgins, and they usually do consent. The teacher should be fired, and the case of a male teacher should be made public both as a punishment and as a warning to others. I would also forbid them from teaching again.

    Your other point about the pretty young woman offender getting off with a light sentence is very good, though.

    Your other point about the pretty young woman offender getting off with a light sentence is very good, though.

    Are men unfit to judge women then?

    Women also receive more lenient sentences than men do for the same crime. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that women are less violent (i.e. less likely to re-offend), but it certainly would not surprise me if the more pretty and youthful female criminals were more likely to receive lenient sentences from male judges.

    More to the point, you’d have to control for prior offenses. In other words, you can’t just compare male and female convicts of felony theft, but rather felony theft convicts with equivalent criminal records.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Miro23
    Being a successful country in 2018 is not easy.

    The population needs to be healthy, well educated, skilled and employed, and there need to be low levels of corruption , a fair legal system and a frugal government dedicated to national development.

    The US happens to be declining an all these measures, and plenty of other countries are also failing. Every country is different, but a big reason has to be digitalization and the internet, building the framework for the mass exodus of manufacturing to low wage destinations.

    It should have been stopped with a serious national political effort (starting in the 1980's) but even where there has been the political will (e.g. in Germany), it's only been partially successful.

    In contrast to the Americans, the Germans know that they need modern manufacturing and all the science, development and technology that goes along with it, but globalization makes national production uneconomic - so they've pulled the useful trick of substituting the Euro for the D.Mark , giving them a new undervalued currency (very useful for exports) - linked to the economies of places like Portugal and Greece - who themselves now struggle with the overvaluation of their Euro currency.

    If Europe still had national currencies, Germany would not be able to manufacture and export the way it does with a D.Mark at its true market value - and Portugal and Greece would be much more competitive for manufacturing and tourism with a low valued Escudo and Drachma.

    The fundamental argument is to separate the administration of the state from business. They're totally separate concepts. The state represents the best interests of the people, and business represents the best interests of corporations and shareholders.

    In the US, business and finance have a lock on political power through Congress (lobbies) and the FED (despite the name - an association of private banks), with the administration stuffed with globalist businessmen and bankers. The only real answer is for states to be mostly autonomous and raise and spend their own taxes with close political involvement of the public (i.e. an American Confederation).

    Germany has been a total failure as a society on the most fundamental of all levels though, that is demography. It’s been known for at least 40 years that birth rates as low as in what was then West Germany would lead to serious problems for German society. There was never any serious political discussion let alone a concentrated effort to do something about this, all ideas for natalist policies were derided and slandered as Nazi-like. Now the “solution” politicians seem to have found is importing millions of clannish, ill-educated and mostly Muslim immigrants from Africa and the Islamic world…which of course is no solution at all, more like a death sentence for Germany.
    I don’t think all is well on the economic front either, infrastructure is decaying and Germany has consistently failed to establish new industries (it’s lagging behind in digitalization and IT). There’ll be a rude awakening eventually.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @polskijoe
    Lets assume the US falls (I dont know just yet):

    Its the people who will suffer though. Not the elites. They will run to other countries.
    Some Americans upper-middle and rich will run to other countries.

    As long as they have those financiers and military, they are still alive as empire.

    Yearly population are getting more obese (now 4/10).
    Less Middle Class. Less family unit. More big government. Thats not the America of old.

    Being a successful country in 2018 is not easy.

    The population needs to be healthy, well educated, skilled and employed, and there need to be low levels of corruption , a fair legal system and a frugal government dedicated to national development.

    The US happens to be declining an all these measures, and plenty of other countries are also failing. Every country is different, but a big reason has to be digitalization and the internet, building the framework for the mass exodus of manufacturing to low wage destinations.

    It should have been stopped with a serious national political effort (starting in the 1980′s) but even where there has been the political will (e.g. in Germany), it’s only been partially successful.

    In contrast to the Americans, the Germans know that they need modern manufacturing and all the science, development and technology that goes along with it, but globalization makes national production uneconomic – so they’ve pulled the useful trick of substituting the Euro for the D.Mark , giving them a new undervalued currency (very useful for exports) – linked to the economies of places like Portugal and Greece – who themselves now struggle with the overvaluation of their Euro currency.

    If Europe still had national currencies, Germany would not be able to manufacture and export the way it does with a D.Mark at its true market value – and Portugal and Greece would be much more competitive for manufacturing and tourism with a low valued Escudo and Drachma.

    The fundamental argument is to separate the administration of the state from business. They’re totally separate concepts. The state represents the best interests of the people, and business represents the best interests of corporations and shareholders.

    In the US, business and finance have a lock on political power through Congress (lobbies) and the FED (despite the name – an association of private banks), with the administration stuffed with globalist businessmen and bankers. The only real answer is for states to be mostly autonomous and raise and spend their own taxes with close political involvement of the public (i.e. an American Confederation).

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Germany has been a total failure as a society on the most fundamental of all levels though, that is demography. It's been known for at least 40 years that birth rates as low as in what was then West Germany would lead to serious problems for German society. There was never any serious political discussion let alone a concentrated effort to do something about this, all ideas for natalist policies were derided and slandered as Nazi-like. Now the "solution" politicians seem to have found is importing millions of clannish, ill-educated and mostly Muslim immigrants from Africa and the Islamic world...which of course is no solution at all, more like a death sentence for Germany.
    I don't think all is well on the economic front either, infrastructure is decaying and Germany has consistently failed to establish new industries (it's lagging behind in digitalization and IT). There'll be a rude awakening eventually.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Selvar
    I don't know about writing letters to female killers, but I've seen plenty of guys online try to white knight for attractive female teachers that get accused of sleeping with male students. Women also receive more lenient sentences than men do for the same crime. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that women are less violent (i.e. less likely to re-offend), but it certainly would not surprise me if the more pretty and youthful female criminals were more likely to receive lenient sentences from male judges.

    white knight for attractive female teachers that get accused of sleeping with male students

    Because obviously they did no harm to the male students. The only instance I would give the same prison term as for a guy teacher sleeping with a female (or, for that matter, male) student, is if the female teacher engaged in femdon BDSM with the male student.

    That a female teacher sleeping with a male student is supposed to get the same sentence as a male teacher sleeping with a female student is preposterous.

    By the way depending on the circumstances I wouldn’t put to prison even male teachers, unless it was some egregious case. Let’s be realistic: most students sleeping with their teachers are already not virgins, and they usually do consent. The teacher should be fired, and the case of a male teacher should be made public both as a punishment and as a warning to others. I would also forbid them from teaching again.

    Your other point about the pretty young woman offender getting off with a light sentence is very good, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Your other point about the pretty young woman offender getting off with a light sentence is very good, though.
     
    Are men unfit to judge women then?

    Women also receive more lenient sentences than men do for the same crime. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that women are less violent (i.e. less likely to re-offend), but it certainly would not surprise me if the more pretty and youthful female criminals were more likely to receive lenient sentences from male judges.
     
    More to the point, you'd have to control for prior offenses. In other words, you can't just compare male and female convicts of felony theft, but rather felony theft convicts with equivalent criminal records.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Selvar
    I don't know about writing letters to female killers, but I've seen plenty of guys online try to white knight for attractive female teachers that get accused of sleeping with male students. Women also receive more lenient sentences than men do for the same crime. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that women are less violent (i.e. less likely to re-offend), but it certainly would not surprise me if the more pretty and youthful female criminals were more likely to receive lenient sentences from male judges.

    Good point about pretty females getting lighter sentences (exihibit A for supporting face veils in court?).

    But I was thinking along the lines of say a female version of Jeffery Dahmer. That guy actually got groupie fan mail from women which sounds completely nuts to me. Do you think men would ever do that to some cannibal female killer? Even if she was a 9 or 10? I’m not so sure…

    Now some males supporting attractive and slutty females seems fairly par for the course. Hell, there would likely be a market for guys paying for a pay-per-view mud wrestling competition between the perps. Would that be surprising?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    But I was thinking along the lines of say a female version of Jeffery Dahmer. That guy actually got groupie fan mail from women which sounds completely nuts to me. Do you think men would ever do that to some cannibal female killer? Even if she was a 9 or 10? I’m not so sure…
     
    It's called hybristiphilia, and it's a mental disorder. Extreme outliers do not represent the mainstream, which is why articles like this are so ridiculous.

    https://dailystormer.name/mass-shooter-nikolas-cruz-getting-flooded-with-love-letters-from-top-shelf-pieces-of-ass/

    Anglin says:


    Women, you see, are complete filth.

    They are driven solely by animalistic pussy-drives, in particular the drive to fill their pussies with the seed of the most extreme psychopathic murderers alive.

    If you want to live in some fantasy dreamworld where “they’re not all like that” then go ahead, but if you don’t accept the truth you’re just going to go through your entire life getting fucked over by these skanks.
     

    Help me out here, people. Does the fact that 99.999999999% of women did not send Cruz a love letter not by definition prove that we're not all like that? It makes sense when you think about it. If women were as Anglin claims, I'm guessing none of us would be here today. Almost all serial killers are men, but if they were a reflection of the character of men in general, once again I suspect we wouldn't be having this conversation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Off topic (as if) - more on differences between men and women - what do you guys make of this:

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-reg-nikolas-cruz-prison-love-letters-20180327-story.html

    Is this mostly a female phenomenon? Do loads of guys ever write fan mail to female killers? Just wondering? Is this a reflection of today’s social-media age where excessive nonsense bubbles up to the top?

    Peace.

    I don’t know about writing letters to female killers, but I’ve seen plenty of guys online try to white knight for attractive female teachers that get accused of sleeping with male students. Women also receive more lenient sentences than men do for the same crime. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that women are less violent (i.e. less likely to re-offend), but it certainly would not surprise me if the more pretty and youthful female criminals were more likely to receive lenient sentences from male judges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Good point about pretty females getting lighter sentences (exihibit A for supporting face veils in court?).

    But I was thinking along the lines of say a female version of Jeffery Dahmer. That guy actually got groupie fan mail from women which sounds completely nuts to me. Do you think men would ever do that to some cannibal female killer? Even if she was a 9 or 10? I’m not so sure...

    Now some males supporting attractive and slutty females seems fairly par for the course. Hell, there would likely be a market for guys paying for a pay-per-view mud wrestling competition between the perps. Would that be surprising?

    Peace.
    , @reiner Tor

    white knight for attractive female teachers that get accused of sleeping with male students
     
    Because obviously they did no harm to the male students. The only instance I would give the same prison term as for a guy teacher sleeping with a female (or, for that matter, male) student, is if the female teacher engaged in femdon BDSM with the male student.

    That a female teacher sleeping with a male student is supposed to get the same sentence as a male teacher sleeping with a female student is preposterous.

    By the way depending on the circumstances I wouldn’t put to prison even male teachers, unless it was some egregious case. Let’s be realistic: most students sleeping with their teachers are already not virgins, and they usually do consent. The teacher should be fired, and the case of a male teacher should be made public both as a punishment and as a warning to others. I would also forbid them from teaching again.

    Your other point about the pretty young woman offender getting off with a light sentence is very good, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    The problem is that men did not listen to the reasonable feminists – instead they listened to the extreme feminists and surrendered to all their crazy demands.

    Reasonable people generally do not get listened to.
     
    I tend to see it as a matter of societies being held in particular equilibrium positions by blocks, and when you remove those blocks you don't create the little bit of movement the reasonable people desired, you get an uncontrollable slide to a new equilibrium position. This is how it has been with most significant social movements in my lifetime.

    It's the embodiment of the "slippery slope" argument beloved of social conservatives, which is much derided but is actually a pretty good description of how human societies actually work, as we have seen with, for example, the legalisation of homosexual activity. That did not result in just the more humane and tolerant treatment of what was still almost universally regarded as immoral and disgusting behaviour. Rather it led to the liberation of homo activists to campaign for and successfully change society to incorporate things the vast majority who supported legalisation would have regarded as abhorrent - gay "marriage", the lowering of the age of consent for buggery, "antidiscrimination" laws to force people to pretend to approve of homosexual behaviour, the enforced adoption of children into the households of pairs of perverts, etc.

    This is how it has been with most significant social movements in my lifetime.

    It’s the embodiment of the “slippery slope” argument beloved of social conservatives, which is much derided but is actually a pretty good description of how human societies actually work, as we have seen with, for example, the legalisation of homosexual activity.

    The slippery slope is definitely a real thing, and I think it often has to do with the phenomenon of group polarization, i.e. purity spiraling. The antidote is full and fair debate, a real dialogue, not the fake, unilateral kind SJWs are referring to when they say we need to have a “conversation about race.” In other words, the problem is not only that elites have a thumb on the scale in favor of ever more radical and unnecessary feminist policies, but also that men have been suppressed and therefore unable to contain the spiral or stop the slide down the slippery slope, depending on which analogy you prefer. The First Amendment was supposed to prevent this kind of lunacy, but unfortunately it proved insufficient to protect free speech because of private sanctions against the politically incorrect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    Yes, hybristophilia only seems to affect women.

    I’d guess women make worse judges anyway, and this phenomenon doesn’t raise my confidence in them. Steve Sailer often wrote about the strange articles female journalists wrote about Dzhokhar Tarnaev, worrying about him not getting a fair trial or something. Can we let female judges do the sentencing of serious criminals? Do they perhaps, on average, impose lighter sentences for serious violent crimes? Has anyone done a study on that?

    Thanks for that – I had no clue it had a specific name – wow!

    I don’t know about studies pointing out differences (it would be great to see some), but from classical Islamic doctrine, there were no bars from women becoming jurists and giving fatwas on any matter if they were qualified. Most did not have the acumen for it, but some excelled; I forget whose wife it was, but she became a well-renowned Hanafi jurist (having learned under her father), and used to co-sign the fatwas of her husband after reviewing them.

    However, the position of judgeship (where the ruling on a specific case has the force of law behind it) was not generally allowed for women in criminal cases like those that dealt with hadd penalties – of course there were minority views historically that dissented from this. The Hanafi school did allow them to be judges in cases involving matters of family law, financial, etc. but not those criminal cases like murder, adultery, etc.

    It is interesting the debates that went on over this between the schools that would discuss/debate everything from women’s intellectual capacity to whether they had a right of authority over males in light of Qur’an and Sunnah, etc.

    Peace.

    Note: Going back to the issue of reformation; I think this is one of the reasons why Islam seems to be resilient on this front. After all, historically, we were well ahead of most other societies as far as women’s rights in property, limited judgeship, marriage, etc. and others were playing catch-up. Now almost everybody has gone beyond us in as far as granting women legal rights exactly on par with men – and all this relatively recently. This begs the question whether this was a bridge too far? I guess we’ll see once the dust clears…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 1) the alt-right is quietly winning the culture war

    2) Trump is great but facing extreme and maybe impossible odds

    3) there’s a reason for distinct male/female templates – they’re designed to be complementary

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    That was the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Greasy is correct that they didn’t receive any aid until 1967.

    LBJ armed Israel to the teeth with offensive weapons, one of the many reasons the Israelis assassinated JFK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    Yes, hybristophilia only seems to affect women.

    I’d guess women make worse judges anyway, and this phenomenon doesn’t raise my confidence in them. Steve Sailer often wrote about the strange articles female journalists wrote about Dzhokhar Tarnaev, worrying about him not getting a fair trial or something. Can we let female judges do the sentencing of serious criminals? Do they perhaps, on average, impose lighter sentences for serious violent crimes? Has anyone done a study on that?

    Yes, hybristophilia only seems to affect women.

    Homos as well, I suspect.

    Here was another example of the phenomenon, which recently resurfaced on the Daily Mail:

    New year, new life! Hot mugshot felon celebrates the holidays with his wife and kids at their mansion

    I generally assume the male modelling role is as much funded by the “pink pound” as by female money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dfordoom

    Some say that the existence of radically destructive feminists today means men never should have listened to the reasonable ones in times past, because women are unreasonable and can never be satisfied.
     
    The problem is that men did not listen to the reasonable feminists - instead they listened to the extreme feminists and surrendered to all their crazy demands.

    Reasonable people generally do not get listened to.

    And if you look back at the history of feminism there haven't been very many reasonable feminists anyway. The movement has always been dominated by the crazies. Because non-crazy women were not interested in feminism - they preferred to just get on with life. It was the angry, bitter, crazy (and in many cases literally psychotic) types who were attracted to feminism.

    The problem is that men did not listen to the reasonable feminists – instead they listened to the extreme feminists and surrendered to all their crazy demands.

    Reasonable people generally do not get listened to.

    I tend to see it as a matter of societies being held in particular equilibrium positions by blocks, and when you remove those blocks you don’t create the little bit of movement the reasonable people desired, you get an uncontrollable slide to a new equilibrium position. This is how it has been with most significant social movements in my lifetime.

    It’s the embodiment of the “slippery slope” argument beloved of social conservatives, which is much derided but is actually a pretty good description of how human societies actually work, as we have seen with, for example, the legalisation of homosexual activity. That did not result in just the more humane and tolerant treatment of what was still almost universally regarded as immoral and disgusting behaviour. Rather it led to the liberation of homo activists to campaign for and successfully change society to incorporate things the vast majority who supported legalisation would have regarded as abhorrent – gay “marriage”, the lowering of the age of consent for buggery, “antidiscrimination” laws to force people to pretend to approve of homosexual behaviour, the enforced adoption of children into the households of pairs of perverts, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    This is how it has been with most significant social movements in my lifetime.

    It’s the embodiment of the “slippery slope” argument beloved of social conservatives, which is much derided but is actually a pretty good description of how human societies actually work, as we have seen with, for example, the legalisation of homosexual activity.
     
    The slippery slope is definitely a real thing, and I think it often has to do with the phenomenon of group polarization, i.e. purity spiraling. The antidote is full and fair debate, a real dialogue, not the fake, unilateral kind SJWs are referring to when they say we need to have a "conversation about race." In other words, the problem is not only that elites have a thumb on the scale in favor of ever more radical and unnecessary feminist policies, but also that men have been suppressed and therefore unable to contain the spiral or stop the slide down the slippery slope, depending on which analogy you prefer. The First Amendment was supposed to prevent this kind of lunacy, but unfortunately it proved insufficient to protect free speech because of private sanctions against the politically incorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    I've often said that evangelical religions provide an incredible energy and there's much to be said for them. There were Muslims in Chinese dynastic courts and the recorded evidence shows that they consistently advocated a more aggressive and outgoing policy as its evident that religion certainly provided an impetus to do things which were difficult to materially justify but would nonetheless have proved fruitful.

    Of course, Zheng He was Muslim and his exploration goals were influenced by a desire to create a path to Mecca for fellow Muslims. The Islamic Golden Age was impressive and arguably played a vital role in the Scientific Method - and in that, all of modern life.

    Evangelical religions do seem to inspire an expansive energy which at its best, inspires greatness and dreams beyond material ken. But of course, it also comes with its price of vast religious wars.

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.

    Being resistant to change is not a bad thing as long as it’s not taken too far. Being open to change is also not a bad thing as long as it’s not taken too far. Unfortunately Christianity has self-destructed because it has been much too open to change. The self-destruction of Christianity has led to chaos in the West, with people believing everything and at the same time believing nothing.

    It was arguably the Reformation that introduced the fatal weakness into Christianity. So Islam may be very fortunate to have escaped a similar disaster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.
     
    Well, not quite. As I said before, drunkenness, domestic violence, gambling, etc. were problems that plagued working-class women. From their point of view, the problems of privileged women would have seemed trivial, but you have to remember, human needs are hierarchical. Higher needs, such as creativity and public service, begin to loom large as the lower needs are securely fulfilled. This works the same way for women as for men.

    Particularly miserable were bright girls born into the working class. Think Roald Dahl's Matilda. These girls, I suspect, are even more miserable now than they were in the past, when they at least had a good school where they could find respite from low-brow male chauvinism. Hopefully, Miss Honey is still out there offering hope and guidance to gifted girls lost in these increasingly miserable excuses for "schools."

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don’t intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.
     
    Right, but here again there would be no money to pay their salaries but for elite donations. They would have to find something useful to do rather than stir up trouble for a living. This is an important point, because the woman question is never going to go away. Industrialization brought changes to society that necessitated a renegotiation of gender roles. While femininity-masculinity is a timeless polarity, their specific manifestations are highly contextual. Change will come again, and the lines of communication must remain open so gender roles can adapt to meet the needs of society as it evolves in real time. Some say that the existence of radically destructive feminists today means men never should have listened to the reasonable ones in times past, because women are unreasonable and can never be satisfied. This is not true, and we need to defend ourselves from this unfounded, but understandable in the circumstances, view of women as perpetual malcontents.

    Some say that the existence of radically destructive feminists today means men never should have listened to the reasonable ones in times past, because women are unreasonable and can never be satisfied.

    The problem is that men did not listen to the reasonable feminists – instead they listened to the extreme feminists and surrendered to all their crazy demands.

    Reasonable people generally do not get listened to.

    And if you look back at the history of feminism there haven’t been very many reasonable feminists anyway. The movement has always been dominated by the crazies. Because non-crazy women were not interested in feminism – they preferred to just get on with life. It was the angry, bitter, crazy (and in many cases literally psychotic) types who were attracted to feminism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The problem is that men did not listen to the reasonable feminists – instead they listened to the extreme feminists and surrendered to all their crazy demands.

    Reasonable people generally do not get listened to.
     
    I tend to see it as a matter of societies being held in particular equilibrium positions by blocks, and when you remove those blocks you don't create the little bit of movement the reasonable people desired, you get an uncontrollable slide to a new equilibrium position. This is how it has been with most significant social movements in my lifetime.

    It's the embodiment of the "slippery slope" argument beloved of social conservatives, which is much derided but is actually a pretty good description of how human societies actually work, as we have seen with, for example, the legalisation of homosexual activity. That did not result in just the more humane and tolerant treatment of what was still almost universally regarded as immoral and disgusting behaviour. Rather it led to the liberation of homo activists to campaign for and successfully change society to incorporate things the vast majority who supported legalisation would have regarded as abhorrent - gay "marriage", the lowering of the age of consent for buggery, "antidiscrimination" laws to force people to pretend to approve of homosexual behaviour, the enforced adoption of children into the households of pairs of perverts, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    Yes, hybristophilia only seems to affect women.

    I’d guess women make worse judges anyway, and this phenomenon doesn’t raise my confidence in them. Steve Sailer often wrote about the strange articles female journalists wrote about Dzhokhar Tarnaev, worrying about him not getting a fair trial or something. Can we let female judges do the sentencing of serious criminals? Do they perhaps, on average, impose lighter sentences for serious violent crimes? Has anyone done a study on that?

    I found some ambiguous stuff. It’s much easier to find something on disparities depending on the sex of the offender.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Off topic (as if) - more on differences between men and women - what do you guys make of this:

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-reg-nikolas-cruz-prison-love-letters-20180327-story.html

    Is this mostly a female phenomenon? Do loads of guys ever write fan mail to female killers? Just wondering? Is this a reflection of today’s social-media age where excessive nonsense bubbles up to the top?

    Peace.

    Yes, hybristophilia only seems to affect women.

    I’d guess women make worse judges anyway, and this phenomenon doesn’t raise my confidence in them. Steve Sailer often wrote about the strange articles female journalists wrote about Dzhokhar Tarnaev, worrying about him not getting a fair trial or something. Can we let female judges do the sentencing of serious criminals? Do they perhaps, on average, impose lighter sentences for serious violent crimes? Has anyone done a study on that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I found some ambiguous stuff. It’s much easier to find something on disparities depending on the sex of the offender.
    , @Randal

    Yes, hybristophilia only seems to affect women.
     
    Homos as well, I suspect.

    Here was another example of the phenomenon, which recently resurfaced on the Daily Mail:

    New year, new life! Hot mugshot felon celebrates the holidays with his wife and kids at their mansion

    I generally assume the male modelling role is as much funded by the "pink pound" as by female money.
    , @Talha
    Thanks for that - I had no clue it had a specific name - wow!

    I don't know about studies pointing out differences (it would be great to see some), but from classical Islamic doctrine, there were no bars from women becoming jurists and giving fatwas on any matter if they were qualified. Most did not have the acumen for it, but some excelled; I forget whose wife it was, but she became a well-renowned Hanafi jurist (having learned under her father), and used to co-sign the fatwas of her husband after reviewing them.

    However, the position of judgeship (where the ruling on a specific case has the force of law behind it) was not generally allowed for women in criminal cases like those that dealt with hadd penalties - of course there were minority views historically that dissented from this. The Hanafi school did allow them to be judges in cases involving matters of family law, financial, etc. but not those criminal cases like murder, adultery, etc.

    It is interesting the debates that went on over this between the schools that would discuss/debate everything from women's intellectual capacity to whether they had a right of authority over males in light of Qur'an and Sunnah, etc.

    Peace.

    Note: Going back to the issue of reformation; I think this is one of the reasons why Islam seems to be resilient on this front. After all, historically, we were well ahead of most other societies as far as women's rights in property, limited judgeship, marriage, etc. and others were playing catch-up. Now almost everybody has gone beyond us in as far as granting women legal rights exactly on par with men - and all this relatively recently. This begs the question whether this was a bridge too far? I guess we'll see once the dust clears...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Off topic (as if) – more on differences between men and women – what do you guys make of this:

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-reg-nikolas-cruz-prison-love-letters-20180327-story.html

    Is this mostly a female phenomenon? Do loads of guys ever write fan mail to female killers? Just wondering? Is this a reflection of today’s social-media age where excessive nonsense bubbles up to the top?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes, hybristophilia only seems to affect women.

    I’d guess women make worse judges anyway, and this phenomenon doesn’t raise my confidence in them. Steve Sailer often wrote about the strange articles female journalists wrote about Dzhokhar Tarnaev, worrying about him not getting a fair trial or something. Can we let female judges do the sentencing of serious criminals? Do they perhaps, on average, impose lighter sentences for serious violent crimes? Has anyone done a study on that?
    , @Selvar
    I don't know about writing letters to female killers, but I've seen plenty of guys online try to white knight for attractive female teachers that get accused of sleeping with male students. Women also receive more lenient sentences than men do for the same crime. This may be justified to some extent by the fact that women are less violent (i.e. less likely to re-offend), but it certainly would not surprise me if the more pretty and youthful female criminals were more likely to receive lenient sentences from male judges.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Dmitry
    Trump will win in 2020 - as American presidents after first term have historical advantage, and the 'swing states' that he won in 2016 year, will not change.

    As for 'alt-right' (which is mainly name for the American Nazi movement as I can read its ideas), this has no relationship to Trump or his ideas - but it will fluctuate up and down depending on economic trends (i.e. inversely to economic growth, with some delay). If the economy is growing, it will diminish - and vice-versa.

    and the ‘swing states’ that he won in 2016 year, will not change.

    There’s a reason for them being labeled swing states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal
    I'm not qualified to speculate on the possible roots being in shia/sunni differences - maybe Talha could say something convincing on the topic, though I suspect he'd question the premise that there's anything in Islam that is anti-science - I'm just going by results.

    [PS I see Talha has addressed the issue of science and Islam in post 300]

    One key difference between the Sunni and Shia is that the Shia still have close parallels to what we would consider Mu’tazilite positions. But what is called the Golden Age of science in Islamic lands certainly had its major hub in greater-Persia but that area was mostly Sunni at the time (the Persians themselves were historically the champions of the Shafi’i school) until the Safavids came along. That’s really when Iran became Shi’ah in a historical sense, one of the best articles is this one (specifically check out the section when the Safavids morph from a somewhat heterodox religious movement into a bonafide state under Ismail [Esmail] the first – a proto gun-powder empire that could challenge the Ottomans):

    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids

    Yes, I simply don’t see anything in Islam that is anti-science when considering it as a useful tool. The fact that the Europeans outstripped everyone in it does not automatically imply everyone else (that doesn’t have the same aptitude nor the same level of adoption) is thus against it.

    Again, I encourage everyone to read Neil Postman’s excellent book on the subject. He divided human cultures into; tool-using, technocracies and technopolies.

    He pointed out that tool-using cultures were largely found across the world up until the 17th century. They could be highly sophisticated, but they had a place for science in their world view:
    “But the main characteristic of all tool-using cultures is that their tools were largely invented to do two things: to solve specific and urgent problems of physical life, such as in the use of waterpower, windmills, and the heavy-wheeled plow; or to serve the symbolic world of art, politics, myth, ritual, and religion, as in the construction of castles and cathedrals and the development of the mechanical clock. In either case, tools did not attack (or , more precisely, were not intended to attack) the dignity and integrity of the culture into which they were introduced.”

    http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/mar/hyper/npcontexts_119.html

    I would say, the urgent need of the Muslim world is trying to balance walking the line of technocracy very carefully so that we keep closer to the previous tool-using culture while avoiding – with extreme prejudice – falling into the trap of technopoly:
    “In a technocracy, tools play a central role in the thought-world of the culture. Everything must give way, in some degree, to their development. The social and symbolic worlds become increasingly subject to the requirements of that development. Tools are not integrated into the culture; they attack the culture. The bid to become the culture. As a consequence, tradition, social mores, myth, politics, ritual, and religion have to fight for their lives….Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deificaiton of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs.”

    If the world calls us backwards and a host of other pejoratives – so be it; we have seen what taking the plunge head-first can mean and it is not very reassuring.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    Actually, that looks like a pretty good way to teach boys. Certainly some of the greatest men of the British Empire were turned out in schools run not all that differently (but with better English accents).
     
    lol I'll defer on that question. It's not my area of expertise, though I will say kindergarten seems a bit young for military-style discipline. I'd worry about crushing the little guys' spirits. I'd rather see them outside playing.

    I’d worry about crushing the little guys’ spirits. I’d rather see them outside playing.

    That’s coz you’ze a chick. :-)

    Read More
    • LOL: Rosie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    Iran's an interesting case. I'm not familiar enough with it, but I understand that Shi'a have a system that permits new "revelations" to be integrated into it; of course, Persia was formally a center of great culture and their former holdings became the heart of the Islamic Golden Age from what I understand.

    Their version of Islam does not appear to be the widespread one, however.

    I’m not qualified to speculate on the possible roots being in shia/sunni differences – maybe Talha could say something convincing on the topic, though I suspect he’d question the premise that there’s anything in Islam that is anti-science – I’m just going by results.

    [PS I see Talha has addressed the issue of science and Islam in post 300]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    One key difference between the Sunni and Shia is that the Shia still have close parallels to what we would consider Mu'tazilite positions. But what is called the Golden Age of science in Islamic lands certainly had its major hub in greater-Persia but that area was mostly Sunni at the time (the Persians themselves were historically the champions of the Shafi'i school) until the Safavids came along. That's really when Iran became Shi'ah in a historical sense, one of the best articles is this one (specifically check out the section when the Safavids morph from a somewhat heterodox religious movement into a bonafide state under Ismail [Esmail] the first - a proto gun-powder empire that could challenge the Ottomans):
    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/safavids

    Yes, I simply don't see anything in Islam that is anti-science when considering it as a useful tool. The fact that the Europeans outstripped everyone in it does not automatically imply everyone else (that doesn't have the same aptitude nor the same level of adoption) is thus against it.

    Again, I encourage everyone to read Neil Postman's excellent book on the subject. He divided human cultures into; tool-using, technocracies and technopolies.

    He pointed out that tool-using cultures were largely found across the world up until the 17th century. They could be highly sophisticated, but they had a place for science in their world view:
    "But the main characteristic of all tool-using cultures is that their tools were largely invented to do two things: to solve specific and urgent problems of physical life, such as in the use of waterpower, windmills, and the heavy-wheeled plow; or to serve the symbolic world of art, politics, myth, ritual, and religion, as in the construction of castles and cathedrals and the development of the mechanical clock. In either case, tools did not attack (or , more precisely, were not intended to attack) the dignity and integrity of the culture into which they were introduced."
    http://www.ibiblio.org/cmc/mag/1995/mar/hyper/npcontexts_119.html

    I would say, the urgent need of the Muslim world is trying to balance walking the line of technocracy very carefully so that we keep closer to the previous tool-using culture while avoiding - with extreme prejudice - falling into the trap of technopoly:
    "In a technocracy, tools play a central role in the thought-world of the culture. Everything must give way, in some degree, to their development. The social and symbolic worlds become increasingly subject to the requirements of that development. Tools are not integrated into the culture; they attack the culture. The bid to become the culture. As a consequence, tradition, social mores, myth, politics, ritual, and religion have to fight for their lives....Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deificaiton of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs."

    If the world calls us backwards and a host of other pejoratives - so be it; we have seen what taking the plunge head-first can mean and it is not very reassuring.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    Despite concerns about overly feminized schools, I’m pretty sure nobody really wants this.
     
    Actually, that looks like a pretty good way to teach boys. Certainly some of the greatest men of the British Empire were turned out in schools run not all that differently (but with better English accents).

    Granted there seems to have been a problem with pederasty, but I suspect that's mostly to do with the schools being boarding, and the opportunities that provided for predatory homosexuals.

    Actually, that looks like a pretty good way to teach boys. Certainly some of the greatest men of the British Empire were turned out in schools run not all that differently (but with better English accents).

    lol I’ll defer on that question. It’s not my area of expertise, though I will say kindergarten seems a bit young for military-style discipline. I’d worry about crushing the little guys’ spirits. I’d rather see them outside playing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I’d worry about crushing the little guys’ spirits. I’d rather see them outside playing.
     
    That's coz you'ze a chick. :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Toronto Russian
    These guys would say the restrictions were good. They think a woman, if given any financial freedom, will put her family into huge debt by collecting designer shoes and handbags. Nevermind it's men who were traditionally known for financial irresponsibility - like drinking and gambling away family fortunes - they're still somehow supposed to be uniquely capable of rational relationship with money.

    These guys would say the restrictions were good. They think a woman, if given any financial freedom, will put her family into huge debt by collecting designer shoes and handbags.

    Greg Johnson pointed out in a recent podcast that men have a tendency to buy expensive status symbols, like cars and boats, to showcase their alphaness. All we have to do, he said, is change the status symbols consumer goods to happy White employees. That way, their dominance-displaying instincts work for the good of our people. I found this to be very white-pilling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie
    @utu

    I should say that I take your point that you can have social welfare without women's suffrage. However, I don't think you can have social welfare without either women's suffrage or an active network of private charities, presumably staffed by women. In other words, you can exclude women from the vote or ecclude them from public roles, but I don't think you can do both (as many alt-Right men advocate) and still have a liveable society.

    It seems to me that women's suffrage will almost inevitably lead to a welfare state that will generate pink collar jobs that men wouldn't want and wouldn't be good at either, and again with a welfare state you are going to need private organizations to perform those roles and duties.

    Despite concerns about overly feminized schools, I'm pretty sure nobody really wants this.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mce3yiMF4iQ

    Despite concerns about overly feminized schools, I’m pretty sure nobody really wants this.

    Actually, that looks like a pretty good way to teach boys. Certainly some of the greatest men of the British Empire were turned out in schools run not all that differently (but with better English accents).

    Granted there seems to have been a problem with pederasty, but I suspect that’s mostly to do with the schools being boarding, and the opportunities that provided for predatory homosexuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Actually, that looks like a pretty good way to teach boys. Certainly some of the greatest men of the British Empire were turned out in schools run not all that differently (but with better English accents).
     
    lol I'll defer on that question. It's not my area of expertise, though I will say kindergarten seems a bit young for military-style discipline. I'd worry about crushing the little guys' spirits. I'd rather see them outside playing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @for-the-record
    it was created by Jews, it’s a Christian heresy

    So if it's totally independent of Judaism and Christianity (a Jewish heresy) how is it that it happens to have the same (more or less) prophets, including Jesus (like the Ebionites)?

    Not so surprising, actually, that the early Christians viewed it as (yet another) heresy.

    No – I know, it makes sense and if I wasn’t Muslim, it would be most likely what I would conclude, but it’s just not imaginative. It’s derivative is what I’m saying. It’s more fun to think outside the box for something like a movie – otherwise that old stuff has already been debated for centuries.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    You know, I've always thought that the current polemics against Islam were sub-par and not very inventive; it was created by Jews, it's a Christian heresy, blah, blah - that's just uninspired nonsense - especially if one keeps up with the latest evidence coming out from Saudi proper in the form of carvings and messages etched in sand-stone.

    Now, I would love to see a movie or comic-book or something based on this premise; that the Saudis (coming to terms with the fact that their oil-state was running out of it's one product) needed to make sure they would always remain prominent in the world. Thus they set up this NEOM enterprise to create a time-machine to go back and insert Islam into the Hijaz. All with its accurate prophecies about taking over Persia, Byzantium, Constantinople and even predicting the massive wealth among the Gulf Arabs and what they would use it for:
    "'Then tell me about its [the Hour] signs.'...'That you see barefoot, naked, poor shepherds compete in constructing tall buildings.'" - reported in Muslim

    And also insert the Wahhabi movement in the Najd to take advantage of the world-wide religion and resources that had been prepared for them. This way they would always remain important and have a source of revenue despite the loss of natural resources.

    Now that would be at least entertaining and thinking outside the box!

    Peace.

    it was created by Jews, it’s a Christian heresy

    So if it’s totally independent of Judaism and Christianity (a Jewish heresy) how is it that it happens to have the same (more or less) prophets, including Jesus (like the Ebionites)?

    Not so surprising, actually, that the early Christians viewed it as (yet another) heresy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    No - I know, it makes sense and if I wasn't Muslim, it would be most likely what I would conclude, but it's just not imaginative. It's derivative is what I'm saying. It's more fun to think outside the box for something like a movie - otherwise that old stuff has already been debated for centuries.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @for-the-record
    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    In my mother's day (and to some extent when I was young, I believe) there were lot of humiliating restrictions on women -- not being able to take out a loan, needing her husband's signature to get a credit card, even serving on juries in some states. These affected women in general, not only a tiny handful.

    Saying that feminism has gone too far is one thing, denying its historical basis is going too far.

    These guys would say the restrictions were good. They think a woman, if given any financial freedom, will put her family into huge debt by collecting designer shoes and handbags. Nevermind it’s men who were traditionally known for financial irresponsibility – like drinking and gambling away family fortunes – they’re still somehow supposed to be uniquely capable of rational relationship with money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    These guys would say the restrictions were good. They think a woman, if given any financial freedom, will put her family into huge debt by collecting designer shoes and handbags.
     
    Greg Johnson pointed out in a recent podcast that men have a tendency to buy expensive status symbols, like cars and boats, to showcase their alphaness. All we have to do, he said, is change the status symbols consumer goods to happy White employees. That way, their dominance-displaying instincts work for the good of our people. I found this to be very white-pilling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.
     
    Ok but that begs the question, doesn't it. Nuns were the first career girls. Your social workforce is going to have to come from somewhere. I suspect total removal of the most thoughtful and compassionate women from the marriage market is not good for the gene pool, and while it certainly makes sense to put fallen women to work caring for the sick and wounded in times of war or other crisis, it would be better still if they had never fallen to begin with. In early industrial society, a 13 year old girl could wind up on the streets because her father was injured, sick, or dead and she needed to generate income to feed the family. And let's be honest, this kind of prostitution is sexual wage slavery, little better than what is happening to Yazidi girls in the ME.

    I should say that I take your point that you can have social welfare without women’s suffrage. However, I don’t think you can have social welfare without either women’s suffrage or an active network of private charities, presumably staffed by women. In other words, you can exclude women from the vote or ecclude them from public roles, but I don’t think you can do both (as many alt-Right men advocate) and still have a liveable society.

    It seems to me that women’s suffrage will almost inevitably lead to a welfare state that will generate pink collar jobs that men wouldn’t want and wouldn’t be good at either, and again with a welfare state you are going to need private organizations to perform those roles and duties.

    Despite concerns about overly feminized schools, I’m pretty sure nobody really wants this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Despite concerns about overly feminized schools, I’m pretty sure nobody really wants this.
     
    Actually, that looks like a pretty good way to teach boys. Certainly some of the greatest men of the British Empire were turned out in schools run not all that differently (but with better English accents).

    Granted there seems to have been a problem with pederasty, but I suspect that's mostly to do with the schools being boarding, and the opportunities that provided for predatory homosexuals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    I'll be the first to sing praises of Islam if NEOM gives me the Machine God, blessed be the Omnimessiah His Servant.

    You know, I’ve always thought that the current polemics against Islam were sub-par and not very inventive; it was created by Jews, it’s a Christian heresy, blah, blah – that’s just uninspired nonsense – especially if one keeps up with the latest evidence coming out from Saudi proper in the form of carvings and messages etched in sand-stone.

    Now, I would love to see a movie or comic-book or something based on this premise; that the Saudis (coming to terms with the fact that their oil-state was running out of it’s one product) needed to make sure they would always remain prominent in the world. Thus they set up this NEOM enterprise to create a time-machine to go back and insert Islam into the Hijaz. All with its accurate prophecies about taking over Persia, Byzantium, Constantinople and even predicting the massive wealth among the Gulf Arabs and what they would use it for:
    “‘Then tell me about its [the Hour] signs.’…’That you see barefoot, naked, poor shepherds compete in constructing tall buildings.’” – reported in Muslim

    And also insert the Wahhabi movement in the Najd to take advantage of the world-wide religion and resources that had been prepared for them. This way they would always remain important and have a source of revenue despite the loss of natural resources.

    Now that would be at least entertaining and thinking outside the box!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    it was created by Jews, it’s a Christian heresy

    So if it's totally independent of Judaism and Christianity (a Jewish heresy) how is it that it happens to have the same (more or less) prophets, including Jesus (like the Ebionites)?

    Not so surprising, actually, that the early Christians viewed it as (yet another) heresy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    I've often said that evangelical religions provide an incredible energy and there's much to be said for them. There were Muslims in Chinese dynastic courts and the recorded evidence shows that they consistently advocated a more aggressive and outgoing policy as its evident that religion certainly provided an impetus to do things which were difficult to materially justify but would nonetheless have proved fruitful.

    Of course, Zheng He was Muslim and his exploration goals were influenced by a desire to create a path to Mecca for fellow Muslims. The Islamic Golden Age was impressive and arguably played a vital role in the Scientific Method - and in that, all of modern life.

    Evangelical religions do seem to inspire an expansive energy which at its best, inspires greatness and dreams beyond material ken. But of course, it also comes with its price of vast religious wars.

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.

    Islam has not had that moment that I can see.

    Correct, because Islam asserts that it is already the last valid and Divinely sanctioned reformation – it is part of its self-definition. As Lord Cromer, consul-general of the British mandate in Egypt, stated:
    “In dealing with the question of introducing European civilisation into Egypt, it should never be forgotten that Islam cannot be reformed; is to say, reformed Islam is Islam no longer; something else.”

    A traditional Muslim as myself is both impressed and horrified by what the Reformation brought to Europe and Christianity.

    As AaronB – and you have pointed out – there is nothing intrinsically in opposition to science in Islam when science is considered a tool (many of our famous scientists of the Golden Age were themselves highly-credentialed theologians) – it is when it breaks out of its proper box of human utilization that we oppose it (as do others who understand what is at stake):
    “With the rise of Technopoly, one of those thought-worlds disappears. Technopoly eliminates alternatives to itself in precisely the way Aldous Huxley outlined in Brave New World. It does not make them illegal. It does not make them immoral. It does not even make them unpopular. It makes them invisible and therefore irrelevant. And it does so by redefining what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements. Technopoly, in other words, is totalitarian technocracy.”
    ― Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

    It is not anti-science – one of my former Arabic teachers is both a Muslim scholar and, well…:
    “From 2007 to 2013, Shaykh Omar completed his medical residency in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology and fellowships in Hematopathology and Molecular Genetic Pathology at Washington University in St. Louis.”

    http://pureway.org/shaykh-omar/

    …but it is anti-scientism. People say we’re slow – sure, but maybe humanity was never supposed to run so fast at breakneck speed; I posit, as I have before, the wisdom in Aesop’s Tortoise and the Hare.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal
    @Daniel Chieh - misclicked I think

    Well I'm not a muslim nor an advocate of Islam, except inasmuch as I'm inclined to prefer to let muslim countries be run by muslims as muslim countries, in general. It's their problem if it really turns out that they have handicapped themselves thereby. And many of the areas in which they are "resistant to change" - such as feminism and homo-ism - would appear to be strengths rather than weaknesses to me.

    Though I'd say the example of Iran is a pretty good one, as far as Islam being compatible with progress and scientific development is concerned (at least insofar as it is playing catch up, anyway), given the colossal handicaps that country has faced because of its refusal to kowtow to the US and Israel. Not that it's by any means perfect, obviously, but it seems viable.

    But as I have often said, my main concern is that it should remain their problem and not become mine as a result of insanely suicidal immigration policies.

    Iran’s an interesting case. I’m not familiar enough with it, but I understand that Shi’a have a system that permits new “revelations” to be integrated into it; of course, Persia was formally a center of great culture and their former holdings became the heart of the Islamic Golden Age from what I understand.

    Their version of Islam does not appear to be the widespread one, however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I'm not qualified to speculate on the possible roots being in shia/sunni differences - maybe Talha could say something convincing on the topic, though I suspect he'd question the premise that there's anything in Islam that is anti-science - I'm just going by results.

    [PS I see Talha has addressed the issue of science and Islam in post 300]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    I've often said that evangelical religions provide an incredible energy and there's much to be said for them. There were Muslims in Chinese dynastic courts and the recorded evidence shows that they consistently advocated a more aggressive and outgoing policy as its evident that religion certainly provided an impetus to do things which were difficult to materially justify but would nonetheless have proved fruitful.

    Of course, Zheng He was Muslim and his exploration goals were influenced by a desire to create a path to Mecca for fellow Muslims. The Islamic Golden Age was impressive and arguably played a vital role in the Scientific Method - and in that, all of modern life.

    Evangelical religions do seem to inspire an expansive energy which at its best, inspires greatness and dreams beyond material ken. But of course, it also comes with its price of vast religious wars.

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.

    297 was intended as a reply to this

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • – misclicked I think

    Well I’m not a muslim nor an advocate of Islam, except inasmuch as I’m inclined to prefer to let muslim countries be run by muslims as muslim countries, in general. It’s their problem if it really turns out that they have handicapped themselves thereby. And many of the areas in which they are “resistant to change” – such as feminism and homo-ism – would appear to be strengths rather than weaknesses to me.

    Though I’d say the example of Iran is a pretty good one, as far as Islam being compatible with progress and scientific development is concerned (at least insofar as it is playing catch up, anyway), given the colossal handicaps that country has faced because of its refusal to kowtow to the US and Israel. Not that it’s by any means perfect, obviously, but it seems viable.

    But as I have often said, my main concern is that it should remain their problem and not become mine as a result of insanely suicidal immigration policies.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Iran's an interesting case. I'm not familiar enough with it, but I understand that Shi'a have a system that permits new "revelations" to be integrated into it; of course, Persia was formally a center of great culture and their former holdings became the heart of the Islamic Golden Age from what I understand.

    Their version of Islam does not appear to be the widespread one, however.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha

    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.
     
    How is organizing society based on the sayings of a man who received revelation from God, as taught to him by an angel that used to periodically descend in human form, "scientific based"?

    It certainly is evidence-based in that we have to be sure whether or not it can be traced back to him with a reasonable level of reliability.

    That it may correlate with natural ways that humans have generally organized societies historically is to be expected - it's not called "deen ul-fitrah" (religion of primordial nature) for nothing.

    Peace.

    I’ll be the first to sing praises of Islam if NEOM gives me the Machine God, blessed be the Omnimessiah His Servant.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    You know, I've always thought that the current polemics against Islam were sub-par and not very inventive; it was created by Jews, it's a Christian heresy, blah, blah - that's just uninspired nonsense - especially if one keeps up with the latest evidence coming out from Saudi proper in the form of carvings and messages etched in sand-stone.

    Now, I would love to see a movie or comic-book or something based on this premise; that the Saudis (coming to terms with the fact that their oil-state was running out of it's one product) needed to make sure they would always remain prominent in the world. Thus they set up this NEOM enterprise to create a time-machine to go back and insert Islam into the Hijaz. All with its accurate prophecies about taking over Persia, Byzantium, Constantinople and even predicting the massive wealth among the Gulf Arabs and what they would use it for:
    "'Then tell me about its [the Hour] signs.'...'That you see barefoot, naked, poor shepherds compete in constructing tall buildings.'" - reported in Muslim

    And also insert the Wahhabi movement in the Najd to take advantage of the world-wide religion and resources that had been prepared for them. This way they would always remain important and have a source of revenue despite the loss of natural resources.

    Now that would be at least entertaining and thinking outside the box!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.
     
    Seemed to work pretty well for us - after all it was the basic nature of British society when we expanded from a small island to become the dominant world power. We haven't done so well since we abandoned it (not saying causation can necessarily be demonstrated there).

    One of my favourite quotes from the generally rather neocon for my tastes Niall Ferguson is the following:

    Towards the end of his recent book, Civilization, the historian Niall Ferguson drops into his analysis an explosive depth-charge. He quotes a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, part of a team tasked with the challenge of discovering why it was that Europe, having lagged behind China until the 17th century, overtook it, rising to prominence and dominance.

    At first, he said, we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons than we did. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion, Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.
     
    http://rabbisacks.org/credo-china-is-reversing-the-decline-and-fall-of-christianity/

    I’ve often said that evangelical religions provide an incredible energy and there’s much to be said for them. There were Muslims in Chinese dynastic courts and the recorded evidence shows that they consistently advocated a more aggressive and outgoing policy as its evident that religion certainly provided an impetus to do things which were difficult to materially justify but would nonetheless have proved fruitful.

    Of course, Zheng He was Muslim and his exploration goals were influenced by a desire to create a path to Mecca for fellow Muslims. The Islamic Golden Age was impressive and arguably played a vital role in the Scientific Method – and in that, all of modern life.

    Evangelical religions do seem to inspire an expansive energy which at its best, inspires greatness and dreams beyond material ken. But of course, it also comes with its price of vast religious wars.

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    297 was intended as a reply to this
    , @Talha

    Islam has not had that moment that I can see.
     
    Correct, because Islam asserts that it is already the last valid and Divinely sanctioned reformation - it is part of its self-definition. As Lord Cromer, consul-general of the British mandate in Egypt, stated:
    "In dealing with the question of introducing European civilisation into Egypt, it should never be forgotten that Islam cannot be reformed; is to say, reformed Islam is Islam no longer; something else."

    A traditional Muslim as myself is both impressed and horrified by what the Reformation brought to Europe and Christianity.

    As AaronB - and you have pointed out - there is nothing intrinsically in opposition to science in Islam when science is considered a tool (many of our famous scientists of the Golden Age were themselves highly-credentialed theologians) - it is when it breaks out of its proper box of human utilization that we oppose it (as do others who understand what is at stake):
    “With the rise of Technopoly, one of those thought-worlds disappears. Technopoly eliminates alternatives to itself in precisely the way Aldous Huxley outlined in Brave New World. It does not make them illegal. It does not make them immoral. It does not even make them unpopular. It makes them invisible and therefore irrelevant. And it does so by redefining what we mean by religion, by art, by family, by politics, by history, by truth, by privacy, by intelligence, so that our definitions fit its new requirements. Technopoly, in other words, is totalitarian technocracy.”
    ― Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

    It is not anti-science - one of my former Arabic teachers is both a Muslim scholar and, well...:
    "From 2007 to 2013, Shaykh Omar completed his medical residency in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology and fellowships in Hematopathology and Molecular Genetic Pathology at Washington University in St. Louis."
    http://pureway.org/shaykh-omar/

    ...but it is anti-scientism. People say we're slow - sure, but maybe humanity was never supposed to run so fast at breakneck speed; I posit, as I have before, the wisdom in Aesop's Tortoise and the Hare.

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.
     
    Being resistant to change is not a bad thing as long as it's not taken too far. Being open to change is also not a bad thing as long as it's not taken too far. Unfortunately Christianity has self-destructed because it has been much too open to change. The self-destruction of Christianity has led to chaos in the West, with people believing everything and at the same time believing nothing.

    It was arguably the Reformation that introduced the fatal weakness into Christianity. So Islam may be very fortunate to have escaped a similar disaster.
    , @Anon

    Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance.
     
    Maybe as a reaction (not entirely unjustified) to the Renaissance? Calvinism is basically the Islam of Christianity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.
     
    Ok but that begs the question, doesn't it. Nuns were the first career girls. Your social workforce is going to have to come from somewhere. I suspect total removal of the most thoughtful and compassionate women from the marriage market is not good for the gene pool, and while it certainly makes sense to put fallen women to work caring for the sick and wounded in times of war or other crisis, it would be better still if they had never fallen to begin with. In early industrial society, a 13 year old girl could wind up on the streets because her father was injured, sick, or dead and she needed to generate income to feed the family. And let's be honest, this kind of prostitution is sexual wage slavery, little better than what is happening to Yazidi girls in the ME.

    Your social workforce is going to have to come from somewhere.

    By the way, on this note, I would point out that the vast majority of women now live well into menopause, because we no longer die in childbirth as in the past. Thank you, guys!

    Of course, the very fact of midlife menopause demonstrates that women are capable of learning from experience and becoming leaders in their later years. I think it’s fair to say that there will be no need for either nuns or a reserve female labor force of down-and-out prostitutes, but there will be a need for flexibility about women’s roles going forward.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh

    No – it is a religion that hasn’t thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society...
     
    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.

    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.

    How is organizing society based on the sayings of a man who received revelation from God, as taught to him by an angel that used to periodically descend in human form, “scientific based”?

    It certainly is evidence-based in that we have to be sure whether or not it can be traced back to him with a reasonable level of reliability.

    That it may correlate with natural ways that humans have generally organized societies historically is to be expected – it’s not called “deen ul-fitrah” (religion of primordial nature) for nothing.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I'll be the first to sing praises of Islam if NEOM gives me the Machine God, blessed be the Omnimessiah His Servant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dfordoom

    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest.
     
    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum./blockquote>

    Agreed.

    Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes.

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don't intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.
     

     

    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    Well, not quite. As I said before, drunkenness, domestic violence, gambling, etc. were problems that plagued working-class women. From their point of view, the problems of privileged women would have seemed trivial, but you have to remember, human needs are hierarchical. Higher needs, such as creativity and public service, begin to loom large as the lower needs are securely fulfilled. This works the same way for women as for men.

    Particularly miserable were bright girls born into the working class. Think Roald Dahl’s Matilda. These girls, I suspect, are even more miserable now than they were in the past, when they at least had a good school where they could find respite from low-brow male chauvinism. Hopefully, Miss Honey is still out there offering hope and guidance to gifted girls lost in these increasingly miserable excuses for “schools.”

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don’t intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.

    Right, but here again there would be no money to pay their salaries but for elite donations. They would have to find something useful to do rather than stir up trouble for a living. This is an important point, because the woman question is never going to go away. Industrialization brought changes to society that necessitated a renegotiation of gender roles. While femininity-masculinity is a timeless polarity, their specific manifestations are highly contextual. Change will come again, and the lines of communication must remain open so gender roles can adapt to meet the needs of society as it evolves in real time. Some say that the existence of radically destructive feminists today means men never should have listened to the reasonable ones in times past, because women are unreasonable and can never be satisfied. This is not true, and we need to defend ourselves from this unfounded, but understandable in the circumstances, view of women as perpetual malcontents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Some say that the existence of radically destructive feminists today means men never should have listened to the reasonable ones in times past, because women are unreasonable and can never be satisfied.
     
    The problem is that men did not listen to the reasonable feminists - instead they listened to the extreme feminists and surrendered to all their crazy demands.

    Reasonable people generally do not get listened to.

    And if you look back at the history of feminism there haven't been very many reasonable feminists anyway. The movement has always been dominated by the crazies. Because non-crazy women were not interested in feminism - they preferred to just get on with life. It was the angry, bitter, crazy (and in many cases literally psychotic) types who were attracted to feminism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh

    No – it is a religion that hasn’t thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society...
     
    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.

    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.

    Seemed to work pretty well for us – after all it was the basic nature of British society when we expanded from a small island to become the dominant world power. We haven’t done so well since we abandoned it (not saying causation can necessarily be demonstrated there).

    One of my favourite quotes from the generally rather neocon for my tastes Niall Ferguson is the following:

    Towards the end of his recent book, Civilization, the historian Niall Ferguson drops into his analysis an explosive depth-charge. He quotes a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, part of a team tasked with the challenge of discovering why it was that Europe, having lagged behind China until the 17th century, overtook it, rising to prominence and dominance.

    At first, he said, we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons than we did. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion, Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.

    http://rabbisacks.org/credo-china-is-reversing-the-decline-and-fall-of-christianity/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I've often said that evangelical religions provide an incredible energy and there's much to be said for them. There were Muslims in Chinese dynastic courts and the recorded evidence shows that they consistently advocated a more aggressive and outgoing policy as its evident that religion certainly provided an impetus to do things which were difficult to materially justify but would nonetheless have proved fruitful.

    Of course, Zheng He was Muslim and his exploration goals were influenced by a desire to create a path to Mecca for fellow Muslims. The Islamic Golden Age was impressive and arguably played a vital role in the Scientific Method - and in that, all of modern life.

    Evangelical religions do seem to inspire an expansive energy which at its best, inspires greatness and dreams beyond material ken. But of course, it also comes with its price of vast religious wars.

    Modern Islam, however, is pretty much anti-scientific and has proven itself resistant to change. Christianity had its Reformation which in my opinion, is directly tied to the Renaissance. Islam has not had that moment that I can see.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Greasy William
    Wouldn't you like it if society were more spiritual?

    But, my friend, society is very spiritual already. We have enormous energies invested into denying reality and funds are liberally allocated for theological research to better understand the secret importance of Hidden Figures. Paradise awaits us once we have completed overcoming our human nature fully and perfect social justice awaits us across its pearly gates right after everyone has been appropriately enlightened to the One Truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Miro23

    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse.
     
    That's what it looks like. And it's a strange kind of "Global Hegemony" that runs permanent deficits, has outsourced its industrial base, has a divided society and levels of inequality never seen before in the Western world.

    Realistically, the US does look more like a failed state heading into some kind of social and economic collapse.

    Lets assume the US falls (I dont know just yet):

    Its the people who will suffer though. Not the elites. They will run to other countries.
    Some Americans upper-middle and rich will run to other countries.

    As long as they have those financiers and military, they are still alive as empire.

    Yearly population are getting more obese (now 4/10).
    Less Middle Class. Less family unit. More big government. Thats not the America of old.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    Being a successful country in 2018 is not easy.

    The population needs to be healthy, well educated, skilled and employed, and there need to be low levels of corruption , a fair legal system and a frugal government dedicated to national development.

    The US happens to be declining an all these measures, and plenty of other countries are also failing. Every country is different, but a big reason has to be digitalization and the internet, building the framework for the mass exodus of manufacturing to low wage destinations.

    It should have been stopped with a serious national political effort (starting in the 1980's) but even where there has been the political will (e.g. in Germany), it's only been partially successful.

    In contrast to the Americans, the Germans know that they need modern manufacturing and all the science, development and technology that goes along with it, but globalization makes national production uneconomic - so they've pulled the useful trick of substituting the Euro for the D.Mark , giving them a new undervalued currency (very useful for exports) - linked to the economies of places like Portugal and Greece - who themselves now struggle with the overvaluation of their Euro currency.

    If Europe still had national currencies, Germany would not be able to manufacture and export the way it does with a D.Mark at its true market value - and Portugal and Greece would be much more competitive for manufacturing and tourism with a low valued Escudo and Drachma.

    The fundamental argument is to separate the administration of the state from business. They're totally separate concepts. The state represents the best interests of the people, and business represents the best interests of corporations and shareholders.

    In the US, business and finance have a lock on political power through Congress (lobbies) and the FED (despite the name - an association of private banks), with the administration stuffed with globalist businessmen and bankers. The only real answer is for states to be mostly autonomous and raise and spend their own taxes with close political involvement of the public (i.e. an American Confederation).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh

    No – it is a religion that hasn’t thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society...
     
    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.

    Wouldn’t you like it if society were more spiritual?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    But, my friend, society is very spiritual already. We have enormous energies invested into denying reality and funds are liberally allocated for theological research to better understand the secret importance of Hidden Figures. Paradise awaits us once we have completed overcoming our human nature fully and perfect social justice awaits us across its pearly gates right after everyone has been appropriately enlightened to the One Truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    No - it is a religion that hasn't thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society. In essence, He actually acts and commands like the One Who created everything...including man - meaning a deity Who doesn't appreciate being put in the "friend zone" and reserves the right to act on such an insult.

    Most religions were pretty much on board with this until relatively recently; even the constitution of Thailand associates the sovereignty of the king as being the champion and guardian of Buddhism in the realm.

    We're just a really, really stubborn religion - as you would expect from one called "submission". Anybody who doesn't think we are a religion should simply put their money where their mouth is and try to act out the Sunnah practice for worship during the upcoming month of Ramadan (including isolation in the mosque for the last ten days) and see if its spiritual component can be chalked up as merely incidental.

    Peace.

    No – it is a religion that hasn’t thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society…

    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Wouldn't you like it if society were more spiritual?
    , @Randal

    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.
     
    Seemed to work pretty well for us - after all it was the basic nature of British society when we expanded from a small island to become the dominant world power. We haven't done so well since we abandoned it (not saying causation can necessarily be demonstrated there).

    One of my favourite quotes from the generally rather neocon for my tastes Niall Ferguson is the following:

    Towards the end of his recent book, Civilization, the historian Niall Ferguson drops into his analysis an explosive depth-charge. He quotes a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, part of a team tasked with the challenge of discovering why it was that Europe, having lagged behind China until the 17th century, overtook it, rising to prominence and dominance.

    At first, he said, we thought it was your guns. You had better weapons than we did. Then we delved deeper and thought it was your political system. Then we searched deeper still, and concluded that it was your economic system. But for the past 20 years we have realised that it was in fact your religion, Christianity. It was the Christian foundation of social and cultural life in Europe that made possible the emergence first of capitalism, then of democratic politics.
     
    http://rabbisacks.org/credo-china-is-reversing-the-decline-and-fall-of-christianity/
    , @Talha

    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.
     
    How is organizing society based on the sayings of a man who received revelation from God, as taught to him by an angel that used to periodically descend in human form, "scientific based"?

    It certainly is evidence-based in that we have to be sure whether or not it can be traced back to him with a reasonable level of reliability.

    That it may correlate with natural ways that humans have generally organized societies historically is to be expected - it's not called "deen ul-fitrah" (religion of primordial nature) for nothing.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu

    From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.
     
    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.

    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.

    Ok but that begs the question, doesn’t it. Nuns were the first career girls. Your social workforce is going to have to come from somewhere. I suspect total removal of the most thoughtful and compassionate women from the marriage market is not good for the gene pool, and while it certainly makes sense to put fallen women to work caring for the sick and wounded in times of war or other crisis, it would be better still if they had never fallen to begin with. In early industrial society, a 13 year old girl could wind up on the streets because her father was injured, sick, or dead and she needed to generate income to feed the family. And let’s be honest, this kind of prostitution is sexual wage slavery, little better than what is happening to Yazidi girls in the ME.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Your social workforce is going to have to come from somewhere.
     
    By the way, on this note, I would point out that the vast majority of women now live well into menopause, because we no longer die in childbirth as in the past. Thank you, guys!

    Of course, the very fact of midlife menopause demonstrates that women are capable of learning from experience and becoming leaders in their later years. I think it's fair to say that there will be no need for either nuns or a reserve female labor force of down-and-out prostitutes, but there will be a need for flexibility about women's roles going forward.

    , @Rosie
    @utu

    I should say that I take your point that you can have social welfare without women's suffrage. However, I don't think you can have social welfare without either women's suffrage or an active network of private charities, presumably staffed by women. In other words, you can exclude women from the vote or ecclude them from public roles, but I don't think you can do both (as many alt-Right men advocate) and still have a liveable society.

    It seems to me that women's suffrage will almost inevitably lead to a welfare state that will generate pink collar jobs that men wouldn't want and wouldn't be good at either, and again with a welfare state you are going to need private organizations to perform those roles and duties.

    Despite concerns about overly feminized schools, I'm pretty sure nobody really wants this.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mce3yiMF4iQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    The fundamental problem is that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion.

    No – it is a religion that hasn’t thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society. In essence, He actually acts and commands like the One Who created everything…including man – meaning a deity Who doesn’t appreciate being put in the “friend zone” and reserves the right to act on such an insult.

    Most religions were pretty much on board with this until relatively recently; even the constitution of Thailand associates the sovereignty of the king as being the champion and guardian of Buddhism in the realm.

    We’re just a really, really stubborn religion – as you would expect from one called “submission”. Anybody who doesn’t think we are a religion should simply put their money where their mouth is and try to act out the Sunnah practice for worship during the upcoming month of Ramadan (including isolation in the mosque for the last ten days) and see if its spiritual component can be chalked up as merely incidental.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Agree: Greasy William
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    No – it is a religion that hasn’t thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society...
     
    Seems like a scientific, evidence-based way to organize society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    You're fortunate there compared to Americans in a way. You have family gatherings and hot cross buns: symbols and rituals, and at least a passing knowledge and presumably respect for some Christian values. In that sense, you and your family actually have a real, tangible connection to your ancestry and perhaps even a personal connection to the British past - when history covers over British naval victories, it might actually connect in some tangential way to some hapless forefather who served on a sailing ship, saved England and then proceeded to be betrayed by the elites of their time.

    There always feels to be something contradictory about going to war and risking life and limb presumably to enemy violence, and then dying of starvation instead because of inadequate supplies.

    The Christian symbols – hot cross buns, Easter holidays etc – are mostly commercialised and lacking in any real meaning nowadays, except for some of the oldest amongst us. Certainly none of my children are meaningfully religious. Family is something we try to retain, but that’s partly a social class issue I suspect.

    when history covers over British naval victories, it might actually connect in some tangential way to some hapless forefather who served on a sailing ship, saved England and then proceeded to be betrayed by the elites of their time.

    Well one of my wife’s relatives (ie he’s in the family tree – I can’t remember what the actual relationship was) was an admiral who was famously shot for not being aggressive enough.

    There always feels to be something contradictory about going to war and risking life and limb presumably to enemy violence, and then dying of starvation instead because of inadequate supplies.

    In the past, of course, ordinary soldiers and sailors were not generally regarded as noble fighters for patriotic reasons, but rather (not necessarily inaccurately) as scum and often actual criminals, generally pressed into service or joining up for lack of alternatives or desire for loot and adventure. It was normal for the vast majority of deaths to result from neglect and disease rather than enemy action, especially if deployed in the tropics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha

    This isn’t to be dismissed – loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that “without us...
     
    This is effectively how they have gained a lot of Muslim support; if you don't join up with us, you will end up losing your rights and being marginalized.

    The traditional Muslims that are pushing back (against the liberal incursion - which is really something to see when you have hijabis holding up pro-LGBT signs - absolutely bizarre) are trying to make the argument in the community that; worst case scenario on one hand is that we get booted out of the West wholesale - on the other hand, our religion becomes what is happening with Christianity and a loss of faith in the future generations.

    The former is inconvenience, the latter is a complete and utter failure - there is no equivalence.

    Peace.

    The fundamental problem is that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    No - it is a religion that hasn't thrown in the towel on the concept that God has a say in the way He expects His servants to organize society. In essence, He actually acts and commands like the One Who created everything...including man - meaning a deity Who doesn't appreciate being put in the "friend zone" and reserves the right to act on such an insult.

    Most religions were pretty much on board with this until relatively recently; even the constitution of Thailand associates the sovereignty of the king as being the champion and guardian of Buddhism in the realm.

    We're just a really, really stubborn religion - as you would expect from one called "submission". Anybody who doesn't think we are a religion should simply put their money where their mouth is and try to act out the Sunnah practice for worship during the upcoming month of Ramadan (including isolation in the mosque for the last ten days) and see if its spiritual component can be chalked up as merely incidental.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal
    Thanks, that's plausible, I suppose, especially if you replace "organisation" with "movement".

    Now I just have to work out how to work it into the conversation at one of several forthcoming Easter family gatherings. Should make one or two in-laws spit out their hot cross buns, and a couple of offspring roll their eyes.....

    You’re fortunate there compared to Americans in a way. You have family gatherings and hot cross buns: symbols and rituals, and at least a passing knowledge and presumably respect for some Christian values. In that sense, you and your family actually have a real, tangible connection to your ancestry and perhaps even a personal connection to the British past – when history covers over British naval victories, it might actually connect in some tangential way to some hapless forefather who served on a sailing ship, saved England and then proceeded to be betrayed by the elites of their time.

    There always feels to be something contradictory about going to war and risking life and limb presumably to enemy violence, and then dying of starvation instead because of inadequate supplies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    The Christian symbols - hot cross buns, Easter holidays etc - are mostly commercialised and lacking in any real meaning nowadays, except for some of the oldest amongst us. Certainly none of my children are meaningfully religious. Family is something we try to retain, but that's partly a social class issue I suspect.

    when history covers over British naval victories, it might actually connect in some tangential way to some hapless forefather who served on a sailing ship, saved England and then proceeded to be betrayed by the elites of their time.
     
    Well one of my wife's relatives (ie he's in the family tree - I can't remember what the actual relationship was) was an admiral who was famously shot for not being aggressive enough.

    There always feels to be something contradictory about going to war and risking life and limb presumably to enemy violence, and then dying of starvation instead because of inadequate supplies.
     
    In the past, of course, ordinary soldiers and sailors were not generally regarded as noble fighters for patriotic reasons, but rather (not necessarily inaccurately) as scum and often actual criminals, generally pressed into service or joining up for lack of alternatives or desire for loot and adventure. It was normal for the vast majority of deaths to result from neglect and disease rather than enemy action, especially if deployed in the tropics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    Its pretty simple: there are people who are naturally less capable of gaining status in a traditional society - your usual actors such as transvestites, degenerates, poorly functioning minorities, ugly spinsters(which Spandrell calls "evil fat women") and other freaks. But many of them want high status anyway.

    Organizations that recruit them and give them high status(often at the expense of society) get a significant advantage in that they are loyal out of necessity. This isn't to be dismissed - loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that "without us, you'll be back to being beaten by your husbands and being prosecuted for your sodomy" makes them effective foot soldiers, especially in terms of organization and enthusiasm.

    On the other hand, high functioning individuals such as average middle-class whites will be fine no matter. No matter how hostile society becomes, they usually will survive at least as individuals. In that sense, they can never be loyal pawns, not even to each other, up until you get to the South African situation. Loyalty isn't optimal for them: fighting to defend your fellow whites in SA, for example, might get you killed for no result(and certainly makes you non-handshakeworthy) and thus has an incredibly high opportunity cost. The same time and effort spent to emigrate and pay for your kid to get into Cambridge gives your family higher status than being a statistic or being famous with the SPLC.

    This isn’t to be dismissed – loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that “without us…

    This is effectively how they have gained a lot of Muslim support; if you don’t join up with us, you will end up losing your rights and being marginalized.

    The traditional Muslims that are pushing back (against the liberal incursion – which is really something to see when you have hijabis holding up pro-LGBT signs – absolutely bizarre) are trying to make the argument in the community that; worst case scenario on one hand is that we get booted out of the West wholesale – on the other hand, our religion becomes what is happening with Christianity and a loss of faith in the future generations.

    The former is inconvenience, the latter is a complete and utter failure – there is no equivalence.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The fundamental problem is that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh
    Its pretty simple: there are people who are naturally less capable of gaining status in a traditional society - your usual actors such as transvestites, degenerates, poorly functioning minorities, ugly spinsters(which Spandrell calls "evil fat women") and other freaks. But many of them want high status anyway.

    Organizations that recruit them and give them high status(often at the expense of society) get a significant advantage in that they are loyal out of necessity. This isn't to be dismissed - loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that "without us, you'll be back to being beaten by your husbands and being prosecuted for your sodomy" makes them effective foot soldiers, especially in terms of organization and enthusiasm.

    On the other hand, high functioning individuals such as average middle-class whites will be fine no matter. No matter how hostile society becomes, they usually will survive at least as individuals. In that sense, they can never be loyal pawns, not even to each other, up until you get to the South African situation. Loyalty isn't optimal for them: fighting to defend your fellow whites in SA, for example, might get you killed for no result(and certainly makes you non-handshakeworthy) and thus has an incredibly high opportunity cost. The same time and effort spent to emigrate and pay for your kid to get into Cambridge gives your family higher status than being a statistic or being famous with the SPLC.

    Thanks, that’s plausible, I suppose, especially if you replace “organisation” with “movement”.

    Now I just have to work out how to work it into the conversation at one of several forthcoming Easter family gatherings. Should make one or two in-laws spit out their hot cross buns, and a couple of offspring roll their eyes…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You're fortunate there compared to Americans in a way. You have family gatherings and hot cross buns: symbols and rituals, and at least a passing knowledge and presumably respect for some Christian values. In that sense, you and your family actually have a real, tangible connection to your ancestry and perhaps even a personal connection to the British past - when history covers over British naval victories, it might actually connect in some tangential way to some hapless forefather who served on a sailing ship, saved England and then proceeded to be betrayed by the elites of their time.

    There always feels to be something contradictory about going to war and risking life and limb presumably to enemy violence, and then dying of starvation instead because of inadequate supplies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dfordoom

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run
     
    Liberalism doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it. Liberalism survives, and thrives, because it steals other people's children.

    This is a reasonable point. I have noticed it does seem to be clearing the wheat from the chaff in a sense so perhaps we should be grateful in that sense; a self-imposed selection-downgrade in the survival of the fittest.

    I guess someone should tell them they should not try too hard though, they will end up killing the host.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    Spandrellian Bioleninism
     
    Magnificent stuff!

    It's not often I'm stumped, vocabulary wise, even by fairly niche politico-economic jargon, but that's a fine sounding piece of jargon you young uns have come up with!

    Now you have to explain it in your own words, preferably without just copping out with links to longwinded essays on suspect websites.

    Its pretty simple: there are people who are naturally less capable of gaining status in a traditional society – your usual actors such as transvestites, degenerates, poorly functioning minorities, ugly spinsters(which Spandrell calls “evil fat women”) and other freaks. But many of them want high status anyway.

    Organizations that recruit them and give them high status(often at the expense of society) get a significant advantage in that they are loyal out of necessity. This isn’t to be dismissed – loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that “without us, you’ll be back to being beaten by your husbands and being prosecuted for your sodomy” makes them effective foot soldiers, especially in terms of organization and enthusiasm.

    On the other hand, high functioning individuals such as average middle-class whites will be fine no matter. No matter how hostile society becomes, they usually will survive at least as individuals. In that sense, they can never be loyal pawns, not even to each other, up until you get to the South African situation. Loyalty isn’t optimal for them: fighting to defend your fellow whites in SA, for example, might get you killed for no result(and certainly makes you non-handshakeworthy) and thus has an incredibly high opportunity cost. The same time and effort spent to emigrate and pay for your kid to get into Cambridge gives your family higher status than being a statistic or being famous with the SPLC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Thanks, that's plausible, I suppose, especially if you replace "organisation" with "movement".

    Now I just have to work out how to work it into the conversation at one of several forthcoming Easter family gatherings. Should make one or two in-laws spit out their hot cross buns, and a couple of offspring roll their eyes.....
    , @Talha

    This isn’t to be dismissed – loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that “without us...
     
    This is effectively how they have gained a lot of Muslim support; if you don't join up with us, you will end up losing your rights and being marginalized.

    The traditional Muslims that are pushing back (against the liberal incursion - which is really something to see when you have hijabis holding up pro-LGBT signs - absolutely bizarre) are trying to make the argument in the community that; worst case scenario on one hand is that we get booted out of the West wholesale - on the other hand, our religion becomes what is happening with Christianity and a loss of faith in the future generations.

    The former is inconvenience, the latter is a complete and utter failure - there is no equivalence.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @German_reader
    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one's hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse. Maybe Trump will still deliver here by starting some catastrophic war (even if one should hardly wish for such a development).

    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse.

    That’s what it looks like. And it’s a strange kind of “Global Hegemony” that runs permanent deficits, has outsourced its industrial base, has a divided society and levels of inequality never seen before in the Western world.

    Realistically, the US does look more like a failed state heading into some kind of social and economic collapse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polskijoe
    Lets assume the US falls (I dont know just yet):

    Its the people who will suffer though. Not the elites. They will run to other countries.
    Some Americans upper-middle and rich will run to other countries.

    As long as they have those financiers and military, they are still alive as empire.

    Yearly population are getting more obese (now 4/10).
    Less Middle Class. Less family unit. More big government. Thats not the America of old.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dfordoom

    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest.
     
    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum./blockquote>

    Agreed.

    Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes.

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don't intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.
     

     

    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    In my mother’s day (and to some extent when I was young, I believe) there were lot of humiliating restrictions on women — not being able to take out a loan, needing her husband’s signature to get a credit card, even serving on juries in some states. These affected women in general, not only a tiny handful.

    Saying that feminism has gone too far is one thing, denying its historical basis is going too far.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Toronto Russian
    These guys would say the restrictions were good. They think a woman, if given any financial freedom, will put her family into huge debt by collecting designer shoes and handbags. Nevermind it's men who were traditionally known for financial irresponsibility - like drinking and gambling away family fortunes - they're still somehow supposed to be uniquely capable of rational relationship with money.
    , @Anon

    serving on juries
     
    Is this a "right" more than a tiny fraction of people actually want?

    Sorry, I just had to pull that out-- I'm not raising a new argument on any side of the general issue here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives
     
    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of "female in chief executive positions." They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.
     
    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.

    IMO its illusionary

    I would certainly like to hear the opinions of our Russian experts on this. My experience, from the 1990s, was that women were frequently found in senior management positions to an extent that, at that time anyway, would not have been the case in the West. I am also talking positions requiring technical expertise, notably in airport management.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    There’s a big difference between bashing women and bashing feminism.

    The problems women face today are almost all the result of feminism, the most misogynistic ideology in history.
     
    I think there is actually quite a bit of sense in what you say here. The problem is that the alt-Right has redefined feminism to mean any sense of self-confidence on the part of women. Even opposition to Wife-beating is "feminist" on the alt-Right.

    It’s a purity spiral. It’s a mirror image of what is happening on the left. It is irredeemably dumb.

    Suddenly one side is wearing hats fashioned to look like female genitalia and proud to call themselves nasty (don’t these ladies ever ask themselves, upon looking in the mirror, if they are the bad guys?) while the other is trying to rationalise away beating women – a crime that was never acceptable in the history of their entire civilisation? A civilisation, in part, distinguished by the genuine chivalry their ancestors aspired to.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rosie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.

    I don’t think they got those weapons for free.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.

    That’s correct. I believe their entire air force was comprised of aircraft provided by the French like the Mirage III fighter and the MD450. European nations had also provided a lot of firearms arms dating back to the massive Jewish incursion of Palestine after WWII. So Israel has always had a lot of outside help whether from France, Germany and other Europeans nations or the U.S. today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @polskijoe
    On the economic side? You might be right. But I still think social issues were important.

    But after the New Deal didnt "socialist" like ideas poor in, mixing with capitalism?
    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    The elites were ultra capitalists who hoped to maintain absolute social control by keeping the lower orders happy with handouts, mind-rotting trash entertainment, sex and drugs (it almost seems that they used Brave New World as an instruction manual).

    It might seem like a kind of semi-socialism but it isn’t really, although the new world order they created does manage to combine many of the worst features of both capitalism and socialism.

    This the world the New Left made possible by their betrayal of all actual left-wing principles.

    Read More
    • Agree: polskijoe
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Here is Stefan Molyneaux explaining why women should not have the right to vote :

    There is no doubt that the over-valuation of women is the central cause for the demise of our society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dfordoom

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.
     
    The New Left existed in order to persuade people to embrace capitalism, whilst thinking they were supporting socialism.

    On the economic side? You might be right. But I still think social issues were important.

    But after the New Deal didnt “socialist” like ideas poor in, mixing with capitalism?
    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?
     
    The elites were ultra capitalists who hoped to maintain absolute social control by keeping the lower orders happy with handouts, mind-rotting trash entertainment, sex and drugs (it almost seems that they used Brave New World as an instruction manual).

    It might seem like a kind of semi-socialism but it isn't really, although the new world order they created does manage to combine many of the worst features of both capitalism and socialism.

    This the world the New Left made possible by their betrayal of all actual left-wing principles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @polskijoe
    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The West was more worried about Stalinism than Bolshevism.
    So they used Bolshevik social views. In recent times those views have gone on steriods.
    Then used a mixture of capitalist and socialist views.

    The focus was more on social issues (drugs, feminism, perverts, abortions) rather than money.
    Some call it Cultural Marxism.

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The New Left existed in order to persuade people to embrace capitalism, whilst thinking they were supporting socialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polskijoe
    On the economic side? You might be right. But I still think social issues were important.

    But after the New Deal didnt "socialist" like ideas poor in, mixing with capitalism?
    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    Here's my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don't think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family's support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn't need to earn as much as men. That's about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they'd have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn't bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that's because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest.

    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum./blockquote>

    Agreed.

    Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes.

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don’t intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    In my mother's day (and to some extent when I was young, I believe) there were lot of humiliating restrictions on women -- not being able to take out a loan, needing her husband's signature to get a credit card, even serving on juries in some states. These affected women in general, not only a tiny handful.

    Saying that feminism has gone too far is one thing, denying its historical basis is going too far.
    , @Rosie

    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.
     
    Well, not quite. As I said before, drunkenness, domestic violence, gambling, etc. were problems that plagued working-class women. From their point of view, the problems of privileged women would have seemed trivial, but you have to remember, human needs are hierarchical. Higher needs, such as creativity and public service, begin to loom large as the lower needs are securely fulfilled. This works the same way for women as for men.

    Particularly miserable were bright girls born into the working class. Think Roald Dahl's Matilda. These girls, I suspect, are even more miserable now than they were in the past, when they at least had a good school where they could find respite from low-brow male chauvinism. Hopefully, Miss Honey is still out there offering hope and guidance to gifted girls lost in these increasingly miserable excuses for "schools."

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don’t intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.
     
    Right, but here again there would be no money to pay their salaries but for elite donations. They would have to find something useful to do rather than stir up trouble for a living. This is an important point, because the woman question is never going to go away. Industrialization brought changes to society that necessitated a renegotiation of gender roles. While femininity-masculinity is a timeless polarity, their specific manifestations are highly contextual. Change will come again, and the lines of communication must remain open so gender roles can adapt to meet the needs of society as it evolves in real time. Some say that the existence of radically destructive feminists today means men never should have listened to the reasonable ones in times past, because women are unreasonable and can never be satisfied. This is not true, and we need to defend ourselves from this unfounded, but understandable in the circumstances, view of women as perpetual malcontents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run

    Liberalism doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it. Liberalism survives, and thrives, because it steals other people’s children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    This is a reasonable point. I have noticed it does seem to be clearing the wheat from the chaff in a sense so perhaps we should be grateful in that sense; a self-imposed selection-downgrade in the survival of the fittest.

    I guess someone should tell them they should not try too hard though, they will end up killing the host.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor

    likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.
     
    The loss of the Golan and the Sinai, of which the latter they lost anyway. After that I think they’d have become less complacent (they became less complacent anyway).

    But I think Israel’s very existence was never in any real danger, however paranoid they were about it at the time. Israel already had nuclear weapons and no one was interested in finding out whether they’d use them.

    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    That's correct. I believe their entire air force was comprised of aircraft provided by the French like the Mirage III fighter and the MD450. European nations had also provided a lot of firearms arms dating back to the massive Jewish incursion of Palestine after WWII. So Israel has always had a lot of outside help whether from France, Germany and other Europeans nations or the U.S. today.
    , @reiner Tor
    I don’t think they got those weapons for free.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.

    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.
     
    Ok but that begs the question, doesn't it. Nuns were the first career girls. Your social workforce is going to have to come from somewhere. I suspect total removal of the most thoughtful and compassionate women from the marriage market is not good for the gene pool, and while it certainly makes sense to put fallen women to work caring for the sick and wounded in times of war or other crisis, it would be better still if they had never fallen to begin with. In early industrial society, a 13 year old girl could wind up on the streets because her father was injured, sick, or dead and she needed to generate income to feed the family. And let's be honest, this kind of prostitution is sexual wage slavery, little better than what is happening to Yazidi girls in the ME.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anon

    If you want to claim that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.
     
    Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough, but I don't really see the evidence for this. What I recall suggests that women vote largely the same way as men, with a slight bias towards political orthodoxy where men are slightly more inclined to "edgier" positions. Depending on the place and time period women can be quite conservative*. Ironically iirc in postwar Britain men went far more for the welfare state than women did-- weren't female votes the only thing keeping the Conservative Party around for a while (while the Liberal party collapsed completely)?

    *Margarita Nelken famously opposed female suffrage in Spain on precisely these grounds.

    Perhaps I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I don’t really see the evidence for this.

    I don’t have much evidence. I’ll admit that. All I can say is that my understanding is that women were at the forefront of private poor relief efforts in early industrial society. I think they called it “social housekeeping” because public roles for women were novel at the time, and they wanted to emphasize the feminine and traditional aspects of their work.

    From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.

    Again, I’m not saying that I have an iron-clad case for women’s suffrage as a necessary condition for the welfare state fully worked out, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were so, and I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken there was a time when women voters were seen as protective against unnecessary warfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Florence Nightingale cannot be praised enough, but it's not quite fair to generalize about the time before her-- Surgeon-General Larrey is, surely, not a name to be ignored? And don't forget the enormous network of nuns who made the Catholic hospital system possible in the US-- a very necessary role at the time. It is a common modern error to dismiss all time before the present as utterly barbaric, when some softening of perspective would be more appropriate.

    Personally I'm not too concerned about suffrage for anybody-- there is, I think, a good rationale for limiting the franchise to one vote per household (man and wife must agree? or half a vote each?), but I am not really against our current system-- it's flawed, like every system made by mankind. You probably know, incidentally, that had female suffrage been put to a vote among women at the time it was introduced, at least in the UK or the US, it would have been soundly defeated (which is not necessarily an argument against it).

    I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences.
     
    Certainly-- even if only because the enormous upheaval necessary before such a thing could be even thinkable would be necessarily catastrophic.

    Another point about those 500 men-- for most of history giving birth was quite as dangerous as going to war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    Here's my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don't think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family's support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn't need to earn as much as men. That's about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they'd have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn't bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that's because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The West was more worried about Stalinism than Bolshevism.
    So they used Bolshevik social views. In recent times those views have gone on steriods.
    Then used a mixture of capitalist and socialist views.

    The focus was more on social issues (drugs, feminism, perverts, abortions) rather than money.
    Some call it Cultural Marxism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.
     
    The New Left existed in order to persuade people to embrace capitalism, whilst thinking they were supporting socialism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @for-the-record
    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women"get along" much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn't transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% -- 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female "advancement" does not inevitably lead to the social "decline" that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don’t think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family’s support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn’t need to earn as much as men. That’s about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they’d have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn’t bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that’s because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polskijoe
    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The West was more worried about Stalinism than Bolshevism.
    So they used Bolshevik social views. In recent times those views have gone on steriods.
    Then used a mixture of capitalist and socialist views.

    The focus was more on social issues (drugs, feminism, perverts, abortions) rather than money.
    Some call it Cultural Marxism.

    , @dfordoom

    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest.
     
    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum./blockquote>

    Agreed.

    Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes.

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don't intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.
     

     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Darth Pepe
    As a proud 2016 Meme War veteran and a card-carrying Kekistani, I will never forget the halcyon days of Nov 2016 - Jan 2017. This was our A New Hope, when a plucky orange-haired 70-year old teenager fired a cartoon frog down the exhaust port of the social justice Death Star.

    Now, we are deep in the Empire Strikes Back territory.

    Let us hope for a Return of the Shitlords, except with plucky frog people instead of those damn Ewoks.

    So if there where no pre-programeed or (programmed during and after) voting machines – the Democrats wouldn’t of won any elections . Only way to stop this fake voting scam is – Paper Ballots Only , counted by you and me and those dam ballots never leave the room !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Daniel Chieh

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives
     
    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of "female in chief executive positions." They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.
     
    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.

    Spandrellian Bioleninism

    Magnificent stuff!

    It’s not often I’m stumped, vocabulary wise, even by fairly niche politico-economic jargon, but that’s a fine sounding piece of jargon you young uns have come up with!

    Now you have to explain it in your own words, preferably without just copping out with links to longwinded essays on suspect websites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Its pretty simple: there are people who are naturally less capable of gaining status in a traditional society - your usual actors such as transvestites, degenerates, poorly functioning minorities, ugly spinsters(which Spandrell calls "evil fat women") and other freaks. But many of them want high status anyway.

    Organizations that recruit them and give them high status(often at the expense of society) get a significant advantage in that they are loyal out of necessity. This isn't to be dismissed - loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that "without us, you'll be back to being beaten by your husbands and being prosecuted for your sodomy" makes them effective foot soldiers, especially in terms of organization and enthusiasm.

    On the other hand, high functioning individuals such as average middle-class whites will be fine no matter. No matter how hostile society becomes, they usually will survive at least as individuals. In that sense, they can never be loyal pawns, not even to each other, up until you get to the South African situation. Loyalty isn't optimal for them: fighting to defend your fellow whites in SA, for example, might get you killed for no result(and certainly makes you non-handshakeworthy) and thus has an incredibly high opportunity cost. The same time and effort spent to emigrate and pay for your kid to get into Cambridge gives your family higher status than being a statistic or being famous with the SPLC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @for-the-record
    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women"get along" much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn't transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% -- 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female "advancement" does not inevitably lead to the social "decline" that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives

    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of “female in chief executive positions.” They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Spandrellian Bioleninism
     
    Magnificent stuff!

    It's not often I'm stumped, vocabulary wise, even by fairly niche politico-economic jargon, but that's a fine sounding piece of jargon you young uns have come up with!

    Now you have to explain it in your own words, preferably without just copping out with links to longwinded essays on suspect websites.
    , @for-the-record
    IMO its illusionary

    I would certainly like to hear the opinions of our Russian experts on this. My experience, from the 1990s, was that women were frequently found in senior management positions to an extent that, at that time anyway, would not have been the case in the West. I am also talking positions requiring technical expertise, notably in airport management.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @grapesoda
    That's pretty funny this guy is calling other people loudmouths. What an utter tool.

    Yes you're right, all 300 million of us decided together to go fight wars overseas, not our leaders. It's been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist but you refuse to listen and still keep on spouting the same s***.

    And it's impossible that we could have any principled objections to Islam based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history, and so may other objections that I'm not going to list here because you're not worth the time.

    Btw I wouldn't be surprised if "Randal" is a dirty Muslim himself. He seems obsessed with the Islam issue, and shows that characteristic Muslim lack of self-awareness, always ready to get aggressive at the drop of a hat, and then go act like a little victim little bitch when it suits him.

    Has the US ever supported non-Muslims against Muslims? Most of our military actions involving them seem to be either for Muslims against non-Muslims (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Burma if McCain gets his way) or for some Muslims against other Muslims (everywhere else, pretty much).

    Yes, I get that Israel is the exception. But our “support” there has been much less considerable than our support of actual Muslim causes elsewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @grapesoda

    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they’ve been propagandised into hatred...
     
    Ask Hindus if they like Muslims. Or Thais. Or Filipinos. Idiot. You are either a Muslim or you live in a comfortable bubble. Muslims are unwelcome everywhere they go. They don't even like each other.

    Ask Hindus if they like Muslims. Or Thais. Or Filipinos.

    They have large Muslim population in past and present.
    America did not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    "Manosphere BS"????

    LOLOLOL!

    Rosie, you simply don't understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Read Judgybitch for starters (a woman who does understand how women think) :

    http://judgybitch.com/

    Rosie, you simply don’t understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Well, well, well. Seems we have a psychiatrist on the blog today!

    (But based on comment history a disturbingly autistic psychiatrist. Physician, heal thyself.)

    Heh heh heh heh, as the saying goes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.
     
    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom. That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen. Imagine thinking women do not "face harm" when their boys are killed in the line of duty, military or civilian. Not only does this imply that women are not human, but even that we are not warm-blooded mammals. Rather, we're like reptiles. Don't alligator moms have like hundreds of young at a time? Not only does she care nothing for their welfare, but I think she sometimes eats them. Okay, so Thom doesn't go quite so far as to accuse us of cannibalizing our own sons, at least not yet.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries.
     
    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you. If I am not much mistaken, men maximize their own reproductive fitness by sleeping with as many women as they can. Of course, that doesn't mean they act on this instinct.

    Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources
     
    .

    Nonsense. Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them. If you want to claim that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that's fine, but don't be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is.
     
    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries. Before mass immigration, there was no interest whatsoever in doing away with it as the men were perfectly willing to help women in need and abuse was not widespread. I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers, even if it disproportionately affected women. This is the problem with you anti-feminist crusaders. You never seem to actually want to talk about policies that would address your concerns. You just want to use your concerns to demonize women. It is a transparent polarization strategy.

    If you want to claim that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    Perhaps I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I don’t really see the evidence for this. What I recall suggests that women vote largely the same way as men, with a slight bias towards political orthodoxy where men are slightly more inclined to “edgier” positions. Depending on the place and time period women can be quite conservative*. Ironically iirc in postwar Britain men went far more for the welfare state than women did– weren’t female votes the only thing keeping the Conservative Party around for a while (while the Liberal party collapsed completely)?

    *Margarita Nelken famously opposed female suffrage in Spain on precisely these grounds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Perhaps I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I don’t really see the evidence for this.
     
    I don't have much evidence. I'll admit that. All I can say is that my understanding is that women were at the forefront of private poor relief efforts in early industrial society. I think they called it "social housekeeping" because public roles for women were novel at the time, and they wanted to emphasize the feminine and traditional aspects of their work.

    From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.

    Again, I'm not saying that I have an iron-clad case for women's suffrage as a necessary condition for the welfare state fully worked out, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were so, and I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken there was a time when women voters were seen as protective against unnecessary warfare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    I obsessively followed Trump’s foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear – we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq’s oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul.
     
    Full Transcript of the Ninth Republican Debate in South Carolina

    This was the main transcript I was looking at the other day, from the New Hampshire debate (a key one in this regard). Trump starts out (on national security) by declaring his approval of an ongoing interventionist war on the other side of the planet:

    So, you’ve been elected president. It’s your first day in the situation room. What three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? Because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out ISIS.
     
    He claims to have opposed the attack on Iraq before it occurred, but iirc that claim proved pretty doubtful. He then makes the shameful suggestion that the US "should keep the oil", which ought to be a pretty clear signal that this is not a man with any principled opposition to wars of aggression.

    I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil and keep the oil. They didn’t listen.
     
    Then his first criticism of Jeb Bush's comment was that you have to win one war before you can start another:

    You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock em out. You have to knock them off strong. You decide what to do after, you can’t fight two wars at one time.
     
    Then his complaint is not that the wars are being fought, but that they aren't being won:

    If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven’t won anything
     
    Then there was lots of dog-whistling to antiwar listeners (bear in mind I include myself in that category), saying things they want to hear (Bush lied, money should have been spent on infrastructure, etc) but don't actually have any relevance to future actions.

    In all that, Trump was merely acting as a competent politician in a democracy. The essence of politics in a democracy (including the Republican forms) is to deceive the maximum number of people whose concerns you have no intention of promoting in reality into voting for you, while making as few actual commitments or statements of principle to which you might be held as possible.

    Now granted that to an extent I'm playing devil's advocate there, and you could equally go through and cherry-pick anti-war examples. But that's the point, really. It's largely a matter of confirmation bias. I think Trump did try to fool antiwar Americans into supporting him and fairly successfully (though given his opponent, even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton). He did so, though, without giving too many explicit hostages against conducting future wars of aggression.


    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.
     
    In the end I do agree with you on this. It's just that he did it sufficiently competently (as a politician) that he can largely get away with it because the only people angry about it are by and large the anti-war Americans (ie the ones for whom war policy actually determines their vote), and they are pretty much a small minority. If he needs them, he will regret it, but he's no doubt hoping he won't need them because he will pick up more than he loses by pleasing the war lobbies and regaining some of the substantial jingoist vote.

    Trump’s campaign rhetoric was extremely hawkish – against radical Sunni terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, groups which have a history of targeting the American homeland with deadly terror attacks.

    But Trump’s campaign rhetoric was dovish toward the enemies of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, especially Christian states such as Russia, but also secular Arab nationalists such as Syria, and by implication also the various Shiite armed groups fighting against ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East.

    Trump acknowledged that attacking the enemies of our enemies (as Clinton, Bush and Obama did) helps our real enemies.

    Based on his campaign rhetoric, the last thing I expected Trump to do was to bomb Syria, increase sanctions against Russia, and continue Obama’s support for Saudi Arabia’s war of aggression in Yemen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @KenH
    Ok, then yes, in 1967 the aid we provided Israel was small compared to what we give today and they still achieved a decisive victory over the Arab states. Yom Kippur was a different story. But I took Greasy's comment to mean Israel didn't need U.S. aid at any time then or now when if we didn't provide it in 1973 the war would have gone very badly for Israel likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.

    likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.

    The loss of the Golan and the Sinai, of which the latter they lost anyway. After that I think they’d have become less complacent (they became less complacent anyway).

    But I think Israel’s very existence was never in any real danger, however paranoid they were about it at the time. Israel already had nuclear weapons and no one was interested in finding out whether they’d use them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.
     
    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of "feminism" it's going to be very difficult to sort this out. Some don't want a clear definition because that would undermine the utility of this word as an all-purpose rhetorical weapon.

    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn’t transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% — 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives
     
    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of "female in chief executive positions." They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.
     
    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.
    , @Rosie

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    Here's my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don't think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family's support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn't need to earn as much as men. That's about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they'd have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn't bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that's because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    , @Toronto Russian

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women ”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    I wouldn't say so. A façade of old-fashioned male courtesy (giving flowers, opening doors etc) and sweet feminine charm is often just a façade. There's a lot of trouble, especially among the poor small-town and rural people. A lot of selfish, irresponsible and violent behavior. For example, it was unusual for me to see how Western families care for their sick children together. In Russia it's very common that a father abandons a sick child. Or any child if it's an inconvenience. "Dad has disappeared" is a disturbingly usual line in people's life stories. It appears something of the so-called Sub-Saharan African family pattern exists in Russia - women who do all the work, volatile men, even horticulture (ogorod). But children, unlike in Africa, aren't an economic asset - you have to send them to school, can't get away with making them herd goats or something - so there are much fewer of them.
    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report. That's not only husbands beating their wives, the policeman says, but also sons beating their mothers. If this isn't a sign of deep disfunction in family relationships, I don't know what is.
    https://youtu.be/JWtfLjpGqDk
    By the way, it reminded me of Pushkin's words "The government is Russia's only European." While state TV tells people violence is not normal and victims should get help, much of the general population is still in "If he beats you, he loves you" stage.
    Of course alcohol causes or makes worse a lot of disfunction, so it's a positive and hopeful development that alcoholism is going down. Being sober is now actively promoted by local organizations. Here are some activists for sober New Year celebration:
    https://pp.userapi.com/c625731/v625731770/13665/pCAz3uslMQU.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    That was the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Greasy is correct that they didn’t receive any aid until 1967.

    Ok, then yes, in 1967 the aid we provided Israel was small compared to what we give today and they still achieved a decisive victory over the Arab states. Yom Kippur was a different story. But I took Greasy’s comment to mean Israel didn’t need U.S. aid at any time then or now when if we didn’t provide it in 1973 the war would have gone very badly for Israel likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.
     
    The loss of the Golan and the Sinai, of which the latter they lost anyway. After that I think they’d have become less complacent (they became less complacent anyway).

    But I think Israel’s very existence was never in any real danger, however paranoid they were about it at the time. Israel already had nuclear weapons and no one was interested in finding out whether they’d use them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor
    Give me your unhinged, your sperg, your mentally unbalanced yearning to date 10s or at least 7s, the wretched review...

    ::golf clap::

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Talha
    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    That’s as far as I ever get.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AnatolyKarlin doesn’t understand the alt-right if he thinks:

    1) that the Heimbach/Parrot kerfuffle was a negative event for the alt-right. TWP was never alt-right.
    They were *somewhat* fellow travelers, but many felt they were a problem and are greatly relieved to be rid of the WN 1.0/neo-Nazi faction.
    2) no idea what Trump’s success or failure has any effect on the alt-right. It never did.
    3) what does Richard Spencer and his blog have to do with the alt-right, in the whole? Spencer isn’t the alt-right, he isn’t the boss or leader of the alt-right, he’s just someone who chose to be an outer face. Maybe he will be in the future, maybe not.
    4) people may see the alt-rght as disappearing, but may not understand the current plan is to withdraw from the public, and go back undercover and rework the plan of action. What you’re seeing is being done on purpose. You won’t see alt-righters out on the street brawling w/Antifa in the next year during Trump’s upcoming rallies. On purpose.
    5) the numbers of people joining groups/coming to meetings/engaging online is a larger number of people than ever before. There is a plan, we had to have one after miscalculating and thinking we could do public events when we did. We weren’t ready.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Greasy William

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn’t mean they’re false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.
     
    When are MGTOW gonna actually, you know, go their own way?

    For people that are "done with women", they sure spend a lot of time talking about them.

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?
     
    That's as far as I ever get.
    , @dfordoom

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run
     
    Liberalism doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it. Liberalism survives, and thrives, because it steals other people's children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @dfordoom

    I’m not a troll, I’m just mentally unbalanced.
     
    The mentally unbalanced are always welcome here.

    Give me your unhinged, your sperg, your mentally unbalanced yearning to date 10s or at least 7s, the wretched review…

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    ::golf clap::
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Randal

    I obsessively followed Trump’s foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear – we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq’s oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul.
     
    Full Transcript of the Ninth Republican Debate in South Carolina

    This was the main transcript I was looking at the other day, from the New Hampshire debate (a key one in this regard). Trump starts out (on national security) by declaring his approval of an ongoing interventionist war on the other side of the planet:

    So, you’ve been elected president. It’s your first day in the situation room. What three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? Because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out ISIS.
     
    He claims to have opposed the attack on Iraq before it occurred, but iirc that claim proved pretty doubtful. He then makes the shameful suggestion that the US "should keep the oil", which ought to be a pretty clear signal that this is not a man with any principled opposition to wars of aggression.

    I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil and keep the oil. They didn’t listen.
     
    Then his first criticism of Jeb Bush's comment was that you have to win one war before you can start another:

    You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock em out. You have to knock them off strong. You decide what to do after, you can’t fight two wars at one time.
     
    Then his complaint is not that the wars are being fought, but that they aren't being won:

    If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven’t won anything
     
    Then there was lots of dog-whistling to antiwar listeners (bear in mind I include myself in that category), saying things they want to hear (Bush lied, money should have been spent on infrastructure, etc) but don't actually have any relevance to future actions.

    In all that, Trump was merely acting as a competent politician in a democracy. The essence of politics in a democracy (including the Republican forms) is to deceive the maximum number of people whose concerns you have no intention of promoting in reality into voting for you, while making as few actual commitments or statements of principle to which you might be held as possible.

    Now granted that to an extent I'm playing devil's advocate there, and you could equally go through and cherry-pick anti-war examples. But that's the point, really. It's largely a matter of confirmation bias. I think Trump did try to fool antiwar Americans into supporting him and fairly successfully (though given his opponent, even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton). He did so, though, without giving too many explicit hostages against conducting future wars of aggression.


    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.
     
    In the end I do agree with you on this. It's just that he did it sufficiently competently (as a politician) that he can largely get away with it because the only people angry about it are by and large the anti-war Americans (ie the ones for whom war policy actually determines their vote), and they are pretty much a small minority. If he needs them, he will regret it, but he's no doubt hoping he won't need them because he will pick up more than he loses by pleasing the war lobbies and regaining some of the substantial jingoist vote.

    even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton

    But was he? I came to doubt it. At least I think we can say that Clinton might have been better on foreign policy.

    She’s a woman. Which immediately means not a risk-taker. The moment she wanted to implement the no-fly zones, someone would have told her the risks that there’d be a nuclear warhead coming down on her house in Chappaqua. Then she’d have reconsidered.

    I think the risk of having a woman president is that she wants to look strong and so might be more rigid, even when all the rational arguments are coming in. A strong person, a guy, might reconsider and compromise, but a weak person, a woman, playing strong, might be rigidly “strong,” as she imagines a strong guy to be rigid. So she might start WW3 out of silliness, to prove herself real tough.

    On the other hand, the risk of having a guy is all the testosterone (or replacement?) in his body (and a brain shaped by a lifetime of testosterone in his blood), which makes him a natural risk-taker. But the advantage is that he might be strong enough not to care what others think, and backtrack despite having previously committed to some very rigid stance.

    So under certain circumstances a woman might be more likely to start WW3. But here we’re having an unhinged narcissist. He also simultaneously has all the weaknesses of a woman, like trying to prove himself real tough. Yes, it’s because of Russiagate. But he’s not in a position to look soft or weak against Russia.

    So it all hangs on whether Clinton would really have started WW3 over no-fly zones. I think not, but I recognize that the risk was too high. However, now we’re approaching a similar situation in Syria. So even if you think Clinton would’ve started WW3 over Syria, we might get into the same situation regardless. But if she hadn’t started WW3 by now, then I think we’d now be safer from the risk of a nuclear war. She’d be better on North Korea, Iran, Russia, basically anything.

    I think we need to admit that there’s a not insignificant chance that Trump is worse than Clinton would be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    In fact it’s slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.
     
    I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. Feminism has no parallel to the idea that women are biologically driven to incite violence between men so they can mate with the victors. This is a profoundly hateful idea that would logically lead to not only disenfranchisement of women but also outright denial of freedom of speech and movement and probably even the right to a basic education. Why would you educate a subversive, enemy population (i.e. slaves)?

    Feminism historically has focused on educating and reforming men. That is, teaching them to overcome "toxic masculinity." Of course, from men's point of view, it appears that feminists wish to "reform" you out of your manhood. I certainly understand that you find this objectionable, and I sympathize to some degree, but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government. Now I'm not saying you hold these views, only that these are typical MGTOW views.

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn't mean they're false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation. So far as I can tell, the men's movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these problems were widespread, but in the end that doesn't matter. These things happened, and were ignored on the grounds that a man's home is his castle, so we got feminism as a predictable response. Obviously, feminism has long since gone off the deep end, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely.
     
    This sounds like a dangerous overstatement to me. We can't possibly be "radically different in every way." The fact that you and I are having this conversation proves that we at least share the ability to use language to communicate. That is a very good start I would say.

    I don't mean to take you overly literally, and I certainly would be interested in your thoughts on how exactly we are different.

    A woman’s idea of rationality is very different from a man’s idea of rationality.
     
    OK. Care to elaborate?

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn’t mean they’re false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    When are MGTOW gonna actually, you know, go their own way?

    For people that are “done with women”, they sure spend a lot of time talking about them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @polskijoe
    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    The feminism of 1900 has been accepted by vast majority of the West.

    Men and women in general are different. They also need to work together and share some similarities.
    Both needed for society for function.

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    It’s in the very nature of feminism to become more and more destructive. The basis of feminism is the belief that men and women are essentially identical. Reality disagrees, and therefore feminism always fails. Every time it fails feminists become more angry and more extreme.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Rosie

    In fact it’s slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.
     
    I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. Feminism has no parallel to the idea that women are biologically driven to incite violence between men so they can mate with the victors. This is a profoundly hateful idea that would logically lead to not only disenfranchisement of women but also outright denial of freedom of speech and movement and probably even the right to a basic education. Why would you educate a subversive, enemy population (i.e. slaves)?

    Feminism historically has focused on educating and reforming men. That is, teaching them to overcome "toxic masculinity." Of course, from men's point of view, it appears that feminists wish to "reform" you out of your manhood. I certainly understand that you find this objectionable, and I sympathize to some degree, but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government. Now I'm not saying you hold these views, only that these are typical MGTOW views.

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn't mean they're false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation. So far as I can tell, the men's movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these problems were widespread, but in the end that doesn't matter. These things happened, and were ignored on the grounds that a man's home is his castle, so we got feminism as a predictable response. Obviously, feminism has long since gone off the deep end, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely.
     
    This sounds like a dangerous overstatement to me. We can't possibly be "radically different in every way." The fact that you and I are having this conversation proves that we at least share the ability to use language to communicate. That is a very good start I would say.

    I don't mean to take you overly literally, and I certainly would be interested in your thoughts on how exactly we are different.

    A woman’s idea of rationality is very different from a man’s idea of rationality.
     
    OK. Care to elaborate?

    but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government.

    You’ve never met a feminist who thinks all men are rapists? You don’t think feminists think that men are “irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education.”

    But oddly enough feminists also think that women should emulate men. Feminism is an ideology of both hate and envy (and hate and envy do often go together).

    That is, teaching them to overcome “toxic masculinity.”

    How would you feel if men told you that you needed to be taught to overcome toxic femininity?

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation.

    Or, alternatively, the Temperance Movement was a movement of scolds and busybodies.

    So far as I can tell, the men’s movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism.

    So when is feminism going to come to grips with domestic violence in which women are the perpetrators? They could start by confronting the sky-high rates of domestic violence among lesbians.

    Read More
    • Agree: Thomm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.