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

 Remember My Information



=>

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

People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica” tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

By every accounting, though, these globalist elites are relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

How do ZOGgers reconcile this?

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Abortion, Jews 
Hide 111 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. They want the cultural rot that comes from abortion and tears at the fabric of the culture that tolerates it…. while also knowing full well that the non-whites will still outbreed and out immigrate the white population no matter how easy access to abortion is.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
  2. AE, I’m not sure about your terminology but most people who believe in the first one you mentioned don’t care for the second point.

  3. Disclaimer: “I’m not a ZOGger, but…”

    There are a number of answers to this question that could be true in whole or part. For one, perhaps the globalists realize that abortion on demand is a corner stone in the well advanced and yet continuing destruction of marriage and the family in America, which they don’t under any circumstances wish to disrupt. For another, perhaps they keep up this front in the culture war partly to keep the Evangelicals distracted, so they will keep throwing most of their money and efforts at something useless and futile. For a third, perhaps the devaluation of unborn lives is a vital part of the greater philosophical agenda of devaluing human life in general, as pioneered by characters like Peter Singer.

    Such considerations, among others, could be taken to justify the slight demographic losses to the replacement populations. Abortion hardly puts a serious dent in their plans on this front any which way.

    Of course, it may also be that they are simply so addicted to the rush of mass child sacrifice that this proclivity drowns out their good sense and tactical pragmatism at times. According to the Bible, that was the case with their ancestors.

  4. That’s probably a question for me. I’ll try to answer although I admit that I don’t have a good answer that can explain everything perfectly.

    You ask this as if the “ZOG” always has the perfect foresight and plans accordingly. Maybe if they had they would have avoided the Holocaust (or the jews losing mostly power and property if not life even if we accept that the numbers are exaggerated) or the jews getting expelled from the host countries in the past.

    Abortion is a degeneracy as any other murder of one’s own, but it’s one of the most degenerate, it’s a murder of a human being that has 50% of one’s genes and the best chances to pass them on. It’s similar to killing yourself in the future and sort of a suicide, something a defeated person would do. No wonder that this is included in the full degeneracy package as an item and was something that the Soviets introduced once they took over. It can be argued that a murder of one’s own hurts one’s psychic health and makes one more susceptible to all other degeneracies like a slippery slope.

    It’s just an unintended consequence that lower IQ people turned to have higher rates of abortion, a backfire effect. It’s still may be good enough from their standpoint.

    Also who knows, may be they are okay with the current rates of abortions of different population groups as I doubt that their goal is complete collapse, it’s more of almost equal shares of all identity groups, equally deprived. Something like they have achieved in Chicago, where it’s almost exactly 1/3 of the city’s population is appropriately black, white and hispanic, so it’s easier to pit them against each other and control them, and it just so happened that there was even time when both the governor and the mayor were jewish. And we know as of now that the white share country-wide shrinks, while hispanic and black do grow, although blacks don’t grow as fast, so it may be okay as a sustainable population change plan as these things have inertia and one would be wise to steer carefully.

    Also, I’d like to use this opportunity to post this hate graph, as a reply to the other commenter in your last post on the abortion question, as comments to that post are already closed, according to which almost all abortion patterns are either almost neutral or eugenic:

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @huwhyte ppl

    "Hate graph" didn't post. Everybody loves a good hate graph.

    Replies: @huwhyte ppl

  5. Though secular Jews seem to have a strong support for abortion, I would characterize it more as a feminist (female Left) movement. I’m not really conspiracy-minded about it, but if I had to force myself into it, I could suppose lots of different reasons, for ZOG support.

    1.) Weakens Christianity as a political force. (Can’t overturn, so seen as weak, low enthusiasm)
    2.) Immigration takes priority, and it helps maximize immigration, by preventing domestic growth from satiating the business lobby. (Immigration results in more diversity, helps cement rhetoric of diversity.)
    3.) Lowering TFR of nonwhites helps create a false sense of security. Prevents a natalist arms race, which whites might win.
    4.) Too many blacks would increase dysfunction to noticeable levels, provoke a strong political response. Blacks are a useful tool for diversity, but they are a means to an end. The idea isn’t to maximize the number of blacks, but to maximize the number of nonwhites, which requires not maximizing the number of blacks.

    • Agree: Cloudbuster
  6. Part of the reason people were tricked into supporting the war in Iraq was immigration. The idea being, if we bring our system over there, it will prevent them from wanting to come here.

    It’s hard to use blacks as an excuse to get involved in the Middle East.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @songbird


    Part of the reason people were tricked into supporting the war in Iraq was immigration. The idea being, if we bring our system over there, it will prevent them from wanting to come here.
     
    Are you sure about that?

    I can vaguely remember some soundbites using similar vocabulary but did anyone take them seriously?

    Here is how I remember it:

    9/11

    Pols: IT WAS BIN LADEN. NOBODY COULD HAVE FORESEEN! ATTACK AFGHANISTAN NOW!
    Someone in the back: Maybe you want to think about it...
    Press: SHUT UP. A JUST AND NECESSARY WAR IS COMING. Plus, building pipelines is profitable and rewarding.


    Anthrax Attacks

    Pols: IT WAS SADDAM. OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN. SADDAM MUST GO!
    Someone in the back: Maybe you want to reconsider...
    Press: SHUT UP. AMERICA STRONK. MUH DEMOCRACY. MUH ISRAEL. SADDAM SEEKS NUKES AND HAS CHEMWEAPONS IN A TRAVELING DESERT CIRCUS OF LABORATORIES AND YELLOWCAKE FROM NIGERIA.

    Replies: @songbird

  7. @songbird
    Part of the reason people were tricked into supporting the war in Iraq was immigration. The idea being, if we bring our system over there, it will prevent them from wanting to come here.

    It's hard to use blacks as an excuse to get involved in the Middle East.

    Replies: @El Dato

    Part of the reason people were tricked into supporting the war in Iraq was immigration. The idea being, if we bring our system over there, it will prevent them from wanting to come here.

    Are you sure about that?

    I can vaguely remember some soundbites using similar vocabulary but did anyone take them seriously?

    Here is how I remember it:

    9/11

    Pols: IT WAS BIN LADEN. NOBODY COULD HAVE FORESEEN! ATTACK AFGHANISTAN NOW!
    Someone in the back: Maybe you want to think about it…
    Press: SHUT UP. A JUST AND NECESSARY WAR IS COMING. Plus, building pipelines is profitable and rewarding.

    Anthrax Attacks

    Pols: IT WAS SADDAM. OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN. SADDAM MUST GO!
    Someone in the back: Maybe you want to reconsider…
    Press: SHUT UP. AMERICA STRONK. MUH DEMOCRACY. MUH ISRAEL. SADDAM SEEKS NUKES AND HAS CHEMWEAPONS IN A TRAVELING DESERT CIRCUS OF LABORATORIES AND YELLOWCAKE FROM NIGERIA.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @songbird
    @El Dato

    I said it was a part of the reason, not that it was what they went to the UN with, or not that it was something that Bush, who was for amnesty, verbalized at all. Most of the media is open borders - I doubt it was even a talking point.

    But I do think that some people (some of the public) were fooled by the rhetoric of democracy and put two and two together. "If we can make them democratic, they'll be prosperous and become the magnet that we are, taking some of iron fillings."

    Any slice helps. Was it necessary? I don't know. We didn't go in during Desert Storm - we did, however, go in after we were being super-invaded, though.

  8. Because the consequences of abortion fall more heavily on white communities?

    • Replies: @Zimriel
    @Job’s brother

    But the consequences have fallen most heavily on black communities. There was of course a black underclass before Moynihan's famous "defining deviancy down" speech but this was a minority of the black population of then, which was mostly working class.
    American Indians were hit hard as well, although since the reservations are legally sovereign lands (like Ciskei in old South Africa) other factors are at work there.
    Anyway this may explain why antiSemitism is stronger among blacks than among whites.

  9. Huh?

    Let’s see, here we have four different things set before us on a plate together. If we untangle the spaghetti, we get:

    People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica.”

    People who tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

    People who tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

    Globalist elites relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

    The question assumes that all of these things are somehow connected, and it does so in a way that suggests they are always and necessarily connected.

    It’s like asking why all salamanders have three legs and play the banjo if three legs are not conducive to crawling and the banjo just gets in the way.

    Pointless and misleading.

    You don’t have to be a “ZOG” user to wonder why elites want massive immigration and to notice that their program is swamping heritage America.

    You also don’t have to care who uses abortion to believe that it should be legal within limits, nor do you have to be one of the globalist elite.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Buzz Mohawk


    People who tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.
     
    There are alternative explanations.

    1. An ever-increasing population means ever-increasing numbers of consumers. Even if average living standards decline the growing numbers of consumers is enough to keep corporate profits growing. Don't underestimate the motivating power of plain old-fashioned greed.

    2. A significant element with in the American elites do not want some idealistic world government. They want a global American empire ruled from Washington. An ever-increasing population means ever-increasing GDP and this reinforces U.S. economic, political and military hegemony. If the U.S. is to remain the global hegemon and prevent China from challenging its hegemony then (as far as these elites are concerned) the U.S. will need a population comparable to China's. A billion Americans would ensure lasting U.S. global domination. Don't underestimate the motivating power of plain old-fashioned lust for power.
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Agree. I hardly ever see anyone use “ZOG” or “Jewmerica” here except ironically. By contrast, it is almost unanimously acknowledged that globalist elites want open borders. So these statements do not jointly define a distinction, but are almost contradictory.

    But the real tangle is


    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.
     
    I think this is meant ironically, i.e., intended to be self-discrediting. But the data don't necessarily support it. As Sailer has discussed, abortion is disproportionately lower middle class, which to the upper middle class and above looks like a lower class thing, but the real lower class don't bother with abortion much. So in reality, abortion takes a big divot out of the yeoman class of each ethnic group while sexual license makes the underclass proliferate. Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don't want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Lurker, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Tradcons don't support abortion, nor does anyone really on the right for that matter except for some neocons and ZOGgers--that isn't intended to be a derogatory term, I'm unsure of what the preferred term is for people who focus on Jewish world domination as a serious threat--so that's the placeholder term.

    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America while also zealously--and we're about to see just how zealously over the next month--defending abortion rights?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

  10. Abortion is a voluntary system that mostly RESPONSIBLE women use.

    This causes a Dysgenic Effect in the application.

    ZOG came from William Pierce’s National Alliance, I believe.

    Pierce was a smart guy. A physicist they say. Also wrote The Turner Diaries.

    Zionist Supremacism is the foremost problem of The Whole World.

    The Rothschild Central Banking Scam MUST BE DESTROYED.

    South Africa and Brazil show how “handing over” doesn’t work well in practice.

    I’d rather sell California to the Chinese than have it the way it is now.

  11. People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica” tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

    I’m not someone who sees a Jewish plot everywhere, but let me take a stab.

    1. Zog wants open borders. It’s easier for a market-dominant minority to rule over a fractured, Balkanized society than one of a large, confident Christian majority. More immigrants also mean more low-cost labor.

    2. Abortion rights. Fewer blacks, period (all the while pretending to support BLM and other symbolic gestures). Less crime, etc.

    Zog likes living in nice, elite white (heavily Jewish or Jewish-dominated)-Asian (for wives/girlfriends material and ethnic food) areas with a docile Mestizo workforce with a few token black trophy friends. But Zog doesn’t actually want lots of “ordinary” blacks. That might be dangerous.

  12. Anonymous[366] • Disclaimer says:

    Regarding abortion, resort to it seems to have peaked; for some races quite a number of years ago:

    Abortions by race or ethnicity:

    Abortion percentages in relation to live births by race or ethnicity:

    Source:

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa_abortion_by_race.html

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  13. I don’t believe there is any ZOG conspiracy to culturally and politically swamp heritage America. “Heritage America” is materialist, self-seeking, criminal, Protestant—and plenty zoggy enough on its own. The WASPs pozzed themselves; the JQ is both otiose and a distraction. I have no desire to defend the Jews, but the whole subject of Jewish conspiracies bores me to tears.

    Speaking to the question, however, this is not the first time it has been noticed that the progressive agenda is not logically consistent. There is no grand, 4th dimensional rationale for this; it’s the natural result that comes from seeking power at ever turn by catering to different audiences and different factions. Abortion is always held out as a sop to keep lower-class women and their baby-daddies firmly on the plantation. Immigration is the lifeblood of the neoliberal economic order and is axiomatically supported by big business, academia, and the permanent bureaucracy. This is all obvious and has already been exhaustively documented on this site.

    There is no need to reach for deeper explanations; the liberals themselves aren’t that deep, so groping for a conspiracy theory is aberrantly insisting upon a degree of precision that the subject matter itself cannot support. It’s like trying to stamp microfiche onto marshmallows. There is no Cloward-Piven solution, no Kalergi plan, no Zionist agenda—at least not one that anybody consciously gives a damn about. This is just what decline looks like.

    Corpses stink because they are putrefying, not because the Jews stashed a stink bomb underneath them.

    • Replies: @Philip Neal
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I find the question ill-phrased.

    Who says that "restricting abortion is bad"?

    Is it supposed to be American Jews? Or is it supposed to be American gentiles who genuinely believe that Jews, as a body of people, take orders from a Jewish government which can subordinate not only most Jews but the real government to its will?

    If the question is why Jews in high places favour both abortion rights and open borders, the answer is simple. Halakhah - Jewish law. Under certain circumstances which often occur, it can be a Jewish religious obligation to procure an abortion and equally to take up residence in a new country whether its laws allow you to or not. (And, with defined exceptions, if a Jew is permitted to do something, so is a gentile.)

    Why Christians want restrictions on abortion is also no riddle. Christ is supposed, as a matter of factual belief, to have been alive in the womb. There is a presumption that a foetus is a human child, only to be overriden in specified circumstances, if at all.

    This leaves only one puzzle. Why do American Christians oppose both abortion and immigration? I am not an American, but the obvious answer is "Why on earth should they?" When a new, healthy baby is born in my family I rejoice that a new relative, a new Englishman or woman has entered the world, someone who will one day loudly disagree with my opinions and still laugh at my jokes. We all love our own just slightly more than others, and if there are fewer of our own we will find ourselves loving our country that bit less.

    Replies: @Dissident

  14. @Buzz Mohawk
    Huh?

    Let's see, here we have four different things set before us on a plate together. If we untangle the spaghetti, we get:

    People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica.”

    People who tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

    People who tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

    Globalist elites relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

    The question assumes that all of these things are somehow connected, and it does so in a way that suggests they are always and necessarily connected.

    It's like asking why all salamanders have three legs and play the banjo if three legs are not conducive to crawling and the banjo just gets in the way.

    Pointless and misleading.

    You don't have to be a "ZOG" user to wonder why elites want massive immigration and to notice that their program is swamping heritage America.

    You also don't have to care who uses abortion to believe that it should be legal within limits, nor do you have to be one of the globalist elite.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Almost Missouri, @Audacious Epigone

    People who tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

    There are alternative explanations.

    1. An ever-increasing population means ever-increasing numbers of consumers. Even if average living standards decline the growing numbers of consumers is enough to keep corporate profits growing. Don’t underestimate the motivating power of plain old-fashioned greed.

    2. A significant element with in the American elites do not want some idealistic world government. They want a global American empire ruled from Washington. An ever-increasing population means ever-increasing GDP and this reinforces U.S. economic, political and military hegemony. If the U.S. is to remain the global hegemon and prevent China from challenging its hegemony then (as far as these elites are concerned) the U.S. will need a population comparable to China’s. A billion Americans would ensure lasting U.S. global domination. Don’t underestimate the motivating power of plain old-fashioned lust for power.

  15. By every accounting, though, these globalist elites are relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

    Another theory – corporate elites unleashed feminism in the 1960s as a weapon with which to destroy organised labour and the Old Left. They assumed that an increasingly female workforce would be more docile and would accept lower pay and poorer working conditions. They also assumed that increasing numbers of women in politics would move the Left away from a concern with economic justice and towards an obsession with social and cultural issues. The last thing corporate elites want is people talking about economic justice.

    They unleashed feminism, but feminism was a kind of unguided missile. It did the job of destroying the unions and the Old Left but feminists had their own agendas, and abortion was a major part of the agenda that feminists came up with.

    Globalists need the support of young single women, especially young single white women. They make excellent useful idiots for the globalist cause. The elites cannot afford to alienate feminists too much, so whether the elites want abortion or not they’re stuck with it in order to keep feminists happy.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom

    There are lots of good comments on here with decent explanations. Yours, DforDoom, rings true for me as much as any of them. From all my recollection of the political world (well, in America), abortion has been an issue that the feminists have been pushing. I can't say Globalists haven't been around for long, but it sure seems like the stupidity of Feminism preceded the stupidity of Globalism.

    Just as I.D. put it, I really doubt abortion was part of a nicely laid-out plan written on paper by a cabal of permanently OTR feminists. That whole "it's my body - I'll do what I want with it" thing is pretty much all most of them feel the need to know or think about abortion to be in favor of it being legal and widespread.

    I also don't think the numbers are so overwhelming as to ruin any Globalist's plans, or really just thoughts on what he'd like the future to look like. Destruction of the nuclear family has been proceeding apace. Globalists, Communists, all of 'em, they all love it.

    I'll take this opportunity to point out Peak Stupidity's enjoyable task of fisking one of what ought to be THE SHOWCASE of Feminist stupidity for the American people to see:

    We're still on Part 3 with no end to the stupidity in sight!

    "America's Kung Flu recession, women hardest hit!":

    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Anonymous

  16. Since abortion was legalized, white births as a percentage of all births have tanked. Question answered.

  17. There is not a big overlap of people who are deeply concerned about the two things. When there is (perhaps someone like Andrew Anglin) it is about white women getting abortions, non whites getting abortions is definitely supported.

    I have my own question, if you believe that ZOG is just some nonsense to be dismissed, then how about you provide some evidence for this belief? One can look at the daily news for the near universal support for Israel from all parties, parties that are supposed to be enemies of each other. The endless money thrown at Israel. The online censorship driven by the ADL. Etc. If ZOG does not exist, then why/how can the things I mentioned happen?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @neutral


    I have my own question, if you believe that ZOG is just some nonsense to be dismissed, then how about you provide some evidence for this belief? One can look at the daily news for the near universal support for Israel from all parties, parties that are supposed to be enemies of each other. The endless money thrown at Israel. The online censorship driven by the ADL. Etc. If ZOG does not exist, then why/how can the things I mentioned happen?
     
    Can you explain why, in countries where support for Israel is not really an issue because nobody cares one way or another, the elites still support open borders? Can you explain why, in countries where the Jewish populations are extremely small and Jews do not have massive amounts of influence, the elites still support open borders?

    Replies: @John Regan

  18. They do? I’ve never heard this combination of opinions

  19. Since abortion was legalized, white births as a percentage of all births have tanked.

    Birth rates have tanked for all ethnic groups throughout the developed world. Maybe abortion is a symptom rather than a cause? The problem seems to be that among every ethnic group in every developed country people just want fewer children. Restricting or banning abortion is not going to make people want to have more children.

    Modern society just seems to be incompatible with replacement-level fertility.

    Modern society offers people (especially women) much more attractive options than raising children. If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people. If life offers people no other choices they’ll probably have kids.

    Of course it will mean living in a fairly oppressive, suffocating and miserable world. When life was miserable people had lots of kids.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.

    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can't we have both less-filling and great taste?

    Day care at work. Free quality play school (Headstart) through age 5. School vouchers available without restriction (especially without religious disqualification) through grade 14. If we can't get a restricted UBI, then extremely generous refundable tax credits for each child.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

  20. @neutral
    There is not a big overlap of people who are deeply concerned about the two things. When there is (perhaps someone like Andrew Anglin) it is about white women getting abortions, non whites getting abortions is definitely supported.

    I have my own question, if you believe that ZOG is just some nonsense to be dismissed, then how about you provide some evidence for this belief? One can look at the daily news for the near universal support for Israel from all parties, parties that are supposed to be enemies of each other. The endless money thrown at Israel. The online censorship driven by the ADL. Etc. If ZOG does not exist, then why/how can the things I mentioned happen?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I have my own question, if you believe that ZOG is just some nonsense to be dismissed, then how about you provide some evidence for this belief? One can look at the daily news for the near universal support for Israel from all parties, parties that are supposed to be enemies of each other. The endless money thrown at Israel. The online censorship driven by the ADL. Etc. If ZOG does not exist, then why/how can the things I mentioned happen?

    Can you explain why, in countries where support for Israel is not really an issue because nobody cares one way or another, the elites still support open borders? Can you explain why, in countries where the Jewish populations are extremely small and Jews do not have massive amounts of influence, the elites still support open borders?

    • Replies: @John Regan
    @dfordoom

    Even in countries where Jews are few in absolute numbers, they still tend to dominate the media through corruption and oligarchy. For example, Sweden is often brought up as an example of a trainwreck in a country without Jews. Yet as I found out when I checked this claim, a Jewish oligarch family "just so happens" to own almost the entire Swedish media. Quite a coincidence in a country where Jews make up 0.1 or so percent of the population.

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

    In fact, are there actually any countries without Jewish influence that support open borders? Serious question. Replacement level immigrationism seems to be mostly or entirely something that afflicts Western countries. And all Western countries have powerful Jewish minorities.

    Japan may be the arguable exception to the pattern, with Cultural Marxism on the rise in a non-white country for the first time, but most of this can still be ascribed to "American" influence by proxies: "American" corporations buying up their companies, "American" academia poisoning theirs, and of course endless torrents of "American" diversity propaganda from Hollywood and friends. And even so, Japan is still nowhere close to becoming such a disaster as America already is.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  21. Japan has been a US puppet since WW2, do you dispute this fact? Every Australian I have come across boasts how their country is the biggest US arse licker of them all (not in those words but that is essentially what it is), so also pretty much a US puppet. Being a puppet of America much makes one a jew puppet.

    If you seriously believe that the international jew does not control Australia/Japan/South Korea/New Zealand/etc via its cultural/financial/political power, then you are deluded.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @neutral


    If you seriously believe that the international jew does not control Australia/Japan/South Korea/New Zealand/etc via its cultural/financial/political power, then you are deluded.
     
    I seriously believe that the United States controls Australia/Japan/South Korea/New Zealand/etc via its cultural/financial/political power. The U.S. is controlled by vicious corrupt elites, some of whom are Jews, many of whom are non-Jews.

    Focusing on the Jews means closing your eyes to the existence of those non-jewish elites. It means evading the real issue - why the non-jewish elites are so vicious, so corrupt and so malevolent. It's a cop-out.

    Why have all the elites become so arrogant and so aggressive? I'd suggest that they're blinded by greed and the lust for power. And they have accumulated so much power that they are no longer in any way accountable to anybody. That's a weakness that has developed within western civilisation and it's no use trying to blame it all on sinister outsiders. Western civilisation has been busily trying to destroy itself for more than a century.

    The sinister forces that are working against us are internal enemies, not external enemies.
  22. Isn’t it a case the two are not mutually exclusive?

    It’s commonly said the elite/upper class (which of course is over-representedly made up of the Ashkenazi overclass) want docile industrious little brown and yellow people as a servile lumpenproletariat service-worker class, rather than employing the disfunctional lumpen negrotariat.

    The rich don’t want the American negro anywhere near them, nor near their kids, nor around their homes.

    Before importing pliant little brown people as servants and service workers, it’s true, the rich had little choice but to employ negroes and negresses as nannies, maids, kitchen staff, housekeepers, gardeners, chauffeurs, etc etc- and so had to deal with their chips on their shoulders, attitude, combustible volatile natures etc etc.

    Nor do the rich want to employ the negro in their factories/plants- not when you can employ all those little Asiatic people (whether in China, or Vietnam, or Bangladesh, etc etc) in your sweatshops who will obediently go to the toilet when permitted, and unprotestingly die behind the locked doors when your sweatshop goes up in flames.

    Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood clinics in ghettoes serve to cull ghetto negro numbers to a size which is nicely fit to purpose for their elite massas (again, the Ashkenazi overclass features prominently it is undeniable), for the violence and social chaos of the lumpen negrotariat serves its uses (for now) as the war part in the elites ongoing class warfare on the lumpen whitetariat.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Ano

    So if sub-Saharan Africa wants to come to the US in the next century, the elites will stop it?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  23. My favorite is The Jew York Times.

    The online censorship driven by the ADL

    If this censorship of so-called “hate speech” goes much further, I will be forced to move in the direction of an absolute free speech stance.

    In reference to a comment by doom in a previous post with which I disagreed, he says that the right crazies are crazier than the left crazies. This is not true. At least the Jew haters have some facts on their side when they claim that the media is disproportionately under the control of Jews. The left crazies are pulling stuff out of thin air.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    In reference to a comment by doom in a previous post with which I disagreed, he says that the right crazies are crazier than the left crazies. This is not true. At least the Jew haters have some facts on their side when they claim that the media is disproportionately under the control of Jews. The left crazies are pulling stuff out of thin air.
     
    You don't think that saying that a cataclysm that would kill hundreds of millions of people would be a good thing qualifies as craziness on a whole new level? You don't think that hoping for the complete destruction of civilisation qualifies as a special kind of craziness?

    Replies: @iffen, @neutral

  24. @huwhyte ppl
    That's probably a question for me. I'll try to answer although I admit that I don't have a good answer that can explain everything perfectly.

    You ask this as if the "ZOG" always has the perfect foresight and plans accordingly. Maybe if they had they would have avoided the Holocaust (or the jews losing mostly power and property if not life even if we accept that the numbers are exaggerated) or the jews getting expelled from the host countries in the past.

    Abortion is a degeneracy as any other murder of one's own, but it's one of the most degenerate, it's a murder of a human being that has 50% of one's genes and the best chances to pass them on. It's similar to killing yourself in the future and sort of a suicide, something a defeated person would do. No wonder that this is included in the full degeneracy package as an item and was something that the Soviets introduced once they took over. It can be argued that a murder of one's own hurts one's psychic health and makes one more susceptible to all other degeneracies like a slippery slope.

    It's just an unintended consequence that lower IQ people turned to have higher rates of abortion, a backfire effect. It's still may be good enough from their standpoint.

    Also who knows, may be they are okay with the current rates of abortions of different population groups as I doubt that their goal is complete collapse, it's more of almost equal shares of all identity groups, equally deprived. Something like they have achieved in Chicago, where it's almost exactly 1/3 of the city's population is appropriately black, white and hispanic, so it's easier to pit them against each other and control them, and it just so happened that there was even time when both the governor and the mayor were jewish. And we know as of now that the white share country-wide shrinks, while hispanic and black do grow, although blacks don't grow as fast, so it may be okay as a sustainable population change plan as these things have inertia and one would be wise to steer carefully.

    Also, I'd like to use this opportunity to post this hate graph, as a reply to the other commenter in your last post on the abortion question, as comments to that post are already closed, according to which almost all abortion patterns are either almost neutral or eugenic:



    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    “Hate graph” didn’t post. Everybody loves a good hate graph.

    • Replies: @huwhyte ppl
    @Almost Missouri

    The image is still there, not sure why unz.com would refuse to display it from that source. Let's try imgur now, both as img tag and just a URL.

    https://i.imgur.com/6B1GQof.jpg

  25. @dfordoom

    Since abortion was legalized, white births as a percentage of all births have tanked.
     
    Birth rates have tanked for all ethnic groups throughout the developed world. Maybe abortion is a symptom rather than a cause? The problem seems to be that among every ethnic group in every developed country people just want fewer children. Restricting or banning abortion is not going to make people want to have more children.

    Modern society just seems to be incompatible with replacement-level fertility.

    Modern society offers people (especially women) much more attractive options than raising children. If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people. If life offers people no other choices they'll probably have kids.

    Of course it will mean living in a fairly oppressive, suffocating and miserable world. When life was miserable people had lots of kids.

    Replies: @iffen

    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.

    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can’t we have both less-filling and great taste?

    Day care at work. Free quality play school (Headstart) through age 5. School vouchers available without restriction (especially without religious disqualification) through grade 14. If we can’t get a restricted UBI, then extremely generous refundable tax credits for each child.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Day care at work. Free quality play school (Headstart) through age 5. School vouchers available without restriction (especially without religious disqualification) through grade 14. If we can’t get a restricted UBI, then extremely generous refundable tax credits for each child.
     
    They're the sorts of things that might boost your TFR from 1.4 to 1.5. That's not gonna help very much. We're currently looking at TFRs that are so far below replacement level that such minor improvements are largely irrelevant.

    Advocating day care at work and free quality play school is an admission that people are not interested in raising kids. They want the government to do the child-raising for them while they pursue their careers. If you provided every married couple with a live-in nanny to do all the child-raising and provided subsidies so they could send the kids off to boarding school you might get an increase in births. You'd also end up with a lot of seriously screwed-up kids.

    It's an admission that most people see child-raising as boring and unrewarding. Child-raising is something you pay poor people to do for you.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen



    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.
     
    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can’t we have both less-filling and great taste?
     
    I'm not saying that financial incentives are a bad idea but you're going to need to do things that are a lot more radical than the things you've suggested.

    Firstly, if you want high birth rates you have to get women out of the workforce and back into the home. That means you need to restore the one-income family as the bedrock of society. You're not going to get significantly higher birth rates unless a man can earn enough to support a wife and two or three kids entirely from his own income.

    Secondly, we need to revise our whole attitude towards work. The idea that our worth is defined by the jobs we do will need to be trashed. We will need to accept that an enormous proportion of the jobs that people do are, as AaronB correctly pointed out elsewhere, bullshit jobs. Those jobs do not need to be done, by anybody. It is absurd to define one's worth in terms of a meaningless unnecessary job. One of the major problems we face is that women today define their worth on the basis of jobs that are complete bullshit.

    We actually need a relatively small workforce. If we can get people to realise that doing a bullshit job is ultimately soul-destroying then maybe they'll start looking for more satisfying things to do. Like raising children. Eliminate the bullshit jobs and pay everybody a generous UBI and maybe raising kids will start to look like an attractive option.

    Thirdly, we need to close down at least three-quarters of our universities. Not only is there such a thing as a bullshit job, there is also such a thing as a bullshit education. People are wasting their lives on bullshit educations.

    These things represent radical solutions but they might well work.

    I'm a radical reactionary!

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

  26. @Buzz Mohawk
    Huh?

    Let's see, here we have four different things set before us on a plate together. If we untangle the spaghetti, we get:

    People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica.”

    People who tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

    People who tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

    Globalist elites relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

    The question assumes that all of these things are somehow connected, and it does so in a way that suggests they are always and necessarily connected.

    It's like asking why all salamanders have three legs and play the banjo if three legs are not conducive to crawling and the banjo just gets in the way.

    Pointless and misleading.

    You don't have to be a "ZOG" user to wonder why elites want massive immigration and to notice that their program is swamping heritage America.

    You also don't have to care who uses abortion to believe that it should be legal within limits, nor do you have to be one of the globalist elite.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Almost Missouri, @Audacious Epigone

    Agree. I hardly ever see anyone use “ZOG” or “Jewmerica” here except ironically. By contrast, it is almost unanimously acknowledged that globalist elites want open borders. So these statements do not jointly define a distinction, but are almost contradictory.

    But the real tangle is

    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

    I think this is meant ironically, i.e., intended to be self-discrediting. But the data don’t necessarily support it. As Sailer has discussed, abortion is disproportionately lower middle class, which to the upper middle class and above looks like a lower class thing, but the real lower class don’t bother with abortion much. So in reality, abortion takes a big divot out of the yeoman class of each ethnic group while sexual license makes the underclass proliferate. Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don’t want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Almost Missouri

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    On this note:


    Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don’t want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?
     
    I will say that women have always tried to abort preganancies, one way or another. For example:

    My oldest sister got pregnant when she was in high school, and she went to Tijuana, Mexico to get an abortion in the 1960's. It was illegal in our state of California then, when I was just a boy. She was never able to have children afterward, and she believed the Mexican abortion was the reason.

    My other sister also got pregnant as a teenager shortly afterward, and she had the baby -- when she was fifteen years old. Years later, my mother told me, crying, that it was a beautiful baby girl that she would have gladly raised but was immediately put up for adoption. As a result, I have a niece somewhere that I have never known, who is now in her fifties if she is still alive. I hope she had good parents.

    So, you see, unwanted pregnancies have real-life consequences that I think get overlooked here and elsewhere.

    FWIW, we were upper-middle class and probably the kind of people everyone here would say should reproduce. That means that also we were not the kind of people everyone here seems to think never have to face this issue.

    BTW, My mother also told me that I was a surprise conceived in the backyard on a spring day. She said she knew, for whatever reason. The only boy, I was born seven years after the last of my two sisters, and a few years after a miscarriage, and I was welcomed.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Lurker
    @Almost Missouri

    Aborting of the white yeoman babies is the omelette, the rest are the eggs?

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Almost Missouri

    You're approaching my priors.

  27. @neutral
    Japan has been a US puppet since WW2, do you dispute this fact? Every Australian I have come across boasts how their country is the biggest US arse licker of them all (not in those words but that is essentially what it is), so also pretty much a US puppet. Being a puppet of America much makes one a jew puppet.

    If you seriously believe that the international jew does not control Australia/Japan/South Korea/New Zealand/etc via its cultural/financial/political power, then you are deluded.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    If you seriously believe that the international jew does not control Australia/Japan/South Korea/New Zealand/etc via its cultural/financial/political power, then you are deluded.

    I seriously believe that the United States controls Australia/Japan/South Korea/New Zealand/etc via its cultural/financial/political power. The U.S. is controlled by vicious corrupt elites, some of whom are Jews, many of whom are non-Jews.

    Focusing on the Jews means closing your eyes to the existence of those non-jewish elites. It means evading the real issue – why the non-jewish elites are so vicious, so corrupt and so malevolent. It’s a cop-out.

    Why have all the elites become so arrogant and so aggressive? I’d suggest that they’re blinded by greed and the lust for power. And they have accumulated so much power that they are no longer in any way accountable to anybody. That’s a weakness that has developed within western civilisation and it’s no use trying to blame it all on sinister outsiders. Western civilisation has been busily trying to destroy itself for more than a century.

    The sinister forces that are working against us are internal enemies, not external enemies.

  28. @iffen
    My favorite is The Jew York Times.

    The online censorship driven by the ADL

    If this censorship of so-called “hate speech” goes much further, I will be forced to move in the direction of an absolute free speech stance.

    In reference to a comment by doom in a previous post with which I disagreed, he says that the right crazies are crazier than the left crazies. This is not true. At least the Jew haters have some facts on their side when they claim that the media is disproportionately under the control of Jews. The left crazies are pulling stuff out of thin air.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    In reference to a comment by doom in a previous post with which I disagreed, he says that the right crazies are crazier than the left crazies. This is not true. At least the Jew haters have some facts on their side when they claim that the media is disproportionately under the control of Jews. The left crazies are pulling stuff out of thin air.

    You don’t think that saying that a cataclysm that would kill hundreds of millions of people would be a good thing qualifies as craziness on a whole new level? You don’t think that hoping for the complete destruction of civilisation qualifies as a special kind of craziness?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    You don’t think that saying that a cataclysm that would kill hundreds of millions of people would be a good thing qualifies as craziness on a whole new level?

    You are taking millenarianism way too literally. It's more or less a comforting belief that in "the end," regardless of current conditions, everything will turn out okay. Every once in a while a cult will form, sell all their possessions and go to a mountaintop, but this does little harm.

    , @neutral
    @dfordoom

    A planet consisting of 4 billion blacks is the complete destruction of civilization. To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land is the ultimate lunacy (which is what all liberal type ideologies will sooner or later lead to).

    Replies: @Talha

  29. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.

    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can't we have both less-filling and great taste?

    Day care at work. Free quality play school (Headstart) through age 5. School vouchers available without restriction (especially without religious disqualification) through grade 14. If we can't get a restricted UBI, then extremely generous refundable tax credits for each child.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    Day care at work. Free quality play school (Headstart) through age 5. School vouchers available without restriction (especially without religious disqualification) through grade 14. If we can’t get a restricted UBI, then extremely generous refundable tax credits for each child.

    They’re the sorts of things that might boost your TFR from 1.4 to 1.5. That’s not gonna help very much. We’re currently looking at TFRs that are so far below replacement level that such minor improvements are largely irrelevant.

    Advocating day care at work and free quality play school is an admission that people are not interested in raising kids. They want the government to do the child-raising for them while they pursue their careers. If you provided every married couple with a live-in nanny to do all the child-raising and provided subsidies so they could send the kids off to boarding school you might get an increase in births. You’d also end up with a lot of seriously screwed-up kids.

    It’s an admission that most people see child-raising as boring and unrewarding. Child-raising is something you pay poor people to do for you.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    If you provided every married couple with a live-in nanny to do all the child-raising and provided subsidies so they could send the kids off to boarding school you might get an increase in births.

    Now you are talking!

  30. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Day care at work. Free quality play school (Headstart) through age 5. School vouchers available without restriction (especially without religious disqualification) through grade 14. If we can’t get a restricted UBI, then extremely generous refundable tax credits for each child.
     
    They're the sorts of things that might boost your TFR from 1.4 to 1.5. That's not gonna help very much. We're currently looking at TFRs that are so far below replacement level that such minor improvements are largely irrelevant.

    Advocating day care at work and free quality play school is an admission that people are not interested in raising kids. They want the government to do the child-raising for them while they pursue their careers. If you provided every married couple with a live-in nanny to do all the child-raising and provided subsidies so they could send the kids off to boarding school you might get an increase in births. You'd also end up with a lot of seriously screwed-up kids.

    It's an admission that most people see child-raising as boring and unrewarding. Child-raising is something you pay poor people to do for you.

    Replies: @iffen

    If you provided every married couple with a live-in nanny to do all the child-raising and provided subsidies so they could send the kids off to boarding school you might get an increase in births.

    Now you are talking!

  31. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    In reference to a comment by doom in a previous post with which I disagreed, he says that the right crazies are crazier than the left crazies. This is not true. At least the Jew haters have some facts on their side when they claim that the media is disproportionately under the control of Jews. The left crazies are pulling stuff out of thin air.
     
    You don't think that saying that a cataclysm that would kill hundreds of millions of people would be a good thing qualifies as craziness on a whole new level? You don't think that hoping for the complete destruction of civilisation qualifies as a special kind of craziness?

    Replies: @iffen, @neutral

    You don’t think that saying that a cataclysm that would kill hundreds of millions of people would be a good thing qualifies as craziness on a whole new level?

    You are taking millenarianism way too literally. It’s more or less a comforting belief that in “the end,” regardless of current conditions, everything will turn out okay. Every once in a while a cult will form, sell all their possessions and go to a mountaintop, but this does little harm.

  32. @Almost Missouri
    @huwhyte ppl

    "Hate graph" didn't post. Everybody loves a good hate graph.

    Replies: @huwhyte ppl

    The image is still there, not sure why unz.com would refuse to display it from that source. Let’s try imgur now, both as img tag and just a URL.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  33. @El Dato
    @songbird


    Part of the reason people were tricked into supporting the war in Iraq was immigration. The idea being, if we bring our system over there, it will prevent them from wanting to come here.
     
    Are you sure about that?

    I can vaguely remember some soundbites using similar vocabulary but did anyone take them seriously?

    Here is how I remember it:

    9/11

    Pols: IT WAS BIN LADEN. NOBODY COULD HAVE FORESEEN! ATTACK AFGHANISTAN NOW!
    Someone in the back: Maybe you want to think about it...
    Press: SHUT UP. A JUST AND NECESSARY WAR IS COMING. Plus, building pipelines is profitable and rewarding.


    Anthrax Attacks

    Pols: IT WAS SADDAM. OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN. SADDAM MUST GO!
    Someone in the back: Maybe you want to reconsider...
    Press: SHUT UP. AMERICA STRONK. MUH DEMOCRACY. MUH ISRAEL. SADDAM SEEKS NUKES AND HAS CHEMWEAPONS IN A TRAVELING DESERT CIRCUS OF LABORATORIES AND YELLOWCAKE FROM NIGERIA.

    Replies: @songbird

    I said it was a part of the reason, not that it was what they went to the UN with, or not that it was something that Bush, who was for amnesty, verbalized at all. Most of the media is open borders – I doubt it was even a talking point.

    But I do think that some people (some of the public) were fooled by the rhetoric of democracy and put two and two together. “If we can make them democratic, they’ll be prosperous and become the magnet that we are, taking some of iron fillings.”

    Any slice helps. Was it necessary? I don’t know. We didn’t go in during Desert Storm – we did, however, go in after we were being super-invaded, though.

  34. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.

    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can't we have both less-filling and great taste?

    Day care at work. Free quality play school (Headstart) through age 5. School vouchers available without restriction (especially without religious disqualification) through grade 14. If we can't get a restricted UBI, then extremely generous refundable tax credits for each child.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.

    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can’t we have both less-filling and great taste?

    I’m not saying that financial incentives are a bad idea but you’re going to need to do things that are a lot more radical than the things you’ve suggested.

    Firstly, if you want high birth rates you have to get women out of the workforce and back into the home. That means you need to restore the one-income family as the bedrock of society. You’re not going to get significantly higher birth rates unless a man can earn enough to support a wife and two or three kids entirely from his own income.

    Secondly, we need to revise our whole attitude towards work. The idea that our worth is defined by the jobs we do will need to be trashed. We will need to accept that an enormous proportion of the jobs that people do are, as AaronB correctly pointed out elsewhere, bullshit jobs. Those jobs do not need to be done, by anybody. It is absurd to define one’s worth in terms of a meaningless unnecessary job. One of the major problems we face is that women today define their worth on the basis of jobs that are complete bullshit.

    We actually need a relatively small workforce. If we can get people to realise that doing a bullshit job is ultimately soul-destroying then maybe they’ll start looking for more satisfying things to do. Like raising children. Eliminate the bullshit jobs and pay everybody a generous UBI and maybe raising kids will start to look like an attractive option.

    Thirdly, we need to close down at least three-quarters of our universities. Not only is there such a thing as a bullshit job, there is also such a thing as a bullshit education. People are wasting their lives on bullshit educations.

    These things represent radical solutions but they might well work.

    I’m a radical reactionary!

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    a bare existence level and restricted generous UBI

    I only had to correct one thing in the entire comment!

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Thirdly, we need to close down at least three-quarters of our universities. Not only is there such a thing as a bullshit job, there is also such a thing as a bullshit education. People are wasting their lives on bullshit educations.

    The Covid cloud has a few silver linings.

  35. Politics doesn’t work the way zogmen think, with a centralized group of people secretly giving commands. Man is by nature a political animal, but he is adapted to the politics of small bands. In a small band, a single group of ten people can meet secretly, reason out a conspiracy, and coordinate to move the needle of policy in a band of 300. But 12 million people cannot secretly meet and then coordinate to move the needle of policy in a band oof 300. To get 12 million people to coordinate and follow the leadership of a small group, it needs to be open, full of flags and marching bands in premodern times and facebook and twatter accounts in modern times.

    Think about what it would take for a radical Jewish elite member to convince the Left to change its position on abortion. Simply saying “we should support it because it increases the proportion of the population who are not White” is not gonna work because that would give away the game. There are many on the Left who support it because of economics, or career-gal identity politics, not to maximize the non-White population. Most of them do not think very far into the future nor do they understand natural selection. If they could, they’d realize they’ve set up a system that effectively sterilizes those who most closely follow their message. To get them to support prohibition of abortion on the grounds of demographics, to think over long-term timescales and using evolutionary logic, would lead many to ask the question “okay, what is my group?”

    If he couldn’t openly argue for opposing abortion on demographic grounds, could he argue for it on other grounds? There is the simple moral objection. But this is a harder case for them to make from the Left. After having condemned sexual morality as outdated and unnecessary, to suddenly say that this behavior must be prevented will not go over well. The Right has an easy answer to the woman demanding an abortion: “you should not have behaved in a way that put you in this situation.” The Left would struggle more mightily with responding to her. Ultimately, the issue comes down to how much respect one has for certain behaviors. The smart person can point out that making abortion illegal will only increase the proportion of the population prone to such behaviors. But most people cannot reason like that, they cannot think in terms of an abstract future. The woman loudly demanding an abortion exists right now, and that’s what’s most salient in most people’s minds. The notional future, the breeder’s equation, eh…

    It has, furthermore, become a symbolic issue of importance for many women, and an effective way for Leftist leaders to rile them up. Saying “the patriarchal oppressors want to force us to get married and chain us to the stove” is too far from reality for most people to accept particularly given the demographic characteristics of the average pro-choice rally. But saying “this group wants to take away our right to abortion” is much easier, for there really is a group that wants to do that. This is so even though many of the women who most loudly demand their right would be unlikely to ever use it. In mass politics, one must always be thinking of morale. The Left has been fighting for abortion for many years, to suddenly give up and join the other side would wound morale for many and weaken their loyalty.*

    So to;dr is that large political groups do self-destructive things. The argument against prohibiting abortion is simple: it will have a dysgenic effect. That is crystal clear from the statistics. Some have said that it’s bad because there is an even stupider group of women who don’t get abortions, but even if true that doesn’t change things. If you apply a selection filter to a room full of people and remove a group that is shorter than average, the average height in the room (all else equal) goes up. It does not matter if you missed the shortest people. The other argument is the “cultural” argument that prohibiting abortion will reduce promiscuity by making it more costly. But if someone is really motivated to avoid having a child, they’ll just use contraception. If they’re too incompetent to use contraception, they’re not going to turn to abstinence. A general principle is involved: if someone is unwilling to achieve X in a cheap and easy way, they are not going to achieve X by a more difficult method. They simply won’t achieve X.

    *Would it have the same affect on the Right? Not necessarily, as the Right has already been losing on the issue. And it wouldn’t have to change its moral philosophy as the Left would. It would continue to argue that it’s morally wrong and discourage its own people from doing it.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  36. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    In reference to a comment by doom in a previous post with which I disagreed, he says that the right crazies are crazier than the left crazies. This is not true. At least the Jew haters have some facts on their side when they claim that the media is disproportionately under the control of Jews. The left crazies are pulling stuff out of thin air.
     
    You don't think that saying that a cataclysm that would kill hundreds of millions of people would be a good thing qualifies as craziness on a whole new level? You don't think that hoping for the complete destruction of civilisation qualifies as a special kind of craziness?

    Replies: @iffen, @neutral

    A planet consisting of 4 billion blacks is the complete destruction of civilization. To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land is the ultimate lunacy (which is what all liberal type ideologies will sooner or later lead to).

    • Replies: @Talha
    @neutral

    Who cares if there are 10 billion blacks on the planet? If people don't want them in their countries then it's their prerogative to have policies to control who comes in and out of their borders (whether black, white, yellow or whatever).


    To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land
     
    Who around here actually wants this? If billions of blacks live in sub-Saharan Africa in whatever condition they figure out, what business is it of anyone else's?

    As far as resources and energy consumption, sub-Saharan Africa has the smallest footprint, so the world can handle a population increase there without affecting everyone else:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgCuIJvIAAA0T6a.jpg

    Peace.

    Replies: @Zimriel, @Almost Missouri, @songbird

  37. @neutral
    @dfordoom

    A planet consisting of 4 billion blacks is the complete destruction of civilization. To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land is the ultimate lunacy (which is what all liberal type ideologies will sooner or later lead to).

    Replies: @Talha

    Who cares if there are 10 billion blacks on the planet? If people don’t want them in their countries then it’s their prerogative to have policies to control who comes in and out of their borders (whether black, white, yellow or whatever).

    To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land

    Who around here actually wants this? If billions of blacks live in sub-Saharan Africa in whatever condition they figure out, what business is it of anyone else’s?

    As far as resources and energy consumption, sub-Saharan Africa has the smallest footprint, so the world can handle a population increase there without affecting everyone else:
    Peace.

    • Replies: @Zimriel
    @Talha

    I wish people (not you) would quit using this graph to shame the West. Our energy use is clean, with natural gas and hydroelectrics. Could be even cleaner if we used nukes more.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Talha


    If people don’t want them in their countries then it’s their prerogative to have policies to control who comes in and out of their borders
     
    Uh oh, have you told the government you believe in this heresy?
    , @songbird
    @Talha

    Progressives can't leave Africa alone. They are fully incapable of understanding that aid can be harmful, or that sometimes it is better to leave people alone. To their minds, doing so would be tantamount to admitting Africans are hopeless. They are incapable of doing that because that would mean that American blacks are hopeless.

  38. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.
     
    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can’t we have both less-filling and great taste?
     
    I'm not saying that financial incentives are a bad idea but you're going to need to do things that are a lot more radical than the things you've suggested.

    Firstly, if you want high birth rates you have to get women out of the workforce and back into the home. That means you need to restore the one-income family as the bedrock of society. You're not going to get significantly higher birth rates unless a man can earn enough to support a wife and two or three kids entirely from his own income.

    Secondly, we need to revise our whole attitude towards work. The idea that our worth is defined by the jobs we do will need to be trashed. We will need to accept that an enormous proportion of the jobs that people do are, as AaronB correctly pointed out elsewhere, bullshit jobs. Those jobs do not need to be done, by anybody. It is absurd to define one's worth in terms of a meaningless unnecessary job. One of the major problems we face is that women today define their worth on the basis of jobs that are complete bullshit.

    We actually need a relatively small workforce. If we can get people to realise that doing a bullshit job is ultimately soul-destroying then maybe they'll start looking for more satisfying things to do. Like raising children. Eliminate the bullshit jobs and pay everybody a generous UBI and maybe raising kids will start to look like an attractive option.

    Thirdly, we need to close down at least three-quarters of our universities. Not only is there such a thing as a bullshit job, there is also such a thing as a bullshit education. People are wasting their lives on bullshit educations.

    These things represent radical solutions but they might well work.

    I'm a radical reactionary!

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    a bare existence level and restricted generous UBI

    I only had to correct one thing in the entire comment!

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    a bare existence level and restricted generous UBI

    I only had to correct one thing in the entire comment!
     
    Apart from a desire to enjoy seeing people suffer, or a weird Protestant obsession with the virtues of the work ethic, why exactly should the UBI be set low enough to keep people living in misery? If you actually want more babies then why not a UBI generous enough to allow (and encourage) people to raise kids? Do you actually want to raise the birth rate or not?

    If you do actually want people to have more children then surely anything that would encourage women to stay home and actually have kids and raise them would be a good idea?

    If you're serious about improving fertility rates you might have to face the awful prospect of giving people the financial means to give their children decent lives.

    Replies: @iffen, @MalePaleStale

  39. @Almost Missouri
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Agree. I hardly ever see anyone use “ZOG” or “Jewmerica” here except ironically. By contrast, it is almost unanimously acknowledged that globalist elites want open borders. So these statements do not jointly define a distinction, but are almost contradictory.

    But the real tangle is


    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.
     
    I think this is meant ironically, i.e., intended to be self-discrediting. But the data don't necessarily support it. As Sailer has discussed, abortion is disproportionately lower middle class, which to the upper middle class and above looks like a lower class thing, but the real lower class don't bother with abortion much. So in reality, abortion takes a big divot out of the yeoman class of each ethnic group while sexual license makes the underclass proliferate. Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don't want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Lurker, @Audacious Epigone

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    On this note:

    Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don’t want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?

    I will say that women have always tried to abort preganancies, one way or another. For example:

    My oldest sister got pregnant when she was in high school, and she went to Tijuana, Mexico to get an abortion in the 1960’s. It was illegal in our state of California then, when I was just a boy. She was never able to have children afterward, and she believed the Mexican abortion was the reason.

    My other sister also got pregnant as a teenager shortly afterward, and she had the baby — when she was fifteen years old. Years later, my mother told me, crying, that it was a beautiful baby girl that she would have gladly raised but was immediately put up for adoption. As a result, I have a niece somewhere that I have never known, who is now in her fifties if she is still alive. I hope she had good parents.

    So, you see, unwanted pregnancies have real-life consequences that I think get overlooked here and elsewhere.

    FWIW, we were upper-middle class and probably the kind of people everyone here would say should reproduce. That means that also we were not the kind of people everyone here seems to think never have to face this issue.

    BTW, My mother also told me that I was a surprise conceived in the backyard on a spring day. She said she knew, for whatever reason. The only boy, I was born seven years after the last of my two sisters, and a few years after a miscarriage, and I was welcomed.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Buzz Mohawk


    women have always tried to abort preganancies
     
    Yes, abortion has long, though not glorious, history.

    Industrial scale mass abortion's history only goes back to Roe (1973) though. And it has even less glory.

    Your sister's tragic experience with abortion not only injured your sister, but also deprived the rest of us of the fruits of your family's self-evidently rich genetic endowment. So I say with all the compassion that cold pixels can convey that this experience hardly favors the legal sanction and cultural endorsement that abortion now enjoys.

    Even more touching is the matter of your long lost niece. One of the few moral innovations that I applaud is that nowadays families, even upper middle class families, are much more likely to embrace and raise the illegitimate child of a teenage daughter. Whatever the awkwardness, it avoids the sorrows your mother poignantly expressed. This was a much steeper slope to climb—nearly vertical—in the 1960s, so it is no fault of your sister or mother that they lived too early for this. Under the circumstances of the time, adoption may indeed have worked out the best for the girl. I will raise a glass for her this evening.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  40. @dfordoom

    By every accounting, though, these globalist elites are relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.
     
    Another theory - corporate elites unleashed feminism in the 1960s as a weapon with which to destroy organised labour and the Old Left. They assumed that an increasingly female workforce would be more docile and would accept lower pay and poorer working conditions. They also assumed that increasing numbers of women in politics would move the Left away from a concern with economic justice and towards an obsession with social and cultural issues. The last thing corporate elites want is people talking about economic justice.

    They unleashed feminism, but feminism was a kind of unguided missile. It did the job of destroying the unions and the Old Left but feminists had their own agendas, and abortion was a major part of the agenda that feminists came up with.

    Globalists need the support of young single women, especially young single white women. They make excellent useful idiots for the globalist cause. The elites cannot afford to alienate feminists too much, so whether the elites want abortion or not they're stuck with it in order to keep feminists happy.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    There are lots of good comments on here with decent explanations. Yours, DforDoom, rings true for me as much as any of them. From all my recollection of the political world (well, in America), abortion has been an issue that the feminists have been pushing. I can’t say Globalists haven’t been around for long, but it sure seems like the stupidity of Feminism preceded the stupidity of Globalism.

    Just as I.D. put it, I really doubt abortion was part of a nicely laid-out plan written on paper by a cabal of permanently OTR feminists. That whole “it’s my body – I’ll do what I want with it” thing is pretty much all most of them feel the need to know or think about abortion to be in favor of it being legal and widespread.

    I also don’t think the numbers are so overwhelming as to ruin any Globalist’s plans, or really just thoughts on what he’d like the future to look like. Destruction of the nuclear family has been proceeding apace. Globalists, Communists, all of ’em, they all love it.

    I’ll take this opportunity to point out Peak Stupidity‘s enjoyable task of fisking one of what ought to be THE SHOWCASE of Feminist stupidity for the American people to see:

    We’re still on Part 3 with no end to the stupidity in sight!

    “America’s Kung Flu recession, women hardest hit!”:

    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    From all my recollection of the political world (well, in America), abortion has been an issue that the feminists have been pushing. I can’t say Globalists haven’t been around for long, but it sure seems like the stupidity of Feminism preceded the stupidity of Globalism.
     
    Yep, the stupidity of feminism has been around for a long long time. It's worth remembering that feminism began in the 1790s and that feminism was a big thing in the U.S. in the 19th century. Feminism not only pre-dates globalism, it pre-dates communism as well.

    And 19th century American feminists were an extraordinarily crazy and unpleasant lot. Don't forget that the disaster of Prohibition was one of the early gifts of feminism - feminists have always liked controlling other people's lives. Feminists have always been instinctive totalitarians.

    I can understand why feminists would be in favour of the availability of contraception. That's quite rational. I can understand why women in general would be in favour of the availability of contraception. But abortion? Encouraging women to have abortions seems to me to be a horrible thing to do to women. If feminists cared about women they'd be pushing contraception as a way of making abortion unnecessary.

    Of course if feminists cared about women they'd also be pushing to make it easier for those women who want children to have them and to be able to raise them.

    Feminism seems to be driven mainly by hate, anger and resentment. The weird sad thing is that so much of their hate seems to be directed at women. I get the feeling that they like abortion because they're angry at women who want to have children.
    , @Anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Both the NYT article and your series criticizing it are talking past the large majority of Americans. Some woman loves her job, gets her identity from her job, blah blah blah. That's not 90% of women, who don't like to work. They, just like men, are there for the money.

    And what's with the stuff about communism? While feminism has its origins in Marxism, that's for the history books. Today, it's most likely to be propagated by the rich. And the claim that people aren't considered unemployed when the unemployment payments stop is false. And then there's the ever-annoying "bullshit jobs" narrative, another of the ideas that started with academics assuming all workplaces were as bloated and inefficient as their own. Everyone here can agree that H.R. departments produce negative value add, but they still employ a very small fraction of the population. The waitress is not a coal miner and is not and should not be paid like one. But she's still providing a real service. The state and some monopolistic large companies can afford to hire a bunch of women to sit around the water cool and bitch and cause drama. Small firms can't and contrary to common belief almost 2/3rds of Americans working in the private sector work for firms employing less than 1000 employees:

    https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt

    Lockdown opponents remind me of the “it’s my body – I’ll do what I want with it” thots. Neither tend to be doctrinaire libertarians who just want to mind their own business. Both tend to have long lists of groups who need to act proper, who must stop being "selfish." But ask them to make some sacrifice and they scream "muh constitution's being shredded, George Washington crossed the Delaware so I could be as selfish as possible and not give any consideration to anyone else!"

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Dangling Pointer

  41. Before abortion, didn’t a lot of whites adopt white babies? After abortion, it seems like a lot of whites are adopting black babies.

    I once knew a family. The most normal, sanest sibling was the nonbiological one, adopted before Roe v. Wade.

  42. @Job’s brother
    Because the consequences of abortion fall more heavily on white communities?

    Replies: @Zimriel

    But the consequences have fallen most heavily on black communities. There was of course a black underclass before Moynihan’s famous “defining deviancy down” speech but this was a minority of the black population of then, which was mostly working class.
    American Indians were hit hard as well, although since the reservations are legally sovereign lands (like Ciskei in old South Africa) other factors are at work there.
    Anyway this may explain why antiSemitism is stronger among blacks than among whites.

  43. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    a bare existence level and restricted generous UBI

    I only had to correct one thing in the entire comment!

    Replies: @dfordoom

    a bare existence level and restricted generous UBI

    I only had to correct one thing in the entire comment!

    Apart from a desire to enjoy seeing people suffer, or a weird Protestant obsession with the virtues of the work ethic, why exactly should the UBI be set low enough to keep people living in misery? If you actually want more babies then why not a UBI generous enough to allow (and encourage) people to raise kids? Do you actually want to raise the birth rate or not?

    If you do actually want people to have more children then surely anything that would encourage women to stay home and actually have kids and raise them would be a good idea?

    If you’re serious about improving fertility rates you might have to face the awful prospect of giving people the financial means to give their children decent lives.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough

    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such. If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person's who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.

    Replies: @AaronB, @dfordoom

    , @MalePaleStale
    @dfordoom

    I've argued that retirement plans are a large factor in reduced birth rates and the increased prominence of homosexuality. For most of human history and in much of the world today, children have been and continue to be many people's retirement plans. Even homosexuals start families when faced with the stark future that old age brings. However, retirement plans don't provide meaning to one's life nor offer a legacy.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  44. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    I have my own question, if you believe that ZOG is just some nonsense to be dismissed, then how about you provide some evidence for this belief? One can look at the daily news for the near universal support for Israel from all parties, parties that are supposed to be enemies of each other. The endless money thrown at Israel. The online censorship driven by the ADL. Etc. If ZOG does not exist, then why/how can the things I mentioned happen?
     
    Can you explain why, in countries where support for Israel is not really an issue because nobody cares one way or another, the elites still support open borders? Can you explain why, in countries where the Jewish populations are extremely small and Jews do not have massive amounts of influence, the elites still support open borders?

    Replies: @John Regan

    Even in countries where Jews are few in absolute numbers, they still tend to dominate the media through corruption and oligarchy. For example, Sweden is often brought up as an example of a trainwreck in a country without Jews. Yet as I found out when I checked this claim, a Jewish oligarch family “just so happens” to own almost the entire Swedish media. Quite a coincidence in a country where Jews make up 0.1 or so percent of the population.

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

    In fact, are there actually any countries without Jewish influence that support open borders? Serious question. Replacement level immigrationism seems to be mostly or entirely something that afflicts Western countries. And all Western countries have powerful Jewish minorities.

    Japan may be the arguable exception to the pattern, with Cultural Marxism on the rise in a non-white country for the first time, but most of this can still be ascribed to “American” influence by proxies: “American” corporations buying up their companies, “American” academia poisoning theirs, and of course endless torrents of “American” diversity propaganda from Hollywood and friends. And even so, Japan is still nowhere close to becoming such a disaster as America already is.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @John Regan

    Singapore and some countries in Latin America, like Paraguay and Costa Rica.

  45. @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom

    There are lots of good comments on here with decent explanations. Yours, DforDoom, rings true for me as much as any of them. From all my recollection of the political world (well, in America), abortion has been an issue that the feminists have been pushing. I can't say Globalists haven't been around for long, but it sure seems like the stupidity of Feminism preceded the stupidity of Globalism.

    Just as I.D. put it, I really doubt abortion was part of a nicely laid-out plan written on paper by a cabal of permanently OTR feminists. That whole "it's my body - I'll do what I want with it" thing is pretty much all most of them feel the need to know or think about abortion to be in favor of it being legal and widespread.

    I also don't think the numbers are so overwhelming as to ruin any Globalist's plans, or really just thoughts on what he'd like the future to look like. Destruction of the nuclear family has been proceeding apace. Globalists, Communists, all of 'em, they all love it.

    I'll take this opportunity to point out Peak Stupidity's enjoyable task of fisking one of what ought to be THE SHOWCASE of Feminist stupidity for the American people to see:

    We're still on Part 3 with no end to the stupidity in sight!

    "America's Kung Flu recession, women hardest hit!":

    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Anonymous

    From all my recollection of the political world (well, in America), abortion has been an issue that the feminists have been pushing. I can’t say Globalists haven’t been around for long, but it sure seems like the stupidity of Feminism preceded the stupidity of Globalism.

    Yep, the stupidity of feminism has been around for a long long time. It’s worth remembering that feminism began in the 1790s and that feminism was a big thing in the U.S. in the 19th century. Feminism not only pre-dates globalism, it pre-dates communism as well.

    And 19th century American feminists were an extraordinarily crazy and unpleasant lot. Don’t forget that the disaster of Prohibition was one of the early gifts of feminism – feminists have always liked controlling other people’s lives. Feminists have always been instinctive totalitarians.

    I can understand why feminists would be in favour of the availability of contraception. That’s quite rational. I can understand why women in general would be in favour of the availability of contraception. But abortion? Encouraging women to have abortions seems to me to be a horrible thing to do to women. If feminists cared about women they’d be pushing contraception as a way of making abortion unnecessary.

    Of course if feminists cared about women they’d also be pushing to make it easier for those women who want children to have them and to be able to raise them.

    Feminism seems to be driven mainly by hate, anger and resentment. The weird sad thing is that so much of their hate seems to be directed at women. I get the feeling that they like abortion because they’re angry at women who want to have children.

  46. @Talha
    @neutral

    Who cares if there are 10 billion blacks on the planet? If people don't want them in their countries then it's their prerogative to have policies to control who comes in and out of their borders (whether black, white, yellow or whatever).


    To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land
     
    Who around here actually wants this? If billions of blacks live in sub-Saharan Africa in whatever condition they figure out, what business is it of anyone else's?

    As far as resources and energy consumption, sub-Saharan Africa has the smallest footprint, so the world can handle a population increase there without affecting everyone else:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgCuIJvIAAA0T6a.jpg

    Peace.

    Replies: @Zimriel, @Almost Missouri, @songbird

    I wish people (not you) would quit using this graph to shame the West. Our energy use is clean, with natural gas and hydroelectrics. Could be even cleaner if we used nukes more.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Zimriel

    Yes, I’m not talking about the clean part, just talking per capita energy consumption.

    Peace.

  47. VIX is the thing that goes pop in the night for the Fed-created asset bubbles and for ZOG and JOG.

    ZOG and JOG don’t EGGNOG because some of them can’t digest milk or dairy so well.

    Lindsey Graham is a LOG Cabin Republican Party type and a poll showed a close race between Lindsey Illegal Alien Invader Amnesty/Mass Legal Immigration Surge Graham and some South Carolina Black Democrat Party senate candidate named Harrison and some band called String Cheese or something did a live song with Jerry Harrison of Talking Heads called Rosie or something.

    The rancid Republican Party is controlled by Hebrew Plutocrat Oligarch HOGs and those Hebrew Plutocrat Oligarch HOGs demand and receive total policy obeisance from Republican Party politician whores such as Teddy Cruz, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and all the other politician whores in the GOP.

    Most political experts agree that ZOG and JOG go together like a horse and carriage.

    What is JOG?

    I explained JOG in January of 2017:

    White Nationalists are the largest voter bloc.

    Hillary Clinton is a White Nationalist who moved to the mostly White town of Chappaqua, New York, in order to avoid having to live around Blacks and other non-Whites.

    Barack Obama is a Mulatto with White Nationalist leanings who moved to a wealthy and White part of Swamp City DC and to the mostly White island of Martha’s Vineyard. I don’t want to hear no guff about no Inkwell crud about some Black enclave that the Methodist morons dragged onto the island either. Harrumph!

    Charles Schumer is a Jew Nationalist who puts the interests of the Jew Nation ahead of the interests of the USA — that is TREASON. Charles Schumer is a Jew Nationalist who does the bidding of JOG — JEWS ORGANIZED GLOBALLY.

    When the beautiful young White broad with husband in tow tells the real estate agent that she wants to see homes in towns with “good schools” what she really means is towns that are mostly White if not all White. That young White lady is a White Nationalist.

    When the Whites and Asians and Jews in New York City fight against the Kraut bonehead mayor and his Mestizzo stooge school head honcho over selective schools what they really mean is that they don’t want their kids to have to be cheek by jowl with lower IQ Black and Mestizzo kids who can’t think too good and can’t behave too good. Those Asians and Jews and Whites are displaying sneaky WHITE NATIONALIST leanings.

    Trump is a disgusting politician whore for Jew billionaires such as Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer.

    Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson is a JEW NATIONALIST who funds and belongs to JOG — JEWS ORGANIZED GLOBALLY.

    Jew billionaire Paul Singer is a JEW NATIONALIST who funds and belongs to JOG — JEWS ORGANIZED GLOBALLY.

    Trump is a rancid politician whore for JOG — JEWS ORGANIZED GLOBALLY.

    Trump is screaming about dramatically increasing mass legal immigration.

    Trump is calling for the USA to be flooded with mass legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever.”

    Trump is refusing to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Trump and the rancid Republican Party will be obliterated in the upcoming election at all levels.

    The treasonous politician scum in the Republican Party are slouching towards the boneyard of all defunct and decadent and depraved and duplicitous and decaying political parties.

    White Core America is the new political party that will advance the interests of Whites as Whites.

    White Core America Immigration Policy Pledge:

    IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM NOW!

    DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS NOW!

    FORCIBLY REMOVE THE FOREIGNERS NOW!

    220 BY 2040 OR FIGHT! White Core America Pledges To Get The Population Of The USA Back Down To 220 Million Like It Was In 1978.

    THE FOREIGNERS WILL BE GONE and so will plenty of White Globalizer Treasonites!

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/diversity-donald/#comment-3665828

  48. Teddy Cruz pushes nation-killing mass legal immigration.

    Teddy Cruz pushes amnesty(legalization) for illegal alien invaders.

    Teddy Cruz puts the interests of Israel over and above the interests of the USA.

    Teddy Cruz pushes globalization and financialization and multiculturalism and sovereignty-sapping free trade deals.

    Teddy Cruz is about as much of a Texan as Charles Schumer is.

    Teddy Cruz is a politician whore for JOG — Jews Organized Globally.

  49. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    a bare existence level and restricted generous UBI

    I only had to correct one thing in the entire comment!
     
    Apart from a desire to enjoy seeing people suffer, or a weird Protestant obsession with the virtues of the work ethic, why exactly should the UBI be set low enough to keep people living in misery? If you actually want more babies then why not a UBI generous enough to allow (and encourage) people to raise kids? Do you actually want to raise the birth rate or not?

    If you do actually want people to have more children then surely anything that would encourage women to stay home and actually have kids and raise them would be a good idea?

    If you're serious about improving fertility rates you might have to face the awful prospect of giving people the financial means to give their children decent lives.

    Replies: @iffen, @MalePaleStale

    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough

    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such. If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person’s who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @iffen

    Why do we want to incentivize hard work if machines are doing most of the labor needed to sustain civilization?

    In fact, there isn't enough genuinely useful work for everyone. Maybe only for less than half the population.

    Which also raises a second point. People need the incentive of money to do work they dislike. But people who do work that really benefits society tend to have high morale, even if the work is hard.

    Graeber shows how people trapped in bullshit jobs with high pay are depressed and find it soul crushing, whereas people doing hard, damgerous, dirty work that really helps people are satisfied and have high morale, even if its low prestige like cleaner or garbage man.

    Instead of decoupling work from a productive goal and making it a free floating virtue to have a work ethic regardless of whether anything needs to be done, maybe we can reframe that in a better way. It is a virtue for people to be willing to work hard when that makes a genuine contribution to sustaining human life and civilization.

    The really cool things, like scientist or inventor, or even soldier and fireman, will always attract people who don't need the incentive of money.

    People who are ambitious for money will always have the opportunity to work much harder and make more - and people who would rather play guitar or write poetry will be free of economic fear, content in the knowledge that civilization is sustained largely by the labor of machines.

    Playing guitar and writing poetry, or even gossiping with friends, is more conducive to human happiness - and thus more genuinely useful work - than inventing bullshit jobs out of a belief that it is a virtue to work hard at something you dislike, because suffering is good and mankind shouldn't be happy.

    Actually letting people choose how best to contribute to human happiness might work out better for us all.

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen



    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough
     
    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such.

     

    Nonsense. There's nothing virtuous about doing bullshit jobs that don't need to be done. You're living in the past. It's not the 19th century any more, or even the 1950s. A large proportion of jobs in today's world are the equivalent of telling people to dig holes in he ground and then telling them to fill them in again. Meaningless bullshit jobs are morally corrosive and degrading.

    The number of jobs that actually need to be done is decreasing and will continue to decrease rapidly. Immense numbers of jobs are going to disappear in the next decade or so. Virtually all retail jobs for a start. Virtually all of the remaining manufacturing jobs. Lots of office jobs and service jobs will disappear as well.

    You're advocating that we should punish people for not working in jobs that are simply not going to exist. That kind of Puritan moralising nonsense is irrelevant to the world today.

    If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person’s who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.
     
    Why? So you can feel morally virtuous by making life miserable for people who are not going to have jobs because those jobs have ceased to exist?

    I return to the point about birth rates, which was the original subject. If low birth rates really do represent an existential crisis then radical solutions will be needed. A generous UBI would allow women to choose to stay at home and raise children. It would allow women to opt out of the workforce and choose full-time motherhood. It would even allow men who so chose to help in raising the kids. That might actually encourage people to have large families again because they wold have the financial means and the time to devote themselves to raising children. So I ask again, do you actually want higher birth rates or not?

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen

  50. anonymous[105] • Disclaimer says:

    ZOG is stupid* but there is a grain of a good paradox there – the Left’s support for abortion is seemingly at odds with its support for demographic change.

    But I think it is just a matter of wokeness being a relatively new phenomenon and not yet completely digesting all other considerations on the left (although it is on its inexorable way). As has been noted here before, until just a few years ago, SWPLs were generally pro-gentrification, pro-police, and looked down with ironic condescension on aspects of rap culture, and thought NBA was stupid and liked alternative sports such as soccer or roller derby, or no sports.

    With the juggernaut of wokeness all of that has been overhauled recently and SWPLs will now testify that they are into expensive Nike sneakers and love Lebron and Cardi B. Abortion is probably next for an attitude change – it just hasn’t been hit yet.

    * for example George Soros is anti-Israel and supports a ton of anti-Israel NGOs.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anonymous


    ZOG is stupid* but there is a grain of a good paradox there – the Left’s support for abortion is seemingly at odds with its support for demographic change.
     
    The Left has no choice. If they don't support abortion the feminists might wander off the leftist reservation. The single white women who are the ardent feminists (and the ardent supporters of abortion) are a demographic they can't afford to lose.

    The Left isn't monolithic. It's not a single gigantic conspiracy with a single agenda. It's a loose coalition of groups with interests that are not necessarily fully compatible with each other. Keeping that coalition together is a balancing act.
  51. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough

    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such. If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person's who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.

    Replies: @AaronB, @dfordoom

    Why do we want to incentivize hard work if machines are doing most of the labor needed to sustain civilization?

    In fact, there isn’t enough genuinely useful work for everyone. Maybe only for less than half the population.

    Which also raises a second point. People need the incentive of money to do work they dislike. But people who do work that really benefits society tend to have high morale, even if the work is hard.

    Graeber shows how people trapped in bullshit jobs with high pay are depressed and find it soul crushing, whereas people doing hard, damgerous, dirty work that really helps people are satisfied and have high morale, even if its low prestige like cleaner or garbage man.

    Instead of decoupling work from a productive goal and making it a free floating virtue to have a work ethic regardless of whether anything needs to be done, maybe we can reframe that in a better way. It is a virtue for people to be willing to work hard when that makes a genuine contribution to sustaining human life and civilization.

    The really cool things, like scientist or inventor, or even soldier and fireman, will always attract people who don’t need the incentive of money.

    People who are ambitious for money will always have the opportunity to work much harder and make more – and people who would rather play guitar or write poetry will be free of economic fear, content in the knowledge that civilization is sustained largely by the labor of machines.

    Playing guitar and writing poetry, or even gossiping with friends, is more conducive to human happiness – and thus more genuinely useful work – than inventing bullshit jobs out of a belief that it is a virtue to work hard at something you dislike, because suffering is good and mankind shouldn’t be happy.

    Actually letting people choose how best to contribute to human happiness might work out better for us all.

  52. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    a bare existence level and restricted generous UBI

    I only had to correct one thing in the entire comment!
     
    Apart from a desire to enjoy seeing people suffer, or a weird Protestant obsession with the virtues of the work ethic, why exactly should the UBI be set low enough to keep people living in misery? If you actually want more babies then why not a UBI generous enough to allow (and encourage) people to raise kids? Do you actually want to raise the birth rate or not?

    If you do actually want people to have more children then surely anything that would encourage women to stay home and actually have kids and raise them would be a good idea?

    If you're serious about improving fertility rates you might have to face the awful prospect of giving people the financial means to give their children decent lives.

    Replies: @iffen, @MalePaleStale

    I’ve argued that retirement plans are a large factor in reduced birth rates and the increased prominence of homosexuality. For most of human history and in much of the world today, children have been and continue to be many people’s retirement plans. Even homosexuals start families when faced with the stark future that old age brings. However, retirement plans don’t provide meaning to one’s life nor offer a legacy.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @MalePaleStale


    I’ve argued that retirement plans are a large factor in reduced birth rates and the increased prominence of homosexuality. For most of human history and in much of the world today, children have been and continue to be many people’s retirement plans. Even homosexuals start families when faced with the stark future that old age brings. However, retirement plans don’t provide meaning to one’s life nor offer a legacy.
     
    There may be some truth in that. If we could magically turn the clock back and recreate a primarily agricultural society with no welfare we would definitely get higher birth rates.

    The one minor problem is that such a society would be horrific. Whenever people have been given the choice between living in such traditional societies or living in a modern society (with all its problems) they have overwhelmingly chosen to get the hell out of their traditional societies and join the modern world.

    Traditional societies tend to suck.
  53. @Intelligent Dasein
    I don't believe there is any ZOG conspiracy to culturally and politically swamp heritage America. "Heritage America" is materialist, self-seeking, criminal, Protestant---and plenty zoggy enough on its own. The WASPs pozzed themselves; the JQ is both otiose and a distraction. I have no desire to defend the Jews, but the whole subject of Jewish conspiracies bores me to tears.

    Speaking to the question, however, this is not the first time it has been noticed that the progressive agenda is not logically consistent. There is no grand, 4th dimensional rationale for this; it's the natural result that comes from seeking power at ever turn by catering to different audiences and different factions. Abortion is always held out as a sop to keep lower-class women and their baby-daddies firmly on the plantation. Immigration is the lifeblood of the neoliberal economic order and is axiomatically supported by big business, academia, and the permanent bureaucracy. This is all obvious and has already been exhaustively documented on this site.

    There is no need to reach for deeper explanations; the liberals themselves aren't that deep, so groping for a conspiracy theory is aberrantly insisting upon a degree of precision that the subject matter itself cannot support. It's like trying to stamp microfiche onto marshmallows. There is no Cloward-Piven solution, no Kalergi plan, no Zionist agenda---at least not one that anybody consciously gives a damn about. This is just what decline looks like.

    Corpses stink because they are putrefying, not because the Jews stashed a stink bomb underneath them.

    Replies: @Philip Neal

    I find the question ill-phrased.

    Who says that “restricting abortion is bad”?

    Is it supposed to be American Jews? Or is it supposed to be American gentiles who genuinely believe that Jews, as a body of people, take orders from a Jewish government which can subordinate not only most Jews but the real government to its will?

    If the question is why Jews in high places favour both abortion rights and open borders, the answer is simple. Halakhah – Jewish law. Under certain circumstances which often occur, it can be a Jewish religious obligation to procure an abortion and equally to take up residence in a new country whether its laws allow you to or not. (And, with defined exceptions, if a Jew is permitted to do something, so is a gentile.)

    Why Christians want restrictions on abortion is also no riddle. Christ is supposed, as a matter of factual belief, to have been alive in the womb. There is a presumption that a foetus is a human child, only to be overriden in specified circumstances, if at all.

    This leaves only one puzzle. Why do American Christians oppose both abortion and immigration? I am not an American, but the obvious answer is “Why on earth should they?” When a new, healthy baby is born in my family I rejoice that a new relative, a new Englishman or woman has entered the world, someone who will one day loudly disagree with my opinions and still laugh at my jokes. We all love our own just slightly more than others, and if there are fewer of our own we will find ourselves loving our country that bit less.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    @Philip Neal

    The bracketed numbers I have interspersed at various points in my writing refer to notes that appear at the end of my post.


    If the question is why Jews in high places favour both abortion rights and open borders, the answer is simple. Halakhah – Jewish law.
     
    Few Jews in high places care about halakhah (or even purport to). Outside of Israel at least, the influence wielded by halakhically-observant Jews seldom extends beyond local positions within and representing their own parochial communities.[1]

    Under certain circumstances which often occur, it can be a Jewish religious obligation to procure an abortion
     
    Halakhah generally prohibits abortion except in cases where necessary to save the life of the mother. In such cases, abortion would not be merely permitted but indeed required.[2] Such cases are the exception; not the rule. I do not believe that they "often occur" but rather relatively rarely.

    Moreover, I believe that such rarity may account, at least in large part, for what appears to me to be a general, overall relative lack of political involvement on the part of Orthodox Jews in the area of abortion. From my observation and experience at least, most simply do not perceive the legal status of abortion as a matter of much relevance to them. There are notable exceptions, though.[3]

    it can be a Jewish religious obligation...to take up residence in a new country whether its laws allow you to or not.
     
    The circumstances in which I can imagine that being true would pretty-much be limited-to cases where doing so was necessary in order to preserve one's life, or to continue living as a faithful, religious Jew. Such cases, under normal circumstances, would be rare.[4] At any rate, as per what I pointed-out above, these or any other halakhic considerations are simply irrelevant for at least the overwhelming majority of Jews who are active and influential in promoting liberal immigration policy. For said Jews overwhelmingly simply ignore halakhah.

    Or is it supposed to be American gentiles who genuinely believe that Jews, as a body of people, take orders from a Jewish government which can subordinate not only most Jews but the real government to its will?
     
    Roughly what percentage of Americans would you reckon genuinely hold such a belief?

    We-- i.e., those of us who identify as Jews-- cannot even agree upon how to define one.[5] The notion that there is some central "Jewish government" that we all even so much as recognize, let alone would take orders from, is laughable. (Even, or perhaps especially, the segment of Jewry that identifies as Orthodox is highly fractured and factionalized.)

    Why Christians want restrictions on abortion is also no riddle. Christ is supposed, as a matter of factual belief, to have been alive in the womb. There is a presumption that a foetus is a human child, only to be overriden in specified circumstances, if at all.
     
    The third and final of your three statements that I quoted above is obviously true of at least many Christians. I do not, however, see the relevance of your preceding statement. It would be a surprise to me to learn that the Christian belief that life begins at conception is derived from the seemingly obvious fact that you state concerning their savior.

    Why do American Christians oppose both abortion and immigration?
     
    In fact, a large percentage of Americans who identify as Christian support both a legal right to abortion and liberal immigration policy. The latter, at least, is the official position of what may very well be every nominally Christian mainstream religious entity in the U.S. of any size and influence.

    NOTES:
    [1] The Orthodox are pretty-much the only Jews who even take halakhah seriously at all. This highly rigorous body of numerous and intricate restrictions, obligations and regulations of everyday life in traditional Judaism has been openly abrogated by The Reform, Reconstructionist and Renewal movements. "Conservative Judaism" (TM; big-C) purports to uphold halakhah, only to take a more lenient, flexible and balanced and enlightened approach in its interpretation and application than the Orthodox do. As anyone at all familiar with the facts on the ground, however, could readily attest, the number of Conservative-affiliated Jews who take even their own movement's greatly abridged and diluted version of halakhah seriously is vanishingly small.

    [2] Some authorities, at least, extend this concept to include the mental health of the mother. The general principle here is that the mother's life is viewed as primary against the potential or incipient life of the fetus.

    [3] Perhaps the most prominent and conspicuous one is Rabbi Yehuda Levin. Rabbi Levin's record of direct involvement in the pro-life movement includes running at one time as the right-to-life candidate against New York City Mayor Ed Koch.

    [4] The general rule is that we must obey the Law of the Land wherever we live unless doing so would violate our religious duty. Thankfully, in most places where sizable populations of Jews reside, it has for some time already been no more than rarely that such conflicts have presented themselves. In this vein, let me take the opportunity to once again reiterate that I feel a debt of gratitude to a mostly white, mostly Christian United States of America for the extraordinary tolerance, acceptance and kindness that, as Jews, it has shown myself, my family, and my people.

    [5] As an Orthodox Jew myself, the only definition I recognize as absolute and inherent is a strictly religious one: A Jew is one born to a Jewish mother, or one who has undergone a halakhically valid process of conversion. This definition, however, clearly excludes what are a not-insignificant number of individuals who not only emphatically self-identify as Jews but who would be and are identified, both favorably as well as unfavorably, by others as such. (A reality with far-reaching implications that cannot be ignored.) Moreover, there are many cases in which traditional Judaism views those whom it views as Jews but particularly wicked or depraved ones considerably less favorably than it views even ordinary non-Jews, let alone those who are deemed righteous. This, along with the fact that conversion is open to individuals of nearly every racial, ethnic, national or religious origin, are facts about Judaism that are conveniently elided by many of those who characterize it as overwhelmingly, or even entirely tribal.
  54. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough

    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such. If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person's who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.

    Replies: @AaronB, @dfordoom

    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough

    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such.

    Nonsense. There’s nothing virtuous about doing bullshit jobs that don’t need to be done. You’re living in the past. It’s not the 19th century any more, or even the 1950s. A large proportion of jobs in today’s world are the equivalent of telling people to dig holes in he ground and then telling them to fill them in again. Meaningless bullshit jobs are morally corrosive and degrading.

    The number of jobs that actually need to be done is decreasing and will continue to decrease rapidly. Immense numbers of jobs are going to disappear in the next decade or so. Virtually all retail jobs for a start. Virtually all of the remaining manufacturing jobs. Lots of office jobs and service jobs will disappear as well.

    You’re advocating that we should punish people for not working in jobs that are simply not going to exist. That kind of Puritan moralising nonsense is irrelevant to the world today.

    If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person’s who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.

    Why? So you can feel morally virtuous by making life miserable for people who are not going to have jobs because those jobs have ceased to exist?

    I return to the point about birth rates, which was the original subject. If low birth rates really do represent an existential crisis then radical solutions will be needed. A generous UBI would allow women to choose to stay at home and raise children. It would allow women to opt out of the workforce and choose full-time motherhood. It would even allow men who so chose to help in raising the kids. That might actually encourage people to have large families again because they wold have the financial means and the time to devote themselves to raising children. So I ask again, do you actually want higher birth rates or not?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    So I ask again, do you actually want higher birth rates or not?

    Why would we want higher birthrates if there are no jobs?

    Capitalism works better if the gross economy is growing and one way to get that is population increase.

    Also, a larger population should mean that the numbers of highly capable people are greater.

    It is obvious to all of us now, but look how long it took Prometheus to figure it out and let us in on the secret. One highly capable person has the chance to change everything for us.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    making life miserable for people

    No. I want each person to feel like they are pulling their own weight and have the satisfaction and feeling of independence that comes with it.

    Replies: @AaronB

  55. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough
     
    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such.

     

    Nonsense. There's nothing virtuous about doing bullshit jobs that don't need to be done. You're living in the past. It's not the 19th century any more, or even the 1950s. A large proportion of jobs in today's world are the equivalent of telling people to dig holes in he ground and then telling them to fill them in again. Meaningless bullshit jobs are morally corrosive and degrading.

    The number of jobs that actually need to be done is decreasing and will continue to decrease rapidly. Immense numbers of jobs are going to disappear in the next decade or so. Virtually all retail jobs for a start. Virtually all of the remaining manufacturing jobs. Lots of office jobs and service jobs will disappear as well.

    You're advocating that we should punish people for not working in jobs that are simply not going to exist. That kind of Puritan moralising nonsense is irrelevant to the world today.

    If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person’s who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.
     
    Why? So you can feel morally virtuous by making life miserable for people who are not going to have jobs because those jobs have ceased to exist?

    I return to the point about birth rates, which was the original subject. If low birth rates really do represent an existential crisis then radical solutions will be needed. A generous UBI would allow women to choose to stay at home and raise children. It would allow women to opt out of the workforce and choose full-time motherhood. It would even allow men who so chose to help in raising the kids. That might actually encourage people to have large families again because they wold have the financial means and the time to devote themselves to raising children. So I ask again, do you actually want higher birth rates or not?

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen

    So I ask again, do you actually want higher birth rates or not?

    Why would we want higher birthrates if there are no jobs?

    Capitalism works better if the gross economy is growing and one way to get that is population increase.

    Also, a larger population should mean that the numbers of highly capable people are greater.

    It is obvious to all of us now, but look how long it took Prometheus to figure it out and let us in on the secret. One highly capable person has the chance to change everything for us.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Why would we want higher birthrates if there are no jobs?

    Capitalism works better if the gross economy is growing and one way to get that is population increase.
     
    We don't need more people to work in non-existent jobs. A capitalist economy needs more people because it needs more consumers. The idea that our purpose in life is to work is outdated. Our purpose in life is to buy stuff. Being a useful member of society does not require a person to work, it merely requires a person to consume. Machines can make all the stuff that needs to be made but machines don't shop. Shopping is a job that only people can do.

    If you give people a generous UBI and they buy lots of stuff then they are contributing to society. They also serve who only stand and shop.

    We don't need a work ethic any longer but we do need a consumption ethic. We no longer define ourselves by working, we define ourselves by shopping. If people don't consume GDP won't grow and if GDP stops growing the world will come to an end.

    This is not a view of society that appeals to moralisers and Puritans but it is increasingly the way our society works.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @AaronB

  56. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    why exactly should the UBI be set low enough
     
    Because having a strong work ethic is a virtue and we wish to encourage such.

     

    Nonsense. There's nothing virtuous about doing bullshit jobs that don't need to be done. You're living in the past. It's not the 19th century any more, or even the 1950s. A large proportion of jobs in today's world are the equivalent of telling people to dig holes in he ground and then telling them to fill them in again. Meaningless bullshit jobs are morally corrosive and degrading.

    The number of jobs that actually need to be done is decreasing and will continue to decrease rapidly. Immense numbers of jobs are going to disappear in the next decade or so. Virtually all retail jobs for a start. Virtually all of the remaining manufacturing jobs. Lots of office jobs and service jobs will disappear as well.

    You're advocating that we should punish people for not working in jobs that are simply not going to exist. That kind of Puritan moralising nonsense is irrelevant to the world today.

    If we have a restricted UBI, we want the material existence of a person who works to be noticeably better than the person’s who is content to subsist solely on the UBI.
     
    Why? So you can feel morally virtuous by making life miserable for people who are not going to have jobs because those jobs have ceased to exist?

    I return to the point about birth rates, which was the original subject. If low birth rates really do represent an existential crisis then radical solutions will be needed. A generous UBI would allow women to choose to stay at home and raise children. It would allow women to opt out of the workforce and choose full-time motherhood. It would even allow men who so chose to help in raising the kids. That might actually encourage people to have large families again because they wold have the financial means and the time to devote themselves to raising children. So I ask again, do you actually want higher birth rates or not?

    Replies: @iffen, @iffen

    making life miserable for people

    No. I want each person to feel like they are pulling their own weight and have the satisfaction and feeling of independence that comes with it.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @iffen

    To do that, we would have to dismantle our machines and return to an agricultural or hunter gatherer society. I personally would quite like that (also, note that people worked only about 6 months out of the year in the Middle Ages. The rest was festivals, saints days, and waiting for harvest time. And in the short but intense harvesting season, work was a group of friends going into the fields and singing songs and joking and laughing while reaping, with multi hour breaks at the local pub for ale during the hottest parts of the day. In northern Europe sundown was very late in the summer.)

    Or we could distribute the few remaining useful jobs among the population, so maybe each person works 10 hours per week or less and only 3 days. But that is really just indulging in make believe.

    A better solution might be to to redefine our notion of work. Since machines now do most of the work needed to sustain our physical survival, we can learn to see that a group of friends gathering in a coffee shop in an afternoon to discuss philosophy or gossip is contributing to the sum total of human happiness and having positive ripple effects throughout society. Whereas an unhappy person doing a bullshit job is likely to be irritable and spread unhappines.

    Replies: @iffen

  57. Anonymous[235] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom

    There are lots of good comments on here with decent explanations. Yours, DforDoom, rings true for me as much as any of them. From all my recollection of the political world (well, in America), abortion has been an issue that the feminists have been pushing. I can't say Globalists haven't been around for long, but it sure seems like the stupidity of Feminism preceded the stupidity of Globalism.

    Just as I.D. put it, I really doubt abortion was part of a nicely laid-out plan written on paper by a cabal of permanently OTR feminists. That whole "it's my body - I'll do what I want with it" thing is pretty much all most of them feel the need to know or think about abortion to be in favor of it being legal and widespread.

    I also don't think the numbers are so overwhelming as to ruin any Globalist's plans, or really just thoughts on what he'd like the future to look like. Destruction of the nuclear family has been proceeding apace. Globalists, Communists, all of 'em, they all love it.

    I'll take this opportunity to point out Peak Stupidity's enjoyable task of fisking one of what ought to be THE SHOWCASE of Feminist stupidity for the American people to see:

    We're still on Part 3 with no end to the stupidity in sight!

    "America's Kung Flu recession, women hardest hit!":

    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Anonymous

    Both the NYT article and your series criticizing it are talking past the large majority of Americans. Some woman loves her job, gets her identity from her job, blah blah blah. That’s not 90% of women, who don’t like to work. They, just like men, are there for the money.

    And what’s with the stuff about communism? While feminism has its origins in Marxism, that’s for the history books. Today, it’s most likely to be propagated by the rich. And the claim that people aren’t considered unemployed when the unemployment payments stop is false. And then there’s the ever-annoying “bullshit jobs” narrative, another of the ideas that started with academics assuming all workplaces were as bloated and inefficient as their own. Everyone here can agree that H.R. departments produce negative value add, but they still employ a very small fraction of the population. The waitress is not a coal miner and is not and should not be paid like one. But she’s still providing a real service. The state and some monopolistic large companies can afford to hire a bunch of women to sit around the water cool and bitch and cause drama. Small firms can’t and contrary to common belief almost 2/3rds of Americans working in the private sector work for firms employing less than 1000 employees:

    https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt

    Lockdown opponents remind me of the “it’s my body – I’ll do what I want with it” thots. Neither tend to be doctrinaire libertarians who just want to mind their own business. Both tend to have long lists of groups who need to act proper, who must stop being “selfish.” But ask them to make some sacrifice and they scream “muh constitution’s being shredded, George Washington crossed the Delaware so I could be as selfish as possible and not give any consideration to anyone else!”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anonymous

    That wasn't a NY Times article, and you have so much wrong in your comment I don't know where to start. 1,000 man firms are not small business. Most of the rules kick in at 50. Also, do you know how many people work in the public sector? It's a significant portion. There are also "private sector" businesses, such as in "defense" that may be private, but because they have government contracts, must operate with the same BS rules and inefficient practices. Been there, seen it, years ago.

    How about "non-profits"? There are loads of BS jobs for women there.

    Yes, of course there are women who work just for the money, but if we hadn't had strong nuclear families being destroyed by (YES) Communists, Socialists, what-have-you for 55 years running, most of these women would not need to work for the money.

    Your opinion on people who don't like to be LOCKED DOWN (or UP, for that matter) by government is just plain asinine.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Dangling Pointer
    @Anonymous

    The original cultural marxists saw the cultural message as being a means to an end. They would undermine the traditional family structure in order to achieve a proletarian revolution. The latter day "cultural marxists" see it as an end in and of itself. Even the faculty members who self-identify as marxists see marxism more in terms of more funding for the university. They couldn't be less interested in organizing collective bargaining for steel workers. I wish people would stop talking about "cultural marxism" because it makes us look like tards to the young person who sees that it's obvious that those HR departments aren't run by communists. Look at what they're NOT saying. They'll talk about Martyr floyd, about abortion and feminism and gay pride and global warming, but they aren't saying that corporations and the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, because they know where their bread is being buttered. Liberalism is wonderful so long as it stays away from economics.

    A lot of people are just not capable of seeing politics in any other light than which existed when they were in their young adult years. It's always 1950, 1969, 1980, etc. and modern factions are just the old ideas in new uniforms. Politics, like science, ultimately progresses funeral by funeral.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  58. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    making life miserable for people

    No. I want each person to feel like they are pulling their own weight and have the satisfaction and feeling of independence that comes with it.

    Replies: @AaronB

    To do that, we would have to dismantle our machines and return to an agricultural or hunter gatherer society. I personally would quite like that (also, note that people worked only about 6 months out of the year in the Middle Ages. The rest was festivals, saints days, and waiting for harvest time. And in the short but intense harvesting season, work was a group of friends going into the fields and singing songs and joking and laughing while reaping, with multi hour breaks at the local pub for ale during the hottest parts of the day. In northern Europe sundown was very late in the summer.)

    Or we could distribute the few remaining useful jobs among the population, so maybe each person works 10 hours per week or less and only 3 days. But that is really just indulging in make believe.

    A better solution might be to to redefine our notion of work. Since machines now do most of the work needed to sustain our physical survival, we can learn to see that a group of friends gathering in a coffee shop in an afternoon to discuss philosophy or gossip is contributing to the sum total of human happiness and having positive ripple effects throughout society. Whereas an unhappy person doing a bullshit job is likely to be irritable and spread unhappines.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @iffen
    @AaronB

    AB, I have tried to get you to understand life before but to no avail. You live in the la-la land of moonbeams in a jar. The real world is material and we achieve our spirituality by attacking and bending that material world to our own ends. If we don't have a society which allows each individual to conquer that material world for themselves, we deny them a soul. Read some holy books and pay close attention to things like sweat of the brow, etc.

    Replies: @AaronB

  59. @anonymous
    ZOG is stupid* but there is a grain of a good paradox there - the Left's support for abortion is seemingly at odds with its support for demographic change.

    But I think it is just a matter of wokeness being a relatively new phenomenon and not yet completely digesting all other considerations on the left (although it is on its inexorable way). As has been noted here before, until just a few years ago, SWPLs were generally pro-gentrification, pro-police, and looked down with ironic condescension on aspects of rap culture, and thought NBA was stupid and liked alternative sports such as soccer or roller derby, or no sports.

    With the juggernaut of wokeness all of that has been overhauled recently and SWPLs will now testify that they are into expensive Nike sneakers and love Lebron and Cardi B. Abortion is probably next for an attitude change - it just hasn't been hit yet.



    * for example George Soros is anti-Israel and supports a ton of anti-Israel NGOs.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    ZOG is stupid* but there is a grain of a good paradox there – the Left’s support for abortion is seemingly at odds with its support for demographic change.

    The Left has no choice. If they don’t support abortion the feminists might wander off the leftist reservation. The single white women who are the ardent feminists (and the ardent supporters of abortion) are a demographic they can’t afford to lose.

    The Left isn’t monolithic. It’s not a single gigantic conspiracy with a single agenda. It’s a loose coalition of groups with interests that are not necessarily fully compatible with each other. Keeping that coalition together is a balancing act.

  60. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    So I ask again, do you actually want higher birth rates or not?

    Why would we want higher birthrates if there are no jobs?

    Capitalism works better if the gross economy is growing and one way to get that is population increase.

    Also, a larger population should mean that the numbers of highly capable people are greater.

    It is obvious to all of us now, but look how long it took Prometheus to figure it out and let us in on the secret. One highly capable person has the chance to change everything for us.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Why would we want higher birthrates if there are no jobs?

    Capitalism works better if the gross economy is growing and one way to get that is population increase.

    We don’t need more people to work in non-existent jobs. A capitalist economy needs more people because it needs more consumers. The idea that our purpose in life is to work is outdated. Our purpose in life is to buy stuff. Being a useful member of society does not require a person to work, it merely requires a person to consume. Machines can make all the stuff that needs to be made but machines don’t shop. Shopping is a job that only people can do.

    If you give people a generous UBI and they buy lots of stuff then they are contributing to society. They also serve who only stand and shop.

    We don’t need a work ethic any longer but we do need a consumption ethic. We no longer define ourselves by working, we define ourselves by shopping. If people don’t consume GDP won’t grow and if GDP stops growing the world will come to an end.

    This is not a view of society that appeals to moralisers and Puritans but it is increasingly the way our society works.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    This is not a view of society that appeals to moralisers and Puritans but it is increasingly the way our society works.
     
    No, it's not.

    Listen, the trope that "automation is going to take everybody's job" is a complete and utter pipe dream. It was ridiculous back in 1999 when Kurzweil was talking about his singularity---(Hey, that was supposed to be this year, right? How's that working out for you, Ray?)---and that was when it was at its most plausible. It is much more ridiculous now that the low hanging fruit of globalism and computerization has been picked and the productivity curve has inflected.

    It is not just globalism that has shot its bolt. The trend of increasing affordability, usefulness, and popularity of computer technology is also reversing. 2020 is the high water mark, the last year of all that.

    Every developed nation in the world is flat-out broke, deeply indebted, eldering and sickening. Not only will people not "not have to work" in the future, but they will be working their butts off just to break even.

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @AaronB
    @dfordoom

    Agree, but automation has already taken most of the jobs. Sure, it will take more, and perhaps that's necessary before the problem can be admitted.

    But even if automation does not take a single job more, we are already living in the era of mass unemployment, disguised by the invention of bullshit jobs.

    In the Middle Ages 99% of the population was involved in the production of food and necessities. Today it is 3%.

    Everyone should take a moment for that to sink in.

    Every modern economy is today wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of former generations. We have a massive surplus we don't know what to do with - hence all the scams and waste.

    But this is a new state of affairs. We have not yet adapted l.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  61. (People who use acronyms like “ZOG”) also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.
    By every accounting, though, these globalist elites are relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

    The ZOG, at least in America, want immigrants to replace blacks, especially in big cities. Even though blacks have great symbolic value for ZOG and urban elites, the latter would prefer to live next to non-white and non-black immigrants than with blacks. So, if abortion cuts down on black numbers, that is seen as a good thing.

    BUT, that is not the main reason as to why ZOG and elites support abortion. It’s about ‘sexual liberation’ and choice. Loose men abortion to be an option. That way, they don’t have to get married or pay big bucks to women they impregnate. Loose women want the freedom to have loose sex without having children. As so many men and women now hook up and fool around most sex happens before and outside marriage than inside marriage. Abortion is just another form of contraceptive to them or ‘postraceptive’.

    Also, Jewish elites want white women to be whores. If abortion and contraceptives were harder to come by, women will be more careful and responsible. That will turn women more conservative and cautious. To turn white women into skanky sluts who sleep around with loose men(especially black), the elites want contraceptives and abortion made available by the bushel. If the main objective of ZOG is to undermine the unity of white men and white women, it is by promoting promiscuity and adultery and the like. Make it easier for white women to experiment. That way, they will become looser and wilder and many will act like sluts, especially as Jewish Media promote stuff like ‘twerking’ and jungle fever. That will undermine white society, especially as black men are a ‘sexistential’ threat to white men.

    As for feminists, even those who don’t fool around like the idea of FREEDOM and CHOICE as a matter of emancipation from nature and ‘patriarchy’. It’s part of what they call ’empowerment’.

  62. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Why would we want higher birthrates if there are no jobs?

    Capitalism works better if the gross economy is growing and one way to get that is population increase.
     
    We don't need more people to work in non-existent jobs. A capitalist economy needs more people because it needs more consumers. The idea that our purpose in life is to work is outdated. Our purpose in life is to buy stuff. Being a useful member of society does not require a person to work, it merely requires a person to consume. Machines can make all the stuff that needs to be made but machines don't shop. Shopping is a job that only people can do.

    If you give people a generous UBI and they buy lots of stuff then they are contributing to society. They also serve who only stand and shop.

    We don't need a work ethic any longer but we do need a consumption ethic. We no longer define ourselves by working, we define ourselves by shopping. If people don't consume GDP won't grow and if GDP stops growing the world will come to an end.

    This is not a view of society that appeals to moralisers and Puritans but it is increasingly the way our society works.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @AaronB

    This is not a view of society that appeals to moralisers and Puritans but it is increasingly the way our society works.

    No, it’s not.

    Listen, the trope that “automation is going to take everybody’s job” is a complete and utter pipe dream. It was ridiculous back in 1999 when Kurzweil was talking about his singularity—(Hey, that was supposed to be this year, right? How’s that working out for you, Ray?)—and that was when it was at its most plausible. It is much more ridiculous now that the low hanging fruit of globalism and computerization has been picked and the productivity curve has inflected.

    It is not just globalism that has shot its bolt. The trend of increasing affordability, usefulness, and popularity of computer technology is also reversing. 2020 is the high water mark, the last year of all that.

    Every developed nation in the world is flat-out broke, deeply indebted, eldering and sickening. Not only will people not “not have to work” in the future, but they will be working their butts off just to break even.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The idea that a modern economy can be flat out broke is an abstract accounting notion or a problem of distribution, unless the earth has become infertile.

    Have we lost the ability to produce bread, cheese, meat, and construction materials? Every year we throw away tonnes of food. Have our machines and technologies stopped working? Are our forests and rock quarries empty?

    Famines did used to occur, and communities did indeed lack the basic stuff needed to survive. That's flat out broke.

    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.

    As Dfordoom says below - "We have failed to learn how to make things like higher education and mass media and capitalism our servants and therefore those things have become our masters."

    Similarly for the economy. The idea that we can have the exact same ability to produce the stuff needed for survival today as yesterday, but today we are broke, is to be mastered by an idea and to lose sight of the concrete.

    Alan Watts had a funny thing to say about the Great Depression - we confused our measuring of things with the things themselves. It was as if one day workers showed up to work and the boss said, sure, the construction materials are all here, but we ran out of inches and yards so you all have to go home and starve.

    And you are ignoring the point that there simply aren't productive jobs because of machines. So if we are in debt, we still won't have the opportunity to work our butts off. Maybe we can crank up the dial on our machines so they can.

    The notion that we are in debt is also abstract. In reality it is an issue of distribution. Even though there is an overabundance of the stuff needed to survive produced by technology, we decided that some people get more or less of it based on abstract social rules. We can change those rules and debt would disappear.

    Debt isn't "real" in a modern economy. It isn't like in an ancient community where there is a limited quantity of milk and eggs and chicken, and if I used your chickens all year on the promise that I will pay you back with cheese later in the year and fail to do so, you may well starve. Thats concrete.

    Debt in a modern economy are just social rules about who gets how much of the stuff produced by machines.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Intelligent Dasein

  63. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Why would we want higher birthrates if there are no jobs?

    Capitalism works better if the gross economy is growing and one way to get that is population increase.
     
    We don't need more people to work in non-existent jobs. A capitalist economy needs more people because it needs more consumers. The idea that our purpose in life is to work is outdated. Our purpose in life is to buy stuff. Being a useful member of society does not require a person to work, it merely requires a person to consume. Machines can make all the stuff that needs to be made but machines don't shop. Shopping is a job that only people can do.

    If you give people a generous UBI and they buy lots of stuff then they are contributing to society. They also serve who only stand and shop.

    We don't need a work ethic any longer but we do need a consumption ethic. We no longer define ourselves by working, we define ourselves by shopping. If people don't consume GDP won't grow and if GDP stops growing the world will come to an end.

    This is not a view of society that appeals to moralisers and Puritans but it is increasingly the way our society works.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @AaronB

    Agree, but automation has already taken most of the jobs. Sure, it will take more, and perhaps that’s necessary before the problem can be admitted.

    But even if automation does not take a single job more, we are already living in the era of mass unemployment, disguised by the invention of bullshit jobs.

    In the Middle Ages 99% of the population was involved in the production of food and necessities. Today it is 3%.

    Everyone should take a moment for that to sink in.

    Every modern economy is today wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of former generations. We have a massive surplus we don’t know what to do with – hence all the scams and waste.

    But this is a new state of affairs. We have not yet adapted l.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @AaronB


    But this is a new state of affairs. We have not yet adapted l.
     
    I agree. To be honest we haven't yet entirely adapted to the Industrial Revolution. We haven't really adapted to modernity at all.

    Now we're in the post-industrial age and we don't have a clue how to live in this new world.

    Economic conditions change rapidly. Technology changes rapidly. Human society takes a long time to adapt to such changes. Human nature takes even longer (assuming that human nature is even capable of adapting).

    The Puritan work ethic was itself a revolutionary idea. If you'd tried to explain it to an educated Englishman in the 18th century he'd have thought you were bonkers. He would have told you that paid employment was degrading. An educated 19th century Englishman would have agreed that it was a splendid idea to keep the lower orders in line but would have been horrified at the thought of adopting such a bizarre concept in his own life.

    We have failed to adapt any of our institutions to modernity. Social liberals want to throw traditional values away while social conservatives cling desperately to the social and sexual mores of the 1950s (or in some cases cling to the social and sexual mores of the pre-industrial age).

    Replies: @AaronB

  64. Some of us point out that the Leftist passion for abortion plus their self-professed love of blacks and the fact that blacks obtain abortions out of proportion to their share of the population are discordant. My guess that most of us who oppose abortion on demand do so because we consider abortion to be morally objectionable.

  65. Abortion-on-demand plus divorce-on-demand plus mother-custody …

    … kill White Christian Patriarchy dead.

  66. @Zimriel
    @Talha

    I wish people (not you) would quit using this graph to shame the West. Our energy use is clean, with natural gas and hydroelectrics. Could be even cleaner if we used nukes more.

    Replies: @Talha

    Yes, I’m not talking about the clean part, just talking per capita energy consumption.

    Peace.

  67. @Anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Both the NYT article and your series criticizing it are talking past the large majority of Americans. Some woman loves her job, gets her identity from her job, blah blah blah. That's not 90% of women, who don't like to work. They, just like men, are there for the money.

    And what's with the stuff about communism? While feminism has its origins in Marxism, that's for the history books. Today, it's most likely to be propagated by the rich. And the claim that people aren't considered unemployed when the unemployment payments stop is false. And then there's the ever-annoying "bullshit jobs" narrative, another of the ideas that started with academics assuming all workplaces were as bloated and inefficient as their own. Everyone here can agree that H.R. departments produce negative value add, but they still employ a very small fraction of the population. The waitress is not a coal miner and is not and should not be paid like one. But she's still providing a real service. The state and some monopolistic large companies can afford to hire a bunch of women to sit around the water cool and bitch and cause drama. Small firms can't and contrary to common belief almost 2/3rds of Americans working in the private sector work for firms employing less than 1000 employees:

    https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt

    Lockdown opponents remind me of the “it’s my body – I’ll do what I want with it” thots. Neither tend to be doctrinaire libertarians who just want to mind their own business. Both tend to have long lists of groups who need to act proper, who must stop being "selfish." But ask them to make some sacrifice and they scream "muh constitution's being shredded, George Washington crossed the Delaware so I could be as selfish as possible and not give any consideration to anyone else!"

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Dangling Pointer

    That wasn’t a NY Times article, and you have so much wrong in your comment I don’t know where to start. 1,000 man firms are not small business. Most of the rules kick in at 50. Also, do you know how many people work in the public sector? It’s a significant portion. There are also “private sector” businesses, such as in “defense” that may be private, but because they have government contracts, must operate with the same BS rules and inefficient practices. Been there, seen it, years ago.

    How about “non-profits”? There are loads of BS jobs for women there.

    Yes, of course there are women who work just for the money, but if we hadn’t had strong nuclear families being destroyed by (YES) Communists, Socialists, what-have-you for 55 years running, most of these women would not need to work for the money.

    Your opinion on people who don’t like to be LOCKED DOWN (or UP, for that matter) by government is just plain asinine.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Yes, of course there are women who work just for the money, but if we hadn’t had strong nuclear families being destroyed by (YES) Communists, Socialists, what-have-you for 55 years running, most of these women would not need to work for the money.
     
    To a very large extent no-one was actually to blame.

    To the extent that anyone was to blame it was mostly the corporate sector. It was capitalism that did a great deal of the damage. If you destroy the family and turn people into alienated individuals who live only to consume that's good for corporate profits.

    But mostly the destruction of the nuclear family was the end result of social and economic changes that were not planned by anyone. It was for the most part not a conspiracy.

    The Industrial Revolution followed by the transport revolution (first railways then highways) broke up traditional communities. Urbanisation broke up traditional communities as people started to desert the countryside for the cities. Christianity began its slow decline in the late 18th century. The growth of mass media undermined traditional values.

    Things got worse in the post-WW2 period but not as the result of a conspiracy. The explosion in college education (which everybody thought at the time was a good idea) undermined traditional values. The continuing exponential growth of mass media contributed as well. Democracy (which encourages greed and short-term thinking) contributed.

    Technological changes (more convenient more reliable contraception) contributed.

    The undermining of the traditional family did not start 55 years ago. It started more than a century ago.

    The reason we have a problem is that we have not adapted to those social and economic changes that started back in the 19th century. We have failed to learn how to make things like higher education and mass media and capitalism our servants and therefore those things have become our masters.
  68. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anonymous

    That wasn't a NY Times article, and you have so much wrong in your comment I don't know where to start. 1,000 man firms are not small business. Most of the rules kick in at 50. Also, do you know how many people work in the public sector? It's a significant portion. There are also "private sector" businesses, such as in "defense" that may be private, but because they have government contracts, must operate with the same BS rules and inefficient practices. Been there, seen it, years ago.

    How about "non-profits"? There are loads of BS jobs for women there.

    Yes, of course there are women who work just for the money, but if we hadn't had strong nuclear families being destroyed by (YES) Communists, Socialists, what-have-you for 55 years running, most of these women would not need to work for the money.

    Your opinion on people who don't like to be LOCKED DOWN (or UP, for that matter) by government is just plain asinine.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Yes, of course there are women who work just for the money, but if we hadn’t had strong nuclear families being destroyed by (YES) Communists, Socialists, what-have-you for 55 years running, most of these women would not need to work for the money.

    To a very large extent no-one was actually to blame.

    To the extent that anyone was to blame it was mostly the corporate sector. It was capitalism that did a great deal of the damage. If you destroy the family and turn people into alienated individuals who live only to consume that’s good for corporate profits.

    But mostly the destruction of the nuclear family was the end result of social and economic changes that were not planned by anyone. It was for the most part not a conspiracy.

    The Industrial Revolution followed by the transport revolution (first railways then highways) broke up traditional communities. Urbanisation broke up traditional communities as people started to desert the countryside for the cities. Christianity began its slow decline in the late 18th century. The growth of mass media undermined traditional values.

    Things got worse in the post-WW2 period but not as the result of a conspiracy. The explosion in college education (which everybody thought at the time was a good idea) undermined traditional values. The continuing exponential growth of mass media contributed as well. Democracy (which encourages greed and short-term thinking) contributed.

    Technological changes (more convenient more reliable contraception) contributed.

    The undermining of the traditional family did not start 55 years ago. It started more than a century ago.

    The reason we have a problem is that we have not adapted to those social and economic changes that started back in the 19th century. We have failed to learn how to make things like higher education and mass media and capitalism our servants and therefore those things have become our masters.

  69. @MalePaleStale
    @dfordoom

    I've argued that retirement plans are a large factor in reduced birth rates and the increased prominence of homosexuality. For most of human history and in much of the world today, children have been and continue to be many people's retirement plans. Even homosexuals start families when faced with the stark future that old age brings. However, retirement plans don't provide meaning to one's life nor offer a legacy.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I’ve argued that retirement plans are a large factor in reduced birth rates and the increased prominence of homosexuality. For most of human history and in much of the world today, children have been and continue to be many people’s retirement plans. Even homosexuals start families when faced with the stark future that old age brings. However, retirement plans don’t provide meaning to one’s life nor offer a legacy.

    There may be some truth in that. If we could magically turn the clock back and recreate a primarily agricultural society with no welfare we would definitely get higher birth rates.

    The one minor problem is that such a society would be horrific. Whenever people have been given the choice between living in such traditional societies or living in a modern society (with all its problems) they have overwhelmingly chosen to get the hell out of their traditional societies and join the modern world.

    Traditional societies tend to suck.

  70. @AaronB
    @iffen

    To do that, we would have to dismantle our machines and return to an agricultural or hunter gatherer society. I personally would quite like that (also, note that people worked only about 6 months out of the year in the Middle Ages. The rest was festivals, saints days, and waiting for harvest time. And in the short but intense harvesting season, work was a group of friends going into the fields and singing songs and joking and laughing while reaping, with multi hour breaks at the local pub for ale during the hottest parts of the day. In northern Europe sundown was very late in the summer.)

    Or we could distribute the few remaining useful jobs among the population, so maybe each person works 10 hours per week or less and only 3 days. But that is really just indulging in make believe.

    A better solution might be to to redefine our notion of work. Since machines now do most of the work needed to sustain our physical survival, we can learn to see that a group of friends gathering in a coffee shop in an afternoon to discuss philosophy or gossip is contributing to the sum total of human happiness and having positive ripple effects throughout society. Whereas an unhappy person doing a bullshit job is likely to be irritable and spread unhappines.

    Replies: @iffen

    AB, I have tried to get you to understand life before but to no avail. You live in the la-la land of moonbeams in a jar. The real world is material and we achieve our spirituality by attacking and bending that material world to our own ends. If we don’t have a society which allows each individual to conquer that material world for themselves, we deny them a soul. Read some holy books and pay close attention to things like sweat of the brow, etc.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @iffen

    Fair enough.

    But most jobs today don't involve bending the material world to our own ends. Even most non-bullshit jobs don't.

    Whereas if you felt as you do and had a UBI, you could take up carpentry as a hobby. Under the current system, most people who feel as you do have to do a job that doesn't involve bending the material world to our own ends, and will likely be a bullshit job.

  71. How do ZOGgers reconcile this?

    They don’t have to. Reconcile is a rational process and is not required for religious or political beliefs. Akshully, it would be detrimental to political and religious beliefs to demand reconciliation of all parts.

  72. @iffen
    @AaronB

    AB, I have tried to get you to understand life before but to no avail. You live in the la-la land of moonbeams in a jar. The real world is material and we achieve our spirituality by attacking and bending that material world to our own ends. If we don't have a society which allows each individual to conquer that material world for themselves, we deny them a soul. Read some holy books and pay close attention to things like sweat of the brow, etc.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Fair enough.

    But most jobs today don’t involve bending the material world to our own ends. Even most non-bullshit jobs don’t.

    Whereas if you felt as you do and had a UBI, you could take up carpentry as a hobby. Under the current system, most people who feel as you do have to do a job that doesn’t involve bending the material world to our own ends, and will likely be a bullshit job.

  73. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Almost Missouri

    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

    On this note:


    Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don’t want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?
     
    I will say that women have always tried to abort preganancies, one way or another. For example:

    My oldest sister got pregnant when she was in high school, and she went to Tijuana, Mexico to get an abortion in the 1960's. It was illegal in our state of California then, when I was just a boy. She was never able to have children afterward, and she believed the Mexican abortion was the reason.

    My other sister also got pregnant as a teenager shortly afterward, and she had the baby -- when she was fifteen years old. Years later, my mother told me, crying, that it was a beautiful baby girl that she would have gladly raised but was immediately put up for adoption. As a result, I have a niece somewhere that I have never known, who is now in her fifties if she is still alive. I hope she had good parents.

    So, you see, unwanted pregnancies have real-life consequences that I think get overlooked here and elsewhere.

    FWIW, we were upper-middle class and probably the kind of people everyone here would say should reproduce. That means that also we were not the kind of people everyone here seems to think never have to face this issue.

    BTW, My mother also told me that I was a surprise conceived in the backyard on a spring day. She said she knew, for whatever reason. The only boy, I was born seven years after the last of my two sisters, and a few years after a miscarriage, and I was welcomed.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    women have always tried to abort preganancies

    Yes, abortion has long, though not glorious, history.

    Industrial scale mass abortion’s history only goes back to Roe (1973) though. And it has even less glory.

    Your sister’s tragic experience with abortion not only injured your sister, but also deprived the rest of us of the fruits of your family’s self-evidently rich genetic endowment. So I say with all the compassion that cold pixels can convey that this experience hardly favors the legal sanction and cultural endorsement that abortion now enjoys.

    Even more touching is the matter of your long lost niece. One of the few moral innovations that I applaud is that nowadays families, even upper middle class families, are much more likely to embrace and raise the illegitimate child of a teenage daughter. Whatever the awkwardness, it avoids the sorrows your mother poignantly expressed. This was a much steeper slope to climb—nearly vertical—in the 1960s, so it is no fault of your sister or mother that they lived too early for this. Under the circumstances of the time, adoption may indeed have worked out the best for the girl. I will raise a glass for her this evening.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Almost Missouri

    Thank you.


    Even more touching is the matter of your long lost niece.

    I will raise a glass for her this evening.
     

    You really are eloquent. I will raise my glass of Kentucky Bourbon for her tonight as well, because you gave me the idea.

    My eyes are welling up now -- but I won't admit it. Aww, shucks. I don't want to think too much about it, because I will seize up like an engine that has run out of oil.

    I will say that if I were a billionaire like the ones who seem to be running our lives, I would find her somehow and give her everything I could. That is just one of my little fantasies...

  74. @Talha
    @neutral

    Who cares if there are 10 billion blacks on the planet? If people don't want them in their countries then it's their prerogative to have policies to control who comes in and out of their borders (whether black, white, yellow or whatever).


    To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land
     
    Who around here actually wants this? If billions of blacks live in sub-Saharan Africa in whatever condition they figure out, what business is it of anyone else's?

    As far as resources and energy consumption, sub-Saharan Africa has the smallest footprint, so the world can handle a population increase there without affecting everyone else:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgCuIJvIAAA0T6a.jpg

    Peace.

    Replies: @Zimriel, @Almost Missouri, @songbird

    If people don’t want them in their countries then it’s their prerogative to have policies to control who comes in and out of their borders

    Uh oh, have you told the government you believe in this heresy?

    • LOL: Talha
  75. @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    This is not a view of society that appeals to moralisers and Puritans but it is increasingly the way our society works.
     
    No, it's not.

    Listen, the trope that "automation is going to take everybody's job" is a complete and utter pipe dream. It was ridiculous back in 1999 when Kurzweil was talking about his singularity---(Hey, that was supposed to be this year, right? How's that working out for you, Ray?)---and that was when it was at its most plausible. It is much more ridiculous now that the low hanging fruit of globalism and computerization has been picked and the productivity curve has inflected.

    It is not just globalism that has shot its bolt. The trend of increasing affordability, usefulness, and popularity of computer technology is also reversing. 2020 is the high water mark, the last year of all that.

    Every developed nation in the world is flat-out broke, deeply indebted, eldering and sickening. Not only will people not "not have to work" in the future, but they will be working their butts off just to break even.

    Replies: @AaronB

    The idea that a modern economy can be flat out broke is an abstract accounting notion or a problem of distribution, unless the earth has become infertile.

    Have we lost the ability to produce bread, cheese, meat, and construction materials? Every year we throw away tonnes of food. Have our machines and technologies stopped working? Are our forests and rock quarries empty?

    Famines did used to occur, and communities did indeed lack the basic stuff needed to survive. That’s flat out broke.

    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.

    As Dfordoom says below – “We have failed to learn how to make things like higher education and mass media and capitalism our servants and therefore those things have become our masters.”

    Similarly for the economy. The idea that we can have the exact same ability to produce the stuff needed for survival today as yesterday, but today we are broke, is to be mastered by an idea and to lose sight of the concrete.

    Alan Watts had a funny thing to say about the Great Depression – we confused our measuring of things with the things themselves. It was as if one day workers showed up to work and the boss said, sure, the construction materials are all here, but we ran out of inches and yards so you all have to go home and starve.

    And you are ignoring the point that there simply aren’t productive jobs because of machines. So if we are in debt, we still won’t have the opportunity to work our butts off. Maybe we can crank up the dial on our machines so they can.

    The notion that we are in debt is also abstract. In reality it is an issue of distribution. Even though there is an overabundance of the stuff needed to survive produced by technology, we decided that some people get more or less of it based on abstract social rules. We can change those rules and debt would disappear.

    Debt isn’t “real” in a modern economy. It isn’t like in an ancient community where there is a limited quantity of milk and eggs and chicken, and if I used your chickens all year on the promise that I will pay you back with cheese later in the year and fail to do so, you may well starve. Thats concrete.

    Debt in a modern economy are just social rules about who gets how much of the stuff produced by machines.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @AaronB


    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.
     
    We're getting a classic example of that right now. Due to the coronavirus we're told that GDP is contracting. We're getting poorer. The whole world is getting poorer. Which seems odd. Have factories suddenly become unable to build things? Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people's wallets? Have crops stopped growing? Have oil wells suddenly run dry?

    GDP is an abstraction. There's really no such thing. It's just shuffling imaginary numbers about. Contracting of GDP is the disappearance of abstract wealth that never really existed.

    Replies: @Dangling Pointer, @Intelligent Dasein, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @AaronB

    I assure you, debt is very real in a modern economy.

  76. @AaronB
    @dfordoom

    Agree, but automation has already taken most of the jobs. Sure, it will take more, and perhaps that's necessary before the problem can be admitted.

    But even if automation does not take a single job more, we are already living in the era of mass unemployment, disguised by the invention of bullshit jobs.

    In the Middle Ages 99% of the population was involved in the production of food and necessities. Today it is 3%.

    Everyone should take a moment for that to sink in.

    Every modern economy is today wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of former generations. We have a massive surplus we don't know what to do with - hence all the scams and waste.

    But this is a new state of affairs. We have not yet adapted l.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    But this is a new state of affairs. We have not yet adapted l.

    I agree. To be honest we haven’t yet entirely adapted to the Industrial Revolution. We haven’t really adapted to modernity at all.

    Now we’re in the post-industrial age and we don’t have a clue how to live in this new world.

    Economic conditions change rapidly. Technology changes rapidly. Human society takes a long time to adapt to such changes. Human nature takes even longer (assuming that human nature is even capable of adapting).

    The Puritan work ethic was itself a revolutionary idea. If you’d tried to explain it to an educated Englishman in the 18th century he’d have thought you were bonkers. He would have told you that paid employment was degrading. An educated 19th century Englishman would have agreed that it was a splendid idea to keep the lower orders in line but would have been horrified at the thought of adopting such a bizarre concept in his own life.

    We have failed to adapt any of our institutions to modernity. Social liberals want to throw traditional values away while social conservatives cling desperately to the social and sexual mores of the 1950s (or in some cases cling to the social and sexual mores of the pre-industrial age).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @dfordoom


    The Puritan work ethic was itself a revolutionary idea. If you’d tried to explain it to an educated Englishman in the 18th century he’d have thought you were bonkers. He would have told you that paid employment was degrading.
     
    Correct. Graeber discusses at length how most cultures consider laid labor degrading.

    Iffen may wish to shape material things to our ends, but maintaining the fiction of bullshit jobs won't help him do that. A UBI would free people to do that if they wish.

    We have failed to adapt any of our institutions to modernity. Social liberals want to throw traditional values away while social conservatives cling desperately to the social and sexual mores of the 1950s (or in some cases cling to the social and sexual mores of the pre-industrial age).
     
    Agree. I am always struck by how people are just stuck in old categories. This site bills itself as new ideas, but it's just rebelling against establishment ideas, and so is still defined by them. The rebellious teenager is still defined by what he's rebelling against. I think we need to transcend old categories. Beyond Left and Right.

    Social change does happen, but at its own pace, and for reasons we don't understand. For instance why did the Puritan work ethic get created in the first place in the 17th century.

    So I'm hopeful long term, but I wonder if there is a political solution short term. UBI will happen when we're ready.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

  77. @AaronB
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The idea that a modern economy can be flat out broke is an abstract accounting notion or a problem of distribution, unless the earth has become infertile.

    Have we lost the ability to produce bread, cheese, meat, and construction materials? Every year we throw away tonnes of food. Have our machines and technologies stopped working? Are our forests and rock quarries empty?

    Famines did used to occur, and communities did indeed lack the basic stuff needed to survive. That's flat out broke.

    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.

    As Dfordoom says below - "We have failed to learn how to make things like higher education and mass media and capitalism our servants and therefore those things have become our masters."

    Similarly for the economy. The idea that we can have the exact same ability to produce the stuff needed for survival today as yesterday, but today we are broke, is to be mastered by an idea and to lose sight of the concrete.

    Alan Watts had a funny thing to say about the Great Depression - we confused our measuring of things with the things themselves. It was as if one day workers showed up to work and the boss said, sure, the construction materials are all here, but we ran out of inches and yards so you all have to go home and starve.

    And you are ignoring the point that there simply aren't productive jobs because of machines. So if we are in debt, we still won't have the opportunity to work our butts off. Maybe we can crank up the dial on our machines so they can.

    The notion that we are in debt is also abstract. In reality it is an issue of distribution. Even though there is an overabundance of the stuff needed to survive produced by technology, we decided that some people get more or less of it based on abstract social rules. We can change those rules and debt would disappear.

    Debt isn't "real" in a modern economy. It isn't like in an ancient community where there is a limited quantity of milk and eggs and chicken, and if I used your chickens all year on the promise that I will pay you back with cheese later in the year and fail to do so, you may well starve. Thats concrete.

    Debt in a modern economy are just social rules about who gets how much of the stuff produced by machines.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Intelligent Dasein

    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.

    We’re getting a classic example of that right now. Due to the coronavirus we’re told that GDP is contracting. We’re getting poorer. The whole world is getting poorer. Which seems odd. Have factories suddenly become unable to build things? Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people’s wallets? Have crops stopped growing? Have oil wells suddenly run dry?

    GDP is an abstraction. There’s really no such thing. It’s just shuffling imaginary numbers about. Contracting of GDP is the disappearance of abstract wealth that never really existed.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Dangling Pointer
    @dfordoom

    Yes, factories have been made unable to build things. Some are outright shuddered, others have had production hobbled by social distancing.

    If your argument is that that doesn't count because we should all just sicken ourselves because you're too much of a baby to handle the lock-down you deserve to be stripped of your citizenship.

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    Have factories suddenly become unable to build things?
     
    Yes.

    Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people’s wallets?
     
    Yes.

    Have crops stopped growing?
     
    Yes.

    Have oil wells suddenly run dry?
     
    Yes.

    If you're going to ask rhetorical questions that not only fly in the face of reality but do so in a manner that is widely known and uncontroversial, you have gone far beyond merely losing credibility on this and every issue. You have cast yourself as a provocateur and a pernicious sower of discord.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    Contracting of GDP is the disappearance of abstract wealth that never really existed.

    Agree emphatically.

    But when production dips more than consumption, as has happened over the last six months, real world shortages do occur, even in the staples.

  78. @AaronB
    @Intelligent Dasein

    The idea that a modern economy can be flat out broke is an abstract accounting notion or a problem of distribution, unless the earth has become infertile.

    Have we lost the ability to produce bread, cheese, meat, and construction materials? Every year we throw away tonnes of food. Have our machines and technologies stopped working? Are our forests and rock quarries empty?

    Famines did used to occur, and communities did indeed lack the basic stuff needed to survive. That's flat out broke.

    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.

    As Dfordoom says below - "We have failed to learn how to make things like higher education and mass media and capitalism our servants and therefore those things have become our masters."

    Similarly for the economy. The idea that we can have the exact same ability to produce the stuff needed for survival today as yesterday, but today we are broke, is to be mastered by an idea and to lose sight of the concrete.

    Alan Watts had a funny thing to say about the Great Depression - we confused our measuring of things with the things themselves. It was as if one day workers showed up to work and the boss said, sure, the construction materials are all here, but we ran out of inches and yards so you all have to go home and starve.

    And you are ignoring the point that there simply aren't productive jobs because of machines. So if we are in debt, we still won't have the opportunity to work our butts off. Maybe we can crank up the dial on our machines so they can.

    The notion that we are in debt is also abstract. In reality it is an issue of distribution. Even though there is an overabundance of the stuff needed to survive produced by technology, we decided that some people get more or less of it based on abstract social rules. We can change those rules and debt would disappear.

    Debt isn't "real" in a modern economy. It isn't like in an ancient community where there is a limited quantity of milk and eggs and chicken, and if I used your chickens all year on the promise that I will pay you back with cheese later in the year and fail to do so, you may well starve. Thats concrete.

    Debt in a modern economy are just social rules about who gets how much of the stuff produced by machines.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Intelligent Dasein

    I assure you, debt is very real in a modern economy.

  79. @Almost Missouri
    @Buzz Mohawk


    women have always tried to abort preganancies
     
    Yes, abortion has long, though not glorious, history.

    Industrial scale mass abortion's history only goes back to Roe (1973) though. And it has even less glory.

    Your sister's tragic experience with abortion not only injured your sister, but also deprived the rest of us of the fruits of your family's self-evidently rich genetic endowment. So I say with all the compassion that cold pixels can convey that this experience hardly favors the legal sanction and cultural endorsement that abortion now enjoys.

    Even more touching is the matter of your long lost niece. One of the few moral innovations that I applaud is that nowadays families, even upper middle class families, are much more likely to embrace and raise the illegitimate child of a teenage daughter. Whatever the awkwardness, it avoids the sorrows your mother poignantly expressed. This was a much steeper slope to climb—nearly vertical—in the 1960s, so it is no fault of your sister or mother that they lived too early for this. Under the circumstances of the time, adoption may indeed have worked out the best for the girl. I will raise a glass for her this evening.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Thank you.

    Even more touching is the matter of your long lost niece.

    I will raise a glass for her this evening.

    You really are eloquent. I will raise my glass of Kentucky Bourbon for her tonight as well, because you gave me the idea.

    My eyes are welling up now — but I won’t admit it. Aww, shucks. I don’t want to think too much about it, because I will seize up like an engine that has run out of oil.

    I will say that if I were a billionaire like the ones who seem to be running our lives, I would find her somehow and give her everything I could. That is just one of my little fantasies…

  80. You request replies from anti-Semitic readers. I am an anti-Semitic reader. Unfortunately, I have no interesting reply to give, but will answer as follows because asked.

    People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica” …

    I have used “ZOG” a few times, though never in The Unz Review as far as I remember.

    [MORE]

    … tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

    I do not know why the globalist elites want open borders, though I can guess as well as you can; but the globalist elites hardly seem dismayed by the swamping of heritage America.

    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

    Let beg off this point. Personally (by which I literally mean, in my personal life), I am pro-life; but it is not my habit to engage the topic farther afield.

    By every accounting, though, these globalist elites are relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

    True.

    How do ZOGgers reconcile this?

    I cannot. I know too little to comment intelligently.

    Your point is taken.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    My typo:


    Let beg off this point.
     
    Let me beg off this point.
  81. @V. K. Ovelund
    You request replies from anti-Semitic readers. I am an anti-Semitic reader. Unfortunately, I have no interesting reply to give, but will answer as follows because asked.

    People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica” ...
     
    I have used “ZOG” a few times, though never in The Unz Review as far as I remember.

    ... tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.
     
    I do not know why the globalist elites want open borders, though I can guess as well as you can; but the globalist elites hardly seem dismayed by the swamping of heritage America.

    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.
     
    Let beg off this point. Personally (by which I literally mean, in my personal life), I am pro-life; but it is not my habit to engage the topic farther afield.

    By every accounting, though, these globalist elites are relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.
     
    True.

    How do ZOGgers reconcile this?
     
    I cannot. I know too little to comment intelligently.

    Your point is taken.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    My typo:

    Let beg off this point.

    Let me beg off this point.

  82. @Talha
    @neutral

    Who cares if there are 10 billion blacks on the planet? If people don't want them in their countries then it's their prerogative to have policies to control who comes in and out of their borders (whether black, white, yellow or whatever).


    To want the entire world to become like any current sub Saharan land
     
    Who around here actually wants this? If billions of blacks live in sub-Saharan Africa in whatever condition they figure out, what business is it of anyone else's?

    As far as resources and energy consumption, sub-Saharan Africa has the smallest footprint, so the world can handle a population increase there without affecting everyone else:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgCuIJvIAAA0T6a.jpg

    Peace.

    Replies: @Zimriel, @Almost Missouri, @songbird

    Progressives can’t leave Africa alone. They are fully incapable of understanding that aid can be harmful, or that sometimes it is better to leave people alone. To their minds, doing so would be tantamount to admitting Africans are hopeless. They are incapable of doing that because that would mean that American blacks are hopeless.

  83. The attempt, if successful, by some Jewish pressure groups to force media to censor information about Jewish influence in the media will prove to be a bad thing for Jews and all of us.

  84. @dfordoom
    @AaronB


    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.
     
    We're getting a classic example of that right now. Due to the coronavirus we're told that GDP is contracting. We're getting poorer. The whole world is getting poorer. Which seems odd. Have factories suddenly become unable to build things? Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people's wallets? Have crops stopped growing? Have oil wells suddenly run dry?

    GDP is an abstraction. There's really no such thing. It's just shuffling imaginary numbers about. Contracting of GDP is the disappearance of abstract wealth that never really existed.

    Replies: @Dangling Pointer, @Intelligent Dasein, @Audacious Epigone

    Yes, factories have been made unable to build things. Some are outright shuddered, others have had production hobbled by social distancing.

    If your argument is that that doesn’t count because we should all just sicken ourselves because you’re too much of a baby to handle the lock-down you deserve to be stripped of your citizenship.

  85. @dfordoom
    @AaronB


    But this is a new state of affairs. We have not yet adapted l.
     
    I agree. To be honest we haven't yet entirely adapted to the Industrial Revolution. We haven't really adapted to modernity at all.

    Now we're in the post-industrial age and we don't have a clue how to live in this new world.

    Economic conditions change rapidly. Technology changes rapidly. Human society takes a long time to adapt to such changes. Human nature takes even longer (assuming that human nature is even capable of adapting).

    The Puritan work ethic was itself a revolutionary idea. If you'd tried to explain it to an educated Englishman in the 18th century he'd have thought you were bonkers. He would have told you that paid employment was degrading. An educated 19th century Englishman would have agreed that it was a splendid idea to keep the lower orders in line but would have been horrified at the thought of adopting such a bizarre concept in his own life.

    We have failed to adapt any of our institutions to modernity. Social liberals want to throw traditional values away while social conservatives cling desperately to the social and sexual mores of the 1950s (or in some cases cling to the social and sexual mores of the pre-industrial age).

    Replies: @AaronB

    The Puritan work ethic was itself a revolutionary idea. If you’d tried to explain it to an educated Englishman in the 18th century he’d have thought you were bonkers. He would have told you that paid employment was degrading.

    Correct. Graeber discusses at length how most cultures consider laid labor degrading.

    Iffen may wish to shape material things to our ends, but maintaining the fiction of bullshit jobs won’t help him do that. A UBI would free people to do that if they wish.

    We have failed to adapt any of our institutions to modernity. Social liberals want to throw traditional values away while social conservatives cling desperately to the social and sexual mores of the 1950s (or in some cases cling to the social and sexual mores of the pre-industrial age).

    Agree. I am always struck by how people are just stuck in old categories. This site bills itself as new ideas, but it’s just rebelling against establishment ideas, and so is still defined by them. The rebellious teenager is still defined by what he’s rebelling against. I think we need to transcend old categories. Beyond Left and Right.

    Social change does happen, but at its own pace, and for reasons we don’t understand. For instance why did the Puritan work ethic get created in the first place in the 17th century.

    So I’m hopeful long term, but I wonder if there is a political solution short term. UBI will happen when we’re ready.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @AaronB


    For instance why did the Puritan work ethic get created in the first place in the 17th century.
     
    It coincided with the rise of capitalism, but whether there was a direct connection (and which way the connection ran) is a question that is beyond my pay grade. But certainly the capitalists found the Puritan work ethic to be a very useful tool. They could pay people miserable wages to work outrageously long hours in ghastly jobs and then tell those people how wonderfully character-building it all was. And the capitalists didn't need to feel guilty about exploiting those workers because actually all that exploitation was good for them. Good for their souls.

    An interesting related phenomenon is the great American Rugged Individualism Myth. Sturdy pioneers clearing forests and building homesteads and planting crops without any assistance from any damned commie government. Libertarians are still heavily invested in that myth. Makes a great moral justification for not wanting to pay your taxes.
    , @iffen
    @AaronB

    Iffen may wish to shape material things to our ends,

    UBI will happen when we’re ready.

    Check the record, AB. I have been an early and eager proponent of a restricted UBI every time the subject has come up at TUR. However, it is not sufficient to just have the money to buy stuff, we need more than material things. Man does not live by bread alone. :)

    Replies: @dfordoom

  86. @Anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Both the NYT article and your series criticizing it are talking past the large majority of Americans. Some woman loves her job, gets her identity from her job, blah blah blah. That's not 90% of women, who don't like to work. They, just like men, are there for the money.

    And what's with the stuff about communism? While feminism has its origins in Marxism, that's for the history books. Today, it's most likely to be propagated by the rich. And the claim that people aren't considered unemployed when the unemployment payments stop is false. And then there's the ever-annoying "bullshit jobs" narrative, another of the ideas that started with academics assuming all workplaces were as bloated and inefficient as their own. Everyone here can agree that H.R. departments produce negative value add, but they still employ a very small fraction of the population. The waitress is not a coal miner and is not and should not be paid like one. But she's still providing a real service. The state and some monopolistic large companies can afford to hire a bunch of women to sit around the water cool and bitch and cause drama. Small firms can't and contrary to common belief almost 2/3rds of Americans working in the private sector work for firms employing less than 1000 employees:

    https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt

    Lockdown opponents remind me of the “it’s my body – I’ll do what I want with it” thots. Neither tend to be doctrinaire libertarians who just want to mind their own business. Both tend to have long lists of groups who need to act proper, who must stop being "selfish." But ask them to make some sacrifice and they scream "muh constitution's being shredded, George Washington crossed the Delaware so I could be as selfish as possible and not give any consideration to anyone else!"

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Dangling Pointer

    The original cultural marxists saw the cultural message as being a means to an end. They would undermine the traditional family structure in order to achieve a proletarian revolution. The latter day “cultural marxists” see it as an end in and of itself. Even the faculty members who self-identify as marxists see marxism more in terms of more funding for the university. They couldn’t be less interested in organizing collective bargaining for steel workers. I wish people would stop talking about “cultural marxism” because it makes us look like tards to the young person who sees that it’s obvious that those HR departments aren’t run by communists. Look at what they’re NOT saying. They’ll talk about Martyr floyd, about abortion and feminism and gay pride and global warming, but they aren’t saying that corporations and the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, because they know where their bread is being buttered. Liberalism is wonderful so long as it stays away from economics.

    A lot of people are just not capable of seeing politics in any other light than which existed when they were in their young adult years. It’s always 1950, 1969, 1980, etc. and modern factions are just the old ideas in new uniforms. Politics, like science, ultimately progresses funeral by funeral.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dangling Pointer


    A lot of people are just not capable of seeing politics in any other light than which existed when they were in their young adult years. It’s always 1950, 1969, 1980, etc. and modern factions are just the old ideas in new uniforms.
     
    Yes.

    And also social conservatism has always been driven by nostalgia. Sometimes it's nostalgia for a remembered past (which they misremember as a golden age), sometimes it's nostalgia for a largely mythical golden age.

    In Victorian times lot of people were horrified by the new industrial age, so they retreated into a mediæval fantasy past (Tennyson's poems about King Arthur, Pre-Raphaelite painting, Gothic Revival architecture). By the mid-20th century social conservatives had transformed the Victorian era itself into an idealised golden age. By the 70s social conservatives had turned the 1950s into a mythical golden age. Today there are people who look back on the 1980s as a golden age.

    The great thing about the past is that you can focus on the good stuff and conveniently forget or ignore the bad stuff.

    We can learn from past societies. We can look at the things they did well and the things they did badly. But we can't recreate those past societies.
  87. It’s a good question. I’m not sure I believe in ZOG, but if something like that does exist, I think there is a certain level of cognitive dissonance among its members. Most do not fathom the deeper implications of abortion such as controlling inner city black populations and hence crime. They want abortion for themselves and perhaps don’t mind that it annoys the heck out of the Christian Right. ; )
    The smarter ones who do understand probably don’t mind the differential impact on black populations. They have turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of blacks from SoCal by Hispanics. They have used stop and frisk to secure their own realm.

    Abortion is more a tool of political theater than an issue of substance to the fate of the nation. This and gay rights and transsexual rights are what I like to call the “theology” issues. They are used to create political theater, so that there is something for the putative left and right to fight over at election time, all the while the issues of substance, viz immigration, the borders, the trade agreements, endless wars in the Middle East, go unmentioned. These are the bedrock that both sides hold dear. Global warming is a sort of secular theology issue for the left which has been invented. Just recollect, for those old enough, the triumphalism over the defense of marriage act and all during the nineties which Gingrich built his career over. None of these issues have much impact on civilization, but pertain to the next world or to some far future. Gays are what, one percent of the population? I’ve never met a tranny. The issues have little impact on this world, but are about guilt in an unlikely afterlife for the Christian Right, hence perfect to debate.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Happy Tapir

    Abortion as a religious tenet works quite well--in both directions.

  88. @Almost Missouri
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Agree. I hardly ever see anyone use “ZOG” or “Jewmerica” here except ironically. By contrast, it is almost unanimously acknowledged that globalist elites want open borders. So these statements do not jointly define a distinction, but are almost contradictory.

    But the real tangle is


    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.
     
    I think this is meant ironically, i.e., intended to be self-discrediting. But the data don't necessarily support it. As Sailer has discussed, abortion is disproportionately lower middle class, which to the upper middle class and above looks like a lower class thing, but the real lower class don't bother with abortion much. So in reality, abortion takes a big divot out of the yeoman class of each ethnic group while sexual license makes the underclass proliferate. Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don't want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Lurker, @Audacious Epigone

    Aborting of the white yeoman babies is the omelette, the rest are the eggs?

  89. @Dangling Pointer
    @Anonymous

    The original cultural marxists saw the cultural message as being a means to an end. They would undermine the traditional family structure in order to achieve a proletarian revolution. The latter day "cultural marxists" see it as an end in and of itself. Even the faculty members who self-identify as marxists see marxism more in terms of more funding for the university. They couldn't be less interested in organizing collective bargaining for steel workers. I wish people would stop talking about "cultural marxism" because it makes us look like tards to the young person who sees that it's obvious that those HR departments aren't run by communists. Look at what they're NOT saying. They'll talk about Martyr floyd, about abortion and feminism and gay pride and global warming, but they aren't saying that corporations and the wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes, because they know where their bread is being buttered. Liberalism is wonderful so long as it stays away from economics.

    A lot of people are just not capable of seeing politics in any other light than which existed when they were in their young adult years. It's always 1950, 1969, 1980, etc. and modern factions are just the old ideas in new uniforms. Politics, like science, ultimately progresses funeral by funeral.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    A lot of people are just not capable of seeing politics in any other light than which existed when they were in their young adult years. It’s always 1950, 1969, 1980, etc. and modern factions are just the old ideas in new uniforms.

    Yes.

    And also social conservatism has always been driven by nostalgia. Sometimes it’s nostalgia for a remembered past (which they misremember as a golden age), sometimes it’s nostalgia for a largely mythical golden age.

    In Victorian times lot of people were horrified by the new industrial age, so they retreated into a mediæval fantasy past (Tennyson’s poems about King Arthur, Pre-Raphaelite painting, Gothic Revival architecture). By the mid-20th century social conservatives had transformed the Victorian era itself into an idealised golden age. By the 70s social conservatives had turned the 1950s into a mythical golden age. Today there are people who look back on the 1980s as a golden age.

    The great thing about the past is that you can focus on the good stuff and conveniently forget or ignore the bad stuff.

    We can learn from past societies. We can look at the things they did well and the things they did badly. But we can’t recreate those past societies.

    • Agree: Yahya K.
  90. @AaronB
    @dfordoom


    The Puritan work ethic was itself a revolutionary idea. If you’d tried to explain it to an educated Englishman in the 18th century he’d have thought you were bonkers. He would have told you that paid employment was degrading.
     
    Correct. Graeber discusses at length how most cultures consider laid labor degrading.

    Iffen may wish to shape material things to our ends, but maintaining the fiction of bullshit jobs won't help him do that. A UBI would free people to do that if they wish.

    We have failed to adapt any of our institutions to modernity. Social liberals want to throw traditional values away while social conservatives cling desperately to the social and sexual mores of the 1950s (or in some cases cling to the social and sexual mores of the pre-industrial age).
     
    Agree. I am always struck by how people are just stuck in old categories. This site bills itself as new ideas, but it's just rebelling against establishment ideas, and so is still defined by them. The rebellious teenager is still defined by what he's rebelling against. I think we need to transcend old categories. Beyond Left and Right.

    Social change does happen, but at its own pace, and for reasons we don't understand. For instance why did the Puritan work ethic get created in the first place in the 17th century.

    So I'm hopeful long term, but I wonder if there is a political solution short term. UBI will happen when we're ready.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    For instance why did the Puritan work ethic get created in the first place in the 17th century.

    It coincided with the rise of capitalism, but whether there was a direct connection (and which way the connection ran) is a question that is beyond my pay grade. But certainly the capitalists found the Puritan work ethic to be a very useful tool. They could pay people miserable wages to work outrageously long hours in ghastly jobs and then tell those people how wonderfully character-building it all was. And the capitalists didn’t need to feel guilty about exploiting those workers because actually all that exploitation was good for them. Good for their souls.

    An interesting related phenomenon is the great American Rugged Individualism Myth. Sturdy pioneers clearing forests and building homesteads and planting crops without any assistance from any damned commie government. Libertarians are still heavily invested in that myth. Makes a great moral justification for not wanting to pay your taxes.

  91. @dfordoom
    @AaronB


    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.
     
    We're getting a classic example of that right now. Due to the coronavirus we're told that GDP is contracting. We're getting poorer. The whole world is getting poorer. Which seems odd. Have factories suddenly become unable to build things? Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people's wallets? Have crops stopped growing? Have oil wells suddenly run dry?

    GDP is an abstraction. There's really no such thing. It's just shuffling imaginary numbers about. Contracting of GDP is the disappearance of abstract wealth that never really existed.

    Replies: @Dangling Pointer, @Intelligent Dasein, @Audacious Epigone

    Have factories suddenly become unable to build things?

    Yes.

    Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people’s wallets?

    Yes.

    Have crops stopped growing?

    Yes.

    Have oil wells suddenly run dry?

    Yes.

    If you’re going to ask rhetorical questions that not only fly in the face of reality but do so in a manner that is widely known and uncontroversial, you have gone far beyond merely losing credibility on this and every issue. You have cast yourself as a provocateur and a pernicious sower of discord.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Doom is not pernicious!

  92. @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom


    Have factories suddenly become unable to build things?
     
    Yes.

    Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people’s wallets?
     
    Yes.

    Have crops stopped growing?
     
    Yes.

    Have oil wells suddenly run dry?
     
    Yes.

    If you're going to ask rhetorical questions that not only fly in the face of reality but do so in a manner that is widely known and uncontroversial, you have gone far beyond merely losing credibility on this and every issue. You have cast yourself as a provocateur and a pernicious sower of discord.

    Replies: @iffen

    Doom is not pernicious!

  93. @AaronB
    @dfordoom


    The Puritan work ethic was itself a revolutionary idea. If you’d tried to explain it to an educated Englishman in the 18th century he’d have thought you were bonkers. He would have told you that paid employment was degrading.
     
    Correct. Graeber discusses at length how most cultures consider laid labor degrading.

    Iffen may wish to shape material things to our ends, but maintaining the fiction of bullshit jobs won't help him do that. A UBI would free people to do that if they wish.

    We have failed to adapt any of our institutions to modernity. Social liberals want to throw traditional values away while social conservatives cling desperately to the social and sexual mores of the 1950s (or in some cases cling to the social and sexual mores of the pre-industrial age).
     
    Agree. I am always struck by how people are just stuck in old categories. This site bills itself as new ideas, but it's just rebelling against establishment ideas, and so is still defined by them. The rebellious teenager is still defined by what he's rebelling against. I think we need to transcend old categories. Beyond Left and Right.

    Social change does happen, but at its own pace, and for reasons we don't understand. For instance why did the Puritan work ethic get created in the first place in the 17th century.

    So I'm hopeful long term, but I wonder if there is a political solution short term. UBI will happen when we're ready.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    Iffen may wish to shape material things to our ends,

    UBI will happen when we’re ready.

    Check the record, AB. I have been an early and eager proponent of a restricted UBI every time the subject has come up at TUR. However, it is not sufficient to just have the money to buy stuff, we need more than material things. Man does not live by bread alone. 🙂

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    However, it is not sufficient to just have the money to buy stuff, we need more than material things. Man does not live by bread alone.
     
    Worrying about those non-material things is a luxury generally only available to people who already have as many material things as they need or desire. Give people financial security and they can then start to concern themselves with those higher non-material things.

    Of course many people think they need a lot more material things than they actually do need, but a base level of financial security is still necessary if you want to live with dignity and feel that life is worth living.

    Replies: @iffen

  94. @iffen
    @AaronB

    Iffen may wish to shape material things to our ends,

    UBI will happen when we’re ready.

    Check the record, AB. I have been an early and eager proponent of a restricted UBI every time the subject has come up at TUR. However, it is not sufficient to just have the money to buy stuff, we need more than material things. Man does not live by bread alone. :)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    However, it is not sufficient to just have the money to buy stuff, we need more than material things. Man does not live by bread alone.

    Worrying about those non-material things is a luxury generally only available to people who already have as many material things as they need or desire. Give people financial security and they can then start to concern themselves with those higher non-material things.

    Of course many people think they need a lot more material things than they actually do need, but a base level of financial security is still necessary if you want to live with dignity and feel that life is worth living.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Give people financial security and they can then start to concern themselves with those higher non-material things.

    A workers' opera house or library on every corner!

    a base level of financial security

    It is gratifying that you have come around to my POV.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  95. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    However, it is not sufficient to just have the money to buy stuff, we need more than material things. Man does not live by bread alone.
     
    Worrying about those non-material things is a luxury generally only available to people who already have as many material things as they need or desire. Give people financial security and they can then start to concern themselves with those higher non-material things.

    Of course many people think they need a lot more material things than they actually do need, but a base level of financial security is still necessary if you want to live with dignity and feel that life is worth living.

    Replies: @iffen

    Give people financial security and they can then start to concern themselves with those higher non-material things.

    A workers’ opera house or library on every corner!

    a base level of financial security

    It is gratifying that you have come around to my POV.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    a base level of financial security
     
    It is gratifying that you have come around to my POV.
     
    As always the devil is in the details. Your idea of financial security seems to be "enough to prevent starvation" while mine is "enough to live in reasonable comfort" but we can of course argue indefinitely on how much each of those things require. The easiest solution would be for you to suggest a figure. Then I'll propose quadrupling it. Then we can compromise on double your proposed figure.
  96. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Give people financial security and they can then start to concern themselves with those higher non-material things.

    A workers' opera house or library on every corner!

    a base level of financial security

    It is gratifying that you have come around to my POV.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    a base level of financial security

    It is gratifying that you have come around to my POV.

    As always the devil is in the details. Your idea of financial security seems to be “enough to prevent starvation” while mine is “enough to live in reasonable comfort” but we can of course argue indefinitely on how much each of those things require. The easiest solution would be for you to suggest a figure. Then I’ll propose quadrupling it. Then we can compromise on double your proposed figure.

  97. “How do ZOGgers reconcile this?”

    Globalist elites are hypocrites, and believe many things that are not true, and act on those beliefs.

    This is really not very complicated.

  98. @Philip Neal
    @Intelligent Dasein

    I find the question ill-phrased.

    Who says that "restricting abortion is bad"?

    Is it supposed to be American Jews? Or is it supposed to be American gentiles who genuinely believe that Jews, as a body of people, take orders from a Jewish government which can subordinate not only most Jews but the real government to its will?

    If the question is why Jews in high places favour both abortion rights and open borders, the answer is simple. Halakhah - Jewish law. Under certain circumstances which often occur, it can be a Jewish religious obligation to procure an abortion and equally to take up residence in a new country whether its laws allow you to or not. (And, with defined exceptions, if a Jew is permitted to do something, so is a gentile.)

    Why Christians want restrictions on abortion is also no riddle. Christ is supposed, as a matter of factual belief, to have been alive in the womb. There is a presumption that a foetus is a human child, only to be overriden in specified circumstances, if at all.

    This leaves only one puzzle. Why do American Christians oppose both abortion and immigration? I am not an American, but the obvious answer is "Why on earth should they?" When a new, healthy baby is born in my family I rejoice that a new relative, a new Englishman or woman has entered the world, someone who will one day loudly disagree with my opinions and still laugh at my jokes. We all love our own just slightly more than others, and if there are fewer of our own we will find ourselves loving our country that bit less.

    Replies: @Dissident

    The bracketed numbers I have interspersed at various points in my writing refer to notes that appear at the end of my post.

    If the question is why Jews in high places favour both abortion rights and open borders, the answer is simple. Halakhah – Jewish law.

    Few Jews in high places care about halakhah (or even purport to). Outside of Israel at least, the influence wielded by halakhically-observant Jews seldom extends beyond local positions within and representing their own parochial communities.[1]

    Under certain circumstances which often occur, it can be a Jewish religious obligation to procure an abortion

    Halakhah generally prohibits abortion except in cases where necessary to save the life of the mother. In such cases, abortion would not be merely permitted but indeed required.[2] Such cases are the exception; not the rule. I do not believe that they “often occur” but rather relatively rarely.

    [MORE]

    Moreover, I believe that such rarity may account, at least in large part, for what appears to me to be a general, overall relative lack of political involvement on the part of Orthodox Jews in the area of abortion. From my observation and experience at least, most simply do not perceive the legal status of abortion as a matter of much relevance to them. There are notable exceptions, though.[3]

    it can be a Jewish religious obligation…to take up residence in a new country whether its laws allow you to or not.

    The circumstances in which I can imagine that being true would pretty-much be limited-to cases where doing so was necessary in order to preserve one’s life, or to continue living as a faithful, religious Jew. Such cases, under normal circumstances, would be rare.[4] At any rate, as per what I pointed-out above, these or any other halakhic considerations are simply irrelevant for at least the overwhelming majority of Jews who are active and influential in promoting liberal immigration policy. For said Jews overwhelmingly simply ignore halakhah.

    Or is it supposed to be American gentiles who genuinely believe that Jews, as a body of people, take orders from a Jewish government which can subordinate not only most Jews but the real government to its will?

    Roughly what percentage of Americans would you reckon genuinely hold such a belief?

    We– i.e., those of us who identify as Jews– cannot even agree upon how to define one.[5] The notion that there is some central “Jewish government” that we all even so much as recognize, let alone would take orders from, is laughable. (Even, or perhaps especially, the segment of Jewry that identifies as Orthodox is highly fractured and factionalized.)

    Why Christians want restrictions on abortion is also no riddle. Christ is supposed, as a matter of factual belief, to have been alive in the womb. There is a presumption that a foetus is a human child, only to be overriden in specified circumstances, if at all.

    The third and final of your three statements that I quoted above is obviously true of at least many Christians. I do not, however, see the relevance of your preceding statement. It would be a surprise to me to learn that the Christian belief that life begins at conception is derived from the seemingly obvious fact that you state concerning their savior.

    Why do American Christians oppose both abortion and immigration?

    In fact, a large percentage of Americans who identify as Christian support both a legal right to abortion and liberal immigration policy. The latter, at least, is the official position of what may very well be every nominally Christian mainstream religious entity in the U.S. of any size and influence.

    NOTES:
    [1] The Orthodox are pretty-much the only Jews who even take halakhah seriously at all. This highly rigorous body of numerous and intricate restrictions, obligations and regulations of everyday life in traditional Judaism has been openly abrogated by The Reform, Reconstructionist and Renewal movements. “Conservative Judaism” (TM; big-C) purports to uphold halakhah, only to take a more lenient, flexible and balanced and enlightened approach in its interpretation and application than the Orthodox do. As anyone at all familiar with the facts on the ground, however, could readily attest, the number of Conservative-affiliated Jews who take even their own movement’s greatly abridged and diluted version of halakhah seriously is vanishingly small.

    [2] Some authorities, at least, extend this concept to include the mental health of the mother. The general principle here is that the mother’s life is viewed as primary against the potential or incipient life of the fetus.

    [3] Perhaps the most prominent and conspicuous one is Rabbi Yehuda Levin. Rabbi Levin’s record of direct involvement in the pro-life movement includes running at one time as the right-to-life candidate against New York City Mayor Ed Koch.

    [4] The general rule is that we must obey the Law of the Land wherever we live unless doing so would violate our religious duty. Thankfully, in most places where sizable populations of Jews reside, it has for some time already been no more than rarely that such conflicts have presented themselves. In this vein, let me take the opportunity to once again reiterate that I feel a debt of gratitude to a mostly white, mostly Christian United States of America for the extraordinary tolerance, acceptance and kindness that, as Jews, it has shown myself, my family, and my people.

    [5] As an Orthodox Jew myself, the only definition I recognize as absolute and inherent is a strictly religious one: A Jew is one born to a Jewish mother, or one who has undergone a halakhically valid process of conversion. This definition, however, clearly excludes what are a not-insignificant number of individuals who not only emphatically self-identify as Jews but who would be and are identified, both favorably as well as unfavorably, by others as such. (A reality with far-reaching implications that cannot be ignored.) Moreover, there are many cases in which traditional Judaism views those whom it views as Jews but particularly wicked or depraved ones considerably less favorably than it views even ordinary non-Jews, let alone those who are deemed righteous. This, along with the fact that conversion is open to individuals of nearly every racial, ethnic, national or religious origin, are facts about Judaism that are conveniently elided by many of those who characterize it as overwhelmingly, or even entirely tribal.

  99. @Buzz Mohawk
    Huh?

    Let's see, here we have four different things set before us on a plate together. If we untangle the spaghetti, we get:

    People who use acronyms like “ZOG” and neologisms like “Jewmerica.”

    People who tell us the globalist elites want open borders to culturally and politically swamp heritage America.

    People who tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.

    Globalist elites relentlessly in favor of unfettered, subsidized access to abortion.

    The question assumes that all of these things are somehow connected, and it does so in a way that suggests they are always and necessarily connected.

    It's like asking why all salamanders have three legs and play the banjo if three legs are not conducive to crawling and the banjo just gets in the way.

    Pointless and misleading.

    You don't have to be a "ZOG" user to wonder why elites want massive immigration and to notice that their program is swamping heritage America.

    You also don't have to care who uses abortion to believe that it should be legal within limits, nor do you have to be one of the globalist elite.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Almost Missouri, @Audacious Epigone

    Tradcons don’t support abortion, nor does anyone really on the right for that matter except for some neocons and ZOGgers–that isn’t intended to be a derogatory term, I’m unsure of what the preferred term is for people who focus on Jewish world domination as a serious threat–so that’s the placeholder term.

    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America while also zealously–and we’re about to see just how zealously over the next month–defending abortion rights?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America
     
    Many reasons. They see it as good for the corporate bottom line. They think immigrants will give them a more docile workforce with less chance of a revival of union power (which may well be the main reason the corporate sector backed feminism). You have to keep in mind that the global elite are very right-wing on economic issues. In their eyes the major rôle for government is to support capitalism and bail out corporations that make bad decisions. The idea that the global elite are actual communists or Marxists is patently absurd.

    American elites want immigration because that means higher GDP which strengthens the American Empire. Many Non-American elites also favour a global American empire.

    while also zealously–and we’re about to see just how zealously over the next month–defending abortion rights?
     
    If they don't defend abortion rights they risk losing the support of the feminists. They need the support of young single women - they represent a key component in the Coalition of the Fringes. It doesn't mean they actually care about the issue. They don't give a damn about blacks but they support BLM and affirmative action because it keeps blacks safely within the the Coalition of the Fringes.

    It isn't really a conspiracy. It's just mega-corporations and billionaires and bankers and their hangers-on acting out of what they perceive to be rational self-interest. For the most part they don't actually have any ideals or beliefs other than protecting their own interests. Why are corporations Woke? Because they believe it's in their interests to be Woke. They'll support anything that serves their interests.

    There are some True Believers in the worlds of art and academia but they're not the ones controlling the money so they're really just useful idiots.

    The feminists are very much useful idiots.

    The people with power and money support other crazy feminist ideas (like having more women in political office) because it makes governments more compliant and easier to control.

    European elites seem to be a bit different compared to American elites (globalists are not as monolithic as some people think) because the gigantic EU bureaucracy is a huge source of patronage.

    Elites simply act to advance their own interests.
    , @iffen
    @Audacious Epigone


    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America while also zealously–and we’re about to see just how zealously over the next month–defending abortion rights?
     
    Because open borders is the objective and they "need" political support which they can't get unless they are pro-abortion. (Just ask Joe Biden)

    Replies: @dfordoom

  100. @Ano
    Isn't it a case the two are not mutually exclusive?

    It's commonly said the elite/upper class (which of course is over-representedly made up of the Ashkenazi overclass) want docile industrious little brown and yellow people as a servile lumpenproletariat service-worker class, rather than employing the disfunctional lumpen negrotariat.

    The rich don't want the American negro anywhere near them, nor near their kids, nor around their homes.

    Before importing pliant little brown people as servants and service workers, it's true, the rich had little choice but to employ negroes and negresses as nannies, maids, kitchen staff, housekeepers, gardeners, chauffeurs, etc etc- and so had to deal with their chips on their shoulders, attitude, combustible volatile natures etc etc.

    Nor do the rich want to employ the negro in their factories/plants- not when you can employ all those little Asiatic people (whether in China, or Vietnam, or Bangladesh, etc etc) in your sweatshops who will obediently go to the toilet when permitted, and unprotestingly die behind the locked doors when your sweatshop goes up in flames.

    Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood clinics in ghettoes serve to cull ghetto negro numbers to a size which is nicely fit to purpose for their elite massas (again, the Ashkenazi overclass features prominently it is undeniable), for the violence and social chaos of the lumpen negrotariat serves its uses (for now) as the war part in the elites ongoing class warfare on the lumpen whitetariat.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    So if sub-Saharan Africa wants to come to the US in the next century, the elites will stop it?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone


    So if sub-Saharan Africa wants to come to the US in the next century, the elites will stop it?
     
    They'll make a judgment based on whether they think it serves their interests. Would massive sub-Saharan African immigration increase GDP (and therefore the power of the American Empire) or reduce it?

    Elites do not have principles, they have interests.
  101. @Almost Missouri
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Agree. I hardly ever see anyone use “ZOG” or “Jewmerica” here except ironically. By contrast, it is almost unanimously acknowledged that globalist elites want open borders. So these statements do not jointly define a distinction, but are almost contradictory.

    But the real tangle is


    They also tell us restricting abortion is bad because poor, dysfunctional, welfare-using non-whites disproportionately utilize it.
     
    I think this is meant ironically, i.e., intended to be self-discrediting. But the data don't necessarily support it. As Sailer has discussed, abortion is disproportionately lower middle class, which to the upper middle class and above looks like a lower class thing, but the real lower class don't bother with abortion much. So in reality, abortion takes a big divot out of the yeoman class of each ethnic group while sexual license makes the underclass proliferate. Or, to put the matter more simply for those who don't want to burrow into a lot of stats, were births more eugenic before or after the enactment of mass abortion?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Lurker, @Audacious Epigone

    You’re approaching my priors.

  102. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    If you want high birth rates then probably the only way to achieve that would be to take those other attractive options away from people.
     
    Are you sure that you are not a reactionary?

    Why can’t we have both less-filling and great taste?
     
    I'm not saying that financial incentives are a bad idea but you're going to need to do things that are a lot more radical than the things you've suggested.

    Firstly, if you want high birth rates you have to get women out of the workforce and back into the home. That means you need to restore the one-income family as the bedrock of society. You're not going to get significantly higher birth rates unless a man can earn enough to support a wife and two or three kids entirely from his own income.

    Secondly, we need to revise our whole attitude towards work. The idea that our worth is defined by the jobs we do will need to be trashed. We will need to accept that an enormous proportion of the jobs that people do are, as AaronB correctly pointed out elsewhere, bullshit jobs. Those jobs do not need to be done, by anybody. It is absurd to define one's worth in terms of a meaningless unnecessary job. One of the major problems we face is that women today define their worth on the basis of jobs that are complete bullshit.

    We actually need a relatively small workforce. If we can get people to realise that doing a bullshit job is ultimately soul-destroying then maybe they'll start looking for more satisfying things to do. Like raising children. Eliminate the bullshit jobs and pay everybody a generous UBI and maybe raising kids will start to look like an attractive option.

    Thirdly, we need to close down at least three-quarters of our universities. Not only is there such a thing as a bullshit job, there is also such a thing as a bullshit education. People are wasting their lives on bullshit educations.

    These things represent radical solutions but they might well work.

    I'm a radical reactionary!

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    Thirdly, we need to close down at least three-quarters of our universities. Not only is there such a thing as a bullshit job, there is also such a thing as a bullshit education. People are wasting their lives on bullshit educations.

    The Covid cloud has a few silver linings.

  103. @John Regan
    @dfordoom

    Even in countries where Jews are few in absolute numbers, they still tend to dominate the media through corruption and oligarchy. For example, Sweden is often brought up as an example of a trainwreck in a country without Jews. Yet as I found out when I checked this claim, a Jewish oligarch family "just so happens" to own almost the entire Swedish media. Quite a coincidence in a country where Jews make up 0.1 or so percent of the population.

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

    In fact, are there actually any countries without Jewish influence that support open borders? Serious question. Replacement level immigrationism seems to be mostly or entirely something that afflicts Western countries. And all Western countries have powerful Jewish minorities.

    Japan may be the arguable exception to the pattern, with Cultural Marxism on the rise in a non-white country for the first time, but most of this can still be ascribed to "American" influence by proxies: "American" corporations buying up their companies, "American" academia poisoning theirs, and of course endless torrents of "American" diversity propaganda from Hollywood and friends. And even so, Japan is still nowhere close to becoming such a disaster as America already is.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Singapore and some countries in Latin America, like Paraguay and Costa Rica.

  104. @dfordoom
    @AaronB


    We are confusing the abstract with the concrete. You are mistaking ideas for reality. As long as our technologies and our labor can produce the stuff we need to survive on abundance, we are wealthy.
     
    We're getting a classic example of that right now. Due to the coronavirus we're told that GDP is contracting. We're getting poorer. The whole world is getting poorer. Which seems odd. Have factories suddenly become unable to build things? Have bank notes suddenly started disappearing from people's wallets? Have crops stopped growing? Have oil wells suddenly run dry?

    GDP is an abstraction. There's really no such thing. It's just shuffling imaginary numbers about. Contracting of GDP is the disappearance of abstract wealth that never really existed.

    Replies: @Dangling Pointer, @Intelligent Dasein, @Audacious Epigone

    Contracting of GDP is the disappearance of abstract wealth that never really existed.

    Agree emphatically.

    But when production dips more than consumption, as has happened over the last six months, real world shortages do occur, even in the staples.

  105. @Happy Tapir
    It’s a good question. I’m not sure I believe in ZOG, but if something like that does exist, I think there is a certain level of cognitive dissonance among its members. Most do not fathom the deeper implications of abortion such as controlling inner city black populations and hence crime. They want abortion for themselves and perhaps don’t mind that it annoys the heck out of the Christian Right. ; )
    The smarter ones who do understand probably don’t mind the differential impact on black populations. They have turned a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing of blacks from SoCal by Hispanics. They have used stop and frisk to secure their own realm.

    Abortion is more a tool of political theater than an issue of substance to the fate of the nation. This and gay rights and transsexual rights are what I like to call the “theology” issues. They are used to create political theater, so that there is something for the putative left and right to fight over at election time, all the while the issues of substance, viz immigration, the borders, the trade agreements, endless wars in the Middle East, go unmentioned. These are the bedrock that both sides hold dear. Global warming is a sort of secular theology issue for the left which has been invented. Just recollect, for those old enough, the triumphalism over the defense of marriage act and all during the nineties which Gingrich built his career over. None of these issues have much impact on civilization, but pertain to the next world or to some far future. Gays are what, one percent of the population? I’ve never met a tranny. The issues have little impact on this world, but are about guilt in an unlikely afterlife for the Christian Right, hence perfect to debate.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Abortion as a religious tenet works quite well–in both directions.

  106. @Audacious Epigone
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Tradcons don't support abortion, nor does anyone really on the right for that matter except for some neocons and ZOGgers--that isn't intended to be a derogatory term, I'm unsure of what the preferred term is for people who focus on Jewish world domination as a serious threat--so that's the placeholder term.

    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America while also zealously--and we're about to see just how zealously over the next month--defending abortion rights?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America

    Many reasons. They see it as good for the corporate bottom line. They think immigrants will give them a more docile workforce with less chance of a revival of union power (which may well be the main reason the corporate sector backed feminism). You have to keep in mind that the global elite are very right-wing on economic issues. In their eyes the major rôle for government is to support capitalism and bail out corporations that make bad decisions. The idea that the global elite are actual communists or Marxists is patently absurd.

    American elites want immigration because that means higher GDP which strengthens the American Empire. Many Non-American elites also favour a global American empire.

    while also zealously–and we’re about to see just how zealously over the next month–defending abortion rights?

    If they don’t defend abortion rights they risk losing the support of the feminists. They need the support of young single women – they represent a key component in the Coalition of the Fringes. It doesn’t mean they actually care about the issue. They don’t give a damn about blacks but they support BLM and affirmative action because it keeps blacks safely within the the Coalition of the Fringes.

    It isn’t really a conspiracy. It’s just mega-corporations and billionaires and bankers and their hangers-on acting out of what they perceive to be rational self-interest. For the most part they don’t actually have any ideals or beliefs other than protecting their own interests. Why are corporations Woke? Because they believe it’s in their interests to be Woke. They’ll support anything that serves their interests.

    There are some True Believers in the worlds of art and academia but they’re not the ones controlling the money so they’re really just useful idiots.

    The feminists are very much useful idiots.

    The people with power and money support other crazy feminist ideas (like having more women in political office) because it makes governments more compliant and easier to control.

    European elites seem to be a bit different compared to American elites (globalists are not as monolithic as some people think) because the gigantic EU bureaucracy is a huge source of patronage.

    Elites simply act to advance their own interests.

  107. @Audacious Epigone
    @Ano

    So if sub-Saharan Africa wants to come to the US in the next century, the elites will stop it?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    So if sub-Saharan Africa wants to come to the US in the next century, the elites will stop it?

    They’ll make a judgment based on whether they think it serves their interests. Would massive sub-Saharan African immigration increase GDP (and therefore the power of the American Empire) or reduce it?

    Elites do not have principles, they have interests.

    • Agree: iffen
  108. @Audacious Epigone
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Tradcons don't support abortion, nor does anyone really on the right for that matter except for some neocons and ZOGgers--that isn't intended to be a derogatory term, I'm unsure of what the preferred term is for people who focus on Jewish world domination as a serious threat--so that's the placeholder term.

    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America while also zealously--and we're about to see just how zealously over the next month--defending abortion rights?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America while also zealously–and we’re about to see just how zealously over the next month–defending abortion rights?

    Because open borders is the objective and they “need” political support which they can’t get unless they are pro-abortion. (Just ask Joe Biden)

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Because open borders is the objective and they “need” political support which they can’t get unless they are pro-abortion. (Just ask Joe Biden)
     
    True.

    But open borders is not the actual objective. It's just a means to an end. It's not the ultimate objective.

    I don't believe globalists are monolithic about this. I think there are various globalist factions that have different ultimate objectives. For some the final objective is nothing more than increased corporate power and profits. For some the objective is to increase the power of international bureaucracies like the EU. For some the objective is simply a global American empire.

    Those who want global American empire also have slightly differing final objectives. Either to serve the purposes of the military-industrial complex or to serve nefarious neocon purposes. Or for some the final objective is to enforce the LGBT agenda on the entire globe.

    There are also some whose ultimate objective is some crazy environmentalist fantasy.

    We're not dealing with a single evil genius like Ernst Stavro Blofeld with a plan for world domination. We're not dealing with an organisation like SPECTRE with a coherent plan. With globalism we're dealing with an assortment of individuals and groups with their own agendas.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

  109. @iffen
    @Audacious Epigone


    To cut to the heart of the issue, though, why does the global elite want open borders to swamp heritage America while also zealously–and we’re about to see just how zealously over the next month–defending abortion rights?
     
    Because open borders is the objective and they "need" political support which they can't get unless they are pro-abortion. (Just ask Joe Biden)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Because open borders is the objective and they “need” political support which they can’t get unless they are pro-abortion. (Just ask Joe Biden)

    True.

    But open borders is not the actual objective. It’s just a means to an end. It’s not the ultimate objective.

    I don’t believe globalists are monolithic about this. I think there are various globalist factions that have different ultimate objectives. For some the final objective is nothing more than increased corporate power and profits. For some the objective is to increase the power of international bureaucracies like the EU. For some the objective is simply a global American empire.

    Those who want global American empire also have slightly differing final objectives. Either to serve the purposes of the military-industrial complex or to serve nefarious neocon purposes. Or for some the final objective is to enforce the LGBT agenda on the entire globe.

    There are also some whose ultimate objective is some crazy environmentalist fantasy.

    We’re not dealing with a single evil genius like Ernst Stavro Blofeld with a plan for world domination. We’re not dealing with an organisation like SPECTRE with a coherent plan. With globalism we’re dealing with an assortment of individuals and groups with their own agendas.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Elites are not committed to any one form of rule or political behavior; they are only committed to the enhancement and security of their position. If nation states are the best option, they will pursue the creation and maintenance of nation states. (European and Anglo elites have decided that borders and nation states are a hindrance, while most of the elites in the rest of the world still see a value to themselves in maintaining a nation state.) They are, by no means, perfect decision makers but they are usually rational. They have no feelings or virtues. They make plenty of mistakes, but have such power and resources that they can almost always recover from their mistakes. Right now they are in a tizzy over control of the media and information flow, but I really don’t know why. I think that their fears of the populace doing something detrimental to them just because we have a free flow of information and learning are unfounded. The truth will not set you free; it just helps you reconcile yourself to your fate.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    I largely agree with you, especially regarding the disparate nature of the elites. That is why this post was ostensibly addressed to ZOGgers and other one-world government types who operate as though there is some coordinated plan. How do they square this apparent circle?

  110. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Because open borders is the objective and they “need” political support which they can’t get unless they are pro-abortion. (Just ask Joe Biden)
     
    True.

    But open borders is not the actual objective. It's just a means to an end. It's not the ultimate objective.

    I don't believe globalists are monolithic about this. I think there are various globalist factions that have different ultimate objectives. For some the final objective is nothing more than increased corporate power and profits. For some the objective is to increase the power of international bureaucracies like the EU. For some the objective is simply a global American empire.

    Those who want global American empire also have slightly differing final objectives. Either to serve the purposes of the military-industrial complex or to serve nefarious neocon purposes. Or for some the final objective is to enforce the LGBT agenda on the entire globe.

    There are also some whose ultimate objective is some crazy environmentalist fantasy.

    We're not dealing with a single evil genius like Ernst Stavro Blofeld with a plan for world domination. We're not dealing with an organisation like SPECTRE with a coherent plan. With globalism we're dealing with an assortment of individuals and groups with their own agendas.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    Elites are not committed to any one form of rule or political behavior; they are only committed to the enhancement and security of their position. If nation states are the best option, they will pursue the creation and maintenance of nation states. (European and Anglo elites have decided that borders and nation states are a hindrance, while most of the elites in the rest of the world still see a value to themselves in maintaining a nation state.) They are, by no means, perfect decision makers but they are usually rational. They have no feelings or virtues. They make plenty of mistakes, but have such power and resources that they can almost always recover from their mistakes. Right now they are in a tizzy over control of the media and information flow, but I really don’t know why. I think that their fears of the populace doing something detrimental to them just because we have a free flow of information and learning are unfounded. The truth will not set you free; it just helps you reconcile yourself to your fate.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  111. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Because open borders is the objective and they “need” political support which they can’t get unless they are pro-abortion. (Just ask Joe Biden)
     
    True.

    But open borders is not the actual objective. It's just a means to an end. It's not the ultimate objective.

    I don't believe globalists are monolithic about this. I think there are various globalist factions that have different ultimate objectives. For some the final objective is nothing more than increased corporate power and profits. For some the objective is to increase the power of international bureaucracies like the EU. For some the objective is simply a global American empire.

    Those who want global American empire also have slightly differing final objectives. Either to serve the purposes of the military-industrial complex or to serve nefarious neocon purposes. Or for some the final objective is to enforce the LGBT agenda on the entire globe.

    There are also some whose ultimate objective is some crazy environmentalist fantasy.

    We're not dealing with a single evil genius like Ernst Stavro Blofeld with a plan for world domination. We're not dealing with an organisation like SPECTRE with a coherent plan. With globalism we're dealing with an assortment of individuals and groups with their own agendas.

    Replies: @iffen, @Audacious Epigone

    I largely agree with you, especially regarding the disparate nature of the elites. That is why this post was ostensibly addressed to ZOGgers and other one-world government types who operate as though there is some coordinated plan. How do they square this apparent circle?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS