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
American Irreligiosity by Political Orientation Over Time
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

The percentages of GSS respondents, by political orientation and by year of participation, who responded they had “no religion” when asked about their religious affiliation:

The religious are more fecund than the irreligious. With eccentric but ultimately marginal exceptions like the Shakers, this has been the case for as long as records have been kept. Yet for generations in the West, irreligiosity has expanded while religiosity has been in retreat.

Creationists used to wryly point out that Darwinists were losing at their own game to people who didn’t even know they were playing. But while theists have higher fertility than atheists do, theists have much higher defection rates than atheists. So high that they more than negate that fertility advantage.

It’s a conundrum. Biology isn’t nothing, but it obviously isn’t everything. Culture matters.

GSS variables used: YEAR, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), RELIG(1-3,5-13)(4)

 
Hide 93 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The real damage liberals do comes from their inability to commit to formalizing their beliefs into a codified religion that would require them to have social obligations more significant than virtue-signaling.

    If they want to worship blacks, they should have to make hajj to Lagos, bathe in and drink the water there. Pick up the trash from the streets and sort it in order to recycle it. They should have to learn a tribal language for their liturgy.

    But they won’t because they’d rather call you names than take a pew for an hour a week. They’d rather have the government seize your property than pay a tithe themselves.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @songbird

    The real damage liberals do comes from their inability to commit to formalizing their beliefs into a codified religion that would require them to have social obligations more significant than virtue-signaling.

    I have said before that everyone would be better off if they just called it the religion of equality and got it over with.

    No more fake debates or trying to pretend that they are interested in studying race or solving racial conflicts.

    Just say you have certain positions on race for religious reasons.

    They lose in open debate and everyone knows it. The colleges graduate millions of liberals and they can only come here and troll. Or once in a while we get the liberal that doesn't know their profs were lying and tries to debate for about 30 minutes.

    The best they can do is send in their best trolls like troof who in all fairness has some pretty good one liners. He is a lot funnier than that Jewish egalitarian female troll that actually told us that she would put us in camps and that society has to lie for equality.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @songbird

    , @Realist
    @songbird

    Not all irreligious people are liberals. The irreligious tend to be people who think for themselves.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

  2. End of cold war in 1989 started the decline of America, chart after chart of Socio economic indicators shows a inflection point around that time.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @indocon


    End of cold war in 1989 started the decline of America, chart after chart of Socio economic indicators shows a inflection point around that time.
     
    It certainly looks that way.

    Is it really so? I don't know... Trouble is that a lot of this stuff takes time to percolate. It is probably easier to inculcate youth than it is to change someone's mind who is middle-aged, but youth takes time to reach maturity and gain influence.

    If we look at Hollywood, I would say that there was a big push to subvert morals in the '60s and '70s. Give it twenty or thirty years, for people to grow up submerged in that environment, to reach some threshold number, and you reach about the same inflection point.
  3. Graph is nonsensical as liberalism is a religion.

    Not fanatic politicism but a religion.

    They completely ignore at least 70k years of natural history.

    Anyone who thinks liberalism is not a religion is free to ask a liberal how natural selection would only apply to superficial traits in humans for a span of 70k years.
    Take away that belief and the whole thing collapses.

    Liberalism is a replacement religion for Christianity. I wish someone had told me that early on.

    As I have said before I debated liberals in college and they tried to get me kicked out in return.

    They love to say that they follow the science and yet they tried kicking me out of school for questioning how human evolution would have a convenient exemption for the mind.

    • Agree: Pop Warner
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @John Johnson

    And no mention of the Branch Covidians. Now there's a fast growing cult.

  4. @songbird
    The real damage liberals do comes from their inability to commit to formalizing their beliefs into a codified religion that would require them to have social obligations more significant than virtue-signaling.

    If they want to worship blacks, they should have to make hajj to Lagos, bathe in and drink the water there. Pick up the trash from the streets and sort it in order to recycle it. They should have to learn a tribal language for their liturgy.

    But they won't because they'd rather call you names than take a pew for an hour a week. They'd rather have the government seize your property than pay a tithe themselves.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Realist

    The real damage liberals do comes from their inability to commit to formalizing their beliefs into a codified religion that would require them to have social obligations more significant than virtue-signaling.

    I have said before that everyone would be better off if they just called it the religion of equality and got it over with.

    No more fake debates or trying to pretend that they are interested in studying race or solving racial conflicts.

    Just say you have certain positions on race for religious reasons.

    They lose in open debate and everyone knows it. The colleges graduate millions of liberals and they can only come here and troll. Or once in a while we get the liberal that doesn’t know their profs were lying and tries to debate for about 30 minutes.

    The best they can do is send in their best trolls like troof who in all fairness has some pretty good one liners. He is a lot funnier than that Jewish egalitarian female troll that actually told us that she would put us in camps and that society has to lie for equality.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @John Johnson


    ... that Jewish egalitarian female troll that actually told us that she would put us in camps and that society has to lie for equality.
     
    Indeed.

    Anti-Semitism begins when it dawns on one that the Holocaust might be less an historical event than a projection of Jewish intentions toward the rest of us. Anti-Semitism is confirmed when one learns that mere doubt of the Holocaust invites destruction by institution and state upon the doubter.


    Now, I realize that the last paragraph activates the crimethink reflex in a lot of readers. I get it. I want to be fair to Jews, too. As I have mentioned before, I have more, and closer, Jewish friends than most readers here do. Dennis Prager, Mencius Moldbug and Stephen Miller are not the problem. Jay Fink is plainly a decent fellow. We all respect Ron Unz. One wishes them well.

    But we have a problem. The problem can charitably be described as having a heavily Jewish tint. The problem can more accurately be described as having a Jewish core. The problem is serious. Vicious, powerful, cold-blooded liars like Alejandro Mayorkas, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Adam Schiff, not to mention the aforementioned Jewish egalitarian female troll, have inflicted upon us a great deal of harm. They mean to inflict more.

    And the thing is this: even decent Jews in the main benefit from the acts of the vicious, powerful, cold-blooded liars.

    The situation is untenable.
    , @songbird
    @John Johnson

    I guess they like to rhetorically appeal to the authority of science, while trying to define what science is in a very partisan way, to serve their political goals.

    Forming a church would perhaps make this more difficult but not necessarily so, as Scientologists and Christian Scientists seem to have some eccentric beliefs.

  5. “No Religion” designation with liberals is wrong, it should say “no old established religion”, since a big portion of liberals have fanatically joined the holy trinity of the Cult of Woke, which consists of worshipping of blacks, homosexuals and women and demonizes the new found devil, the white heterosexual man.

  6. It seems that religiosity declines considerably after 1991 — the end of the officially atheist Soviet Union. So we must ask: Given that anti-religious sentiment was so strongly associated with the “evil empire,” how many people in the 70s & 80s were refraining from giving their actual opinions on this subject? Was there something similar to a Trump shyness from those surveyed?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Nodwink

    It seems that religiosity declines considerably after 1991 — the end of the officially atheist Soviet Union.

    Was also when the internet took off and the year of console wars.

    I blame console wars.

  7. Globo-homo, BLM, ‘Muh Israel’, and etc are religions.

  8. Christianity in the United States has become unmasculine and unserious. It has grown incredibly soft.

    But while theists have higher fertility than atheists do, theists have much higher defection rates than atheists.

    Sooner or later, somewhere in the United States, the tough, fighting Christianity of C. S. Lewis will reëmerge. Boxing and bible. The old YMCA. Then we’ll see.

    Until then, atheists have little reason to convert.

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

    Sooner or later, somewhere in the United States, the tough, fighting Christianity of C. S. Lewis will reëmerge. Boxing and bible. The old YMCA. Then we’ll see.

    Until then, atheists have little reason to convert.

    Could happen but most self-described atheists I have met surprisingly lacked any sense of self-interest or volition.

    You'd think they would be free to act in their best interest but weirdly they just end up serving liberal pop culture (that places White men last) and not taking advantage of being able to create their own morals.

    I told one such atheist that he should remain Catholic to find a wife and he thought I was nuts. Oh I had no idea the secular introverted White men's club of America was lining up women for you. So sorry please get back to your regularly scheduled orgy.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Alexander Turok

  9. The inflection point on that graph is 1992-1993. What changed then? Bill Clinton got elected president, but what else? That can’t be it, or it can’t be more than a co-symptom of something more…

    It’s a curiously obvious turn, right then and there. Does anybody here have any ideas?

    • Replies: @Firefinga
    @Buzz Mohawk

    1991-93 were the years of so called "political correctness" entering mainstream. Also, Clinton's election was a sign of political correctness making inroads into the mainstream. After all, he pushed for openly homosexuals in the military among other things.

    Today's woke-craze is political correctness on steroids.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @AndrewR
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Probably feedback loops both in terms of people privately questioning religion and publicly being willing to admit to irreligiosity

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  10. @John Johnson
    @songbird

    The real damage liberals do comes from their inability to commit to formalizing their beliefs into a codified religion that would require them to have social obligations more significant than virtue-signaling.

    I have said before that everyone would be better off if they just called it the religion of equality and got it over with.

    No more fake debates or trying to pretend that they are interested in studying race or solving racial conflicts.

    Just say you have certain positions on race for religious reasons.

    They lose in open debate and everyone knows it. The colleges graduate millions of liberals and they can only come here and troll. Or once in a while we get the liberal that doesn't know their profs were lying and tries to debate for about 30 minutes.

    The best they can do is send in their best trolls like troof who in all fairness has some pretty good one liners. He is a lot funnier than that Jewish egalitarian female troll that actually told us that she would put us in camps and that society has to lie for equality.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @songbird

    … that Jewish egalitarian female troll that actually told us that she would put us in camps and that society has to lie for equality.

    Indeed.

    Anti-Semitism begins when it dawns on one that the Holocaust might be less an historical event than a projection of Jewish intentions toward the rest of us. Anti-Semitism is confirmed when one learns that mere doubt of the Holocaust invites destruction by institution and state upon the doubter.

    [MORE]

    Now, I realize that the last paragraph activates the crimethink reflex in a lot of readers. I get it. I want to be fair to Jews, too. As I have mentioned before, I have more, and closer, Jewish friends than most readers here do. Dennis Prager, Mencius Moldbug and Stephen Miller are not the problem. Jay Fink is plainly a decent fellow. We all respect Ron Unz. One wishes them well.

    But we have a problem. The problem can charitably be described as having a heavily Jewish tint. The problem can more accurately be described as having a Jewish core. The problem is serious. Vicious, powerful, cold-blooded liars like Alejandro Mayorkas, Dana Nessel, Jeff Zucker and Adam Schiff, not to mention the aforementioned Jewish egalitarian female troll, have inflicted upon us a great deal of harm. They mean to inflict more.

    And the thing is this: even decent Jews in the main benefit from the acts of the vicious, powerful, cold-blooded liars.

    The situation is untenable.

  11. @Buzz Mohawk
    The inflection point on that graph is 1992-1993. What changed then? Bill Clinton got elected president, but what else? That can't be it, or it can't be more than a co-symptom of something more...

    It's a curiously obvious turn, right then and there. Does anybody here have any ideas?

    Replies: @Firefinga, @AndrewR

    1991-93 were the years of so called “political correctness” entering mainstream. Also, Clinton’s election was a sign of political correctness making inroads into the mainstream. After all, he pushed for openly homosexuals in the military among other things.

    Today’s woke-craze is political correctness on steroids.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Firefinga


    1991-93 were the years of so called “political correctness” entering mainstream.
     
    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?

    My theory is that we need an enemy to hate. With the Soviet Union gone and China abandoning communism there were no longer any credible external enemies. So people started looking for internal enemies to hate. The communist threat was replaced by the threat of racism, sexism and homophobia.

    Replies: @A123, @Mark G.

  12. @Buzz Mohawk
    The inflection point on that graph is 1992-1993. What changed then? Bill Clinton got elected president, but what else? That can't be it, or it can't be more than a co-symptom of something more...

    It's a curiously obvious turn, right then and there. Does anybody here have any ideas?

    Replies: @Firefinga, @AndrewR

    Probably feedback loops both in terms of people privately questioning religion and publicly being willing to admit to irreligiosity

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @AndrewR

    Thank you, Andrew, for your thoughtful comment, after the other crap you and I engaged in. This is an example of why I like this Unz Review site and the commenters who participate in it.

    As for your theory, I'm not sure I even understand it, but I am open to anything. Personally, I am a Deist, which means I KNOW the there is a GOD, simply based on observation and rational thinking. That means I would never answer "not religious" for a survey, even though I cannot be part of an organized religion based on the "revelations" or writings of mere human beings.

  13. Liberalism is a religion. There is no God, but Donald Trump is the Devil.

  14. @AndrewR
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Probably feedback loops both in terms of people privately questioning religion and publicly being willing to admit to irreligiosity

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Thank you, Andrew, for your thoughtful comment, after the other crap you and I engaged in. This is an example of why I like this Unz Review site and the commenters who participate in it.

    As for your theory, I’m not sure I even understand it, but I am open to anything. Personally, I am a Deist, which means I KNOW the there is a GOD, simply based on observation and rational thinking. That means I would never answer “not religious” for a survey, even though I cannot be part of an organized religion based on the “revelations” or writings of mere human beings.

    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
  15. • Replies: @Catdog
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Thanks for introducing me to Dutton. He seems legit.

    Replies: @songbird

  16. @Nodwink
    It seems that religiosity declines considerably after 1991 -- the end of the officially atheist Soviet Union. So we must ask: Given that anti-religious sentiment was so strongly associated with the "evil empire," how many people in the 70s & 80s were refraining from giving their actual opinions on this subject? Was there something similar to a Trump shyness from those surveyed?

    Replies: @John Johnson

    It seems that religiosity declines considerably after 1991 — the end of the officially atheist Soviet Union.

    Was also when the internet took off and the year of console wars.

    I blame console wars.

  17. The inflection point on that graph is 1992-1993. What changed then? Bill Clinton got elected president, but what else? That can’t be it, or it can’t be more than a co-symptom of something more…

    The phony fake fraudulent crud named the so-called “Cold War” ended around 1990 and Reagan and Bush ramped up the open borders globalization and then in the 1990s Clinton got going big time on globalization with NAFTA and getting all that cheap Chinese labor in the arbitrage game and the maturation of the baby boomers and the mass legal immigration and mass illegal alien invader influx and the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank was going great guns to reward the bankers and the globalizer wankers and they cooked up more crud about “smoothing out the business cycle” as a propaganda cover and the MAMMONITE MADNESS and MULTICULTURAL MAYHEM was pushed incessantly in the corporate media and people just drifted away from the weak and insipid and corrupt churches and the sleazy boobs screaming about God when what they were really doing is grabbing shekels like bastards.

    The centralization of wealth and power derived from the conjured up cash from the Federal Reserve Bank monetary extremism nudged people towards materialism and even the more fervent Bible thumping fever swamp Christian churches were so full of crud that some people just kept their personal dealings with their God to themselves.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class got the baby boomer bastards money-grubbing instead of worrying about their souls and even Falstaff had a remark about death masks that were used to remind European Christians about the need to get right with God because to all men death comes soon or late.

    God croaked for a lot of baby boomers and their offspring about the time of the baby boomer president Clinton getting elected and I’m convinced that there is a connection between globalization and multiculturalism and God receding from the minds of men and women.

    Ancestor worship has been attacked by the White Upper Middle Class Brats who are tearing down statues and the like too.

    Irreligiosity also doesn’t necessarily mean lack of a spiritual life or a spiritual worldview.

    I wrote this in January 2020 about the calling away from God and the corruption of the baby boomers by greed and monetary policy and asset bubbles:

    My connection of monetary policy and immigration policy still stands as one of the most sophisticated political conceptual works of the last 60 years. Simple it is. The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire used monetary policy to buy off the greedy White slobs born before 1965 so those greedy White slobs would keep their mouths shut about the nation-wrecking effects of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. The multiple series of asset bubbles inflated by the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank bought off the greedy White slobs born before 1965 and that is why the nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration wasn’t stopped sooner.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/equilibrium/#comment-3643025

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    @Charles Pewitt


    The multiple series of asset bubbles inflated by the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank bought off the greedy White slobs born before 1965 and that is why the nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration wasn’t stopped sooner.
     
    Libertarians claim that they prefer private control over the major institutions of society, including as many of the functions of the government as possible. So I've never understood their animosity towards the private owners of the Federal Reserve, unless they see the Fed as a counter-example which undermines their thesis about the superiority of private ownership.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

  18. @V. K. Ovelund
    Christianity in the United States has become unmasculine and unserious. It has grown incredibly soft.

    But while theists have higher fertility than atheists do, theists have much higher defection rates than atheists.
     
    Sooner or later, somewhere in the United States, the tough, fighting Christianity of C. S. Lewis will reëmerge. Boxing and bible. The old YMCA. Then we'll see.

    Until then, atheists have little reason to convert.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Sooner or later, somewhere in the United States, the tough, fighting Christianity of C. S. Lewis will reëmerge. Boxing and bible. The old YMCA. Then we’ll see.

    Until then, atheists have little reason to convert.

    Could happen but most self-described atheists I have met surprisingly lacked any sense of self-interest or volition.

    You’d think they would be free to act in their best interest but weirdly they just end up serving liberal pop culture (that places White men last) and not taking advantage of being able to create their own morals.

    I told one such atheist that he should remain Catholic to find a wife and he thought I was nuts. Oh I had no idea the secular introverted White men’s club of America was lining up women for you. So sorry please get back to your regularly scheduled orgy.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @John Johnson

    He's probably a low-inhib hunk, a lot of atheists are. Christian "males" are low T.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5791731/Men-high-testosterone-religious-antisocial-study-suggests.html

    The men getting all the pussy in our society are white male homeowners in silicon valley. Not a particularly religious bunch.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @Alexander Turok
    @John Johnson

    "You should believe these nonsensical dogmas because women are more likely than men to believe them" is retarded whether it comes from Leftists or religious people. At best, it's an argument for crypsis, not for believing the dogmas.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  19. The religious are more fecund than the irreligious. With eccentric but ultimately marginal exceptions like the Shakers, this has been the case for as long as records have been kept. Yet for generations in the West, irreligiosity has expanded while religiosity has been in retreat.

    Being prolific in itself is not an advantage in an advanced high-tech society. What is important in a high-tech society is that those born, are of high intelligence and integrity. There are plenty of examples of fertile breeding groups that are of very low intelligence and incapable of sustaining themselves.

  20. @songbird
    The real damage liberals do comes from their inability to commit to formalizing their beliefs into a codified religion that would require them to have social obligations more significant than virtue-signaling.

    If they want to worship blacks, they should have to make hajj to Lagos, bathe in and drink the water there. Pick up the trash from the streets and sort it in order to recycle it. They should have to learn a tribal language for their liturgy.

    But they won't because they'd rather call you names than take a pew for an hour a week. They'd rather have the government seize your property than pay a tithe themselves.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Realist

    Not all irreligious people are liberals. The irreligious tend to be people who think for themselves.

    • Disagree: Rich
    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Realist

    >Religious people are just doing what is psychologically validating within their social framework, unlike members of my social framework, which are entirely free thinkers who don't have a very predictable line of reasoning and go-to tropes to describe the outgroup
    >And worst of all, religious people have no self awareness!

  21. @John Johnson
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Sooner or later, somewhere in the United States, the tough, fighting Christianity of C. S. Lewis will reëmerge. Boxing and bible. The old YMCA. Then we’ll see.

    Until then, atheists have little reason to convert.

    Could happen but most self-described atheists I have met surprisingly lacked any sense of self-interest or volition.

    You'd think they would be free to act in their best interest but weirdly they just end up serving liberal pop culture (that places White men last) and not taking advantage of being able to create their own morals.

    I told one such atheist that he should remain Catholic to find a wife and he thought I was nuts. Oh I had no idea the secular introverted White men's club of America was lining up women for you. So sorry please get back to your regularly scheduled orgy.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Alexander Turok

    He’s probably a low-inhib hunk, a lot of atheists are. Christian “males” are low T.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5791731/Men-high-testosterone-religious-antisocial-study-suggests.html

    The men getting all the pussy in our society are white male homeowners in silicon valley. Not a particularly religious bunch.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @JohnPlywood

    He’s probably a low-inhib hunk, a lot of atheists are. Christian “males” are low T.

    No he is definitely not a hunk of any type. He doesn't really put on any muscle and kind of has a girl butt. As for Christian males you would have to break out by race to find any type of correlation.

    The men getting all the pussy in our society are white male homeowners in silicon valley. Not a particularly religious bunch.

    Only the ones at the top.

    I used to live near a tech burb. They are filled with single Asian and White guys all driving the same luxury cars.

    In those areas a high testosterone guy with a beat up truck still gets a woman. Sounds crazy but I saw it all the time. Maybe the women felt surrounded by nerds. My wife wasn't surprised at all.

    Kind of sad actually since so many of these tech guys undoubtedly worked hard and still got the nice guys finish last routine. Most of them would have done better with women as blue collar Mormons. Harsh but true. Secular society doesn't reward secularism in White men. It views White men as the problem and not deserving of women or anything for that matter. It only values White men if they are gay.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @JohnPlywood

  22. The nineties was when multiculturalism and its enforcement arm, political correctness, really took hold. This happened because the former sixties student radicals finally achieved positions of power in the media, academia and the government. One of them even became president. Traditional western culture declined as it came under relentless attack and Christianity is part of traditional western culture so it declined too.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    @Mark G.

    It makes no sense to say that "Christianity is part of traditional western culture." This is an Asiatic ideology that drifted westward, and severely hampered the development of Europe. The very concept of "Western Civilization" is incoherent in my opinion, as I set out in this blog post:

    https://thenodster.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/go-west/

    Replies: @dfordoom

  23. In 1963 the US Supreme Court banned school prayer.
    In 1964 Vatican 2 took effect.
    30 years later the children of those decisions came of age. I think that explains the inflection point.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rich

    You disagree with my comment #17...but you don't know why???

    Replies: @Rich

  24. @Rich
    In 1963 the US Supreme Court banned school prayer.
    In 1964 Vatican 2 took effect.
    30 years later the children of those decisions came of age. I think that explains the inflection point.

    Replies: @Realist

    You disagree with my comment #17…but you don’t know why???

    • Replies: @Rich
    @Realist

    Most of the atheists I've known, not all, are atheists because it's "cool" to be in the anti-religious crowd. They can huddle together and sneer at people of Faith and justify their degenerate behavior. In most of the world today, one has to be strong minded and willing to stand against the crowd to publicly state they are a Christian. Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians. Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench. You've got it backwards.

    Replies: @Realist, @advancedatheist

  25. @Realist
    @Rich

    You disagree with my comment #17...but you don't know why???

    Replies: @Rich

    Most of the atheists I’ve known, not all, are atheists because it’s “cool” to be in the anti-religious crowd. They can huddle together and sneer at people of Faith and justify their degenerate behavior. In most of the world today, one has to be strong minded and willing to stand against the crowd to publicly state they are a Christian. Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians. Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench. You’ve got it backwards.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rich


    Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians.
     
    Citation.

    Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench.
     
    That is nothing new...Protestants have been doing that forever.

    It is unimaginable to think an atheist would be allowed to run for a federal office...let alone be seated on the judicial bench.

    None of your comments addressed my two comments in #17.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Audacious Epigone

    , @advancedatheist
    @Rich


    Most of the atheists I’ve known, not all, are atheists because it’s “cool” to be in the anti-religious crowd. They can huddle together and sneer at people of Faith and justify their degenerate behavior.
     
    In other words, you live in something like a Jack Chick tract. By contrast, real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists in Christian propaganda, tend to live in pretty conventional ways.

    Replies: @Rich

  26. @indocon
    End of cold war in 1989 started the decline of America, chart after chart of Socio economic indicators shows a inflection point around that time.

    Replies: @songbird

    End of cold war in 1989 started the decline of America, chart after chart of Socio economic indicators shows a inflection point around that time.

    It certainly looks that way.

    Is it really so? I don’t know… Trouble is that a lot of this stuff takes time to percolate. It is probably easier to inculcate youth than it is to change someone’s mind who is middle-aged, but youth takes time to reach maturity and gain influence.

    If we look at Hollywood, I would say that there was a big push to subvert morals in the ’60s and ’70s. Give it twenty or thirty years, for people to grow up submerged in that environment, to reach some threshold number, and you reach about the same inflection point.

  27. @John Johnson
    @songbird

    The real damage liberals do comes from their inability to commit to formalizing their beliefs into a codified religion that would require them to have social obligations more significant than virtue-signaling.

    I have said before that everyone would be better off if they just called it the religion of equality and got it over with.

    No more fake debates or trying to pretend that they are interested in studying race or solving racial conflicts.

    Just say you have certain positions on race for religious reasons.

    They lose in open debate and everyone knows it. The colleges graduate millions of liberals and they can only come here and troll. Or once in a while we get the liberal that doesn't know their profs were lying and tries to debate for about 30 minutes.

    The best they can do is send in their best trolls like troof who in all fairness has some pretty good one liners. He is a lot funnier than that Jewish egalitarian female troll that actually told us that she would put us in camps and that society has to lie for equality.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @songbird

    I guess they like to rhetorically appeal to the authority of science, while trying to define what science is in a very partisan way, to serve their political goals.

    Forming a church would perhaps make this more difficult but not necessarily so, as Scientologists and Christian Scientists seem to have some eccentric beliefs.

  28. @Oliver D. Smith
    Relevant discussion:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spiteful_mutant_hypothesis#Spiteful_mutations_as_atheism

    Replies: @Catdog

    Thanks for introducing me to Dutton. He seems legit.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Catdog

    Many useful links at rationalwiki.

  29. anonymous[231] • Disclaimer says:

    Childlessness and irreligiosity will drive more people on the Left towards messianic politics.

  30. @Rich
    @Realist

    Most of the atheists I've known, not all, are atheists because it's "cool" to be in the anti-religious crowd. They can huddle together and sneer at people of Faith and justify their degenerate behavior. In most of the world today, one has to be strong minded and willing to stand against the crowd to publicly state they are a Christian. Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians. Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench. You've got it backwards.

    Replies: @Realist, @advancedatheist

    Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians.

    Citation.

    Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench.

    That is nothing new…Protestants have been doing that forever.

    It is unimaginable to think an atheist would be allowed to run for a federal office…let alone be seated on the judicial bench.

    None of your comments addressed my two comments in #17.

    • Disagree: Rich
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Realist

    >It is unimaginable to think an atheist would be allowed to run for a federal office…let alone be seated on the judicial bench.

    I don't think this is as true as it was 20 years ago. For better or worse, America's become a lot more secularized, and that doesn't seem to be likely to stop any time soon.

    Even right-wing politics have gotten significantly more secular. Immigration and free trade are a lot more likely to turn out a crowd than transsexuals or abortion. The old school Protestant Religious Right got hit hard by Bush II's implosion, and like the rest of the Bush/Romney era Republican Party, they've never really recovered and rely off inertia to stay relevant. Donald Trump's political success with them after he defeated Cruz in 2016 shows their lack of power, not the other way around.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Realist

    Polling consistently shows people are to be more hesitant to vote for atheists than any other type of candidate, including racial and religious minorities (and whites), women, homosexuals, etc.

  31. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, no one outside of the former communist countries has abandoned traditional theism because of central planning and social engineering. This has happened spontaneously, organically and in a kind of Hayekian fashion, a product of human action but not of human design.

    Something similar happened thousands of years ago when our ancestors transitioned from hunter-gatherers to settled farmers. Over several generations their beliefs changed from animism to early theism, so that the spirits in the natural world eventually stopped talking to them. The Old Testament shows this transition in its myth about how the talking snake in the animist faith gives bad advice, so ignore it and listen to your god instead.

    Today we view it as “mental illness” when someone claims that he has conversations with wild animals, rocks and trees, even though apparently hunter-gatherers experience that as their normal spirituality. We still accept god contactees within the range of normal however, though with some skepticism because theistic beliefs have similarly gone into decline. Eventually all humans, at least in the “WEIRD” countries, will stop hearing the voice of god as well, including the descendants of today’s religious obsessives.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @advancedatheist

    You must've read Revelations, the falling away you've written about is described in detail there. It's interesting that you think that since you haven't been called by God, no one else has either. Your experience, your understanding, isn't the same as that of others. It's okay, you just come off as a bit smarmy.

    , @nebulafox
    @advancedatheist

    I don't think the voice of God is missing: it's just coming from somewhere else these days. How is wokeism any different, in psychological terms, from revivialist American Protestant Christianity? I suppose it is worse in the sense that it tacitly views a section of the populace as irredeemable cast-offs (one of the saving graces of Christianity being the lack of any Hindu-style caste system based on blood-Islam, for all its faults, avoids that too, hence its appeal to the actual Dalits in India), but other than that, the attitude seems to be the same, absent God and a belief in human fallibility.

    The overwhelming majority of humans view the world in intuitive terms, not logical, empirical ones. And to be honest, that's probably a good thing on the whole. But it does mean that when you take away traditional religions, people will more often create new ones: ones often far nastier than what came before.

  32. @Charles Pewitt
    The inflection point on that graph is 1992-1993. What changed then? Bill Clinton got elected president, but what else? That can’t be it, or it can’t be more than a co-symptom of something more…

    The phony fake fraudulent crud named the so-called "Cold War" ended around 1990 and Reagan and Bush ramped up the open borders globalization and then in the 1990s Clinton got going big time on globalization with NAFTA and getting all that cheap Chinese labor in the arbitrage game and the maturation of the baby boomers and the mass legal immigration and mass illegal alien invader influx and the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank was going great guns to reward the bankers and the globalizer wankers and they cooked up more crud about "smoothing out the business cycle" as a propaganda cover and the MAMMONITE MADNESS and MULTICULTURAL MAYHEM was pushed incessantly in the corporate media and people just drifted away from the weak and insipid and corrupt churches and the sleazy boobs screaming about God when what they were really doing is grabbing shekels like bastards.

    The centralization of wealth and power derived from the conjured up cash from the Federal Reserve Bank monetary extremism nudged people towards materialism and even the more fervent Bible thumping fever swamp Christian churches were so full of crud that some people just kept their personal dealings with their God to themselves.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class got the baby boomer bastards money-grubbing instead of worrying about their souls and even Falstaff had a remark about death masks that were used to remind European Christians about the need to get right with God because to all men death comes soon or late.

    God croaked for a lot of baby boomers and their offspring about the time of the baby boomer president Clinton getting elected and I'm convinced that there is a connection between globalization and multiculturalism and God receding from the minds of men and women.

    Ancestor worship has been attacked by the White Upper Middle Class Brats who are tearing down statues and the like too.

    Irreligiosity also doesn't necessarily mean lack of a spiritual life or a spiritual worldview.

    I wrote this in January 2020 about the calling away from God and the corruption of the baby boomers by greed and monetary policy and asset bubbles:

    My connection of monetary policy and immigration policy still stands as one of the most sophisticated political conceptual works of the last 60 years. Simple it is. The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire used monetary policy to buy off the greedy White slobs born before 1965 so those greedy White slobs would keep their mouths shut about the nation-wrecking effects of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. The multiple series of asset bubbles inflated by the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank bought off the greedy White slobs born before 1965 and that is why the nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration wasn’t stopped sooner.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/equilibrium/#comment-3643025

    Replies: @advancedatheist

    The multiple series of asset bubbles inflated by the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank bought off the greedy White slobs born before 1965 and that is why the nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration wasn’t stopped sooner.

    Libertarians claim that they prefer private control over the major institutions of society, including as many of the functions of the government as possible. So I’ve never understood their animosity towards the private owners of the Federal Reserve, unless they see the Fed as a counter-example which undermines their thesis about the superiority of private ownership.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @advancedatheist

    Mr. advancedatheist says:

    Libertarians claim that they prefer private control over the major institutions of society, including as many of the functions of the government as possible. So I’ve never understood their animosity towards the private owners of the Federal Reserve, unless they see the Fed as a counter-example which undermines their thesis about the superiority of private ownership.

    I say:

    The privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank should be NATIONALIZED immediately and the libertarian lunatic wacko nuts ain't going for that.

    This crud about the so-called "privatization" was a smash and grab job from the get-go and they did it big time in England with arsehole baby boomer Tony Blair and that baby boomer puppet whore for the plutocrats Bill Clinton was somewhat pushing it too.

    Your point about the libertarians and the Fed and the private controllers of the Fed is spot on and the libertarians have no answer to your question.

    My answer to the libertarians is that they are nutcake high IQ morons of the worst sort with their waving their fist in your face but not touching your nose and they think that's so clever. That always gets me to laugh. I want some high IQ moron libertarians to go into a bar about midnight and start waving their fist in people's faces, the boozy women will kick them in the balls, and the bombed men will take them apart.

    My mild and reasonable thoughts on libertarianism from September of 2019:

    Modest and mildly moderate thoughts and proposals about Libertarians and Libertarianism:

    Libertarianism Is An Evil Of An Almost Incomprehensible Magnitude

    Libertarian Louts Get On My Nerves, Dammit!

    Libertarianism Must Be Extinguished As An Ideology Immediately!

    All Libertarians Must be Sent Into Forcible Exile In Sub-Saharan Africa Now!

    Go Ahead And Try To Wave Your Fist In Front Of My Nose, You Insolent Libertarian Twat!

    I Really Don’t Like John Stossel or Ayn Rand!

    Ayn Rand And John Stossel Are Anti-White And Anti-Christian — That Is There Animating Motivation. The Enemy To Karl Marx And George Soros And Ayn Rand And John Stossel Is European Christendom.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/oh-dear/#comment-3442119

    Tweets from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/498852244977381376?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/549647541110063105?s=20

    Replies: @John Johnson

  33. @Catdog
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Thanks for introducing me to Dutton. He seems legit.

    Replies: @songbird

    Many useful links at rationalwiki.

  34. @Rich
    @Realist

    Most of the atheists I've known, not all, are atheists because it's "cool" to be in the anti-religious crowd. They can huddle together and sneer at people of Faith and justify their degenerate behavior. In most of the world today, one has to be strong minded and willing to stand against the crowd to publicly state they are a Christian. Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians. Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench. You've got it backwards.

    Replies: @Realist, @advancedatheist

    Most of the atheists I’ve known, not all, are atheists because it’s “cool” to be in the anti-religious crowd. They can huddle together and sneer at people of Faith and justify their degenerate behavior.

    In other words, you live in something like a Jack Chick tract. By contrast, real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists in Christian propaganda, tend to live in pretty conventional ways.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @Rich
    @advancedatheist

    I'm from NYC. Where you posers all stand around thinking you're intellectuals and so very sophisticated. I'm Catholic so Jack Chick wasn't part of my catechism. I've spent enough time around atheists, though, to see how narrow minded most are. Afraid to stand up to the herd, going along with the secular order. Followers on everything, global warming, systemic racism, feminism and every other modern fad. Just my experience. There's a handful of right thinking atheists, but very few, usually they don't go for the Jack Chick layup.

    Replies: @Realist

  35. @advancedatheist
    @Rich


    Most of the atheists I’ve known, not all, are atheists because it’s “cool” to be in the anti-religious crowd. They can huddle together and sneer at people of Faith and justify their degenerate behavior.
     
    In other words, you live in something like a Jack Chick tract. By contrast, real atheists, as opposed to the fantasy atheists in Christian propaganda, tend to live in pretty conventional ways.

    Replies: @Rich

    I’m from NYC. Where you posers all stand around thinking you’re intellectuals and so very sophisticated. I’m Catholic so Jack Chick wasn’t part of my catechism. I’ve spent enough time around atheists, though, to see how narrow minded most are. Afraid to stand up to the herd, going along with the secular order. Followers on everything, global warming, systemic racism, feminism and every other modern fad. Just my experience. There’s a handful of right thinking atheists, but very few, usually they don’t go for the Jack Chick layup.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rich


    I’ve spent enough time around atheists, though, to see how narrow minded most are.
     
    That sounds more like religious fanatics to me.

    Followers on everything, global warming, systemic racism, feminism and every other modern fad.
     
    That's not the case with me...I believe in none of that.

    You stated Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians.

    In my comment #30, I requested a citation...but as usual, you ignored it and replied Disagree
    Your comments are just made-up bullshit...like religious dogma.

    Replies: @Rich

  36. @advancedatheist
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, no one outside of the former communist countries has abandoned traditional theism because of central planning and social engineering. This has happened spontaneously, organically and in a kind of Hayekian fashion, a product of human action but not of human design.

    Something similar happened thousands of years ago when our ancestors transitioned from hunter-gatherers to settled farmers. Over several generations their beliefs changed from animism to early theism, so that the spirits in the natural world eventually stopped talking to them. The Old Testament shows this transition in its myth about how the talking snake in the animist faith gives bad advice, so ignore it and listen to your god instead.

    Today we view it as "mental illness" when someone claims that he has conversations with wild animals, rocks and trees, even though apparently hunter-gatherers experience that as their normal spirituality. We still accept god contactees within the range of normal however, though with some skepticism because theistic beliefs have similarly gone into decline. Eventually all humans, at least in the "WEIRD" countries, will stop hearing the voice of god as well, including the descendants of today's religious obsessives.

    Replies: @Rich, @nebulafox

    You must’ve read Revelations, the falling away you’ve written about is described in detail there. It’s interesting that you think that since you haven’t been called by God, no one else has either. Your experience, your understanding, isn’t the same as that of others. It’s okay, you just come off as a bit smarmy.

  37. @advancedatheist
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, no one outside of the former communist countries has abandoned traditional theism because of central planning and social engineering. This has happened spontaneously, organically and in a kind of Hayekian fashion, a product of human action but not of human design.

    Something similar happened thousands of years ago when our ancestors transitioned from hunter-gatherers to settled farmers. Over several generations their beliefs changed from animism to early theism, so that the spirits in the natural world eventually stopped talking to them. The Old Testament shows this transition in its myth about how the talking snake in the animist faith gives bad advice, so ignore it and listen to your god instead.

    Today we view it as "mental illness" when someone claims that he has conversations with wild animals, rocks and trees, even though apparently hunter-gatherers experience that as their normal spirituality. We still accept god contactees within the range of normal however, though with some skepticism because theistic beliefs have similarly gone into decline. Eventually all humans, at least in the "WEIRD" countries, will stop hearing the voice of god as well, including the descendants of today's religious obsessives.

    Replies: @Rich, @nebulafox

    I don’t think the voice of God is missing: it’s just coming from somewhere else these days. How is wokeism any different, in psychological terms, from revivialist American Protestant Christianity? I suppose it is worse in the sense that it tacitly views a section of the populace as irredeemable cast-offs (one of the saving graces of Christianity being the lack of any Hindu-style caste system based on blood-Islam, for all its faults, avoids that too, hence its appeal to the actual Dalits in India), but other than that, the attitude seems to be the same, absent God and a belief in human fallibility.

    The overwhelming majority of humans view the world in intuitive terms, not logical, empirical ones. And to be honest, that’s probably a good thing on the whole. But it does mean that when you take away traditional religions, people will more often create new ones: ones often far nastier than what came before.

  38. @Realist
    @Rich


    Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians.
     
    Citation.

    Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench.
     
    That is nothing new...Protestants have been doing that forever.

    It is unimaginable to think an atheist would be allowed to run for a federal office...let alone be seated on the judicial bench.

    None of your comments addressed my two comments in #17.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Audacious Epigone

    >It is unimaginable to think an atheist would be allowed to run for a federal office…let alone be seated on the judicial bench.

    I don’t think this is as true as it was 20 years ago. For better or worse, America’s become a lot more secularized, and that doesn’t seem to be likely to stop any time soon.

    Even right-wing politics have gotten significantly more secular. Immigration and free trade are a lot more likely to turn out a crowd than transsexuals or abortion. The old school Protestant Religious Right got hit hard by Bush II’s implosion, and like the rest of the Bush/Romney era Republican Party, they’ve never really recovered and rely off inertia to stay relevant. Donald Trump’s political success with them after he defeated Cruz in 2016 shows their lack of power, not the other way around.

  39. @John Johnson
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Sooner or later, somewhere in the United States, the tough, fighting Christianity of C. S. Lewis will reëmerge. Boxing and bible. The old YMCA. Then we’ll see.

    Until then, atheists have little reason to convert.

    Could happen but most self-described atheists I have met surprisingly lacked any sense of self-interest or volition.

    You'd think they would be free to act in their best interest but weirdly they just end up serving liberal pop culture (that places White men last) and not taking advantage of being able to create their own morals.

    I told one such atheist that he should remain Catholic to find a wife and he thought I was nuts. Oh I had no idea the secular introverted White men's club of America was lining up women for you. So sorry please get back to your regularly scheduled orgy.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood, @Alexander Turok

    “You should believe these nonsensical dogmas because women are more likely than men to believe them” is retarded whether it comes from Leftists or religious people. At best, it’s an argument for crypsis, not for believing the dogmas.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Alexander Turok

    “You should believe these nonsensical dogmas because women are more likely than men to believe them” is retarded whether it comes from Leftists or religious people. At best, it’s an argument for crypsis, not for believing the dogmas.

    I never told him to believe anything. What I said is that he should remain a Catholic until he gets a woman. I also never said that I am a Catholic.

    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.

    This is partly why I don't believe in atheism.

    It doesn't lead to individualism or separation from orthodoxy.

    What it leads to is liberal orthodoxy which for White men lowers their ability to get a woman.

    It's really as if atheists seem to not realize that they don't have to follow the rules. They drop their religion and then fall back to the rules of liberal orthodoxy. Humans aren't very good at secularism and this is especially true for Whites.

    He would really like a wife and yet the liberal orthodoxy that he unwittingly now serves doesn't care and in fact doesn't want him to procreate.

    Our situation is much more complicated than gods vs heretics.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

  40. @JohnPlywood
    @John Johnson

    He's probably a low-inhib hunk, a lot of atheists are. Christian "males" are low T.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5791731/Men-high-testosterone-religious-antisocial-study-suggests.html

    The men getting all the pussy in our society are white male homeowners in silicon valley. Not a particularly religious bunch.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    He’s probably a low-inhib hunk, a lot of atheists are. Christian “males” are low T.

    No he is definitely not a hunk of any type. He doesn’t really put on any muscle and kind of has a girl butt. As for Christian males you would have to break out by race to find any type of correlation.

    The men getting all the pussy in our society are white male homeowners in silicon valley. Not a particularly religious bunch.

    Only the ones at the top.

    I used to live near a tech burb. They are filled with single Asian and White guys all driving the same luxury cars.

    In those areas a high testosterone guy with a beat up truck still gets a woman. Sounds crazy but I saw it all the time. Maybe the women felt surrounded by nerds. My wife wasn’t surprised at all.

    Kind of sad actually since so many of these tech guys undoubtedly worked hard and still got the nice guys finish last routine. Most of them would have done better with women as blue collar Mormons. Harsh but true. Secular society doesn’t reward secularism in White men. It views White men as the problem and not deserving of women or anything for that matter. It only values White men if they are gay.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Tell me about it! It's amazing how far you can get in San Francisco if you act like a normal masculine guy, are in shape, have a few non-tech interests, and avoid the damned apps-which are a losing investment for 8 out of 10 guys even when you aren't in a lopsided sex ratio environment like the Bay-as much as possible.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

    , @JohnPlywood
    @John Johnson

    https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HeartfeltGrandioseAustraliankestrel-max-1mb.gif

  41. @Alexander Turok
    @John Johnson

    "You should believe these nonsensical dogmas because women are more likely than men to believe them" is retarded whether it comes from Leftists or religious people. At best, it's an argument for crypsis, not for believing the dogmas.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    “You should believe these nonsensical dogmas because women are more likely than men to believe them” is retarded whether it comes from Leftists or religious people. At best, it’s an argument for crypsis, not for believing the dogmas.

    I never told him to believe anything. What I said is that he should remain a Catholic until he gets a woman. I also never said that I am a Catholic.

    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.

    This is partly why I don’t believe in atheism.

    It doesn’t lead to individualism or separation from orthodoxy.

    What it leads to is liberal orthodoxy which for White men lowers their ability to get a woman.

    It’s really as if atheists seem to not realize that they don’t have to follow the rules. They drop their religion and then fall back to the rules of liberal orthodoxy. Humans aren’t very good at secularism and this is especially true for Whites.

    He would really like a wife and yet the liberal orthodoxy that he unwittingly now serves doesn’t care and in fact doesn’t want him to procreate.

    Our situation is much more complicated than gods vs heretics.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    @John Johnson


    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.
     
    I'm certainly aware of the concept, I actually made a thread about it at DSL:

    https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,2312

    I won't condemn the strategy as immoral or dumb. But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female. Maybe because there's a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn't offer much to heterosexual men?

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @dfordoom, @John Johnson

  42. @John Johnson
    @JohnPlywood

    He’s probably a low-inhib hunk, a lot of atheists are. Christian “males” are low T.

    No he is definitely not a hunk of any type. He doesn't really put on any muscle and kind of has a girl butt. As for Christian males you would have to break out by race to find any type of correlation.

    The men getting all the pussy in our society are white male homeowners in silicon valley. Not a particularly religious bunch.

    Only the ones at the top.

    I used to live near a tech burb. They are filled with single Asian and White guys all driving the same luxury cars.

    In those areas a high testosterone guy with a beat up truck still gets a woman. Sounds crazy but I saw it all the time. Maybe the women felt surrounded by nerds. My wife wasn't surprised at all.

    Kind of sad actually since so many of these tech guys undoubtedly worked hard and still got the nice guys finish last routine. Most of them would have done better with women as blue collar Mormons. Harsh but true. Secular society doesn't reward secularism in White men. It views White men as the problem and not deserving of women or anything for that matter. It only values White men if they are gay.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @JohnPlywood

    Tell me about it! It’s amazing how far you can get in San Francisco if you act like a normal masculine guy, are in shape, have a few non-tech interests, and avoid the damned apps-which are a losing investment for 8 out of 10 guys even when you aren’t in a lopsided sex ratio environment like the Bay-as much as possible.

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    @nebulafox

    That's a strong cope if I ever saw one. What you call a "normal, masculine" guy is incel anywhere in America, not just Silicon Valley. That's why they are dying of self-inflicted gunshot wounds and drug overdoses at record rates.


    At the top of the male sexual hierarchy in the United States are college educated white males with a postgraduate degree, and atheist, from Yankee states. Religious, truck driving white men from the South are unpopular with women, due to their inability to afford a diet consisting of something other than pork rinds and TV dinners.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/8/eaap9815/F2.large.jpg

    Techbros get the pussy, truckbros eat the bullets.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  43. @John Johnson
    @JohnPlywood

    He’s probably a low-inhib hunk, a lot of atheists are. Christian “males” are low T.

    No he is definitely not a hunk of any type. He doesn't really put on any muscle and kind of has a girl butt. As for Christian males you would have to break out by race to find any type of correlation.

    The men getting all the pussy in our society are white male homeowners in silicon valley. Not a particularly religious bunch.

    Only the ones at the top.

    I used to live near a tech burb. They are filled with single Asian and White guys all driving the same luxury cars.

    In those areas a high testosterone guy with a beat up truck still gets a woman. Sounds crazy but I saw it all the time. Maybe the women felt surrounded by nerds. My wife wasn't surprised at all.

    Kind of sad actually since so many of these tech guys undoubtedly worked hard and still got the nice guys finish last routine. Most of them would have done better with women as blue collar Mormons. Harsh but true. Secular society doesn't reward secularism in White men. It views White men as the problem and not deserving of women or anything for that matter. It only values White men if they are gay.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @JohnPlywood

  44. @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Tell me about it! It's amazing how far you can get in San Francisco if you act like a normal masculine guy, are in shape, have a few non-tech interests, and avoid the damned apps-which are a losing investment for 8 out of 10 guys even when you aren't in a lopsided sex ratio environment like the Bay-as much as possible.

    Replies: @JohnPlywood

    That’s a strong cope if I ever saw one. What you call a “normal, masculine” guy is incel anywhere in America, not just Silicon Valley. That’s why they are dying of self-inflicted gunshot wounds and drug overdoses at record rates.

    At the top of the male sexual hierarchy in the United States are college educated white males with a postgraduate degree, and atheist, from Yankee states. Religious, truck driving white men from the South are unpopular with women, due to their inability to afford a diet consisting of something other than pork rinds and TV dinners.

    Techbros get the pussy, truckbros eat the bullets.

    • LOL: Realist, John Johnson
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @JohnPlywood

    At the top of the male sexual hierarchy in the United States are college educated white males with a postgraduate degree, and atheist, from Yankee states.

    Postgrad atheists are getting all the women?? HILARIOUS.

    Most postgrad degrees don't pay for themselves and women are well aware of that. They don't care if you have a postgrad in history or sociology.

    Just because women will rate education as desirable in a poll does not tell us the actual status of postgrad atheists.

    You really watch too much tv. Go visit your local University and work with some postgrad students.

    Religious, truck driving white men from the South are unpopular with women, due to their inability to afford a diet consisting of something other than pork rinds and TV dinners.

    I've been just about everywhere in this country and women really do go after cowboys and masculine men. Go to a line dancing bar in the south and compare it to any tech area bar. Good lord not even close.

    Techbros get the pussy, truckbros eat the bullets.

    It's just not true. The tech guys at the top get plenty of action while most tech workers have to compete for the same women due to these areas having so many men. The tech burb I used to live near was probably a 20:1 ratio. All these single men living in condos but on paper they should be highly desired by women.

  45. @John Johnson
    @Alexander Turok

    “You should believe these nonsensical dogmas because women are more likely than men to believe them” is retarded whether it comes from Leftists or religious people. At best, it’s an argument for crypsis, not for believing the dogmas.

    I never told him to believe anything. What I said is that he should remain a Catholic until he gets a woman. I also never said that I am a Catholic.

    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.

    This is partly why I don't believe in atheism.

    It doesn't lead to individualism or separation from orthodoxy.

    What it leads to is liberal orthodoxy which for White men lowers their ability to get a woman.

    It's really as if atheists seem to not realize that they don't have to follow the rules. They drop their religion and then fall back to the rules of liberal orthodoxy. Humans aren't very good at secularism and this is especially true for Whites.

    He would really like a wife and yet the liberal orthodoxy that he unwittingly now serves doesn't care and in fact doesn't want him to procreate.

    Our situation is much more complicated than gods vs heretics.

    Replies: @Alexander Turok

    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.

    I’m certainly aware of the concept, I actually made a thread about it at DSL:

    https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,2312

    I won’t condemn the strategy as immoral or dumb. But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female. Maybe because there’s a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn’t offer much to heterosexual men?

    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Alexander Turok

    Atheism doesn't offer much to heterosexual anyone. If atheism were true, than how could feigning religiosity be immoral? In that case morality is fiction, even meme morality systems like utilitarianism are nonsensical within an atheistic framework.

    Modern Christian congregations like modern everything are certainly feminized, but you'll always grow more even on infertile soil than on barren rock. The only way to win a hard game is to play.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @dfordoom
    @Alexander Turok


    Maybe because there’s a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn’t offer much to heterosexual men?
     
    Yep.

    V.K. Ovelund has a good point. The muscular Christianity of the 19th century appealed to heterosexual men. By the mid-20th century Christianity was more and more looking like a religion for women and homosexuals, and for creepy loser men.

    Once the normal heterosexual men are all gone the normal heterosexual women will start drifting way as well. What's the point in going to church to meet homosexuals and creepy loser men?

    I'm not suggesting that all Christian men are creepy losers, but normal masculine heterosexual men seem to be a steadily declining minority.

    And normal masculine heterosexual men looking for a religion may well start to find Islam more appealing.
    , @John Johnson
    @Alexander Turok

    But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female.

    I don't see why there would only be two ways. You can observe that atheism is a sausage fest and that religion attracts more tacos and then go where the tacos are.

    Maybe because there’s a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn’t offer much to heterosexual men?

    Certainly but so what?

    Atheists get hung up on their liberal programming.

    They get stuck in their basements arguing with themselves about the ethics of faking religion while the dedicated Christian gets first pick of the litter. The atheist ends up alone while telling himself he is the superior.

    I've seen this first hand. Most atheists aren't good at being atheists. They fall back to secular liberal ethics without realizing it.

    Replies: @Wency

  46. @Rich
    @advancedatheist

    I'm from NYC. Where you posers all stand around thinking you're intellectuals and so very sophisticated. I'm Catholic so Jack Chick wasn't part of my catechism. I've spent enough time around atheists, though, to see how narrow minded most are. Afraid to stand up to the herd, going along with the secular order. Followers on everything, global warming, systemic racism, feminism and every other modern fad. Just my experience. There's a handful of right thinking atheists, but very few, usually they don't go for the Jack Chick layup.

    Replies: @Realist

    I’ve spent enough time around atheists, though, to see how narrow minded most are.

    That sounds more like religious fanatics to me.

    Followers on everything, global warming, systemic racism, feminism and every other modern fad.

    That’s not the case with me…I believe in none of that.

    You stated Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians.

    In my comment #30, I requested a citation…but as usual, you ignored it and replied Disagree
    Your comments are just made-up bullshit…like religious dogma.

    • Replies: @Rich
    @Realist

    Are you pretending to be uninformed, or are you for real? You haven't heard of the college student in NY kicked out of his education course because of his opposition to transgenderism? Medical students threatened with expulsion for not performing abortions? Attempts at disbarment for lawyers opposed to homosexual "martiage"? I think you're being disingenuous. Look it up for yourself, if you're actually interested and not playing games.

    Replies: @Realist

  47. @Realist
    @Rich


    I’ve spent enough time around atheists, though, to see how narrow minded most are.
     
    That sounds more like religious fanatics to me.

    Followers on everything, global warming, systemic racism, feminism and every other modern fad.
     
    That's not the case with me...I believe in none of that.

    You stated Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians.

    In my comment #30, I requested a citation...but as usual, you ignored it and replied Disagree
    Your comments are just made-up bullshit...like religious dogma.

    Replies: @Rich

    Are you pretending to be uninformed, or are you for real? You haven’t heard of the college student in NY kicked out of his education course because of his opposition to transgenderism? Medical students threatened with expulsion for not performing abortions? Attempts at disbarment for lawyers opposed to homosexual “martiage”? I think you’re being disingenuous. Look it up for yourself, if you’re actually interested and not playing games.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Rich

    You just talk...no proof. How about an article about a state trying to pass a law deny professional licenses to Christians?

  48. @Realist
    @songbird

    Not all irreligious people are liberals. The irreligious tend to be people who think for themselves.

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    >Religious people are just doing what is psychologically validating within their social framework, unlike members of my social framework, which are entirely free thinkers who don’t have a very predictable line of reasoning and go-to tropes to describe the outgroup
    >And worst of all, religious people have no self awareness!

  49. @Alexander Turok
    @John Johnson


    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.
     
    I'm certainly aware of the concept, I actually made a thread about it at DSL:

    https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,2312

    I won't condemn the strategy as immoral or dumb. But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female. Maybe because there's a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn't offer much to heterosexual men?

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    Atheism doesn’t offer much to heterosexual anyone. If atheism were true, than how could feigning religiosity be immoral? In that case morality is fiction, even meme morality systems like utilitarianism are nonsensical within an atheistic framework.

    Modern Christian congregations like modern everything are certainly feminized, but you’ll always grow more even on infertile soil than on barren rock. The only way to win a hard game is to play.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Athletic and Whitesplosive

    Atheism doesn’t offer much to heterosexual anyone. If atheism were true, than how could feigning religiosity be immoral?

    I asked my atheist friend that same question and he couldn't explain why it was wrong. It just is!

    I'm not even sure why atheists declare themselves to be atheists. Makes more sense to fake religion and ride the middle. It also seems needlessly divisive for those of us that oppose globalism. They don't seem to get that there have always been non-believers in our ranks. They also seem to think that the people in the pews believe 100% of everything they are told even though polls have shown that isn't the case.

    Modern Christian congregations like modern everything are certainly feminized, but you’ll always grow more even on infertile soil than on barren rock.

    Why don't these atheists start their own congregation? If I was a single atheist I would not only fake religion but rise the ranks. Women have a strange attraction to clergy and if there are no rules then what evs. The absolute last thing I would do is pull up a dating app and search for atheists. Geez.

    I honestly have a hard time being around atheists because the vast majority are not able to detangle themselves from liberalism. What we call atheism in the west is really a form of secular egalitarianism and globalist in nature. Of all the atheists I have met I would say that around 1-2% were capable of talking about race and evolution. The rest would shut down immediately and never look at me the same way. They want to bash religion (mostly Christianity and not Islam for reasons they can't explain) but maintain their own protected orthodoxy of equality.

  50. @Firefinga
    @Buzz Mohawk

    1991-93 were the years of so called "political correctness" entering mainstream. Also, Clinton's election was a sign of political correctness making inroads into the mainstream. After all, he pushed for openly homosexuals in the military among other things.

    Today's woke-craze is political correctness on steroids.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    1991-93 were the years of so called “political correctness” entering mainstream.

    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?

    My theory is that we need an enemy to hate. With the Soviet Union gone and China abandoning communism there were no longer any credible external enemies. So people started looking for internal enemies to hate. The communist threat was replaced by the threat of racism, sexism and homophobia.

    • Replies: @A123
    @dfordoom



    1991-93 were the years of so called “political correctness” entering mainstream.
     
    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?
     
    I would like to test this an impact of feminism and/or unionization.

    When Men were family bread earners -- Women went into professions like teaching. Therefore, a large chunk of the teaching profession had substantial Common Sense and commitment to traditional values. With advancement based on success, these strong women became the senior cadre initiating new teachers.

    • Feminism encouraged the best women to find more lucrative positions outside of teaching.
    • Public Sector unionization prioritized conformity & seniority. This greatly decreased the value of actual capability, in some cases making it negative as the most competent refused union conformity.

    The degraded capability of public school teachers opened the door to all sorts of fads like political correctness and "new math".
    ____

    In some ways the artificially exaggerated WUHAN-19 faux-crisis will yield desirable long term results. After Home Schooling for a year, many parents now personally understand how little public schools are delivering.

    PEACE 😇

    , @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?
     
    The late eighties and early nineties was when the former student radicals of the sixties completed the take over of higher education. That was noticed in conservative circles at the time and there were a number of books about it: Impostors in the Temple: The Decline of the American University, The Culture We Deserve, The Closing of the American Mind, Education's Smoking Gun: How Teachers Colleges Have Destroyed Education in America, Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, The War Against the Intellect: Episodes in the Decline of Discourse, Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas, Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education.

    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs. Young journalists were more leftist, young teachers in lower education were more leftist, young lawyers were more leftist and so on. It was this corruption of higher education that was the main cause of subsequent problems. Conservatives were unable to stop this or build parallel institutions.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  51. @dfordoom
    @Firefinga


    1991-93 were the years of so called “political correctness” entering mainstream.
     
    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?

    My theory is that we need an enemy to hate. With the Soviet Union gone and China abandoning communism there were no longer any credible external enemies. So people started looking for internal enemies to hate. The communist threat was replaced by the threat of racism, sexism and homophobia.

    Replies: @A123, @Mark G.

    1991-93 were the years of so called “political correctness” entering mainstream.

    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?

    I would like to test this an impact of feminism and/or unionization.

    When Men were family bread earners — Women went into professions like teaching. Therefore, a large chunk of the teaching profession had substantial Common Sense and commitment to traditional values. With advancement based on success, these strong women became the senior cadre initiating new teachers.

    • Feminism encouraged the best women to find more lucrative positions outside of teaching.
    • Public Sector unionization prioritized conformity & seniority. This greatly decreased the value of actual capability, in some cases making it negative as the most competent refused union conformity.

    The degraded capability of public school teachers opened the door to all sorts of fads like political correctness and “new math”.
    ____

    In some ways the artificially exaggerated WUHAN-19 faux-crisis will yield desirable long term results. After Home Schooling for a year, many parents now personally understand how little public schools are delivering.

    PEACE 😇

  52. @Rich
    @Realist

    Are you pretending to be uninformed, or are you for real? You haven't heard of the college student in NY kicked out of his education course because of his opposition to transgenderism? Medical students threatened with expulsion for not performing abortions? Attempts at disbarment for lawyers opposed to homosexual "martiage"? I think you're being disingenuous. Look it up for yourself, if you're actually interested and not playing games.

    Replies: @Realist

    You just talk…no proof. How about an article about a state trying to pass a law deny professional licenses to Christians?

  53. @Alexander Turok
    @John Johnson


    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.
     
    I'm certainly aware of the concept, I actually made a thread about it at DSL:

    https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,2312

    I won't condemn the strategy as immoral or dumb. But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female. Maybe because there's a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn't offer much to heterosexual men?

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    Maybe because there’s a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn’t offer much to heterosexual men?

    Yep.

    V.K. Ovelund has a good point. The muscular Christianity of the 19th century appealed to heterosexual men. By the mid-20th century Christianity was more and more looking like a religion for women and homosexuals, and for creepy loser men.

    Once the normal heterosexual men are all gone the normal heterosexual women will start drifting way as well. What’s the point in going to church to meet homosexuals and creepy loser men?

    I’m not suggesting that all Christian men are creepy losers, but normal masculine heterosexual men seem to be a steadily declining minority.

    And normal masculine heterosexual men looking for a religion may well start to find Islam more appealing.

  54. @dfordoom
    @Firefinga


    1991-93 were the years of so called “political correctness” entering mainstream.
     
    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?

    My theory is that we need an enemy to hate. With the Soviet Union gone and China abandoning communism there were no longer any credible external enemies. So people started looking for internal enemies to hate. The communist threat was replaced by the threat of racism, sexism and homophobia.

    Replies: @A123, @Mark G.

    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?

    The late eighties and early nineties was when the former student radicals of the sixties completed the take over of higher education. That was noticed in conservative circles at the time and there were a number of books about it: Impostors in the Temple: The Decline of the American University, The Culture We Deserve, The Closing of the American Mind, Education’s Smoking Gun: How Teachers Colleges Have Destroyed Education in America, Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, The War Against the Intellect: Episodes in the Decline of Discourse, Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas, Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education.

    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs. Young journalists were more leftist, young teachers in lower education were more leftist, young lawyers were more leftist and so on. It was this corruption of higher education that was the main cause of subsequent problems. Conservatives were unable to stop this or build parallel institutions.

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


    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs.
     
    Moreover, since everyone entering the professoriate goes through the appointment and tenure system, once the institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to exclude from the professoriate most nonleftists.

    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature's backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mark G.

    , @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    The late eighties and early nineties was when the former student radicals of the sixties completed the take over of higher education.
     
    That doesn't explain the sudden dramatic change. If the sole explanation was the gradual takeover of higher education you'd expect the change to be more gradual.

    There have to be other factors involved.
  55. @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?
     
    The late eighties and early nineties was when the former student radicals of the sixties completed the take over of higher education. That was noticed in conservative circles at the time and there were a number of books about it: Impostors in the Temple: The Decline of the American University, The Culture We Deserve, The Closing of the American Mind, Education's Smoking Gun: How Teachers Colleges Have Destroyed Education in America, Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, The War Against the Intellect: Episodes in the Decline of Discourse, Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas, Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education.

    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs. Young journalists were more leftist, young teachers in lower education were more leftist, young lawyers were more leftist and so on. It was this corruption of higher education that was the main cause of subsequent problems. Conservatives were unable to stop this or build parallel institutions.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs.

    Moreover, since everyone entering the professoriate goes through the appointment and tenure system, once the institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to exclude from the professoriate most nonleftists.

    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?
     
    Here's what I would do (Think Tankers, are you lurking? If so, take notes.)

    1) Pass a law banning "diversity statements"* in the job application process, and in all personnel evaluations (including tenure and promotion decisions), at the state's public colleges and universities.

    1a) Pass a separate law applying the same to private colleges and universities within the state. This one is admittedly on thinner judicial ice, but you never know unless you try.

    Those need to be separate laws in case some judge strikes #1a down.

    2) Pass a law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities must be based on only performance in i) research and ii) teaching. Nothing else. Make it clear in the wording that "teaching" here means only effective classroom teaching of the subject matter and is not construed to cover activities such as "outreach" or "diversity, equity, and inclusion" work.

    3) Pass another law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities be based solely on the materials contained in the application packet or submitted tenure or promotion folders. Decisions may not take into account any outside information, such as a person's reputation on social media, a person's political contributions, personal associations, volunteer work, blogging, etc..

    3a) Also in that law: all hiring, tenure, and promotion committee meetings and deliberations must be video recorded, and no conversations related to those issues may take place outside of recorded meetings or official e-mail accounts. The penalty for violation is removal of one's academic position.

    4) Pass a law establishing a permanent state commission whose charge is to review every single academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions made at state public colleges and universities for compliance with the law put into effect by #2 and #3 above. In small states such as Montana or New Hampshire the number of such cases to review would only be in the double digits annually.

    Deep red states need to start this. Such a thing would establish public colleges and universities in those states as bastions of academic freedom in which some heterodoxy could gain a toe-hold in academia.

    *These are clearly already illegal under the political test for office clause of the US Constitution, but no case has made its way up yet.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Mark G.
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?
     
    I don't know if this is a fixable problem. Civilizations tend to go through cycles of rise and decline and ours is now in the decline phase. I would like to be optimistic and think our problems are reversible but when I look at history I don't see many cases of this happening. It's not likely, though, that we will lose all the scientific and technological knowledge we have accumulated and so may avoid entering some new dark age. Civilization advances may still continue in some parts of the world just like they continued during the European dark age in the Chinese and Arabic parts of the world. There will also be islands of civilization here in the West like the monasteries of the Middle Ages.

    Since higher education, the media and the government are controlled by the left, conservatives may need to create parallel institutions. They also need to follow a populist strategy and try to get support from the middle and working classes. When it became obvious in the nineties the elites had become radicalized by going through the higher education system, paleocons like Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan started suggesting this populist strategy. So did libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  56. @Mark G.
    The nineties was when multiculturalism and its enforcement arm, political correctness, really took hold. This happened because the former sixties student radicals finally achieved positions of power in the media, academia and the government. One of them even became president. Traditional western culture declined as it came under relentless attack and Christianity is part of traditional western culture so it declined too.

    Replies: @Nodwink

    It makes no sense to say that “Christianity is part of traditional western culture.” This is an Asiatic ideology that drifted westward, and severely hampered the development of Europe. The very concept of “Western Civilization” is incoherent in my opinion, as I set out in this blog post:

    https://thenodster.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/go-west/

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Nodwink


    It makes no sense to say that “Christianity is part of traditional western culture.”
     
    I would tend to agree.

    Western Civilisation is essentially meaningless. The classical world was a Mediterranean civilisation, not a western civilisation. The first western civilisation was the Mediæval Civilisation and it was certainly Christian. That civilisation came to an end with the Reformation and the century or so of religious wars that followed.

    The new western civilisation that had emerged by the end of the 17th century was basically secular. There were still plenty of Christians and they still had some influence but the civilisation itself was secular. From the beginning of the 18th century Christianity has been in gradual but inexorable decline and the new western civilisation became more and more secular. That civilisation came to an end in 1945.

    I would also argue that European civilisation and American civilisation have only superficial similarities. American civilisation is based on a bizarre mixture of secular liberalism, superstition and pseudo-religion heavily influenced by various weird Protestant heresies. It's neither Christian not purely secular. Weirdly it's becoming both more secular and more fanatically religious.
  57. anonymous[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs.
     
    Moreover, since everyone entering the professoriate goes through the appointment and tenure system, once the institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to exclude from the professoriate most nonleftists.

    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature's backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mark G.

    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?

    Here’s what I would do (Think Tankers, are you lurking? If so, take notes.)

    1) Pass a law banning “diversity statements”* in the job application process, and in all personnel evaluations (including tenure and promotion decisions), at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    1a) Pass a separate law applying the same to private colleges and universities within the state. This one is admittedly on thinner judicial ice, but you never know unless you try.

    Those need to be separate laws in case some judge strikes #1a down.

    2) Pass a law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities must be based on only performance in i) research and ii) teaching. Nothing else. Make it clear in the wording that “teaching” here means only effective classroom teaching of the subject matter and is not construed to cover activities such as “outreach” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” work.

    3) Pass another law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities be based solely on the materials contained in the application packet or submitted tenure or promotion folders. Decisions may not take into account any outside information, such as a person’s reputation on social media, a person’s political contributions, personal associations, volunteer work, blogging, etc..

    3a) Also in that law: all hiring, tenure, and promotion committee meetings and deliberations must be video recorded, and no conversations related to those issues may take place outside of recorded meetings or official e-mail accounts. The penalty for violation is removal of one’s academic position.

    4) Pass a law establishing a permanent state commission whose charge is to review every single academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions made at state public colleges and universities for compliance with the law put into effect by #2 and #3 above. In small states such as Montana or New Hampshire the number of such cases to review would only be in the double digits annually.

    Deep red states need to start this. Such a thing would establish public colleges and universities in those states as bastions of academic freedom in which some heterodoxy could gain a toe-hold in academia.

    *These are clearly already illegal under the political test for office clause of the US Constitution, but no case has made its way up yet.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @anonymous



    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?
     
    Here’s what I would do (Think Tankers, are you lurking? If so, take notes.)
     
    Though not a Think Tanker, I have closely read your detailed reply. Notes follow.

    1) Pass a law banning “diversity statements”* in the job application process, and in all personnel evaluations (including tenure and promotion decisions), at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    1a) Pass a separate law applying the same to private colleges and universities within the state. This one is admittedly on thinner judicial ice, but you never know unless you try.

    Those need to be separate laws in case some judge strikes #1a down.
     

    Good idea. It can't hurt.

    2) Pass a law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities must be based on only performance in i) research and ii) teaching. Nothing else. Make it clear in the wording that “teaching” here means only effective classroom teaching of the subject matter and is not construed to cover activities such as “outreach” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” work.
     
    Probably unenforceable, but it might be a good idea, anyway.

    3) Pass another law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities be based solely on the materials contained in the application packet or submitted tenure or promotion folders. Decisions may not take into account any outside information, such as a person’s reputation on social media, a person’s political contributions, personal associations, volunteer work, blogging, etc..
     
    As far as I know, no large institution works or can work this way. They mainly hire personnel they already know. You would, too, if you were a university department head, because this is just how normal people behave. Alternatives are unworkable.

    In my state, your suggestion is already the law. Universities and other state departments routinely work around this unworkable law. One way they work around it, for instance, is to write job requirements in a way that only the desired candidate's CV satisfy.

    This is no recent corruption, either. As far as I know, it was the same 100 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of Woke faculty.


    3a) Also in that law: all hiring, tenure, and promotion committee meetings and deliberations must be video recorded, ...
     
    Heh. I love it.

    ... and no conversations related to those issues may take place outside of recorded meetings or official e-mail accounts.
     
    Only rightist faculty would ever follow this rule. Sorry. Also, they already do not use email in such affairs.

    The penalty for violation is removal of one’s academic position.
     
    The rule would be weaponized to remove the academic positions of rightist faculty and of the occasional, rare, conscientious leftist corruption-fighter—unless ...

    4) Pass a law establishing a permanent state commission whose charge is to review every single academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions made at state public colleges and universities for compliance with the law put into effect by #2 and #3 above. In small states such as Montana or New Hampshire the number of such cases to review would only be in the double digits annually.
     
    This seems an excellent idea.

    Deep red states need to start this. Such a thing would establish public colleges and universities in those states as bastions of academic freedom in which some heterodoxy could gain a toe-hold in academia.
     
    Sign me up. I endorse.

    Replies: @anonymous

  58. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs.
     
    Moreover, since everyone entering the professoriate goes through the appointment and tenure system, once the institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to exclude from the professoriate most nonleftists.

    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature's backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?

    Replies: @anonymous, @Mark G.

    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?

    I don’t know if this is a fixable problem. Civilizations tend to go through cycles of rise and decline and ours is now in the decline phase. I would like to be optimistic and think our problems are reversible but when I look at history I don’t see many cases of this happening. It’s not likely, though, that we will lose all the scientific and technological knowledge we have accumulated and so may avoid entering some new dark age. Civilization advances may still continue in some parts of the world just like they continued during the European dark age in the Chinese and Arabic parts of the world. There will also be islands of civilization here in the West like the monasteries of the Middle Ages.

    Since higher education, the media and the government are controlled by the left, conservatives may need to create parallel institutions. They also need to follow a populist strategy and try to get support from the middle and working classes. When it became obvious in the nineties the elites had become radicalized by going through the higher education system, paleocons like Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan started suggesting this populist strategy. So did libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    I don’t know if this is a fixable problem. Civilizations tend to go through cycles of rise and decline and ours is now in the decline phase. I would like to be optimistic and think our problems are reversible but when I look at history I don’t see many cases of this happening.
     
    We can only hope that the decline continues. In fact we can only hope that the decline accelerates.

    Since higher education, the media and the government are controlled by the left, conservatives may need to create parallel institutions.
     
    Conservatives have more important things to focus on. Like tax cuts!

    The chances of conservatives creating viable parallel institutions are close to zero.

    They also need to follow a populist strategy and try to get support from the middle and working classes.
     
    Most conservatives would rather die than do anything that might help the working class.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  59. @advancedatheist
    @Charles Pewitt


    The multiple series of asset bubbles inflated by the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank bought off the greedy White slobs born before 1965 and that is why the nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration wasn’t stopped sooner.
     
    Libertarians claim that they prefer private control over the major institutions of society, including as many of the functions of the government as possible. So I've never understood their animosity towards the private owners of the Federal Reserve, unless they see the Fed as a counter-example which undermines their thesis about the superiority of private ownership.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    Mr. advancedatheist says:

    Libertarians claim that they prefer private control over the major institutions of society, including as many of the functions of the government as possible. So I’ve never understood their animosity towards the private owners of the Federal Reserve, unless they see the Fed as a counter-example which undermines their thesis about the superiority of private ownership.

    I say:

    The privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank should be NATIONALIZED immediately and the libertarian lunatic wacko nuts ain’t going for that.

    This crud about the so-called “privatization” was a smash and grab job from the get-go and they did it big time in England with arsehole baby boomer Tony Blair and that baby boomer puppet whore for the plutocrats Bill Clinton was somewhat pushing it too.

    Your point about the libertarians and the Fed and the private controllers of the Fed is spot on and the libertarians have no answer to your question.

    My answer to the libertarians is that they are nutcake high IQ morons of the worst sort with their waving their fist in your face but not touching your nose and they think that’s so clever. That always gets me to laugh. I want some high IQ moron libertarians to go into a bar about midnight and start waving their fist in people’s faces, the boozy women will kick them in the balls, and the bombed men will take them apart.

    My mild and reasonable thoughts on libertarianism from September of 2019:

    Modest and mildly moderate thoughts and proposals about Libertarians and Libertarianism:

    Libertarianism Is An Evil Of An Almost Incomprehensible Magnitude

    Libertarian Louts Get On My Nerves, Dammit!

    Libertarianism Must Be Extinguished As An Ideology Immediately!

    All Libertarians Must be Sent Into Forcible Exile In Sub-Saharan Africa Now!

    Go Ahead And Try To Wave Your Fist In Front Of My Nose, You Insolent Libertarian Twat!

    I Really Don’t Like John Stossel or Ayn Rand!

    Ayn Rand And John Stossel Are Anti-White And Anti-Christian — That Is There Animating Motivation. The Enemy To Karl Marx And George Soros And Ayn Rand And John Stossel Is European Christendom.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/oh-dear/#comment-3442119

    Tweets from 2014:

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Charles Pewitt

    My answer to the libertarians is that they are nutcake high IQ morons of the worst sort with their waving their fist in your face but not touching your nose and they think that’s so clever.

    I think you are being too generous.

    It isn't high intelligence that drives them. But in many ways they embrace a system of stupid thinking for smart people as you describe.

    Libertarianism offers a simplistic way of thinking for people that oppose the left. Every single problem has the same solution which is deregulate. It's pretty easy to argue the libertarian position as long as you don't have to answer questions from right or center skeptics. They are used to liberal criticism which they just write off as socialism.

    I've made many libertarians go crazy just by asking them if they support limitless immigration from the third world and fully auto AK-47s for Black felons. Their party openly supports those positions. I've had to dig up the libertarian party platform numerous times to show this.

  60. @JohnPlywood
    @nebulafox

    That's a strong cope if I ever saw one. What you call a "normal, masculine" guy is incel anywhere in America, not just Silicon Valley. That's why they are dying of self-inflicted gunshot wounds and drug overdoses at record rates.


    At the top of the male sexual hierarchy in the United States are college educated white males with a postgraduate degree, and atheist, from Yankee states. Religious, truck driving white men from the South are unpopular with women, due to their inability to afford a diet consisting of something other than pork rinds and TV dinners.

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/8/eaap9815/F2.large.jpg

    Techbros get the pussy, truckbros eat the bullets.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    At the top of the male sexual hierarchy in the United States are college educated white males with a postgraduate degree, and atheist, from Yankee states.

    Postgrad atheists are getting all the women?? HILARIOUS.

    Most postgrad degrees don’t pay for themselves and women are well aware of that. They don’t care if you have a postgrad in history or sociology.

    Just because women will rate education as desirable in a poll does not tell us the actual status of postgrad atheists.

    You really watch too much tv. Go visit your local University and work with some postgrad students.

    Religious, truck driving white men from the South are unpopular with women, due to their inability to afford a diet consisting of something other than pork rinds and TV dinners.

    I’ve been just about everywhere in this country and women really do go after cowboys and masculine men. Go to a line dancing bar in the south and compare it to any tech area bar. Good lord not even close.

    Techbros get the pussy, truckbros eat the bullets.

    It’s just not true. The tech guys at the top get plenty of action while most tech workers have to compete for the same women due to these areas having so many men. The tech burb I used to live near was probably a 20:1 ratio. All these single men living in condos but on paper they should be highly desired by women.

  61. @Alexander Turok
    @John Johnson


    As an atheist he should have realized the utility of faking a religion to gain a woman.
     
    I'm certainly aware of the concept, I actually made a thread about it at DSL:

    https://www.datasecretslox.com/index.php/topic,2312

    I won't condemn the strategy as immoral or dumb. But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female. Maybe because there's a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn't offer much to heterosexual men?

    Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive, @dfordoom, @John Johnson

    But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female.

    I don’t see why there would only be two ways. You can observe that atheism is a sausage fest and that religion attracts more tacos and then go where the tacos are.

    Maybe because there’s a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn’t offer much to heterosexual men?

    Certainly but so what?

    Atheists get hung up on their liberal programming.

    They get stuck in their basements arguing with themselves about the ethics of faking religion while the dedicated Christian gets first pick of the litter. The atheist ends up alone while telling himself he is the superior.

    I’ve seen this first hand. Most atheists aren’t good at being atheists. They fall back to secular liberal ethics without realizing it.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @John Johnson

    I'll admit that, as a young man on the fence about religion, I was indeed partly (though not entirely) inspired by the observation that Christianity has more women than men, they have a strong preference for Christian men, and they tend to be more conservative and much better wife material than secular women. Yeah, there are plenty of trashy Christian women and some perfectly fine secular women, but anyone who thinks Christian women aren't better as a class is kidding themselves.

    It's incredibly easy to get women as a churchgoing man. There are literally zero single men beyond college-age at most churches I've attended, and if they do exist, they are very dysfunctional. I knew a guy at church -- short, not handsome, with a severe speech impediment such that I couldn't understand 90% of what he said. But a kind and gentle soul. I figured he was definitely going to die alone. Then one day I watched him finally make a move on a very plain but not fat and perfectly pleasant girl at church, and they ended up married. Still married, three kids.

    The fact is that if you want to believe, you can find reasons to believe. I can't really imagine a worse hill than atheism to die on. Made more true if it's atheism with conventional liberal ethics or a worship of utilitarianism -- at least have the decency to be internally consistent and go about your life with sociopathic nihilism.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  62. @Charles Pewitt
    @advancedatheist

    Mr. advancedatheist says:

    Libertarians claim that they prefer private control over the major institutions of society, including as many of the functions of the government as possible. So I’ve never understood their animosity towards the private owners of the Federal Reserve, unless they see the Fed as a counter-example which undermines their thesis about the superiority of private ownership.

    I say:

    The privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank should be NATIONALIZED immediately and the libertarian lunatic wacko nuts ain't going for that.

    This crud about the so-called "privatization" was a smash and grab job from the get-go and they did it big time in England with arsehole baby boomer Tony Blair and that baby boomer puppet whore for the plutocrats Bill Clinton was somewhat pushing it too.

    Your point about the libertarians and the Fed and the private controllers of the Fed is spot on and the libertarians have no answer to your question.

    My answer to the libertarians is that they are nutcake high IQ morons of the worst sort with their waving their fist in your face but not touching your nose and they think that's so clever. That always gets me to laugh. I want some high IQ moron libertarians to go into a bar about midnight and start waving their fist in people's faces, the boozy women will kick them in the balls, and the bombed men will take them apart.

    My mild and reasonable thoughts on libertarianism from September of 2019:

    Modest and mildly moderate thoughts and proposals about Libertarians and Libertarianism:

    Libertarianism Is An Evil Of An Almost Incomprehensible Magnitude

    Libertarian Louts Get On My Nerves, Dammit!

    Libertarianism Must Be Extinguished As An Ideology Immediately!

    All Libertarians Must be Sent Into Forcible Exile In Sub-Saharan Africa Now!

    Go Ahead And Try To Wave Your Fist In Front Of My Nose, You Insolent Libertarian Twat!

    I Really Don’t Like John Stossel or Ayn Rand!

    Ayn Rand And John Stossel Are Anti-White And Anti-Christian — That Is There Animating Motivation. The Enemy To Karl Marx And George Soros And Ayn Rand And John Stossel Is European Christendom.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/oh-dear/#comment-3442119

    Tweets from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/498852244977381376?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/549647541110063105?s=20

    Replies: @John Johnson

    My answer to the libertarians is that they are nutcake high IQ morons of the worst sort with their waving their fist in your face but not touching your nose and they think that’s so clever.

    I think you are being too generous.

    It isn’t high intelligence that drives them. But in many ways they embrace a system of stupid thinking for smart people as you describe.

    Libertarianism offers a simplistic way of thinking for people that oppose the left. Every single problem has the same solution which is deregulate. It’s pretty easy to argue the libertarian position as long as you don’t have to answer questions from right or center skeptics. They are used to liberal criticism which they just write off as socialism.

    I’ve made many libertarians go crazy just by asking them if they support limitless immigration from the third world and fully auto AK-47s for Black felons. Their party openly supports those positions. I’ve had to dig up the libertarian party platform numerous times to show this.

  63. @John Johnson
    @Alexander Turok

    But there are two ways to look at this, you can observe that atheism is a sausage fest, and thus undesirable, or you can ask the question of why it is that atheism is disproportionately male and religion disproportionately female.

    I don't see why there would only be two ways. You can observe that atheism is a sausage fest and that religion attracts more tacos and then go where the tacos are.

    Maybe because there’s a perception that contemporary Christianity doesn’t offer much to heterosexual men?

    Certainly but so what?

    Atheists get hung up on their liberal programming.

    They get stuck in their basements arguing with themselves about the ethics of faking religion while the dedicated Christian gets first pick of the litter. The atheist ends up alone while telling himself he is the superior.

    I've seen this first hand. Most atheists aren't good at being atheists. They fall back to secular liberal ethics without realizing it.

    Replies: @Wency

    I’ll admit that, as a young man on the fence about religion, I was indeed partly (though not entirely) inspired by the observation that Christianity has more women than men, they have a strong preference for Christian men, and they tend to be more conservative and much better wife material than secular women. Yeah, there are plenty of trashy Christian women and some perfectly fine secular women, but anyone who thinks Christian women aren’t better as a class is kidding themselves.

    It’s incredibly easy to get women as a churchgoing man. There are literally zero single men beyond college-age at most churches I’ve attended, and if they do exist, they are very dysfunctional. I knew a guy at church — short, not handsome, with a severe speech impediment such that I couldn’t understand 90% of what he said. But a kind and gentle soul. I figured he was definitely going to die alone. Then one day I watched him finally make a move on a very plain but not fat and perfectly pleasant girl at church, and they ended up married. Still married, three kids.

    The fact is that if you want to believe, you can find reasons to believe. I can’t really imagine a worse hill than atheism to die on. Made more true if it’s atheism with conventional liberal ethics or a worship of utilitarianism — at least have the decency to be internally consistent and go about your life with sociopathic nihilism.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wency

    It’s incredibly easy to get women as a churchgoing man. There are literally zero single men beyond college-age at most churches I’ve attended, and if they do exist, they are very dysfunctional.

    It really is easy if you are clean and have a basic job. Heck I could do it without a job. Most churches have more women than men. If you get the stamp of approval people at churches will put you on dates with cousins or single women from other churches. That is how my friend got married.

    Anyways my single atheist friend in college did one of those river floats and talked about coming across a group of Mormons. He said he couldn't believe how hot the women were while the guys were dorky.

    I'm looking at him thinking......explain again why the Mormons are the suckers?

    I can’t really imagine a worse hill than atheism to die on.

    That sums it up perfectly. Most of them are dying for liberalism without even realizing it.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

  64. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    @Alexander Turok

    Atheism doesn't offer much to heterosexual anyone. If atheism were true, than how could feigning religiosity be immoral? In that case morality is fiction, even meme morality systems like utilitarianism are nonsensical within an atheistic framework.

    Modern Christian congregations like modern everything are certainly feminized, but you'll always grow more even on infertile soil than on barren rock. The only way to win a hard game is to play.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Atheism doesn’t offer much to heterosexual anyone. If atheism were true, than how could feigning religiosity be immoral?

    I asked my atheist friend that same question and he couldn’t explain why it was wrong. It just is!

    I’m not even sure why atheists declare themselves to be atheists. Makes more sense to fake religion and ride the middle. It also seems needlessly divisive for those of us that oppose globalism. They don’t seem to get that there have always been non-believers in our ranks. They also seem to think that the people in the pews believe 100% of everything they are told even though polls have shown that isn’t the case.

    Modern Christian congregations like modern everything are certainly feminized, but you’ll always grow more even on infertile soil than on barren rock.

    Why don’t these atheists start their own congregation? If I was a single atheist I would not only fake religion but rise the ranks. Women have a strange attraction to clergy and if there are no rules then what evs. The absolute last thing I would do is pull up a dating app and search for atheists. Geez.

    I honestly have a hard time being around atheists because the vast majority are not able to detangle themselves from liberalism. What we call atheism in the west is really a form of secular egalitarianism and globalist in nature. Of all the atheists I have met I would say that around 1-2% were capable of talking about race and evolution. The rest would shut down immediately and never look at me the same way. They want to bash religion (mostly Christianity and not Islam for reasons they can’t explain) but maintain their own protected orthodoxy of equality.

  65. @Wency
    @John Johnson

    I'll admit that, as a young man on the fence about religion, I was indeed partly (though not entirely) inspired by the observation that Christianity has more women than men, they have a strong preference for Christian men, and they tend to be more conservative and much better wife material than secular women. Yeah, there are plenty of trashy Christian women and some perfectly fine secular women, but anyone who thinks Christian women aren't better as a class is kidding themselves.

    It's incredibly easy to get women as a churchgoing man. There are literally zero single men beyond college-age at most churches I've attended, and if they do exist, they are very dysfunctional. I knew a guy at church -- short, not handsome, with a severe speech impediment such that I couldn't understand 90% of what he said. But a kind and gentle soul. I figured he was definitely going to die alone. Then one day I watched him finally make a move on a very plain but not fat and perfectly pleasant girl at church, and they ended up married. Still married, three kids.

    The fact is that if you want to believe, you can find reasons to believe. I can't really imagine a worse hill than atheism to die on. Made more true if it's atheism with conventional liberal ethics or a worship of utilitarianism -- at least have the decency to be internally consistent and go about your life with sociopathic nihilism.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    It’s incredibly easy to get women as a churchgoing man. There are literally zero single men beyond college-age at most churches I’ve attended, and if they do exist, they are very dysfunctional.

    It really is easy if you are clean and have a basic job. Heck I could do it without a job. Most churches have more women than men. If you get the stamp of approval people at churches will put you on dates with cousins or single women from other churches. That is how my friend got married.

    Anyways my single atheist friend in college did one of those river floats and talked about coming across a group of Mormons. He said he couldn’t believe how hot the women were while the guys were dorky.

    I’m looking at him thinking……explain again why the Mormons are the suckers?

    I can’t really imagine a worse hill than atheism to die on.

    That sums it up perfectly. Most of them are dying for liberalism without even realizing it.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn't going to end well.

    I've been told to go to church by multiple people who sense my problems. They always mean well, so I in no way resent the suggestion. Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn't really a religious site anymore: it is more a social gathering, and one not likely to offer anything different from other failing mainstream outlets. Call me corny or autistic or hypocritical, but I believe that religion should involve profundity, genuine faith, and that's necessarily going to involve bucking social norms hostile to your beliefs in an age where media outlets respond with genuine shock that no Pope is ever going to overturn thousands of years of dogma to get a nice write-up in the NYT for approving gay marriage.

    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don't really care about an afterlife-it's something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it'd be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don't even know how my relationship with God stands.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson, @A123, @Wency

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @John Johnson


    Anyways my single atheist friend in college did one of those river floats and talked about coming across a group of Mormons. He said he couldn’t believe how hot the women were while the guys were dorky.
     
    For hot women, Mormons equal Lutherans. It doesn't get much better in that respect.

    However, young Mormon men are by far the least dorky of any church, unless by dorky your friend means that the men are earnest, clean and muscular. There is a reason BYU wins at gridiron.

    However, a non-Mormon is not likely to compete for Mormon women. All the good Mormon women (they are many) marry men who have completed Latter-day Saint missions. The Mormons seem to have a pretty effective control mechanism in place to prevent poaching of their women.

    Bachelors: you'll have better luck with the Lutherans.

  66. @John Johnson
    @Wency

    It’s incredibly easy to get women as a churchgoing man. There are literally zero single men beyond college-age at most churches I’ve attended, and if they do exist, they are very dysfunctional.

    It really is easy if you are clean and have a basic job. Heck I could do it without a job. Most churches have more women than men. If you get the stamp of approval people at churches will put you on dates with cousins or single women from other churches. That is how my friend got married.

    Anyways my single atheist friend in college did one of those river floats and talked about coming across a group of Mormons. He said he couldn't believe how hot the women were while the guys were dorky.

    I'm looking at him thinking......explain again why the Mormons are the suckers?

    I can’t really imagine a worse hill than atheism to die on.

    That sums it up perfectly. Most of them are dying for liberalism without even realizing it.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn’t going to end well.

    I’ve been told to go to church by multiple people who sense my problems. They always mean well, so I in no way resent the suggestion. Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn’t really a religious site anymore: it is more a social gathering, and one not likely to offer anything different from other failing mainstream outlets. Call me corny or autistic or hypocritical, but I believe that religion should involve profundity, genuine faith, and that’s necessarily going to involve bucking social norms hostile to your beliefs in an age where media outlets respond with genuine shock that no Pope is ever going to overturn thousands of years of dogma to get a nice write-up in the NYT for approving gay marriage.

    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don’t really care about an afterlife-it’s something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it’d be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don’t even know how my relationship with God stands.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox

    You are a good man.


    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don’t really care about an afterlife-it’s something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it’d be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don’t even know how my relationship with God stands.
     
    If you wish to enter with true intentions rather than with false pretenses, then read this short book first. Ignore the incompetent cover art: the book is great. (Notice how high the price of the out-of-print hardcover is. That's how good the book is. Fortunately, the paperback is inexpensive.)

    Book recommendations are too much like homework assignments, I know. They're obnoxious. Anyway, just read the book.

    , @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn’t going to end well.

    Probably more likely to divorce but the typical atheist is still better off faking it and getting some kids out of the deal.

    It's not uncommon for the dad to be less interested in church than the mom.

    You will see married women taking the kids while dad is off golfing.

    Any of that is better than being some proud atheist in the city who lives alone and celebrates Christmas by getting online and talking about how it is a sham.

    Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it’d be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don’t even know how my relationship with God stands.

    Sure but there is nothing wrong with joining a church for social reasons. I've known a lot of people that had their reservations with some of the teachings but stuck around for the social network. I also don't have a problem with someone that might peruse the churches for a woman. If you really believe the churches can help people then get them in the doors by any means necessary. A lot of churches already do that with community meals and activities.

    Most atheists though don't have the guts or social skills to fake it. They tend to be socially clueless as seen by how most don't get that saying I'm an atheist is about equal to saying I'm gay to women. A lot of them should probably go gay actually.

    , @A123
    @nebulafox


    Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn’t really a religious site anymore:
     
    Such places should be avoided.

    One of the true strengths of Christianity is that no central authority is mandated. Your family can be Christian without a church. If you find families with similar beliefs, you can form a Bible group that meets at someone's house on Sundays.

    PEACE 😇
    , @Wency
    @nebulafox

    The first step is just showing up, belief or not. Churches are made for non-believers to show up. Take an hour out of your Sunday, visit a church, talk to the people around you, and maybe you'll learn some things -- if not about the eternal, then about people, your community, and our society. There's only so much you can learn about those things from behind a computer screen. Maybe you'll even find a moment for quiet contemplation.

    As for gay churches, those are indeed terrible, but I wouldn't even dismiss the possibility of seeing one for yourself, just to observe and draw your own conclusions. I think you'll find there's a variety of people who show up to them. There are people who seem to sincerely follow gay church theology (these are the worst in my experience), but there are also social clubbers, "spiritual but not religious" types who would be going to UU except they prefer the high church aesthetic, and there are usually a few conservative holdouts, mostly old people who remain out of inertia.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  67. @John Johnson
    @Wency

    It’s incredibly easy to get women as a churchgoing man. There are literally zero single men beyond college-age at most churches I’ve attended, and if they do exist, they are very dysfunctional.

    It really is easy if you are clean and have a basic job. Heck I could do it without a job. Most churches have more women than men. If you get the stamp of approval people at churches will put you on dates with cousins or single women from other churches. That is how my friend got married.

    Anyways my single atheist friend in college did one of those river floats and talked about coming across a group of Mormons. He said he couldn't believe how hot the women were while the guys were dorky.

    I'm looking at him thinking......explain again why the Mormons are the suckers?

    I can’t really imagine a worse hill than atheism to die on.

    That sums it up perfectly. Most of them are dying for liberalism without even realizing it.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @V. K. Ovelund

    Anyways my single atheist friend in college did one of those river floats and talked about coming across a group of Mormons. He said he couldn’t believe how hot the women were while the guys were dorky.

    For hot women, Mormons equal Lutherans. It doesn’t get much better in that respect.

    However, young Mormon men are by far the least dorky of any church, unless by dorky your friend means that the men are earnest, clean and muscular. There is a reason BYU wins at gridiron.

    However, a non-Mormon is not likely to compete for Mormon women. All the good Mormon women (they are many) marry men who have completed Latter-day Saint missions. The Mormons seem to have a pretty effective control mechanism in place to prevent poaching of their women.

    Bachelors: you’ll have better luck with the Lutherans.

  68. @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn't going to end well.

    I've been told to go to church by multiple people who sense my problems. They always mean well, so I in no way resent the suggestion. Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn't really a religious site anymore: it is more a social gathering, and one not likely to offer anything different from other failing mainstream outlets. Call me corny or autistic or hypocritical, but I believe that religion should involve profundity, genuine faith, and that's necessarily going to involve bucking social norms hostile to your beliefs in an age where media outlets respond with genuine shock that no Pope is ever going to overturn thousands of years of dogma to get a nice write-up in the NYT for approving gay marriage.

    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don't really care about an afterlife-it's something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it'd be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don't even know how my relationship with God stands.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson, @A123, @Wency

    You are a good man.

    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don’t really care about an afterlife-it’s something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it’d be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don’t even know how my relationship with God stands.

    If you wish to enter with true intentions rather than with false pretenses, then read this short book first. Ignore the incompetent cover art: the book is great. (Notice how high the price of the out-of-print hardcover is. That’s how good the book is. Fortunately, the paperback is inexpensive.)

    Book recommendations are too much like homework assignments, I know. They’re obnoxious. Anyway, just read the book.

  69. @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn't going to end well.

    I've been told to go to church by multiple people who sense my problems. They always mean well, so I in no way resent the suggestion. Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn't really a religious site anymore: it is more a social gathering, and one not likely to offer anything different from other failing mainstream outlets. Call me corny or autistic or hypocritical, but I believe that religion should involve profundity, genuine faith, and that's necessarily going to involve bucking social norms hostile to your beliefs in an age where media outlets respond with genuine shock that no Pope is ever going to overturn thousands of years of dogma to get a nice write-up in the NYT for approving gay marriage.

    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don't really care about an afterlife-it's something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it'd be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don't even know how my relationship with God stands.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson, @A123, @Wency

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn’t going to end well.

    Probably more likely to divorce but the typical atheist is still better off faking it and getting some kids out of the deal.

    It’s not uncommon for the dad to be less interested in church than the mom.

    You will see married women taking the kids while dad is off golfing.

    Any of that is better than being some proud atheist in the city who lives alone and celebrates Christmas by getting online and talking about how it is a sham.

    Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it’d be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don’t even know how my relationship with God stands.

    Sure but there is nothing wrong with joining a church for social reasons. I’ve known a lot of people that had their reservations with some of the teachings but stuck around for the social network. I also don’t have a problem with someone that might peruse the churches for a woman. If you really believe the churches can help people then get them in the doors by any means necessary. A lot of churches already do that with community meals and activities.

    Most atheists though don’t have the guts or social skills to fake it. They tend to be socially clueless as seen by how most don’t get that saying I’m an atheist is about equal to saying I’m gay to women. A lot of them should probably go gay actually.

  70. @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn't going to end well.

    I've been told to go to church by multiple people who sense my problems. They always mean well, so I in no way resent the suggestion. Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn't really a religious site anymore: it is more a social gathering, and one not likely to offer anything different from other failing mainstream outlets. Call me corny or autistic or hypocritical, but I believe that religion should involve profundity, genuine faith, and that's necessarily going to involve bucking social norms hostile to your beliefs in an age where media outlets respond with genuine shock that no Pope is ever going to overturn thousands of years of dogma to get a nice write-up in the NYT for approving gay marriage.

    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don't really care about an afterlife-it's something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it'd be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don't even know how my relationship with God stands.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson, @A123, @Wency

    Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn’t really a religious site anymore:

    Such places should be avoided.

    One of the true strengths of Christianity is that no central authority is mandated. Your family can be Christian without a church. If you find families with similar beliefs, you can form a Bible group that meets at someone’s house on Sundays.

    PEACE 😇

  71. >It’s not uncommon for the dad to be less interested in church than the mom.

    A worldwide phenomenon when it comes to spirituality: including in cultures which are still completely male dominated. But it makes sense, right? Women are the intuitive, emotional ones, and they also are the creators.

    >Sure but there is nothing wrong with joining a church for social reasons.

    I’ve never been a huge fan of regulating other people’s lives or thoughts, unlike America’s current elites, and I don’t care at all about having everybody around me agree with me, contra the values America’s modern education system impart. So more power to you if that’s what you think. But for me, everything is wrong with it. (And I’m not even really an atheist-the truth is, I have no clue what I believe.) There’s plenty of avenues out there to meet women that don’t involve lying over the most important thing there is to not lie about.

    As for other guys, some might just not want to lie, a majority probably aren’t interested in waiting until marriage to have sex. Which is actually a great filtering mechanism for a woman, when you think about it. But also something that you shouldn’t bother with if you are a man and you want a normal sex life.

    >They tend to be socially clueless as seen by how most don’t get that saying I’m an atheist is about equal to saying I’m gay to women.

    Uh… no? Being an atheist-let alone just not being religious-is not a big deal for educated people below a certain age in most the developed world. And it’s highly unlikely the kind of guy you are envisioning would be compatible on a basic level with an average woman from the parts of the world where this is not the case.

    SV geeks struggle because they are SV geeks, not because they are largely atheist or agnostic. You really think a normal, confident masculine guy who just happens to be a-religious is going to be rejected by women if he mentions it?

    >Most atheists though don’t have the guts or social skills to fake it… A lot of them should probably go gay actually.

    Why should they have to lie about it? Why not just agree to disagree? Weirdly enough, I don’t think it’d be the a-religious guys who’d have a problem with that one, for the most part.

    I taught myself how to pass for normal with social skills. Painfully, slowly, over the course of many years, with a great deal of damage along the way. So I can lie. I don’t want to. Trust me: it’s not that I don’t have the “guts” for it. It’s because I believe it is wrong. It goes against my *honor*. Something that serves as an anchor in an age completely dominated by people who confuse symbolism and word manipulation with actual action or accomplishment.

    Why the **** is this a bad thing? I’m not Don Quixote. I’ve got no issues with marrying a woman with different beliefs. But I ain’t lying about my own.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @nebulafox

    You really think a normal, confident masculine guy who just happens to be a-religious is going to be rejected by women if he mentions it?

    Yes if he says he is an atheist. You haven't been around enough women if you think most would be fine with that.

    It's one thing to describe yourself as spiritual or in the middle.

    Describing yourself as an atheist to most women is a flat no. It's a rejection of faith.

    Why should they have to lie about it? Why not just agree to disagree? Weirdly enough, I don’t think it’d be the a-religious guys who’d have a problem with that one, for the most part.

    Because it doesn't work that way with women and the main point is the access.

    Anyone who thinks pure political or religious honesty around women is the best policy is naïve. That doesn't mean you have to lie all the time but if you want a woman then you need to learn to moderate your views. There are too many that will reject you if your beliefs diverge too far from theirs.

    Declaring yourself an atheist really doesn't make sense if you are trying to get a woman. It's illogical in fact. There is nothing to be gained from it. It's similar to declaring yourself as a Bisexual or a Communist.

    I'm not telling anyone to fake anything. But a lot of these single White male atheists are playing their hands poorly while their perceived inferiors are cleaning up. If I was trying to sell cars in a mostly Black and Democrat area I wouldn't walk around with a Trump hat on.

  72. I am a rather unusual non-religious conservative. My beliefs must be the polar opposite of the Catholic church. I always disagree with the Pope.

  73. @nebulafox
    >It’s not uncommon for the dad to be less interested in church than the mom.

    A worldwide phenomenon when it comes to spirituality: including in cultures which are still completely male dominated. But it makes sense, right? Women are the intuitive, emotional ones, and they also are the creators.

    >Sure but there is nothing wrong with joining a church for social reasons.

    I've never been a huge fan of regulating other people's lives or thoughts, unlike America's current elites, and I don't care at all about having everybody around me agree with me, contra the values America's modern education system impart. So more power to you if that's what you think. But for me, everything is wrong with it. (And I'm not even really an atheist-the truth is, I have no clue what I believe.) There's plenty of avenues out there to meet women that don't involve lying over the most important thing there is to not lie about.

    As for other guys, some might just not want to lie, a majority probably aren't interested in waiting until marriage to have sex. Which is actually a great filtering mechanism for a woman, when you think about it. But also something that you shouldn't bother with if you are a man and you want a normal sex life.

    >They tend to be socially clueless as seen by how most don’t get that saying I’m an atheist is about equal to saying I’m gay to women.

    Uh... no? Being an atheist-let alone just not being religious-is not a big deal for educated people below a certain age in most the developed world. And it's highly unlikely the kind of guy you are envisioning would be compatible on a basic level with an average woman from the parts of the world where this is not the case.

    SV geeks struggle because they are SV geeks, not because they are largely atheist or agnostic. You really think a normal, confident masculine guy who just happens to be a-religious is going to be rejected by women if he mentions it?

    >Most atheists though don’t have the guts or social skills to fake it... A lot of them should probably go gay actually.

    Why should they have to lie about it? Why not just agree to disagree? Weirdly enough, I don't think it'd be the a-religious guys who'd have a problem with that one, for the most part.

    I taught myself how to pass for normal with social skills. Painfully, slowly, over the course of many years, with a great deal of damage along the way. So I can lie. I don't want to. Trust me: it's not that I don't have the "guts" for it. It's because I believe it is wrong. It goes against my *honor*. Something that serves as an anchor in an age completely dominated by people who confuse symbolism and word manipulation with actual action or accomplishment.

    Why the **** is this a bad thing? I'm not Don Quixote. I've got no issues with marrying a woman with different beliefs. But I ain't lying about my own.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    You really think a normal, confident masculine guy who just happens to be a-religious is going to be rejected by women if he mentions it?

    Yes if he says he is an atheist. You haven’t been around enough women if you think most would be fine with that.

    It’s one thing to describe yourself as spiritual or in the middle.

    Describing yourself as an atheist to most women is a flat no. It’s a rejection of faith.

    Why should they have to lie about it? Why not just agree to disagree? Weirdly enough, I don’t think it’d be the a-religious guys who’d have a problem with that one, for the most part.

    Because it doesn’t work that way with women and the main point is the access.

    Anyone who thinks pure political or religious honesty around women is the best policy is naïve. That doesn’t mean you have to lie all the time but if you want a woman then you need to learn to moderate your views. There are too many that will reject you if your beliefs diverge too far from theirs.

    Declaring yourself an atheist really doesn’t make sense if you are trying to get a woman. It’s illogical in fact. There is nothing to be gained from it. It’s similar to declaring yourself as a Bisexual or a Communist.

    I’m not telling anyone to fake anything. But a lot of these single White male atheists are playing their hands poorly while their perceived inferiors are cleaning up. If I was trying to sell cars in a mostly Black and Democrat area I wouldn’t walk around with a Trump hat on.

  74. @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    Yes, but why did it suddenly go mainstream?
     
    The late eighties and early nineties was when the former student radicals of the sixties completed the take over of higher education. That was noticed in conservative circles at the time and there were a number of books about it: Impostors in the Temple: The Decline of the American University, The Culture We Deserve, The Closing of the American Mind, Education's Smoking Gun: How Teachers Colleges Have Destroyed Education in America, Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education, The War Against the Intellect: Episodes in the Decline of Discourse, Inside American Education: The Decline, the Deception, the Dogmas, Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education.

    Since everyone entering the professions goes through the university system, once these institutions were taken over by radical leftists they were able to infect the students with their beliefs. Young journalists were more leftist, young teachers in lower education were more leftist, young lawyers were more leftist and so on. It was this corruption of higher education that was the main cause of subsequent problems. Conservatives were unable to stop this or build parallel institutions.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    The late eighties and early nineties was when the former student radicals of the sixties completed the take over of higher education.

    That doesn’t explain the sudden dramatic change. If the sole explanation was the gradual takeover of higher education you’d expect the change to be more gradual.

    There have to be other factors involved.

  75. @Nodwink
    @Mark G.

    It makes no sense to say that "Christianity is part of traditional western culture." This is an Asiatic ideology that drifted westward, and severely hampered the development of Europe. The very concept of "Western Civilization" is incoherent in my opinion, as I set out in this blog post:

    https://thenodster.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/go-west/

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It makes no sense to say that “Christianity is part of traditional western culture.”

    I would tend to agree.

    Western Civilisation is essentially meaningless. The classical world was a Mediterranean civilisation, not a western civilisation. The first western civilisation was the Mediæval Civilisation and it was certainly Christian. That civilisation came to an end with the Reformation and the century or so of religious wars that followed.

    The new western civilisation that had emerged by the end of the 17th century was basically secular. There were still plenty of Christians and they still had some influence but the civilisation itself was secular. From the beginning of the 18th century Christianity has been in gradual but inexorable decline and the new western civilisation became more and more secular. That civilisation came to an end in 1945.

    I would also argue that European civilisation and American civilisation have only superficial similarities. American civilisation is based on a bizarre mixture of secular liberalism, superstition and pseudo-religion heavily influenced by various weird Protestant heresies. It’s neither Christian not purely secular. Weirdly it’s becoming both more secular and more fanatically religious.

    • Agree: Nodwink
  76. @Mark G.
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?
     
    I don't know if this is a fixable problem. Civilizations tend to go through cycles of rise and decline and ours is now in the decline phase. I would like to be optimistic and think our problems are reversible but when I look at history I don't see many cases of this happening. It's not likely, though, that we will lose all the scientific and technological knowledge we have accumulated and so may avoid entering some new dark age. Civilization advances may still continue in some parts of the world just like they continued during the European dark age in the Chinese and Arabic parts of the world. There will also be islands of civilization here in the West like the monasteries of the Middle Ages.

    Since higher education, the media and the government are controlled by the left, conservatives may need to create parallel institutions. They also need to follow a populist strategy and try to get support from the middle and working classes. When it became obvious in the nineties the elites had become radicalized by going through the higher education system, paleocons like Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan started suggesting this populist strategy. So did libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I don’t know if this is a fixable problem. Civilizations tend to go through cycles of rise and decline and ours is now in the decline phase. I would like to be optimistic and think our problems are reversible but when I look at history I don’t see many cases of this happening.

    We can only hope that the decline continues. In fact we can only hope that the decline accelerates.

    Since higher education, the media and the government are controlled by the left, conservatives may need to create parallel institutions.

    Conservatives have more important things to focus on. Like tax cuts!

    The chances of conservatives creating viable parallel institutions are close to zero.

    They also need to follow a populist strategy and try to get support from the middle and working classes.

    Most conservatives would rather die than do anything that might help the working class.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    Most conservatives would rather die than do anything that might help the working class.

    Yes and if the GOP doesn't change this attitude a third party will emerge.

    Their choice will be to go populist or see where they land in a three way system.

    The mistake Trump made was not doubling down on populism and telling the tradcons to take a hike. Bannon understood this and they kicked him out.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  77. @nebulafox
    @John Johnson

    Elephant in the bedroom, though: a marriage that begins on lies about fundamental issues of belief isn't going to end well.

    I've been told to go to church by multiple people who sense my problems. They always mean well, so I in no way resent the suggestion. Thing is, though, a church that waves rainbow flags and spouts liberal pieties in an attempt to conform with the times isn't really a religious site anymore: it is more a social gathering, and one not likely to offer anything different from other failing mainstream outlets. Call me corny or autistic or hypocritical, but I believe that religion should involve profundity, genuine faith, and that's necessarily going to involve bucking social norms hostile to your beliefs in an age where media outlets respond with genuine shock that no Pope is ever going to overturn thousands of years of dogma to get a nice write-up in the NYT for approving gay marriage.

    And I have too much respect for places that do offer that to enter under false pretenses, be it a church, a temple, a mosque: whatever. I don't really care about an afterlife-it's something that no human being alive can know about, in the end-and the social improvement aspects can be found through other social associations. Religion to me should be about *truth*, more than anything, so it'd be supremely disrespectful for me to come when I don't even know how my relationship with God stands.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson, @A123, @Wency

    The first step is just showing up, belief or not. Churches are made for non-believers to show up. Take an hour out of your Sunday, visit a church, talk to the people around you, and maybe you’ll learn some things — if not about the eternal, then about people, your community, and our society. There’s only so much you can learn about those things from behind a computer screen. Maybe you’ll even find a moment for quiet contemplation.

    As for gay churches, those are indeed terrible, but I wouldn’t even dismiss the possibility of seeing one for yourself, just to observe and draw your own conclusions. I think you’ll find there’s a variety of people who show up to them. There are people who seem to sincerely follow gay church theology (these are the worst in my experience), but there are also social clubbers, “spiritual but not religious” types who would be going to UU except they prefer the high church aesthetic, and there are usually a few conservative holdouts, mostly old people who remain out of inertia.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wency

    As for gay churches, those are indeed terrible, but I wouldn’t even dismiss the possibility of seeing one for yourself, just to observe and draw your own conclusions.

    Yea you can walk by them on a Sunday and see how empty they are.

    When I lived in the city the only one that had congregants was a "make your own religion" new age church. Gays aren't interested in Christianity but don't point this out to fuzzy-feelings leftist clergy. People with children aren't going to them either.

    Replies: @Wency

  78. @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    I don’t know if this is a fixable problem. Civilizations tend to go through cycles of rise and decline and ours is now in the decline phase. I would like to be optimistic and think our problems are reversible but when I look at history I don’t see many cases of this happening.
     
    We can only hope that the decline continues. In fact we can only hope that the decline accelerates.

    Since higher education, the media and the government are controlled by the left, conservatives may need to create parallel institutions.
     
    Conservatives have more important things to focus on. Like tax cuts!

    The chances of conservatives creating viable parallel institutions are close to zero.

    They also need to follow a populist strategy and try to get support from the middle and working classes.
     
    Most conservatives would rather die than do anything that might help the working class.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Most conservatives would rather die than do anything that might help the working class.

    Yes and if the GOP doesn’t change this attitude a third party will emerge.

    Their choice will be to go populist or see where they land in a three way system.

    The mistake Trump made was not doubling down on populism and telling the tradcons to take a hike. Bannon understood this and they kicked him out.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    Yes and if the GOP doesn’t change this attitude a third party will emerge.
     
    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.

    Plus there's the problem of where the money would come from to fund a third party. If you don't have some elite support you're not going to get any money from the donor class and you're not going to get any corporate money. A third party would need to find a way to attract some elite support.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson

  79. @Wency
    @nebulafox

    The first step is just showing up, belief or not. Churches are made for non-believers to show up. Take an hour out of your Sunday, visit a church, talk to the people around you, and maybe you'll learn some things -- if not about the eternal, then about people, your community, and our society. There's only so much you can learn about those things from behind a computer screen. Maybe you'll even find a moment for quiet contemplation.

    As for gay churches, those are indeed terrible, but I wouldn't even dismiss the possibility of seeing one for yourself, just to observe and draw your own conclusions. I think you'll find there's a variety of people who show up to them. There are people who seem to sincerely follow gay church theology (these are the worst in my experience), but there are also social clubbers, "spiritual but not religious" types who would be going to UU except they prefer the high church aesthetic, and there are usually a few conservative holdouts, mostly old people who remain out of inertia.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    As for gay churches, those are indeed terrible, but I wouldn’t even dismiss the possibility of seeing one for yourself, just to observe and draw your own conclusions.

    Yea you can walk by them on a Sunday and see how empty they are.

    When I lived in the city the only one that had congregants was a “make your own religion” new age church. Gays aren’t interested in Christianity but don’t point this out to fuzzy-feelings leftist clergy. People with children aren’t going to them either.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @John Johnson


    Gays aren’t interested in Christianity but don’t point this out to fuzzy-feelings leftist clergy.
     
    That's actually not true -- gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men. I think they also have a particular draw to the "high church" aesthetic, and while there are multiple reasons why the high churches have had more problems with homosexuality than low churches, aesthetics is probably one of them.

    I've only personally known one openly gay man in my life, who was a friend of a friend, but he attended an Episcopalian church, and he was one of those who took the liberal theology seriously.

    Related: I recall a while back a video going around of a guy who went about town every day dressed to the nines as an impeccable Regency-era gentleman, and all the reactionaries were highly impressed until it turned out that he was, quite predictably, gay. Basically, anytime we're talking about striking aesthetics, gays are going to be drawn disproportionately.

    The UMC won't be fully a gay church until the split becomes official, but in my town, the main UMC church is still the main Protestant social club in town, with plenty of families. It tries to position itself in the middle -- they don't oppose gay marriage, but they don't go head over heels for it quite like the Episcopalians either. Though I do observe that the associate pastor is a woman who posts pro-abortion memes on Twitter and made her husband hyphenate his name.

    It would seem to me that if you mainly want a Protestant social club, the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle -- stay away from controversy, avoid being countercultural and so liberal or conservative that it's distracting. But the middle is getting gayer all the time.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

  80. @anonymous
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?
     
    Here's what I would do (Think Tankers, are you lurking? If so, take notes.)

    1) Pass a law banning "diversity statements"* in the job application process, and in all personnel evaluations (including tenure and promotion decisions), at the state's public colleges and universities.

    1a) Pass a separate law applying the same to private colleges and universities within the state. This one is admittedly on thinner judicial ice, but you never know unless you try.

    Those need to be separate laws in case some judge strikes #1a down.

    2) Pass a law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities must be based on only performance in i) research and ii) teaching. Nothing else. Make it clear in the wording that "teaching" here means only effective classroom teaching of the subject matter and is not construed to cover activities such as "outreach" or "diversity, equity, and inclusion" work.

    3) Pass another law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities be based solely on the materials contained in the application packet or submitted tenure or promotion folders. Decisions may not take into account any outside information, such as a person's reputation on social media, a person's political contributions, personal associations, volunteer work, blogging, etc..

    3a) Also in that law: all hiring, tenure, and promotion committee meetings and deliberations must be video recorded, and no conversations related to those issues may take place outside of recorded meetings or official e-mail accounts. The penalty for violation is removal of one's academic position.

    4) Pass a law establishing a permanent state commission whose charge is to review every single academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions made at state public colleges and universities for compliance with the law put into effect by #2 and #3 above. In small states such as Montana or New Hampshire the number of such cases to review would only be in the double digits annually.

    Deep red states need to start this. Such a thing would establish public colleges and universities in those states as bastions of academic freedom in which some heterodoxy could gain a toe-hold in academia.

    *These are clearly already illegal under the political test for office clause of the US Constitution, but no case has made its way up yet.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?

    Here’s what I would do (Think Tankers, are you lurking? If so, take notes.)

    Though not a Think Tanker, I have closely read your detailed reply. Notes follow.

    [MORE]

    1) Pass a law banning “diversity statements”* in the job application process, and in all personnel evaluations (including tenure and promotion decisions), at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    1a) Pass a separate law applying the same to private colleges and universities within the state. This one is admittedly on thinner judicial ice, but you never know unless you try.

    Those need to be separate laws in case some judge strikes #1a down.

    Good idea. It can’t hurt.

    2) Pass a law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities must be based on only performance in i) research and ii) teaching. Nothing else. Make it clear in the wording that “teaching” here means only effective classroom teaching of the subject matter and is not construed to cover activities such as “outreach” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” work.

    Probably unenforceable, but it might be a good idea, anyway.

    3) Pass another law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities be based solely on the materials contained in the application packet or submitted tenure or promotion folders. Decisions may not take into account any outside information, such as a person’s reputation on social media, a person’s political contributions, personal associations, volunteer work, blogging, etc..

    As far as I know, no large institution works or can work this way. They mainly hire personnel they already know. You would, too, if you were a university department head, because this is just how normal people behave. Alternatives are unworkable.

    In my state, your suggestion is already the law. Universities and other state departments routinely work around this unworkable law. One way they work around it, for instance, is to write job requirements in a way that only the desired candidate’s CV satisfy.

    This is no recent corruption, either. As far as I know, it was the same 100 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of Woke faculty.

    3a) Also in that law: all hiring, tenure, and promotion committee meetings and deliberations must be video recorded, …

    Heh. I love it.

    … and no conversations related to those issues may take place outside of recorded meetings or official e-mail accounts.

    Only rightist faculty would ever follow this rule. Sorry. Also, they already do not use email in such affairs.

    The penalty for violation is removal of one’s academic position.

    The rule would be weaponized to remove the academic positions of rightist faculty and of the occasional, rare, conscientious leftist corruption-fighter—unless …

    4) Pass a law establishing a permanent state commission whose charge is to review every single academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions made at state public colleges and universities for compliance with the law put into effect by #2 and #3 above. In small states such as Montana or New Hampshire the number of such cases to review would only be in the double digits annually.

    This seems an excellent idea.

    Deep red states need to start this. Such a thing would establish public colleges and universities in those states as bastions of academic freedom in which some heterodoxy could gain a toe-hold in academia.

    Sign me up. I endorse.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @V. K. Ovelund


    As far as I know, no large institution works or can work this way. They mainly hire personnel they already know.
     
    This is not true, in general, of tenure-track academic hiring though. For most such positions, an academic department conducts an international search and then eventually narrows the pool to 3-5 candidates who each visit for several days of talks and seminars. Although these days academic departments vastly overweigh demographic and political factors in theses hiring decisions, they do not generally seek to hire just people they know for such positions. It's not like it might be at someone's car dealership or accounting firm. Academic departments only get the opportunity to do a new hire once in a while so they want the best person they can get (granted "best" here being often subjective and by bad criteria lately) from a worldwide pool of applicants.

    Granted, there are a minority of occasions where they do an explicitly sinecure-type hire, or a spousal hire, in which case they do the trick of writing the job requirements too specifically, but that is a minority of cases.

    So for the vast majority of cases, the proposed law would help being about a much greater degree of political heterodoxy among the faculty at the state's colleges and universities.
  81. @John Johnson
    @Wency

    As for gay churches, those are indeed terrible, but I wouldn’t even dismiss the possibility of seeing one for yourself, just to observe and draw your own conclusions.

    Yea you can walk by them on a Sunday and see how empty they are.

    When I lived in the city the only one that had congregants was a "make your own religion" new age church. Gays aren't interested in Christianity but don't point this out to fuzzy-feelings leftist clergy. People with children aren't going to them either.

    Replies: @Wency

    Gays aren’t interested in Christianity but don’t point this out to fuzzy-feelings leftist clergy.

    That’s actually not true — gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men. I think they also have a particular draw to the “high church” aesthetic, and while there are multiple reasons why the high churches have had more problems with homosexuality than low churches, aesthetics is probably one of them.

    I’ve only personally known one openly gay man in my life, who was a friend of a friend, but he attended an Episcopalian church, and he was one of those who took the liberal theology seriously.

    Related: I recall a while back a video going around of a guy who went about town every day dressed to the nines as an impeccable Regency-era gentleman, and all the reactionaries were highly impressed until it turned out that he was, quite predictably, gay. Basically, anytime we’re talking about striking aesthetics, gays are going to be drawn disproportionately.

    The UMC won’t be fully a gay church until the split becomes official, but in my town, the main UMC church is still the main Protestant social club in town, with plenty of families. It tries to position itself in the middle — they don’t oppose gay marriage, but they don’t go head over heels for it quite like the Episcopalians either. Though I do observe that the associate pastor is a woman who posts pro-abortion memes on Twitter and made her husband hyphenate his name.

    It would seem to me that if you mainly want a Protestant social club, the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle — stay away from controversy, avoid being countercultural and so liberal or conservative that it’s distracting. But the middle is getting gayer all the time.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Wency

    That’s actually not true — gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men.

    Polls say not really

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/nearly-half-lgbtq-adults-are-religious-u-s-study-finds-n1249273

    I've walked by these rainbow flag churchs on a Sunday. Empty.

    Drive by a cathedral on palm sunday in any big city and you will see a line.

    It would seem to me that if you mainly want a Protestant social club, the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle — stay away from controversy, avoid being countercultural and so liberal or conservative that it’s distracting. But the middle is getting gayer all the time.

    It is probably too late for most protestant churches. Too many of them bent over backwards to appear modern and just assumed the men would show up anyways. The modern protestant church takes the liberal view that the men are the problem and women are innocent. Most have also adopted race denial and the belief that Whites ruined Africa. White men get enough blame from secular culture, whey would they go to church to get even more?

    , @dfordoom
    @Wency


    That’s actually not true — gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men.
     
    The more intellectual/arty homosexual men have always been drawn to the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian churches. That's why those churches have been so heavily infiltrated by homosexuals. This has been going on for at least a century.

    There are also lots of lesbians who tend to be more attracted to Protestant churches.

    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it's enough to give them enormous influence.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  82. @Wency
    @John Johnson


    Gays aren’t interested in Christianity but don’t point this out to fuzzy-feelings leftist clergy.
     
    That's actually not true -- gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men. I think they also have a particular draw to the "high church" aesthetic, and while there are multiple reasons why the high churches have had more problems with homosexuality than low churches, aesthetics is probably one of them.

    I've only personally known one openly gay man in my life, who was a friend of a friend, but he attended an Episcopalian church, and he was one of those who took the liberal theology seriously.

    Related: I recall a while back a video going around of a guy who went about town every day dressed to the nines as an impeccable Regency-era gentleman, and all the reactionaries were highly impressed until it turned out that he was, quite predictably, gay. Basically, anytime we're talking about striking aesthetics, gays are going to be drawn disproportionately.

    The UMC won't be fully a gay church until the split becomes official, but in my town, the main UMC church is still the main Protestant social club in town, with plenty of families. It tries to position itself in the middle -- they don't oppose gay marriage, but they don't go head over heels for it quite like the Episcopalians either. Though I do observe that the associate pastor is a woman who posts pro-abortion memes on Twitter and made her husband hyphenate his name.

    It would seem to me that if you mainly want a Protestant social club, the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle -- stay away from controversy, avoid being countercultural and so liberal or conservative that it's distracting. But the middle is getting gayer all the time.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

    That’s actually not true — gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men.

    Polls say not really

    https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/nearly-half-lgbtq-adults-are-religious-u-s-study-finds-n1249273

    I’ve walked by these rainbow flag churchs on a Sunday. Empty.

    Drive by a cathedral on palm sunday in any big city and you will see a line.

    It would seem to me that if you mainly want a Protestant social club, the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle — stay away from controversy, avoid being countercultural and so liberal or conservative that it’s distracting. But the middle is getting gayer all the time.

    It is probably too late for most protestant churches. Too many of them bent over backwards to appear modern and just assumed the men would show up anyways. The modern protestant church takes the liberal view that the men are the problem and women are innocent. Most have also adopted race denial and the belief that Whites ruined Africa. White men get enough blame from secular culture, whey would they go to church to get even more?

  83. @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    Most conservatives would rather die than do anything that might help the working class.

    Yes and if the GOP doesn't change this attitude a third party will emerge.

    Their choice will be to go populist or see where they land in a three way system.

    The mistake Trump made was not doubling down on populism and telling the tradcons to take a hike. Bannon understood this and they kicked him out.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Yes and if the GOP doesn’t change this attitude a third party will emerge.

    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.

    Plus there’s the problem of where the money would come from to fund a third party. If you don’t have some elite support you’re not going to get any money from the donor class and you’re not going to get any corporate money. A third party would need to find a way to attract some elite support.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.
     
    Yes, this is right, except that there was probably no specific design.

    The U.S. is harder for a third party than Britain is because the U.S. Constitution forbids executive officers from sitting in Congress. (To explain the connection is left as an exercise.)

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

    , @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible.

    It's very difficult because of the wasted vote problem. A third party enters a two party race and then people are concerned with throwing their vote away.

    But if the GOP doesn't change it isn't going to be a two party race.

    Plus there’s the problem of where the money would come from to fund a third party. If you don’t have some elite support you’re not going to get any money from the donor class and you’re not going to get any corporate money.

    State and local campaigns aren't as dependent on the wealthy or corporate money as most assume. Trump actually had a record number of small donations for a GOP candidate.

    The dirty money is in PACs and mostly used to fund slimy ads. I'm not convinced they are all that effective anymore.

  84. @Wency
    @John Johnson


    Gays aren’t interested in Christianity but don’t point this out to fuzzy-feelings leftist clergy.
     
    That's actually not true -- gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men. I think they also have a particular draw to the "high church" aesthetic, and while there are multiple reasons why the high churches have had more problems with homosexuality than low churches, aesthetics is probably one of them.

    I've only personally known one openly gay man in my life, who was a friend of a friend, but he attended an Episcopalian church, and he was one of those who took the liberal theology seriously.

    Related: I recall a while back a video going around of a guy who went about town every day dressed to the nines as an impeccable Regency-era gentleman, and all the reactionaries were highly impressed until it turned out that he was, quite predictably, gay. Basically, anytime we're talking about striking aesthetics, gays are going to be drawn disproportionately.

    The UMC won't be fully a gay church until the split becomes official, but in my town, the main UMC church is still the main Protestant social club in town, with plenty of families. It tries to position itself in the middle -- they don't oppose gay marriage, but they don't go head over heels for it quite like the Episcopalians either. Though I do observe that the associate pastor is a woman who posts pro-abortion memes on Twitter and made her husband hyphenate his name.

    It would seem to me that if you mainly want a Protestant social club, the ideal is probably somewhere in the middle -- stay away from controversy, avoid being countercultural and so liberal or conservative that it's distracting. But the middle is getting gayer all the time.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @dfordoom

    That’s actually not true — gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men.

    The more intellectual/arty homosexual men have always been drawn to the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian churches. That’s why those churches have been so heavily infiltrated by homosexuals. This has been going on for at least a century.

    There are also lots of lesbians who tend to be more attracted to Protestant churches.

    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it’s enough to give them enormous influence.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    The more intellectual/arty homosexual men have always been drawn to the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian churches. That’s why those churches have been so heavily infiltrated by homosexuals. This has been going on for at least a century.

    Homos have been certainly been joining clergy as a cover. No doubt about it but that still doesn't mean that gay men are more interested in religion than straight men.

    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it’s enough to give them enormous influence.

    I would say they are a blip compared to bitter men that resent female sexuality and strong unapologetic men.

    The churches are filled with weird effeminate men that don't really like men or women.

    Just look at the creepy mega church millionaires. A bunch of creeps that even with millions still aren't comfortable in their own skin.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  85. @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    Yes and if the GOP doesn’t change this attitude a third party will emerge.
     
    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.

    Plus there's the problem of where the money would come from to fund a third party. If you don't have some elite support you're not going to get any money from the donor class and you're not going to get any corporate money. A third party would need to find a way to attract some elite support.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson

    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.

    Yes, this is right, except that there was probably no specific design.

    The U.S. is harder for a third party than Britain is because the U.S. Constitution forbids executive officers from sitting in Congress. (To explain the connection is left as an exercise.)

    • Agree: Wency
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund



    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.
     
    Yes, this is right, except that there was probably no specific design.
     
    I'm not so sure. If a system is put in place by the political establishment of the time I think it's reasonable to assume that the system will be one designed to ensure that the political establishment can never be challenged.

    Two-party systems are intended to ensure stability. Stability of course means that the political establishment must never be challenged.

    Two-party systems are also intended to keep any political minority completely powerless.
    , @A123
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You are correct.

    The Constitution has no intentional design for a party system.

    George Washington explicitly warned against the concept. However, by the time John Adams became the nation's Second President, parties had formed and there was no going back.

    PEACE 😇
     

    https://image.slidesharecdn.com/politicalparties-151028150055-lva1-app6891/95/political-parties-5-638.jpg

  86. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.
     
    Yes, this is right, except that there was probably no specific design.

    The U.S. is harder for a third party than Britain is because the U.S. Constitution forbids executive officers from sitting in Congress. (To explain the connection is left as an exercise.)

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.

    Yes, this is right, except that there was probably no specific design.

    I’m not so sure. If a system is put in place by the political establishment of the time I think it’s reasonable to assume that the system will be one designed to ensure that the political establishment can never be challenged.

    Two-party systems are intended to ensure stability. Stability of course means that the political establishment must never be challenged.

    Two-party systems are also intended to keep any political minority completely powerless.

  87. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.
     
    Yes, this is right, except that there was probably no specific design.

    The U.S. is harder for a third party than Britain is because the U.S. Constitution forbids executive officers from sitting in Congress. (To explain the connection is left as an exercise.)

    Replies: @dfordoom, @A123

    You are correct.

    The Constitution has no intentional design for a party system.

    George Washington explicitly warned against the concept. However, by the time John Adams became the nation’s Second President, parties had formed and there was no going back.

    PEACE 😇
     

  88. @dfordoom
    @John Johnson


    Yes and if the GOP doesn’t change this attitude a third party will emerge.
     
    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible. Rigid two-party winner-take-all systems (as in the US and Britain) are specifically designed to stifle democracy. They are set up to prevent any challenge to the political establishment.

    Plus there's the problem of where the money would come from to fund a third party. If you don't have some elite support you're not going to get any money from the donor class and you're not going to get any corporate money. A third party would need to find a way to attract some elite support.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @John Johnson

    The emergence of a third party is possible but seems very unlikely. The entire political system is set up in such a way as to make it almost impossible.

    It’s very difficult because of the wasted vote problem. A third party enters a two party race and then people are concerned with throwing their vote away.

    But if the GOP doesn’t change it isn’t going to be a two party race.

    Plus there’s the problem of where the money would come from to fund a third party. If you don’t have some elite support you’re not going to get any money from the donor class and you’re not going to get any corporate money.

    State and local campaigns aren’t as dependent on the wealthy or corporate money as most assume. Trump actually had a record number of small donations for a GOP candidate.

    The dirty money is in PACs and mostly used to fund slimy ads. I’m not convinced they are all that effective anymore.

  89. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    That’s actually not true — gay men are more drawn to religion in general than straight men.
     
    The more intellectual/arty homosexual men have always been drawn to the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian churches. That's why those churches have been so heavily infiltrated by homosexuals. This has been going on for at least a century.

    There are also lots of lesbians who tend to be more attracted to Protestant churches.

    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it's enough to give them enormous influence.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    The more intellectual/arty homosexual men have always been drawn to the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian churches. That’s why those churches have been so heavily infiltrated by homosexuals. This has been going on for at least a century.

    Homos have been certainly been joining clergy as a cover. No doubt about it but that still doesn’t mean that gay men are more interested in religion than straight men.

    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it’s enough to give them enormous influence.

    I would say they are a blip compared to bitter men that resent female sexuality and strong unapologetic men.

    The churches are filled with weird effeminate men that don’t really like men or women.

    Just look at the creepy mega church millionaires. A bunch of creeps that even with millions still aren’t comfortable in their own skin.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @John Johnson



    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it’s enough to give them enormous influence.
     
    I would say they are a blip compared to bitter men that resent female sexuality and strong unapologetic men.
     
    Yeah, I mostly agree with that. Although you have to remember that a small group of highly motivated people can exert a lot of influence and homosexuals are highly motivated and politically sophisticated.

    The churches are filled with weird effeminate men that don’t really like men or women.

    Just look at the creepy mega church millionaires. A bunch of creeps that even with millions still aren’t comfortable in their own skin.
     
    Yes, I agree. The biggest problem for Christianity is that the heterosexual men it does attract tend to be mostly creepy loser beta types. Christianity does not attract very many normal masculine heterosexual men.
  90. anonymous[181] • Disclaimer says:
    @V. K. Ovelund
    @anonymous



    Suppose that you were elected governor and had the legislature’s backing to address the problem. What, if anything, might you do about it?
     
    Here’s what I would do (Think Tankers, are you lurking? If so, take notes.)
     
    Though not a Think Tanker, I have closely read your detailed reply. Notes follow.

    1) Pass a law banning “diversity statements”* in the job application process, and in all personnel evaluations (including tenure and promotion decisions), at the state’s public colleges and universities.

    1a) Pass a separate law applying the same to private colleges and universities within the state. This one is admittedly on thinner judicial ice, but you never know unless you try.

    Those need to be separate laws in case some judge strikes #1a down.
     

    Good idea. It can't hurt.

    2) Pass a law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities must be based on only performance in i) research and ii) teaching. Nothing else. Make it clear in the wording that “teaching” here means only effective classroom teaching of the subject matter and is not construed to cover activities such as “outreach” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion” work.
     
    Probably unenforceable, but it might be a good idea, anyway.

    3) Pass another law mandating that all academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions at state public colleges and universities be based solely on the materials contained in the application packet or submitted tenure or promotion folders. Decisions may not take into account any outside information, such as a person’s reputation on social media, a person’s political contributions, personal associations, volunteer work, blogging, etc..
     
    As far as I know, no large institution works or can work this way. They mainly hire personnel they already know. You would, too, if you were a university department head, because this is just how normal people behave. Alternatives are unworkable.

    In my state, your suggestion is already the law. Universities and other state departments routinely work around this unworkable law. One way they work around it, for instance, is to write job requirements in a way that only the desired candidate's CV satisfy.

    This is no recent corruption, either. As far as I know, it was the same 100 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of Woke faculty.


    3a) Also in that law: all hiring, tenure, and promotion committee meetings and deliberations must be video recorded, ...
     
    Heh. I love it.

    ... and no conversations related to those issues may take place outside of recorded meetings or official e-mail accounts.
     
    Only rightist faculty would ever follow this rule. Sorry. Also, they already do not use email in such affairs.

    The penalty for violation is removal of one’s academic position.
     
    The rule would be weaponized to remove the academic positions of rightist faculty and of the occasional, rare, conscientious leftist corruption-fighter—unless ...

    4) Pass a law establishing a permanent state commission whose charge is to review every single academic hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions made at state public colleges and universities for compliance with the law put into effect by #2 and #3 above. In small states such as Montana or New Hampshire the number of such cases to review would only be in the double digits annually.
     
    This seems an excellent idea.

    Deep red states need to start this. Such a thing would establish public colleges and universities in those states as bastions of academic freedom in which some heterodoxy could gain a toe-hold in academia.
     
    Sign me up. I endorse.

    Replies: @anonymous

    As far as I know, no large institution works or can work this way. They mainly hire personnel they already know.

    This is not true, in general, of tenure-track academic hiring though. For most such positions, an academic department conducts an international search and then eventually narrows the pool to 3-5 candidates who each visit for several days of talks and seminars. Although these days academic departments vastly overweigh demographic and political factors in theses hiring decisions, they do not generally seek to hire just people they know for such positions. It’s not like it might be at someone’s car dealership or accounting firm. Academic departments only get the opportunity to do a new hire once in a while so they want the best person they can get (granted “best” here being often subjective and by bad criteria lately) from a worldwide pool of applicants.

    Granted, there are a minority of occasions where they do an explicitly sinecure-type hire, or a spousal hire, in which case they do the trick of writing the job requirements too specifically, but that is a minority of cases.

    So for the vast majority of cases, the proposed law would help being about a much greater degree of political heterodoxy among the faculty at the state’s colleges and universities.

  91. @John Johnson
    @dfordoom

    The more intellectual/arty homosexual men have always been drawn to the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian churches. That’s why those churches have been so heavily infiltrated by homosexuals. This has been going on for at least a century.

    Homos have been certainly been joining clergy as a cover. No doubt about it but that still doesn't mean that gay men are more interested in religion than straight men.

    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it’s enough to give them enormous influence.

    I would say they are a blip compared to bitter men that resent female sexuality and strong unapologetic men.

    The churches are filled with weird effeminate men that don't really like men or women.

    Just look at the creepy mega church millionaires. A bunch of creeps that even with millions still aren't comfortable in their own skin.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The overall numbers of homosexual men and lesbians attracted to Christianity might not be huge but it’s enough to give them enormous influence.

    I would say they are a blip compared to bitter men that resent female sexuality and strong unapologetic men.

    Yeah, I mostly agree with that. Although you have to remember that a small group of highly motivated people can exert a lot of influence and homosexuals are highly motivated and politically sophisticated.

    The churches are filled with weird effeminate men that don’t really like men or women.

    Just look at the creepy mega church millionaires. A bunch of creeps that even with millions still aren’t comfortable in their own skin.

    Yes, I agree. The biggest problem for Christianity is that the heterosexual men it does attract tend to be mostly creepy loser beta types. Christianity does not attract very many normal masculine heterosexual men.

  92. @John Johnson
    Graph is nonsensical as liberalism is a religion.

    Not fanatic politicism but a religion.

    They completely ignore at least 70k years of natural history.

    Anyone who thinks liberalism is not a religion is free to ask a liberal how natural selection would only apply to superficial traits in humans for a span of 70k years.
    Take away that belief and the whole thing collapses.

    Liberalism is a replacement religion for Christianity. I wish someone had told me that early on.

    As I have said before I debated liberals in college and they tried to get me kicked out in return.

    They love to say that they follow the science and yet they tried kicking me out of school for questioning how human evolution would have a convenient exemption for the mind.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    And no mention of the Branch Covidians. Now there’s a fast growing cult.

  93. @Realist
    @Rich


    Christian students are held up to ridicule, some states are trying to deny professional licenses to people because they are Christians.
     
    Citation.

    Several sitting US senators questioned whether a practicing Catholic was qualified to sit on the bench.
     
    That is nothing new...Protestants have been doing that forever.

    It is unimaginable to think an atheist would be allowed to run for a federal office...let alone be seated on the judicial bench.

    None of your comments addressed my two comments in #17.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Audacious Epigone

    Polling consistently shows people are to be more hesitant to vote for atheists than any other type of candidate, including racial and religious minorities (and whites), women, homosexuals, etc.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS