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
Fertility by Race and Religiosity
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 following graphs show the mean number of children by frequency of religious worship service attendance. The survey period covered is from 2000 to 2018 covering adults aged 30 through old age, so TFRs are higher across the board than they are among people in their reproductive primes today:

There is nothing to the color scheme in the first graph. Those are default colors. It’s a little easier to comprehend at first glance than the second graph is, but both are interesting so both were included.

The relationship between fertility and religiosity is weakest among blacks. Parenthetically but not unrelatedly, the inverse correlation between fertility and intelligence is most pronounced among blacks.

Orthodox Jews are fecund, non-Orthodox Jews are not.

GSS variables used: RACEHISP(1)(2)(3), RACECEN1(4-10), HISPANIC(0), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), CHILDS, YEAR(2000-2018), AGED(30-89), ATTEND(0)(1-2)(3-4)(5-6)(7-8)

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Race/Ethnicity, Science • Tags: Fertility, GSS, Religion 
Hide 376 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rosie says:

    Here’s how I see it.

    Nihilism –> Antinatalism

    No larger meaning or purpose in life, no babies.

    Religion is a source of meaning and purpose in life, but it is not the only one.

    Besides that, one of the curious things about discourse surrounding fertility in the dissident right is that noone ever seems to consider the role of status in these things.

    If a Dooney & Bourke or an Audi can be a status symbol, why not a large brood of children?

    Indeed, part of the cause of high fertility in religious groups may be precisely that fecundity brings elevated status within that community.

    My guess is that religiosity is more correlated with fertility now than in the past, when the expectation was that everyone would have children and they did so.

  2. I always thought it hilarious the calls of the “alt-right” (especially the women in it) for NATALISM, calls for Gov’t incentives like the ones in Hungary and what-not. It is NOT needed, literally. The religious Whites are already outbreeding the White ‘others’, and the religious Whites breed at a pace well over 2.1 children per woman…

    The real paradox is HOW will the American nation, in 200 years or so, protect itself against Blasphemy Laws that these ultra-religious White people might wanna impose! Not to mention overpopulation, in the distant future…

    How ironic (!): Darwinism predicts, in 200 years or so, the Theory of Evolution mightn’t be taught at public schools!

    I appreciate how ‘diverse’ the opinions of ‘dissidents’ are! I recall reading at AmRen, in an interview w/ the Frenchman who coined “The Great Replacement” (sorry, I forgot his name – sorry!), that he is NOT a natalist, in fact, he is more of the OPPOSITE!

  3. Anonymous[258] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Having lots of kids in an expensive area like Manhattan is a status symbol for professionals because it’s just a proxy for wealth. It means you can afford an expensive large apartment or brownstone, private school, nannies, etc. And to be more specific, it’s generally a proxy for the father/husband being an upper level exec in the NYC finance world. The husband is in the tiny minority of super high earning/wealthy men who are able to provide a luxurious lifestyle and obtain women who are willing to bear lots of children for them on account of their elite status and wealth. Just having kids doesn’t give you entrance or status in this class.

    Typically, high fertility religious groups do not elevate and bestow status on fertility alone. A man who goes around siring lots of bastards or a woman who has lots of kids by multiple fathers does not have status just because they have lots of kids and are often shunned or punished by the religious group. Rather, high fertility religious groups tend to promote and enforce certain norms and behaviors that promote fertility. These are usually things like chastity, gender norms, family values, motherhood, patriarchy, etc.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Paperback Writer
  4. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Besides that, one of the curious things about discourse surrounding fertility in the dissident right is that noone ever seems to consider the role of status in these things.

    If a Dooney & Bourke or an Audi can be a status symbol, why not a large brood of children?

    Excellent point.

    It’s quite likely that in a modern secular consumerist society children are a negative status symbol. Having children is seen as a sign of a lack of success in life.

    It may be that status is gained by not having children. Having no children, or only one child, may be a kind of class marker – a sign that you’re middle-class and therefore worthy of approval.

    This would particularly apply to the lower middle class who are (understandably) much more worried about desperately trying to signal their middle-class status. And desperately trying to cling on to their middle-class status.

    Of course this doesn’t have to be any kind of conspiracy. It may just be an inevitable consequence of living in a class-conscious society in which sending out the right class signals is crucially important. And it’s likely that modern western societies are becoming increasingly class-conscious.

    It might even be an ideological signal – having one child or none signals that you’re a good liberal.

  5. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    The religious Whites are already outbreeding the White ‘others’, and the religious Whites breed at a pace well over 2.1 children per woman…

    But a very significant proportion of the children of religious Whites will end up becoming secular liberals. This typically happens as soon as they reach college.

    On the other hand very few of the children of secular liberals are likely to end up becoming religious. A few will, but the majority will not.

    So the net effect is that religious Whites will continue to decline as a share of the population.

    This is so obvious that it amazes me how many people still cling desperately to the belief that religious Whites can win the Battle of the Cradle. They have been losing that battle for years and they will continue to lose it.

  6. @Rosie

    Nihilism is not an atheist belief. Nihilism is a Christian belief about atheism. Notice the difference.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @anon
  7. I’d like to see studies of whether the centrally planned social engineering to suppress racism in the white population played a role in the collapse of white fertility. The Baby Boom ended around the time our elites imposed on America’s white population at gunpoint their stupid and damaging utopianism about civil rights, along with their arbitrary ideology which defines racism as the most horrible thing in the world.

    • Replies: @Curle
  8. @dfordoom

    They will become Liberals during teenage years/College years, but then after ‘waithood’ they’ll return to religious beliefs (which correlates with conservatism).

    On the other hand very few of the children of secular liberals are likely to end up becoming religious. A few will, but the majority will not.

    Even if so, these people are not even replacing themselves!

    Also: Polarisation has never been stronger. Religious people will not simply ‘let’ their children become Liberals without a fight.

    P.S.: Your example of the Status Quo turning religious people’s children into Liberals applies to ‘mildly’ religious people (who have 2-3 children), it FOR SURE doesn’t apply to the die-hard ones who have 5 or more.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Daniel Chieh
  9. Some Guy says:

    The survey period covered is from 2000 to 2018 covering adults aged 30 through old age

    You really need to start using small age groups, otherwise you’re confounding age and the thing you’re measuring. To illustrate, suppose religious people and non-religious people in the same generation had the same number of kids, but older generations had more kids. Then, this kind of analysis would show a relationship between fertility and anything correlated with age. For example, people with cancer will have more kids than people without cancer, etc.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  10. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    They will become Liberals during teenage years/College years, but then after ‘waithood’ they’ll return to religious beliefs (which correlates with conservatism).

    Then how do you explain the slow but inexorable decline in overall religious belief? If the religious really are winning the Battle of the Cradle then religious belief should be growing, not declining.

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

    Then how do you explain the slow but inexorable decline in overall religious belief? If the religious really are winning the Battle of the Cradle then religious belief should be growing, not declining.

    It’s logistical. The effect starts from a submerged base, the base consisting of a small number of the most extremely religious among the very religious generally. The effect dates from the introduction of the birth-control pill in 1960 and has not yet had time really to kick in.

    Check back in 150 years, when great swathes of the United States in and around Pennsylvania are not unlikely to be predominantly Amish.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @botazefa
    , @Wency
  12. neutral says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    Ignoring what others have already replied to this, the bigger problem is that miscegenation will occur amongst these religious white types. They mostly tend to follow the universal humanity bullshit, just like every liberal does. So with time the great replacement will occur.

    • Replies: @Hengest
  13. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Check back in 150 years, when great swathes of the United States in and around Pennsylvania are not unlikely to be predominantly Amish.

    The problem is that ultra-conservative religious groups like the Amish and Orthodox Jews only maintain their high birth rates because they’re such small groups that they can effectively isolate themselves. Being small groups they can also easily maintain their religious zeal.

    Also these ultra-conservative religious groups only survive because they’ve been allowed to survive, because they’re perceived to be so few in numbers that they constitute no threat. And they are tolerated because they are perceived to be apolitical. They’ve been flying under the radar.

    While the Amish constitute 0.1% of the population they will be tolerated. If they ever became a significant percentage of the population that toleration would be likely to cease.

    Also if they became a really large population it’s likely that their religious zeal would be diluted. We’d probably see liberal Amish starting to appear, just as there are liberal Catholics and liberal Episcopalians. If they become really numerous they won’t all be able to support themselves by farming. There’ll be Amish living in cities. They will be unable to avoid contact with the mainstream. We’ll see Amish feminists, and LGBT Amish.

    Their very success at breeding will eventually cause them problems.

  14. neutral says:
    @dfordoom

    I admit that don’t really know what theologically defines one an Amish, but surely living in big cities and accepting things like homo worship means they have ceased to be Amish.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Wency
  15. Talha says:

    No Muslims in the chart 😢, so the Latinos get the poop color this time.

    Peace.

  16. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Having lots of kids in an expensive area like Manhattan is a status symbol for professionals because it’s just a proxy for wealth. It means you can afford an expensive large apartment or brownstone, private school, nannies, etc.

    Right. The thing about these sorts of trends is that they often trickle down.

    Typically, high fertility religious groups do not elevate and bestow status on fertility alone. A man who goes around siring lots of bastards or a woman who has lots of kids by multiple fathers does not have status just because they have lots of kids and are often shunned or punished by the religious group.

    No, but marital fertility does, so what’s your point? Religious groups don’t shun single mothers, BTW, though I’m sure you would like them to.

    These are usually things like chastity, gender norms, family values, motherhood, patriarchy, etc.

    Whatever. Fertility rates are plummeting in some of the most patriarchal places on Earth, but you keep telling yourself all that.

  17. Rosie says:
    @advancedatheist

    Nihilism is not an atheist belief. Nihilism is a Christian belief about atheism. Notice the difference.

    I didn’t say all atheists were all nihilist. In fact, m poinwas precisely the opposite- that something other than religion can provide a sense of meaning and purpose in life.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  18. @dfordoom

    You definitely have a point, but we cannot confidently predict which of these trends will ultimately prevail, as you have tried to do.

    The total population of religiously observant and culturally loyal Amish continues to increase at a healthy clip. True even more for “froomies”, devout orthodox jews. True to an apparently lesser extent for Mormons. All three groups keep growing.

    As for children raised in larger, traditional, religiously observant families living outside such intense semi-closed or supermajority communities, one would expect more of them to be propagandized into the perverse dead-end “modern” hollywood culture. We are such a family, and we will go to great lengths to protect our children from all that. This may entail homeschooling / mostly-online private schooling, moving to a heavily Mormon or Amish area (although we are not mormon or amish), and even sending them abroad for part or all of their university education.

  19. AaronB says:

    The world is vastly overcrowded, and the population contraction of the developed world is one of the most hopeful signs of our era.

    The period of “growth” and “expansion” has to stop for a while, in every area of life. We worship growth – but uncontrolled growth is cancer. We humans need to cool it for a while, in every way.

    I was in Costco yesterday, and the world is simply too crowded. In the early 2000s, you could show up late Friday to one of the campgrounds near big urban areas and easily snag a spot. Try doing that today!

    The constant desire for “more” – more life, more children, growth, etc, comes out of a feeling of lack. I am unhappy now, but perhaps my descendents someday will be happy. Must have children!

    The Buddha recognized this 2,500 years ago. The Rightists think that a conservative society will make them happy. Then why did the Buddha, who lived in such a society, describe life as suffering? Why did the biblical Prophets seem so unhappy? Why does every age think its the worst? The Rightists idolize the 50s, but the people in the 50s were miserable. Why does everything change? Because people are unhappy. If the 50s were perfect, it should have lasted forever.

    There are no political solutions – whatever you think you want, whatever kind of society, get it, and you will shortly find new problems, and life will somehow be still unsatisfactory. Let’s all go back to the 50s, have tons of kids, etc – you’ll still be miserable. There are societies now, religious Jews, religious Muslims, that are in effect living in the 50s (if not earlier) with lots of kids – I have intimate, first hand knowledge of these societies – I am Jewish, and I work with a fair number of Muslims- and people in them are not happier than modern people.

    That’s because society cannot make people happy. The kinds of societies people here idolize existed for much of history, yet people actually living in these right wing paradises did not report being any happier than anyone today. In fact they thought their age was as corrupted as we do ours. The Left thinks a Woke society will finally make everyone happy, but they are as deluded as everyone else.

    Bertrand Russell said the First World War started because people were bored with the long peace of the Victorian era. He had this epiphany when he saw British soldiers on a railway platform absolutely ecstatic about going to war. He suddenly realized that war was extremely popular among the common people – previously he had the typical leftist belief that the elites manipulate the common folk into war for their own benefit, and ordinary people hated war.

    Yet to people here, the Victorisn era is the ideal society that would make everyone happy. Actual Victorians couldn’t wait to bring their paradise crashing down.

    Jesus recognized this. So did the Buddha. Happiness and content do not come from clinging to this world, from wanting “more” constantly.

    It may come from “giving it up”.

    But most people cannot accept this, and must cling to their delusions that if only such and such a political situation was realized, if they could only have “more” – more wealth, more kids, bigger houses, a better economy, they would be happy.

    People today complain of the economy – yet common people today live like the lords of yesterday. For centuries, it was thought that if only ordinary folk had decent living standards people would be happy. Funnilly enough, Jesus and the Buddha said the exact opposite – give up even what little you have, and you will be happier.

    We want “more”, always – but “less” may be the path to happiness.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  20. @Rosie

    Fair point. In practice, in the modern american and european contexts, though, people who identify as atheist or agnostic simply don’t have many children. For whatever reasons, they very often die childless and thus help their families to die out.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  21. @Rosie

    Nihilism –> Antinatalism

    It depends how you are defining the latter.

    People who want to drastically reduce fertility rates because they’re concerned about biodiversity loss and global warming aren’t nihilists. I would fall in this category.

    A picture is worth a thousand words…

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  22. Hengest says:
    @neutral

    No, Whites are a an increasingly hated group in the United States, religious Whites with large families especially. They tend to be rural as well, so between hated status and low availability, marriage with non-whites will be low.

    Another factor people don’t take into consideration is religious people tend to be the most ethnocentric, positive and negative ethnocentrism. As the disdain keeps being dished out, it will be returned.

    They will become the last representatives of Whites in the United States within two or three generations as the more middle ground Whites are submerged by below replacement fertility and miscegenation.

    And with how things are escalating politically, it’s hard to imagine the United States still being united within that sort of timeframe.

  23. Arclight says:

    Sort of tangential, but the comment about the inverse correlation between fertility and black IQ (at least it being most pronounced) is something that seems blindingly obvious but something most of society is determined to ignore. When my kids went to a sort of elite primary school in my city, it definitely stood out how relatively small most families were – lots of only children – but particularly with the black families, in which I can only recall one that had more than 2 kids. Throw in the lopsided distribution of white vs. black kids raised in two parent households, and there is absolutely no chance of seeing social-economic outcomes between these two groups close.

  24. Hengest says:
    @RadicalCenter

    More religious people are choosing these options of homeschool and to move to a geographic area with a good Church and like-minded people.

    The support for Hollywood movies and their complementary indoctrination is waning heavily. Covid 19 is part of that financial decline, but not the only factor.

    Blue cities will be propped up for maybe another decade or two by immigration, but as seen in certain areas of California, Oregon and Washington their populations will plummet and the cities will collapse in on themselves.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  25. @dfordoom

    This is so obvious that it amazes me how many people still cling desperately to the belief that religious Whites can win the Battle of the Cradle.

    It isn’t obvious, and you’re just making a bunch of assertions without arguments to back them up or explain your thinking.

    There’s no reason to believe that children raised today by religious parents will become less religious when they get to college. Mormons don’t.

    There’s also no reason to believe many of these young people will “go to college” as our generation understood it. Would you, if you were in their shoes right now?

    Maybe many of them will decide to stay in their own communities where they know people, are supported, etc. and continue their way of doing things, including honoring God. This is what many young Amish are now choosing—fewer of them are leaving when they reach adulthood than they were twenty years ago.

    Finally, have you talked to many young Catholic white guys lately? They’re getting fired up by people like Posobiec. It’s cool to be Catholic now, at least in some sets.

    • Replies: @Curle
  26. @RadicalCenter

    … moving to a heavily Mormon or Amish area …

    Mormons in heavily Mormon areas discriminate pretty harshly against most non-Mormons. At first, they will be hyper-kind and super-solicitous, but once they figure out that you’re not going to convert to Mormonism, they’ll close shoulders against you.

    What makes this vexing is that the Mormons disbelieve that they are closing shoulders against you. It’s hard to persuade someone to treat you fairly when he is unable to recognize that he is treating you unfairly.

    I get along with just about everybody, but the situation with Mormons in a heavily Mormon area is just impossible.

    There is one exception I will tell you about if you wish to know, but as a rule, the heavily Mormon area is a no-go unless you are Mormon.

    • Replies: @Q-ship
    , @AlexT
    , @RadicalCenter
  27. @dfordoom

    It’s quite likely that in a modern secular consumerist society children are a negative status symbol. Having children is seen as a sign of a lack of success in life.

    It may be that status is gained by not having children. Having no children, or only one child, may be a kind of class marker – a sign that you’re middle-class and therefore worthy of approval.

    No, Rosie is right.

    In my social circle, having children is seen as a sign of success. People without children are considered weird. Yes, I know that the media neverendingly tout the joys of childlessness, etc., but it simply isn’t the case IRL. I don’t live in a small religious enclave. No one is having 8 kids per family. But 2-4, yes.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @dfordoom
  28. @Anonymous

    Having lots of kids in an expensive area like Manhattan is a status symbol for professionals because it’s just a proxy for wealth.

    Sure but why five kids, now? Why not two or three, as was the case in the previous generation? And yes, look up the bios of any prominent middle-aged New Yorker. Five kids was the norm before WWI. Not after.

    Something’s afoot.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  29. @Rosie

    I don’t know how this starts, but it starts with one. One gal has three kids. Then they all have to have three kids. Then the first gal with the three, has another. And so on…

    It’s like the Upper East Side Mom Jacket:

    We’ll see about the trickle down, though. In that sense, it’s not like a jacket. When you really can’t afford that fourth kid, you won’t have him/her.

    But yes, I am definitely seeing this. It’s totally hilaria.

    (Sorry for the inadvertent Amazon product placement, but I needed to make a point.)

    • Replies: @Rosie
  30. Anon[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Agreed.

    Liberals see amish as quaint, old fashioned, and cute.

    When their numbers explode, and libs find out that they are against gay marriage, liberals will be calling for an Amish genocide.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  31. @dfordoom

    Liberal Amish already exists. The more liberal Amish communities have a lower retention rate than their more conservative brethren. Liberal Amish communities are close with the Mennonites. Many of those who leave traditional Amish society join Mennonite congregations. While their exists plenty of Ultra Orthodox Mennonites, there also exists progressive Mennonites.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  32. Curle says:
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    “HOW will the American nation, in 200 years or so, protect itself against Blasphemy Laws ”

    Has any society ever protected itself against blasphemy laws? The present work-around gimmick is to posit theological beliefs (equality as a condition of nature) as if they operated outside religion and then punish thoughts that operate to undermine those beliefs.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  33. @Rosie

    If a Dooney & Bourke or an Audi can be a status symbol, why not a large brood of children?

    I guess that given the link between stupidity and fecundity, it would be possible to make breeders think that squirting out new idiots gives them ‘status’ in the breeder community (more than the current bullshit-fest that surrounds expectant mothers now: as if getting knocked up is a fucking achievement).

    Since status motivates the stupid, it would add to the ranks at the margin. That said, I’m pretty sure that space is saturated: “has motivational decals on the wall” and “has offspring” must already overlap quite a lot.

    “Squirting out new idiots” is a hard sell in communities where women are capable to thinking for themselves (i.e., who have the cognitive wherewithal and the cultural freedom to do so).

    There’s nothing remotely noble about condemning oneself to lower disposable income, less freedom of movement and action, and two decades of sponging off the non-breeders (even ‘private’ schools get large government handouts to warehouse breeder’s new halfwits). All for a genetic crapshoot that doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to humanity as a whole, or to any relevant subpopulation.

    Audi is the new Volvo (i.e., Audi drivers are incompetent assholes). At least if a status-obsessed fuckwit buys an Audi, they can take it back if it’s a dud.

    All y’all reproduce as much as you like – fill the world with even more halfwits – so long as you fund the fucking things yourself, and teach them to mind their fucking manners (since men are no longer culturally permitted to belt strangers’ kids upside the head).

  34. Curle says:
    @advancedatheist

    Nobody will be permitted to conduct those studies. In academia these bans have been in place for a long time.

    Even were Republicans in Congress in a position to order such studies they wouldn’t. This is the job Paul Ryan types perform for their paymasters. It is amazing Trump wasn’t disappeared after he halted teaching of critical theory in federal agencies. It is akin to the Protestants halting teaching the saints at Cambridge during the Henrican and Elizabethan reformation. An heresy for which some were burned or forced to flee when Catholic Mary took the throne.

  35. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:

    Audacious,
    Good article.

    Interestingly in NYC, Whites and Asians have higher birthrates than Blacks or Hispanics, an inverse of what you would typically see in the United States
    https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/about/press/pr2019/fewer-premature-deaths-and-births.page

    Also, Liberal States such as NY, CA, NJ, and HI all have higher White fertility than Black fertility. With NY having the largest gap for any large state between White fertility and Black fertility, with most of the differential occurring in NYC.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_01-508.pdf

    Having strict on crime policies(NY has broken windows, CA has harshest three-strikes laws, and NJ has a large incarceration rate), and actually enacting them actually seems to boost the White birthrate and sharply lowers the non-White fertility. It also has the benefit of quickly boosting the economy.

    The good news is that Republicans control most of state legislature, with the ones they don’t having already a higher White fertility to Black fertility(NY,CA,NJ,HI) so they have a strong incentive to crack down on crime and have their voters reproduce faster.

    It seems that Whites now have larger fertility adjusted for age than Blacks and Hispanics, but there are more Hispanics and Blacks in the young age cohort, so they have higher fertility overall. But this is really based in the states above as well as the Southern States, where Whites have a higher median age than Blacks, but have nearly identical fertility, indicating higher age adjusted fertility among Whites.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  36. Curle says:
    @Daniel Williams

    “ Mormons don’t.”

    Last report I saw showed Mormon retention collapsing generally but especially among the young. Mormon propaganda being what it is, this isn’t widely reported.

  37. Rosie says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Fair point. In practice, in the modern american and european contexts, though, people who identify as atheist or agnostic simply don’t have many children. For whatever reasons, they very often die childless and thus help their families to die out.

    That is true, and indeed, I think the context in which atheism does not necessarily lead to low birth rates are narrow. You need something to care about, and the only other thing I can think of is your nation.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  38. Rosie says:
    @Paperback Writer

    I’m trying to figure out what the point of that jacket is. Theoretically, the large pockets could replace a purse, but them what do you do when it’s not cold outside? Put it all in a bag? Too much bother.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
  39. Rosie says:
    @Paperback Writer

    People without children are considered weird.

    It’s easy to make fun of people for jumping on the bandwagon, but really, what are you going to do when everyone else is having kids? They’re not available for the things you used to do, and you’re not invited to the playgroups. You’re going to feel left out and wonder what all the fuss is about.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  40. Let us set aside the two outliers: those who “never” and “religiously” attend services. (Even a deist like me attends religious services “rarely,” but not “never.” Funerals, the occasional family Christmas, or once in my case, the funeral of a Jewish friend. Likewise, “religiously” and “frequently” are hard to tell apart, so lets just not, okay?)

    Okay, when we do that, we find that, overall, it is Latinos (oh, excuse me, “Hispanics”) who ALWAYS have the highest birthrate. That should be no surprise to anyone.

    Also, since there really does not seem to be any correlation for Black birth rate, we can safely confirm what we already knew: Blacks have babies without even giving a thought to it. They reproduce like animals. They are separated from every other human race by at least 70,000 or 80,000 years of evolution. They are different by every measure, and they are the biggest source of all the politics and problems we face today.

    Thank you very much, rich, Southern slave owners of our past here in the United States.

    Cheap labor is EXPENSIVE in the long run. Our descendants will also learn this the hard way, as they will live in a Chinese world that was financed for cheap East Asian labor in our time today.

  41. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Right. The thing about these sorts of trends is that they often trickle down.

    This isn’t really a trend though. There’s generally always been a positive correlation between a man’s wealth and his fertility after a certain threshold.

    And this situation can’t “trickle down” by definition. These wealthy men have big families because they won a financial dick measuring contest in which the vast majority of men are considered “losers” of said contest. It’s premised on there being a small number of male winners relative to lots of male losers. If wealth is more equally distributed among men, then you can’t have fertility be a status symbol of wealth.

    No, but marital fertility does, so what’s your point? Religious groups don’t shun single mothers, BTW, though I’m sure you would like them to.

    My point is that religious fertility seems to be a byproduct of norms and behaviors that are promoted by the religion that facilitate or encourage fertility, rather than direct bestowal of status on fertility.

    Traditionally, most religions have shunned or discouraged single motherhood. This is why out of wedlock pregnancies were considered scandalous and you had shotgun weddings, babies given up for adoption, etc.

    Whatever.Fertility rates are plummeting in some of the most patriarchal places on Earth, but you keep telling yourself all that.

    Which places? Do you mean the Muslim world? Secularism is increasing in the Muslim world, where patriarchy is intertwined with religion. Fertility is falling in the Muslim world as religion/patriarchy is declining and secularism is increasing.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  42. @Buzz Mohawk

    Let it be noted that Latinos comprise the only group in this survey that is uniformly Catholic. That should tell you something. If AE wants to try, he could separate out Catholics for fertility analysis. I know what the result would be.

    Basically, I guess my point is that you have two major groups of prolific baby makers: Catholics and Blacks.

    Period.

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
  43. @Rosie

    Y’all are making too much of this. In my experience, having no children, nobody around me or my wife has ever really cared. Not a neighbor, colleague or friend. Nobody. It is a personal choice and a non-issue, as it should be.

  44. Anonymous[437] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paperback Writer

    There’s generally always been a positive correlation between a man’s wealth and his fertility after a certain threshold.

    The threshold is much higher today, and those men in Manhattan having 5 kids are hedge funders, investment bankers, etc. way above that threshold. For the past generation since the 80s, there’s been a tremendous expansion of NYC financial wealth and a massive increase of wealth inequality. This allows for kids to be a status symbol for the wealthy men at the top.

    The correlation between a man’s wealth and fertility is like a J-curve. Up to a certain point for middle class men, increasing income and wealthy correlate with a decline in fertility. Then at a certain point of high wealth, the curve moves up as high levels of wealth correlate with higher fertility.

  45. @Rosie

    And the national birthrate is still declining and will continue to decline year after year.

    Poor righttards. Success was as elusive to them as a laser beam to an indoor cat.

    • Troll: Rosie
  46. anon[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @advancedatheist

    Nihilism is not an atheist belief. Nihilism is a Christian belief about atheism. Notice the difference.

    You are wrong. Nihilism as an articulated belief can be traced to 19th century Russia. The first use of the term is found in Turgenev’s novel Father’s and Sons where it is articulated by the character Bazarov. He wishes to sweep away all the unscientifically proven beliefs of Russia at the time – the era of Tzar Alexander II, specifically.

    Different nihilist positions hold variously that human values are baseless, that life is meaningless, that knowledge is impossible, or that some set of entities does not exist.

    It is a belief often found among atheists as well as followers of Nietzsche, of course there is overlap between those two groups.

  47. iffen says:

    In my experience, having no children, nobody around me or my wife has ever really cared.

    You just don’t know what we say about DINKS when you are not around.

  48. Dutch Boy says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    A breakdown by religion/religious practice would have been more useful. The category “white” is too diverse in this context to be particularly meaningful. The category “white” is useful in a different context: if your skin is sufficiently pale, there are many who will hate you no matter what other category you fit in.

  49. anon[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Let it be noted that Latinos comprise the only group in this survey that is uniformly Catholic.

    They are not. There are many Protestants in the Hispanic / Latino grouping, and not just in the US. One of the largest Protestant church buildings in the hemisphere is in Central America.

    Plus many of the Mexican “Roman Catholics” are enamored of / worshipping Santa Muerte…not exactly a Christian figure.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  50. Dutch Boy says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I was actually considered a bit of a non-conformist at work because I have five children. They also confused my somewhat mordant sense of humor as being anti-child. I assured them that I like children but am not as enthusiastic about adults.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  51. Rosie says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It is a personal choice and a non-issue, as it should be.

    At the end of the day, I think you’re right. It seems to me that what we are seeing is, to some extent, at least, a kind of divergence from the mean. Both large and small families are becoming more common, with the medium-sized families becoming less so. I would love to see data on this (Audi?).

    Our birth rates really are not catastrophically low. To be honest, they have held up fairly well considering the economic devastation we’ve seen over the past couple of generations. If we had real affordable family formation policies, there is no reason to think birth rates wouldn’t be above replacement-level.

    Priority number 1: Keep foreign “investors” out of residential real estate.

    https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/foreign-buyers-of-israeli-properties-are-the-good-times-over-549505

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
  52. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    I’ve known Muslims who originally came from the Balkans with blond hair and blue eyes. It’s the Islamic analogue to bien-pensant consternation over non-white Christians, including Palestinians and Syrians whose ancestors were already believers back when Europe was still pagan.

    It’s utterly ridiculous. Most actual Muslims in the Islamic World would be puzzled at best by their de facto racialization among Western lefties: you have to completely ignorant of the basic tenets of the religion to miss the universalism. That’s not to say that Islam and ethnic identity never are correlated (see Malaysia), but it isn’t embedded within a specific racial sphere like Hinduism, for Pete’s sake.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Paperback Writer
  53. nebulafox says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    China’s not cheap anymore, and even has its own version of the Rust Belt up in the northeastern part of the country, near the Korean border. A lot of factories that used to be in Shenzhen have relocated to Vietnam and Indonesia, where the local youngsters will work without potty breaks or staring at their phones.

    Because the Chinese leadership actually thinks further ahead than the next month, whatever else you can say about them, they decided that the answer to this was not “the market will magically pop out new and better jobs for our citizens”, unlike 90s America.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  54. @Dutch Boy

    I like children but am not as enthusiastic about adults.

    You and me both, buddy.

    Good for you and your five kids, BTW. Congratulations and best wishes!

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  55. Mark G. says:

    At the personal level, having fewer children means having a higher standard of living. At the societal level, who is having children has more effect on the standard of living than how many children people have. As birth rates in the U.S. have declined over the last sixty years, the composition of those births has changed due to immigration and welfare state policies favoring an increase in the percentage of lower IQ people and an excessive focus on careers in the higher IQ sector of the population leading to declines in numbers among that sector of the population. I’m 64 and there is a noticeable difference between Americans of 1970 and Americans of 2020.

    If this continues we are likely to see a decreasing average U.S. life expectancy followed by a declining overall population. Populations increased because high IQ people applied scientific and technical knowledge to improving standards of living and will decrease as there are fewer people like that around. We are not going to see 300 million blacks, Hispanics, and white Amish people here in the U.S. a hundred years from now. It will be a tough life for those living then. They won’t be living off UBI funded by automated factories because there won’t be enough people around who know how to design, operate and repair the machinery in those factories.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  56. Q-ship says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I have lived in Utah for over 25 years. Can confirm. I have lived in the same neighborhood for over 12 years, and have never been invited into any of my neighbors’ homes. We have many friends, but they live in other towns.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  57. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    I know, I was just joking around (poop should have been the giveaway); the chart asks for religious service attendance and is agnostic about religion. Your points are all valid; in fact, many of the Bosnians in our local community are like that and happen to be the most fecund. Almost all the families that I know that come to our weekly dhikr gathering (before Covid) have 4 or 5 kids – mashaAllah.

    I personally think Malaysia is making a big mistake and needs to decouple the ethnic and religious identities. Otherwise it leads to conflicts of identity and keeping people from entering the faith:
    “Chinese Muslims converts are baulking at taking Malay or Arabic names upon embracing Islam, claiming the discriminatory practice forces them to abandon their culture and traditions.”
    https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2015/06/24/ethnic-chinese-embrace-islam-but-keep-names-to-resist-becoming-malay/921193

    If you recall, that approach is what ended the Umayyads in about a century of rule.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  58. @Curle

    Last report I saw showed Mormon retention collapsing generally but especially among the young.

    I did not know this. Source?

    • Replies: @Curle
  59. @Rosie

    If we had real affordable family formation policies, there is no reason to think birth rates wouldn’t be above replacement-level.

    Priority number 1: Keep foreign “investors” out of residential real estate.

    That’s it, Rosie! You nailed it!

    (And I was able to copy and paste it whole from just one place in your comment. Thank you.)

  60. @nebulafox

    Okay, fine. Look, I respect you, “nebulafox.” (As an old, amateur astronomer, I love nebulae, and I have observed many, okay?”) However, my point is not just about China, per se, but the whole effect cheap, East Asian labor is having on my country.

    I am glad, really very very glad, if, as you say, China isn’t cheap anymore. What would make me really glad is if America wasn’t expensive anymore, and if my own neighbors could gain employment as a result.

    Now, you tell me when that is going to happen.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  61. dfordoom says: • Website
    @neutral

    I admit that don’t really know what theologically defines one an Amish, but surely living in big cities and accepting things like homo worship means they have ceased to be Amish.

    I agree. But if the Amish population increases really substantially, if they go from 300,000 people to 3 million people for example, then some of them will have to live in cities. I can’t see how 3 million Amish could support themselves by following their current lifestyles. They might not live in New York or LA but some of them would have to live in reasonably large towns and small cities. They would no longer be an agrarian society. They would start becoming semi-urbanised.

    And if their population ever reached let’s say ten million then they’d start becoming much more urbanised.

    They would be unable to avoid interacting much more actively with non-Amish.

    If that happens and they start to become urbanised or semi-urbanised then a substantial proportion of the Amish will become more or less indistinguishable from other Christians who live urbanised lives and interact with non-Christians. They would start to lose their religious and cultural identity. Their birth rates would start to fall. They would start to make compromises with the mainstream world. They would become more liberal. Eventually they would end up like any other Christian sect with many becoming very liberal and very pozzed.

    If the Amish population doubles from its present level they can probably still maintain their identity. If their population increases any further than that then it’s likely their religious/cultural identity will weaken dramatically.

    The same applies to Orthodox Jews. At the moment there are roughly as many Orthodox Jews in the US as there are Amish. They’re a population small enough to maintain a very strong religious/cultural identity and small enough to be tolerated. If their population increased to the point where there were millions of Orthodox Jews in the US then they would face the same problems.

  62. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Fertility rates are plummeting in some of the most patriarchal places on Earth

    Being patriarchal is no defence against inexorable social forces such as urbanisation and consumerism and pozzed popular culture. And so far it looks like there is no religion that can effectively defend itself against those forces. Not even Islam.

  63. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    They would start to make compromises with the mainstream world.

    Sadly, this is already starting to happen. Farmland has gotten too expensive, with some even relocating to far afield places like Brazil. When you have to leave your extended family, and probably never see them again, you’re probably reaching the point where the costs of maintaining your traditional outweigh the (very substantial) benefits.

    This makes me very sad, because they are an example for the whole world, even if their ways are too strict for the vast majority of us. What’s more, it didn’t have to be this way. Unsustainable population growth in other countries is driving up the cost of farmland to the point where only BigAg can make a profit.

  64. Rosie says:
    @Mark G.

    Dysgenic fertility seems to be declining among Whites, as highly educated mothers (disproportionately White, I presume) are having large families.

    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/

    I was not correct that more people are having larger families, taken as a whole, but that doesn’t take racial trends into account.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/183790/number-of-families-in-the-us-by-number-of-children/

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Mark G.
  65. @Rosie

    The point of the jacket is to keep you warm in cold weather.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  66. @Buzz Mohawk

    Here, TFR for African-Americans is below replacement level. How does this square with the data AE has produced?

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  67. dfordoom says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter

    As for children raised in larger, traditional, religiously observant families living outside such intense semi-closed or supermajority communities, one would expect more of them to be propagandized into the perverse dead-end “modern” hollywood culture. We are such a family, and we will go to great lengths to protect our children from all that. This may entail homeschooling / mostly-online private schooling, moving to a heavily Mormon or Amish area (although we are not mormon or amish), and even sending them abroad for part or all of their university education.

    They’re all sensible steps.

    I think it’s getting much more difficult to insulate children from negative influences. Back in the 80s all you had to do was to stop them from watching the worst Hollywood movies, exercise some control over their TV watching, etc. These days you’d have to insulate them from all Hollywood movies, all television and all social media. And all pop music. And make sure they don’t go to college in the US.

    You seem to be doing those things. Sending the kids abroad for university education is a very good idea (but don’t send them to Australia – our universities aren’t quite as bad as American ones but they’re still pretty terrible).

    The problem is that these are defensive strategies which may not be possible if the war on Christianity heats up. The war on Christianity hasn’t really started yet. There have just been a few preliminary skirmishes. In the next few years I would expect moves to be made to make home-schooling much more difficult.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  68. nebulafox says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Apologies.

    Honestly? Do what China’s doing. Kill all the stupid crap we’re spending money on and redirect that to new infrastructure, new buildings, new nuclear plants: and if some aging hippies don’t like it, that’s their tough luck, they’ll be dead in a couple of decades anyway. Concrete physical stuff that actually will require human labor and will provide tangible long-term value to your society. Employers who get with the program and hire/train Americans to do this get perks. Employers who don’t get left out in the cold. Encourage smaller scale businesses and startups, too: needs to become a “normal middle class thing” to do. Crack down hard on trusts to help facilitate that. Administratively, revitalize bottom-up freedom of action within these parameters.

    If I were in charge of a developing African country, maybe I’d play the cheap labor game. But that’s not one that America’s going to ever win.

  69. @dfordoom

    We’d probably see liberal Amish starting to appear, just as there are liberal Catholics and liberal Episcopalians.

    There are already liberal Amish groups. They’re called Mennonites. And as for the Amish, if you dig a little more deeply, you’ll see that the uniformity is a total sham – they are in a constant state of flux. Groups are always breaking away based on various doctrines, use of technology, and so on. They are human.

    That said, you can’t play the game unless you have cards. And they have cards: oh boy, do they have cards. Cards enough for an entire casino.

    So, it’s all up in the air. No one can really predict what the far future brings, but we can say with total certainty that in two generations they will be around, and liberal Protestants, Jews, and Catholics will not.

  70. Mark G. says:
    @Rosie

    Dysgenic fertility seems to be declining among Whites, as highly educated mothers (disproportionately White, I presume) are having large families.

    Thanks, I didn’t know that. That’s a good trend. Blacks, Hispanics and less educated whites still have more children than more educated whites but if the gap is narrowing then the dystopian future might be put off for awhile. I’m 64 so it’s better if it happens 50 years in the future when I’m not around than 10 or 15 years from now.

    The article you linked to said highly educated women started having more children in 1994. The 1994 welfare reform act happened then and it might have shifted resources in some subtle way from blacks to more educated whites. You also had the “Echo Boomers”, the children of the Boomers who reached child bearing age during that period, and that helped increase the white birthrate.

    Trump is getting knocked around a lot now by his disappointed followers but he did reduce immigration while in office and that slowed white demographic replacement. Unfortunately, Biden will quickly increase immigration to add more Democrats to the voter rolls and will increase welfare state transfers from whites to nonwhites. This will cause a rapid economic decline. Trump wasn’t our Hitler but Biden may be our Brezhnev, a half senile old man presiding over a declining empire on the verge of collapse.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  71. @dfordoom

    Children strongly selected against as status symbols in my experience, certainly in comparison to other expensive opportunity goods.

  72. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    I get ya. It’s just really funny how the same people who pride themselves on their tolerance and understanding of “diversity” can have more a more shockingly parochial worldview than the religious conservatives they so despise.

    I don’t think the bumi laws were ever intended to be permanent by Mahathir when he introduced them, but you know how government gimmes go: once granted, hard to take back. Another thing the bumi laws are doing is ironically encouraging an influx of mainland Chinese in place of the Malaysian Chinese that cause the brain drain. The latter are going to be far more tractable to deal (more likely to speak Malay, for one thing) with than the latter.

    >If you recall, that approach is what ended the Umayyads in about a century of rule.

    As I recall, there was a great deal of tension between the mawali and the old Syro-Arab military elites. The former tended to be better educated and heavily involved in the legalistic development of Islam: and naturally would point to the universalist facets of the religion.

    The Abbasid revolution meant the former won, which would have fateful consequences for the history of your faith that I need not elaborate on. The old conquest elite had deep psychological ties to the Judeo-Christian millieu of the Hellenized Eastern Mediterranean. The new bureaucrats in charge in Baghdad didn’t. Memories of the Sassanids, though… and the wealth of India and China beyond that was far more tempting than dickering with impoverished Anatolians.

    • Replies: @Talha
  73. @Vergissmeinnicht

    I see a lot of claims, no numbers.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  74. nebulafox says:
    @Mark G.

    “Brezhnevite” is as good a description as any for our bipartisan elites in general. Note that they are actually on average older than their latter-day Soviet counterparts: and the Russians had the excuse of 20 million+ young men wiped out by WWII.

  75. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Paperback Writer

    In my social circle, having children is seen as a sign of success. People without children are considered weird. Yes, I know that the media neverendingly tout the joys of childlessness, etc., but it simply isn’t the case IRL. I don’t live in a small religious enclave. No one is having 8 kids per family. But 2-4, yes.

    And yet fertility rates are well below replacement level.

    Fertility rates can be misleading. If the TFR is 1.5 that doesn’t necessarily mean most people are having one or two kids. It may mean that a small number of people are having two to four kids and a lot of people are having none.

    And Christians celebrate the fact that they’re having lots of kids. And yet Christianity is still slowly declining.

    It’s possible that pro-natal policies won’t work because the people who can be influenced by such policies are already having 2-4 kids anyway. It’s possible that pro-natal policies just won’t have any influence on the substantial group who don’t have any children.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
  76. iffen says:

    It ain’t rocket science.

    Assets (kids in an agrarian age) vs. liabilities (today).

  77. @Kratoklastes

    I guess that given the link between stupidity and fecundity, it would be possible to make breeders think that squirting out new idiots gives them ‘status’ in the breeder community (more than the current bullshit-fest that surrounds expectant mothers now: as if getting knocked up is a fucking achievement).

    Real religious fundamentalists can get around this since you need to be married and have the competence to follow the religion’s rules to get the status boost.

    Since status motivates the stupid, it would add to the ranks at the margin. That said, I’m pretty sure that space is saturated: “has motivational decals on the wall” and “has offspring” must already overlap quite a lot.

    Everyone is motivated by status. Well, maybe not a few autistic monks, but they are in the extreme minority. If you can’t see the status-driven behaviors among the rich and smart you seem to identify with, that’s just your own self-deception at work.

    There’s nothing remotely noble about condemning oneself to lower disposable income, less freedom of movement and action, and two decades of sponging off the non-breeders (even ‘private’ schools get large government handouts to warehouse breeder’s new halfwits). All for a genetic crapshoot that doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to humanity as a whole, or to any relevant subpopulation.

    The average childless person’s life is also gonna have no long-term impact on the world. Think you’re gonna write the Great American Novel? The odds are very steep.

    All y’all reproduce as much as you like – fill the world with even more halfwits – so long as you fund the fucking things yourself, and teach them to mind their fucking manners (since men are no longer culturally permitted to belt strangers’ kids upside the head).

    Would you also want to reform the social security system to avoid the implicit subsidy to the childless?

    I agree that there’s certainly a problematic dysgenic mentality among much of the red tribe that valorizes anyone who reproduces, as if the next Einstein is gonna be conceived in a 1992 Toyota Corola behind some trailer park. But you know what’s even more pathetic than the dumb woman proud of having a kid out of wedlock? The man or woman who thinks he or she is smart and is proud of not having any kids. Now I don’t have any kids right now, may die childless. If I do, I’ll be honest that it signifies maladaptation.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
  78. Real Christianity is extremely difficult to understand. Not because it is something recondite in and of itself, but because virtually nobody in this day and age has a proper antecedent understanding of the basic words and concepts in which theological truths are articulated.

    Modern man lacks the basic metaphysical prerequisites for being Christian. This is why the Church is in decline and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

    Bearing this mind, I don’t draw much hope from the idea that, up until the very recent past, religious service attendance correlated positively with natality. Contemporary Christianity is nothing but heresy and madness; the churches are pozzed beyond belief and offer absolutely nothing in the way of salvific authority let alone cultural correction. The reason these people had more kids is because they were already successfully positioned in life and going to church on Sunday is just part of their keeping up appearances. They aren’t really Christian (almost nobody is), they aren’t really traditional, and they are not going to save society.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @dfordoom
    , @anon
  79. @dfordoom

    And yet fertility rates are well below replacement level.

    I’m not disputing that.

    I’m telling you what I see. What I see is the favored few having a lot of kids, and a majority having few or none. But in my middle-class urban world, the married with kids are the favored few. I’d rather not give away my zip code. I realize this isn’t what the MSM propounds. It’s what I see.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  80. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Kratoklastes

    “Squirting out new idiots” is a hard sell in communities where women are capable to thinking for themselves (i.e., who have the cognitive wherewithal and the cultural freedom to do so).

    I wouldn’t put it so crudely but it is true that child-rearing as a lifestyle choice is a very hard sell when women have lots of other choices.

    Child-rearing as a lifestyle choice for men is a bit of a hard sell as well.

    If you want people to have freedom you’ll have low birth rates and declining populations.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  81. @nebulafox

    I’ve known Muslims who originally came from the Balkans with blond hair and blue eyes.

    So have I. Bosnian girls are very popular among Egyptians. You get the best of both worlds: pretty white girls and believers.

    There is a clan of Palestinians called Bushnak which is descended from Bosnians who came to Palestine (or what we now call Palestine – it was an unnamed part of the Ottoman Empire then) who are called Bushnak, or derivations thereof.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  82. anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Real Christianity is extremely difficult to understand.

    Please explain.

    They aren’t really Christian (almost nobody is)

    Please explain, illuminate for us the True Christian.

  83. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    Another thing the bumi laws are doing is ironically encouraging an influx of mainland Chinese in place of the Malaysian Chinese that cause the brain drain.

    This is not good. It could be said that the Malays are setting themselves up for a conflict later with a people that are quite capable of becoming an minority ethnic-elite; but if they have their bases covered by the fact that the legal system is stacked in their favor as well as the demographic birth rate, this could perpetuate in an equilibrium for a while yet. But, at the cost of not inviting to the Chinese immigrants to the faith as fully-enfranchised brothers. Not worth it in my assessment.

    and naturally would point to the universalist facets of the religion.

    Yup. The Umayyads really didn’t have much backing to support an Arab-supremacist endeavor, especially when they were enforcing their rule brutally with men like Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf. And when the practice of the first generation was to do things like put Salman al-Farsi (the Persian Companion), in charge of governing Persia (you should read about his asceticism and shunning the material trappings of his position of power, it rivals that of Abu Ubaydah [ra]).

    The new bureaucrats in charge in Baghdad didn’t.

    Yup.

    Memories of the Sassanids, though… and the wealth of India and China beyond that was far more tempting

    That certainly didn’t hurt as an added incentive.

    Peace.

  84. Curle says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Google Mormon + decline + retention and you’ll find all you need including a Pew report and stuff like this:

    “With Generation X we start seeing a drop (62.5%), and with Millennials the drop becomes sharper: for those born after 1981, the GSS finds only a 46% retention rate. That means that among people who said they had been LDS as teenagers, fewer than half still claimed the identity when they were surveyed as adults.”

    Mormon retention has traditionally been over reported by the Church through the device of never reporting leavers and including tourist members (short term searchers) on the lists. With things like GSS better info is coming out.

    https://religionnews.com/2019/03/27/how-many-millennials-are-really-leaving-the-lds-church/

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund, dfordoom
  85. nebulafox says:
    @anon

    Ironically, Nietzsche himself was notably anti-nihilistic.

  86. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    If you want people to have freedom you’ll have low birth rates and declining populations.

    That’s just it. I’m not sure the data quite support that pessimistic view. As you said above, some people are having more kids than average; others less. In other words, freedom is sort of working. We’re coming up about half a child short per woman.

    But here’s the thing. Women are not having as many children as they say they want, and maybe that is just an issue of priorities, but then again maybe it’s not. We can’t rule out the possibility that problems such as high real estate prices, student loan debt, and deindustrialization are in fact depressing birth rates.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  87. Rosie says:
    @Paperback Writer

    Bosnian girls are very popular among Egyptians. You get the best of both worlds: pretty white girls and believers.

    Of course, that will be the end of the pretty white [sic] girls who are believers.

  88. Rosie says:
    @Paperback Writer

    The point of the jacket is to keep you warm in cold weather.

    You say so because you’re a man. In fact, a jacket has two purposes:

    1. To keep you warm, and
    2. To look fabulous.

    I’m sure that jacket does a fine job at #1. The problem is #2.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
  89. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon

    When their numbers explode, and libs find out that they are against gay marriage, liberals will be calling for an Amish genocide.

    Maybe not genocide, but in that situation there will certainly be efforts to suppress the Amish.

    It’s more likely that the efforts will follow the “For God’s Sake Won’t Anyone Think of the Children” pattern. There will be moves to ban home-schooling and to ban non-approved schools, because children who are home-schooled or sent to ultra-conservative religious schools will suffer horribly from not learning important stuff that people need to survive and be well-adjusted, such as the joys of anal sex and the crucial importance of transsexual bathroom rights.

    So we can expect to see the Amish and other ultra-conservative religious groups forced to send their kids to government schools. If home-schooling can’t be banned outright it will be made pointless by having regulations forcing parents to teach their kids about anal sex and transsexual bathroom rights.

    And it will all be done for the sake of the children.

    Other conservative religious groups will be affected as well (such as conservative Muslims and Orthodox Jews). They’ll be collateral damage.

  90. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Hengest

    More religious people are choosing these options of homeschool and to move to a geographic area with a good Church and like-minded people.

    How long do you think homeschooling will still be permitted? If it can’t be banned it will be neutralised in various ways (such as forcing parents to include things like LGBT indoctrination in their homeschooling if they want their kids’ academic qualification to be recognised).

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Hengest
  91. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rattus Norwegius

    Liberal Amish already exists. The more liberal Amish communities have a lower retention rate than their more conservative brethren. Liberal Amish communities are close with the Mennonites. Many of those who leave traditional Amish society join Mennonite congregations. While their exists plenty of Ultra Orthodox Mennonites, there also exists progressive Mennonites.

    In the long run secular liberalism always seems to win. It doesn’t win as a result of draconian oppressive measures, it wins by gradually chipping away at conservative/traditionalist institutions and communities. The liberal Amish will slowly become a bigger and bigger proportion of the Amish community and the liberal Amish will slowly become more liberal. Small compromises will be made, followed by more and more numerous small compromises.

    The final result will be Amish Gay Pride Marches.

    That’s also why eastern European countries that are supposedly still very conservative (countries such as Poland and Romania) are doomed. Secular liberalism will gain a bigger and bigger toe-hold among the young and the urbanites and each new cohort of young people will be a bit more liberal and a bit more pozzed.

    This could only be prevented by really drastic measures and neither communities such as the Amish nor countries such as Poland have the political/economic/cultural power to enforce such measures.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Wency
  92. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    And this situation can’t “trickle down” by definition.

    Yes, it can. You could have said the same thing about stainless steel appliances ten years ago.

    Of course, if you proceed from the baseless assumption that women will only have children with the superrich, then no it can’t trickle down.

    My point is that religious fertility seems to be a byproduct of norms and behaviors that are promoted by the religion that facilitate or encourage fertility, rather than direct bestowal of status on fertility.

    I know that’s your point, and I’m telling you you’re wrong.

    Evangelical Protestants give, at most, lip service, to all this bullsh!t about patriarchy. Nobody cares about it. Like a mother of a large family at my Church has said, “I know I’m supposed to submit, but I’m a hopeless sinner and can’t help myself.”

    Which places? Do you mean the Muslim world? Secularism is increasing in the Muslim world, where patriarchy is intertwined with religion. Fertility is falling in the Muslim world as religion/patriarchy is declining and secularism is increasing.

    You keep trying to equate religion with patriarchy because you have an agenda. You want the credit for boosting birthrates to go to “patriarchy” rather than sincere love of God and a desto carry out his first commandment (be fruitful and multiply). It’s very transparent.

    Anyway, Muslims have nothing on India, which is so patriarchal that baby girls are frequently killed by their own parents shortly after birth. Their birthrate? 2.2 and falling.

  93. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    In the long run secular liberalism always seems to win.

    That’s because the Overton Window is strictly controlled to ensure that liberalism always wins.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @dfordoom
  94. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Doesn’t matter. If they are successful in stacking cards in there favor unfairly, that is still part of winning – his point stands.

    Peace.

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

    Doesn’t matter. If they are successful in stacking cards in there favor unfairly, that is still part of winning – his point stands.

    Peace.

    That’s true, but he is wrong about this:

    This could only be prevented by really drastic measures

    Only one not-particularly-drastic measure is required: ensure free and open debate.

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

    That’s where the stacking the cards comes into play.

    Peace.

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

    That’s where the stacking the cards comes into play.

    I’m not sure what your point is. Blackpilling isn’t going to help anything, and the regime has to resort to ever more “draconian” measures to quell dissent, up to and including gunning down civilians protesting an obviously fraudulent election. That is bound to make people more receptive to dissident views.

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

    I’m not sure what your point is. Blackpilling isn’t going to help anything

    Who said I’m black pilling? I’m saying expect no quarter – period. Look at the situation and say; “Two against one, we like those odds.”

    The Mongols ran over half the Muslim world and had their boots over the Muslim neck. They eventually became Muslim themselves. As Iqbal wrote in his poem “Jawab e Shikwa”:
    “It’s clear from the story of the onslaught of the Tartars,
    That the Ka’bah obtained door-guardians from idol-temples.
    The boat of truth has, after all, a refuge in the time,
    If the new era is a night, yet still there’s a dim star.”

    If you have the better path, be confident in the long run against the odds. Win anyway.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: Rosie, RadicalCenter
  99. @dfordoom

    As an off-and-on homeschooler, myself, I have long wondered about this:

    How long do you think homeschooling will still be permitted? If it can’t be banned it will be neutralised in various ways (such as forcing parents to include things like LGBT indoctrination in their homeschooling if they want their kids’ academic qualification to be recognised).

    My wife and I have never had any conflict over homeschooling with the school district, with whose staff we get along well, but there are clearly many Americans who believe that homeschooling should be illegal. Yet homeschooling remains legal in all U.S. states and lightly burdened in most of them.

    Based on my own experience, I surmise that school-district personnel generally disapprove of homeschooling but feel relief at not having to field the persistent complaints of and agitation by homeschooling mothers who were forced to enroll their children in the public school. As long as the numbers remain small and the school district continues to receive full public funding for each child that does not attend, coërcing homeschoolers is just too much hassle.

    For us, there is a tradeoff. Because the school district has left us in peace, we do not tempt fate by attending school-board meetings or expressing opinions during school-board elections, ever. During years in which our children are enrolled in the public school, we accept all decisions by the school’s principal as final, never bucking the principal’s decision further up his chain of command.

    I can imagine a future crackdown on homeschooling but admit that, during the past twenty years or so, I have personally seen little sign of any such crackdown locally.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  100. @Rosie

    Evangelical Protestants give, at most, lip service, to all this bullsh!t about patriarchy. Nobody cares about it.

    Right. Young men who talk about it talk about it as they do because they do not know what they are talking about. Most of them eventually get married. They figure it out.

    Like a mother of a large family at my Church has said, “I know I’m supposed to submit, but I’m a hopeless sinner and can’t help myself.”

    And that is how it has been since before the dawn of history.

    • Replies: @Wency
  101. Wency says:
    @neutral

    There are liberal Mennonites, who share certain theological peculiarities with the Amish, but I don’t think there are liberal Amish per se, other than to mean Amish that are somewhat more lenient in their use of technology while still adhering to the Bible. It’s tough to be all that liberal without modern technology.

    The funny thing about liberal Christians is many of them, rather surprisingly to me, really, really care about denominational differences. Such people don’t really believe in the Bible, but they do believe very strongly in those peculiarities that make Episcopalians different from Lutherans. They need to double down on something, I suppose.

    Conservative Christians tend to place adherence to the Bible above all else. They will prefer a service that’s very unfamiliar but that teaches Biblical truth over one that’s familiar but preaches obeisance to globohomo. In such ways have I seen both Baptists convert to Eastern Orthodox and vice-versa.

  102. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Bearing this mind, I don’t draw much hope from the idea that, up until the very recent past, religious service attendance correlated positively with natality. Contemporary Christianity is nothing but heresy and madness; the churches are pozzed beyond belief and offer absolutely nothing in the way of salvific authority let alone cultural correction.

    I agree.

    The reason these people had more kids is because they were already successfully positioned in life and going to church on Sunday is just part of their keeping up appearances. They aren’t really Christian (almost nobody is), they aren’t really traditional, and they are not going to save society.

    Again I agree.

    the Church is in decline and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

    Once again I agree.

  103. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Paperback Writer

    What I see is the favored few having a lot of kids, and a majority having few or none. But in my middle-class urban world, the married with kids are the favored few.

    I suspect that patterns of fertility in modern societies are very patchy. Very uneven, with huge differences among different socio-economic classes, different regions, different neighbourhoods, different cultural groupings.

    Considering how important demographic collapse is it’s probably true to say that it’s something we don’t fully understand at a detailed level.

  104. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    In other words, freedom is sort of working. We’re coming up about half a child short per woman.

    Unfortunately that shortfall amounts to extinction-level fertility.

    Women are not having as many children as they say they want

    The problem is that what people say they want and what they really want are two different things (and this applies to both men and women and it applies to most issues).

    I suspect that a lot of women have a vague desire to have more kids but that vague desire is not strong enough to persuade them to do so if having more kids means sacrificing other opportunities or sacrificing material prosperity.

    We can’t rule out the possibility that problems such as high real estate prices, student loan debt, and deindustrialization are in fact depressing birth rates.

    We can’t rule it out. It probably is a factor. I’m inclined to think it’s a fairly minor factor. I don’t believe economic circumstances have much influence on birth rates, which is why I doubt that economic incentives will have much effect.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Audacious Epigone
  105. botazefa says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The effect dates from the introduction of the birth-control pill in 1960 and has not yet had time really to kick in.

    I think the pill is part of it, but what about television? In some ways TV directly competes with church services.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @dfordoom
  106. Wency says:
    @dfordoom

    This part isn’t really true, at least not at single-digit millions. Maybe at tens of millions.

    The Amish rely less and less on agriculture as a means of providing for themselves, and that hasn’t cost them their lifestyle. There are 57 million rural inhabitants in the US. They are older than the average American. Not many people want to move to these areas; a lot of counties have fewer people now than decades ago. Over a century or more, the US rural population could easily become 10% Amish without too much change to the Amish lifestyle, even as those rural counties still lose population overall and most of the deracinated US population collects in giant hive cities and their sprawling suburbs.

    I still agree with the possibility of the leftists or someone else crushing them for ideological reasons (though I think it can go either way as we’ve discussed before on this topic), but I think the Amish running out of space would probably be more of a 23rd century concern rather than 22nd. Assuming some technological advance or singularity doesn’t fundamentally change civilization.

    Hassidim are different — I think their lifestyle becomes a problem much sooner than that.

  107. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    In the long run secular liberalism always seems to win.

    That’s because the Overton Window is strictly controlled to ensure that liberalism always wins.

    I’m not convinced of that. I think that one of the key mistakes that conservatives/traditionalists make is that they fail to understand that most people like secular liberalism. Because they think that secular liberalism is just awful and is socially destructive they can’t comprehend just how attractive it is to most people.

    I don’t deny that there’s a lot of secular liberal propaganda and I don’t necessarily disagree with conservatives/traditionalists when they see secular liberalism as socially destructive but it’s futile to pretend that isn’t genuinely popular.

    The problem is that given the choice, the majority of people will freely choose secular liberalism. If conservatives/traditionalists want to win they have to figure out why conservativism and traditionalism don’t have all that much appeal.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    , @Rosie
  108. AlexT says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    So they will accept anybody from anywhere as long as they are Mormon, but not accept local townies who aren’t? Surprises me a little bit honestly. I would expect them to be more of a factor in society/politics with that kind of clannishness, but they mostly seem like weak willed establishment R’s. Any idea how they justify sacrificing working class Mormons on the altar of diversity/business?

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

    The problem is that given the choice, the majority of people will freely choose secular liberalism. If conservatives/traditionalists want to win they have to figure out why conservativism and traditionalism don’t have all that much appeal.

    Traditionalism, as was said of the Holy Roman Empire, is something that “never was but always is.” The real importance of Tradition is that it is an adumbration of a heavenly kingdom and that it is not of this world. The person who lives by the word of God proves himself a citizen of this kingdom, which is his only goal. Success in this world is not guaranteed; in fact, it is foretold him that he will have trials, burdens, and perplexities as he works out his salvation in fear and trembling.

    There was no time when “Tradition” was an established fact, just as there was no time when what we call “secular liberalism” was not the preferred choice of the multitude. As it was in the days of Noah, so it is today. The two exist together, side by side, and will so exist forever until the consummation of the world.

    Traditionalists cannot hope to “win” anything, but they do, by their faithfulness, leaven the lump of society. There were times, such as the High Middle Ages, when the leaven was very strong and so society as a whole seemed well-ordered; and there were times, such as the horrible age of Athanasius, when it was almost wiped out.

    We live in a time like the latter. As far as the Traditionalist is concerned, the present time is something that must be outlasted. It cannot be corrected by human agency. This is the appraisal of the situation that must inform the strategies and tactics of Traditionalists.

  110. Wency says:
    @dfordoom

    I agree that secular liberalism has an allure, which is why Christianity is declining in the West. But it’s not what causes churches to become liberal. The trouble with trying to liberalize Christianity is that you have certain marks in the sand, such as the text of the Bible and the chuch’s history and traditions. Anyone who is drawn to Christianity over secular liberalism will put some stock in those things and cause some natural resistance. So the way liberal Christianity spreads is a lot less organic than what you describe and has a lot more to do with ideological capture. The pattern is well-established.

    First, over time, per Conquest’s Second Law, the leftists capture the high-level administrative machinery of a denomination and its seminaries. From there, the clergy starts to become more liberal.

    The congregation tends to remain more conservative and is seldom persuaded much by the liberalism of a clergy that rejects the Bible, but as the leftism makes itself felt, more conservatives start to leave, allowing the denomination to become more and more liberal, though due to inertia a lot of conservatives stay longer than one may think. But no one passes this denomination down to their children, and so it withers away.

    But as I’ve covered before here, American Christianity is still a lot more socially conservative than the country as a whole, and also conservative Christians are a lot more likely to show up at church on Sunday. I think my estimate was that around 80% of Americans who show up to church on any given Sunday are going to one that proclaims homosexuality a sin and marriage as between man and woman. And that number is mostly increasing every year due to the general death spiral of liberal churches, but then it’s periodically offset when the leftists succeed at a high-level capture, which is then followed by another death spiral.

    For example, leftists captured PCUSA, which started an exodus that caused the more conservative PCA to absorb its members, but now it’s starting to look like PCA is about to be captured, much to the dismay of those who already fled leftism at the PCUSA.

    But one weakness of the leftist strategy is that, at least in the US, Christianity can be organized at a very grassroots level, and usually smaller churches — most of them Baptists and Baptist-like non-denoms — remain conservative.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  111. @Kratoklastes

    Now that’s entertaining bitterness you can’t just buy.

    • LOL: Talha
  112. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Yes, it can. You could have said the same thing about stainless steel appliances ten years ago.

    Of course, if you proceed from the baseless assumption that women will only have children with the superrich, then no it can’t trickle down.

    We were talking specifically about the case of wealthy urbanites in places like Manhattan having kids as status symbols. That situation can’t trickle down by definition.

    There are others, like the Amish or poor black ghetto women, who may have lots of children, but they wouldn’t be examples of “trickle down” from the wealthy urbanites. There’s a different dynamic driving fertility in these cases.

    I know that’s your point, and I’m telling you you’re wrong.

    Evangelical Protestants give, at most, lip service, to all this bullsh!t about patriarchy. Nobody cares about it. Like a mother of a large family at my Church has said, “I know I’m supposed to submit, but I’m a hopeless sinner and can’t help myself.”

    So you dispute that the traditional norms and family values that religions tend to promote don’t facilitate or encourage fertility among the faithful?

    Regarding Evangelicals, they’ve been in significant decline recently and are increasingly exposed to liberal and secular influences.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/2010s-spelled-end-white-christian-america-ncna1106936

    “n addition to white American Christianity crossing the majority-minority threshold, the last decade also saw a particularly significant decline within one subgroup: white evangelicals. While the ranks of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics have been shrinking for decades, white evangelical Protestants had seemed immune to the forces eroding membership among other white Christian groups.

    But since 2010, the number of white evangelical Protestants has dropped from 21 percent of the population to 15 percent. While white evangelical Protestants have enjoyed an outsized public presence over the last four years because of their predominance in President Donald Trump’s unshakeable base, it is notable that today they are actually roughly the same size as their white mainline Protestant cousins (15 percent vs. 16 percent, respectively).”

    You keep trying to equate religion with patriarchy because you have an agenda. You want the credit for boosting birthrates to go to “patriarchy” rather than sincere love of God and a desto carry out his first commandment (be fruitful and multiply). It’s very transparent.

    It’s simply a fact that the major traditional religions are patriarchal. There’s no logical reason why a religion has to necessarily be patriarchal. You can make up non-patriarchal, egalitarian, feminist or even matriarchal religions, and such types of religions have existed in history. For example, the Oneida Community was a 19th century Christian sect in New York that rejected the sexist and patriarchal norms of traditional Christianity.

    The highest birthrates in the world today are in sub-Saharan Africa which doesn’t conform to the kind of monogamous, pair bonding, distributed patriarchy I’ve been describing. So I certainly don’t credit this patriarchy for high birthrates in Africa. In Africa, this sort of distributed patriarchy and consequent distributed fertility among men is not the norm. Rather women tend to do the farming and be economically independent and raise the children, while the men tend to be more polygynous and compete to impregnate multiple women. So you don’t traditional Western patriarchy to have high fertility, as Africa shows. Women can work, be economically independent, and have lots of kids without being attached to a man in lifelong marriages. We are increasingly adopting this African norm.

    Anyway, Muslims have nothing on India, which is so patriarchal that baby girls are frequently killed by their own parents shortly after birth. Their birthrate? 2.2 and falling.

    India is generally less patriarchal than Muslim countries overall. Legal, social, economic, and political rights, indpendence, and participation for women in India is higher than in Muslim countries.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  113. So the non religious will die out. Praise the Lord. Abortion and LBGTX are religions of death. There is a G-d and a future.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  114. iffen says:
    @Kratoklastes

    as if getting knocked up is a fucking achievement).

    Well, now that you mention it.

    • LOL: Talha
  115. Wency says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The thing about traditional patriarchy is it seems to usually have some sort of stable and livable power balance between man and wife. Also, much of it seems to be for external consumption — the woman offers a submissive appearance to the world (to humiliate her man in public would be to humiliate herself), but privately she has a lot of power. Even if he has the legal right to beat her into submission, he probably won’t get the results he wants that way. In some ways, you might compare it to a relationship between king and prime minister, where the most important feature is the external appearance of respect, but the underlying power balance can vary quite a lot.

    The problem, of course, is that when it comes to full-fledged, “hard patriarchy”, moderns don’t get this subtlety. If they try to imitate it, the results are LARPing and horrific.

    But let’s be clear, the survival value of patriarchy is NOT that it produces more children. It’s that it entices men to invest in their children. I’ve noticed that in matrilocal African American culture, women are often explicit and direct about this when they give their children the surname of the absentee father. This is a patriarchal cultural feature, a show of respect and implied ownership to try to entice those fathers to invest something, anything in their kids. Brad Wilcox in his research also finds that even among middle-class whites, the most patriarchal fathers — conservative Christians — also invest the most in their children.

    The trouble of our age is that investing in children conveys no survival advantage.

    Lastly, I do think the requirement of male leadership in conservative Christianity is still a real and positive thing for two reasons. First, it helps draw men (who are already less inclined to attend) to church and keeps it from becoming a women’s club. Second, it helps on the margin with resisting heresy, at least when living in a heretic culture. Which is not to say men can’t also lead others into heresy, but women are more attuned to the zeitgeist, more inclined to compromise orthodoxy for the sake of what’s fashionable, more inclined to lead with their feelings and not worry about the nitty-gritty of theology.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @Daniel Chieh
    , @Rosie
  116. @Rosie

    I think it’s a handsome jacket, although not as nice as this:

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/746753181933721534/

  117. @Rosie

    As I discovered on Sailer’s blog, Iran’s TFR is below replacement. It’s pretty patriarchal.

    I think we can learn something from Israel, whose TFR is above replacement, all throughout its society, although fertility rates vary according to religiosity. But even the seculars reproduce a bit above TFR. What can we learn? Having a purpose that’s more than just individual boosts birthrates.

    • Agree: Rosie
  118. Dumbo says:

    The only people I met that were having several children in Europe – like, 5, 6, and in one case even 10 – were practising Catholics. Even Muslims don’t have that many.

    On the other hand, Kathy Shaidle just died. She was Catholic. She had no children.

    I don’t know… Religiosity is one factor, but there are others.

    I think people don’t have many children because:

    a) living in cities is more expensive, need to pay education, housing, etc.
    b) also a question of space, in the countryside people tended always to have mor kids.
    b) religious people care less about status or material stuff; a SWPL would gladly have one less child if it means having more stuff or holidays in Cuba or Hawaii
    c) children can be a hassle and take a lot of time of your life, it’s not all fun and games
    d) you need a stay-at-home mom, if both parents work it’s difficult to have a lot of children
    e) higher education and “career” of women also limits fertility
    f) feminism

    • Replies: @Rosie
  119. Dumbo says:
    @Wency

    Also, much of it seems to be for external consumption — the woman offers a submissive appearance to the world but privately she has a lot of power

    This is true even in Muslim cultures, the submission/burka is for external show, but at home the woman henpecks the husband and the mother in law torments him. Same as it ever was.

  120. @Wency

    The problem, of course, is that when it comes to full-fledged, “hard patriarchy”, moderns don’t get this subtlety. If they try to imitate it, the results are LARPing and horrific.

    Well, historically it was a lot of “hard patriarchy.”

    Ultimately, its purpose is extremely simple and I think there’s some research from Peter Frost supporting this(as well as others); patriarchy is just a feature of men and women actually having to work together. In societies where males and females do not cooperate(some parts of Africa), there’s no patriarchy; given the opportunity and environment, men do not provide for children and do not interact with women sufficiently to even want to rule them.

    Patriarchy is simply a solution to scale: if men and women have to work together, then it needs to have someone to coordinate them. The simple solution was either that all men basically have innately higher status than all women, or all women have higher status than all men – likewise, you don’t really see egalitarian solutions in nature for a reason. Of the two, the former generally works better because men have higher variation, and thus you are much more likely to have an overwhelmingly capable male at the highest vantage point of your group than vice versa, and just have the least capable ones die off.

    There’s something about beauty that the more I’ve come to read about nature, one realizes that its all, in a way, engineering of solutions. Ultimately, there’s always suffering, its just that some systems tend to work better versa others. Male dominance does seem to be one of those, so as long as male variation is higher, and so as long as we live in an adversarial system. The world hasn’t been that adversarial but I think that’s about to change again, with the collapse of the US as a superpower preventing warfare.

    As part of this, too, I’m not sure that patriarchy has that much to do with tfr. Some, certainly. But if status isn’t associated with children, then people will look to signal status as the expense of children. E.g. men will likely prioritize sex over children, so men would have every reason to prioritize birth control even in a patriarchial setting. If pre-Revolutionary France was any example, bastardary by upper classes with their servants was not an uncommon form of having children, but in a modern patriarchy-equivalent, it won’t matter if the maids are effectively sex slaves, they won’t be having children of their employers at any significantly higher rate.

    • Replies: @Wency
    , @Rosie
  121. @AlexT

    So they will accept anybody from anywhere as long as they are Mormon, but not accept local townies who aren’t?

    Well, I don’t know everything about Mormons, so I can’t say. The details are undoubtedly subtle and, probably, more interesting to Mormons than to the rest of us. Your question is a good one, though.

    I would expect them to be more of a factor in society/politics with that kind of clannishness, but they mostly seem like weak willed establishment R’s.

    I think that they actually just believe in that religion of theirs. The religion lacks a clear strategy to deliberately exploit clannishness and dominate the larger society.

    [MORE]

    As you know, Mormons proselytize a lot, though they retain an inner ethnic-Utahn core. So maybe clannishness is not quite the right concept.

    It’s hard to explain if you haven’t known a sufficient number of Mormons, yourself. The closest I can come to explaining it in a few sentences is that Mormons protect and cherish several layers of religious hypocrisy, which, over time, harden a peculiar mindset. To them, the faithful Mormon is honest and trustworthy by definition; so any actual dishonesty or untrustworthiness on their part, however minor, has to be worked out by warping the various definitions that they apply to outsiders.

    Qualified adult Mormons are issued an important document called the temple recommend, which on its face grants them admission to the Latter-day Saint temples, buildings that are distinct from their weekly houses of worship. In practice, the temple recommend serves an indispensable badge of good character among the Mormons. Typically, they’ll let their children sleep over with your children in your home if you have a temple recommend, not otherwise. They’ll trust you to deal squarely at work if you have a temple recommend, not otherwise.

    And if you’re not Mormon, you cannot have a temple recommend.

    They’re really rather fine people as a rule. I do not mean to be overly critical, yet it is disconcerting to learn, when you are among Mormons, that your foot has no way to set itself on the first rung of the ladder of trust.

    Any idea how they justify sacrificing working class Mormons on the altar of diversity/business?

    I believe that I know the answer to this question, but my reply is already too long so I had better cut it short. In brief, Mormons are terribly conflicted over their Official Declaration No. 2, 1978—which contradicts the entire spirit of their own religion and yet which they hold to be a moral imperative. The severe cognitive dissonance thereby occasioned makes it impossible for them to notice that they are sacrificing their own working class.

    If it sounds weird, why, that’s Mormons for you.

    They did not sacrifice their own working class prior to 1978 as far as I know.

  122. Wency says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I’d be curious what Frost said, but I don’t really buy the explanation that it’s about coordination. Human beings at the local level have a way of coordinating spontaneously. It’s not that hard until you get to the level of empires.

    I’d look at some of what Harpending had to say.

    The anthropological essence of the marriage contract is this: a woman offers what she must in exchange for male provision of resources to her and her children. Marriage is traditionally stronger and more patriarchal in places where male provision of resources is more important and challenging, where the man’s negotiating position is strongest, where the temptation to abandon his family in tough times is most alluring. It’s a means of keeping that man in place by giving him a sense of ownership of his family and enough control of his environment that he doesn’t feel he could improve his lot by leaving.

    Though as I noted, matrilocal cultures still tend to have some patriarchal features, to try to coax some resources from the men. It’s just that this is an optional strategy for the women, not an essential one. In such a society, unlike the first kind, a woman can be impossible to live with but still produce surviving offspring.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  123. Wency says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I’m generally with you in the camp that the Anabaptists have a good chance to become a more significant force in America in the 22nd century. While I think there are threats to them, I’m not as pessimistic as some here. I do think that there are still forces and facts about human nature that are disposed towards leaving them alone.

    But I do think the impact of the Pill in particular and birth control in general is overstated. The popularity of the Pill is to some extent peculiarly American, and there are large parts of the world where it was never all that important and still isn’t all that important but where fertility dropped all the same. French fertility crashed in the 19th century, long before reliable birth control was even an option.

    If we see the French 19th century as a precursor to what happened everywhere else in the 20th-21st, then TFR surely wouldn’t be all that much higher in the West even if we imagine reliable birth control was somehow never invented. My guess is TFR would be in the 2-3 range in the West, and quite likely still sub-replacement in NE Asia, which historically has had less of a stigma around abortion/infanticide.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @anon
    , @dfordoom
  124. @Buzz Mohawk

    I would have thought so too, until I recently learned otherwise. Not only are USA Latinos not monolithically Catholic, they are not even majority Catholic any more:

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-latinos-longer-majority-catholic-66856012

    So the Latino birthrate definitely cannot be confidently ascribed to Catholic mores without looking into it more. We would have to know the fertility rate of the NON-Catholic MAJORITY of USA Latinos versus the fertility rate of the Catholic MINORITY of USA Latinos.

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

    Thank you for sharing your experience and yes, we have heard this elsewhere too.

    We still may find it worthwhile to move to Utah for several reasons, including a couple that I can’t specify here (too identifying). One reason is that we want a better chance at keeping what we perceive as perverse sexual content and radical political and racial propaganda out of the schools that our kids would attend. The rot is everywhere, but some areas still have a shot at preserving / restoring healthy values, lifestyles, and sex (not “gender”) roles. Having a large percentage of traditionally minded Mormons locally as allies in that effort can make the difference — even if we find their doctrines, thus far, to make little sense, to put it charitably.

    It would most likely be in the general Salt Lake City area, which doesn’t have the overwhelming Mormon supermajority of southern Utah and the very rural areas.

    In fact, Salt Lake County’s 1.1 million people (and growing) just dipped below 50% Mormon for the first time since settlement; this is not entirely a good thing given the nature of the non-Mormons moving in and the kids leaving Mormonism — including the younger, seemingly well indoctrinated, not-too-friendly, PC types we saw a lot of in SLC itself. And we weren’t just visiting for a week or two. The all-online nature of my work and our children’s school right now enables us to “live” for a month or two in various areas to dip our toes into the water of local culture, so to speak.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Hengest
  126. @botazefa

    I think the pill is part of it, but what about television? In some ways TV directly competes with church services.

    Could be. Do you think so?

  127. @V. K. Ovelund

    We expect a crackdown where our kids attend school, in California. The single-minded groupthink is so ubiquitous now, and the intolerance of different viewpoints and values so intense, that it is just a matter of time. Supporting groups like these may be enough to prevent some other States from curtailing the remaining freedom in this area, if not California:

    https://hslda.org/

    https://www.parentsrightsined.org/

  128. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Whatever. Fertility rates are plummeting in some of the most patriarchal places on Earth, but you keep telling yourself all that.

    True. But those are converts to secular liberalism. Those who keep the faith remains above replacement.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  129. anon[105] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency

    I’m generally with you in the camp that the Anabaptists have a good chance to become a more significant force in America in the 22nd century.

    If you are seriously claiming you can in any way predict North American demographics 80 to 150 years from now, please provide us all with something easier to predict:

    Tell us the closing price for the S&P on July 1, 2020 to the nearest dollar. Should be cake!

    But I do think the impact of the Pill in particular and birth control in general is overstated.

    Most people are ignorant of the history of contraception.

    The popularity of the Pill is to some extent peculiarly American,

    Disagree. Hormonal contraception is widely used in the entire Anglosphere.

    and there are large parts of the world where it was never all that important and still isn’t all that important but where fertility dropped all the same.

    This is true. Post WWII Japanese fertility is a more modern example than 19th century France, and the main tool in Japan for decades? Condoms. Russian women used abortion as a primary means of contraception for decades during the Soviet era.

    Roman women used herbal compounds for the same purpose over 1,500 years ago.

    French fertility crashed in the 19th century, long before reliable birth control was even an option.

    Charles Goodyear made thin, flexible rubber practical in the 19th century, which made the contraceptive diaphragm aka “pessary” also practical.

    tl;dr
    Humans have been controlling their birth rate for a very, very long time.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Wency
  130. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Wency

    French fertility crashed in the 19th century, long before reliable birth control was even an option.

    If we see the French 19th century as a precursor to what happened everywhere else in the 20th-21st, then TFR surely wouldn’t be all that much higher in the West even if we imagine reliable birth control was somehow never invented.

    That’s probably true. It is very important to understand that the demographic collapse of the West started a century and half ago so clearly it has little to do with so-called “cultural marxism” or Second Wave feminism or television and it has little to do with economic booms and busts. By the late 19th century western civilisation was already becoming inherently anti-natal. The West’s demographic collapse has been slow and gradual but inexorable.

    So we need to identify those characteristics that already existed in the 19th century that caused western civilisation to become anti-natal. The most obvious candidates would be increasing urbanisation, increasing prosperity, capitalism and the transformation of western societies into societies that were in practice based on secular liberalism and a belief in scientific, technological and social progress. By the late 19th century European societies had in practice ceased to be Christian societies in any meaningful sense.

    The trajectory in the US has been different so it’s dangerous to try to draw conclusions based purely on the US. The decline of Christianity was delayed in the US. For various reasons the US has lagged about half a century behind western Europe as far as the decline of Christianity is concerned. But the decline of Christianity in the US is obviously now well underway.

    Was the Western European demographic collapse in any way a reflection of a loss of confidence? I’m not convinced. Western Europe was if anything ludicrously over-confident until 1914. And Western Europe still seemed to be pretty self-confident right up until 1945.

    It’s also important to note that whereas demographic collapse was slow and gradual in Western Europe it has been incredibly rapid in East Asia and looks like it’s going to be just as rapid in places like South Asia and the Middle East.

    Secular liberalism and capitalism seem to be inherently anti-natal and secular liberalism and capitalism also appear to be unstoppable. And the collapse of Christianity as a significant force in society seems unstoppable as well.

  131. dfordoom says: • Website
    @botazefa

    In some ways TV directly competes with church services.

    Modern popular culture in general seems to be, for most people, much more attractive than going to church.

    It’s possible that in a modern society Christianity just doesn’t have any real appeal. Christianity has been in decline in the West for a couple of centuries at least. It’s possible, in fact likely, that its continued decline is unstoppable.

    Maybe Christianity just doesn’t have a rôle in the modern world.

    When it gets to the point we’re now at, where even Evangelicals are rapidly declining in numbers in the US, it’s possible that Christianity’s only future will be as an insignificant and steadily declining fringe belief.

    Maybe we have to ask ourselves if there’s a way forward for social conservatism without Christianity.

  132. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Wency

    So the way liberal Christianity spreads is a lot less organic than what you describe and has a lot more to do with ideological capture. The pattern is well-established.

    There’s a lot of truth in that. And Christianity seems to be particularly vulnerable to ideological capture. A highly emotional religion that emphasises universalism is always going to be vulnerable to ideological capture.

    The aspects of Christianity that were once its strengths are now its biggest points of vulnerability. It’s not that easy for Christians to take a hard line against feelgood ideas like inclusivity and “love is love”.

  133. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    So you dispute that the traditional norms and family values that religions tend to promote don’t facilitate or encourage fertility among the faithful?

    Yes, I do dispute it. I don’t think patriarchy has anything to do with fertility. Put men in charge of women and you are as likely to get lower fertility as higher.

    Rather women tend to do the farming and be economically independent and raise the children, while the men tend to be more polygynous and compete to impregnate multiple women. So you don’t traditional Western patriarchy to have high fertility, as Africa shows. Women can work, be economically independent, and have lots of kids without being attached to a man in lifelong marriages. We are increasingly adopting this African norm.

    Finally, were getting to the heart of the matter. You and Wency both admit that the point of patriarchy is not fertility, but getting men to invest in their children. It’s the old my way or the highway routine. Put me in charge or I’m gonna take my ball and go home.

    India is generally less patriarchal than Muslim countries overall. Legal, social, economic, and political rights, indpendence, and participation for women in India is higher than in Muslim countries.

    No, it isn’t. The reason they kill their daughters is because they have no prospect of ever controlling wealth and being of any use to their parents in old age.

    Raising a daughter is like “watering your neighbor’s garden,” they say.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/watering-your-neighbors-g_b_520327

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  134. Rosie says:
    @Wency

    The thing about traditional patriarchy is it seems to usually have some sort of stable and livable power balance between man and wife.

    Lol my achin’ sides. Yes, I’m sure men find it quite “livable.” Women, not so much.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  135. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    I’m not convinced of that. I think that one of the key mistakes that conservatives/traditionalists make is that they fail to understand that most people like secular liberalism.

    Depending on what you mean by the term, there is certainly some truth to this.

    People like secular liberalism up to a point.

    We like equal opportunity. We don’t like affirmative action.

    We like women’s sports. We don’t like biological men claiming to be women and ruining our competitions.

    We like equal rights for all compatriots. We don’t like equal rights for all humans (open borders).

    In other words, it’s not so much that I think liberalism loses in a free and open debate. Rather, free and open debate prevents liberalism from becoming a ridiculous parody of itself.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  136. Rosie says:

    And by the way, this is really dishonest:

    We were talking specifically about the case of wealthy urbanites in places like Manhattan having kids as status symbols. That situation can’t trickle down by definition.

    Yes, it can trickle down. If large families are fashionable, people are more likely to forgo consumer goods in favor of children. What don’t you get about this?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  137. Anonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Yes, I do dispute it. I don’t think patriarchy has anything to do with fertility. Put men in charge of women and you are as likely to get lower fertility as higher.

    You don’t think patriarchy has anything to do with fertility, at all? Not just that it’s not the sole or primary influence, but that it has zero influence on it?

    That is quite an extreme position, and it’s inconsistent with your acknowledgement of higher fertility religious grouops such as the Amish and Orthodox Jews which are more patriarchal than mainstream secular culture.

    Finally, were getting to the heart of the matter. You and Wency both admit that the point of patriarchy is not fertility, but getting men to invest in their children. It’s the old my way or the highway routine. Put me in charge or I’m gonna take my ball and go home.

    Without patriarchal norms which elevate the average man in status as “alpha” males, fewer men in the society are deemed worthy of reproduction by the women of that society. Male fertility becomes more concentrated and polygynous in nature. So fewer men have children in the first place, let alone the chance to invest in them. Fewer men are even in the ballgame, so to speak, so they don’t have a ball to take away and go home.

    Women chafe at this patriarchy which elevates the average, nice guy schlubs, “beta” males as synthetic “alpha” males. A woman’s natural instinct is to be attracted to “winners” i.e. men who have beaten other men in some sort of contest and demonstrated his “alpha” status and dominance. So a decrease of patriarchal norms which allows women greater freedom and independence to pursue “winners” and “alpha” males and not be dependent or attached on a more ordinary man just because patriarchal norms and society have elevated ordinary men in status is naturally appealing to women.

    No, it isn’t. The reason they kill their daughters is because they have no prospect of ever controlling wealth and being of any use to their parents in old age.

    So you deny that legal, social, economic, and political rights, independence, and participation for women in India are higher than in Muslim countries? That’s inconsistent with mainstream studies and reports on international gender equality, which generally place India as more equal than the Muslim world.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  138. Anonymous[269] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Yes, it can trickle down. If large families are fashionable, people are more likely to forgo consumer goods in favor of children. What don’t you get about this?

    Among urbanites and professionals, wealth is fashionable. In that class, large families can be a proxy for wealth as it suggests a large apartment costing millions, tens of thousands for private school and nannies, etc. Large families by themselves aren’t fashionable. A janitor with 10 kids crammed in a studio apartment is not more fashionable or greater in status than a hedge fund millionaire with 2 kids just because he has more kids.

    Foregoing consumer goods to afford something else is the opposite of luxury or status symbol spending. Luxury goods are those for which demand increases as price increases.

    As I said, this situation can’t “trickle down” by definition. These wealthy men have big families because they won a financial dick measuring contest in which the vast majority of men are considered “losers” of said contest. It’s premised on there being a small number of male winners relative to lots of male losers. If wealth is more equally distributed among men, then you can’t have fertility be a status symbol of wealth. You can’t make every man a hedge fund millionaire, because then no man would be hedge fund millionaire. There would be a decline in relative wealth, which is what matters here.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  139. Rosie says:
    @Dumbo

    e) higher education and “career” of women also limits fertility

    Why the squotes around career? And how do we know this again?

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  140. Rosie says:
    @jay

    True. But those are converts to secular liberalism. Those who keep the faith remains above replacement.

    The more relevant question is which way the trend is going. What countries don’t have declining fertility rates? I don’t think there are any, patriarchal or not.

    • Replies: @jay
  141. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Patriarchy is simply a solution to scale: if men and women have to work together, then it needs to have someone to coordinate them. The simple solution was either that all men basically have innately higher status than all women, or all women have higher status than all men – likewise, you don’t really see egalitarian solutions in nature for a reason. Of the two, the former generally works better because men have higher variation, and thus you are much more likely to have an overwhelmingly capable male at the highest vantage point of your group than vice versa, and just have the least capable ones die off.

    It’s nice that you actually attempt a justification of patriarchy here rather than merely taking it for granted, but I don’t think your argument quite works, at least at the level of the household.

    Half the population is on the left side of the bell curve, and within that part of the population, it seems to me that women are better head of household material than men. They are more responsible, functional, less likely to be criminals, drunks, etc.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @jay
  142. Hengest says:
    @RadicalCenter

    If you aren’t Mormon, why not go north of Utah? You get the same traditional values, and protections of family rights/privacy without the overwhelming Mormonism, except in some areas.

  143. Hengest says:
    @dfordoom

    As long as the second amendment… So hard to tell.

    How long will Globalists be able to juggle populism, traditionally religious people, diversity, crazy monetary policy, and social welfare benefits at a deficit?

    A race to the bottom. Last one there gets to rebuild civilization.

    Traditionalists shouldn’t roll over based on what ifs or how long’s. Globalists and secular liberals certainly don’t.

  144. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Unfortunately that shortfall amounts to extinction-level fertility.

    Not in the short-run, it doesn’t.

    Doom, you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

    First you say women don’t want kids because they have to sacrifice opportunities and material prosperity, then you say economic circumstances don’t matter. Well, clearly they do if people feel that having more than one child means they won’t be prosperous.

    The only way to square that circle is to accept the economists’ argument that material was are unlimited, and the truth is that even economists don’t believe that. People seek to retire young precisely because people’s material wants are limited.

    Now, you might say that people today are so disordered in their desires for material goods that, in effect, they will never have “enough,” and you would have a point, but that doesn’t warrant the conclusion that economic problems of the kind we’re seeing today aren’t seriously discouraging fertility.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  145. @Rosie

    Humans are weakly polygynous in nature, so the exact nature of households may vary in terms of female to male ratio. Insofar as its only important that it works in scale, which it does as men are heavily overrepresented at the far tail to the right, which is why it pretty much is the mammalian norm.

    Its also environmental in nature; women would likely be much worse “heads of households” in the traditionally unstable environments that characterized human evolution(pretty extensive violence) and in any situation where that wasn’t the case, it would be to the male advantage to minimize contribution to the coupling(which Frost also discusses, in parts of Africa where women and offspring are largely self-sustaining, male energies are spent on increasing the number offspring).

    Ultimately the differences between say, our cells and individuals in a society are just questions of scale.

    Frost wrote quite a bit on this in 2015 before he went onto other topics:

    https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/10/polygyny-makes-men-bigger-tougher-and.html

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
    , @jay
  146. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Insofar as its only important that it works in scale,

    But it’s not only important if it works in scale.

    Its also environmental in nature; women would likely be much worse “heads of households” in the traditionally unstable environments that characterized human evolution(pretty extensive violence)

    This seems rather circular. Having men as heads of household leads to extensive violence as a result of which men are superior heads of household.

    Humans are weakly polygynous in nature

    ?

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Daniel Chieh
    , @jay
  147. Dumbo says:
    @Rosie

    If you study or work during your best fertile years, you have less time to make babies, or care for them. I have no statistics, but it seems pretty obvious.

    Some female careers can be real careers, other are “careers” in things such as HR department, PR, social services, okay, I’m not trying to diminish it, some male careers are pretty useless too. But some of these women would be better and happier marrying and having babies and being stay-at-home moms. I know my sister was very happy to have abandoned her prestigious career and becoming a full-time stay-at-home mum.

    Of course, this is not possible for everyone. I don’t even think that large families are so necessary now, in fact I would favor a certain reduction in the global population – the problem is that Whites are being reduced, other races, not so much. If there was no immigration to Europe and America, there would be less need for all that.

  148. iffen says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Ultimately the differences between say, our cells and individuals in a society are just questions of scale.

    Yes, but worker bees or lower caste ants never figure out that that’s what they are, or if they do they never show up in the streets.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  149. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    None of this would be a problem if women would stop dropping their panties for Alphas.

  150. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Prof Watson

    So the non religious will die out.

    Meanwhile back in the real world religion continues to decline. Even American Evangelicals are declining.

  151. Rosie says:
    @Dumbo

    If you study or work during your best fertile years, you have less time to make babies, or care for them. I have no statistics, but it seems pretty obvious.

    It doesn’t seem obvious to me. I think women have as many children as they want and can afford. Even a woman who finishes her PhD at 30 still has time for a reasonably large family if she so desires. The average age gap between siblings is only 24-30 months.

    Fertility among highly educated women is improving, and I don’t see how that could come from their having more time than they did in the past.

    I know my sister was very happy to have abandoned her prestigious career and becoming a full-time stay-at-home mum.

    Me too.

    • Replies: @Wency
    , @dfordoom
  152. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    You don’t need a hedge fund millionaire husband to imitate fashionable elites and have children. You pretending not to understand this does not change that fact. You are an obtuse troll.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  153. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    You don’t think patriarchy has anything to do with fertility, at all?

    No, I don’t. Ancient Rome was patriarchal, and had a birth dearth because the men chose to gallavant with prostitutes rather than marry and have children.

    That is quite an extreme position, and it’s inconsistent with your acknowledgement of higher fertility religious grouops such as the Amish and Orthodox Jews which are more patriarchal than mainstream secular culture.

    No, it isn’t. I’m saying they have more kids because they’re religious, not because they’re patriarchal.

    Without patriarchal norms which elevate the average man in status as “alpha” males, fewer men in the society are deemed worthy of reproduction by the women of that society.

    Utter bullshit.

    So you deny that legal, social, economic, and political rights, independence, and participation for women in India are higher than in Muslim countries?

    Yes.

    • Replies: @Wency
    , @Anonymous
  154. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    People like secular liberalism up to a point.

    Yes. People don’t want the madness we have now, but they don’t want to return to the Victorian age and they don’t want a Christian version of the Taliban and they don’t want fascism. They want something in between.

    People certainly are not ever going to go for the idea of discarding secular liberalism altogether.

    In other words, it’s not so much that I think liberalism loses in a free and open debate. Rather, free and open debate prevents liberalism from becoming a ridiculous parody of itself.

    Yes, I’d agree with that.

  155. @anon

    If you are seriously claiming you can in any way predict North American demographics 80 to 150 years from now, please provide us all with something easier to predict:

    Tell us the closing price for the S&P on July 1, 2020 to the nearest dollar. Should be cake!

    Nah, we’re just looking at the direction the arrow is pointed, so to speak. No one knows what things are going to be like in 30 years, much less 80 to 150, but the trend still seems worth observing.

    • Agree: Wency
  156. @Rosie

    Lol my achin’ sides. Yes, I’m sure men find it quite “livable.” Women, not so much.

    Rosie, please give it a rest. You’ve got many interesting and valuable points to contribute on various subjects, but your audience here is male and not one of them that I see finds your sexual grievance-mongering interesting. It’s just annoying. The kind of therapy you seek is unavailable here; and henpecking by one woman of a mass of men is ineffective, anyway.

    Look, it’s not my blog to manage and if it were, I wouldn’t advise or rebuke you; so you can do and say what you like. I am just a reader. Nevertheless, above and beyond the annoyance, you are observably wrong on the facts of the present matter.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  157. @V. K. Ovelund

    Rosie, if it helps, there are two or three topics I’ve laid off, myself, here, because all the regulars including you know where I stand and for me to keep hammering those topics was just going to start irritating readers. One topic, I pushed too far, anyway, until a reader I respect tactfully advised me to shut up. I dropped it. Since then, I have tried to keep mention of those topics to a minimum.

    For what it’s worth.

  158. Wency says:
    @anon

    I feel like most of your comment is quibbling with me just to quibble. I guess we shouldn’t make any guesses at all then about the 22nd century.

    I would agree with your last sentence though. My understanding of the 19th century French fertility decline is it was primarily enabled by various natural methods and not by any technological means of birth control, which were still relatively unreliable, expensive, and uncomfortable. Not to mention having a stigma attached to them.

    • Replies: @anon
  159. Wency says:
    @RadicalCenter

    Indeed. There is quite a bit of apostasy, as can be expected, but I’ve known many fresh-off-the-boat, Catholic-raised Latino immigrants that attend Evangelical services. Let alone the descendants of those immigrants. Their objections to Catholicism are many — I was quite surprised when one young Colombian lady brought up transubstantiation to our pastor and wanted to be assured that our church didn’t preach this doctrine before she became a member.

    I’ve said this before here, and it’s with all due respect to Catholicism, but Catholicism is not very good at competition in a free marketplace of faiths. It has a unique formula that will always appeal strongly to a certain sort of mind, but it’s a pretty atypical mind, a pretty narrow appeal. Catholicism remains as prevalent as it is because free marketplaces of faith aren’t actually all that common outside the US.

  160. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    First you say women don’t want kids because they have to sacrifice opportunities and material prosperity, then you say economic circumstances don’t matter.

    The point I was trying to make (and I admit I expressed it poorly) is that economic upturns and downturns probably don’t have much effect on fertility. Focusing on improving people’s economic circumstances is a good thing but probably won’t increase birth rates.

    I think the key is choice. If people have choices then many of them will choose other things rather than children. If economic circumstances improve or if people are given wider choices they are even less likely to choose having children.

    It’s a difficult problem because I like living in a society in which people have choices. And unlike a lot of people here I like living in a society in which women have choices.

    I think your earlier point about status was very important. If you look at people in our society who are perceived as having high status they are not perceived as having high status because they have lots of children. If you’re a movie star you might gain some status points by adopting a child from the Third World but mostly your status comes from being a movie star and being seen to hold the correct opinions. A person in that position can gain more status by ostentatiously refusing to have children in order to “save the planet”.

    For most people who are non-elites there is no status gain from having children. There isn’t even much in the way of a status gain from getting married, unless you marry someone of much higher status. And that applies to men as well as women. If you’re a man and you marry a pop singer or a super model you gain status. But then going on to have children won’t gain you much additional status and you might even lose status.

  161. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Dumbo

    the problem is that Whites are being reduced, other races, not so much.

    Actually the biggest problem is East Asians being reduced in numbers.

    In the developed world fertility rates have plummeted pretty evenly across all races and ethnic groups.

    It’s not a race problem, it’s a problem with the developed world.

    • Agree: Talha
  162. MEH 0910 says:

  163. Wency says:
    @Rosie

    Even a woman who finishes her PhD at 30 still has time for a reasonably large family if she so desires.

    That’s theoretically true, but not how it works in practice. At least not all the time, which is what matters at a population level. Later age at first birth has almost always been associated with lower completed fertility. Indeed, late marriage is traditionally one of the most basic methods of birth control. With modern technology, the correlation is weaker than it once was, but I don’t see any reason to think it has disappeared entirely. It would be a challenge to evaluate statistically though, given all the confounding variables.

    Anecdotally, I’ve known more than one woman who was more open to children in her 20s, but when she didn’t get married until her 30s, she abandoned the idea, or downsized her ideas about family size from 3 or 4 to 1 or 2. In one case, the woman, a friend from college, talked about a family all through her 20s, but she ended up getting married at 35 to a 50-year-old divorced guy with two kids of his own in college, and he really didn’t want to go through the whole thing again from the start.

    So serial monogamy is one possible factor: after a certain age, particularly as a woman (who’s more inclined to marry older than a man), a lot of eligible partners are divorced, have kids already, and usually such men will offer resistance to having many more kids. Perhaps even Trump has done this — I have to wonder if Marla or Melania wanted or were at least open to more than 1 kid each, but Trump, with 3 from his first marriage, had no interest.

    Another set of factors are psychological, such as not wanting your education or career progress to go to waste and being accustomed to childless life.

    And then there are biological factors, such as outright difficulty getting pregnant, miscarriages (which also take a psychological toll), and fear of birth defects or autism.

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Rosie
  164. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    The rich Gulf countries that have gone from the 1700s to the 2000s within two generations are a good example.
    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=_cb9X76_II6esQXDxZCYDA&q=tfr+qatar&oq=tfr+qatar

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
  165. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Good article on the “quiet revolution”:
    “The Arab world’s silent reproductive revolution:
    Changing household structures, economic growth and contraceptives prompt dramatic drop in fertility rate, study finds.”
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/16/the-arab-worlds-silent-reproductive-revolution

  166. Wency says:
    @Rosie

    I’m going to try to synthesize the points here. Because it seems Rosie and I do agree that patriarchy is primarily about male investment. Which is, let’s be clear, connected to fertility *insofar as lack of resources is a cause of low fertility.* Does lack of resources have an effect on fertility in the present age? That seems a matter of some dispute, but it’s at least a much, much less important factor than it was in the pre-industrial world.

    Setting aside Christian morality, a matrilocal free-for-all with early first pregnancies, weak marriages, relatively few patriarchal features, and men and women mostly living separately, was historically the optimal arrangement for maximizing fertility, as existed in those parts of Africa where the population size was primarily kept in check not by a dearth of resources (as in Eurasia) but by an excess of deaths due to violence, animal attacks, and disease.

    But right now, while matrilocal free-for-alls are far more viable in Eurasia than they’ve ever been, they’re still not all that common, or producing all that many children, despite some exceptions within the lower classes (especially but not exclusively among the African diaspora). I think a large cause of this is that such arrangements are considered very low status — civilized places have discriminated against single motherhood for untold millennia, and that’s not going to change overnight. While the stigma has softened quite a bit against the sort of single mother who slipped up a time or two and got impregnated by a cad, the “Octomom” example of willfully producing a gaggle of children without a father figure is still widely reviled.

    Another factor is that matrilocal arrangements seem to have arisen out of the state of nature, and they’re highly vulnerable to suppression by any sort of birth control, perhaps more so than under patriarchal, monogamous systems where birth control of one form or fashion has always existed and the birth of children was generally more deliberate.

    So right now, society doesn’t really have a model for producing children that’s adapted to present cultural and material circumstances. And for such a model to arise spontaneously via natural selection would take a very long time, and it’s made harder by the fact that cultural and material conditions keep changing at a pretty rapid pace.

    The result is that fertility is highest right now in cultures that place themselves in opposition to modernity — a force that caused the old patriarchal, monogamous model to both weaken and to produce fewer children even where it’s mostly intact. There hasn’t been enough time to invent a new model, and so what works is the old model, kept in a time capsule . Hence the Anabaptists and Hassidim, who have religious reasons for rejecting modernity and for passing this down from generation to generation.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  167. anon[195] • Disclaimer says:

    There is an actual bit of science implied in the data as graphed. It has to do with heritability of certain behaviors that can be grouped as “religious”. As usual the confounding between nature and nurture is obvious. I do not know if this question was asked in the twin studies or not.

    IF it is true that “tendency to religiousness” is heritable, AND in the Current Century the actively religious tend to have more children than the non-religious, THEN over some number generations the former will tend to out populate the latter. This has various long term social and economic implications.

    However, as a famous philosopher once said, predicting things is difficult, especially about the future. So many co-factors exist that it’s likely not really a significant factor, with due apologies to A. Karlin’s SciFi predictions. Other social and economic issues can swamp this tendency, even if genetically heritable.

    However it is always interesting to see a sliver of HBD show up in an article.
    Thanks, AE.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  168. anon[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency

    I feel like most of your comment is quibbling with me just to quibble. I guess we shouldn’t make any guesses at all then about the 22nd century.

    Sorry your feelze were hurt. If one looks as human history, there are plenty of times when century-long projections would have been extremely wrong. The Black Death, for example, or any of several near-genocidal wars, or volcanic eruptions like Thera. Sure, the horrible European wars of the 17th century, such as the 30 Years War did come to an end; some argue that the much more formalized European wars of the 18th century were a direct reaction to the previous time. On the other hand, 19th century European wars were also much restrained, and arguably gave rise to a huge overconfidence in victory that was very much present in 1913. Then the whole world went to war. The social and cultural effects of The Great War are still with us over 100 years later.

    More prosaically, there was a prediction in the late 19th century about NYC: the city would be uninhabitable in 20 years due to the sheer mass of horse manure that would have to be moved daily. What happened instead?

    50 years ago the popular science press was full of dire predictions about the “population bomb”, but now outside of parts of Africa there is no such bomb. In fact, it appears Korea has joined Japan in actual population decline.

    It is just wildly speculative to predict US population 100+ years out, given that not only is technological and social change an ongoing phenom, the rate of change has accelerated.

    I would agree with your last sentence though. My understanding of the 19th century French fertility decline is it was primarily enabled by various natural methods and not by any technological means of birth control, which were still relatively unreliable, expensive, and uncomfortable. Not to mention having a stigma attached to them.

    Condoms existed in the 17th century. In the late 19th and early 20th century they were referred to as “French Letters” in England. Herbal abortifacients have been known for millennia, in the 19th century in the US there were compounds that were used to “regulate the menses”, a woman could “regulate” herself once a month with some sort of tea.

    Just to throw one more thing out: in the famous “Mouse Utopia” experiments, once a certain population level was reached all breeding stopped. Even when the mouse population declined, breeding did not resume. In every version of “Mouse Utopia” eventually the last mice died out.

    Humans are more complex than mice, but it’s something to bear in mind.

  169. @Wency

    Though as I noted, matrilocal cultures still tend to have some patriarchal features, to try to coax some resources from the men. It’s just that this is an optional strategy for the women, not an essential one.

    I think its interesting to note that even the Hadza, which are hunter-gatherers, have slight male dominance and relatively monogamous, with polygyny restricted to the chieftains. One thing interesting is that even in a very primitive society, the paper below indicates that lower age of marriage, however, it is done, is associated with higher fertility so this is true even in extremely primitive societies.

    https://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/1862/LAJv28-p54-67.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

    • Thanks: Wency
  170. @Rosie

    But it’s not only important if it works in scale.

    In the meaningful scheme of things, scale is all that matters. This is true of human societies as it is of material reality; physical reality is that your keyboard is made of countless number of teleporting quarks, it is only in scale of quantum decoherence that its physical reality allows it to be interacted with. This is also meaningful in terms of biological reality, as individual cells in a human body are only meaningful in their ability to contribute to the human in question. Even “overt efficiency” can cause total harm:

    https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/one-five-brain-cancers-fueled-overactive-mitochondria#:~:text=A%20new%20study(link%20is,energy%20that%20fuels%20all%20cells.

    So, scale is of essential, paramount importance(and this is even more meaningful when one considers that scale does not always build off local effects).

    This seems rather circular. Having men as heads of household leads to extensive violence as a result of which men are superior heads of household.

    Violence also is visited by factors outside of human causes, including instability in general and the heightened variation of males is an advantage there. But its also a mistake comprehend violence as some sort of “moral bad”; all species, all nations, and all civilizations are formed by the application of force. As Starship Troopers put it:

    Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms”

    Insofar as nature is an engineer for solutions of existence, violence is just another tool.

    Humans are weakly polygynous in nature

    Self-evident.

    According to scientific studies, the human mating system is considered to be moderately polygynous, based both on surveys of world populations and on characteristics of human reproductive physiology.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  171. @iffen

    Yes, but worker bees or lower caste ants never figure out that that’s what they are, or if they do they never show up in the streets.

    In bees, as in humans, ultimately this is decided via violence.

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

    Worker policing is a behavior seen in colonies of social hymenopterans (ants, bees, and wasps) whereby worker females eat or remove eggs that have been laid by other workers rather than those laid by a queen. Worker policing ensures that the offspring of the queen will predominate in the group. In certain species of bees, ants and wasps, workers or the queen may also act aggressively towards fertile workers. Worker policing has been suggested as a form of coercion to promote the evolution of altruistic behavior in eusocial insect societies.

    • Replies: @iffen
  172. Rosie says:
    @Wency

    That’s theoretically true, but not how it works in practice. At least not all the time, which is what matters at a population level. Later age at first birth has almost always been associated with lower completed fertility. Indeed, late marriage is traditionally one of the most basic methods of birth control. With modern technology, the correlation is weaker than it once was, but I don’t see any reason to think it has disappeared entirely. It would be a challenge to evaluate statistically though, given all the confounding variables.

    Let’s cut to the chase. Are you suggesting denying women the right to higher education on account of birthrates? Not only would that be an outrageous infringement of women’s rights, It also has the potential to seriously backfire. If I hadn’t gotten an advanced degree, I never would have met Mr. Rosie.

    Anyway, here are the numbers on lifetime fertility by educational attainment:

    High school drop out: 2.5
    High school graduate: 1.9
    Some college: 1.9
    Bachelor+: 1.7

    If the bachelor+ group didn’t go to college, would their fertility rates be higher? I doubt it. Any gains from women having more time would be wiped out by women being less likely to meet the right guy.

    But even on the most charitable assumptions, the net effect of higher education for women is that 1/5 of women have one fewer children than they otherwise would.

    That’s not nothing, but it certainly indicates that you are barking up the wrong tree. Solutions to the birth dearth need to be found elsewhere.

    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/10/record-share-of-new-mothers-are-college-educated/

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Wency
    , @dfordoom
  173. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    In the meaningful scheme of things, scale is all that matters.

    And here again we have an insoluble axiological dispute. I do not accept your premise that women’s quality of life counts for nothing.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  174. Rosie says:

    This is off topic, but something I stumbled on in my travels:

    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/on-pay-gap-millennial-women-near-parity-for-now/sdt-gender-and-work-12-2013-3-08/

    Who wants to be the boss?

    White women: 29%
    Hispanic women: 51%
    Black women: 53%

    So much for the ambitious, uberfeminist, ultracareerist White woman.

  175. @Dumbo

    That’s really not accurate – A lot of research is showing voluntarily childfree women have the lowest rates of depression and other mental illness.

    “In the US, based on the General Social Survey (1972-2016) women having children is associated with a marginally-significant 3 or 4 percentage point decline in happiness compared to childless women.[88] The American Sociological Association conducted a major study and found that parents are more likely to be depressed than people who are childfree.[89]”
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spiteful_mutant_hypothesis#Spiteful_mutations_as_voluntary_childlessness

    Of course, Edward Dutton & co are always silent about this.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Dumbo
  176. @dfordoom

    Actually the biggest problem is East Asians being reduced in numbers.

    East-Asian countries have high per-capita carbon footprints, so it’s a good thing like the US and European countries they are declining in number.

  177. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    If the bachelor+ group didn’t go to college, would their fertility rates be higher? I doubt it. Any gains from women having more time would be wiped out by women being less likely to meet the right guy.

    Just how potentially catastrophic would it be to shut women out of higher education?

    28% of Facebook users went to the same college as their spouses, as opposed to 15% who went to the same high school. Particularly likely to marry a college mate are those who attended a Christian college. I don’t know if it would be statistically significant, but I would imagine this means that college matches are disproportionately fecund.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/28-people-marry-attended-same-college-2013-10

  178. @Rosie

    Ah, the “I am very important” argument.

    Sociopathy is at least moderately heritable (Hicks et al., 2004). Interestingly, it seems to cluster with hysteria in first-degree relatives, with sociopathy being expressed in the males and hysteria in the females. Harpending and Sobus (2015) argue that “hysteria is the expression in females of the same genetic material that leads to sociopathy in males.” In short, “sociopathy in females is the result of a greater dose of the genetic material that leads, in smaller doses, to hysteria, namely, hysteria is mild sociopathy.”

    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/is-sick-the-right-word/

    • Troll: Oliver D. Smith
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @nebulafox
  179. Wency says:
    @Rosie

    Are you suggesting denying women the right to higher education on account of birthrates?

    Do I wish we could encourage people, women especially, to value children and family over credentialism? Sure. I think anti-natalism and materialism are gross and unholy, 21st century higher ed mostly an inefficient signaling contest.

    But if you’re asking if I want to implement some sort of totalitarian regime that bans women from universities, I’m afraid I don’t have anything like that extensive a fantasy political program. My interest in politics is mostly in the ascendant left not grinding my family and my religion underfoot.

    That’s not nothing, but it certainly indicates that you are barking up the wrong tree. Solutions to the birth dearth need to be found elsewhere.

    All the individual things we’re talking about here (other than the Amish or Hassidic approach) are basically marginal in their effects on fertility. On that, I agree with dfordoom. We’re basically talking about a civilizational cycle or arc here. I’m just trying to better understand it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @dfordoom
  180. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Ah, the “I am very important” argument.

    And here we have the usual bullshit with someone with a sociopathic disregard for other people’s interests and desires impugning the mental health of those whom he attacks.

    GFY.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  181. Rosie says:
    @Wency

    My interest in politics is mostly in the ascendant left not grinding my family and my religion underfoot.

    If I may, the very worst thing you can do in that regard is make enemies of women. You have quite enough of those. Odds of defeating the Left are long as it is.

  182. @Rosie

    Daniel Chieh is a misogynistic troll. Just ignore.

  183. Anonymous[415] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    No, I don’t. Ancient Rome was patriarchal, and had a birth dearth because the men chose to gallavant with prostitutes rather than marry and have children.

    Early Republican Rome was extremely patriarchal. Rome became much less patriarchal later during the Imperial period when it became decadent and fertility declined.

    No, it isn’t. I’m saying they have more kids because they’re religious, not because they’re patriarchal.

    Patriarchal norms are so intertwined and fundamental to those religions that it’s difficult to separate them from the religion itself. I’m not sure how you can highlight those examples when they’re so much more patriarchal than mainstream secular society today.

    Utter bullshit.

    Can you clarify? Women don’t like men that are regarded as “creeps” and “losers.” Traditional religions and societies tend to confer “male privilege” and elevate men in status just for being men. In more feminist and sexually egalitarian societies, status competition among men is intensified and there are more male “losers.” I don’t think this is very controversial.

    Yes.

    It’s a simple fact that Indian women in general enjoy greater rights, freedoms, and independence than women in the Muslim world. If you can’t agree to basic facts, you’re not arguing in good faith.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  184. Anonymous[422] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    You don’t need a hedge fund millionaire husband to imitate fashionable elites and have children. You pretending not to understand this does not change that fact. You are an obtuse troll.

    If children are to be status symbols of greater wealth, then you do need wealth disparity among fathers.

    A janitor with 10 kids does not have greater status like fashionable elites just because he has 10 kids.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  185. nebulafox says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Sociopathy doesn’t necessarily make you evil. It just means you feel no deep connections to other human beings or emotions: and can coolly use things like hysteria as a weapon, if that works for them, as it would for the minority of female sociopaths. For most of human history, men using hysteria on a personal level would have been extremely counterproductive, and most high-functioning psychopaths are smart enough to detect stuff like that. But that is (very selectively) changing with the American adoption of victimhood morality.

    Among other things, it usually results in a a kind of superficial glib charm, an utter lack of shame or public embarrassment, mastery at tactical deflection and lying, poor long-term strategic planning, and a tendency to get very, very irritated with any sort of unexpected resistance against whatever the sociopath happens to want or is arguing for at that moment. Remind you of the people who’ve been ruling the United States? It should.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  186. nebulafox says:
    @nebulafox

    Also, women tend to be better at things like detecting sociopaths, because they have to be generally more aware of their surroundings then men for obvious reasons. It’s an evolutionary mechanism: you can feel like you are prey around a sociopath whose mask has slipped, and women tend to feel that more quickly and acutely. And unlike other sorts of potential threats, the risk of false positives aren’t as bad.

    So, if your mother or your wife or your sister or your daughter or whoever gets that vibe about someone, pay attention. Of course, a truly high-functioning sociopath tends to be very good at disguising his (and it is almost always a “his”, like the rest of extremes among humanity, good and bad alike) true nature and can charm most people, so this would only work if the woman has her guard up and is looking for those kinds of signals in the first place-and it helps if she is abnormally socially acute, even on (higher) female standards.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  187. @Oliver D. Smith

    Funny coming from the lolcow.

    • Replies: @Wency
  188. @nebulafox

    It’s my opinion that as Frost indicates, that mild hysteria such as which was exhibited by Rosie was evolutionarily advantageous for women.

    It doesn’t mean that it provides any useful information, as she promptly skipped out on any logical discussion on coordination systems to a “women should not feel bad” non-sequitor, essentially lending further evidence to my position.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @nebulafox
  189. anon[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    It’s my opinion that as Frost indicates, that mild hysteria such as which was exhibited by Rosie was evolutionarily advantageous for women.

    Rather similar to a sudden outburst of tears. Note that both are considered mere tantrums when performed by toddlers. Of course, both are also examples of emotional manipulation…which is generally easier than thinking, or honesty for that matter.

  190. Wency says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I just wish people could avoid letting things degenerate into childish personal attacks every other thread here. It feels like it’s been getting worse. Was enjoying your contributions and even somewhat enjoying Rosie’s prior to this set of exchanges. I don’t care who started it. Why not just engage with ideas and leave it at that?

    Though yeah, if that’s *the* Oliver D. Smith he shouldn’t be posting here, but clogging up the thread by pointing it out doesn’t do much good other than letting AE know.

  191. @Oliver D. Smith

    Misogyny and trolling are both objectively correct and highly desirable. They’re core functions of the internet. Why would one ignore a propagator of such excellent things? Do you not understand the purpose of the internet?

  192. nebulafox says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I agree to an extent. But if women using hysteria (or guilt or other emotions) is the female equivalent to sociopathy, we live in a world where half the species is sociopathic. That undervalues just how dangerous and different sociopaths are.

    On a tangential note, men have a deeply ingrained aversion, both biologically and socially, to seeing women cry or melt down. I can attest to the fact that inexperienced men in particular who don’t understand how mundane crying can be for women will often say and do anything to get the tears to stop. Normally, women tend to pick up on this as they get older and bear that in mind. But sometimes, a woman deeply inexperienced with men might genuinely not appreciate her effect on him when she does something that, for her, is a normal way of expressing emotions. It’s not manipulative, just a result of miscommunication and inexperience.

    (Women who know full well the levels of distress their tears can cause men to feel and regularly use it for manipulation anyway, on the other hand, are rare, but dangerous-to be avoided at all costs. It’s possible that the small percentage of female sociopaths are disproportionately represented here.)

  193. Rosie says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Daniel Chieh is a misogynistic troll. Just ignore.

    Nonwhites almost invariably seek to sow division among Whites on these threads, usually by gender.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  194. @Wency

    Though yeah, if that’s *the* Oliver D. Smith he shouldn’t be posting here, but clogging up the thread by pointing it out doesn’t do much good other than letting AE know.

    ? I’ve had numerous debates with Ron Unz on here and he seemingly has no issue with me – as far as I’m aware the only columnist who has blocked me is Anatoly Karlin. Not a surprise since the lawsuit he supported against me totally failed and he now faces the reality Emil Kirkegaard owes me thousands in legal fees. So out of humiliation he blocked me. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard#Kirkegaard_v._Smith (he also deletes anyone who mentions the outcome of the lawsuit on his column comments).

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Wency
  195. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Early Republican Rome was extremely patriarchal. Rome became much less patriarchal later during the Imperial period when it became decadent and fertility declined.

    So predictable. You’re right that it became decadent, but not less patriarchal. No True Scotsman.

    Patriarchal norms are so intertwined and fundamental to those religions that it’s difficult to separate them from the religion itself. I’m not sure how you can highlight those examples when they’re so much more patriarchal than mainstream secular society today.

    No they’re not. Patriarchal norms are certainly not fundamental to Christianity. As I pointed out the other day, subjection was a curse as a result of sin. In the Gospel Covenant, Christians no more hold women bound by that than they insist that men eat bread by the sweat of their brow. Yet, high fertility remains.

    Can you clarify?

    Your asinine thesis is that society can trick women into thinking men are better than they are by trampling our rights for no reason whatsoever. I assure you, we’re not that stupid. The most you can do is force women to marry for a meal ticket, but that is not the same thing as genuine desire.

    It’s a simple fact that Indian women in general enjoy greater rights, freedoms, and independence than women in the Muslim world. If you can’t agree to basic facts, you’re not arguing in good faith.

    No it isn’t. Rural, low caste women in India are the most shat upon human beings on the planet, except maybe women in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    They effectively don’t even have the right to leave their houses.

    https://www.barrons.com/news/indian-low-caste-woman-dies-after-gang-rape-second-in-a-week-01601534710

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  196. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Even a woman who finishes her PhD at 30 still has time for a reasonably large family if she so desires.

    That’s true up to a point if she’s already found herself a suitable husband. If she’s 30 and she hasn’t even found a suitable man yet then she probably has already run out of time to have a large family.

    The problem is not waiting too long to have children. The problem is waiting too long to start seriously searching for a suitable husband.

  197. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    If children are to be status symbols of greater wealth, then you do need wealth disparity among fathers.

    I wasn’t aware that wealth disparity among men was going anywhere anytime soon.

    Even if it does, that wouldn’t stop kids being a status symbol.

    Parroting the correct opinions on race costs nothing, but it is a status symbol nonetheless.

    If people virtue signal about race, homosexuality, etc, why wouldn’t they virtue signal by having kids.

    Antimaterialism is actually rather innate to Whites. Most of us turn out noses up at “bling” and consider it gauche, gaudy, and low-class.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  198. iffen says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    So are you that fat fag that has a crush on AK or not?

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  199. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    IF it is true that “tendency to religiousness” is heritable, AND in the Current Century the actively religious tend to have more children than the non-religious, THEN over some number generations the former will tend to out populate the latter.

    That depends on exactly what “tendency to religiousness” means. It might just mean a tendency to social conformity. It might be a tendency towards zealous belief in any belief system. It might mean a tendency to look for any kind of all-encompassing belief system, in which case many of the children might become devout SJWs rather than devout Christians. Or they might become devout greenies. They might end up embracing secular substitutes for religion.

    The idea that society will once again become Christian because the religious outbreed the irreligious seems to be mostly wishful thinking.

    • Replies: @anon
  200. iffen says:
    @Wency

    I just wish people could avoid letting things degenerate into childish personal attacks every other thread here.

    I definitely don’t want to be throwing any stones, but Rosie eventually degenerates into, “I’m white and you’re not,” so I can see how the nonwhites might enjoy pushing her buttons.

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  201. anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    That depends on exactly what “tendency to religiousness” means.

    Just looking at the data AE provided. Feel free to read into it whatever floats your boat at the moment.

    It might just mean a tendency to social conformity. It might be a tendency towards zealous belief in any belief system. It might mean a tendency to look for any kind of all-encompassing belief system, in which case many of the children might become devout SJWs rather than devout Christians. Or they might become devout greenies. They might end up embracing secular substitutes for religion.

    Could be. So?

    The idea that society will once again become Christian because the religious outbreed the irreligious seems to be mostly wishful thinking.

    Could be. Say, did you have a point to make?
    Doesn’t seem to be one, aside from your usual Yank-trolling.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  202. iffen says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I did not know about this!

    If “we” are evolving toward eusociality, this would not be a good thing for some of us.

  203. @iffen

    Pretty I wasn’t even replying to her in the beginning and as it became clear that she wasn’t bothering to read, just noted hysteria as an useful evolutionary development, though as we can see, clearly not one that assists in reading comprehension or communication.

    I do that to anyone who trails off into nonsequiturs, white or otherwise. I mean, what else are you going to do if you explain a concept clearly with postulates and examples, and you get a reply of “chocolate ice cream is orange?”

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  204. Anonymous[288] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So predictable. You’re right that it became decadent, but not less patriarchal. No True Scotsman.

    This is not controversial but well-established history. No historian disputes that there was a shift towards less patriarchy and greater equality for women as Republican Rome changed to Imperial Rome:

    https://history.hanover.edu/hhr/18/HHR2018-kennedy.pdf

    “Although women in Rome experienced more freedoms than, for example,women in ancient Athens,women living in Republican Rome (ca. 509 BCE to 30 BCE) lived in a patriarchal society that strictly controlled and restricted their movements and opportunities.3The surviving sources suggest, however, that adramatic shift in the liberties of women took place as the political government shifted from the Republic to the Empirewith the rule of Augustus Caesar and his successors. Roman women were less constrained and instead were granted far more freedoms, often by covert means,after the transition to the Imperial government in the first century CE than they had hitherto experienced under Republican Rome.”

    No they’re not. Patriarchal norms are certainly not fundamental to Christianity.

    You don’t think patriarchal norms characterize traditional Christian denominations and sects such as the Amish? Most would regard them as extremely patriarchal and sexist by mainstream secular standards today.

    There have been Christian sects such as the Oneida Community that promote gender equality but they generally have not lasted or had high fertility.

    Your asinine thesis is that society can trick women into thinking men are better than they are by trampling our rights for no reason whatsoever. I assure you, we’re not that stupid. The most you can do is force women to marry for a meal ticket, but that is not the same thing as genuine desire.

    I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with here. I never said there was more “genuine desire” in a society with traditional patriarchal norms that confers “male privilege” on average men and elevates them in status. It could be that women naturally prefer a situation with greater intra-male competition that sorts men into “winners” and “losers” that they can discriminate and choose between rather than one in tries to make “Every Man a King” and most men the heads of households.

    No it isn’t. Rural, low caste women in India are the most shat upon human beings on the planet, except maybe women in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    You’re describing caste inequality, not gender inequality. Upper caste women have greater rights than low caste men. Low caste men are discriminated against and attacked as well:

    “The Indian Dalit man killed for eating in front of upper-caste men”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48265387

    • Replies: @Rosie
  205. Anonymous[109] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Even if it does, that wouldn’t stop kids being a status symbol.

    Parroting the correct opinions on race costs nothing, but it is a status symbol nonetheless.

    If people virtue signal about race, homosexuality, etc, why wouldn’t they virtue signal by having kids.

    The original example in question involved wealthy urbanites in places like Manhattan where children are a status symbol of wealth.

    Unlike virtue signalling by parroting correct opinions, having kids costs money. In places like Manhattan, it costs a lot of money. That’s why having lots of kids there can signal great wealth. Most people have to move out to the suburbs in order to afford to have kids. Or they stay in Manhattan but don’t have kids or have very small families.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  206. iffen says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    I do that to anyone who trails off into nonsequiturs, white or otherwise.

    Good move, claim the moral high ground. It’s not because she’s a WN, it’s because she’s stupid.

  207. @Oliver D. Smith

    A lot of research is showing voluntarily childfree women have the lowest rates of depression and other mental illness.

    Voluntarily childfree white Gentile women are of little use to my civilization.

    One might conjecture that the research to which you refer had been conducted by someone other than white Gentiles with children. If so, might be biased.

  208. @Daniel Chieh

    I believe that I owe @Twinkie an apology. I was wrong.

  209. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Are you suggesting denying women the right to higher education on account of birthrates?

    Maybe we need less higher education for everybody? Maybe we need to move away from higher education fetishism?

    Higher education is not something that most people need. It just produces too many parasites. Like lawyers for example.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
  210. @nebulafox

    Sociopathy doesn’t necessarily make you evil.

    It doesn’t?

  211. @iffen

    No. I was making the point I’ve not been blocked by columnists on this website excluding him – in response to the odd comment I shouldn’t be posting here.

    As for for determining who might have a crush –

    Myself: 0 mentions of Karlin on any of my social media or personal website.

    Karlin: dozens of mentions of my name on his social media, a 5000 word article dedicated to my character assassination on his own website, plus about half-a-dozen articles on his Unz column that also smear me – in fact I only discovered this website after reading his ‘SJWs Attack UCL Neo-Nazi Cabal’ article that attacked me in January 2018. An typical of his fake news style – the title and contents of that article are nonsense.

  212. @Daniel Chieh

    So how many children do you have Daniel?

    A true lolcow would be someone who bangs on about fertility and natalism like you but has no children of his own.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  213. @Rosie

    I almost feel sorry for you.

    Why attach yourself to a misogynistic and sexist movement you clearly don’t agree with?

    You remind me a bit of Tara McCarthy – a wannabe-WN but who eventually had a mental breakdown and deleted her online accounts after she realised the alt-right/WN is filled with misogynistic men who hate women or at least think they’re inferior and only for baby-making.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  214. For a good laugh:

    “[20:55:] Pronatalism and its future”

    Karlin of course has no children of his own (despite born in 1988)

  215. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    Modern career girl switches from teacher to…model. But she has two children, so it’s all good!

    https://nypost.com/2021/01/11/former-high-school-teacher-turns-onlyfans-model/

    • Replies: @Rosie
  216. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Wency

    On that, I agree with dfordoom. We’re basically talking about a civilizational cycle or arc here. I’m just trying to better understand it.

    Demographic collapse is the biggest single issue facing us and it’s very poorly understood. There are some interesting correlations but nothing that could really be described as a proven causal link.

    And whenever the subject is mentioned there are shrieks of racism from one group, shrieks of white genocide from a second group, hand-wringing about saving the planet from a third group, suggestions that we should emulate the Amish from a fourth group and cries that it’s all the fault of women from a fifth group. And assorted conspiracy theories from other groups.

    Which is unfortunate. We need to understand why demographic collapse is happening and why so far all efforts to halt it have failed miserably. If we are to understand the problem we have to address it calmly.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Rosie
  217. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Maybe we need less higher education for everybody? Maybe we need to move away from higher education fetishism?

    You’ll get no argument from me there.

    But this was uncalled for:

    but Rosie eventually degenerates into, “I’m white and you’re not,” so I can see how the nonwhites might enjoy pushing her buttons.

    I could just as well say Daniel Chieh always degenerates into “women are the problem,” couldn’t I?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  218. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    If we are to understand the problem we have to address it calmly.

    One thing that would be tremendously helpful is if people would stop making unwarranted assumptions.

    To wit, you implied in another thread that women don’t start “seriously looking” for a husband until they’re through with graduate school.

    I don’t think you were being mendacious, either. I think you sincerely believe that. Otherwise I trust you wouldn’t say that.

    The question is, what would make you think women aren’t looking for a husband when they’re in grad school? I suspect you are attributing male tendencies to women. I assure you. With the advent of modern birth control, there is no need to defer marriage until after one has completed grad school.

    Here’s another question I have. Why do we care so much about birth rates? Unless you’re a White nationalist, what’s wrong with importing people from other countries?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @dfordoom
  219. anon[184] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    One thing that would be tremendously helpful is if people would stop making unwarranted assumptions.

    This meets or exceeds the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of irony for a normal human.

    • LOL: iffen
  220. Rosie says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    You remind me a bit of Tara McCarthy – a wannabe-WN but who eventually had a mental breakdown and deleted her online accounts after she realised the alt-right/WN is filled with misogynistic men who hate women or at least think they’re inferior and only for baby-making.

    The way Tara was treated was a damned disgrace. She is such an honest, childlike soul.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  221. @Oliver D. Smith

    Just had the second one on Saturday, thanks.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  222. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Its like a new illness. It initially takes out a lot of people before resistance slows it down. Certain Ideologies are like this. Just like the Black Death was initially extremely deadly before it became weaker over time.

    Ideas infiltrate our heads and help to shape our worldviews. We swim in it like fish swims in water. And it takes good critical thinking to notice.

    Others like the “Patriarchal” memeplex promotes Paternal investment and demands for chastity primarily from women to ensure that the Husband is not cuckolded. Although that was made even more strict by ensuing that Men also must be monogamous in Christianity.

    And increase his investment in his family over chasing tail.

    Many societies didn’t have as comparative Paternal investment and subsequent consequences like a higher birthrate.

    And made possible possibly advanced civilization:
    https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

    • Replies: @Rosie
  223. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Half the population is on the left side of the bell curve, and within that part of the population, it seems to me that women are better head of household material than men. They are more responsible, functional, less likely to be criminals, drunks, etc.

    Correct. And those Men are the ones who would often end up unmarried as they couldn’t make the income to support a family. But Men also have more Geniuses courtesy of greater IQ variance.

    Men are the roll of the dice far more than women.

  224. jay says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    There is also this body of work I recommend for reading:

    https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

    • Thanks: Daniel Chieh
  225. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Modern career girl switches from teacher to…model. But she has two children, so it’s all good!

    I guess this is supposed to be some sort of argument to the effect that women are no good or something.

    I call it the up and down problem.

    Misogynists generalize up about men, and generalize down about women.

    • Replies: @anon
  226. Rosie says:
    @jay

    I stopped reading here:

    We have vast campus bureaucracies that deny young men of due process when they’re accused of “rape,” where “rape” can mean absolutely anything a female wants it to mean.

    I just can’t tolerate that kind of dishonesty.

    In the real world, college women don’t even report rape because they know nothing will be done unless they can prove it (as it should be).

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2017/05/11/study-89-of-colleges-reported-zero-campus-rapes-in-2015/37431949/

    • Replies: @jay
    , @jay
  227. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    The original example in question involved wealthy urbanites in places like Manhattan where children are a status symbol of wealth.

    So what?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  228. jay says:
    @Rosie

    “This seems rather circular. Having men as heads of household leads to extensive violence as a result of which men are superior heads of household.”

    Hunter-Gatherer society prior to this arrangement was even more deadly and violent:

    Under this arrangement of Men as heads of Household.

    Rose the State and whilst the State was violent on a large scale when fighting tribes and other States. Under its rule Homicide was suppressed through Law. Murder rates plummeted as a result:

    Large scale organization of this kind didn’t exist without this arrangement. This arrangement paradoxically is a form of control for the Man and the Woman as well.

    Here is homicide per 100,000:

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  229. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    This is not controversial but well-established history.

    Whatever.

    patriarchal society that strictly controlled and restricted their movements

    I never said there was more “genuine desire” in a society with traditional patriarchal norms

    So you want women to be prostitutes and prisoners.

    Got it. Now GFY.

    It could be that women naturally prefer a situation with greater intra-male competition that sorts men into “winners” and “losers” that they can discriminate and choose between rather than one in tries to make “Every Man a King” and most men the heads of households.

    Nice false dilemma.

    That must be why women support socialism. We just love to see men at each other’s throats some can pick the winners.

    You’re describing caste inequality, not gender inequality.

    Except that women get treated like garbage in their own families as well as by the outside world. Now they really are victims of intersectional oppression.

    None of this matters. We’ve already established that fertility is declining in the Muslim world as well, so I’m not sure why you’re belaboring this point.

    You don’t think patriarchal norms characterize traditional Christian denominations and sects such as the Amish?

    Not really. The Amish are pacifist and nonviolent, so no beating your wife to “keep her in line.” Amish girls date freely and choose their own mates. If they make a mistake, a public confession wipes the slate clean.

    Evangelical Christians pay even less mind to your bs about patriarchy. High fertility remains.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  230. anon[320] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    I guess this is supposed to be some sort of argument to the effect that women are no good or something.

    Nope. But thanks for making an unwarranted assumption.

    I call it the up and down problem.

    That’s nice. Not particularly relevant, though.

    Misogynists generalize up about men, and generalize down about women.

    In reality, not everything is a generalization. Don’t you agree it would be good if people stopped making unwarranted assumptions in this space?

  231. Anonymous[269] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wency

    I just wish people could avoid letting things degenerate into childish personal attacks every other thread here. It feels like it’s been getting worse. Was enjoying your contributions and even somewhat enjoying Rosie’s prior to this set of exchanges. I don’t care who started it. Why not just engage with ideas and leave it at that?

    Rosie has argued with commenters many times before about fertility, gender equality, women’s rights, and related issues. And she’s noted before that her mother was a single mother. That is nothing to be ashamed of and doesn’t indicate that she’s a bad person, but she seems to take these issues very personally as a result and regards any opposing views as some sort of personal attack on her and her background.

  232. Anonymous[752] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Whatever.

    Do you dispute that Roman society became less patriarchal and Roman women obtained greater freedoms and equality as Rome transitioned from republic to empire?

    So you want women to be prostitutes and prisoners.

    Got it. Now GFY.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you clarify?

    That must be why women support socialism. We just love to see men at each other’s throats some can pick the winners.

    “Socialism” is pretty vague. You can obviously have patriarchal, sexist forms of socialism and liberal, sexually egalitarian, feminist forms of socialism.

    Nazi Germany for example would exemplify the former type of socialism:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Bride_Schools#Women_in_the_Nazi_worldview

    “Women had a clearly defined position in the Nazi worldview. They were not deemed suitable for professions such as medicine, the law or the civil service, from which they were banned. They were instead expected to stay at home, maintain the household and have as many children as possible.[1] A woman’s place was defined by the slogan “kinder, küche, kirche” (“children, kitchen, church”)…Hitler told a conference of the National Socialist Women’s League (NS-Frauenschaft) in September 1938, “The slogan ‘Emancipation of women’ was invented by Jewish intellectuals and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life the German woman had no need to emancipate herself … If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home.”[3] The Nazi viewpoint was summed up by Hermann Göring in his Nine Commandments for the Workers’ Struggle, published in 1934, in which he exhorted women to “take hold of the frying pan, dust pan, and broom, and marry a man.”

    None of this matters. We’ve already established that fertility is declining in the Muslim world as well, so I’m not sure why you’re belaboring this point.

    I haven’t belabored the point. You have by insisting that the Muslim world is less sexist than India.

    Not really. The Amish are pacifist and nonviolent, so no beating your wife to “keep her in line.” Amish girls date freely and choose their own mates. If they make a mistake, a public confession wipes the slate clean.

    Evangelical Christians pay even less mind to your bs about patriarchy. High fertility remains.

    Now you’re claiming the Amish don’t have patriarchal and sexist norms? That’s an extremely bizarre claim after you’ve been arguing in this thread that limitations on women’s freedom to higher education, careers, etc. is patriarchal and sexist. Amish women do not have freedom and equality by contemporary feminist standards.

    Regarding Evangelical fertility:

    “Evangelicals’ Birth Rate Is Now Nearly as Low as That of Secularists”

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2020/02/evangelicals-birth-rate-is-now-nearly-as-low-as-that-of-secularists/

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Rosie
  233. Anonymous[309] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So what?

    Your original point was that fertility for its own sake could be a status symbol, and you cited articles about wealthy urbanites in places like Manhattan having kids as a status symbol of wealth. The example of wealthy urbanites signalling wealth through kids doesn’t support your original point.

    It’s possible to imagine a world in which fertility for its own sake could be a status symbol. In that world, a janitor with 10 kids would have greater status than the millionaire hedge fund manager with 5 kids just because he has more kids. But that’s not the world we live in.

  234. Talha says:

    Well, I’m not sure what I just saw here, but whatever religion this is seems to be flirting with both kids (that lady looks like she has one more in the oven) as well as an ideology that will lessen their chances of reproduction:

    Bizarre world.

    They all seem to be white, go figure.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @anon
  235. anon[320] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    whatever religion this is seems

    Possibly Unitarian/Universalism, but really…it looks like the religion of self-worship. Quite popular for a long time, in fact a very long time…but not necessarily in this form.

    Perhaps they’re just making up for the lack of “Drag Queen Story Hour” due to the Coof.

    Sad. Very sad.

  236. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Evangelical Protestants give, at most, lip service, to all this bullsh!t about patriarchy. Nobody cares about it. Like a mother of a large family at my Church has said, “I know I’m supposed to submit, but I’m a hopeless sinner and can’t help myself.”

    That means they are Christian in name only. Its like those Evangelicals who also consider sodomy and adultery fine as sliced bread.

    They will cease to be Christian soon enough or at least their children. Because they have already rejected their religion in truth.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  237. Dumbo says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    women having children is associated with a marginally-significant 3 or 4 percentage point decline in happiness compared to childless women

    That may be true, because children are a source of joy as much as worry and anxiety. However, I am reminded of a scene in a film by Tarkovsky, “Nostalghia”, where a priest says to a liberated, childless woman that according to him, women come to the world to bear and raise children. The woman scoffs. Then he says: “I know, you want to be happy. But there are more important things.”

    This is it, in a nutshell. There are more important things than personal happiness. Women must have and raise children not just because it’s a pleasure but because it’s their duty. Also because, more than happiness, which is always elusive, it gives a sense of purpose to their lives. And new generations wouldn’t even exist. Some women might find purpose in other activities, such as art or work; but not too many, and certainly fewer than men, whose purpose tends to be more externally oriented.

  238. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    Burn the books! Burn the books!

    You and Rosie should think about joining the other side. Rosie, because at their core they deny the existence of biology like she does and you because they deny the existence of objective knowledge which you deem unimportant.

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Rosie
  239. @Anonymous

    The normal woman wants a strong husband who is able to dominate her but, in most or all instances, chooses to treat her gently.

    Women will almost never verbally tell you that this is what they want. I am unsure that the average woman is even clearly aware that this is what she wants. One has to work it out from female behavior.

    Women also like to be strong, and many are strong. It’s a challenge for a strong woman to find a husband able to dominate and protect her, whereas even the average woman is not in fact very dominatable. Yet a woman fantasizes about being coërced by a man who is driven half mad by her charms.

    Don’t think so? If you don’t, why, sales receipts of romance novels disagree with you.

    Shakespeare understood all this and repeatedly explained it in his plays. If you wish to understand women, reading more Shakespeare would be a good start. By contrast, listening to women tell you about women, and taking their verbally expressed opinions regarding women literally, is almost always a mistake.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Rosie
  240. @Daniel Chieh

    You’ve just had a child but spend your time posting misogynistic and sexist bile on Unz? What a great father you are (sarcasm). I don’t believe a word you say.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  241. @Rosie

    He claims to have had a newborn on Saturday. That’s unsubstantiated of course but clicking on his username shows he’s spent hours on here typing dribble (thousands of words) since then. What sort of a dad has a child but then spends most his time on the internet, and of all places this website? The guy is a joke of a ‘reactionary’ (what he calls himself on Gab) – he sums up modern degeneracy.

  242. @Rosie

    I debated her in 2017 and 2018. She isn’t smart and didn’t understand my position and incorrectly thought I must be a radical leftist or ‘Antifa’ for merely highlighting ecological overshoot.

    http://archive.is/Wr3h4

  243. @Oliver D. Smith

    I am such a great father that I shall springboard off your usual poor efforts at lying(to couple with your poor efforts at sock puppeting, character assassination of my good friend Anatoly and masturbation to Lara Croft) to use this as a teachable moment:

    We had a water birth with midwives and I can’t help but recommend it enough, especially to anyone here who’s looking to have another child(or his or her first). The child was also larger than usual at 9.2 lbs so this was impressive all around(though he was longer than he was wider).

    My wife made it through without painkillers and without any need for stitches for tearing and minimal bleeding. She’s had a very quick recovery as such and the relationship with the midwives is incredible rapport that you can’t get with a hospital nurse(the latter is unlikely to come over and take your baby’s vitals at time, nor will she be likely to help explain the newborn to the elder brother).

    She’s actually recovered well enough that now, less than week after giving birth, she has interest in having another child already(!!!).

    This is a remarkably contrast with the hospital experience with our first child, where she passed out several times during labor and then passed out at least once post-partum. The entire experience also seemed much more traumatic to the newborn and our first child had difficulties breastfeeding, etc. Eventually it all worked out, but it was indeed hugely stressful and much more akin to “I slept 2 hours a day” experience you often hear.

    Which incidentally also addresses another thing – the opportunity cost of having children seems to be heavily laden toward the first child: your life will change meaningfully, you’ll have less time, etc. The second child so far hasn’t added much at all, although its only the first few days of his birth, but basically he’s just been sleeping, breastfeeding and sunning(to reduce jaundice concerns) with mother.

    There’s a lot of time and cost, but you see, Ollie, because I am a reactionary, I married a stay-at-home wife and I married her young(she was just 20, we met when she was 19), so the cost in time is mostly borne by her and there’s actually not a lot I can do. I can’t breastfeed and I can’t pass out on bed to help my wife recover postpartum; I play with the other child, but so do our neighbors(with children of the same age) and the babysitter. So in trady and lindy fashion*, most of the physical cost of childbirth is indeed borne by my wife while I have to support her. Meanwhile, I can still be on Unz reminding you, Ollie, that you’re wrong on this like you’re wrong on everything else.

    * As proof, my wife’s rural family has six siblings(seven if you count the stillborn) and her father basically never much missed any time from work; the grandparents lived with them and helped with the children, to which they were aiming for 10. Maybe we should too, and I’ll continue to shit on you while doing so.

  244. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The normal woman wants a strong husband who is able to dominate her but

    Note the ridiculous, jewy claim that anyone who doesn’t conform to VK’s prejudice is not “normal.”

    Classic pathologizing/ad hominem.

    No need to listen towomen. Just read Shakespeare. What a jackass.

  245. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    because at their core they deny the existence of biology

    Iffen, saying “at their core” to hedge a blatant lie does not make a statement other than a blatant lie.

    • Replies: @iffen
  246. Rosie says:
    @jay

    That means they are Christian in name only.

    You don’t get to decide who is and who isn’t a real Christian.

    • Replies: @jay
  247. nebulafox says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Congrats, man. Good luck.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Thanks: Daniel Chieh
  248. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    I only lie if I have to and there is absolutely no reason for me to lie about you. It’s just my opinion. A generalization that I make based on the substance of many of your comments. There’s a slight very slight possibility that I may be wrong, but a zero possibility that I am lying.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  249. dfordoom says: • Website
    @anon

    Could be. Say, did you have a point to make?

    Data doesn’t necessarily mean what we hope it means, or what we want it to mean.

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

    To wit, you implied in another thread that women don’t start “seriously looking” for a husband until they’re through with graduate school.

    I was merely saying that if they haven’t started seriously looking for a husband until they’re 30 they could run out of time to have a family. I wasn’t implying that all women wait until they’re 30 to start seriously looking for husbands.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @nebulafox
  251. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    There’s a slight very slight possibility that I may be wrong, but a zero possibility that I am lying.

    Have I not said repeatedly, even on this very thread, that women cannot compete with men in sports?

    That right there, all by itself, demonstrates that I do not “deny biology.” I have also repeatedly acknowledged that men are more mechanically inclined than women, and better at math.

    Do I have to agree with the unz crowd about every damned thingin order to not “deny biology”?

    As Buzz once said to me when I said something dumb:

    You’re better than this. WTF were you thinking?

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

    I was merely saying that if they haven’t started seriously looking for a husband until they’re 30 they could run out of time to have a family.

    That’s true enough, though even here, I’m not sure it’s quite right to talk about women “looking for a husband.” We don’t really do that. I certainly wasn’t looking for a husband when I met Mr. Rosie. I didn’t really even notice him in that way at first. I was bored one
    day and I did what I always do when I’m bored: I struck up a conversation with the nearest fatherless biped with a pulse. The rest is history.

    I wasn’t implying that all women wait until they’re 30 to start seriously looking for husbands

    What I thought you were saying was that girls in grad school aren’t open to serious courtship. That is the usual claim around these parts, for obvious reasons.

  253. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    I don’t think that’s true. Fertility does decline when you hit your 30s, but it doesn’t truly plummet until 40, at least if the woman stays physically fit-meaning that if all the woman doesn’t want a large amount of kids, then there’s no problems. Yeah, sure, it might take some more tries to conceive at 36 than it would have at 26, but who complains about that part of the process? 😉

    What does change is availability of choices, since a large amount of people are married and are therefore off the market. This isn’t an impossible obstacle to overcome if your expectations are realistic: by the time you hit your 30s, you are (hopefully) a lot smarter than you were a decade earlier, know what your non-negotiables are and what you can be flexible on, and so will use your time efficiently. But it does mean that you can’t be sentimental and waste time, and a lot of people do just that: or have unrealistic expectations.

    (This applies to men, too. It’s true that men have more flexible biological clocks and can also more easily date younger women, but the latter is contingent on the man being able to attract them, which gets harder as you get older. Not to mention that older fatherhood does have some unique challenges.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @jay
  254. Wency says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Congrats, and thank you for sharing.

    On the subject of pro-natal arguments — it’s a very valid point, as you observe, that there are economies of scale in raising children. Some people might argue that this is offset by diminishing returns to the enjoyment of additional children. But I take the opposite position: there is a network effect that results in exponential returns to additional children in the form of sibling relationships. Relationships are much of what life is composed of — some sibling relationships are better than others, but increasing their number has a way of strengthening the whole family fabric and increases the odds that some will be extraordinary, life-long friendships.

    Going from 1 child to 2 results in a single sibling relationship.
    Going from 2 children to 3 triples that — you now have 3 sibling relationships.
    And going from 3 children to 4 results in another doubling — 6 sibling relationships.

    The effect drops off, of course, but your 10th child, should you be able to reach that blessed goal, will still provide a 25% increase in sibling relationships while increasing your number of children by 11% and your parental effort by much less than that — let us suppose 5%.

    • Replies: @iffen
  255. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    Fertility does decline when you hit your 30s, but it doesn’t truly plummet until 40,

    Yeah. Waiting until you’re 30 to start having kids is not a huge problem, assuming you’ve already found the man with whom you’re going to have those kids. If you haven’t yet found that man then finding him may take a lot longer than you think.

    Not to mention that older fatherhood does have some unique challenges.

    Kids are exhausting so older parenthood for both sexes can be a challenge. Which can mean that instead of having the two or three kids that you were planning on when you were younger you end up stopping after one when you realise how much work is involved. So delaying parenthood can have the result of reducing birth rates.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  256. @Daniel Chieh

    Do you find 14 year old children “hot” like Anatoly Karlin does?

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karlin#Age_of_consent_and_sexual_attraction_to_14_year_olds

    • Replies: @iffen
  257. iffen says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    So this proves that you are a fag. I’m at a proven 50/50. Are you also fat?

  258. iffen says:
    @Wency

    The only problem that I can see is that as the number of children grows, the probability of producing a black sheep (oops, can we still write that) increases.

    • Replies: @Wency
    , @dfordoom
    , @Daniel Chieh
  259. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Do you dispute that Roman society became less patriarchal and Roman women obtained greater freedoms and equality as Rome transitioned from republic to empire?

    It doesn’t matter if they did or didn’t. Whatever the trend at the time, Imperial Roman women were not free. That previous generations of Roman may have been even less free does not change that fact.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you clarify?

    If you think that women must be subjected to restrictions and disabilities more severe than the women of Imperial Rome, you’re prescribing sequestration and economic disability that would inevitably force women into prostitution, in substance if not in form.

    “Socialism” is pretty vague. You can obviously have patriarchal, sexist forms of socialism and liberal, sexually egalitarian, feminist forms of socialism.

    So what?

    They were not deemed suitable for professions such as medicine, the law or the civil service, from which they were banned.

    Oops.

    https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/press-releases/majority-us-medical-students-are-women-new-data-show

    I haven’t belabored the point. You have by insisting that the Muslim world is less sexist than India.

    Rights people have on paper don’t necessarily have anything to do with reality. In theory, Whites have the same rights to freedom of speech and assembly as Black people in America. That doesn’t make it so in reality.

    Indian women have equal rights on paper but shitty lives in reality.

    Muslim women do not have equal rights on paper, but they have better lives.

    However sexist Muslim fathers may be, they do one very important thing for their daughters: ensure they know how to read. That is very telling. A dumb brood sow and domestic servant doesn’t need to know how to read. A human being with an intellectual needs to know how to read.

    The Arab world has been far ahead of India on this front. With 80% of Saudi women being literate even thirty years ago. Even now only 65% of Indian women know how to read.

    I don’t trust Gnostics and pantheists with women’s rights.

    Amish women do not have freedom and equality by contemporary feminist standards.

    Yes they do. Amish girls go to school till the 8th grade just like Amish boys.

    They don’t even have to be Amish if they don’t want to. They get to decide that for themselves during rumspringa. If they do choose to get baptized in the Church, they will be required to be traditional farm wives.

    Likewise, Amish men have a very short list of “Godly” occupations they may choose from, usually farming, but sometimes furniture making or other carpentry occupations are permitted, depending on the community. Noone goes to college.

    “Evangelicals’ Birth Rate Is Now Nearly as Low as That of Secularists”

    Hmmm. Yes, I noticed that the article you cited skipped straight to blaming women. Of course, you can’t really look at women, you have to look at married couples. How many children does a married evangelical couple have compared to secular couples.

    It seems many evangelical men have decided that premarital sex is fine nad they are taking advantage of their dating market power within the evangelical community.

    Lemme guess, that’s women’s fault, too?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  260. Wency says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Perhaps my remark was too flippant. I don’t really care for the general tone of meanness and disrespect that’s getting heaped on you.

    But by reputation (and granted, I am recalling your name from Karlin) you are an SJW, or at least someone in that general direction. Which might be an unfair characterization, though the fact that you’re quoting Rationalwiki all over the place doesn’t exactly do credit to your counter-argument. And I don’t really care enough to have a fully-baked opinion about you as a person, or anyone here, until someone starts asking me what I think about how to moderate this place. I’m just here for the ideas.

    That said, as annoying as I find it when this place degenerates into a clown car of ad hominems, it’s that much more annoying if leftists start jumping in here to partake in them. Which is a large part of what you’ve been doing in this thread, and what you stand accused of doing elsewhere. Say what you want about Rosie, but she’s at least some form of dissident rightist. I think if leftists want to come here and present thoughtful counter-arguments it’s one thing, but contributing to and provoking the mudslinging is another matter entirely.

  261. @Daniel Chieh

    You can’t substantiate any of that, but I’ll take your words for it based on the detail in your comment.

    What exactly are you claiming I was wrong about? I merely mentioned carbon footprints and the most effective method of reducing per-capita co2 emissions in developed countries with high emissions is to continue to reduce fertility rates. Of course I don’t support any coercive measures and fully support reproductive rights. However at the same time fertility rates can continue to decline by improved female education and getting rid of gender bias, access to contraception and other humane methods.

  262. Wency says:
    @iffen

    Sure, but how much more disappointing is a black sheep in a small flock than a large one?

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @iffen
  263. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    Rosie

    Disambiguated

    Rosie the Riveter

    A marketing image representative of the women who performed “mens” work in the US during WWII, AKA saviors of the Western world and democracy.

    Rosie the blog commenter

    Working in the early 2000’s, she is acclaimed as the savior of white civilization and the Western world. She founded and led the movement that fused 1st wave feminism with white nationalism. That fusion being the ideology that saved the universe.

    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
  264. iffen says:
    @Wency

    I think that would depend upon how much you loved the black sheep.

  265. @Wency

    This is not a nice website – take a look here:

    https://thefakenewsresource.wordpress.com/2020/05/28/a-collection-of-inaccurate-disgusting-and-controversial-perspectives-largely-excluded-from-the-mainstream-media-and-rightly-so-the-unz-review-reviewed/

    So the fact I heavily criticise or bash the fake news, pseudoscientific and disinformation columnists is well justified. It goes through most if not all the columnists on link e.g.

    Anatoly Karlin– (a self-described journalist and IQ researcher, he studied political economy at UC-Berkeley and has only one peer-reviewed published article (in the Siberian Psychology Journal)[44], he is a frequent poster to the Unz Review. In his writings, he has claimed that the human carrying capacity is 100 billion[45], while most other peer-reviewed and pro-science sources cite the human carrying capacity as being between 8 – 10 billion[46][47], with Australian Academy of Science finding only two out of 65 peer-reviewed papers coming to a similar conclusion as Karlin.[48] He also has repeatedly tried linked race and IQ together[49], relying on such controversial and academically questionable material like Richard Lynn’s research on the subject and The Bell Curve, falling for common assumptions about race and IQ.[50] Karlin also has a Reddit account and, not uncommon for many Redditors, has voiced his own view on race, writing, “I am quite happy that few Blacks associate with Russia, considering the type of violence-ridden underclasses they tend to create in countries that open their doors to them…So yes, I am a racist and very happy with that,”.[51] He also has tried to link homosexuality and pedophilia.[52] So, all around, someone who should not be given a platform, yet has been

  266. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    The only problem that I can see is that as the number of children grows, the probability of producing a black sheep (oops, can we still write that) increases.

    That’s deeply offensive to Sheep of Color. They’re sick of the white privilege flaunted by the oppressor white sheep.

  267. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Indian women have equal rights on paper but shitty lives in reality.

    India was rated the most dangerous country for women. That is probably an exaggeration, but it is nonetheless true that horrible things happen to women there: gang rapes, acid attacks, dowry murders, and forced prostitution.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42436817

    They don’t burn 12 year old widows alive anymore, so there’s that.

    Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs!

    Charles Napier

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Anonymous
    , @jay
  268. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    This burning of widows is your custom

    The Mughals seem to have adopted a middle approach. They had to allow Hindus their rights to practice their religion as they saw fit, but they elected to require that the widow show up before the sultan (or his representative) and declare she was doing it of her own volition and not being coerced. Prof. Jonathan Brown wrote about this a few years ago.

    Peace.

  269. Anonymous[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It doesn’t matter if they did or didn’t. Whatever the trend at the time, Imperial Roman women were not free. That previous generations of Roman may have been even less free does not change that fact.

    You originally claimed in comment #154 that ancient Rome had a fertility decline. I simply pointed out that this decline was during the Imperial period, during which women had greater freedom and rights than the Republican period.

    If you think that women must be subjected to restrictions and disabilities more severe than the women of Imperial Rome, you’re prescribing sequestration and economic disability that would inevitably force women into prostitution, in substance if not in form.

    I haven’t made any specific value judgments or policy proposals regarding women’s rights and freedom.

    So what?

    You originally brought up women’s support of socialism, with the implication that socialism by definition is in accordance with contemporary views on feminism and women’s rights. I simply pointed out that isn’t the case, that socialism is not monolithic, and pointed out an example of a different kind of socialism.

    Oops.

    What does the number of women med students in the US today have to do with the type of socialism of National Socialist Germany?

    The Arab world has been far ahead of India on this front. With 80% of Saudi women being literate even thirty years ago. Even now only 65% of Indian women know how to read.

    Literacy is a bizarre stat to focus on. You can have complete literacy for women and still have an extremely sexist and patriarchal society, and vice versa.

    Furthermore, literacy rates don’t even support your point. The largest country in the Arab world, Egypt, has te same female literacy rate as India. And many Arab and Muslim countries have lower female literacy than India:

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.LITR.FE.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true

    Yes they do.

    Those aren’t contemporary feminist standards. Nobody believes Amish society is feminist and that Amish women enjoy women’s freedom and equality by contemporary standards.

    Hmmm. Yes, I noticed that the article you cited skipped straight to blaming women.

    I’m not sure how pointing out falling evangelical birth rates constitutes “blaming women.”

  270. Anonymous[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    India was rated the most dangerous country for women. That is probably an exaggeration, but it is nonetheless true that horrible things happen to women there: gang rapes, acid attacks, dowry murders, and forced prostitution.

    I’m not sure what your point is, since there are acid attacks, honor killings, gang rapes, etc. in the Arab and Muslim world as well:

    “Acid Attacks in Egypt: Violence Undeterred by Light Punishment”

    https://raseef22.net/article/1071197-acid-attacks-egypt-violence-undeterred-light-punishment

  271. @Wency

    I’m anti-eugenics (strongest opposition to eugenics seems to come from the religious-right) as an example I’m personally against prenatal screening for say Down’s Syndrome. It’s really not accurate to label me a leftist or SJW despite some people doing this. I’m an independent with a mix of right/left views – always have been a political syncreticist. But of course there’s some views that I hold that would be considered left including degrowth and feminism. I did hold some far-right views a decade back, but I lost most, if not all of those during my youth. Why? Contentious topics like immigration that only the far-right dared talk about in the 2000s became a lot more mainstream during the 2010s so there was no need to support far-right fringe groups when more mainstream and respectable parties started talking about it openly. Then again my view on this was probably always far more moderate than what alt-righters think today, I never supported an ethno-state.

    • Replies: @anon
  272. jay says:
    @Rosie

    That’s because the British East India Company took control of the Country and handed it over to the British Crown.

  273. Anonymous[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    “Survivor Speaks Out Against Amish Rape Culture Ahead Of Sentencing”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/survivor-speaks-out-against-amish-rape-culture-ahead_b_581e7b02e4b0334571e09cfd

    It’s a culture that, from the get-go, from the day you’re born, especially as a female, you’re groomed to be a victim. The patriarchal structure, the hierarchy, is one huge problem. That’s the foundation of the problem. God is number one; then it’s the husband; then it’s the wife; then it’s the children, then the animals. The wife literally has to promise on her wedding day to obey her husband for the rest of her life.

    The biblical commandment “honor your parents” is interpreted as a literal “obey your parents no matter what” and is constantly enforced. It’s one of the first things I learned as a child—before I could probably even talk. You’re not ever supposed to say “no” to your parents or “no” to adults, certainly not adults in positions of authority such as aunts, uncles, grandparents, teachers and preachers.

    If you say “no”, you get reprimanded and shamed at best and usually physically punished. Spanked, hit, beaten, whipped—depending on the perceived severity of the crime and disposition of the adult.

    What that level of continual enforcement does is groom women and children, especially female children, to be victims. Of course, then, when an authority figure, especially a male, approaches you, you’ve already been trained and pre-conditioned to say “yes” to whatever that adult demands of you. At the very least, you don’t resist and you don’t protest out of fear of getting a severe beating, getting sent to bed hungry, or punished in whatever other ways in which you’ve already experienced.

    The Amish refuse to educate their children about even the basics of sex, so you’re also not taught to recognize the signs of sexual advances and predatory characteristics. They won’t even warn their children of known child molesters and rapists within the community. They pretend that the rampant sexual assault found in almost every community doesn’t exist. The Amish attitude toward sexual assault is so bad that when a female is raped, she is punished for “being too tempting” to the male and is required to ask the male attacker’s forgiveness for having tempted him.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @dfordoom
  274. jay says:
    @Rosie

    I don’t but the Scripture and even Church Tradition does. Even coming from an Atheist perspective.

    Its Cafeteria Christianity picking and choosing. Not a sign of people actually taking it seriously.

    Even the Church Fathers like St John Crysostom, Tertullian, Ignatius and Polycarp would recognize them as phonies.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  275. jay says:
    @nebulafox

    There is a still a problem of elevated genetic mutations. Which will impact all subsequent generations.

  276. @iffen

    You can afford some losses if you have enough children.

    • Replies: @iffen
  277. anon[687] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Data doesn’t necessarily mean what we hope it means, or what we want it to mean.

    Good to see you finally agree with me.

  278. iffen says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    They are not fungible; you’ll see.

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

    Dutton has been criticised on the basis that many of the ideas and beliefs he considers to be maladaptive are correlated with higher intelligence. As an example, a meta-analysis of 83 studies[23][24] has demonstrated that atheists are more intelligent, on average, than religious believers including Christians, so “how can high intelligence be compatible with the idea that atheists have harmful mutations?”[25] Dutton himself co-authored a study showing a negative relationship between religiosity and intelligence meaning atheists and agnostics, on average, are smarter than religious believers.[26] To explain how high intelligence could be maladaptive, Dutton argues that atheists might be too intelligent because a study of American Mensa members revealed that they have a much higher risk for psychological and developmental disorders including autistic spectrum disorder.[27] However, only individuals with very high IQ[note 1] rather than general high IQ have a higher risk; Dutton’s argument is therefore dubious.

    While studies have shown that religiosity is associated with lower rates of depression, anxiety and suicide, psychologist Scott A. McGreal has criticised Dutton for overstating the extent to which religiosity is associated with better physical and mental health. For example, he notes “A [2015] survey of 59 countries found that a positive relationship between religiosity and self-rated health occurred only in 20 countries; in 37, there was no relationship, and in two there was actually a negative relationship”.[28] New research has also shown that “people possessing strong religious beliefs and convinced-atheists tend to share similarly positive mental health. The worst mental health is observed in those with more ambiguous, confused, and weaker religious or spiritual beliefs.”[29] The link between religiousity and better health is more complicated than Dutton’s pigeon-holing of people as religious versus non-believers since some subgroups within “nones”, meaning non-religious, share positive mental health alongside those with strong religious beliefs.

    Dutton appears to completely ignore the relationship between religion and schizophrenia.Wikipedia A number of studies have shown higher prevalence of hallucinations (a symptom of schizophrenia) in those with higher religiosity. In a review of 70 studies, Gearing et al. (2011) reported 30/70 (43%) have found a relationship between hallucinations and religious beliefs in the supernatural.[30]

    Dutton argues religious people are not spiteful mutants because they tend to have more children than non-religious people. For example, the average US Mormon female has a fertility rate of 3.4, while Catholic, 2.5 — both above replacement fertility (2.1). This sharply contrasts, to atheist, 1.6, and agnostic, 1.3.[31] There are though some religious groups with sub-replacement fertility and Dutton conveniently doesn’t discuss those. In the US, Jews have a fertility rate of 2.0, and mainline Protestants a fertility rate of 1.9.[31] In India, Jains have a fertility rate of 1.2, Sikhs, 1.6 and Buddhists 1.7.[32] In some religions, individuals are expected to remain unmarried and to abstain from sex completely, for example monks and priests in various sects of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Christianity. Also there have been celibate religious sects throughout history who are forbidden to procreate such as the Shakers.Wikipedia Dutton does briefly mention religious celibates in his writings but provides an ad hoc explanation to explain away evidence that contradicts his view about religiosity and fertility:

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  280. @Oliver D. Smith

    Summing up:

    1. Religious believers have on average lower IQs than non-religious.
    2. Religious believers in supernatural on average have higher rate of hallucinations than non-believers in supernatural (hallucinations are a symptom of schizophrenia).
    3. Religious believers do not always have higher fertility than non-religious (e.g. Indian Jains have a TFR of 1.2, Sikhs, 1.6 and Buddhists 1.7 – compared to US atheists 1.6 and agnostic 1.3).
    4. It’s inaccurate to claim religious believers have more happiness and lower rates of depression and suicide than non-religious believers because “people possessing strong religious beliefs and convinced-atheists tend to share similarly positive mental health. The worst mental health is observed in those with more ambiguous, confused, and weaker religious or spiritual beliefs.” (source on above link see [29])

  281. @dfordoom

    Waiting until you’re 30 to start having kids is not a huge problem, assuming you’ve already found the man with whom you’re going to have those kids.

    If a white Gentile woman is not married and pregnant with her third child by her 25th birthday, then she and her husband are not making the grade.

    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
  282. anon[155] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I’m anti-eugenics

    What do you mean by “eugenics”?

    Are you pro Tay-Sachs?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  283. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Bullshit. If that were true, there is no way the Amish would have the high retention rates they do.

    If you listen to the mainstream media, homeschoolers beat our kids and don’t send them to school to avoid detection.

    I have no doubt about the promise to obey your husband, but here the devil is in the details. What’s he gonna do, give you the cold shoulder? Amish conform to a strict code of nonviolence.

    I’m sure there are exceptional men who violate those principles, but they do not define the commas a whole.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Anonymous
  284. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    If a white Gentile woman is not married and pregnant with her third child by her 25th birthday, then she and her husband are not making the grade.

  285. Rosie says:
    @jay

    Its Cafeteria Christianity picking and choosing. Not a sign of people actually taking it seriously.

    Yes, there is a problem with nominal Christians not taking the Gospel seriously
    What part of this do you not understand?

    For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

    John 3:16

    • Replies: @jay
  286. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    What’s he gonna do, give you the cold shoulder?

    Amish men aren’t allowed to divorce an incorrigible and rebellious wife? 🤔

    Peace.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Rosie
  287. anon[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Real Christianity is extremely difficult to understand. Not because it is something recondite in and of itself, but because virtually nobody in this day and age has a proper antecedent understanding of the basic words and concepts in which theological truths are articulated.

    Modern man lacks the basic metaphysical prerequisites for being Christian.

    Your variation on Gnosticism is not novel.

  288. anon[347] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    Amish men aren’t allowed to divorce an incorrigible and rebellious wife?

    Nope. Only for adultery.

    Not a new problem.

    It is better to live on a corner of a roof
    Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.
    Proverbs 21:9

    • Thanks: Talha
  289. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    Divorce is not allowed among the Amish. I wasn’t kidding about the cold shoulder. That is seriously how they do business.

    They call it “shunning.”

    • Replies: @Talha
  290. Anonymous[916] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Can you specify which aspects of that quoted selection aren’t true?

    The term “rape culture” tends to be hyperbolic and thrown around a lot these days in a misleading fashion.

    But the general description of patriarchal norms, obedience to parents and elders, etc., that would be considered sexist by contemporary secular liberal and feminist standards is true.

    Amish doctrines on non-violence are about warfare and violence between neighbors and governments and avoiding military service. It doesn’t mean they eschew corporal punishment of their children, for example.

    https://amishamerica.com/how-do-amish-discipline-children/

    Amish culture stresses obedience and submission. These characteristics are instilled in Amish children by their parents from a young age.

    In order to achieve this, Amish adhere to the “spare the rod, and spoil the child” admonition of Solomon. Spanking and corporal punishment are used to maintain order in schools and teach good behavior in the home…

    In some cases, teachers in Amish schools will be expected to make use of corporal punishment to discipline children as well. Karen Johnson-Weiner notes that use of spanking varies among Amish schools. Johnson-Weiner finds evidence that corporal punishment is applied in conservative Swartzentruber Amish schools, though this does not necessarily mean that teachers enjoy it.

    Johnson-Weiner cites one Swartzentruber teacher: “If you don’t spank the children that need it, you could lose your job. The school board wants discipline.”

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

    That’s a cute picture, but don’t laugh. Their way of life depends on an absolute ban on divorce for “rebelliousness.” Women would not sign up for 5+ kids with no independent, means of support without it. This is what the “men’s rights movement” doesn’t understand, or at least pretends not to understand.

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

    I hear you and I agree, women need to have a fallback in case of being abandoned. I was covering divorce recently with my teachers and, for us, the financial responsibility – for the woman – falls back upon her father or brothers, or grandfather, etc.

    I really don’t know how it would scale beyond their isolated community though are affable and quaint farmers from German stock. Maybe it would, don’t know. Marriage is a weird thing, it’s pretty amazing the arrangements that work for some people. In the collection of Abu Dawud (ra), there is a hadith where a man complains to the Prophet (pbuh) that his wife doesn’t reject the hand of any man that wants to touch her (it’s a kind of euphemism if you catch the drift). The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Divorce (literally “banish”) her.” And he replies, “I’m afraid my soul will covet/desire her.” So the Prophet (pbuh) tells him, “Then enjoy her.”

    Some relationships work, I guess. Though I doubt my example would scale either. 🤷‍♂️

    There’s a pretty funny report in Imam Malik’s Al-Muwatta that had me laughing. Ibn Umar (ra) – also known as Abu Abdur-Rahman) was one of the Companions that people would come to for legal rulings. A man came to him and said, “I gave the power of command in the marriage into the hand of my wife, and then she declared a divorce, what do you say?” So Ibn Umar (ra) said, “I see it as she has stated (meaning the divorce is effectuated).” The man said, “Don’t do this, Abu Abdur-Rahman!” So he replies, “You did it, this has nothing to do with me.”

    Peace.

    • LOL: Rosie
  293. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    “Survivor Speaks Out Against Amish Rape Culture Ahead Of Sentencing”

    So it seems that the War on the Amish has already begun!

    I think we can now discard the fantasy idea that ultra-conservative religious groups are going to be left alone.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @anon
  294. @anon

    I’ll use the following article’s definition:

    “[eugenics:] practices and policies designed to promote the reproduction of people with desired attributes—and, thus, avert the reproduction of people with undesired attributes.”
    https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/keeping-backdoor-eugenics-ajar-disability-and-future-prenatal-screening/2016-04

    Prenatal screening for down syndrome represents a form of eugenics –

    “One can claim that even making screening available for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions is already, by definition, suggesting that they are not valued reproductive outcomes.”

    Around 90% of fetuses diagnosed prenatally with downs are aborted:

    A report from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register claims that in 2012 in England and Wales, 90 percent of 1,259 fetuses diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome were terminated [53]. Moreover, in England and Wales, the annual rates for termination after a Down syndrome diagnosis between 1989 and 2012 have ranged from 88 percent to 94 percent [5]. In addition, 10 out of 18 European countries are reported to have an average termination rate of 88 percent after a diagnosis of Down syndrome [54]. Finally, termination rates of 95 percent in certain areas of Australia [55] and 74 percent in select US states are reported [5, 56].

    Shows the extent of contemporary discrimination against so-called ‘disabled’.

    • Replies: @anon
  295. @Vergissmeinnicht

    Though the religious outbreed the irreligious, the West is becoming less and less religious. We may hit an inflection point somewhere down the line but it doesn’t look like we’re close yet.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  296. @Some Guy

    It’s a good point. There’s some tension between getting a sufficient sample to cover multiple religious affiliations across a range of attendance rates.

    • Thanks: Some Guy
  297. @Talha

    The sample sizes are too small.

    And it’s not poop colored, it’s beautiful. I want to sleep with it in the desert tonight with a billion stars all around:

    • LOL: Talha
  298. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    So it seems that the War on the Amish has already begun!

    Sure, because a scholarly, peer reviewed journal such as HuffPo would never post clickbait.
    By the way, did you notice the date on the article?

  299. @Oliver D. Smith

    Where is euthanasia on that list?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  300. anon[231] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    “[eugenics:] practices and policies designed to promote the reproduction of people with desired attributes—and, thus, avert the reproduction of people with undesired attributes.”

    This definition of eugenics would include pre-marital genetic screening.
    Are you opposed to that? It is common in some US subcultures now.

    Are you pro Tay-Sachs?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  301. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    The term “rape culture” tends to be hyperbolic and thrown around a lot these days in a misleading fashion.

    Indeed.

    Amish doctrines on non-violence are about warfare and violence between neighbors and governments and avoiding military service. It doesn’t mean they eschew corporal punishment of their children, for example.

    That isfalse. Nonviolence, “nonresistance” actually is a much more thorough going doctrine that mere prescription of armed combat.

    They don’t even believe in suing people, because it contravention the “turn the other cheek” principle, but you want me to believe they go around beating their wives, and that generations of girls watch their mothers get degraded and ordered about by their domineering husbands but then go ahead and sign up for more of the same.

    Gimme a break.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  302. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    That is false. Nonviolence, “nonresistance” actually is a much more thorough going doctrine that mere prescription of armed combat.

    I never said it was limited to prohibiting armed combat. But “non-violence” in a religious and moral context, including among the Amish, does not they totally eschew violence in the form of corporal punishment for example.

    They don’t even believe in suing people, because it contravention the “turn the other cheek” principle, but you want me to believe they go around beating their wives, and that generations of girls watch their mothers get degraded and ordered about by their domineering husbands but then go ahead and sign up for more of the same.

    I never said wife beating was common among the Amish.

    I think by contemporary secular, liberal standards, many people would regard the norms that prevail among the Amish to be patriarchal and sexist and would characterize Amish wives as indeed being “degraded and ordered about by their domineering husbands” to a degree, certainly more so than among contemporary secular spouses.

    I find your views and arguments on this topic to be wildly inconsistent. On the one hand, you champion the fact that women med students outnumber men and characterize any limitations on women in the professions as horribly sexist, and on the other hand, you assert that the Amish aren’t sexist despite the much greater limitations and restrictions on Amish women.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  303. jay says:
    @Rosie

    I think you misunderstand that the aftermath of accepting the Gospel is to also accept the Morality of God.

    Which they would if they actually believe.

    Thereby adopting his sense of right and wrong.

    That includes Patriarchy. Which is good and righteous by virtue of imaging the relationship between Christ and the Church and the hierarchy thereof.

    Between God and his People. Shepherd and Flock. King and Kingdom. The righteous ruler and the righteous subject.

    Captain and 1st Officer.

    You know the passages I am referring to.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  304. @anon

    Correct – but I could say that nihilism is a belief that arises from the destruction of a specifically Christian worldview. So, it’s not non-Christian. It’s anti-Christian.

    It’s possible to be an atheist with purpose, a Stoic. To believe that human life has a purpose, but not a divine, God-given one.

    PS – there may have been other periods of time in which nihilism came about. Do you know of any?

    • Replies: @anon
  305. @Audacious Epigone

    Fair point. I have raised this with Population Matters who agreed there should be discussion about euthanasia and assisted suicide. It’s obviously a controversial topic so few discuss it in terms of overpopulation and climate change. Note that despite being childfree is the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions – virtually no textbooks mention it – instead they only promote recycling and shifting from an omnivorous to plant based diet. I have no problem with those things but they do very little to reduce carbon emissions. A dilemma is green political parties only promote the latter – never childfree. The leader of the green party in UK has 2 kids and the entire party avoids even discussing overpopulation because they see it as a taboo. The fact is recycling plastic and becoming a vegetarian or vegan is nowhere near enough to solve the climate crisis.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  306. @Oliver D. Smith

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about

    ‘The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn’t telling you about’

    Eating no meat cuts an individual’s carbon footprint by 820 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year, on average, about four times the reduction they’d get by recycling as much as possible. (Emissions generated by eating meat result, in large part, from the large amounts of energy needed to grow, harvest, and process feed crops.) Foregoing one round-trip transatlantic flight each year would cut a person’s emissions of CO2 by 1600 kilograms. Getting rid of their car would reduce emissions by 2400 kilograms, or 2.4 metric tons. And by choosing to have one fewer child in their family, a person would trim their carbon footprint by a whopping 58.6 metric tons—about the same emissions savings as having nearly 700 teenagers recycle as much as possible for the rest of their lives.

    https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/04/19/parents-have-bigger-carbon-footprint-than-childless-couples/

    Two-adult households with children emit more than 25% more carbon dioxide emissions than two-adult households without children.

    That’s according to new research by the University of Wyoming (UW), which involved an analysis of expenditures on goods and services by households in Sweden.

    The researchers found parents with children at home consume goods and services such as food and transportation at higher rates than childless households.

    This study was done in Sweden – a country that emits approximately 4.5 metric tons of CO2 per person. The US has over three times higher carbon emissions per capita so a childfree household in US will be saving considerably more than 25% than a household with children. But even in Sweden – the results of being childfree are quite remarkable. And yet no textbooks, goverments (political parties etc) talk about the most effective way to mitigate climate change…

  307. anon[391] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paperback Writer

    Correct – but I could say that nihilism is a belief that arises from the destruction of a specifically Christian worldview. So, it’s not non-Christian. It’s anti-Christian.

    Again, the word nihilism appears to have been coined by Turgenev in his 1860-era Russian novel Fathers and Sons, and used by the character Bazarov who is very similar to the modern village atheist. In the context of Alexandrine Russia the attitude is explicitly not just anti-Christian but anti-Russian Orthodox.

    The novel was met with interesting reactions: young Russian intellectuals were livid with anger at the portrayal of young doctor Bazarov, while older culturally conservative ones were angry at the light treatment of the nihilist. IMO all of them missed the point of Turgenev’s work, which should be obvious right at the end of the book.

    Anyway, the world view of Bazarov wasn’t new, Turgenev didn’t discover something no one had seen before, (French Revo was full of nihilists) but the word is a good one that encapsulates a collection of ideas. That collection is often found in some, but not all, atheists. I’m sure a Venn diagram could be constructed, but frankly don’t see any reason to do so.

    Obviously in our globalized world, nihilism is no longer uniquely a reaction to Russian Orthodoxy or Christianity in general. Sophomores in dorm / chat rooms around the planet no doubt debate it on the regular.

    It’s possible to be an atheist with purpose, a Stoic. To believe that human life has a purpose, but not a divine, God-given one.

    So what?

    PS – there may have been other periods of time in which nihilism came about. Do you know of any?

    Probably nihilists have existed for a very long time, but I don’t see much point in looking for them.

  308. @anon

    Tay–Sachs is a fatal genetic disorder and the average life expectancy is 3-5 years old. Down syndrome isn’t. Average life expectancy of someone with downs is 50-60, while some individuals with down have lived into their 70s.

    I don’t see there being much of a debate about preventing people with fatal genetic disorders being born.
    There is though a recognised controversy and issue with prenatal screening for down syndrome and a lot of debate in the literature- down syndrome prenatal screening result in abortion in ~90% of cases. Yet down syndrome is not a fatal genetic disorder.

    If down syndrome is not a fatal genetic disorder why is it considered ‘undesirable’ and the high amount of abortions? The controversy is mentioned on Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_testing#Concerns_from_disability_rights_activists_and_scholars

    • Replies: @anon
  309. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    I find your views and arguments on this topic to be wildly inconsistent. On the one hand, you champion the fact that women med students outnumber men and characterize any limitations on women in the professions as horribly sexist, and on the other hand, you assert that the Amish aren’t sexist despite the much greater limitations and restrictions on Amish women.

    Schoolmarm should ban you for stupidity.

    Limitations on women in the professions are beyond sexist. They are chauvinistic.

    Amish hardly limit women any more than they limit men, as I attempted to explain. Amish is a very restrictive way of life, and both men and women are free to take it or leave it.

    Do you actually know any Anabaptists? The Amish are fairly insular, but Mennonite and other groups, such as the Bruderhoff, are quite open.

    Have dinner with them sometime. Get to know them. They barely even talk. Let alone order anyone about. These are literally the meekest people you will ever meet, the men as well as the women. They take all that shit about the meek inheriting the Earth very seriously. Maybe they bully their wives beyond closed doors, but I really, really doubt it.

  310. Rosie says:
    @jay

    That includes Patriarchy. Which is good and righteous by virtue of imaging the relationship between Christ and the Church and the hierarchy thereof.

    Blah, blah, blah, why? Because you say so?

    If I can eat shellfish why can’t I talk back to my husband?

    Homosexuality is physically harmful to self and other and precludes reproduction. How is a woman hurting anybody demanding to be respected as an equal?

    • Replies: @jay
  311. Rosie says:

    And you the way, FWIW, let’s be honest. You’re not Christ-like, and you can never be. Therefore, you are not entitled to relate to your wife as Christ to his Church, because you’re a sinner just like me. That’s the whole point of the Gospel.

    • Replies: @jay
    , @Rosie
  312. anon[399] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Tay–Sachs is a fatal genetic disorder and the average life expectancy is 3-5 years old.

    Correct.

    Genetic counseling can prevent this. Genetic counseling is a form of eugenics. You are opposed to eugenics. Therefore you are opposed to genetic counseling.

    Are you pro Tay-Sachs?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  313. jay says:
    @Rosie

    If I can eat shellfish why can’t I talk back to my husband?

    Because all food declared clean in the NT. See for yourself.

    How is a woman hurting anybody demanding to be respected as an equal?

    How is the Church hurting anybody by demanding to be respected as equal with Jesus Christ?

    Even Jesus Christ equal with God the Father submitted to him because it was right.

  314. jay says:
    @Rosie

    And you the way, FWIW, let’s be honest. You’re not Christ-like, and you can never be. Therefore, you are not entitled to relate to your wife as Christ to his Church, because you’re a sinner just like me. That’s the whole point of the Gospel.

    Looks like Jesus Christ was wrong then to command Husbands to relate to their wives as He relates to his Church. Because he knows no Man can be truly Christ-like despite those saved trying their best.

    If that’s the case than that commandment to relate to wife as Christ to his Church is null and void. To love her as his own body and to cherish and nourish her.

    Only in this instance is it not a command from Jesus
    “1 Corinthians 7:25”

    Now about virgins, I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

    And by implication every other commandment through Paul is from Jesus.

    I don’t see how a burden of leadership is entitlement. Was Moses entitled when God chose him over the Assembly of Israel?

    Is it entitlement to provide for household? Is it entitlement to protect from outside danger? Is it entitlement to cherish and nourish the wife?

    Is it entitlement to be required to rule justly and wisely?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  315. @Anon

    Wow, thanks. In NYC, blacks have the highest pregnancy rates but the lowest birth rates. It’s because of abortions (and to a lesser extent miscarriages).

    • Replies: @Anon
  316. @Curle

    Fertility is now below replacement even in Utah. There is not a state in the country that has at or above replacement fertility any longer.

  317. @Buzz Mohawk

    To clarify (as should’ve been done in the body of the post), frequently = 2x-3x per month and religiously = 4+ times per month.

  318. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Query:

    Is Jay willing to be as servile as he expects women to be?

    After all:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV

    Is this really the inspired Word of God, or is Paul just trying to diffuse fear of Christians as a threat to TPTB?

    The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

    Imma go with the latter.

    • Replies: @jay
  319. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Is Jay willing to be as servile as he expects women to be?

    That’s not an argument.

    Is this really the inspired Word of God, or is Paul just trying to diffuse fear of Christians as a threat to TPTB?

    I don’t think that actually addresses whether the Words Paul spoke is inspired Scripture. As far as I know it got included in the Bible because it is. And the only exceptions is my quotations of Paul which said “I, Not the Lord”.

    Its just speculation. No indication that its expediency in the text nor indication that it was meant to be temporary.

    I mean is the relationship between Jesus and the Church temporary or permanent?

  320. Rosie says:
    @jay

    If that’s the case than that commandment to relate to wife as Christ to his Church is null and void.

    It’s not null and void. It just has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world, as you well know, because you are not Christ and to claim that you are like him or can be like him is an outright denial of the Gospel.

    I don’t see how a burden of leadership is entitlement.

    Lol spare me.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @jay
  321. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    You know, Jay, come to think of it, I do think that passage was divinely inspired. Either that, or a stroke of genius on Paul’s part.

    Because it is almost totally incoherent, while providing a SOP to Roman sensibilities and the male ego. Women are supposed to submit to their wives, and men are supposed to love their wives they never boss them around and make them submit to anything, or something.

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/wives-be-subject-to-your-husbands

    Here is a whimsical example of how this works. The wife says to her husband, “Honey, I subject myself to your headship of service. Now, please subject yourself to my need to have the garbage taken out and to have this dirty diaper changed.”

    Lololol.

    • Replies: @jay
  322. @anon

    I don’t consider fatal diseases (what medical literature calls ‘incompatible with life’) to be desirable or valuable, nor does anyone – can you show a scholarly article saying otherwise? In contrast, many people object to the disappearance of individuals with down syndrome via prenatal screening (that results in ~90% abortions) because it is not a fatal disease, so clearly there is an genuine objection here to viewing down syndrome as being undesirable or unvalued compared to someone without the same condition:

    Related to this point, Skotko warns that promoting “choice” as medical progress in the context of prenatal screening may lead to the “disappearance” of people with Down syndrome [52]. Skotko’s argument is important to consider in light of termination statistics from around the world. A report from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register claims that in 2012 in England and Wales, 90 percent of 1,259 fetuses diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome were terminated [53]. Moreover, in England and Wales, the annual rates for termination after a Down syndrome diagnosis between 1989 and 2012 have ranged from 88 percent to 94 percent [5]. In addition, 10 out of 18 European countries are reported to have an average termination rate of 88 percent after a diagnosis of Down syndrome [54]. Finally, termination rates of 95 percent in certain areas of Australia [55] and 74 percent in select US states are reported [5, 56]. Within this context, and drawing on our claims as outlined above, one may argue that prenatal screening represents a form of eugenics and that the “choice” promised by such techniques is not necessarily a (free) choice at all. Force is not involved in prenatal screening decision making (except in presumably rare but understudied familial circumstances) but, arguably, eugenics does not require force. One can claim that even making screening available for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions is already, by definition, suggesting that they are not valued reproductive outcomes [57-59].

    https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/keeping-backdoor-eugenics-ajar-disability-and-future-prenatal-screening/2016-04

    The same author of this article makes the same point as me that it’s inaccurate to lump down’s syndrome with fatal diseases and despite warning about prenatal screening for down syndrome he cautions “we argue that it is unhelpful and offensive to pregnant women and medical services or systems that they use to equate all prenatal screening and testing to eugenics”.

    It appears though you are going to continue dishonestly lumping down syndrome with fatal diseases because you have no argument against the former being undesirable.

  323. @Oliver D. Smith

    Obviously when I posted the definition of eugenics I didn’t include fatal genetic disorders which everyone will agree are undesirable and not valued to the extent medical literature describes them as ‘ ‘incompatible with life’. Modern eugenics proponents though always shift to this because they have no basis to their undesirability argument which are entirely subjective when it comes to non-fatal disorders – why is down syndrome considered to be undesirable?

  324. @anon

    From 2000-2018 the GSS shows Hispanics in the US breaking down religiously as follows:

    Protestant — 19%
    Catholic — 62%
    “Christian” — 4%
    No religion — 15%

  325. @Rosie

    The GSS just shows a shifting downward across the board. Three children families were are common as two children families a generation ago, but two children is the clear mode now. In the early seventies, 1-in-5 people had 5+ children. Now it’s 1-in-10.

  326. @dfordoom

    Orthodox Jews are better prepared to survive this in their current state, I think. They’ve managed to hold things together in urban metropolises. The Amish haven’t had that test yet. On the other hand, there is a lot of open space between the coasts in the US.

  327. @Paperback Writer

    That’s correct, we’ve posted about it here before. No (large) demographic group and no state in the US is above replacement any longer. Everyone and everywhere is below replacement, with the exceptions of small, cohesive religious groups like the Amish and Orthodox Jews. TFRs across Central and South America are below replacement or will soon be as well. Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, natural population increase is decelerating and will begin decreasing in much of the world as it already is in Japan, Russia, and some European countries.

  328. @Oliver D. Smith


    It appears though you are going to continue dishonestly lumping down syndrome with fatal diseases because you have no argument against the former being undesirable.

    The dishonesty is all yours, because you chose to move your goalposts around.

    Obviously when I posted the definition of eugenics I didn’t include fatal genetic disorders

    Your definition was obviously flawed. Then I pointed the obvious flaw in your reasoning out. Instead of clarification you chose ranting anger.

    Perhaps you could try thinking instead of emoting?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  329. @dfordoom

    The evidence is on your side regarding governmental tax incentives to increase fertility. It has moved the needle very modestly if at all in countries it has been tried in.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  330. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    The evidence is on your side regarding governmental tax incentives to increase fertility. It has moved the needle very modestly if at all in countries it has been tried in.

    So the problem is at least becoming a little clearer. We now know that the argument that “people aren’t having kids because they can’t afford it” is nonsense. And as you pointed out in an earlier comment fertility is below replacement level throughout the developed world and in every state of the US and among every significant demographic group in the US. So we now know that demographic collapse has nothing whatever to do with race or with anti-white racism.

    So we now have a better chance of identifying the actual causes. Secularism, liberalism and capitalism seem to be the most likely suspects. Which makes sense since secularism, liberalism and capitalism are all intimately connected.

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

    Which makes sense since secularism, liberalism and capitalism are all intimately connected

    Well, duh.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  332. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Because it is almost totally incoherent, while providing a SOP to Roman sensibilities and the male ego. Women are supposed to submit to their wives, and men are supposed to love their wives they never boss them around and make them submit to anything, or something.

    There you go. I think you don’t really believe the Gospel or in the Lordship of Jesus at all.

    So Jesus cannot make his church submit or boss the church around. We are free to do as we wish?

    Jesus can’t tell us what to do. We are equal with Him.

    Was giving Moses leadership just puffing up his Ego?

    Come on.

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/wives-be-subject-to-your-husbands

    Here is a whimsical example of how this works. The wife says to her husband, “Honey, I subject myself to your headship of service. Now, please subject yourself to my need to have the garbage taken out and to have this dirty diaper changed.”

    I don’t think those “Catholics” are the “Traditional Latin Mass” Ones I am referring to. They aren’t Catholic despite their claims and their contradiction to the Church Fathers and Scripture.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  333. jay says:
    @Rosie

    It’s not null and void. It just has nothing whatsoever to do with the real world, as you well know, because you are not Christ and to claim that you are like him or can be like him is an outright denial of the Gospel.

    If one loves Jesus. One will keep his commandments(John 14:15). Commandments from God has everything to do with the real world.

    Otherwise it would not exist as a Commandment. Or are you saying that Paul was a False apostle?

    And even if one is not Christ. One models Christ as much as possible. You think the one issuing the Commandment is ignorant of what the world he is in charge of is like?

    This same argument can apply to most other commandments we don’t like in the Bible like Homosexuality.

    It also could be argued to not have anything to do with the real world. Absolutely unrealistic.

  334. @Too Long Didn't Read

    No goalpost was moved, in my first comment #277 I mentioned eugenics I said: “I’m personally against prenatal screening for say Down’s Syndrome.” Never claimed to be against all prenatal screening e.g. trisomy 18 (most babies with trisomy 18 die before they are born, while the rest die within days – so who would object to a prenatal screening?). This is the distinction I was later making between non-fatal genetic disorders and fatal genetic disorders. I don’t believe any non-fatal disorders are undesirable and support disability rights hence I’m against eugenics. The only objective way to determine ‘undesirability’ would be if a genetic disorder is fatal and seemingly no one would be against prenatal screening for a fatal disease.

    • Replies: @anon
  335. @dfordoom

    People will dismiss this by pointing to sub-Saharan Africa, but there is a lot to it. South Africa is relatively developed–certainly in contrast to the rest of the continent–and its TFR is only just above replacement, at 2.2. Niger, by contrast is at 7.0.

  336. Rosie says:
    @jay

    So Jesus cannot make his church submit or boss the church around. We are free to do as we wish?

    No, Jesus really can’t boss us around. He is perfectly good. Hence, he can only command us to do that which we should already be doing anyway.

    Same with husbands.

    If one loves Jesus. One will keep his commandments

    Blah, blah, blah. Our inability to keep said commandments is precisely the need of the Gospel.

    You attempt to use religion to control others just like every other Gospel-denying, salvation-by-following-the-rules Pelagian heretic on the face of the planet.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @jay
  337. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Which makes sense since secularism, liberalism and capitalism are all intimately connected

    Well, duh.

    This is Unz Review which is full of people with a mental age of about eight. You have to spell everything out for them. There are people here who think liberals are basically communists. There are people here who think Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are communists.

  338. anon[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    No goalpost was moved, in my first comment #277 I mentioned eugenics I said: “I’m personally against prenatal screening for say Down’s Syndrome.”

    Prenatal screening is not the same thing as genetic counseling. There is part of your goalpost moving.

    Genetic counseling is used to prevent Tay Sachs births; therefore it is eugenic. You oppose eugenics, therefore you oppose genetic counseling.

    Are you in favor of Tay Sachs?

    Never claimed to be against all prenatal screening

    Is English your first language?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  339. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    People will dismiss this by pointing to sub-Saharan Africa, but there is a lot to it. South Africa is relatively developed–certainly in contrast to the rest of the continent–and its TFR is only just above replacement, at 2.2. Niger, by contrast is at 7.0.

    We’re going to see plummeting TFRs in all of the more successful more developed sub-Saharan African countries. As an example TFR in Kenya has dropped from just over 8 in 1964 to about 3.3 at the moment and it’s declining very rapidly.

    Demographic collapse is going to happen in every country that reaches even moderate levels of development.

  340. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    As ever, the antiauthoritarian Anabaptists have it.

    https://anabaptistworld.org/wives-obey/

    No loving husband turns his beloved wife into a subservient drudge.

    In short, a wife need show no more deference and no more enthusiasm in her submission to her husband than he displays toward their pastor.

    Why the resistance to all this banging on about wifely submission?

    Because no matter how you slice it, the duty of submission necessarily implies that men are morally superior to women, and everyone can see with their own eyes that this is a crock of shit, pastors more than anyone else.

  341. @Wency

    Agree re: the personal attacks.

    Oliver’s comments have been germane to the threads he’s engaged in so I don’t see why he shouldn’t be posting here.

    • Replies: @jay
  342. jay says:

    @Rosie

    “No, Jesus really can’t boss us around. He is perfectly good. Hence, he can only command us to do that which we should already be doing anyway.”

    Exactly. And that’s what the Commandments are all about. That is the definition of bossing us around.

    God bossed Israel around. I don’t see a problem with that. He left us commandments and so we will continue to obey.

    Blah, blah, blah. Our inability to keep said commandments is precisely the need of the Gospel.

    You attempt to use religion to control others just like every other Gospel-denying, salvation-by-following-the-rules Pelagian heretic on the face of the planet.

    And yet those commandments ought to be obeyed. Because we are the Servants of Jesus Christ.

    Its because we love our King that we obey his commandments.

    We may fail. But Right and Wrong is still right and wrong.

    The Gospel involves accepting the Lordship of Jesus Christ that He is God who is risen from the Dead. And that means obeying him.

    Otherwise he isn’t truly our Lord and King.

    If he is telling us to do what we already need to do. Then we ought to do it. What do you think our relationship to him is.

    The Gospel is to accept submission to Him alongside wiping away our rebellion against him.

    I know that works don’t save. But works are a sign of salvation. And especially accepting what God has laid out as good and evil.

    A saved man wants to do God’s will because he loves God.

    Why the resistance to all this banging on about wifely submission?

    There is similar resistance to banging on about sexual morality. It has to be done. Especially for those who claim to be the Servants of Christ.

    Because no matter how you slice it, the duty of submission necessarily implies that men are morally superior to women, and everyone can see with their own eyes that this is a crock of shit, pastors more than anyone else.

    I didn’t ask God to make us this way. I only trust that he knows best. And that shitty Pastors ought to be deposed for failing in their office.

    I mean how do you think God dealt with Moses when he failed. Moses was barred from the promised Land.

    And you think that Leaders don’t have greater accountability before God?

    Same with husbands.

    Agreed its right after asking wives to submit to Husbands. The requirements are clear. Husbands ought to be as Just and Wise Lords.

    Just like God is over us. And Jesus Christ is over his Church. And every other commandment already existent.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  343. iffen says:

    One of the most interesting aspects of many of the commenters and writers at UR is their complete inability to identify friends and foes.

  344. jay says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I think Ad Hominems should be dealt with. It degrades the comment section.

    • Replies: @iffen
  345. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Just knock it off with those childish comments. Adds nothing to the discussion. Address the argument.

  346. Rosie says:
    @jay

    If he is telling us to do what we already need to do. Then we ought to do it. What do you think our relationship to him is.

    If I ought to do something, I ought to do it whether someone tells me to or not. The command is utterly beside the point.

    I know that works don’t save. But works are a sign of salvation. And especially accepting what God has laid out as good and evil.

    A saved man wants to do God’s will because he loves God.

    The usual weasel words that effectively vitiate the Gospel.

    There is similar resistance to banging on about sexual morality. It has to be done. Especially for those who claim to be the Servants of Christ.

    I didn’t ask God to make us this way. I only trust that he knows best. And that shitty Pastors ought to be deposed for failing in their office.

    Here’s the deal. I will not go along with blatant lies that I can see for myself are such. Sexual morality has a basis in reason. Your claim that women are morally inferior not only has no basis in reason, it is an obvious lie and I will not pretend otherwise. You can tell me I won’t go to heaven if you like.

    Taken as a whole, Paul’s comments show plainly that he really doesn’t like patriarchy, and hedged it however he could without rejecting it outright. (“Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.”) He was doing nothing more than trying to prevent Christianity from drawing the ire of the surrounding community over nonessential matters. You are now bringing Christianity into disrepute and undermining the Gospel by insisting on using it as an instrument of unwarranted control over others.

    I am done apologizing for and compromising with this nonsense.

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/42tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_42_arrests_by_sex_2012.xls

    • Replies: @jay
    , @jay
  347. iffen says:
    @jay

    I think Ad Hominems should be dealt with. It degrades the comment section.

    There was a time when a person’s arguments were not considered valid unless accompanied by a competent ad hominem.

    I can see and understand the objections.

    But at the same time, I don’t see why the people that object can’t just ignore the comments and focus on the comments that they think are enlightening and leave those of us who enjoy wrestling in the mud our fun.

    • Replies: @jay
  348. jay says:
    @Rosie

    If I ought to do something, I ought to do it whether someone tells me to or not. The command is utterly beside the point.

    And you don’t realize you also get your oughts through cultural diffusion. But the scriptures tell us God’s thoughts on the matter.

    The usual weasel words that effectively vitiate the Gospel.

    I know the Gospel is about being saved without works. But isn’t faith without works dead?

    Why should the Gospel also entail rejecting the commandments of Jesus Christ?
    Those who love him would want to keep his commandments. Those who are saved would want to do right as a result of walking in the Spirit.

    Here’s the deal. I will not go along with blatant lies that I can see for myself are such. Sexual morality has a basis in reason. Your claim that women are morally inferior not only has no basis in reason, it is an obvious lie and I will not pretend otherwise. You can tell me I won’t go to heaven if you like.

    I didn’t claim that. But I didn’t contest what you said because it may or may not be true. I just ignored it because its beyond my knowledge.

    So forgive me for not making myself clear earlier.

    See my earlier comments. What I do claim is that God knows what he is doing when he put Men in Charge in spite of their sinfulness.

    And that Men being systematizers may be part of the reason:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathising%E2%80%93systemising_theory

    Why else would God make himself the Man in the relationship with his people? This pattern is all through the Bible.

  349. jay says:
    @iffen

    Only if the Ad Hominem is funny enough. Or an entertaining troll. It shouldn’t become boring.

  350. jay says:
    @Rosie

    Taken as a whole, Paul’s comments show plainly that he really doesn’t like patriarchy, and hedged it however he could without rejecting it outright. (“Submit yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.”)

    I have to disagree. I will point to this blog:
    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/is-there-mutual-submission-or-not/

    That puts doubt on the fact that Paul dislike Patriarchy unless you mean the Roman and other Pagan kinds sure.

    Christian Patriarchy looks far better for its treatment of women compared to other surrounding culture of its time.

    If Paul does dislike Patriarchy especially of the kind God ordains. Putting the it in the Symbology of Christ and his Church doesn’t look like the way to go about it.

    It should be put in more ignoble terms if that’s the case.

    As far as the submission of Christ to the Church is concerned if the case can be made. Is that he is a Good shepherd who cares for his flock.

    But I don’t think that case is strong.

    You can tell me I won’t go to heaven if you like.

    If in one’s entire life. One considers wrong right and right wrong. I have doubts about that person’s salvation.

    I know that in my life. My sense of morality got turned upside down after I got saved. I used to be pro-LGBT and a general leftie. But after getting saved. My worldview changed over the decade.

    Now I know that sodomy for example is evil.

    There are other opinions too like my previous stance on capital punishment. But God turned me to becoming pro-capital punishment especially for certain violent crimes.

  351. Rosie says:

    And you don’t realize you also get your oughts through cultural diffusion. But the scriptures tell us God’s thoughts on the matter.

    I certainly do not. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here.

    But isn’t faith without works dead?

    It depends. The God that I love doesn’t make up arbitrary rules, so by definition I cannot express authentic love for God by pretending to believe he does.

    What I do claim is that God knows what he is doing when he put Men in Charge

    Question-begging, but as you well know, according to the literal words of Scripture, our subjection was a punishment, not a Plan A that followed from our nature from the beginning Creation. You keep conveniently forgetting that.

    Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves has fulfilled the Law.
    -Romans 13:8

    Is it a damned sin to get an epidural in childbirth to relieve our pain? Nevermind, don’t bother answering that, because I don’t actually GAFF about your opinion on maternal pain relief.

    Why else would God make himself the Man in the relationship with his people? This pattern is all through the Bible.

    That was the only way blockheads like you would understand, I suppose.

    • Replies: @jay
    , @jay
  352. @Audacious Epigone

    Compare per-capita carbon emissions of South Africa to Niger/other SSA countries-

    South Africa: 6.95 tons per person
    —-
    Namibia: 1.7 tons per person
    Zimbabwe: 0.8 tons per person
    Nigeria: 0.49 tons per person
    Malawi: 0.20 tons per person
    Rwanda: 0.09 tons per person
    Kenya: o.o4 tons per person
    Uganda: 0.01 tons per person
    Niger: 0.01 tons per person
    Somalia: 0.01 tons per person

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  353. jay says:
    @Rosie

    “It depends. The God that I love doesn’t make up arbitrary rules, so by definition I cannot express authentic love for God by pretending to believe he does.”

    That isn’t the God that is revealed in Scripture. He shows what he is by words written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    And subsequently this word is used by the Holy Spirit to show us what is true and right. Because you might never know if that morality is from cultural diffusion or from God.

    No doubt we absorbed many notions from our environment and its invisible to us like water is invisible to fish. I struggled with those passages myself once.

    I would think “How Sexist, how demeaning to women”. Until I was also eventually brought around once I learned more and comparing it to how the Romans and Greeks treated women.

    Question-begging, but as you well know, according to the literal words of Scripture, our subjection was a punishment, not a Plan A that followed from our nature from the beginning Creation. You keep conveniently forgetting that.

    Perhaps. Because in a world that is marred by corruption and the challenges thereof. Its Men that must take on the foremost risks and be far more accountable.

    See how God treated Men who failed in their duties in the Old Testament. He doesn’t let them off the hook. Neither did Moses enter the promised land by failing to obey God and show him as holy. Because he was instructed to speak to the rock. But instead he struck the rock twice and claimed credit for himself rather than God “Shall we bring you water out of this rock?” This is after the Israelites grumbled about Water.

    But Post Resurrection I think those Sex roles would no longer be necessary because the institution of marriage and this challenging world is temporal.

    Although there is also a theory that just as Man naming the Animals indicates according to his Ancients Authority over them. So it is when Adam named his wife “Woman” while she didn’t name him.

    https://carm.org/women-in-ministry/genesis-2-adam-and-eve-and-authority/

    This notion of naming as indicating dominion is also shown when Nebuchenzzar renamed Daniel and his Companions. And them receiving those names is to submit at least as their current earthly Authority:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+1%3A7&version=KJV

    But even then I believe that after the requisite population. And subsequent glorification. Those sex roles would become unnecessary.

    And there would be little need for exercise of such a authority in the Garden of Eden unlike in a fallen world where dangers lurk.

    Is it a damned sin to get an epidural in childbirth to relieve our pain? Nevermind, don’t bother answering that, because I don’t actually GAFF about your opinion on maternal pain relief.

    I don’t think that relevant.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  354. @anon

    There’s prenatal tests to diagnose Tay Sachs e.g. chorionic villus sampling. I made it clear I do not oppose any screening or tests that are to detect fatal genetic disorders. No one does, at least, opposition to them is not a viewpoint I’ve found in the bioethical literature, unlike non-fatal disorders like Down’s syndrome.

    Genetic counselling is used to prevent Tay Sachs births; therefore it is eugenic. You oppose eugenics, therefore you oppose genetic counseling.

    Genetic counselling for what? If for fatal genetic disorders I don’t consider that eugenics, in fact, seemingly no one does because there’s no subjectivity at all about fatal genetic disorders being undesirable and universal agreement they are undesirable. There is though not universal agreement about non-fatal genetic disorders being undesirable and that’s where the main debate is concentrated hence my focus was on Down syndrome.

    • Replies: @anon
  355. anon[179] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    There’s prenatal tests to diagnose Tay Sachs

    Prenatal testing is not the same thing as genetic counseling.

    Genetic counselling for what?

    To prevent Tay Sachs, as I’ve explained several times so far.

    Note:

    Genetic counselling is used to prevent Tay Sachs births; therefore it is eugenic. You oppose eugenics, therefore you oppose genetic counseling.

    Are you pro Tay-Sachs?

    If for fatal genetic disorders I don’t consider that eugenics,

    This statement contradicts your own definition of eugenics. Perhaps you should decide exactly what you mean by a word before using it? Or you could consider admitting an error and correcting said error?

    Again I ask, is English your first language?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  356. @Oliver D. Smith

    Is the Wikipedia (sourced from the EU) data good? It’s not something I’m very familiar with but want to rectify that. I’d like to correlate it with TFR. The conundrum I expect to find: Development leads to reduced TFR but development also leads to higher per capita emissions.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  357. jay says:
    @Rosie

    “It depends. The God that I love doesn’t make up arbitrary rules, so by definition I cannot express authentic love for God by pretending to believe he does.”

    Plus as for the arbitrary rules. The thing is Mankind is finite and isn’t always aware of the big picture and the butterfly effects of their choices.

    No doubt you think that those roles imply Men are Morally superior. But perhaps it actually has more to do with the Systematizing thought process of the Men compared to Women.

    Empathy for example scales only to a certain point. But systematizing allows one to take a more big picture view of things.

    That is one example of many factors.

    I don’t believe God will make up those rules for no reason. They exist because of the structure of reality that God is aware of.

    God is Wise. So we should trust him on this. Have Faith that he knows best. Because eventually we will find out.

    There are many truths in the Bible for example that over time gets proven right again and again. Like the Cleaniness Laws that manage to keep Israel free from disease:
    https://www.isegoria.net/2018/08/moses-the-microbiologist/

    That was before Germ theory became official after scientific research.

  358. Rosie says:
    @jay

    I don’t think that relevant.

    Why not? It’s either acceptable to resist the consequences of sin or it’s not.

    Although there is also a theory that just as Man naming the Animals indicates according to his Ancients Authority over them. So it is when Adam named his wife “Woman” while she didn’t name him.

    For a guy who claims to be put off by demeaning attitudes toward women, you certainly work awfully hard to find reasons to justify our ongoing subordination.

  359. @Audacious Epigone

    The sources on Wikipedia are slightly outdated (2016-2018), but a more recent source (EDGAR – Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research) for 2019 is:
    https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2020&dst=CO2pc
    It has a long list of countries and per capita CO2 emissions + total emissions

    Places like Niger, Kenya and Uganda have the lowest total CO2 emissions and per capita emissions in world (0.01 metric tons) but Nigeria notably stands out – it has low per capita C02 (0.50 metric tons) but is not low in total emissions – it has the same total emissions as a developed country like Belgium. How is this anomaly explained? Nigeria as a country has the largest population in SSA (or in fact the whole African continent), 206 million people [2020 est.] but has a high level of poverty (~40%). So although it has fairly high total c02 emissions it’s c02 per capita is low. The situation is similar to India – that has high total emissions, but lowish per capita because many live in poverty.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  360. @anon

    It would help if you stuck to your main account @Mikemikev aka Michael Coombs

    So far you’ve posted as:

    anon[155]
    anon[231]
    anon[324]
    anon[399]
    anon[179]
    @Too Long Didn’t Read

    You’re a known troll who uses hundreds of accounts/IPs on Unz.com and Twitter. I don’t of course expect you to admit who you are since you lie all the time about your accounts.

    Btw, you’re apparently now under police investigation:

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @anon
  361. iffen says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oh shit!

    Trolling is a crime?

    Why didn’t somebody tell me?

    This is what I get for depending upon the kindness of strangers.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    , @dfordoom
  362. @iffen

    Trolling is a crime when it becomes harassment. Michael Coombs has sent the geneticist Adam Rutherford at least 3000 of abusive tweets on 5+ separate Twitter accounts. Rutherford has told him to stop repeatedly but he still continues so he filed a police report for malicious communications. If you take a look at the sorts of tweets he’s sending, many are clearly malicious not harmless like an ordinary troll who can be funny. Coombs isn’t funny, but malicious, obsessive and an internet stalker.

    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Adam_Rutherford

    Anyone wondering why he responded to me on 6 IPs/accounts above –

    https://trollpedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Oliver_D._Smith

    • Replies: @iffen
  363. iffen says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    Trolling is a crime when it becomes harassment.

    Whew! That was close.

    Trolling is not a crime, but harassment is a crime.

    Is implying trolls are committing a crime (harassment) a crime (harassment)?

  364. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Trolling is a crime?

    People should not have to put up with other people disagreeing with them. Surely you understand that? If someone disagrees with me I call the police immediately.

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  365. anon[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oliver D. Smith

    I am making factual statements and asking questions regarding eugenics, while you’ve shown poor logic with moved goalposts and demonstrated very poor reading comprehension. Again I ask if English is your first language?

    Literally no idea who or what you are going on about now. Looks like a personal problem of some sort or other, one having nothing to do with the topic or any person here. Perhaps there is a better venue for you to vent than this one?

    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
  366. Anon[223] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Yeah, this data really is fascinating in many ways.

    I think the underdiscussed policy implications is that it should be possible in some way to reverse demographic change, is proper policies are written in.

    For one, being strict on crime really does seem to help with boosting the White birthrate. One mistake is to conflate low crime with being strict on crime, which the former may be due to demographics, while the latter will likely produce low crime even with different demographic makeups. For instance, Utah is low crime, but minorities have high birthrates there, probably because Utah isn’t strict on crime, and its low crime is due to the high white %.

    What is interesting about NYC is that the highest White birthrates occur in Brooklyn, where Whites have almost double the number of children as Blacks do per capita. Brooklyn has the most active policing, though for demographic reasons has a higher crime rate than Queens or Staten Island. Clearly the higher incomes of Manhattan, or the lower crime rates of Queens/Staten Island do not make much of a difference for White birthrates as much as strict policing. The benefits of strict policing is not just in the lower crime, but in the signal it sends to middle class families that the gov will take care of you. Without that, then Whites will be too scared to have lots of kids, even in states like Utah, where minorities have more per capita.

    Secondly, I think removing all the incentives that welfare creates would help very much. That is not to say that we should reduce welfare, but no longer give additional money for additional children. The welfare family cap is a very good idea, and can encourage proper family planning.

    Things like public housing should also be reduced, not as a punishment, but we can’t have people thinking that having children they shouldn’t have will get them a house. Even in Singapore, which has very limited welfare, the effects of public housing have dramatically helped the Muslim Malaysian population have higher birthrates than the Chinese Singaporeans.

    The ideal policy outcome would at least have broken windows policing, three-strikes laws, removal of welfare incentives toward those with larger families, lax zoning regulations so home prices remain low(easier to have children) but no public housing construction.

    Low taxes are good in that the accelerate economic growth, which make the incentives for low income birthrates to go down, as the rate of economic growth and inflation will make welfare payments(especially if they are fixed), more and more worthless

  367. @dfordoom

    Are you saying you would tolerate someone sending you 3,000+ abusive messages on dozens of fake accounts? And after blocking each one and telling the troll to stop, the same deranged troll keeps messaging you…

    The troll we’re talking about (who used at least 6 IPs when commenting above) is so infamous and notorious he has a literally an entire forum thread dedicated to monitoring his online antics:

    https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-708

  368. anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    TFR by race in South Africa tells a more race-centric story.

    Black African: 2.7
    White: 1.5
    Coloured: 2.5
    Indian: 1.7

    The more accurate analysis of TFR is that it is both a function of development and race. As a nation develops, TFR decreases, but TFR for Eurasian races is still lower than that for black and mulatto races.

    This is expected, per Rushton, as r-selected races would have a stronger evolved “fertility buffer” against the fertility decreasing pressures of modernization.

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

  369. @anon

    anon[155]
    anon[231]
    anon[324]
    anon[399]
    anon[179]
    @Too Long Didn’t Read

    And now:
    anon[115]

    Ok. You’re definitely not the same Michael Coombs guy who uses hundreds of IPs and account names on here and type exactly like him (sarcasm).

    I am making factual statements and asking questions regarding eugenics, while you’ve shown poor logic with moved goalposts and demonstrated very poor reading comprehension. Again I ask if English is your first language?

    No, you’re blatantly trolling. I never moved a goalpost, instead you repeatedly shifted the debate from non-fatal genetic disorders to fatal, despite the fact there is seemingly universal agreement among doctors that it is acceptable to abort fetuses with fatal disorders – there’s no moral debate or controversy about this in the medical literature (unlike Down’s syndrome), especially not since most these fatal genetic disorders often result in miscarriage or stillbirth. Here’s a 1998 study showing every single Danish physician who filled in a questionnaire (n = 687) did not oppose aborting fetuses diagnosed with trisomy 13 until week 21:
    https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(199803)18:3%3C273::AID-PD256%3E3.0.CO;2-5 The same physicians however did not have unanimous agreement concerning non-fatal genetic disorders like Down’s syndrome and Turner syndrome because there exists a moral debate about aborting fetuses with non-fatal disorders (the eugenics and disability rights debate) and no disorders (the mainstream abortion debate).

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS