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
Marriage Gap Remains Substantially Larger Than Gender Gap
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

Single women were ridin’ with Biden by a nearly 2-to-1 margin:

The gap in net support between married women and unmarried women was a staggering 31 points. The difference between married and unmarried men was 20 points. Across both sexes, the marriage gap in net support was 28 points. The gender gap was a more modest 17 points.

Were it not for unmarried women, Donald Trump would’ve won reelection in a landslide. Shoulda put a ring on it, I guess.

 
Hide 121 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Marriage rates are much higher for whites than blacks (about double iirc). So, that might account for some of this.

    • Replies: @songbird
  2. Is Ridin’ with Biden a new take on Ridin’ Dirty, like in Ridin’ with a box of phony ballets in the boot?

    I think someone needs to research the voting habits of cat-ladies vs. non-cat-ladies. Actually, cats-only families vs. dog-families (without reference to cats, since dog-owners tend to be more tolerant than cats-only people) is a far more reliable indicator.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  3. Anon[295] • Disclaimer says:

    An interesting point missing from your chart is that while married women vote in alignment married men those same married men vote at the rate of married women. Single women are way more likely to vote than single men.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  4. Mark G. says:

    The political left is hostile not just to freedom and individual rights but also to the voluntarily entered into intermediary institutions that exist between the individual and the state. For example, they would not like members of a church starting a private religious school for their children. They want all children sent to government run schools where they can be fed a steady diet of government propaganda.

    The smallest voluntary community is the union of a man and a woman in marriage. The nuclear family is a bedrock of civilization. Liberals gain when the government can either break up or prevent marriages from forming. Unmarried women depend more on a large welfare safety net, government jobs and government affirmative action and will be more likely to vote for the leftist politicians that offer that. The type of liberal feminism that encourages women to focus on careers while being hostile to marriage and children also contributes to more unmarried women. We went from all women must focus on family to all women must have careers. Letting individual women make their own choice is not an option that has ever been considered.

  5. Realist says:

    Single women were ridin’ with Biden by a nearly 2-to-1 margin:

    That’s why they’re single.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  6. @Mark G.

    I’m sure most readers recall President Zero’s 2012 “Life of Julia”.

  7. songbird says:
    @jimmyriddle

    Race and age definitely impact the results. I doubt if it is really true for any other group than whites.

    I wonder what it would look like by race, and church married vs. married outside of church.

    • Replies: @Wency
  8. ** Waits for Rosie and Alden to enter the thread **

  9. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Married women are no doubt influenced by their husbands. When my wife married me she was pretty blue-pilled and got her news from her Facebook friends and People magazine. Now, thanks to my influence, she’s pretty red-pilled and enjoys watching Tucker and listening to E. Michael Jones podcasts. I suspect this pattern is common.

    • Disagree: Rosie
  10. Looking at the charts above does not convince me that unmarried women cost Trump reelection. That 62 to 36 divide is to be expected in that demographic.

    Dismissing vote fraud for the moment, I believe it was married folks who cost Trump, as his smallish lead there was less than expected. 56-42 & 52-47% margins were not enough for him to win, especially as fewer young people get married these days. Trump couldn’t even win unmarried men. I’ve read elsewhere that it was white males, whose pro-Trump vote was lower than in 2016, who were the cause of his defeat. Trump took them for granted and they got their revenge at the ballot box.

  11. Rosie says:
    @follyofwar

    . I’ve read elsewhere that it was white males, whose pro-Trump vote was lower than in 2016, who were the cause of his defeat. Trump took them for granted and they got their revenge at the ballot box.

    White men are not Trump’s base. The White working-class was Trump’s base. If I’m not mistaken, the education gap (college or not) was the largest gap in 2016. Let’s see.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  12. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Indeed:

    https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/2-12-2/

    How much of the WWC vote (men and women) did Trump lose this time around?

    Note that WWC (44) is a much larger share of the electorate than White men (33). There are many more non-college White women than college White men.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  13. @follyofwar

    Mr. Follyofwar says:

    I’ve read elsewhere that it was white males, whose pro-Trump vote was lower than in 2016, who were the cause of his defeat. Trump took them for granted and they got their revenge at the ballot box.

    I say:

    Five percent of WHITE CORE AMERICAN GENTLEMEN voters of a centrist or independent or moderate or middle of the road or regular or average or plain old White guys retaliated against the rancid Republican Party and fat ass baby boomer bullshit artist Trump and they voted for Biden.

    Some other guy on the internet says that both Trump and Biden got huge vote totals and Biden got almost 80 million votes and Trump got over 70 million votes but the VOTE SHARE is the thing and Trump lost voter share where he needed it the most: the Great Lakes states that are crucially important in the Electoral College and Trump lost the WHITE CORE AMERICAN GENTLEMEN voters that he needed.

    Trump touted the Fed-induced asset bubbles and Trump went Black and Gay and Mestizo and Amerindian and Asian and Asian Indian and left-handed Lithuanian lesbians and everything else except WHITE and Trump lost voter share among Whites.

    Here is my November 2 prediction that turned out to tell the tale of Trump’s loss:

    Between 3 and 5 percent of White gentleman voters will swing back to Biden and the Democrat Party or not vote at all or they’ll vote for the Libertarian Party.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/2020-presidential-election-predictions/#comment-4259373

    • Agree: GazaPlanet
  14. nebulafox says:
    @Mark G.

    Yes… but it is the unmarried, single men with little stake in the their own society-and little incentive to trust people in a position to change that-who tend to cause the real existential problems in history.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  15. nebulafox says:
    @follyofwar

    Thing about successful marriages is that they involve copious doses of respect, above anything else. A degree of ideological convergence is a natural result.

    As far as younger white men are concerned, it is a mix: Trump’s decision to default to standard GOP socioeconomic policy in office certainly did not help him in places like Michigan or Pennsylvania, but the reality is that younger white men aren’t all that far behind their women in liberal political views, especially ones with college degrees, to say nothing of the Antifa lumpenprole rank and file.

  16. @The Alarmist

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/canine-corner/201908/dog-ownership-predicts-voting-behavior-cats-do-not

    Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this data set comes when we break down the effect of pet ownership as a predictor of voting behavior and look at the influence of dog ownership versus ownership of cats. As you can see from this table, the states with the highest percentage of families who have dogs as their pets are massively biased toward voting Republican (averaging 90%). Conversely, those states with the smallest percentage of households owning dogs, are heavily inclined to vote for the Democratic candidate (averaging 90%). Once again statistical tests show that these results are highly significant and unlikely to be the result of chance.

    Now when we turn to the effect of cat ownership we find that it has virtually zero predictive value when it comes to national voting trends. For those states where the percentage of cat ownership is highest, the average election results were 52.5% in favor of the Republican candidate over the 4 elections tabulated. This clearly does not represent a meaningful bias in voting behavior. When we look at those states where the percentage of cat ownership is lowest we get a similar indication that there is no predictive value of feline ownership, with an average of 60% voting Democratic. Neither of these results is different enough from the expected chance effect of 50% to be statistically significant.

    The problem with this analysis is that dog ownership is affected by how much room you have – it’s a lot harder owning and exercising a dog in the city than out in the sticks. Even urban types who move into our rural village soon get a dog. Isn’t that called a “confounding variable” or something similar?

    I would lay odds that the cat-plus-children demographic in both urban and rural areas will be more Republican/conservative than the cat-no-children demographic, and that rural dog owners will also have cats (round our way they help keep the rats down).

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/dog-cat-owners-happier-pets-survey-a8860021.html

    People say dogs are a man’s best friend, and according to a new survey, those people are right.

    The General Social Survey (GSS), which is run by social research organisation NORC at the University of Chicago, found that 36 per cent of dog owners report being “very happy” compared to just 18 per cent of cat owners.

    Of course, having a dog might not be the only thing contributing to a person’s happiness levels.

    For example, the survey’s findings, as reported in The Washington Post, also revealed that dog owners are more likely to be married and own homes than cat owners, both of which are factors known to contribute towards life satisfaction.

    If it’s in GSS data, then our esteemed host has probably already posted on it. He has !

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/pets-and-politics

    “Dog owners are about 35% more likely to be conservative than to be liberal, while cat owners are marginally more likely to be liberal than to be conservative. Another stereotype empirically validated”

    Actually I’d love AE to break that down further, looking at pet owners with and without children. I wish to see the cat lady stereotype confirmed by SCIENCE!

    • Thanks: The Alarmist
  17. @YetAnotherAnon

    Incidentally people in the AE pets and politics thread noticed the reaction of Indian people to dogs near their kids (horror followed by rapid removal of child).

    In India there are wild street dogs everywhere. Rabies is still a thing. Had to move rooms one night because of their racket in the street outside. We were told in no uncertain terms not to touch/pet/approach them. No RSPCA or dog wardens there either.

    Avoiding dogs for an Indian is a reaction learned from youngest childhood, might even be instinctual after so many generations.

    • Replies: @Wency
  18. @nebulafox

    Mr. Nebulafox says:

    Yes… but it is the unmarried, single men with little stake in the their own society-and little incentive to trust people in a position to change that-who tend to cause the real existential problems in history.

    I say:

    Existential problems for the current order or the current controlling legal authority to borrow a phrase from ozone man Al Gore?

    Lawyers and merchants and shipping interests in New England and the Virginia planter class caused “existential problems” for the colonial authorities of the British Empire. The New Englanders and the Virginians were the ruling class colonists begrudgingly allowing British Empire agents to interfere in their affairs until they had had enough. The British Empire Ruling Class might have thought the colonists to be ungrateful after the French and Indian War and they would be right.

    The New Englanders and the Virginians thought they could get a better deal for themselves outside of the British Empire and they made it so.

    Plenty of unmarried, single men in colonial America, with little love for the British Empire, thought they could get a better deal for themselves.

    The White Core American male voter independents and moderates and centrists and regular White men who swung back to Biden in 2020 had seen enough of Adelson/Kushner poodle boy Trump and they bolted their temporary allegiance to the GOP.

    The current “society” in the American Empire is corrupt and rotting and it is wobbling at the edge of a Civil War II precipice and many young White Core American men and women would be better off if it were to be pushed over the edge. I say raise the federal funds rate to the normal level of 6 percent and this so-called “society” would implode like a rotting cinder block getting hit by a cannonball.

    White Core America will be the new ruling class that dislodges the current JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire from power.

    COHORT TALK

    MONETARY POLICY TALK

    DEMOGRAPHY TALK

    Tweets from 2015:

  19. Wency says:
    @songbird

    I could easily see marital status making a difference for Hispanics and East (not South) Asians. Not to mention, both of these groups are heavily intermarried with the white middle/working classes, which can easily pull them in that political direction. The lady who cuts my hair is Korean, married to a white mechanical engineer, attends a Southern Baptist church. I have little doubt that she voted for Trump.

  20. @YetAnotherAnon

    You probably know the old saw, “Dogs have owners, cats have servants.”

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  21. @Realist

    Single women were ridin’ with Biden by a nearly 2-to-1 margin:

    That’s why they’re single.

    Fortunately for them, Creepy Joe has to committed to nuzzle the necks of each and every one of them by 2024.

    • LOL: Realist
  22. @nebulafox

    As far as younger white men are concerned, it is a mix: Trump’s decision to default to standard GOP socioeconomic policy in office certainly did not help him in places like Michigan or Pennsylvania, but the reality is that younger white men aren’t all that far behind their women in liberal political views, especially ones with college degrees, to say nothing of the Antifa lumpenprole rank and file.

    The trouble with the Trump campaign is not knowing how to segment and target the markets appropriately rather than focusing on “key” groups they thought they could pick up by pandering, which they did, but to the exclusion of others.

    To get these young white dudes who stayed home or voted Dem this time around, maybe Team Trump can cook up a fast-moving, action-oriented online video game … Let’s call it Grand Theft Election 2024. There is a rich storyline of actions one could build into that, including a cage-match between President Harris and former-President Trump instead of debates. Naturally there would be pillage, violence, etc. in the streets.

  23. Wency says:
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Yep, I was one of those who posted a story. I’m still kind of curious about the differential development of dogs in places like India. Europeans once lived in similar depravity to the Indian village, but I don’t get the feeling that Europeans ever had quite the same cynophobic attitude.

    People sometimes say that fondness for dogs is a modern invention. And while I love my dog, I agree that moderns sometimes overdo it. But I also think this is sometimes overplayed: you have Argos in the Odyssey, you have the legend of Gelert. Europeans have had a place in their hearts for dogs for a very long time. I don’t know enough about Indian culture so perhaps I’m wrong, but I get the feeling there’s no Indian Gelert or Argos.

    I kind of wonder if the fact that the dog is a creature of the north means that the People of Ice (to borrow Derbyshire’s term) just have a greater affinity for it.

  24. Talha says:

    Great read and analysis on the fertility divide between the two sides:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  25. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mark G.

    The nuclear family is a bedrock of civilization.

    The nuclear family is a fairly modern invention. The “traditional” family in the West was not the nuclear family.

    The nuclear family becoming the norm coincided with the beginning of the decline of the West. I’m not arguing that it was the reason for the decline (correlation is not causation etc).

    I’m also not arguing against the nuclear family.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  26. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Great read and analysis on the fertility divide between the two sides

    How are they defining “conservative”? There’s a big difference between religious conservatives and Conservatism Inc types. It’s also worth pointing out that the vast majority of Americans who identify as conservatives are in fact right-wing liberals.

    Conservative on its own is a meaningless term.

    • Replies: @Talha
  27. @Anonymous

    I’ve had it pretty good with that. My wife, until very recently, was NO-pilled. She didn’t give a damn about politics, told me that directly, and I was perfectly fine with that. In fact, it would be a better country if women stayed the hell out of politics higher than school boards.

    However, my wife got so Trump-happy recently that she was even taking care of my Trump lawn signs (I wanted them down at night) when I was gone on a trip. Even a year ago, she would have told me that “It’s not my business. I’m not going out to move your signs!” It’s worked out pretty well … till this election theft. It’s nice being on the same page about it.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @Libre
  28. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Conservative on its own is a meaningless term.

    Good point. From the study it seems conservative is basically defined as “Republican” or “person who voted for Trump”. I don’t think religion was mentioned at all.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  29. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Good point. From the study it seems conservative is basically defined as “Republican” or “person who voted for Trump”. I don’t think religion was mentioned at all.

    I’m guessing (and it is only a guess) that those higher birth rates are almost entirely confined to religious conservatives.

    I’d also like to see some stats indicating how many of the children remain conservatives once they get to college. I’ve always suspected that what conservatives are actually doing when they have lots of children is breeding potential future liberals. Most conservatives have no idea that the only way to ensure that their children remain conservative is to keep them the hell away from college.

    Liberals don’t have many children but they have colleges to provide an endless supply of future liberals.

    • Agree: Libre
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @John Johnson
    , @Libre
  30. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    I want to disagree badly with this, but there is too much truth in it, so I will just…take…a…seat…

    Peace.

  31. @dfordoom

    I’d also like to see some stats indicating how many of the children remain conservatives once they get to college. I’ve always suspected that what conservatives are actually doing when they have lots of children is breeding potential future liberals.

    I’m afraid it could be worse.

    My concern is that they are inadvertently prepping them for liberalism.

    Christianity assumes a base level of equality (under God) and I believe liberals are able to supplant that belief with their own secular version.

    The liberal belief in equality is depicted as “the science” but quickly falls apart when questioned outside their controlled classrooms.

    Most conservatives have no idea that the only way to ensure that their children remain conservative is to keep them the hell away from college.

    I don’t think it has to be that drastic. I think once White people learn about a few of the known racial differences they become skeptical of liberalism. But most conservatives don’t even think those differences exist or matter enough to have any influence. So a lot of these students come from homes where they are told that race doesn’t exist and satan or something caused all the racial problems. Liberals mock their belief about satan and then teach them that White people are the problem cause the science says so.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  32. Mark G. says:
    @dfordoom

    The nuclear family is a fairly modern invention. The “traditional” family in the West was not the nuclear family.

    Until about a hundred years ago most people lived on farms or in small towns and spent their whole lives there. That meant people were more likely to know and spend time with extended family members like aunts, uncles and cousins than now where people move around more and live in large urban areas. So, in a certain sense, people were less close to their spouse then and the “family” was more often considered to be the larger group.

    At the same time, though, monogamy has been embedded among whites since they became Christian since Christianity supports monogamy. The rapid rise of progress over the last several hundred years happened in monogamous European countries rather than more polygamous societies in Africa and parts of Asia. I think a case can be made that when an average male has a better chance of getting a wife he is more likely to work hard enough to support one. Having large numbers of males working hard leads to greater societal wealth.

    I don’t think that people have become more civilized as marriage has declined over the last sixty years. Where it has declined the most, among inner city blacks, is where you have had a greater return to barbarity. Many younger people don’t know that at one time the black marriage rate was fairly high. There has been a return among blacks to the more polygamous type of society that was more common in Africa than Europe. This is made possible because black women no longer need to look to a male for financial support since there is government welfare available. The most desirable males often have large numbers of children while other men have few or none. When women aren’t looking for a male breadwinner, physical dominance becomes more important in female sexual selection. The emphasis on athletic ability, aggressive rap music, and the high levels of violence among black males may be an attempt to signal this dominance to black females.

    • Agree: Jay Fink
  33. dfordoom says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    I’d also like to see some stats indicating how many of the children remain conservatives once they get to college. I’ve always suspected that what conservatives are actually doing when they have lots of children is breeding potential future liberals.

    I’m afraid it could be worse.

    My concern is that they are inadvertently prepping them for liberalism.

    Christianity assumes a base level of equality (under God) and I believe liberals are able to supplant that belief with their own secular version.

    Yes, it could well be that children raised as Christians are more susceptible than other kids to the kinds of propaganda that they’re going to encounter at college.

    And mainstream Christianity has become very very liberal and very very Woke. Christians might have a lot of kids but most of them are actually raising those kids as Woke liberal Christians. Even Christians who claim to be conservative Christians are often disturbingly liberal and Woke. Christianity is inherently liberal and Woke.

    The exception is the Evangelicals, but their craziness can be worse than liberal craziness.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  34. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mark G.

    At the same time, though, monogamy has been embedded among whites since they became Christian since Christianity supports monogamy.

    Sure, but monogamy and the nuclear family are still very different things.

    The rapid rise of progress over the last several hundred years happened in monogamous European countries rather than more polygamous societies in Africa and parts of Asia.

    Sure, but the rise of the West does not necessarily have anything to do with monogamy.

    And the West has been very unstable and seems to be becoming more unstable. It’s possible (indeed probable) that the West’s rapid rise and its inherent instability are related and that the long term prospects for western civilisation may be very grim indeed.

    And polygyny is not incompatible with civilisation.

    I’m not knocking monogamy or the nuclear family but they’re not necessary preconditions for civilisation.

  35. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    OT

    [MORE]

    Americans since 1945 have enjoyed war for the same reason.

    Australian troops unlawfully killed Afghan civilians, report indicates
    The slayings were blamed on “a self-centered, warrior culture.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/australia-afghanistan-war-crimes-438028

    Pot, kettle, etc.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  36. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Australian troops unlawfully killed Afghan civilians, report indicates
    The slayings were blamed on “a self-centered, warrior culture.”

    The military will always attract thugs who enjoy killing. Australians committed plenty of war crimes in WW2 as well. A volunteer army makes things worse. And democracies are jut as likely to commit war crimes as dictatorships. Democracies are just more hypocritical about it.

    I’m deeply ashamed of Australia for allowing itself to get dragged into stupid wars that are none of our business. We used to get ourselves involved in Britain’s stupid colonial wars as well. We’re a cowardly despicable nation. We love being lapdogs to empires.

    It’s another example of why it’s sick to worship the military. It’s sick to worship any military. So much for the honourable profession of arms.

    And so much for white people being more civilised than other races.

    And it reinforces my point about the effects of war porn. Mass media has always glorified war.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  37. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Australian troops unlawfully killed Afghan civilians, report indicates
    The slayings were blamed on “a self-centered, warrior culture.”

    It would be nice to think that this would cause a revulsion of feeling in Australia and that we would finally repudiate the ANZUS alliance and the thoroughly evil Five Eyes alliance but it won’t happen. Australia is already gearing up to join the US in a war of aggression against China.

    It is embarrassing to be Australian sometimes.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Talha
  38. @dfordoom

    And polygyny is not incompatible with civilisation.

    I’m not knocking monogamy or the nuclear family but they’re not necessary preconditions for civilisation.

    They’re not and in fact the Mormons did fine for years with an extreme form of polygyny.

    Honestly a lot of these cat moms would probably prefer being a second wife to being single. History has shown that women will adapt quickly to polygamy as long as their offspring are cared for.

  39. @dfordoom

    Even Christians who claim to be conservative Christians are often disturbingly liberal and Woke. Christianity is inherently liberal and Woke.

    There are certainly denominations that have gone off the rails trying to adopt secular egalitarian beliefs. I don’t like the term ‘woke’ as it implies a higher level of consciousness.

    But the bigger problem is that Con Inc has instilled its own form of race denial in conservative voters.

    You could put conservative and liberal voters in the same room and they would agree that race is merely superficial and has nothing to do with culture. They would disagree on what causes racial inequality.

    I have long viewed Con Inc type hosts as an equal part of the problem. They lure conservatives into a false reality regarding race but leave them without solutions. This ultimately gives liberals the upper hand as their beliefs on race aren’t challenged and they take the argument on solutions.

    Con Inc type hosts believe they are doing the right thing by lying about race but it is a losing strategy in the long term. Their conservative noble lies in fact create a foundation for liberal lies. We wouldn’t be in this mess if conservatives in the 50s or 60s manned up and told the truth about race. But conservatives chose noble lies and that allowed liberalism to dominate. The weakness of the left is genetics.

  40. @Mark G.

    The rapid rise of progress over the last several hundred years happened in monogamous European countries rather than more polygamous societies in Africa and parts of Asia.

    This is common but false conservative assumption that Africa is filled with heathenistic Chaka Khan clans running around jungles and they only need a dash of Christianity and capitalism to fix their problems.

    Ethiopia had Christianity before Europe. In fact one of the oldest churches is in Ethiopia.

    I think a case can be made that when an average male has a better chance of getting a wife he is more likely to work hard enough to support one. Having large numbers of males working hard leads to greater societal wealth.

    Men have to work no matter what.

    Would polygamy cause social instability due to an excess of single men? Possibly but with the right people in charge it would be an improvement over the current mess we are in. We already have a system filled with cat moms and single men. Protestant Christianity and conservatism have FAILED to stop liberalism. The conservatism that developed around the time of Wilson is too passive and doesn’t go for the jugular. If anything it is establishment supporting weakness and is no match for a dedicated ideology like Marxism.

    (on welfare and sexual selection)
    When women aren’t looking for a male breadwinner, physical dominance becomes more important in female sexual selection.

    Yes they start selecting for temporary sexual partners over long term prospects.

    You are correct that the welfare system encourages this in Blacks and what have conservatives done about this? Nothing. They talk about marriage and nothing happens. The dysgenic welfare system continues on creating new aspiring rappers and athletes. If you talk about dysgenics on conservative websites you will get banned. So I don’t see why you have so much faith in conservative solutions when they won’t even allow this to be discussed.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  41. @dfordoom

    We’re a cowardly … nation.

    Gallipoli.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  42. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Pffffshshshsh Aussies, frickin’ amateurs…

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    • LOL: Yahya K.
  43. Yahya K. says:
    @iffen

    My country, right or wrong.

    1940s Germany:

    German iffen:

    “My country, right or wrong.

    Deutschland über Alles!

    Hail to the Fatherland!”

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  44. iffen says:
    @Yahya K.

    I’m pretty sure that I would have been a commie and would have had an early exit. If I was smart enough, then maybe I would have been able to see the writing on the wall and switched early enough to survive and make it into the Wehrmacht where I could have turned a blind eye like most of them did.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    , @Talha
  45. @Yahya K.

    Deutschland über Alles!

    Despite a ceaseless torrent of propaganda to the contrary, many normal Americans born after 1975 like that photograph. Samizdat is cool.

    Nazi Germany is not our enemy. We’re not Jewish.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Yahya K.
    , @nebulafox
  46. Yahya K. says:
    @iffen

    I’m pretty sure that I would have been a commie and would have had an early exit. If I was smart enough, then maybe I would have been able to see the writing on the wall and switched early enough to survive and make it into the Wehrmacht where I could have turned a blind eye like most of them did.

    I think you would enjoy this book:

    [MORE]

    • Thanks: iffen
  47. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    many normal Americans born after 1975 like that photograph.

    That’s an interesting statement. Are there stats on something like this?

    I recently watched Jojo Rabbit, which was pretty hilarious (that Hitler leap and dance – classic!):

    And seemed to be a fairly popular movie (not just among critics), I think it earned like 7 times its budget.

    Nazi Germany is not our enemy.

    Well Nazi Germany doesn’t exist any more (in large part thanks to the US)…one could also say that Attila the Hun is not our enemy.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  48. Yahya K. says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Nazi Germany is not our enemy.

    Dude, remind me again what all these American troops were doing in Europe all those years ago?

    You know, I think it might have had something to do with fighting Nazi Germany. But maybe my memory is failing me.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  49. nebulafox says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    >Nazi Germany is not our enemy. We’re not Jewish.

    Nazi Germany wasn’t interested in solely killing Jews.

    I get that Ron is a 1A fanatic, and I respect his willingness to let even nuts talk given the current political atmosphere in the USA. But Unz.com would still be a lot better off in appealing to normal people if pictures of Hitler addressing the Kroll upon declaring war weren’t sometimes on the front page.

    • Replies: @Talha
  50. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    I’ve been in the US since I was six and I’ve been around plenty of whites – had them as friends and neighbors and what not. I never got the impression that the Nazis were considered anything but crazy or plain bad characters. Was that all due to propaganda? Possibly – if so, it’s quite thorough.

    I remember in one house, my neighbor two doors over was a WW2 veteran who fought in Germany. Some Hindu family moved into the neighborhood and their kid got married so they decked out the house with decorations including the swastika for good fortune. Our neighbor, usually a very, very nice old guy, was about to go start a fight with them until someone told him this was a Hindu religious thing and they weren’t Nazi supporters.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  51. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    I don’t think they are prerequisites or necessary for happiness, and I certainly don’t think people should be discriminated against if they don’t happen to come from a nuclear family structure-least of all if they had no say over that, i.e, illegitimate children. But I do believe that stable, strong family units with two parents have resulted in better societal outcomes throughout history, that it should therefore be favored in terms of policy (part of the reason why I reject the GOP’s free market fundamentalism), and that this is tied in intimately with Western history. There were unique aspects to kinship and family structurse in Europe that interlopers and invaders adopted after a century or two on the continent: when the Vikings became the Normans, they eventually began to shed their previously polygamous, tribal family structure, for example, with William the Conqueror coming in the middle of this transformation. There’s a reason the rest of the world has increasingly opted to imitate the West, not the other way around.

    You *could* still have a polygamous society, of course: I spent time near Mormon fundamentalists during the height of the Jeffs controversy, and my father spent a lot of time in Saudi Arabia. But in the modern world, you are going to either resort to some pretty nasty internal mechanisms to deal with the inevitable leftover men, or find a way to dump them off on someone else-the Saudis do the latter, LDS did a mix of both.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @anon
  52. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    The Nazis… just, WHY? They were the biggest, most destructive losers in history. They achieved the absolute opposite of everything they set out to achieve. Communism brought to the heart of Europe. Independent Jewish state. Old Mitteleuropa, killed for good. Divided, impotent Germany, with tens of millions of people dead and lands that had been German for over 1000 years lost forever. Why the hell would you want to imitate that, from a purely practical perspective as much as a moral one?

    (Yeah, the swastikas are very commonly found in East Asian temples, too, as religious symbols thousands of years older than Nazism… and yes, this tends to be lost on the American MSM, who almost seem to want it to be 1944 still.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  53. anon[358] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    But in the modern world, you are going to either resort to some pretty nasty internal mechanisms to deal with the inevitable leftover men, or find a way to dump them off on someone else-the Saudis do the latter, LDS did a mix of both.

    The Fundamentalist LDS regularly pushes some of their boys out of the community, they often wind up on the streets of some city like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and so forth.

    Warren Jeffs nephew has a certain perspective on that.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  54. Talha says:

    They were the biggest losers in history. Why the hell would you want to imitate that, from a purely practical perspective as much as a moral one?

    I don’t know. In describing Hitler, I have – in the past – avoided calling him a “loser”, but a “failure”? Totally – 100%. If failure or success is judged by one’s initial stated goals and accomplishment (or lack thereof) as a metric.

    I remember once dfordoom said; “Hitler was an abject failure as a warlord.”

    To which I said; “I think we can all agree that if your career of warlordism eventually ends up with your capital city wasted and your women raped in the streets, then it may not be your thing and you need to rethink your career options…or blow out your brains.”

    The adorable scene-stealing Gorgi sums it up:

    Peace.

  55. @Yahya K.

    Dude, remind me again what all these American troops were doing in Europe all those years ago?

    Meddling. Killing Germans that never did anything to us. Unwisely fighting someone else’s war.

    Giving Stalin the biggest gift he ever got.

    • Replies: @Talha
  56. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It was…until Germany decided to declare war on the US. That wasn’t very bright. The US was just going to go to war with Imperial Japan until that happened.

    Peace.

  57. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    My country, right or wrong.

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” – Dr Samuel Johnson.

    • LOL: Yahya K.
    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    , @iffen
  58. @Mark G.

    [T]he high levels of violence among black males may be an attempt to signal this dominance to black females.

    In this context, a lot of the “senseless” violence in the black community makes perfect sense.

  59. @iffen

    If it’s wrong in too many ways, perhaps it ceases to be “my” country.

  60. Yahya K. says:
    @dfordoom

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” – Dr Samuel Johnson.

    “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” – Dr. Johnson

  61. @Talha

    FDR had been actively working to get the US involved in the European theater since 1940–Lend Lease was clearly a violation of neutrality and the US Navy had been engaging German U-boats for some time before the German declaration of war on December 11, 1941. I agree, however, that the German declaration was an error–Roosevelt could not have sold a Europe first strategy in the absence of the German declaration.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
  62. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    We’re a cowardly … nation.

    Gallipoli.

    Precisely. We invaded a country with which we had no quarrel and which had never done anything even remote unfriendly towards us. We did it to prove our loyalty to Britain, which had become involved in a senseless war which was not even any of their business. It was a war which was certainly none of Australia’s business. We behaved like pathetic grovelling lapdogs. It was a day of shame for Australia.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  63. Talha says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Yup. There is a huge difference between the US sneaking around and engaging submarines here and there versus mobilizing hundreds of thousands of troops to do beach landings, cranking out thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft to bomb the middle of Germany.

    Massive miscalculation.

    Peace.

  64. @Talha

    It was…until Germany decided to declare war on the US. That wasn’t very bright. The US was just going to go to war with Imperial Japan until that happened.

    The history is too complex to review in a blog comment, of course. I would refer to William L. Shirer (who disagrees with me), A. J. P. Taylor, Patrick J. Buchanan and David Irving.

    Shortly before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Charles Lindbergh summarized the situation pretty well. Later, the grieving mothers of American war dead would make it impossible to discuss the war objectively in the United States, but Lindbergh had had it more or less right from the first.

    Americans should have listened to Lindbergh. That would have saved those mothers their grief.

    [MORE]

    Regarding the German declaration of war, lots of things were happening all over the world at the time. Soviet Marshal Zhukov had launched his great winter counteroffensive from the gates of Moscow the day before Pearl Harbor. Former President Hoover (whose papers were eventually published) had privately blamed the Roosevelt administration for deliberately goading the Japanese to war, and in the Atlantic the U.S. Navy was even before Pearl Harbor already escorting vital anti-German war materiel. Hitler needed the Japanese to engage the Soviets (they didn’t, but he needed it), so he did not think himself free to withhold a German declaration of war under the circumstance.

    Hitler can be forgiven for judging U.S. interests to be too closely bound to British interests for Hitler to be able to separate the two.

    Like you, I did not fight in World War II, but I am irritated over being manipulated by and lied to about the Holocaust all my life. My opinion is that the German declaration of war was a piece of paper the United States could and should have ignored.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @nebulafox
  65. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    The Nazis… just, WHY? They were the biggest, most destructive losers in history.

    That’s why they’re so popular among some (and I emphasise the word some) elements of the dissident right. If you’re a bitter loser you’re naturally going to identify with the most spectacular bitter loser in history. And the dissident right unfortunately has its share of bitter losers.

    That also explains the willingness of some elements of the dissident right to defend the Confederacy. It also explains the idiots who hope for a new civil war.

    You don’t win by being a bitter loser. You win by offering a vision of the future that is more attractive than that offered by your opponents. Sadly the dissident right, all too often, offers a vision of the future that is less attractive than that offered by its opponents. If your opponents offer hate it’s not smart to offer as an alternative even worse hatreds.

    • Agree: nebulafox
    • Replies: @Talha
  66. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    My opinion is that the German declaration of war was a piece of paper the United States could and should have ignored.

    Details aside, and I have read some of the stuff men like Mr. Buchanan have written about it, it seems clear that the US population was hesitant to go to war, but its leadership was not.

    The German leadership walked right into that one – they have to take the blame for a disastrous miscalculation which their population paid for.

    It actually reminds me a bit about how the Shah of Khwarezm made the disastrous error of how he dealt with the Mongol envoys. The Mongols were fairly happily keeping busy with their East Asian conquests until then. There are some diplomatic mistakes you get to make only once; you can lose your entire empire or nation over them.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  67. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    The thing that stands out to me about Gallipoli was how grossly the Entente underestimated the Turks on their own soil, TBH. That wasn’t on the Australians. As for involvement in the first place, yeah, sure, but that’s overshadowed by America’s decision to intervene, pushed along by a mixture of British propaganda and German diplomatic incompetence. That was the most politically fateful choice of the 20th Century… and probably not for the better.

    (To give Churchill his due, he recognized how badly he messed up and volunteered to lead a front line company in France as penance. One wonders how different US foreign policy would be if American politicos and bureaucrats were forced to do the same after destabilizing this or that government.)

    • Replies: @Talha
  68. nebulafox says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The Japanese were never going to do that after the calamity at Khalkhin Ghol. They’d already signed their own non-aggression pact with Moscow months before Barbarossa.

    Contrary to public image, Hitler did not underestimate American industrial might at all, and knew that he could no longer win the war in the way he wanted by November 1941. He figured he could launch a Frederick the Great-esque strategy to break up the coalition arrayed against him. The mistake he made (besides the fateful gross underestimation of the USSR in 1941, something he shared entirely with his generals and was quicker to realize than them, self-serving rememberances by Manstein and Co. after the war aside), in my opinion, was failing to accept that the only realistic peace he could possibly make going forward was going to be with the Soviet Union, not the Western powers, as well as underestimating how determined the world was to see him and the Third Reich gone until it was too late.

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

    As for involvement in the first place, yeah, sure

    They weren’t the worst of it.

    The Turks are getting pretty good with the quality of their cinematic productions. This dramatizes the Siege of Kut in Iraq in WW1 (at least the first round where the British garrison was routed):

    But one of the prominent comments says it all with:
    “When you, an Indian/Sikh, are fighting Ottomans for the British because Germany invaded Belgium after declaring war on Russia and France because a Serbian shot an Austrian in Bosnia.”

    Peace.

  70. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    You win by offering a vision of the future that is more attractive than that offered by your opponents.


    Incidentally, again details aside, this is why Daesh holds the record for shortest lived caliphate ever.
    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  71. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    My country, right or wrong.

    That won’t work because it ignores the fact that there are all kinds of loyalties, all of which are important, and they often conflict.

    Which is more important, loyalty to your country or loyalty to your ideals?

    What about loyalty to family? Should you denounce family members for disloyalty to their country? Isn’t loyalty to your wife (to whom you have made sacred vows) or your child more important than loyalty to a country?

    What if there’s a conflict between loyalty to your country and loyalty to your religious beliefs?

    What if you’re put in a situation where loyalty to your country means betraying your most deeply held beliefs, betraying your husband or betraying your religion? And what do you do in such a situation if you believe that in a particular case your country happens to be wrong and your religion right?

    There are also situations in which a person might believe that loyalty to his country and loyalty to his government are incompatible.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Talha
  72. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Hunter Wallace is getting it.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/11/19/2020-autopsy-class/

    White women declined from 37% of the electorate to 32%.

    Absolutely predictable. Liberal women could see the Trump as Hitler propaganda was nonsense, and populist women were demoralized by his broken promises.

    It appears from these data that any gain for Trump among White women came from the lack of third party candidates rather than the Democrats. More White women voted for biden than Clinton (by a hair).

  73. Rosie says:
    @John Johnson

    (on welfare and sexual selection)
    When women aren’t looking for a male breadwinner, physical dominance becomes more important in female sexual selection.

    Good grief. Sexual attraction is not that calculated nor does it change that quickly.

    Out-of-wedlock births are the result of the end of the shotgun marriage and the deindustrialization of the economy.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Jay Fink
  74. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Out-of-wedlock births are the result of the end of the shotgun marriage and the deindustrialization of the economy.

    I’m not sure I really want to go back to the shotgun marriage era.

    Out-of-wedlock births are also partly the result of women being told that they don’t need marriage in order to have kids. Then they have kids and realise they should have got married. There’s very little excuse for “unplanned pregnancies” – there are lots of different readily available methods of contraception. So a large proportion of “unplanned pregnancies” are not unplanned at all. It’s just women thinking that they can have kids without getting married.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @nebulafox
  75. Jay Fink says:
    @Rosie

    When survival of the child was a factor, women had to sacrifice a bit on sexual attraction.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  76. @dfordoom

    My country, right or wrong.

    That won’t work because it ignores the fact that there are all kinds of loyalties, all of which are important, and they often conflict….

    True.

    I had assumed that @iffen meant loyalty to one’s own country rather than to someone else’s country. One cannot get @iffen and me to prefer another country just because ours might be objectively wrong.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  77. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    What if you think part of your country is actually somewhere else??!!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  78. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    What if you think part of your country is actually somewhere else??!!

    I’d love to know which bits of other countries these people should belong to them. I assume the Brits are thinking about Ireland, or do they think the British Crown should have another go at pressing its claim to the throne of France? And what about the Spanish? Are they secretly planning a second Armada?

    And the French, after bleeding themselves dry in so many futile wars, do a third of them still cherish dreams of spilling more blood for the sake of La Gloire?

    • Replies: @Talha
  79. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I had assumed that @iffen meant loyalty to one’s own country rather than to someone else’s country. One cannot get @iffen and me to prefer another country just because ours might be objectively wrong.

    It’s not really a question of preferring another country. One can in most ways prefer one’s own country and still find certain things to be embarrassed about in one’s own country. Most countries have something to be embarrassed about.

    I despise Australians for grovelling first to the British and then to the Americans but that’s largely because I have a deeply pessimistic view of human nature. I despise Australians for grovelling and I despise the US for expecting other countries to grovel to them. And I despise the British for being bullies who seamlessly transformed themselves into grovellers.

    But while I despise certain things about my own country I can see other things to admire. And while I despise other countries for certain things I can find things to admire those countries for as well.
    On the whole Australia is probably the best country on Earth. I just wish we’d learn to stop grovelling to people who despise us.

    Of course one could argue that you can’t blame ordinary people for the ghastly foreign policies pursued by their governments, but I don’t quite buy that. Governments pursue appalling foreign policies because those policies are popular.

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

    The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page -> Patriotism -> Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    Boswell tells us that Samuel Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775. He doesn’t provide any context for how the remark arose, so we don’t really know for sure what was on Johnson’s mind at the time.

    However, Boswell assures us that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, only false patriotism.

    For more of Samuel Johnson’s thoughts on patriotism in general, go to the patriotism page.

    For a discussion on a possible false patriot who Johnson might have been thinking of, see this discussion.

    https://www.samueljohnson.com/refuge.html

  81. Rosie says:
    @Jay Fink

    When survival of the child was a factor, women had to sacrifice a bit on sexual attraction.

    Your evidence for this?

    Women don’t sacrifice on sexual attraction. Rather, their sexual attraction is shaped by natural selection.

  82. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Then they have kids and realise they should have got married. There’s very little excuse for “unplanned pregnancies” – there are lots of different readily available methods of contraception. So a large proportion of “unplanned pregnancies” are not unplanned at all. It’s just women thinking that they can have kids without getting married.

    Disagree. People only use contraceptives when they’re planning on having sex. People often wind up having unplanned sex, which results in unplanned pregnancies.

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

    Governments pursue appalling foreign policies because those policies are popular.

    Is that also why they let in infinity immigrants? I was under the impression that mass immigration was unpopular.

    You’re having an off day, Doom.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @dfordoom
  84. @Anonymous

    When my wife married me she was pretty blue-pilled and got her news from her Facebook friends and People magazine.

    Uh, huh.

  85. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Yeah, I thought that was kind of figured out in WW2? Guess not. I’d love to see details as well.

    Peace.

  86. @Rosie

    I was under the impression that mass immigration was unpopular.

    It is … with you and me.

    Immigration has been my top voting issue since about 2006 (I was slow catching on, unfortunately). However, to my intense frustration, I notice that immigration is the top voting issue of few others around me.

    It is the fatal flaw of the Indo-European race: we’re not congenitally ethnocentric enough.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  87. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It is … with you and me.

    And with almost everyone all over the world.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/12/many-worldwide-oppose-more-migration-both-into-and-out-of-their-countries

    Views about what is the most important issue fluctuate wildly, but the basic unpopularity of it remains.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/259103/new-high-say-immigration-important-problem.aspx

  88. @Talha

    And seemed to be a fairly popular movie (not just among critics), I think it earned like 7 times its budget.

    Anti-Nazism is just anti-whitism at this point.

    When the sequel mocks David Ben-Gurion rather than Adolf Hitler, I will watch.

    [MORE]

    Jews are masters of misdirection and deflection. American anti-Semites may be growing in number and in quality but remain relatively few. However, tabletop games like Axis & Allies and video games (I’m not abreast of the latest titles) that afford white boys and white young men a chance to pose as Nazis have remained enduringly popular during the past 30 years. Despite endlessly unflattering Jewish movie caricatures of Nazis like the caricature you have linked, I never see any white males mocking Nazis in ordinary private life any more. (As late as the 1970s, American boys used to mock Nazis because the boys’ fathers, uncles and grandfathers had, as the boys saw it, gallantly overcome the Nazis during the War; but today’s boys’ gallant fathers, uncles and grandfathers are no longer World War II veterans.)

    The anti-Nazi propaganda is gradually faltering. And as I said, any longer, it’s not even really anti-Nazi. It’s just anti-white.

    When whites at large finally figure out that they have been lied to about the Holocaust, there will be hell to pay.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Talha
  89. Talha says:

    Completely unrelated and completely off-topic…

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    …but, I know I talk about many ills of modernity, but sometimes…you gotta admit when it gets something just right:

  90. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    There were a *lot* of abusive or otherwise toxic marriages that resulted in that time period-and the reason divorce rates skyrocketed in the 1970s was a lot of those marriages were finally exploding. This is something people in the “bring back the 50s” crowd tend to ignore. The sexual revolution happened, and it is not going to be reversed. Facing that honest reality-as well as the realities that the people on the other side of the spectrum don’t want to embrace-is the route to getting better results.

    Bearing that in mind, being a single parent is not only a tough job, it permanently cripples your chances at finding a partner: because let’s be honest, most guys with options are not going to opt for raising another man’s kids. There’s a reason why illegitimate births tend to be concentrated in lower socioeconomic part of the socioeconomic spectrum. In upper-middle class America, marriage is not just still going strong, it’s now less likely to end in divorce than it was 30 years ago, due to this self-selection.

    (Not directly related, but I have noticed a recent aggressive campaign aimed at encouraging 30-something to settle and get married: but the campaign is strictly aimed toward the kind of men who have options and thus aren’t likely to be having this kind of problem. The discussion around men who should realistically be the target of such a campaign is too poisonous for anybody to touch after the last decade.)

  91. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    They were basically the Islamist version of the Khmer Rouge, and encountered the same results, with Vietnam playing the Shi’ite/Iranian role in this analogy.

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

    Basically. They are part of an older extremist strain that raises its ugly head every few centuries – the Khawarij.

    They followed the Khawarij play book to the letter.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    This is how the medieval Shafi’i exegete, Imam Ibn Kathir (ra), described the Khawarij:
    “If they ever gained strength, they would surely corrupt the whole of the Earth, Iraq and Shaam [Syria] – they would not leave a baby, male or female, neither a man or a woman, because as far as they are concerned the people have caused corruption, a corruption that cannot be rectified except by mass killing.”

    Interesting the places he mentions, no?

    Also, I’m seeing more of this conversation happening internally…it’s about time:

    • Replies: @anon
  93. anon[251] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    They are part of the never ending cycle of Islam. Over and over again across the last 1300 or so years, some Islamic young men have looked at the Koran, Sunnah and Fiqh, then compared the ideal with what’s around them, and then have decided to start purifying. They know what ought to be, and what ‘is” doesn’t meet the standard. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. When they succeed, they strive to carry out every little detail, from the mutilations to the capture of slaves, etc. The inhumanity of Daesh comes from the inhumanity of the Koran – it is inhumane and inhuman. You notice yourself the problem that Daesh was to Koranic scholars – because Daesh could and did quote sura and verse.

    Such inhumanity tends to fail, of course, because people do not want to live that way.

    Plus even when the young men succeed, because of the inhumanity of the system they must attempt to enforce, the seeds of its failure are already planted. Because people grow weary of the never ending purity spiral, and some in time come to want to temper the inhumanity of Islam with common sense. Eventually much of the violence, blood and slavery is washed out, of course in the process many stricter Islamic requirements are lost. But the admittedly corrupt regime is more human, and more humane.

    Then younger men reading the Koran look around them, see un-Islamic corruption, and decide to start to purify…

    It is inherent in the structure of Islam. It’s a feature, not a bug. History shows this clearly.

    • Replies: @Talha
  94. Talha says:
    @anon

    because Daesh could and did quote sura and verse.

    Irrelevant. They broke with the consensus of the Ummah on multiple matters. I’ve seen people quote Qur’an verses to show how we should support transgenderism because the Qur’an talks about defending the oppressed.

    It is inherent in the structure of Islam. It’s a feature, not a bug. History shows this clearly.

    No, they are called extremists for a reason. There is no reason to assume young, zealous men understand the religion better than men who have studied the tradition for 40-50 years of their lives and every reason to assume otherwise.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Yahya K.
  95. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    And as I said, any longer, it’s not even really anti-Nazi. It’s just anti-white.

    I don’t know about this. In places like Poland and Russia where it’s full of whites, I’ve never gotten the impression they went soft on the Nazis.

    Saying anti-Nazi content is anti-white seems to be a reverse of the anti-Israel content is anti-Jew – I don’t know if I buy that.

    I’m not anti-white, but I enjoy movies making fun of Nazis or Communists or whatever. Most often, the person fighting the Nazis is also a white guy.

    Peace.

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

    Saying anti-Nazi content is anti-white seems to be a reverse of the anti-Israel content is anti-Jew – I don’t know if I buy that.

    I see. Sensible.

    Most often, the person fighting the Nazis is also a white guy.

    That is so.

    Have you seen the film Schindler’s List? If so, what do you make of it?

    You need not even answer the question unless you wish to, but meanwhile consider the film’s intended audience. The film was masterful. It had a carefully calibrated effect.

    • Replies: @Talha
  97. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Have you seen the film Schindler’s List?

    I have not and honestly don’t plan to. Not because I am averse to the material, just because I don’t have much interest in it.

    I was talking more along the lines of stuff like Indiana Jones to video games of my youth:

    The protagonist is William “B.J.” Blazkowicz, an American spy of Polish descent, and the game follows his efforts to destroy the Nazi regime.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D

    I watched Das Boot many years ago and thought it was a great film, so I’m not unsympathetic to the tale of the average German man of the time. In fact, as I have mentioned before, my in laws (Swedes) have an aversion to Germans in general – my mother in law has mentioned the years of her youth when her father was out on patrol in the Swedish navy due to WW2 – whereas I’m sometimes cheering on Germans in sporting events just to annoy my wife.

    As an immigrant to the US from Pakistan, I have quite a distanced view of that entire conflict as; “Oh boy, there go those whacky Europeans again with one of their continent-wide wars they can’t seem to get enough of”.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  98. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Governments pursue appalling foreign policies because those policies are popular.

    Is that also why they let in infinity immigrants? I was under the impression that mass immigration was unpopular.

    Ordinary people are not directly responsible for the reprehensible and destructive policies pursued by their government but they are indirectly responsible. They are indirectly responsible because they do nothing effective to oppose such policies. If people didn’t want immigration why is it that they did nothing about it? If Americans actually disliked their government’s aggressive imperialist foreign policy why did they do nothing about it?

    The anti-war protests of the Vietnam era showed that citizens can have an impact if they’re prepared to make the effort. If people really were worried about immigration there are things that can be done to put pressure on governments. But people don’t really care very much. Which means they end up with governments pursuing destructive policies.

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

    Disagree. People only use contraceptives when they’re planning on having sex. People often wind up having unplanned sex, which results in unplanned pregnancies.

    In which case it’s their own fault. If there’s the slightest chance you’re going to have sex and you don’t want to get pregnant, use contraception.

    But I admit that it’s difficult to do much about people who practise self-deception (telling themselves they’re not going to have sex tonight when in reality that’s probably exactly what they’re going to do).

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

    In which case it’s their own fault.

    Yes, people f*** up. Where does that leave us?

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

    But people don’t really care very much.

    Doom, you’re moving the goal posts. First you said it was popular, now you’re saying it’s unpopular but people are apathetic.

    That’s true, but to be fair, immigration has been a stealth operation from the beginning., with the media covering up the scale of the problem.

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

    In which case it’s their own fault.

    Yes, people f*** up. Where does that leave us?

    Accepting that people’s motivations are confused and often driven by self-deception does help. There’s no point in being angry with people for being human.

    The difficult problem is deciding to what extent society and/or the government should protect people from the consequences of their own folly. I think that up to a point people should be protected – one mistake should not be allowed to destroy someone’s life. But sometimes it doesn’t work. With gamblers for instance – I don’t think there’s any way to prevent gamblers from destroying themselves.

    In the case of unplanned pregnancies perhaps we just don’t know enough. It’s inexplicable to me that someone could get themselves pregnant when they don’t want to. But obviously they do. It would help to know exactly how they manage to do so in a society in which contraceptives are so freely available.

    People do f*** up and maybe we just can’t stop them from doing so.

  103. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    But people don’t really care very much.

    Doom, you’re moving the goal posts. First you said it was popular, now you’re saying it’s unpopular but people are apathetic.

    I have to admit that I honestly don’t understand people. They appear to be anti-immigration but they won’t vote for anti-immigration parties (in Australia the only party that is anti-immigration gets about 5% of the vote even though most Australians seem to be anti-immigration).

    People’s views on many issues are just not reflected in the way they vote. People will vote for parties even though they disagree with the policies those parties pursue.

    I don’t honestly know if people just don’t care, or they’re stupid, or they don’t understand the issues, or what the hell it is that motivates the way they vote. I do understand that people are deeply irrational but it still perplexes me.

    People will say they’re against stupid pointless wars and then vote for warmongers.

    I suspect that most people don’t understand their own motivations.

    I’m not convinced that democracy can ever be made to work. People are just too deeply irrational.

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

    I have to admit that I honestly don’t understand people. They appear to be anti-immigration but they won’t vote for anti-immigration parties (in Australia the only party that is anti-immigration gets about 5% of the vote even though most Australians seem to be anti-immigration).

    The elites are constantly putting the people into positions where they have only bad options. I would assume that the reason more people don’t vote for the anti-immigration party is because it is underfunded and perceived as having no chance to actually win, so you get negative voting against the party perceived as the worst.

    Of course, this is completely setting aside the question of media manipulation and guilt mongering.

    In the case of unplanned pregnancies perhaps we just don’t know enough. It’s inexplicable to me that someone could get themselves pregnant when they don’t want to.

    One thing you have to keep in mind is that contraceptives have side effects. I only used chemical birth control once before I had my kids. I got the depo-provera shot, which is only supposed to last three months, and I was sterile for a year and a half. That shot can cause weight gain and bone density problems and really can’t be used for an extended period of time. There are horror stories of IUDs causing infertility, etc. These are great when you’ve already had kids, but aren’t ready to get your tubes tied. And a pill every day? Get real. That’s almost certain to result in failures.

    Bottom-line: The more foolproof the method, the more invasive, expensive, and difficult to reverse.

  105. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    One thing you have to keep in mind is that contraceptives have side effects.

    If you don’t want to use contraceptives and you don’t want to get pregnant then having sex is a bad idea. There are many different contraceptive options. If you want to have sex without getting pregnant you just have to choose the least worst contraceptive option, or choose abstinence. It’s unfortunate but those are the only realistic choices.

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

    The elites are constantly putting the people into positions where they have only bad options. I would assume that the reason more people don’t vote for the anti-immigration party is because it is underfunded and perceived as having no chance to actually win, so you get negative voting against the party perceived as the worst.

    That’s not the case in Australia. One Nation is a very high-profile party. They can and do win Senate seats and with a couple of extra Senate seats they would control the balance of power in the Senate and would have real political power. But people still don’t vote for them.

    I agree that the elites are partly to blame but I don’t think you can let ordinary voters off the hook. People vote irrationally.

    It’s not just Australia. Anti-immigration parties have performed very disappointingly everywhere, even in countries where those parties have high public profiles and even in countries where minor parties have immense potential power. Sweden being an example.

    It appears that there really aren’t many people for whom immigration is a major issue.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  107. @Rosie

    The elites are constantly putting the people into positions where they have only bad options. I would assume that the reason more people don’t vote for the anti-immigration party is because it is underfunded and perceived as having no chance to actually win, so you get negative voting against the party perceived as the worst.

    They don’t have a chance to actually win. Sometimes, one should vote for them anyway.

    The depo-provera shot …

    … is evil. For years, medicine misled women about its effects.

    … which is only supposed to last three months, and I was sterile for a year and a half. That shot can cause weight gain and bone density problems and really can’t be used for an extended period of time.

    I can report the identical experience in my marriage, regrettably.

    I should have known better, on principle; but it did not help that we were not told the truth.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  108. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I should have known better, on principle; but it did not help that we were not told the truth.

    Not at all. You should be able to trust what you are told by medical professionals. Anyway, as ridiculous as it seems, married should use a barrier method if they will want to conceive in the near future. There is just no telling how a particular woman will be affected by these hormonal methods.

  109. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    If you don’t want to use contraceptives and you don’t want to get pregnant then having sex is a bad idea. There are many different contraceptive options. If you want to have sex without getting pregnant you just have to choose the least worst contraceptive option, or choose abstinence. It’s unfortunate but those are the only realistic choices.

    I get that and I don’t disagree. I’m just trying to help clarify why a person might have an unplanned pregnancy. If you don’t have a boyfriend, there’s really no reason for you to be on any of these drugs. Then you get one, and you start thinking about it, but then before you decide what you’re going to do, you get caught up in the moment and there you are…

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

    If you don’t have a boyfriend, there’s really no reason for you to be on any of these drugs. Then you get one, and you start thinking about it, but then before you decide what you’re going to do, you get caught up in the moment and there you are…

    True. I agree with you. But if you break up with your boyfriend you have to consider that you might get another one so unless you’ve decided to enter a nunnery it’s a good idea to take precautions. But I do realise that in the real world people don’t think that far ahead.

    So you have to strike a balance between encouraging people to be more responsible while accepting that some people won’t be responsible.

    Once an unplanned pregnancy happens I have no idea what is the best thing to do. I don’t approve of abortion and I’m not overly keen on the shotgun marriage idea. Not jumping into bed with someone until you’re sure you actually like the person is a good plan but I know that that train left the station long ago.

    Some problems don’t have solutions. Or at least you have to try to choose the least worst solution.

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

    Some problems don’t have solutions. Or at least you have to try to choose the least worst solution.

    A conservative may be said, by definition, to be a person who takes your advice to heart.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  112. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Some problems don’t have solutions. Or at least you have to try to choose the least worst solution.

    A conservative may be said, by definition, to be a person who takes your advice to heart.

    Sort of, although I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatist. I’m no conservative.

  113. Libre says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I’ve found nonpoliticals to be the best, mostly because there are so many more of them than conservative women. However i wouldn’t even grant them school boards, especially not school boards.

  114. Libre says:
    @dfordoom

    It never fails to amaze me that conservatives complain about colleges and blindly send their daughters (and sons) to it. They do it maybe in the hopes of her meeting a spouse but that doesn’t even happen now. Its probably best she just works in retail or restaurant until she finds the right guy to swoop her away.

    Meanwhile, I think we’re somewhat saved by liberals who go to college and somehow become conservative. This commenter included, altho I understand my dad was originally a republican, but became a Democrat around my birth.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  115. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Libre

    It never fails to amaze me that conservatives complain about colleges and blindly send their daughters (and sons) to it. They do it maybe in the hopes of her meeting a spouse but that doesn’t even happen now. Its probably best she just works in retail or restaurant until she finds the right guy to swoop her away.

    I agree.

    And in many cases they’d be better off encouraging their sons to learn a trade.

  116. True, Trump did better in the rural areas because housing is cheaper than urban or suburban areas. Unless you have rich old republicans from Newport Beach that happen to like tax cuts most of those that vote Republican are married with kids. In fact Republicans are doing worst now in suburbs since housing prices are through the roots not just in over priced California but now in Texas, Arizona, the upper midwest, or Georgia, burb housing isn’t as cheap as it was in the past.

  117. @nebulafox

    Well, part of Michigan problem is the auto labor unions prevent foreign automakers like Toyota or BMW to locate there. Trump won South Carolina which has a higher percentage of the population that works in manufacturing than PA. South Carolina gets the foreign auto companies. Also, Trump won Alabama over 20 percent which also getsforeign auto companies to come there. Whites in the midwest on average are less conservative than those in the south to begin with.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS