RSS
From the Washington Examiner opinion page:
Democrats and Republicans aren’t divided by gender, they’re divided by marriage
by Conn Carroll, Commentary Editor
July 17, 2023 07:56 PM… In 2022 House races, men nationally favored the GOP by 14 points (56% Republican to 42% Democrat), while women favored Democrats by 8 points (53% Democrat to 45% Republican).
But drill a little deeper, and the picture becomes a little more complicated.
Adding marital status to the mix, the GOP advantage among married men shoots up to 20 points (59% Republican to 39% Democrat) and shrinks among unmarried men to just 7 points (52% Republican to 45% Democrat).
But what most people don’t know, including everyone who works at Politico apparently, is that among married women, Republicans still maintain a sizable 14-point advantage (56% Republican to 42% Democrat).
But if Republicans are winning married men by 20 points, married women by 14 points, and unmarried men by 7 points, then who is keeping Democrats competitive?
Single women are single-handedly saving the Democratic Party. By a 37-point margin (68% to 31%), single women overwhelmingly pulled the lever for Democrats.
This is why when President Barack Obama ran for reelection, his agenda was promoted through a slideshow that followed the “Life of Julia,” documenting how Democratic programs protect and provide for her throughout her life, without a father or husband ever in the picture.
It’s why President Joe Biden followed suit with his own Linda slideshow, depicting, again, how Democratic programs protect and provide for women throughout their lives, without a father or husband ever in sight.
As I started arguing 18 years ago, because it’s good for the GOP when men and women marry, shouldn’t the GOP push for policies that make marriage more feasible?
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Related:
“A study on America’s demographic-national crisis — Early-2020s birth-data by race; and developments in the White birth-share in the USA, 1920s to 2020s” (July 2023).
Including sections discussing the Marriage Gap and related topics (“Marriage and births: Stabilization in ‘wedlock births’ and glimpses of a new class system” and “Something ideological has happened with White-Western women”).
The fertile white population has collapsed. The median age for Whites in America is 47….most white females are no longer fertile. In 1990 there were 61 million white females under the age of 40 and today there are just 43 million whites females under the age of 40. The Fertile white population has declined by 3o% since 1990.
The declining number of white births will continue, even if fertility rates stop declining because we have fewer and fewer fertile whites females each year. Today we have 25 million white females between the ages of 19 to 39 , but in 20 years there will be just 19 million white females aged 19-39. This fact cannot be changed unless we can convince a few million Whites from Europe to sneak across our border in the next decade. All the fertile white women we will have in 2040 have already been born…so we know the number of fertile white women will be 20% lower in 2040 than today. The decline in the white population is accelerating, not much can change this now.Replies: @Anon
One of the problems is the problems is that most people simply are not naturally very mathy and do not naturally "see" the devastating effect of "trends". If you live in carefully curated neighborhood then you can pretend a good bit of what has happened has not happened, and the part you can see is just a some "diversity" spicing which "America which will integrate as it always has" or "is great and makes us stronger!" But mainly people amble along in their frog lives not realizing that the water is getting hotter and hotter ... and evil people have a flame under the pot.
And the crisis--the destruction of the American nation--is not "out there" somewhere in the future. It is already mostly complete and is being accelerated to a conclusion.
Here's the 2022 birth data:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr028.pdf
The racial/ethnic table is on page 6, but in brief:
total births -- 3.6m
moms white - 50%, "Hispanic" - 25%, black - 14%, Asian - 6%, mixed - 4%, native+PI - 1%.
And this is the ceiling. This is about is good as the future could be without "extraordinary measures".
But immigration continues apace. Legal--a million plus. And the "Biden" Administrations open border is waving in an extra 2 millionish a year--who are mostly fertile age young people and alone overwhelm white births.
Realistically, immigration would have to stop right now, for America to simply have Brazil+ demographics. And if the border is held open and Africans grabs a hold ....
Only an outbreak of intense sanity--stopping the immigration madness and restoring traditional notions of marriage and family prizing fertility and explicit eugenic fertility promotion--could turn things around and brighten up the future.Replies: @anonymous, @Inspector Grant
I propose all single liberal women volunteer to teach a year or two in Haiti before coming back to America, I think I saw a recent news article on that…
As a long-time reader I can vouch you’ve been raising this important point since basically forever (probably your most important observation, though, and made at the time apropos of nothing- like Jimmy Page uncorking some hauntingly beautiful guitar line c. 1975 @ The Forum and then promptly forgetting it the next morning even though pretty much every other band on the planet would kill to have it in its oeuvre- was how daggum conformist “these kids”- i.e. Millienials, Zoomers, and so forth- seemed to be compared to us Boomers and Xers. Said observation was made well in advance of the Great Awokening/BLM 1.0 and thus many years before said kids became the conformist Cancel Culture NPC tools we so know and love today).
In any case, “12 days to flatten the curve, bro” has now indubitably proven itself the greatest hit to housing affordability (and thus family formation) of my or your lifetimes. We took away the livelihoods of large swaths of our population for 1 1/2 years, funneled trillions of $’s to them so they wouldn’t die on the street, and then watched as this huge injection of liquidity was inevitably vacuumed up the the 1% and feed into various asset bubbles, including but not limited to the one in real estate. 40% price increase from 2020-2022 in most US housing markets! In my area, like most, there is little activity this year as a Mexican stand-off has ensued between sellers unwilling to lower their prices and buyers unable to absorb the 40% spike WITH MORTGAGES NOW @ 7.5% (can’t tell you how many houses I’ve seen go pending, then go back on the market 2 weeks later, likely as a result of financing falling through). Not sure if a housing crash is in the works, but best case is that 100’s of 1000’s of young couples have a bumpy road to that house with a white picket fence and 2 kids in the yard as new inventory, gradual wage gains, and relatively flat housing prices over the next several years possibly (POSSIBLY) undo some of the damage done to affordable family formation in 2020.
Boomers have succeeded in economically and socially stunting two younger cohorts, with two engineered financial crises. The 31 trillion of boomer debt will continue this trend.
Boomers largely accepted the framework that whites and men were uniquely privileged and responsible for "inequities" WRT race and gender.... And so routinely trashed previous generations and eras of history (*relative to previous generations, Boomers bought into this stuff). But Boomers also did a lot hedonistic stuff like partying and other debased things, and so generally have had low standards for what qualifies as "rude" or "inappropriate" things to say or do... As one can tell by movie scripts getting 5,000X more vulgar in the 80's when Boomers started writing lots of scripts. In so far as Boomers are hedonists they therefore tend to be believers in free speech. At least Boomers also didn't give a crap about homos...
Gen X, beginning in the 90's, accepted the PC view of gender and race, but also became big-time crybabies for homos on top of everything else.... And as much older generations remember getting away with stuff amongst their regional/racial/class peers, how often do they remember saying these things in public, among "respectable company", or such discourse happening among the ELITES of their generation? "Yeah we know the homos buggered themselves into oblivion, but....." Gen X women were also the first to experiment heavily with other girls... Boomers and prior generations still had a taboo about that. And lest anyone forget, Gen X in the 90's popularized tattoos, piercings, grunge, etc. Whatever Boomers hadn't uglified by then, Gen X certainly did.
Boomer and Gen X educators, writers, parents etc. all started giving their kids wokified values and history in the 90's..... As Jonathan Haidt has observed, pre-Boomers were more ideologically diverse and exposed Boomers and Gen X to more ideas and also a bigger emphasis on objectivity. As pre-Boomers faded away and Boomers/Gen X took their place, feelings became more important and a moralistic/absolutist/extremely indulgent and one-sided viewpoint was emphasized. So their kids ended up not having any clue about the importance of understanding complexity or having respect for competing viewpoints.
Lastly, Boomers and Gen X complained but what did they accomplish in terms of positively modifying social values? Not really all that much....
Up until the nineteen sixties women voted Republican at about the same rate as men. Then a small group of radical feminist writers turned feminism away from fighting for equal rights for women towards a pro-statist man hating form that viewed men as evil oppressors who women would be better off without. “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”, as Gloria Steinem said. At the same time, changes started to be made to the welfare system to make it easier for women to survive without a husband.
The number of unmarried women then started increasing and the voting gap between men and women started to appear. The commonality of interests they shared when they were married ended when they were no longer married. Only a few highly sexually desirable men who were drifter types with no interest in education or a career benefitted from the new era. A lot of radical feminism, at its root, was a revolt by women against their boring, average looking, hard-working husbands they depended on for financial support to take care of them and their children.
The underlying belief these women held was this group of men would continue to work hard and pay taxes to help support women they weren’t married to and children who weren’t theirs. When increasing numbers of men showed no inclination to do this, liberal women then derided them as immature lazy Peter Pan types who refused to grow up. The actual group here who refused to grow up were liberal women who wanted big daddy government to take care of them.
This is the core of feminism. Women do whatever they want .... but men must keep providing for women just like they always have! Gone is the mutual exchange of work and benefits of traditional marriage. Women offer nothing in exchange, men must show up and keep providing goodies. It is state mediated sexual serfdom. Feminism is female solipsism as an ideology.Replies: @anonymous
Great comment!
Can’t do that any longer.
Doing so would be a “dog whistle” for the patriarchy, misogyny, and sexism.
Sort of like how advocating for “law and order” is “racist.” Heck, they’ve been on that kick for 50 years, only now they mean it: Can’t arrest too many black bodies. The results are predictable and obvious, but they still can’t crack down on crime.
Maybe that was true 18 years ago. But I think today’s single wokester woman is so thoroughly beainwashed, that, after marriage, her wokester ethos, now a religion, will be impervious to change. She will simply welcome the income provided by husband-zhlub, he works hard but serves him right, the Republican racist xenophobe meritocratic zhlub. And the zhlub, knowing her justice would be swift and mercy slight, will keep his mouth shut about his beliefs.
But is the GOP establishment really trying to win? Seems like they accepted the role of the Washington Generals long ago.
You would think so, but as Paul Ryan would say, “that’s not who they are.” It is better for their donors if those women are working for their companies.
The number of unmarried women then started increasing and the voting gap between men and women started to appear. The commonality of interests they shared when they were married ended when they were no longer married. Only a few highly sexually desirable men who were drifter types with no interest in education or a career benefitted from the new era. A lot of radical feminism, at its root, was a revolt by women against their boring, average looking, hard-working husbands they depended on for financial support to take care of them and their children.
The underlying belief these women held was this group of men would continue to work hard and pay taxes to help support women they weren't married to and children who weren't theirs. When increasing numbers of men showed no inclination to do this, liberal women then derided them as immature lazy Peter Pan types who refused to grow up. The actual group here who refused to grow up were liberal women who wanted big daddy government to take care of them.Replies: @Redneck Farmer, @Dutch Boy, @AnotherDad, @Achmed E. Newman, @cool daddy jimbo
The changes in welfare are an example of the problems of middle class legislators using their own experience to write law. I recall hearing that the changes were made in part, “because Uncle John was a drunk, it made my cousins lives miserable. If Aunt Sally had been able to get a divorce, it would have been better”. They couldn’t foresee people degrading to their ancestors tribal ways.
https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/births-in-the-usa-by-race-of-mother-1989-to-2022-b-2.png
https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/white-birth-share-percentage-in-the-usa-1925-2025-b.png
"A study on America’s demographic-national crisis — Early-2020s birth-data by race; and developments in the White birth-share in the USA, 1920s to 2020s" (July 2023).
Including sections discussing the Marriage Gap and related topics ("Marriage and births: Stabilization in 'wedlock births' and glimpses of a new class system" and “Something ideological has happened with White-Western women”).Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @bomag, @AnotherDad
Due to low fertility the number of Whites in America has been declining for decades.
The fertile white population has collapsed. The median age for Whites in America is 47….most white females are no longer fertile. In 1990 there were 61 million white females under the age of 40 and today there are just 43 million whites females under the age of 40. The Fertile white population has declined by 3o% since 1990.
The declining number of white births will continue, even if fertility rates stop declining because we have fewer and fewer fertile whites females each year. Today we have 25 million white females between the ages of 19 to 39 , but in 20 years there will be just 19 million white females aged 19-39. This fact cannot be changed unless we can convince a few million Whites from Europe to sneak across our border in the next decade. All the fertile white women we will have in 2040 have already been born…so we know the number of fertile white women will be 20% lower in 2040 than today. The decline in the white population is accelerating, not much can change this now.
Doing so would be a "dog whistle" for the patriarchy, misogyny, and sexism.
Sort of like how advocating for "law and order" is "racist." Heck, they've been on that kick for 50 years, only now they mean it: Can't arrest too many black bodies. The results are predictable and obvious, but they still can't crack down on crime.Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Erik L, @Jack P
It would also be opposed by the corporate elite, who still fund the GOP establishment, which has not clued into the fact that the Democrats are now the party of choice for corporate America.
I'd be willing to bet that they fund both parties, and have for some time.
The number of unmarried women then started increasing and the voting gap between men and women started to appear. The commonality of interests they shared when they were married ended when they were no longer married. Only a few highly sexually desirable men who were drifter types with no interest in education or a career benefitted from the new era. A lot of radical feminism, at its root, was a revolt by women against their boring, average looking, hard-working husbands they depended on for financial support to take care of them and their children.
The underlying belief these women held was this group of men would continue to work hard and pay taxes to help support women they weren't married to and children who weren't theirs. When increasing numbers of men showed no inclination to do this, liberal women then derided them as immature lazy Peter Pan types who refused to grow up. The actual group here who refused to grow up were liberal women who wanted big daddy government to take care of them.Replies: @Redneck Farmer, @Dutch Boy, @AnotherDad, @Achmed E. Newman, @cool daddy jimbo
You missed a modifier:” “Jewish” radical feminist writers. The Sexual Revolution and all its demonic offspring (e.g., transgenderism) are basically Jewish constructs to de-Christianize society.
Actually, slightly higher, maybe 5%. This is seen in other democracies as well; it’s said that the Tories in the UK owe every one of their 20th-century victories to the ladies. Women will always have more of a preference for the status quo than men do– change is hard! It’s just that the status quo has degenerated so far that to defend it makes one a default radical.
Men built the welfare state, but women vote for it.
I assume that the terms “married men” and “married women” in this context refer to men married to women, and women married to men?
This is, after all, 2023… according to the official propaganda if you’re hetero, you’re the one who’s the deviant.
Problem is, does a young man valuing marriage and family and holding politically-conservative positions want to marry some liberal-voting woman?
Because GOP elected politicians don’t care about what’s good for the GOP (or America), they care about what’s good for the donor class. And the donor class cares about an ever increasing number of atomized worker drones. More married people might mean less women in the workforce. It might mean stronger communities and labor unions that could counterbalance corporate power. It might mean people who work to live, instead of live to work. The donor class doesn’t want any of that.
Same with women in the workforce - the left misguidedly believes women have and should express the same urges around their work as men, the majority of the GOP is just fine with a majority of women being wage slaves since that's what their donors want.
The social theories of the left have been a total disaster for our society, but they couldn't have been put into practice without a political right that prized business interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens.Replies: @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar, @Mactoul, @Wilkey
Now, break that down by race.
What a lying tool this author is. And shame on you Steve for pretending that what he says is important. You’re better than that.
The GOP is doomed – and thank God for that. Blacks vote Dem no matter what. Hispanics and Asians vote heavily no matter what.
For blacks Hispanicsand Asians, it’s about which team that you’re on. Only whites who still retain their hubris from 500 years of running the show globally don’t worry about team.
The 20th century is over folks. Time to move on.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house
Looks like they sampled to give the following group percentages.
White men 36%
White women 37%
Black men 5%
Black women 6%
Latino men 5%
Latina women 6%
All other races 5%
Most relevant tables I see (plus a couple which intrigued me). These break down democrat/republican % by the title categories.
Marital status
Race
Gender
Married with children? - perhaps worth noting 60% married, 21% married with children; looks to me like married with/out children are pretty similar though not given explicitly.
Gender by marital status - basis of article
Gender by race - unsurprising, was this your point?
Education by race - I found this interesting, whites flip with/out degree but blacks almost identical
Which party is too extreme? - more republicans than democrats though both parties too extreme
Or where you looking for Gender by marital status and race?
Many more questions at that poll for anyone interested.
We could solve this problem easily . Only gainfully employed citizens can vote . Not that a GOP majority and President would make a bit of difference. But it’s a start .
Republican Base: White men, and the women who love them.
Democrat Base: Blacks, Mexicans and cat ladies.
The ideal Democratic base voter is an urban situate black woman with make-work government employment.
The ideal Republican base voter is a suburban to rural married straight gentile white man who owns a small business.Replies: @Known Fact
The GOP is captive to a false religion of the market, so the idea that you might orient the legal and economical structure of the United States for the purpose of making the lives of ordinary people who are the GOP’s natural base better and more fulfilled is anathema to the party establishment. Why make the “stuff of life” like housing – which creates a stake for the homeowner and orients that person towards a conservative outlook – more affordable for more people? Hell, someone who buys a house at a young age might be in danger of getting married and having a big family. The free market requires that we permit millions of destitute third worlders to enter the U.S. and work for cut rate wages (while using services graciously provided by Democrats) in order to drive up the prices for the things required to enter a middle class life. Just start a multi-million dollar business from scratch with hard work. It’s the American dream.
Obviously, the Democrats are reproducing their own voters by making people miserable, resentful, and bereft of the kinds of familial bonds which would keep people away from dependency upon a web of government subsidies. They’re literally chopping up kids and sewing them back together like Raggedy Ann dolls with government sanction, and Paul Ryan wants the GOP to stay out of the icky culture stuff. This guy whose entire adult life was spent first as a government gofer and then as a stuffed shirt in Congress extols the virtues of the economic ubermensch who heroically builds an enormous industrial concern ex nihilo.
Doctrinaire Libertarianism and Autism seem to overlap quite a bit – there’s some notion that at the end of history there will be one very clever, parsimonious man who will own all property on Earth by virtue of his ability not to rely upon anyone else for anything while lawfully avoiding taxes. Everyone else was just too stupid to figure it out and spent all of their money on junk (manufactured by our hero), so they deservedly starve. This, they believe, is a just and happy ending.
QFT.
Democrat Base: Blacks, Mexicans and cat ladies.Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
The respective poles are straight white gentile married men at one end and single black women at the other.
The ideal Democratic base voter is an urban situate black woman with make-work government employment.
The ideal Republican base voter is a suburban to rural married straight gentile white man who owns a small business.
Sucks to be a zhlub!
My advice to any such zhlubs? Get the fuck out of there.
You’re a man, after a few months you will notice that you prefer a mattress on the floor to an elaborately wife-controlled home. And takeout food at will to a set supper time as well.
I ain’t talkin to guys who are happy with their marriages. If you are treated well and cosy with your woman then keep at it bro!
But if married life feels like a trap then just fuckin leave. Your woman may have brainwashed you into believing that you need a woman, a bedframe, a tablecloth and the “respectability” of not “being single”.
Pure nonsense.
Nature and nurture designed us for being mesmerized by the siren song of females but once you’re out of ear shot the veil will be lifted from your spirit and you will wonder why in the hell you waiting so goddamn long.
Again: For unhappily married men only. Good luck my bros!
“shouldn’t the GOP push for policies that make marriage more feasible?”
this is why the Democrat platform is to reduce the marriage rate. because they know that makes more Democrat voters and reduces the amount of Republican voters. it’s extremely on purpose. everything they do is in service to this goal.
all long term Democrat maneuvering and high intelligence planning by guys like Cass Sunstein is to change the voting pattern equation. indeed, their version of this equation is like the political version of the Drake equation. Steve would do well to publish a preliminary version of the political Drake equation.
third worlder = more democrats
straight kid groomed into a homosexual adult = more democrats
women having kids without getting married and becoming single moms = more democrats
reducing influence of Christian churches and turning people into athiests and agnostics = more democrats
brainwashing middle class kids thru 12 years of school and 4 years of college that YOU have to pay for = more democrats
the trifecta: black men having sex with white women. one of their highest goals. this permanently takes away potential republican votes and converts them into permanent democrat votes. the father always votes democrat. the mother, who will become single, will vote democrat, and will never turn into a married republican voter. and her kids will all grow up to vote democrat and are never potential republican voters.
Steve only has this partially correct. this stuff only matters for european voters. all other groups the marriage rate is irrelevant. they vote Democrat no matter if they’re all married or all single. or did Steve not notice that. marriage rate of asians has nothing to do with anything. marriage rate of africans has nothing to do with anything. marriage rate of indians has nothing to do with anything. marriage rate of muslims has nothing to do with anything.
the attack on the marriage rate is a direct attack on europeans. nobody else. it’s on purpose, deliberate, long range planning for the political Drake equation. break off enough european voters and convert them into permanent Democrat voters and that’s enough to get above 50% of the popular vote in any election.
What would you have them do Steve? End immigration? Have higher wages and cheaper housing for actual Americans? What kind of racist Nazi are you? And what would Wall Street say?
Don’t worry, it isn’t. Immigration will keep housing prices afloat and moving higher.
What do you mean?
Read the Greek and Roman descriptions of a lot of Celtics and Germans, they sound a lot like Western Africans. Until they got Christianized.
Are they more hostile to Christianity or to the White People? Is it more about race and ethnicity than about religious ideology?
Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton had Biblical names, but they weren’t Jewish.
"Everyone should behave like a proper middle class WASP" is not the same as "Whitey is oppressing you!"Replies: @Nico
There’s a gap of about 70-80 years between the first and the rest of the waves, which followed each other in rapid succession. The last few have been pretty kosher from what I can tell (the second in particular-Steinem, Friedan, Firestone, countless others), though this seems to be fading somewhat with ‘intersectionality’ and the desire to center ‘women of color’, etc. You have your Rebecca Walker types who count as Jewish and ‘racialized’ but they don’t seem that numerous.
The number of unmarried women then started increasing and the voting gap between men and women started to appear. The commonality of interests they shared when they were married ended when they were no longer married. Only a few highly sexually desirable men who were drifter types with no interest in education or a career benefitted from the new era. A lot of radical feminism, at its root, was a revolt by women against their boring, average looking, hard-working husbands they depended on for financial support to take care of them and their children.
The underlying belief these women held was this group of men would continue to work hard and pay taxes to help support women they weren't married to and children who weren't theirs. When increasing numbers of men showed no inclination to do this, liberal women then derided them as immature lazy Peter Pan types who refused to grow up. The actual group here who refused to grow up were liberal women who wanted big daddy government to take care of them.Replies: @Redneck Farmer, @Dutch Boy, @AnotherDad, @Achmed E. Newman, @cool daddy jimbo
Excellent paragraph Mark.
This is the core of feminism. Women do whatever they want …. but men must keep providing for women just like they always have! Gone is the mutual exchange of work and benefits of traditional marriage. Women offer nothing in exchange, men must show up and keep providing goodies. It is state mediated sexual serfdom. Feminism is female solipsism as an ideology.
Females in effectively polygamous relationships. Lots of single mothers, supported by a village Big Man. Lots of “Warrior” useless males.
Read the Greek and Roman descriptions of a lot of Celtics and Germans, they sound a lot like Western Africans. Until they got Christianized.
Second+ wave feminism is not the same as first wave feminism. Just like modern “progressivism” is not like early 20th century progressivism.
“Everyone should behave like a proper middle class WASP” is not the same as “Whitey is oppressing you!”
Willard “Mitt” Romney reminds you that sometimes losing is winning.
18 years, and the guy’s acting like he’s the first to NOTICE. Yeah, right. That you don’t get credit here and there at least is, well, BS.
The number of unmarried women then started increasing and the voting gap between men and women started to appear. The commonality of interests they shared when they were married ended when they were no longer married. Only a few highly sexually desirable men who were drifter types with no interest in education or a career benefitted from the new era. A lot of radical feminism, at its root, was a revolt by women against their boring, average looking, hard-working husbands they depended on for financial support to take care of them and their children.
The underlying belief these women held was this group of men would continue to work hard and pay taxes to help support women they weren't married to and children who weren't theirs. When increasing numbers of men showed no inclination to do this, liberal women then derided them as immature lazy Peter Pan types who refused to grow up. The actual group here who refused to grow up were liberal women who wanted big daddy government to take care of them.Replies: @Redneck Farmer, @Dutch Boy, @AnotherDad, @Achmed E. Newman, @cool daddy jimbo
Ran out of [Agree]s, Mark. Yes, that The State is a 1st, 2nd, or back-up Daddy for women changes the dynamic between men and women for the worse. That’s for both sexes too. Though women have gotten power over men, with State enforcement, I don’t think they are any happier for the messed-up relationship roles.
Great comment!
One might want to visit other writings on marriage. The Two-Income Trap addressed the financial risks incurred but not acknowledged by married couples purchasing a house. That assortative mating means that there are fewer men that women actually want to marry. And that married couples where the wife makes more money have a higher divorce rate.
In the US, because of other races, this is evidently alarming.
But- you can make a graph on birth rates of all developed or almost-developed countries & you’ll get the same results. From Italy to Poland, from Sweden to Japan. Hardly anything to do with feminism & ideology.
Desirable birth rates are possible only if women are in a subservient position, or when a country is low IQ traditional shithole.
Otherwise- not.
Total fertility rate
Poland-1.38
Sweden-1.66
Italy- 1.24
Japan- 1.34
Korea-0.84
The reality is that once a country passes a point of affluence and technological comfort, all of them end up converging towards low fertility. All but one that is. And we all know which that one county is.
The highest contemporary fertility levels in Europe can be observed in Iceland, France, and Sweden while Southern and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels. It's not IQ but a combination of attitude, family models, and conformity levels that determine fertility.Replies: @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous, @Bardon Kaldian
That’s good advice for a man in a marriage with no kids. There’s a lot more to it if there are children.
I know guys in bad relationships who can't stop thinking about suicide but can't even imagine simply leaving, sometimes out of shame, sometimes out of guilt and often out of fear of losing something they have in their marriage and are irrationally overvaluing.
I try to encourage them to realize that leaving is, at least technically, an option. That way, if/when they don't take that option they at least recognize that their continued presence in their marriage is a choice and not "a situation" only resolvable by death or wealth.
Speaking of which, I love the Bible. That isn't a religious statement. The book is simply alive to me. So I'm chuckling now to recall the time I told my then-girlfriend the entire story of Samson for the sake of getting to the point (in Judges 16:16) where The Bible describes Samson surrendering the secret to his strength to Delilah because she pressed and urged him to the point that he wished he didn't care anymore if he lived or died.
A bad spouse can do that to ya. Hah!
Anyway, I hope everyone makes the best decisions for themselves that they can and that they're happy, at peace and, whenever possible, in love. May we all be blessed to fully enjoy our eternal sabbath here on Earth.
Those were first wave feminists, I.e. suffragettes.
There’s a gap of about 70-80 years between the first and the rest of the waves, which followed each other in rapid succession. The last few have been pretty kosher from what I can tell (the second in particular-Steinem, Friedan, Firestone, countless others), though this seems to be fading somewhat with ‘intersectionality’ and the desire to center ‘women of color’, etc. You have your Rebecca Walker types who count as Jewish and ‘racialized’ but they don’t seem that numerous.
So here’s a question.
From the article the GOP lead among single men is in the single digits, the lead among single women over 30 points for Democrats.
Why not focus on running up your lead among single men? The media will attack you as sexist no matter what. The problem is too much misogyny will start driving away married women, I guess, but some clever GOP consultant can probably figure out how to thread that needle.
No, the winning strategy is to go head on at the Parasite Party's vote bank, and try and reunite normal women with their men.Then conservatives can get on with specifics of an affordable-family-formation policy set. Which starts with ending the immigration insanity, but rolls on from there:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/is-woman-ruled-barbieland-marija-gimbutass-matriarchy/#comment-6080768
I suppose you could try lobbying their donors?
And there are (I assume) more single men than single women. But I don’t know. I’d want to see the numbers on how much of the Dems’ advantage among single women is due to single mothers specifically, and how much is due to various other subgroups such as lesbians and asexuals. There may not be corresponding subgroups among men who would be responsive to GOP advertising … single fathers have other things going on, and gay and asexual men probably lean left as well. The type of message that would best reach single men would probably be the same type of message that best reaches married men … that with us in power, they can finally relax and stop thinking of themselves as criminals merely for being male (and, if applicable, white).
This is why when President Barack Obama ran for reelection, his agenda was promoted through a slideshow that followed the “Life of Julia,” documenting how Democratic programs protect and provide for her throughout her life, without a father or husband ever in the picture.
I remember that. In the infographic, Julia, a white woman, was a mudshark, as her fatherless baby, “Leo” was colored a raw sienna.
It’s not uncommon for propaganda to backfire by inadvertantly purveying between-the-lines truth. For example, one Soviet propaganda poster decrying Americas high crime rate stated, among other statistics, that a large number of cars were stolen every day here. From this, Soviet citizens gathered that the U.S. must be much more economically prosperous than the Soviet Union, since the waiting list for cars was years long in the Soviet Union and so few people had them that few could ever be stolen even if criminals wanted to.
Anyway, I thought it was funny that that slideshow was tacitly admitting that relationships with black men were a good way for white women to get stuck with a fatherless, orange bastard.
As I started arguing 18 years ago, because it’s good for the GOP when men and women marry, shouldn’t the GOP push for policies that make marriage more feasible?
Maybe the RNC figures that these married, conservative women are married because they’re conservative, not conservative because they’re married–which is a distinct possibility.
Obviously, the Democrats are reproducing their own voters by making people miserable, resentful, and bereft of the kinds of familial bonds which would keep people away from dependency upon a web of government subsidies. They're literally chopping up kids and sewing them back together like Raggedy Ann dolls with government sanction, and Paul Ryan wants the GOP to stay out of the icky culture stuff. This guy whose entire adult life was spent first as a government gofer and then as a stuffed shirt in Congress extols the virtues of the economic ubermensch who heroically builds an enormous industrial concern ex nihilo.
Doctrinaire Libertarianism and Autism seem to overlap quite a bit - there's some notion that at the end of history there will be one very clever, parsimonious man who will own all property on Earth by virtue of his ability not to rely upon anyone else for anything while lawfully avoiding taxes. Everyone else was just too stupid to figure it out and spent all of their money on junk (manufactured by our hero), so they deservedly starve. This, they believe, is a just and happy ending.Replies: @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr., @Anonymous
Doctrinaire Libertarianism and Autism seem to overlap quite a bit – there’s some notion that at the end of history there will be one very clever, parsimonious man who will own all property on Earth by virtue of his ability not to rely upon anyone else for anything while lawfully avoiding taxes. Everyone else was just too stupid to figure it out and spent all of their money on junk (manufactured by our hero), so they deservedly starve. This, they believe, is a just and happy ending.
QFT.
It would also be opposed by the corporate elite, who still fund the GOP establishment,
I’d be willing to bet that they fund both parties, and have for some time.
What has been done with housing in the past three years is odious but it’s nothing new. The one thing that Boomers care about is housing appreciation.
Boomers have succeeded in economically and socially stunting two younger cohorts, with two engineered financial crises. The 31 trillion of boomer debt will continue this trend.
Agree. While is completely accurate to say the left has eagerly embraced immigration in a deliberate bid to shift the country’s demographics, less discussed is how the Chamber of Commerce/libertarian arm of the right didn’t lift a finger to halt this because they care more about cheap wages for employers than actual Americans.
Same with women in the workforce – the left misguidedly believes women have and should express the same urges around their work as men, the majority of the GOP is just fine with a majority of women being wage slaves since that’s what their donors want.
The social theories of the left have been a total disaster for our society, but they couldn’t have been put into practice without a political right that prized business interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens.
A good business argument against it is that we're giving away a valuable product-- residence in America-- for free. Randall Burns, once the house "progressive" at Vdare.com, made an attempt to calculate the monetary value of our US citizenship. I think it came to about a quarter million bucks. Essentially, the cost of a modest house. A "starter home"-- for affordable family formation!
Immigrants aren't even required to have health insurance. Hell, they should be paying for ours as well as our own!
It's worth noting that Libertarianism's highest value isn't liberty, but property, which is why a bunch of billionaires are so in favor of it.
Libertarianism is basically hedonism as a political philosophy. It is about as practical as Communism. Communism = the government owns everything. Libertarianism = the government owns nothing. Communism and Libertarianism are both Extreme Isms, and neither is at all practical in modern industrial societies.
In any case, “12 days to flatten the curve, bro” has now indubitably proven itself the greatest hit to housing affordability (and thus family formation) of my or your lifetimes.
This goes double for us here in the Mountain West, as scads of retarded Californians working remotely during the scamdemic figured out that they could work remotely just as well from places like Boise and Mesa. They cashed out their obscenely overpriced shoeboxes in the shit-covered, bum-riddled neighborhoods of greater LA and SF, bringing their NIMBYism with them and hijacking the zoning processes of local governments here, using them to effectively outlaw the construction of any form of housing that many displaced locals can afford.
I was going to leave exactly the same comment.
As for children, well it is in fact too complicated to discuss here at length but it's worth noting that a great many fathers have better relationships with their children from outside their marriages than from inside - particularly if they (the fathers) left of their own volition rather than having been forced out by the kids' mother.
In addition, kids are generally much better off having divorced parents than parents who dislike each other.
I don't like talking about this stuff because it's sad when love turns into an emotional prison cell. But I am very happy to remind everyone in such a situation that you do have options.
Even if you decide that you would rather stay (because of the kids or any other reason) it's good to realize that you could leave but are choosing to stay.
Nothing bad comes grom recognizing that you have a choice and are making a decision.Replies: @SFG
The number of unmarried women then started increasing and the voting gap between men and women started to appear. The commonality of interests they shared when they were married ended when they were no longer married. Only a few highly sexually desirable men who were drifter types with no interest in education or a career benefitted from the new era. A lot of radical feminism, at its root, was a revolt by women against their boring, average looking, hard-working husbands they depended on for financial support to take care of them and their children.
The underlying belief these women held was this group of men would continue to work hard and pay taxes to help support women they weren't married to and children who weren't theirs. When increasing numbers of men showed no inclination to do this, liberal women then derided them as immature lazy Peter Pan types who refused to grow up. The actual group here who refused to grow up were liberal women who wanted big daddy government to take care of them.Replies: @Redneck Farmer, @Dutch Boy, @AnotherDad, @Achmed E. Newman, @cool daddy jimbo
Several years ago I made the acquaintance of a single female with two kids of varying ethnic backgrounds. She was constantly put out about the fact that there were no “good men” who were willing to marry her and support her and her two fuck trophies. Some kinda goddam mystery, thought I.
Perhaps.
But how did Christianity get it’s ass kicked so thoroughly by the feminists?
Christians lost on birth control, on the sexual revolution, on abortion and divorce. And all of those are common now in Christianity.
If the rules you followed lead you here, of what use were the rules?
Their victory hasn't improved the world in any way, shape or form, which is why you don't hear them talking about it much anymore.
They weren't fighting feminists. They were fighting against corporations, Madison Avenue, Hollywood, Globohomo, and deeply embedded forces in academia and the state. In addition to your list they also lost on the fronts of prayer in the public schools, Evolution, and gay marriage, but you are wrong on abortion. The Christian Right shaped and moulded public opinion away from abortion being a rite of passage to something abhorred and shunned. It can also be said the long promised appointment of conservative Supreme Court judges is also a victory.Replies: @Anonymous
“Single women are single-handedly saving the Democratic Party.”
Which may also explain why the Democrat Party has evolved into the “Woke Progressive Party.” The connection between the feminist movement (eagerly embraced by so-called “well educated” single women) and the progressive movement (and its “woke” by-product) is no coincidence, given that the former now appears to have been almost totally absorbed into the latter as their ticket to “liberation.”
Same with women in the workforce - the left misguidedly believes women have and should express the same urges around their work as men, the majority of the GOP is just fine with a majority of women being wage slaves since that's what their donors want.
The social theories of the left have been a total disaster for our society, but they couldn't have been put into practice without a political right that prized business interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens.Replies: @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar, @Mactoul, @Wilkey
“…the Chamber of Commerce/libertarian arm of the right didn’t lift a finger to halt this…”
No, they didn’t. And I hate to admit it, but they took their cue from none other than The Gipper who, notwithstanding the 1986 Immigration Reform Act, must bear much of the responsibility for what has followed since.
This is the core of feminism. Women do whatever they want .... but men must keep providing for women just like they always have! Gone is the mutual exchange of work and benefits of traditional marriage. Women offer nothing in exchange, men must show up and keep providing goodies. It is state mediated sexual serfdom. Feminism is female solipsism as an ideology.Replies: @anonymous
AnotherDad writes:
Somebody owes them, ya see! Repressive patriarchs on their bicycles, or fishing for that nubile ingenue. Can’t have that, need to tip the scale.
Not-so-extreme real life example. Waitress, or server nowadays, admitted to having 6 kids from 4 baby daddies. Then had to hustle tips after bouncing off The Wall. Biology wins again. Too bad about the kids.
Sweden-1.66
Italy- 1.24
Japan- 1.34
Korea-0.84Replies: @Spangel226, @SZ
Iran is at 1.7 and the United Arab Emirates at 1.46. The rest of the well of gulf states are likely headed to be below replacement by the end of the decade. Women are culturally and legally in subservient positions in those countries. Or at least, I can’t see how the menfolk there could possibly try any harder to keep women in a subservient position. Seems like they are trying as much as possible as it is.
The reality is that once a country passes a point of affluence and technological comfort, all of them end up converging towards low fertility. All but one that is. And we all know which that one county is.
Doing so would be a "dog whistle" for the patriarchy, misogyny, and sexism.
Sort of like how advocating for "law and order" is "racist." Heck, they've been on that kick for 50 years, only now they mean it: Can't arrest too many black bodies. The results are predictable and obvious, but they still can't crack down on crime.Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Erik L, @Jack P
I disagree. Listen to the average female comic. Single women want to get married, badly. All this patriarchy, misogyny, sexism talk is what the young people call “cope”. That’s why a few years of marriage can turn them into moderate republicans.
https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/births-in-the-usa-by-race-of-mother-1989-to-2022-b-2.png
https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/white-birth-share-percentage-in-the-usa-1925-2025-b.png
"A study on America’s demographic-national crisis — Early-2020s birth-data by race; and developments in the White birth-share in the USA, 1920s to 2020s" (July 2023).
Including sections discussing the Marriage Gap and related topics ("Marriage and births: Stabilization in 'wedlock births' and glimpses of a new class system" and “Something ideological has happened with White-Western women”).Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @bomag, @AnotherDad
I nominate this as our country’s Most Important Graph.
Same with women in the workforce - the left misguidedly believes women have and should express the same urges around their work as men, the majority of the GOP is just fine with a majority of women being wage slaves since that's what their donors want.
The social theories of the left have been a total disaster for our society, but they couldn't have been put into practice without a political right that prized business interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens.Replies: @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar, @Mactoul, @Wilkey
There are pretty strong libertarian arguments against immigration, too. Particularly into a welfare state, as Milton Friedman pointed out.
A good business argument against it is that we’re giving away a valuable product– residence in America– for free. Randall Burns, once the house “progressive” at Vdare.com, made an attempt to calculate the monetary value of our US citizenship. I think it came to about a quarter million bucks. Essentially, the cost of a modest house. A “starter home”– for affordable family formation!
Immigrants aren’t even required to have health insurance. Hell, they should be paying for ours as well as our own!
The ideal Democratic base voter is an urban situate black woman with make-work government employment.
The ideal Republican base voter is a suburban to rural married straight gentile white man who owns a small business.Replies: @Known Fact
That’s one reason why the Covid response was designed to destroy small business
Doing so would be a "dog whistle" for the patriarchy, misogyny, and sexism.
Sort of like how advocating for "law and order" is "racist." Heck, they've been on that kick for 50 years, only now they mean it: Can't arrest too many black bodies. The results are predictable and obvious, but they still can't crack down on crime.Replies: @Dutch Boy, @Erik L, @Jack P
Of course they can. They just need to get the stones to do it. Crack down harshly on crime, promote policies encouraging marriage and family, and win long term. But the current GOP can’t see past the next election cycle.
Sweden-1.66
Italy- 1.24
Japan- 1.34
Korea-0.84Replies: @Spangel226, @SZ
What a shallow reply.
The highest contemporary fertility levels in Europe can be observed in Iceland, France, and Sweden while Southern and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels. It’s not IQ but a combination of attitude, family models, and conformity levels that determine fertility.
"Male provisioning" means that women need men to provide the basics of life [1]. You could say that women live in an environment of men rather than an environment of nature. The human Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) more or less demands that.
Ah, the thing is that the women regard the men as an environment, in the same way that men regard a forest or a field as an environment. Just as, for men, a forest either has game or doesn't, or a field grows crops or doesn't, for women a man either helps the woman or does not. Nothing personal.
Skipping from African to human populations that went through a Pleistocene steppe hunter phase, with high hunter mortality and not enough surplus to for one man to support more than one woman, the strategy is to get a man and have children while the man lasts. If the man dies, try to get another man.
The result of this environment appears to be women who want a man, but don't want children, and don't pay much attention to the man. Remember, the woman's ESS objective is to live long enough after giving birth to raise the child. In practice, children after 3 or so tend to model themselves after their community rather than after their parents, and Pleistocene hunting bands were almost always short of people.
So you get women who before first pregnancy are interested in men and sex, but after first pregnancy, become much more interested in food and protection than children. You get men who are interested in provisioning for the women, almost independently of how the women act. For an extreme example of that, consider Yanomamo ethnography. Or contemporary American ethnography.
The above ESS works fairly well if provisioning is available only from men, but fails if women can (for example) prevent birth. Essentially, women like men before marriage, become ambivalent or hostile to men afterwards, and can change between being mothers and playing Media with her kids depending on how well provisioning goes.
This seems to be pretty will ingrained in European, East Asian, and subcontinent descended Indians. It isn't much talked about, perhaps because the entire provisioning strategy depends on its participants being either unaware of the strategy and the rewards of deviating from that strategy or being deterred by strict laws. ( BTW, adultery is still grounds for terminating a marriage. )
Put the above ESS into an industrial situation with comparatively plentiful provisioning and conception prevention and you get women who pay only residual attention to husbands, who are no longer the sole providers. The residual doesn't include having more children than 1 or 2, who are often regarded as a nuisance once over the age of 5. You also get men whose ESS is still to always provide. And you get a sub-replacement fertility rate and a population that is more exotic than the inhabitants of most pre-1900 nut houses. And the women don't so much as notice.
**********************************************************************
1] If food and shelter can be provided by gardening, men tend to provide only protection from some external threats, usually involving both animals and humans. This was the case for Bantu / Zulu society. Vegetated areas of pre-1800 Africa have been described as a sea of elephants with a sprinkling of villages. Humans could not protect their gardens from foraging elephants.
There does seem to be a right turn among young men aged 15-25 or so, based on a few different data points I’ve seen. So Republicans’ share among single men may go up in the near future. But still, the best long term GOP policy would be encouraging relatively young marriage and family formation.
True but white women embrace this even if they are merely pawns being used. They love being used, it’s profitable for them to continue to be portrayed as eternal “victims”.
Most white people are Christians and most Jews are white.
Obviously, the Democrats are reproducing their own voters by making people miserable, resentful, and bereft of the kinds of familial bonds which would keep people away from dependency upon a web of government subsidies. They're literally chopping up kids and sewing them back together like Raggedy Ann dolls with government sanction, and Paul Ryan wants the GOP to stay out of the icky culture stuff. This guy whose entire adult life was spent first as a government gofer and then as a stuffed shirt in Congress extols the virtues of the economic ubermensch who heroically builds an enormous industrial concern ex nihilo.
Doctrinaire Libertarianism and Autism seem to overlap quite a bit - there's some notion that at the end of history there will be one very clever, parsimonious man who will own all property on Earth by virtue of his ability not to rely upon anyone else for anything while lawfully avoiding taxes. Everyone else was just too stupid to figure it out and spent all of their money on junk (manufactured by our hero), so they deservedly starve. This, they believe, is a just and happy ending.Replies: @Herbert R. Tarlek, Jr., @Anonymous
see: Physicist Dave
What a lying tool this author is. And shame on you Steve for pretending that what he says is important. You're better than that.
The GOP is doomed - and thank God for that. Blacks vote Dem no matter what. Hispanics and Asians vote heavily no matter what.
For blacks Hispanicsand Asians, it's about which team that you're on. Only whites who still retain their hubris from 500 years of running the show globally don't worry about team.
The 20th century is over folks. Time to move on.Replies: @res
Good point. Here is the poll underlying the article. Sample size is 18,571 so they might even be able to get meaningful results for subgroups.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house
Looks like they sampled to give the following group percentages.
White men 36%
White women 37%
Black men 5%
Black women 6%
Latino men 5%
Latina women 6%
All other races 5%
Most relevant tables I see (plus a couple which intrigued me). These break down democrat/republican % by the title categories.
Marital status
Race
Gender
Married with children? – perhaps worth noting 60% married, 21% married with children; looks to me like married with/out children are pretty similar though not given explicitly.
Gender by marital status – basis of article
Gender by race – unsurprising, was this your point?
Education by race – I found this interesting, whites flip with/out degree but blacks almost identical
Which party is too extreme? – more republicans than democrats though both parties too extreme
Or where you looking for Gender by marital status and race?
Many more questions at that poll for anyone interested.
They’re too busy staffing America’s newsrooms and publishing houses
https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/births-in-the-usa-by-race-of-mother-1989-to-2022-b-2.png
https://hailtoyou.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/white-birth-share-percentage-in-the-usa-1925-2025-b.png
"A study on America’s demographic-national crisis — Early-2020s birth-data by race; and developments in the White birth-share in the USA, 1920s to 2020s" (July 2023).
Including sections discussing the Marriage Gap and related topics ("Marriage and births: Stabilization in 'wedlock births' and glimpses of a new class system" and “Something ideological has happened with White-Western women”).Replies: @Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco, @bomag, @AnotherDad
America is actually “already gone”. Yes, the American nation still exists in remnants in the sticks. But the American nation existing, filling, dominating the American nation-state is done.
One of the problems is the problems is that most people simply are not naturally very mathy and do not naturally “see” the devastating effect of “trends”. If you live in carefully curated neighborhood then you can pretend a good bit of what has happened has not happened, and the part you can see is just a some “diversity” spicing which “America which will integrate as it always has” or “is great and makes us stronger!” But mainly people amble along in their frog lives not realizing that the water is getting hotter and hotter … and evil people have a flame under the pot.
And the crisis–the destruction of the American nation–is not “out there” somewhere in the future. It is already mostly complete and is being accelerated to a conclusion.
Here’s the 2022 birth data:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr028.pdf
The racial/ethnic table is on page 6, but in brief:
total births — 3.6m
moms white – 50%, “Hispanic” – 25%, black – 14%, Asian – 6%, mixed – 4%, native+PI – 1%.
And this is the ceiling. This is about is good as the future could be without “extraordinary measures”.
But immigration continues apace. Legal–a million plus. And the “Biden” Administrations open border is waving in an extra 2 millionish a year–who are mostly fertile age young people and alone overwhelm white births.
Realistically, immigration would have to stop right now, for America to simply have Brazil+ demographics. And if the border is held open and Africans grabs a hold ….
Only an outbreak of intense sanity–stopping the immigration madness and restoring traditional notions of marriage and family prizing fertility and explicit eugenic fertility promotion–could turn things around and brighten up the future.
Thanks Jews!
Start the benefit at IQ 110 or so and add to the cash incrementally as IQ goes up.
Quality over quantity.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton was strongly influenced by Theodore Parker, a Unitarian preacher from Boston who was one of the main financiers of John Brown’s attack on the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. Susan B. Anthony was raised a Quaker, but she also became a Unitarian as an adult. So, not Jewish but also not orthodox (ie Trinitarian) Christianity.
One of the problems is the problems is that most people simply are not naturally very mathy and do not naturally "see" the devastating effect of "trends". If you live in carefully curated neighborhood then you can pretend a good bit of what has happened has not happened, and the part you can see is just a some "diversity" spicing which "America which will integrate as it always has" or "is great and makes us stronger!" But mainly people amble along in their frog lives not realizing that the water is getting hotter and hotter ... and evil people have a flame under the pot.
And the crisis--the destruction of the American nation--is not "out there" somewhere in the future. It is already mostly complete and is being accelerated to a conclusion.
Here's the 2022 birth data:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr028.pdf
The racial/ethnic table is on page 6, but in brief:
total births -- 3.6m
moms white - 50%, "Hispanic" - 25%, black - 14%, Asian - 6%, mixed - 4%, native+PI - 1%.
And this is the ceiling. This is about is good as the future could be without "extraordinary measures".
But immigration continues apace. Legal--a million plus. And the "Biden" Administrations open border is waving in an extra 2 millionish a year--who are mostly fertile age young people and alone overwhelm white births.
Realistically, immigration would have to stop right now, for America to simply have Brazil+ demographics. And if the border is held open and Africans grabs a hold ....
Only an outbreak of intense sanity--stopping the immigration madness and restoring traditional notions of marriage and family prizing fertility and explicit eugenic fertility promotion--could turn things around and brighten up the future.Replies: @anonymous, @Inspector Grant
These numbers don’t tell the full story. The key statistic is births of White babies compared to births of non-Whites. Already in the United States, non-White newborns outnumber White newborns. The water is rising fast.
Thanks Jews!
Christians “won” on abortion. It is illegal in many states.
Their victory hasn’t improved the world in any way, shape or form, which is why you don’t hear them talking about it much anymore.
One of the problems is the problems is that most people simply are not naturally very mathy and do not naturally "see" the devastating effect of "trends". If you live in carefully curated neighborhood then you can pretend a good bit of what has happened has not happened, and the part you can see is just a some "diversity" spicing which "America which will integrate as it always has" or "is great and makes us stronger!" But mainly people amble along in their frog lives not realizing that the water is getting hotter and hotter ... and evil people have a flame under the pot.
And the crisis--the destruction of the American nation--is not "out there" somewhere in the future. It is already mostly complete and is being accelerated to a conclusion.
Here's the 2022 birth data:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr028.pdf
The racial/ethnic table is on page 6, but in brief:
total births -- 3.6m
moms white - 50%, "Hispanic" - 25%, black - 14%, Asian - 6%, mixed - 4%, native+PI - 1%.
And this is the ceiling. This is about is good as the future could be without "extraordinary measures".
But immigration continues apace. Legal--a million plus. And the "Biden" Administrations open border is waving in an extra 2 millionish a year--who are mostly fertile age young people and alone overwhelm white births.
Realistically, immigration would have to stop right now, for America to simply have Brazil+ demographics. And if the border is held open and Africans grabs a hold ....
Only an outbreak of intense sanity--stopping the immigration madness and restoring traditional notions of marriage and family prizing fertility and explicit eugenic fertility promotion--could turn things around and brighten up the future.Replies: @anonymous, @Inspector Grant
Indeed and the best way to insure eugenic fertility is to give every natural born American woman an IQ test at age 13 and then subsidize her offspring by granting her and her husband a generous yearly cash benefit (not a measly tax credit) for each child born to her until the children turn 21. Divorce would immediately stop the benefit.
Start the benefit at IQ 110 or so and add to the cash incrementally as IQ goes up.
Quality over quantity.
In a similar vein, I would make it so only net taxpayers have the suffrage. If you are a net tax receiver, you shouldn’t be able to vote yourself even more money out of the kitty.
Agreed too, about Chief Warren. I was wondering back during the campaign in '20 if Warren said one word about her book from only 16 years before, IIRC. You'd think that'd be a big no-no, looking at what the D-Squad stands for at this point.Replies: @res
She ended up being a crackpot, but this book by Elizabeth Warren was on the money.
All of the school voucher supporters forget that housing value in the suburbs is connect to school quality. If school vouchers kill the quality of the local school, then the value of the homes go down.
I see that here in Colorado. They’ve brought not just the NIMBYism but the homelessness with them. You can’t knock down homeless encampments because it would be “inhumane” but if anyone dares to suggest building housing that has electricity and indoor plumbing they start screeching about muh Green, muh ebul developers, blah blah blah.
Yes, after they themselves bought huge McMansions that use huge amounts of kWh every year to heat and cool.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack, I got mine!"
Fucking pricks.
The NIMBYism and homelessness are two sides of the same coin: artificially restrict the supply of any good (in this case housing) and some will have to go without.
We're also seeing the homelessness, here, with an ominous reversal of the usual pattern: It used to be that people would wind up homeless because of substance abuse and/or mental illness. Now, you're increasingly seeing cases where local people fall prey to substance abuse and mental illness after, and as a result of, being permanently priced out of the housing market. Many of the homeless you see here are are essentially deaths of despair which have yet to happen.
Something has got to give, here, and hopefully it will involve at least some of the guilty parties being given tumbril rides.
if anyone dares to suggest building housing that has electricity and indoor plumbing they start screeching about muh Green, muh ebul developers, blah blah blah.
Yes, after they themselves bought huge McMansions that use huge amounts of kWh every year to heat and cool.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack, I got mine!"
Fucking pricks.
The fertile white population has collapsed. The median age for Whites in America is 47….most white females are no longer fertile. In 1990 there were 61 million white females under the age of 40 and today there are just 43 million whites females under the age of 40. The Fertile white population has declined by 3o% since 1990.
The declining number of white births will continue, even if fertility rates stop declining because we have fewer and fewer fertile whites females each year. Today we have 25 million white females between the ages of 19 to 39 , but in 20 years there will be just 19 million white females aged 19-39. This fact cannot be changed unless we can convince a few million Whites from Europe to sneak across our border in the next decade. All the fertile white women we will have in 2040 have already been born…so we know the number of fertile white women will be 20% lower in 2040 than today. The decline in the white population is accelerating, not much can change this now.Replies: @Anon
Thankfully we have plenty of fertile Asian and half Asian women now, wbo are better than white women. Even some Latina women.
Even some Latina women...are better than white women.
Even some MENA women, too.
The fact that single women can be convinced to vote for one or other party because of a fucking cartoon is prima facie evidence that they are not cognitively equipped to be entrusted with any role in collective decision-making.
To be fair to dumb single bitches: anywhere less than 2-sigma north of the median, married bitches are just as stupid, and so are their husbands. (And not to leave out fucktarded single males).
Put as basically as possible: anyone who thinks that VOAT MOAR!!! is a solution to getting ass-raped by career parasites, is retarded and is not worth bothering about.
Christians won on Israel, which underscores how powerful they are.
The highest contemporary fertility levels in Europe can be observed in Iceland, France, and Sweden while Southern and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels. It's not IQ but a combination of attitude, family models, and conformity levels that determine fertility.Replies: @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous, @Bardon Kaldian
Jews exercise significant influence over attitude, family models, and conformity levels in the United States, and in many other Western countries.
Yeah, sigh, I know. I’m just trying to give people a view so that they don’t fall trapped. Then at least they know they are making a choice.
I know guys in bad relationships who can’t stop thinking about suicide but can’t even imagine simply leaving, sometimes out of shame, sometimes out of guilt and often out of fear of losing something they have in their marriage and are irrationally overvaluing.
I try to encourage them to realize that leaving is, at least technically, an option. That way, if/when they don’t take that option they at least recognize that their continued presence in their marriage is a choice and not “a situation” only resolvable by death or wealth.
Speaking of which, I love the Bible. That isn’t a religious statement. The book is simply alive to me. So I’m chuckling now to recall the time I told my then-girlfriend the entire story of Samson for the sake of getting to the point (in Judges 16:16) where The Bible describes Samson surrendering the secret to his strength to Delilah because she pressed and urged him to the point that he wished he didn’t care anymore if he lived or died.
A bad spouse can do that to ya. Hah!
Anyway, I hope everyone makes the best decisions for themselves that they can and that they’re happy, at peace and, whenever possible, in love. May we all be blessed to fully enjoy our eternal sabbath here on Earth.
There is motivation to destroy White genomes.
The highest contemporary fertility levels in Europe can be observed in Iceland, France, and Sweden while Southern and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels. It's not IQ but a combination of attitude, family models, and conformity levels that determine fertility.Replies: @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous, @Bardon Kaldian
Re: Sweden and France, are you sure the levels aren’t where they are due to heavy weighing of Moslem fertility? These places are near 10% Moslem, aren’t they? Iceland is different.
Agreed! It’d be a lot easier for various States to arrange this if the Feral Gov’t hadn’t taken the power to control the franchise with 5, yes 5 (15, 19, 23, 24, and 26) of the Amendments after the BoR.
Agreed too, about Chief Warren. I was wondering back during the campaign in ’20 if Warren said one word about her book from only 16 years before, IIRC. You’d think that’d be a big no-no, looking at what the D-Squad stands for at this point.
https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights
Perhaps even more interesting to observe that the franchise has been the focus of 3 of the last 5 amendments? The other two being the 25th (Presidential Disability and Succession) and 27th (Congressional Compensation). Also worth noting that the 22nd affected who could be elected (Two-Term Limit on Presidency).
I wonder if there is any chance our current wrangling over elections (e.g. redistricting and mail in ballots) will eventually result in another amendment.
Such a strategy is too obviously correct to ever be adopted by the Republican Party, which revels in losing…
"Everyone should behave like a proper middle class WASP" is not the same as "Whitey is oppressing you!"Replies: @Nico
Things were indeed different then, but the line from the suffragettes to bra-burners is smoother than your appraisal might imply. I realize smiling for photographs was almost unheard of in those days, but even accounting for that, just the faces of Anthony or Cady Stanton do not make me want to be in the same room with them, not any more than I’d have wanted to be near Barbara Bush when she was alive. The former harridans were certainly regarded as freaks and/or Sapphists by both men and women back in their day.
The proper retort to “That’s racist!” shouldn’t be to prove that one is not: it should be to say, “By your shifty standards I probably am, but I’m more concerned with telling the truth than in looking ‘nice’ in the eyes of the right people.” Once that’s out of the way there is ample room to prove quantitatively, for example, that on balance blacks owe whites reparations and not the other way around.
It's dangerous of course because people are pretty insane these days and are looking for witches to burn but you retain your self respect - which is actually worth quite a bit.
I posted this "Short" yesterday from Louis CK on Stephen Merchant's radio show in England back in 2008.
Stephen Merchant was nervous about having Louis on his show because Louis had used thr word "faggot" comically.
Merchant wanted to vlarify for his audience that he is NOT hosting a bigot on his show and tried to force Louis into stating that he's a vetted liberal.
Louis goes along with him....as far as he can.
Worth a listen.
https://youtube.com/shorts/5NnQcaa103w?feature=shareReplies: @res
This is pretty interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden
Lol, I like to joke that I used to be a white nationalist until I realized it meant I had to fuck white women.
Even some Latina women…are better than white women.
Even some MENA women, too.
The highest contemporary fertility levels in Europe can be observed in Iceland, France, and Sweden while Southern and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels. It's not IQ but a combination of attitude, family models, and conformity levels that determine fertility.Replies: @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous, @Bardon Kaldian
The “male provisioning” strategy of Homo Sapiens has some surprising consequences beyond support of big-brained and slowly maturing offspring through a difficult pregnancy and a long childhood (~50% childhood mortality until maybe 200 years ago). https://www.statista.com/statistics/1041693/united-states-all-time-child-mortality-rate/
“Male provisioning” means that women need men to provide the basics of life [1]. You could say that women live in an environment of men rather than an environment of nature. The human Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) more or less demands that.
Ah, the thing is that the women regard the men as an environment, in the same way that men regard a forest or a field as an environment. Just as, for men, a forest either has game or doesn’t, or a field grows crops or doesn’t, for women a man either helps the woman or does not. Nothing personal.
Skipping from African to human populations that went through a Pleistocene steppe hunter phase, with high hunter mortality and not enough surplus to for one man to support more than one woman, the strategy is to get a man and have children while the man lasts. If the man dies, try to get another man.
The result of this environment appears to be women who want a man, but don’t want children, and don’t pay much attention to the man. Remember, the woman’s ESS objective is to live long enough after giving birth to raise the child. In practice, children after 3 or so tend to model themselves after their community rather than after their parents, and Pleistocene hunting bands were almost always short of people.
So you get women who before first pregnancy are interested in men and sex, but after first pregnancy, become much more interested in food and protection than children. You get men who are interested in provisioning for the women, almost independently of how the women act. For an extreme example of that, consider Yanomamo ethnography. Or contemporary American ethnography.
The above ESS works fairly well if provisioning is available only from men, but fails if women can (for example) prevent birth. Essentially, women like men before marriage, become ambivalent or hostile to men afterwards, and can change between being mothers and playing Media with her kids depending on how well provisioning goes.
This seems to be pretty will ingrained in European, East Asian, and subcontinent descended Indians. It isn’t much talked about, perhaps because the entire provisioning strategy depends on its participants being either unaware of the strategy and the rewards of deviating from that strategy or being deterred by strict laws. ( BTW, adultery is still grounds for terminating a marriage. )
Put the above ESS into an industrial situation with comparatively plentiful provisioning and conception prevention and you get women who pay only residual attention to husbands, who are no longer the sole providers. The residual doesn’t include having more children than 1 or 2, who are often regarded as a nuisance once over the age of 5. You also get men whose ESS is still to always provide. And you get a sub-replacement fertility rate and a population that is more exotic than the inhabitants of most pre-1900 nut houses. And the women don’t so much as notice.
**********************************************************************
1] If food and shelter can be provided by gardening, men tend to provide only protection from some external threats, usually involving both animals and humans. This was the case for Bantu / Zulu society. Vegetated areas of pre-1800 Africa have been described as a sea of elephants with a sprinkling of villages. Humans could not protect their gardens from foraging elephants.
Me too 😉 but I decided to focus on the positive possibilities. I responded to Achmed here. In short, I absolutely understand that there are rational reasons why people choose to stay in a relationship. I just want guys to know that things are not quite as terrible on the other side as folk may fear.
As for children, well it is in fact too complicated to discuss here at length but it’s worth noting that a great many fathers have better relationships with their children from outside their marriages than from inside – particularly if they (the fathers) left of their own volition rather than having been forced out by the kids’ mother.
In addition, kids are generally much better off having divorced parents than parents who dislike each other.
I don’t like talking about this stuff because it’s sad when love turns into an emotional prison cell. But I am very happy to remind everyone in such a situation that you do have options.
Even if you decide that you would rather stay (because of the kids or any other reason) it’s good to realize that you could leave but are choosing to stay.
Nothing bad comes grom recognizing that you have a choice and are making a decision.
-You’re doomed to a lonely death and very restricted end of life, since no matter how many awful healthy meals you eat and how much exercise you do eventually your body breaks down
-There is nothing you leave behind after death; most of us aren’t Newton
-People (men and women) really want kids, and for men that involves exposing yourself to the risks you cite. And some guys still, despite the best efforts of the left, pull it off, they get a good woman and enjoy their progeny.
It’s kind of like my views on atheism: I don’t believe in God, but given what religion does for people I don’t proselytize for atheism. I don’t walk around calling myself ‘childfree’ like some obnoxious leftist; it’s not some proud statement of principle, in the end, I’m just dodging the draft.Replies: @ydydy
I see that here in Colorado. They’ve brought not just the NIMBYism but the homelessness with them. You can’t knock down homeless encampments because it would be “inhumane” but if anyone dares to suggest building housing that has electricity and indoor plumbing they start screeching about muh Green, muh ebul developers, blah blah blah.
Yes, after they themselves bought huge McMansions that use huge amounts of kWh every year to heat and cool.
“Pull up the ladder, Jack, I got mine!”
Fucking pricks.
My personal response to being accused of anything is to say, “oh absolutely”.
It’s dangerous of course because people are pretty insane these days and are looking for witches to burn but you retain your self respect – which is actually worth quite a bit.
I posted this “Short” yesterday from Louis CK on Stephen Merchant’s radio show in England back in 2008.
Stephen Merchant was nervous about having Louis on his show because Louis had used thr word “faggot” comically.
Merchant wanted to vlarify for his audience that he is NOT hosting a bigot on his show and tried to force Louis into stating that he’s a vetted liberal.
Louis goes along with him….as far as he can.
Worth a listen.
https://youtube.com/shorts/5NnQcaa103w?feature=share
I see that here in Colorado. They’ve brought not just the NIMBYism but the homelessness with them.
The NIMBYism and homelessness are two sides of the same coin: artificially restrict the supply of any good (in this case housing) and some will have to go without.
We’re also seeing the homelessness, here, with an ominous reversal of the usual pattern: It used to be that people would wind up homeless because of substance abuse and/or mental illness. Now, you’re increasingly seeing cases where local people fall prey to substance abuse and mental illness after, and as a result of, being permanently priced out of the housing market. Many of the homeless you see here are are essentially deaths of despair which have yet to happen.
Something has got to give, here, and hopefully it will involve at least some of the guilty parties being given tumbril rides.
if anyone dares to suggest building housing that has electricity and indoor plumbing they start screeching about muh Green, muh ebul developers, blah blah blah.
Yes, after they themselves bought huge McMansions that use huge amounts of kWh every year to heat and cool.
“Pull up the ladder, Jack, I got mine!”
Fucking pricks.
The highest contemporary fertility levels in Europe can be observed in Iceland, France, and Sweden while Southern and Eastern Europe have the lowest levels. It's not IQ but a combination of attitude, family models, and conformity levels that determine fertility.Replies: @anonymous, @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous, @Bardon Kaldian
In other words- nothing to do with feminism or any other ideology.
https://twitter.com/Varangian_Tagma/status/1645426439355879424Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res
Thanks. This thread of obscure 17th and 18th Century colonies in the New World by minor European countries like Latvia and Scotland is very interesting.
When’s the last time you saw a Republican politician who has been, at any point in his or her career, a serious academic of any sort? Hell, I don’t think many Democratic professors are winning office these days, and Democrats pretty much hold a monopoly on academia now.
So finding any large number of GOP congressmen who are willing to listen to serious suggestions about how to address what is undeniably the most serious issue of our time – the growing tendency of young people to shun marriage and parenthood – is going to be difficult. Better for them to just pass another tax cut on billionaires and deregulate yet another industry that will lead to disaster a decade or so hence. Besides, thinking about social problems in a serious way and trying to address them is communistic “social engineering” – even if all you are trying to do is undo the communistic social engineering of a previous generation.
The major problem is that Republican voters – even the ones who despise the “GOPe” – have been fooled into believing that “successful businessman” is the best and only qualification for a political leader, to the Chamber of Commerce’s delight. Never mind that most of us think that most of the executives at our own companies are shallow selfish assholes. So it’s either “successful businessman” or raving lunatic, like Lauren Boebert for Congress.
Republicans these days are stuck on stupid. You can hardly blame them for despising the RINO Establishment, but it’s mystifying why so many are enthralled by a criminal narcissist like Donald Trump.
Silents, Boomers, and X-ers weren’t “better” as much as they were an example of gradually shifting taboos…. Silents launched the civil rights revolution and made it increasingly taboo to suggest differences in ability among races… They still permitted discussions of racial differences, just that increasingly one could not say publicly or in polite company that the differences were inherent.
Boomers largely accepted the framework that whites and men were uniquely privileged and responsible for “inequities” WRT race and gender…. And so routinely trashed previous generations and eras of history (*relative to previous generations, Boomers bought into this stuff). But Boomers also did a lot hedonistic stuff like partying and other debased things, and so generally have had low standards for what qualifies as “rude” or “inappropriate” things to say or do… As one can tell by movie scripts getting 5,000X more vulgar in the 80’s when Boomers started writing lots of scripts. In so far as Boomers are hedonists they therefore tend to be believers in free speech. At least Boomers also didn’t give a crap about homos…
Gen X, beginning in the 90’s, accepted the PC view of gender and race, but also became big-time crybabies for homos on top of everything else…. And as much older generations remember getting away with stuff amongst their regional/racial/class peers, how often do they remember saying these things in public, among “respectable company”, or such discourse happening among the ELITES of their generation? “Yeah we know the homos buggered themselves into oblivion, but…..” Gen X women were also the first to experiment heavily with other girls… Boomers and prior generations still had a taboo about that. And lest anyone forget, Gen X in the 90’s popularized tattoos, piercings, grunge, etc. Whatever Boomers hadn’t uglified by then, Gen X certainly did.
Boomer and Gen X educators, writers, parents etc. all started giving their kids wokified values and history in the 90’s….. As Jonathan Haidt has observed, pre-Boomers were more ideologically diverse and exposed Boomers and Gen X to more ideas and also a bigger emphasis on objectivity. As pre-Boomers faded away and Boomers/Gen X took their place, feelings became more important and a moralistic/absolutist/extremely indulgent and one-sided viewpoint was emphasized. So their kids ended up not having any clue about the importance of understanding complexity or having respect for competing viewpoints.
Lastly, Boomers and Gen X complained but what did they accomplish in terms of positively modifying social values? Not really all that much….
‘How did Christianity get its ass kicked so thoroughly by the feminists?’
They weren’t fighting feminists. They were fighting against corporations, Madison Avenue, Hollywood, Globohomo, and deeply embedded forces in academia and the state. In addition to your list they also lost on the fronts of prayer in the public schools, Evolution, and gay marriage, but you are wrong on abortion. The Christian Right shaped and moulded public opinion away from abortion being a rite of passage to something abhorred and shunned. It can also be said the long promised appointment of conservative Supreme Court judges is also a victory.
The people in your church might abhor it, but they are not a representative sample of Americans. (And I suspect they'd secretly do it too, nobody wants their daughter coming home from freshman year pregnant, that's just really trashy.)
Her original last chapter policy proposals such as private schools and school voucher to separate home value and education made a lot more sense than her revised policy ideas.
All of the school voucher supporters forget that housing value in the suburbs is connect to school quality. If school vouchers kill the quality of the local school, then the value of the homes go down.
There’s no point in conservatives vote mining their side of the political sex divide and riding that down to destruction like Slim Pickens on the H-bomb. Oh, hey we won a few elections before the apocalypse.
No, the winning strategy is to go head on at the Parasite Party’s vote bank, and try and reunite normal women with their men.
Then conservatives can get on with specifics of an affordable-family-formation policy set. Which starts with ending the immigration insanity, but rolls on from there:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/is-woman-ruled-barbieland-marija-gimbutass-matriarchy/#comment-6080768
Recently there’s been a big boom in “intelligence” field veterans winning office as Democrats…. Talk about ripping the mask off. We’re going downhill…. From having some compromised politicians controlled by The Deep State to outright putting the actual Deep State in office. Also indicative of Dems resuming their historical position as the globalist war party, which waned in the 70’s-2000’s due to the Reaganite GOP sucking up to Israel, defense contractors, and the military bases of the Sunbelt….
When the truth was finally revealed, the Democrats in Utah opted to endorse "independent" McMullin for the Utah Senate race in 2022, instead of fielding their own candidate - because McMuffin was their own candidate.Replies: @Feryl
They weren't fighting feminists. They were fighting against corporations, Madison Avenue, Hollywood, Globohomo, and deeply embedded forces in academia and the state. In addition to your list they also lost on the fronts of prayer in the public schools, Evolution, and gay marriage, but you are wrong on abortion. The Christian Right shaped and moulded public opinion away from abortion being a rite of passage to something abhorred and shunned. It can also be said the long promised appointment of conservative Supreme Court judges is also a victory.Replies: @Anonymous
Nope, 61% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/pf_05-06-22_abortion-views_0_0/
The people in your church might abhor it, but they are not a representative sample of Americans. (And I suspect they’d secretly do it too, nobody wants their daughter coming home from freshman year pregnant, that’s just really trashy.)
Again, an easy way to think of this:
Modernity is an environmental shock.
Sort of like a return of the ice age, something like that. Industrialization, urbanization, better health (public health, antibiotics, vaccines, modern medical procedures, safe childbirth), electric appliances, the Pill (and other birth control), public welfare, female careerism and now social media. A huge shock to the selective environment.
And now … we are sorting that out. Some people have the genes to reproduce in that environment–and some do not. (We all know people with a passel of kids and people with none.)
In time, there will naturally be a recovery. Actually, quite quickly in generation terms … but unfortunately long enough for mischief makers to do their mischief and that they are doing.
But the absolutely critical factor for any nation/civilization to survive this is to keep the invaders out so that their own populations can naturally recover. Otherwise, your nation and civilization will simply be overrun by foreign peoples who are less affected by the shock.
Same with women in the workforce - the left misguidedly believes women have and should express the same urges around their work as men, the majority of the GOP is just fine with a majority of women being wage slaves since that's what their donors want.
The social theories of the left have been a total disaster for our society, but they couldn't have been put into practice without a political right that prized business interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens.Replies: @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar, @Mactoul, @Wilkey
Because libertarians are not of the right in the first place.
Marriage status might be just a proxy, i.e., it might be that conservative people are more inclined to get married. If this is the case, increasing the number of marriages would not have an impact on how people vote.
Also, did they control for the age? Younger people tend to be more liberal, and most people get married in their late twenties or in their thirties. So you’ll find more young people in the unmarried group.
Agreed too, about Chief Warren. I was wondering back during the campaign in '20 if Warren said one word about her book from only 16 years before, IIRC. You'd think that'd be a big no-no, looking at what the D-Squad stands for at this point.Replies: @res
Interesting. Most sites I see omit the 23rd, but that seems hard to justify to me. For example.
https://www.usa.gov/voting-rights
Perhaps even more interesting to observe that the franchise has been the focus of 3 of the last 5 amendments? The other two being the 25th (Presidential Disability and Succession) and 27th (Congressional Compensation). Also worth noting that the 22nd affected who could be elected (Two-Term Limit on Presidency).
I wonder if there is any chance our current wrangling over elections (e.g. redistricting and mail in ballots) will eventually result in another amendment.
https://twitter.com/Varangian_Tagma/status/1645426439355879424Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res
New Sweden the only one within the current US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden
It's dangerous of course because people are pretty insane these days and are looking for witches to burn but you retain your self respect - which is actually worth quite a bit.
I posted this "Short" yesterday from Louis CK on Stephen Merchant's radio show in England back in 2008.
Stephen Merchant was nervous about having Louis on his show because Louis had used thr word "faggot" comically.
Merchant wanted to vlarify for his audience that he is NOT hosting a bigot on his show and tried to force Louis into stating that he's a vetted liberal.
Louis goes along with him....as far as he can.
Worth a listen.
https://youtube.com/shorts/5NnQcaa103w?feature=shareReplies: @res
https://andrewelsass.com/agreeandamplify/
Agreed. And a good reminder that “independent” Evan McMullin, who was never intended as anything other than a way to steal electoral votes from Trump in Western states with large Mormon populations, was a former CIA employee.
When the truth was finally revealed, the Democrats in Utah opted to endorse “independent” McMullin for the Utah Senate race in 2022, instead of fielding their own candidate – because McMuffin was their own candidate.
Same with women in the workforce - the left misguidedly believes women have and should express the same urges around their work as men, the majority of the GOP is just fine with a majority of women being wage slaves since that's what their donors want.
The social theories of the left have been a total disaster for our society, but they couldn't have been put into practice without a political right that prized business interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens.Replies: @Prester John, @Reg Cæsar, @Mactoul, @Wilkey
At one point about half the board members of The Cato Institute were billionaires. Several of them are still listed as directors emeritus – John Malone, Fred Smith, and – of course – David Koch.
It’s worth noting that Libertarianism’s highest value isn’t liberty, but property, which is why a bunch of billionaires are so in favor of it.
Libertarianism is basically hedonism as a political philosophy. It is about as practical as Communism. Communism = the government owns everything. Libertarianism = the government owns nothing. Communism and Libertarianism are both Extreme Isms, and neither is at all practical in modern industrial societies.
Also, did they control for the age? Younger people tend to be more liberal, and most people get married in their late twenties or in their thirties. So you'll find more young people in the unmarried group.Replies: @Wilkey
Marriage and parenthood turns the mind towards more practical questions, like: “How do we pay for all the shit we need and find time to raise this baby?”, instead of obsessing about finding someone to take care of your dog while you’re taking your fifth backpacking trip through Asia while posting on social media about how horrible it was that some black thug died of an overdose on the streets of Minnesapolis or about how terrible it is that little 10-year-old Caitlyn can’t have surgery to get her penis cut off in time to start the new school year – all so you can impress some random people on the internet who really don’t even give a shit about you.
So, yes, more marriages, and people marrying at younger ages, would make for more people voting for conservatives. The trick is trying to get people to understand that marriage, fidelity, and parenthood are actually pretty damn nice things, and to stop wasting their time and money on frivolities. These are values that used to be passed on quite well when people went to church. But then the churches collapsed, and people now get all of their values from teevee and anti-social media.
When the truth was finally revealed, the Democrats in Utah opted to endorse "independent" McMullin for the Utah Senate race in 2022, instead of fielding their own candidate - because McMuffin was their own candidate.Replies: @Feryl
Pre-9/11, even the MSM often treated the CIA as a shadowy, inscrutable entity….. Nowadays they employ lots of “ex” Deep Sate people. Phil Donahue lost his MSNBC show for not supporting US militarism after 9/11.
? What’s your argument for letting them come back?
As for children, well it is in fact too complicated to discuss here at length but it's worth noting that a great many fathers have better relationships with their children from outside their marriages than from inside - particularly if they (the fathers) left of their own volition rather than having been forced out by the kids' mother.
In addition, kids are generally much better off having divorced parents than parents who dislike each other.
I don't like talking about this stuff because it's sad when love turns into an emotional prison cell. But I am very happy to remind everyone in such a situation that you do have options.
Even if you decide that you would rather stay (because of the kids or any other reason) it's good to realize that you could leave but are choosing to stay.
Nothing bad comes grom recognizing that you have a choice and are making a decision.Replies: @SFG
I agree with you, but as a man who opted for what you say largely due to a fear of alimony and a pathological attachment to independence:
-You’re doomed to a lonely death and very restricted end of life, since no matter how many awful healthy meals you eat and how much exercise you do eventually your body breaks down
-There is nothing you leave behind after death; most of us aren’t Newton
-People (men and women) really want kids, and for men that involves exposing yourself to the risks you cite. And some guys still, despite the best efforts of the left, pull it off, they get a good woman and enjoy their progeny.
It’s kind of like my views on atheism: I don’t believe in God, but given what religion does for people I don’t proselytize for atheism. I don’t walk around calling myself ‘childfree’ like some obnoxious leftist; it’s not some proud statement of principle, in the end, I’m just dodging the draft.
On the matter of leaving anything behind - unless you believe that you will retain a post-mortem consciousness of the happenings on Earth it will never matter to you whether you leave behind 10,000 children, a hundred trillion dollars or the Islamic faith.
Dead is just as dead for an unknown soldier as for alexander.
Just ask Diogenes.
As for the end of life, it's likely that those with descendants will live a bit longer than those without but I have known MANY folk during those final additional years of life and a great deal of their hours were spent in anguished disappointed with the lack of overarching care shown them by the aforesaid descendants.
In other words, of all the things to worry about, which way death comes has got to be the last thing worth spending any thought on.
As for draft dodging, I wouldn't knock it.
Baravk Obama did not dodge the risk of getting blown up in war for the simple reason that the draft no longer existed by the time he came of age.
Otherwise he probably would have taken the route of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
Factory produced and distributed morality for the masses is designed to aid those who are above it - like all of the aforementioned. If circumstances accidentally added you to those spared the losing odds of either modern american familyhood or modern american warfare then I recommend counting your lucky stars rather wallowing in not having done your duties.
Not having been informed of any progeny I assume that I have none but I have never referred to myself as childfree.
I have referred to myself as homefree on account of my perpetually peripatetic life but of course I wouldn't mind either the security of knowing that I have a house somewhere should I desire it or of having children who, at the least, cause me little trouble, or at best, are a daily blessing.
Should mass produced middle class morality actually retain a hold on you and your the guilt lever in your subconscious however, you might want to have a go at actually referring to yourself as childfree. Otherwise you enter every weigh-in at a disadvantage.
I myself have not written off either the goodness of having children of my own, ot the potential goodness of child-creation and child-rearing generally but, though I don't generally say it out loud so as not to hurt those in a different situation I generally agree with HL Mencken's reference to himself as a man "unencumbered by issue".
It's quite the blessing actually.
As I said I don't like saying so out loud because it inherently denigrates both the potential joys I may yet have with children or my own, as well as the entire frame of life for the very many men who do have kids, if you feel some sense of shame or loss in your own lack of issue I respectfully suggest that you get out of that rut by viewing yourself as, indeed, childfree.
Not to challenge anyone else but so that you can more fully enjoy the blessing that you DO have rather than the blessing yhat you don't.
A qualified no on both counts.
For better and for worse, christianity is on the way out and islam is on the way up in the usa, canada, and europe –not only because of mass immigration but because of increasing white conversions to islam.
Likely in one more generation, most white nonHispanic people in the USA and Canada will be not christian but atheist/agnostic, “spiritual but not religious”, or increasingly, Muslim.
Most Jews are not in fact white. Most Jews in the USA are not “white” but Ashkenazim, which typically means substantially European genetically (by far most often Italian) but more Semitic.
Sepphardic Jews, of course, are not genetically white europeans at all.
…………
More than successful businessmen, it seems that more Republican voters worship thugs and murderers (police and “veterans”) and value their “experience” the most when it’s time to pick nominees. Disgusting.
-You’re doomed to a lonely death and very restricted end of life, since no matter how many awful healthy meals you eat and how much exercise you do eventually your body breaks down
-There is nothing you leave behind after death; most of us aren’t Newton
-People (men and women) really want kids, and for men that involves exposing yourself to the risks you cite. And some guys still, despite the best efforts of the left, pull it off, they get a good woman and enjoy their progeny.
It’s kind of like my views on atheism: I don’t believe in God, but given what religion does for people I don’t proselytize for atheism. I don’t walk around calling myself ‘childfree’ like some obnoxious leftist; it’s not some proud statement of principle, in the end, I’m just dodging the draft.Replies: @ydydy
Interesting.
On the matter of leaving anything behind – unless you believe that you will retain a post-mortem consciousness of the happenings on Earth it will never matter to you whether you leave behind 10,000 children, a hundred trillion dollars or the Islamic faith.
Dead is just as dead for an unknown soldier as for alexander.
Just ask Diogenes.
As for the end of life, it’s likely that those with descendants will live a bit longer than those without but I have known MANY folk during those final additional years of life and a great deal of their hours were spent in anguished disappointed with the lack of overarching care shown them by the aforesaid descendants.
In other words, of all the things to worry about, which way death comes has got to be the last thing worth spending any thought on.
As for draft dodging, I wouldn’t knock it.
Baravk Obama did not dodge the risk of getting blown up in war for the simple reason that the draft no longer existed by the time he came of age.
Otherwise he probably would have taken the route of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
Factory produced and distributed morality for the masses is designed to aid those who are above it – like all of the aforementioned. If circumstances accidentally added you to those spared the losing odds of either modern american familyhood or modern american warfare then I recommend counting your lucky stars rather wallowing in not having done your duties.
Not having been informed of any progeny I assume that I have none but I have never referred to myself as childfree.
I have referred to myself as homefree on account of my perpetually peripatetic life but of course I wouldn’t mind either the security of knowing that I have a house somewhere should I desire it or of having children who, at the least, cause me little trouble, or at best, are a daily blessing.
Should mass produced middle class morality actually retain a hold on you and your the guilt lever in your subconscious however, you might want to have a go at actually referring to yourself as childfree. Otherwise you enter every weigh-in at a disadvantage.
I myself have not written off either the goodness of having children of my own, ot the potential goodness of child-creation and child-rearing generally but, though I don’t generally say it out loud so as not to hurt those in a different situation I generally agree with HL Mencken’s reference to himself as a man “unencumbered by issue”.
It’s quite the blessing actually.
As I said I don’t like saying so out loud because it inherently denigrates both the potential joys I may yet have with children or my own, as well as the entire frame of life for the very many men who do have kids, if you feel some sense of shame or loss in your own lack of issue I respectfully suggest that you get out of that rut by viewing yourself as, indeed, childfree.
Not to challenge anyone else but so that you can more fully enjoy the blessing that you DO have rather than the blessing yhat you don’t.