Move out of Mom and Dad's house already

http://www.unz.com/isteve/trump-on-syria-withdrawal-we-give-israel-billions-of-dollars-theyll-be-ok/

Indyk doesn't really paint Israel in a very flattering light. The thirty year old entitled bratty little princess who still demands an allowance from Mom and Dad. I mean seriously, why DO we give Israel so much money? That isn't "dangerous" that's common sense.

Here's my solution. Both Israel and America would be a lot happier and safer if we stopped sending them our money and instead sent them our Jews.

Browngeld

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6487193/Central-American-migrants-march-consulate-Tijuana-demands-Trump-administration.html

'We thought they would let us in' Caravan migrants march to the US consulate in Tijuana, Mexico, demanding Trump's administration to either let them in the US or pay them $50,000 each to go home

• Two groups of migrants wrote letters to the consulate, giving 72 hours to reply 

• One of the groups was made up of about 100 migrants, the other one of about 50 

• Their list of demands included speeding up the asylum application process 

• They also asked the US to remove Honduran President Hernandez from office

The brazen-ness of them!  They demand an answer from the US consulate!  They demand to be let in, or paid $50,000 each to go back home!

Look, if you're still virtue signaling about the migrants, or immigration, or anyone who wants to "work hard" can be an American regardless of the fact that he's a Honduran or whatever else he actually is, then you need to wake up and pull your head out of the sand.  These "migrants"—and honestly, almost all of the immigrants we've had since Ellis Island or before—are not Americans and never will be, and frankly, most of them don't even want to be.  They are the new Huns, the new Goths, the new Viking hordes.  They aren't trying to "become Americans."  They're trying to colonize America, conquer America, and in the meantime, demand tribute from Americans.  When Theodosius paid Hun-geld, the amount demanded was doubled.  When Ethelred the Unready paid Dane-geld, he was overthrown and replaced; England became a mere tributary to the North Sea empire of Danish Cnut the Great.  Even when the English reasserted themselves, that only lasted for a generation or two before French speaking Danes who now used the label Norman to describe themselves took over the country permanently.

Speaking of the Vikings, our ancestors understood the score.  Rudyard Kipling said, for instance:

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away." 

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then  you'll get rid of the Dane! 

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away." 

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane. 

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: -- 

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Replace Dane in every instance it shows up with black, brown or especially Jew-geld, and you'll see the situation that America is in, and has been for a number of decades, quite frankly.

Agency vs God's omnipotence

Some selected quotes from Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist.  I'd venture to say that most Latter-day Saints have a better understanding of the theological intricacies involved than many evangelical Christians, but this is still pretty good stuff, worth thinking about.  He's not a member of our faith, but this material can easily be adapted into LDS doctrine, because it is already part of LDS doctrine, just not expressed in the typical LDS "style guide" manner.  We understand better than most because of our expanded knowledge of the Gospel that comes from additional revelation beyond that contained in the Bible, about the role of agency, and the fact that God does not often intervene in everything in our lives, or rather, that he doesn't intervene in the manner that we may want him to.  Look at Alma's comments to Amulek while the people of Ammonihah were murdering the faithful women and children among them for a great example from our Scriptures, that if other Christian religions had access to, much of the doubt around this particular question would be resolved.

That said; I dunno.  Maybe not.  The Bible contains the story of Job after all, and people still don't get it.

Doubts about the existence of God, particularly the existence of a good and loving God, often stem from great emotional pain. While doubts are naturally bound to occur to any rational individual in moments of somber reflection, it is particularly hard to imagine that a loving God who loves us would choose to intentionally inflict pain upon us, especially if He is all-powerful. When one surveys the long list of horrors that have engulfed countless men, women and children throughout the course of history, the vast majority of them innocent and undeserving of such evil fates, one finds it easy to sympathize with the individual who concludes that God, if He exists and is paying attention to humanity, must be some sort of divine sadist. 

Because doubts are reasonable, normal and inevitable, they should never be brushed aside, belittled or answered with a glib phrase, for not only does decency demand that they receive a sensitive hearing, but also because they can have powerful ramifications that resonate long after the doubter himself has had them resolved one way or another. Randal Keynes, a descendant and biographer of Charles Darwin, asserts that it was the death of Darwin's beloved daughter Annie, at the age of ten after a long illness that convicted the great evolutionist of his dangerous idea that neither divine intervention nor morality had anything to do with the operation of the natural laws. And if this tragic loss was not the only element involved in Darwin's transition from an accomplished student of theology to the inventor of what today is the primary driving force behind the anti-theist New Atheism, it is widely considered to have been the final step that pushed him over the edge. 

One would not be human if one could not sympathize with Darwin's anguished rejection of the notion that there was any justice or even a silver lining to be found in the death of his beautiful little girl. And perhaps there was some consolation, if any consolation was to be found, in viewing his terrible loss as taking place within the context of a mechanistic universe, wherein one was not subject to the ineffable caprice of an unpredictable deity, but to the predictable operation of natural laws which one could at least hope to understand and attempt to utilize. 

But [...] it is a basic theological error to attempt to place the blame for earthly tragedies on Him. In fact, it is not only a theological error, but also a fundamental error of logic to conclude that God, even an all-powerful God, must be to blame for every evil, accident or tragedy that befalls us.

[...] 

[W]e [are] forced to draw a distinct line between capacity and action, the confusion of which is also the root of a much more serious theological error. Interestingly, this theological error is committed by Christians as readily as atheists, perhaps even more often, as they trust in God's plan for their lives instead of making use of their God-given intelligence and free will. 

There are a variety of phrases which contain the same inherent implication about a certain view of God. Many evangelical Christians often refer to “God's perfect plan” for their lives. This concept is reinforced with children's songs such as “He's got the whole world in his hands” and echoed by sports stars who compete in the assurance that their victory has been divinely secured ahead of time. It is held by American Exceptionalists who believe that God has uniquely blessed the United States of America and has authored a Manifest Destiny for it, and by Christian Zionists who see a divine hand in every violent twist and turn of the Mideast Peace Process. 

These various evangelicals have an unexpected ally in Sam Harris, who declares it to be an obvious truth that “if God exists, he is the most prolific abortionist of all” due to the fact that 20 percent of all known pregnancies miscarry, and then asserts that those who believe in God should be obliged to present evidence for his existence in light of “the relentless destruction of innocent human beings that we witness in the world each day.”
What the evangelical and the atheist have in common here is a belief that because God is omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate, he is somehow responsible for these events, although Harris would qualify that with the necessary “if he exists”. And in fairness, it must be pointed out that when Harris cites Hurricane Katrina and the 2004 Asian tsunami as God's failure to protect humanity, he is really doing rather better than the “perfect plan” evangelical who would assert that these tragedies were sent by God for some ineffable higher purpose intended to benefit humanity. 

This belief in an all-acting God, who not only guides the grand course of events but actually micromanages them, is the result of the same confusion between capacity and action that we saw in the Contradiction of Divine Characteristics. When God asserts that He cares about the sparrows and knows when one falls from its branch, this is very different from an assertion that He only happens to know about it because He personally struck the sparrow down. An omniscient God knows the numbers of hairs on your head and an omnipotent God is capable of changing their color, but it requires an active Master Puppeteer to personally pluck them, one by one, from your balding head, in the desired order.

Because we understand that God does not interfere with our agency, and that He allows trials to befall us (which is very different than actively causing those trials to befall us) this particular fallacy is one that Latter-day Saints should be more resistant to than other Christians, but I find that that's not necessary true.

I particularly like the part near the beginning, which is often one of my personal weaknesses: "Because doubts are reasonable, normal and inevitable, they should never be brushed aside, belittled or answered with a glib phrase, for not only does decency demand that they receive a sensitive hearing, but also because they can have powerful ramifications that resonate long after the doubter himself has had them resolved one way or another."  I tend to have insufficient empathy to have much patience for people who struggle with things that to me seem to be self-evident, but of course, that's a personal failing of my own, and I need to be better at it.

The Lord's position on nationalism

Fascinating stuff.  I hadn't seen this in a long time (not since I took seminary in the late 80s, I'd bet) so it wasn't on my radar until someone else of another faith pointed it out to me.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/31/bible-undermined-concept-global-empires-favor-nation-states/

Here's the passage from the scriptures.  I skipped some verses that talk about the giants that possessed the land beforehand, and stuff like that.  From Deuteronomy 2.  Think about how this parallels the giving of the Land of Promise to the Americans. 

And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Esau, which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore: 

Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. 

Ye shall buy meat of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink. 

And the Lord said unto me, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession. 

And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. 

Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle. 

This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee. 

And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, 

Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor to the left. 

Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet; 

(As the children of Esau which dwell in Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, did unto me;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the Lord our God giveth us.
But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day. 

And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 

Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 

And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: 

Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took. 

From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the Lord our God delivered all unto us: 

Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto the cities in the mountains, nor unto whatsoever the Lord our God forbad us.

Slavery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1FO9MqWugY

1) This is semantics. Of course everyone knows that there are legal differences between chattel slavery and indentured servitude, but that the de facto condition is more or less the same.  Starting off right away with a pedantic nitpick and playing it up as a big gotcha is a bad start.

2) True enough.  Is that really a myth?

3) See #1.  This is another attempt to split hairs between chattel slavery and serfdom.

4) This misses all kinds of things, particularly about how a) there were riots in NYC after the Emancipation Proclamation, because people had felt duped into fighting the Civil War over slavery, b) there were massive amounts of desertions of Union troops after the Emancipation Proclamation for the same reason, and people were not willing to die for "the cause of the Negro," and c) journalists at the time; from the North, otherwise more or less sympathetic to Lincoln, were pretty united in their condemnation of the Emancipation Proclamation as nothing but a cynical move that had no actual effect, since it only freed the slaves in the territories that the Union didn't control and therefore had no authority over.

5) It was a minor issue.  He's totally wrong.  Mentioning slavery doesn't mean that slavery especially in the context of the South being "slave states" was the most important factor, merely that it was a convenient label that was in common usage at the time.  And Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist either, when elected.  Curiously, Jefferson Davis was more interested in the eventual dissolution of the institution of slavery than Lincoln was.  Don't "watch his other video" if you want more info.  Read one of Thomas DiLorenzo's books instead (or even his contributed chapters in Reassessing the Presidency.)  The real cause of the Civil War was economic Imperialism by the North, who had always seen the South as an area to be exploited by the North.

6) He doesn't even get the fact that there were two Souths; the Deep South, Gone with the Wind plantation south, and the backwoods Dukes of Hazzard South.  There is no doubt that slavery was an important economic component of the plantation south, which made it just as vulnerable and subject to eventual toppling as the Roman Empire was, which was much more dependent on slave labor than the South ever was.  Also, the 36% number is flat out wrong.  In the 1850 census, there were 350,000 slave owners.  That's less than 5%.  Now; granted, there were extended families included in the census that weren't slave-owners but which were dependent on the economics of slavery.  Maybe that's where he's getting his number?  Mine is from the actual census, as pointed out by Dr. John Hope Franklin in his book From Slavery to Freedom (1994).  His is based on some kind of voodoo mathematics.

7) This is also splitting hairs by making a big deal about alleged differences.  Saying that a worker could charge or sue his employers when he would then have no employment and would starve is absurd.

8) Again; read DeLorenzo.  There are all kinds of records that he apparently doesn't know about.  Few blacks in the South actually wanted freedom.  This shouldn't be surprising, really.  Few Americans of any color today want freedom either, and we've eagerly embraced the gradual socialization and removal of our rights as we approach slavery ourselves.  Remember; Limhi's people thought that the Lamanites taking half of their wealth as tribute was "grievous to be born"—and yet the actual tax rate once you account for all taxes that we pay (including "invisible" taxes that are baked into the cost of what we buy) are about that same rate in America today.  We are in bondage as surely as Limhi's people are, and to masters who are much more hostile to our well-being than the slave owners of the South were to the blacks.

9) Has yet to recover economically?  Good grief.  It never will recover, because west Africa is filled with Africans.  The average IQ in west African sub-Saharan countries is in the 60s and 70s with the lowest average IQ country in the world smack dab in the middle of this area, Equatorial Guinea, with an average IQ of 59.  That's the average for the entire country, and it's functionally retarded from the perspective of a Western European (or European Diaspora) nation.  In fact, every sub-Saharan African country, and most Third World countries in general have average IQs that would have been classified as "borderline deficient" (70-80) or "definite feeble-mindedness" (69 or below) according to classifications that were purged due to political correctness, but which were nonetheless accurate.  In fact, the most functional of Third World countries (China excepted—although there are numerous reasons to believe that the Chinese average IQ is significantly overstated for both methodological and political reasons) are still within the realm of "dullness" (80-90).  Rather; slavery was an opportunity for the above average elite caste of West Africa to profit from their neighbors, and given that they were both a) very tribal, and b) very r-selected, without any kind of Christian moral foundation to check their worst impulses, they saw no reason whatsoever not to sell the slaves that they already had anyway to European traders.

10) This is semantic word-games too.  Of course slavery isn't "ended" globally; because white countries only had the legal jurisdiction to end slavery within their own countries.  This point is, in fact, quite stupid, and meant as a gotcha; he agrees with it even as he disputes it by redefining the context to mean something other than what it actually means.

Anyway, this is hardly meant to be an apologetic of slavery.  The desire for cheap labor in America, whether slaves, serfs, indentured servants, or imported scabs that can be paid much less than market labor rates has been the poison that will kill America slowly over time.  We never should have brought slaves to America, and if our ancestors did so, then they should have been returned or set up somewhere else other than in America, as Lincoln himself believed was necessary for peaceful coexistence. He turned out to have been completely right on that one, at least.  The elite plantation owners are little better than the elite CEO caste who throws Americans under the bus for H1-B visas, outsourcing and illegal alien labor; both are equally sociopathic, exploiting others to enrich themselves while looting the commonwealth.

But the youtube guy is right about one thing; most people don't understand the history of slavery, and have tried to appropriate it through historical revisionism to create a victim narrative by which to blackmail their political enemies into paying victimgeld of some kind or another.

Some More great Unz articles

Archived, so I can find them more easily again.

http://www.unz.com/article/jewish-politics-in-america-a-post-political-view/

http://www.unz.com/runz/racial-politics-in-america-and-in-california/

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israel-wins-2018-election/

http://www.unz.com/proberts/why-white-gentiles-cant-get-admission-to-ivy-league-universities/

http://www.unz.com/proberts/a-civil-war-lesson-for-the-uneducated/

There's especially a lot in the last article, small though it is.  Or rather, there's a lot more on that topic than the last article has, although there's some pretty good links within the article itself.  As an ethnic Southerner myself, I grow extremely tired of the slander and hatred poured upon the South, where we are cast as the eternal villains and the Original Sin of America, which justifies the continued oppression of our people, our culture, our traditions, our iconography and symbols, and indeed, the replacement of us in our own homelands.  The lies and slander about the South and Southerners is hardly new; it started before the Civil War even happened, but it was tempered by at least some common sense.  I mean, when I was a kid, it was still possible for The Dukes of Hazzard to not only be made, but even to be a huge, nationwide hit.

Almost nothing about what people "know" about the Civil War is really true.  Especially the notion that the Confederacy was the American equivalent of Nazi Germany.

For that matter, Nazi Germany wasn't even what Nazi Germany is believed to be either.

http://flippingfetchingfiddledeedee.blogspot.com/2018/10/ron-unz-on-jews.html

And not Ron Unz, but another Jewish "defector" telling America what's really going on.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

Republicans vs Democrats

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2018/11/2018-midterms-continued.html

An interesting breakdown of midterm election statistics.  What caught my eye the most?  The educational divide.  Those who have had to endure a university indoctrination are more likely to be democrats.  And they say brainwashing doesn't work!

Today's archetypal Republican is a successful small business owner in a trade like plumbing, welding, building contracting, etc. without a college degree, but with several trucks and employees.  Today's archetypal Democrat is the over-educated barista at Starbucks with pointless advanced degrees agitating for socialism because her own poor choices have made her desired lifestyle unachievable, and socialism would pay more of her foolishly acquired bills.

Another Dad's comments

Great stuff!  Italics is what he's responding to, on CNN.

The American civil war didn’t end. And Trump is a Confederate president

It’s easy to mock this sort of leftist lunacy, now in “Confederate!” form. 

But of course the GOP is the party of–and Trump appeals to–married white gentiles. The closer you are demographically to being a (private sector employed) married white gentile, the more likely you are to be a Trump voter. 

Rather the big lie here is that the “who whom” is precisely the reverse of what she claims. 

His supporters hark back to an 1860s fantasy of white male dominance. But the Confederacy won’t win in the long run. 

In the 158th year of the American civil war, also known as 2018, the Confederacy continues its recent resurgence. Its victims include black people, of course, but also immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women who want to exercise jurisdiction over their bodies. 

The desire–demand!–for dominance here is not white men wanting to dominate “black people” and “immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women”, but the reverse! 

“Black people” and “immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women” are demanding the right to dominate white guys–make white guys work for them and give them their white guy stuff. 

They–the “coalition of the fringes” are the “slave power”, trying to enslave white men. Trump’s appeal to us evil white guys is essentially that we can be left alone, live our lives as free men and not be looted and abused by the fringes. 

The way you can prove this is who is demanding what from whom? Or who is willing to separate from whom? 

This is the acid test that i was attempting to flush out in the previous Zero Amendment comment thread: 

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-zeroth-amendment-explicated/#comment-2607940 

And the distinction between the whines of “oppression” from the fringes and actually slavery in the earlier comment: 

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-zeroth-amendment-explicated/#comment-2607227 

This “who-whom” dependency issue is why i think raising the “separate nations” question is quite powerful and needs to be done by Trump and nationalists repeatedly. Given the open treason and hatred (for white gentiles) that is now routine on the pages of the NYT, i’d be more than happy to split America right now. (We aren’t one nation, when “elites” openly spew out their desire to see the nation’s actual core population dispossessed.) 

Let’s have all the Hillary voters group up in their areas–i’ll happily move if that’s necessary. They can have their rainbow hued, open-borders, “nation of immigrants”, hands-up-don’t-shoot, gender fluid utopia. I’m actually not dependent on them and don’t need them whatsoever. 

We Trump voters can then have our regular old American nation. We’ll farm our fields, build our houses, tractors, trucks, cars, airplanes, drill for oil and gas (and do solar and nukes) and live our lives and get along just fine … in fact better! without being looted by the fringes. 

Mention “separate nations” and the resulting screams of anguish will tell you who is actually intent on looting whom.

Be sure and go vote today and get the takers out of power, as much as possible.  The more success we have with the ballot box, the less we'll need to appeal to the bullet box.

The Last Days

https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/10/from-berlin-beijing-to-brasilia-new-era.html

The New World Order and the Liberal World Order are the same thing; the former is just after the competing ideology of the Soviets was defeated, it took a victory lap and a name change... only to fall apart in a single generation as unsustainable, unsupportable, and in denial of reality.

The Chinese classic of literature, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms starts with the following line: "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been."

The American Empire, united since the Civil War must now divide again to its more manageable constituencies.  Hubris will declare that all will want to unite again in the future, assuming we get that far without the Second Coming interrupting the flow of history, but reality will declare that such hubris will end.

It really kind of goes back to the Puritan heresy of Babel; trying to build an earthly Utopia by forcing everyone everywhere to acknowledge the superiority of your vision, and making them live it.  No wonder the NWO is the child of Satan; it's literally the warmed over leftovers of his plan from the Pre-existance all over again.

Heritage

I think heritage is a fascinating thing.  Of course, if you look at my HBD tab, you'll see part of the reason why.  Something on the order of 80% of our behavior is genetic.  That doesn't mean that we can't overcome genetic tendencies and determine our own fate, of course, but it does mean that the form of our natural man is different, maybe, than our neighbors.  Actually, in a normal nation, our neighbors would have similar tendencies, because that's the definition of a nation; a people sharing a common culture, language and genetic heritage.  But our nation would perhaps have a different natural man than your nation, and because the people in one nation would have the same expectations of behavior, communities would be more or less peaceful.  As long as people of other nations lived in the community in small enough numbers that they couldn't upset this community balance, or if they were merely visitors or passing through, then we'd have a path to world peace.  Ironic, isn't it, that segregation is one of the worst bogeymen of the false religion that passes for modern philosophy, yet in reality, segregation is the key to peaceful coexistence between neighboring nations?  Just ask the American Indians what they think of segregation, and if they'd be willing to give up their reservations and assimilate in the name of inclusivity.

The other side of this same coin is that we are told repeatedly the proverb that if only we'd spend more time with other people, we'd understand them better and get along better.  In reality, we've spent too much time together, we understand each other all too well, and rather than causing us to get along, it's caused us to fail to spectacularly.  Up until I went to college, I'd only ever met one person who was an Indian national.  This isn't because I was in some podunk little town, but because the vast wave of H1-B migration hadn't happened yet.  Nobody knew any Indians.  In fact, if you heard the word Indian, you'd be thinking feathered headresses, teepees and peace pipes.  But my exposure to many Indians from India in the years since has not caused me to develop a greater appreciation for their culture. Quite the opposite; I now see hundreds if not thousands of small ways in which we are culturally incompatible due to frequent exposure.  And when the only reason that millions of them are here is because they're acting as foreign, mercenary scabs to take jobs that can and should have gone to Americans, and to depress Americans' wages, then it almost doesn't matter what positive qualities their culture has, because they are not here in good faith providing a benefit to America; they are, in fact, a detriment, deliberately imposed on America.  And they don't even have the benefit of bringing good food with them like the Chinese or the Mexicans.

Now, Indians can practice their culture in India to their hearts' content, and that's great.  I have no problem whatsoever with their behavior in their own country, where for the most part, what they do is peaceful, and their interactions with their own people cause no problems.  But Indians and Americans interacting and pretending that we're one nation and one people with cultural, linguistic and genetic bonds is a farce, and it doesn't cause us to get along better at all.  It's as if I were to invite one of the members of the ward who is significantly different in terms of personality and approach to child-rearing, and everything else to live in my house with me.  While we have our own separate houses, we can be good friends.  But make us live together in the same house, and we'd just get on each others' nerves too much; we wouldn't get along anymore.  We're incompatible for that close of a relationship.

Almost everyone is familiar with this concept from room-mates at college or missionary companions.  People that you get along with great in one setting, maybe even your best friends, often aren't anymore when you live together because of the hundreds, and even thousands of little things that are incompatible between your behavior.

Anyway, I'm thinking about this because I went to another ward yesterday for some stake business and as a favor to the bishop; I'm the merit badge counselor for a merit badge his son is working on, and he wanted to review some stuff with me and get it signed off.  Since I'm also assigned to be the liaison from the stake YM's presidency with that ward (and a couple of others) I thought it convenient to kill two birds with one stone; make a visit, meet with the boy about his merit badge, and talk to the ward YM president about some YM stuff.  Anyhoo, a member of the stake presidency was on the stand.  He's actually from that ward.  When the sacrament meeting talks ended, there were just a few minutes left, so he spoke for a bit.  One of the things he mentioned, and this wasn't the point of what he was saying, but it's what caused me to reflect, was that he and his family had lived in Alabama for a number of years for work before moving here where we live now.  As he was preparing to move, locals would caution him about moving up among those "rude Northern Yankees."  He thought this was odd and wondered if Northern Yankees really are rude, although upon some quick and dirty observation, he did note that Southerners are more overtly and superficially friendly than Northerners—although he noted that by being friendly, he could get the Northerners to become just as garrulous as anyone else.

But, of course, that's only one aspect of the differences between Yankees and Southerners, and a very superficial one at that.  As an ethnic Southerner living here in Yankeeland, I can see the hundreds if not thousands of details that separate us as different nations, and make our current situation of pretending to be "one nation under God" untenable.  Almost weekly I'm surprised at something that some Yankee will say to someone else and expect it to be OK, and this is after nearly twenty years of living here.  By the same token, I'm often shocked by what they don't say.  I've been accused at times of being too blunt, too casual, maybe, and of offending people as well, in ways that don't seem like they'd be an issue to me.  But that's because I'm a Southerner (and in many ways, almost a caricature of one) living among Yankees.  To me, the biggest disconnect, though, is the way in which Yankees perceive only dimly and in theory the concepts of free agency and individual sovereignty.  Yankees have a tendency to expect and even demand community scale conformity in a way that is totalitarian to me; a nannying-busybodyishness that is completely incompatible with the doctrine of free agency as we understand it in the church.  If you can't be made to conform via social pressure, then there are really only two responses: 1) double down on the social pressure, and 2) exclude you from the community.

To me, this is the real source of the perception among Southerners that Northerners are "rude."  Northerners are just too into your business in general, and feel that they have the right (even the obligation!) to tell you what you should be doing all of the time.  They really struggle to just leave you alone, accept your idiosyncrasies, and get along with you just fine in spite of them.  And this carries on with Yankees, even when they move.  One of the things that I've also noticed is that the majority of members of the Church in America are Yankees. (See some of the JayMan links on the HBD tab.)  This shouldn't be surprising; the Church was organized in New England among the descendants of Pilgrims and Puritans, and the core of the membership in America has always been such.  It's actually a better explanation for their failure to make a place for themselves in Missouri and Illinois; it's not so much religious intolerance as it was cultural incompatibility that made them unwelcome.  As immigrants from Scandinavia and Great Britain came to Deseret, they reinforced and bolstered this cultural founder effect, and the culture of Greater Deseret in the American West is a subset of Yankee culture overall.  Since most people all across the country who are members of the church are recent immigrants to the places they live from this Greater Deseret pioneer heritage gathering, most members of the Church have this Yankee personality and mentality with them.  Against this is the doctrine of free agency, but the two cause an awful lot of cognitive dissonance and friction, in my experience.

Now, I don't mean this to be a Yankee-bashing exercise.  Yankees' sense of community is also what has allowed them to build things that in the South we probably would never have done because we're too individualistic and iconoclastic to ever work together well enough to have done so.  If Yankees are prone via their natural man towards community-scale totalitarianism, the heresy of Babel; thinking that they can build utopian communities on Earth, and frequent moral panics and witch-hunts (and they are; would you really have expected anything else from the descendants of the Puritans?) my people are way too fractious, don't get along very well, have poor impulse control and a lower time preference for decision making in general.  Benjamin Franklin once said of my people that we were "a race of runagates and crackers; equally wild and savage as the Indians."  Another drama that I saw once had one of my people shot in a gunfight; while his mother was bandaging him up, she told him to quit complaining; our people don't die of gun shot wounds, they die of alcoholism and heart disease.  This is the legacy and natural man that I have to overcome.  I'm not very likely to try and make anyone else conform to my vision; in fact quite the opposite; I need to learn better how to lead my family, because my natural tendency is too individualistic; I tend to even think my family should take care of their own problems.  But I'm relatively short-tempered, have poor impulse control, and frequently set the same goals over and over again year after year because my progress towards them has been negligible.  None of those should be surprising to people who understand heritage, HBD and genetics.  Those are among my weaknesses, because it's my genetic heritage to have them as weaknesses, and overcoming the negative aspects of that natural man is my great challenge, whereas some Yankee will probably have as his greatest challenge learning how to respect others and not try and cram them into fitting to his ideal of what society should look like.

As an aside, I should probably point out that there are two completely different behavioral phenotypes in the South, and they conform to two completely different genetic heritages and cultural origins.  When I say that I'm a Southerner, you shouldn't imagine the genteel plantation type and their households.  I'm not Gone With the Wind, I'm more like The Dukes of Hazzard.  My people were fractious border people from the beginning of recorded history, occupying the border country near Hadrian's Wall where barbarism and civilization had their frontier.  After the Romans left, it eventually was raided by the Vikings and became a different border country between the British and the Danelaw.  Later, it was the border between northern England and lowland Scotland.  It was the home of the Border Reivers, who are my people; part English, part Scottish, all anti-authoritarian.  When the border was finally pacified and the Border Reiver way of life started disappearing because a strong enough crown to squash it out finally rose in London, my people came to America because they chafed under the yoke of too much authority and structure.  They immediately headed for the backwoods and the frontiers, and became the second type of southerner; although to be fair, some of them were Northerers too, at least if the Mason Dixon line is any guide.  They were eager to fight in the Revolutionary War because fighting was what they were arguably best at.  They were eager to expand the frontier, and didn't have any problem fighting Indians. Andrew Jackson is the only one of my people that I know of to have ever been elected President.   They sided in the Civil War with whomever they thought was likeliest to leave them alone, because they had little interest in bowing to the yoke of the neo-Puritan Yankees or the elitist plantation owners either one.  My people in West Virginia, for example, famously made the wrong call and sided with the north, only to regret it shortly after the war and side with the south politically, echoes of which still linger today in electoral maps.

Anyway, like I say, this heritage stuff intrigues me greatly.  And, I think it's vital to understanding not only the problems that we have today as a nation (or "nation" as the case really is) but trends of current events and what is likely to happen in the near and middle term future.  People who are ignorant (sometimes deliberately) of this stuff will continue to make the wrong calls, to not understand, and to be surprised by what happens.

Ron Unz on the Jews

Isaiah 11:13 "The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim."

Well, that hasn't happened quite yet.  Don't forget; Ron Unz is a Jew.  At least, ethnically, although I doubt he's very observant of the religion, if at all.

The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving

The JFK Assassination, part II: Who Did It?

Oddities of the Jewish Religion

The Bolshevik Revolution and its Aftermath

The Nature of Anti-Semitism

Jews and Nazis

Holocaust Denial

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

The ADL in American Society

Some commentary of mine on Facebook about MeToo

Another member of the Church posted an article from the National Review which fretted about how the Brett Kavanaugh circus is damaging the MeToo movement, and we should all be worried about that.  There was some lively discussion, but here's my take on it.  I thought it worth documenting in a venue somewhat less ephemeral than comments on a Facebook post.

The MeToo movement never had very much credibility to begin with; it has absolutely zero now. It also has no momentum, and no energy; the last time I saw a story in the news—ANY news—that bore the tag MeToo was over a month ago, and it was about a few minor celebrities distancing themselves from and disavowing the movement. I don't know who the National Review is fooling by dragging around the corpse of a disgraced and long-dead movement and pretending like it still has some currency or social cachet, but at least when Jonathan Silverman and Andrew McCarthy did it in Weekend at Bernies, they had the sense to do it while the corpse was still fresh. Facebook isn't a very good medium to explain in depth why the movement is less serious than the brief hysterical moral panic in the 80s about Satanic cults taking over day care centers, but I'll do my best to be both brief and as complete as possible. 

1) Everybody already knew what Hollywood and NYC careers were like. It's been well-known since the 1920s. Even if it wasn't, Shirley Temple's autobiography and Judy Garland's biography were published decades ago and were best-sellers. Nobody can profess ignorance with a straight face anymore. It's hard to take seriously the claims of alleged victims of sexual impropriety when they willingly and even ambitiously courted people who were well-known for it to advance their careers. Also; if they WERE sexually assaulted or molested, why are they coming out years after the fact, in most cases? Why did many of them take payments, and then CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEIR ALLEGED MOLESTORS for years, and even decades in some cases? Normal Americans saw MeToo start, and rolled their eyes, saying, "Yeah, even Grandma knew better decades ago than to get involved in a career like that if chastity were something she valued." It's a little bit like suggesting that soldiers made an honest mistake if they thought joining the Army were just about getting snazzy uniforms and were shocked to actually be asked to go to war. 

2) The most visual voices of MeToo, which propelled it into brief, faddish moral hysteria status, were all so incredibly flawed that they substantially and materially damaged the movement. Rose McGowan had older pictures of her standing basically naked on the red carpet back when she was younger and a more in demand commodity, and then she was arrested for possession of large amounts of cocaine, plus her hysterical behavior on social media made the whole thing seem absurd. Ashley Judd was revealed to have worked with Weinstein on several projects AFTER she was allegedly harassed, which calls into serious question her sincerity. She clearly is nothing more than a huckster and fraud attempting to get in front of the parade and pretend to be leading it. Asia Argento was one of its most vocal proponents, and she was revealed to be a sexual predator herself, engaging in under-age illicit liaisons while married to Anthony Bourdain. The MeToo movement was largely a victim of its own incompetent and dishonest so-called leaders. Normal Americans saw this movement as a freak show coming out of a clown car and paid little attention, other than to note with some satisfaction that at least a few absolutely terrible people were publicly scalped and driven from the public eye in disgrace. 

3) The timing could not have been worse; it was only;what, a year ago that the Rolling Stone frat house rape hoax was revealed to be a fraud, that the mattress girl rape hoax was revealed to be a fraud and not that long before that the Duke lacrosse team rape hoax was revealed to be a fraud. Anyone paying attention has noted two things: a) the oft-cited numbers of 1 in 4 women sexually assaulted in college is obviously a fraudulent number, based on flawed and even simply made up statistics. If it were anything at all of the sort, nobody would ever send their daughters to college. In reality, the number is closer to 1 in 500. b) several studies, two of which that I'm familiar with because I've read them myself by the DoD and the CDC, have independently confirmed that somewhere between 45-60% of all rape allegations are outright false and never happened. 

Now, granted, in the case of some of the public MeToo scalps, they never even contested the allegations, so they were obviously true. But again; normal Americans saw all of this and realized that there was a strong element of mass hysteria associated with the whole thing. 

4) The targets started to get really uncomfortable. It was one thing when it was a bunch of Hollywood moguls, but when it spread into the news media industry, reports and stories started to dry up. After all, it's not a very good career move to go on the air saying, "Tonight's top story; is my boss a sexual predator?" Also, some people started tallying the accused and realized that over 75% of them were Jewish. It got so bad that both the Jewish Times and Haaretz felt like they had to address it by questioning whether or not there was something specific to the Jewish male character that made them susceptible to this particular problem, and Larry David even commented on it during an SNL monolog. All of them were pretty much fluff pieces that amounted to little more than some smoke, some mirrors and loads of gratuitous Holocaust references and dark implications, but nobody ever really addressed the issue in a way that was substantive, and the media rather quickly moved to other topics. 

5) In spite of the hysteria, it was clear that the root of the problem wasn't touched, and only a few disposable targets that Big Hollywood and Big Media didn't have any use for anymore were offered up to be lynched by the mob. And even some of the accused skated through. Did anything actually ever happen to Al Franken? Nope. What about Corey Booker? Nope. Story buried. What about the ubiquitous chatter about pedophilia and child abuse in Hollywood? Discussion about it spiked briefly several months ago, but absolutely nothing happened, nothing changed, nobody was arrested or even investigated, and the media mostly tried to distract everyone from thinking about it too much. A handful of new stories from Corey Feldman and a few others saw the light, only to be forgotten as quickly as they surfaced. 

Again, normal Americans saw the movement as hypocritical and useless. It was all a bunch of virtue signaling and mob hysteria, but the real problems that it was dancing around remain as strong and untouched as ever. 

And Angie's comment way up above is also outright false. It absolutely IS a partisan issue, because there is a strong correlation between political affiliation and sexual assault, to the tune of liberals are over 50% more likely to be guilty of it. (That number would be statistically even MORE stark if liberal Republican politicians were properly classed as leftists and not rightists.) The partisan nature of sexual assault is scientifically unassailable, and what's more, it's hardly surprising anyway because its common sense. When one ideology preaches hedonism and lauds sexual libertines, is anyone surprised that that's the ideology where sexual assault is much more common? Of course not. Also, the entire thing is predicted by r/K-selection theory applied to politics anyway, which is one of the most useful models of describing the political landscape that I've ever seen, because it never fails to not only describe but even correctly predict what other models simply cannot.

UPDATE:  Also; surprise, surprise!  https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/10/09/human-resources-study-shows-a-stunning-unintended-backlash-to-the-me-too-movement/  Granted; that's maybe not actually bad news.  Getting women back home and recreating the nuclear family that we've largely had culturally stolen from us is a good thing in general.  But it can be a disaster specifically to some individuals, of course, to have their livelihood cut out from under them.

Last word on numbers and the dating market

Maybe not the last word, but just a data point that shows things are getting worse, not better.  MGTOW, or "men going their own way" basically means men deciding that the dating and marriage market is simply too harrowing to bother with.  Embracing bachelorhood, sometimes permanently.  Going Galt.  Refusing to engage in a system that is rigged against them.

It's a cowardly approach, and one not worthy of a Priesthood holder, in my opinion, but I can understand certainly why it happens.  But what it means is that the odds, which are already not good for girls in the Church, are actively getting worse.

What is real nationalism?

I don't mean the "I'm better than you because of my nation" nonsense, which Elder Ballard has rightly condemned.  I mean, what is nationalism?

I've been struck while reading the Book of Mormon with my family recently; we just got finished with Alma's mission to the Zoramites, and tonight we'll start on his instructions to Helaman, then Shiblon and Corianton, and then the Lamanite Wars and Captain Moroni start in earnest.  But what struck me was the Ammonites.  When the Nephites granted them sanctuary, they gave them unused land to be a land for their inheritance, in Jershon.  When the righteous Zoramite converts left the land of the Zoramites, they sought refuge among the Ammonites, and the Ammonites also gave unto them a land to be their inheritance.

This wisdom, which was so apparent to most generations of humanity that nobody really had to mention it, has been totally lost in the wake of Holocaust and globalist propaganda, and the idea of the nation-state is now considered passe, if not in fact evil.  It's not.  Sovereign nation-states are no more evil than sovereign homes owned by a family, and in fact, are basically the same thing anyway.  It's the best path towards peace; everyone has their home.  They can visit another home.  They can intermarry with another home, even.  But their home is their home and someone else's home is someone else's home, and respecting boundaries and the sovereignty of the family within the home is the solution to peace, not some bizarre notion of doing away with homes altogether, of having no homelands, of having no land for our inheritance where we can practice our culture in peace and allow others to do the same in their own homelands.

Anyway, a few quotes.  First, Teddy Roosevelt.  Civic nationalists, who believe that Paperwork Americans are as real as Heritage Americans love to quote parts of this out of context, but they don't really want to quote the entire thing, or think about what it really means if they do.

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts ‘native’ before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as anyone else. 

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

What do you do with those who do have divided loyalties?  How many people are comfortable with telling at least half (if not more) of American Jews that they have to go to Israel, because clearly their loyalty is stronger to Israel than to America?  For instance?  As Vox Day says about this very quote, and the person (Peter) who brought it up:

No doubt that is true. But the problem with Peter's thinking is that loyalty to an artificially constructed "nation-state" cannot be manufactured simply by everyone of goodwill electing to pretend that they are all part of the same nation. Even after centuries of being unified under a single British crown, the Scots voted for independence - it was the votes of the non-Scots resident in Scotland that caused the "Scottish" independence vote to fail. 

And even Teddy Roosevelt himself said that "there ought to be no room" in the country for those who do not consider themselves to be Americans and nothing else. That means forcibly deporting most of the post-1965 immigrants, all of the Jews, and all of the African-Americans, just for starters. And that's a more extreme position than that espoused by the average member of the Alt-Right. I very much doubt most of the civic nationalists who cite Roosevelt's stirring rhetoric realize precisely what it is they are implicitly endorsing. 

The rise of 4GW has broken the state's monopoly on violence. Once nukes or other weapons of mass destruction are accessible to non-state actors, that will break the state's monopoly on political legitimacy as well, because there will be strength without the numbers provided by unity. 

And like nukes, identity politics are not going to disappear simply because some people happen to find them distasteful. Identity politics are not a Marxist plot or a "right-wing SJW" tactic, they are nothing less than the political environment in which Americans now find themselves due to their foolish and ruinous immigration policies of the last 53 years.

And as Stilicho (not the famous, historical one) says, in addition:

European immigrants are generally capable enough of intermarriage with Americans to integrate into a single nation (although that nation is/will be significantly different than the original). And we are too far gone down that path to avoid those changes. Non-European immigrants are not acceptable to Europeans for marriage in sufficiently large numbers to integrate in that fashion, so there will be no meaningful integration and they cannot ever be a part of the American nation outside of a few outliers (but even those will experience a reversion to the mean if their children don't intermarry with Americans). So the 35 million or so Africans will have their own nation (they already do in one sense, but they will need a land of their own if they are to survive). Ditto for those among the 50 million or so "hispanics" who don't intermarry and become Americans. There will be war. Only the details remain to be worked out. A South African ought to realize that no amount of money, education, good intentions, wishful thinking, or pixie dust will make an African anything other than an African or ever make him resemble a European in any meaningful way. They are different. Aceept it.

And as another guy (who's LDS and who has worked as an expat for the State Department and lived overseas with his family) says:

Not too many years ago I was a civic nationalist kind of guy. As far as I could tell the melting pot more or less worked and that failure to assimilate more recent groups was just more due to their size and recentness. Figured everyone would more or less get with the program. I didn't believe in cabals of people hellbent on unmaking my country for their benefit. I was always conservative and didn't like a lot of the social changes taking place but did not make the connection somehow that culture is downstream from demographics. 

Now...I cannot unsee what I have seen. My place of work has been uniquely instructive. I have learned a whole lot. About how some groups are more equal than others. About nepotistic practices. About separation of church and state for "thee but not for me." About personnel from some groups that cannot be gotten rid of no matter how disastrous they are because they have too many pokemon points. Etc.  

Waking up to all of this was totally depressing. But the world makes much more sense as things fall apart. 

I also note that while I often call myself a pretty much exact picture, physically, culturally, by personality, etc. of the backwoods southerner descended from the Anglo-Scottish and Scots-Irish Borderers, that's not really completely true genetically.  On my mother's side, I'm pretty much a typical Utah Yankee Mormon, with ancestry from Massachusetts and the rest of the New England area before moving west along with the Mormons.  That doesn't seem to have contributed much to my personality, I don't think, but it is what it is.  Perhaps more interestingly is that the "pureness" of the Anglo-Scottish Borderer ancestry isn't really pure.  In the late 1600s, Arnold Jahn (spelled Yonn and even Yawn in later generations) was the descendant of a Prussian Jew.  In the earlier 1800s, Antonio Henriques from the Portuguese island of Madeira made his way with his wife, Anna Julia de Freitas.  His son, born in Illinois, married another Portuguese immigrant, but his grandson did not (a good, old-fashioned American of Scottish descent named Galloway.)

The point is, these people, who contributed what is now a thin thread of genetic legacy to me, abandoned their old identity and became Americans, to Stilicho's point above.  They gave up their religion (in fact, it looks like they did before even leaving the Old Country, which was probably a significant contributing factor in their decision to emigrate), married locals, gave up their language, named their kids American names.  The Henriques even disavowed their Portuguese heritage, and my great-grandmother (a Galloway) refused to her dying breath to believe that her husband had been ethnically Portuguese even after my uncle (who served a mission in Brazil) and my dad did the research to figure out exactly who they were and where they came from.

So, they're the outliers mentioned by Stilicho.  But you can see how they managed to become outliers; by not holding on to their original culture and identity, but rather by crafting an American one, and by intermarrying with Americans, and by raising kids who were American.  There's often a reversion to mean when the difference is very visible, but after many generations, I'm very, very, little Jewish and Portuguese, to the point where I only mention it occasionally as a point of curiosity, and don't consider it to have contributed meaningfully to who I am, really.

A bit more information, from Vox, in the comments to his comment:

Why specifically all of the Jews and all of the Africans versus other ethnicities post 1965? 

Because Jewish-Not-Americans and African-Not-Americans are far and away the worst offenders with regards their absolute refusal to assimilate and become unhyphenated Americans. Jews openly describe assimilation as "a silent Holocaust" and Africans overtly reject even the use of American-style names. 

The two groups are also the most visible in actively waging war against American history and American cultural traditions in their own perceived interests. 

I have no problem with either group protecting its own identity. But they're not Martians, they're not fish, and they're not Americans. And pretending otherwise isn't fooling anyone anymore.

Yes, true. This is easy enough to suss out if one goes to the trouble to try and do so.

The Crumbling of the Cult of Holocaustianity

Ron Unz, who I'll highlight (again) is himself Jewish, systemically calls into serious question the most basic tenets of the Holocaust narrative.

http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

This is very long... but very interesting.  And it moves me significantly more into the camp that "something is extremely fishy with regards to our Holocaust narrative."

Vox Day offers an interesting, albeit speculative (by his own admission) syllogism.  Let's assume the major premise that a large number (not 6 million, but something that can reasonably called a large number, at least) were killed in the lead-up to and during the years of WW2 is in fact true.  Let's assume the minor premise, that the Germans who are notoriously bureaucratic, did not keep any records detailing the process of the Holocaust (which is in fact true.)  What is the parsimonious solution, then?  That someone else is responsible for killing the Jews, not the Germans.

Reading Unz's article, what are some interesting things that pop up?  1) Most of the supposed Jewish victims were not living in Germany, but in Eastern Europe.  2) All of the evidence of the Holocaust actually comes from the Soviets, 3) Who were responsible for, among other things, the Katyn Forest massacre and a Holocaust of his own peoples that dwarfs that of the Jews, even as historical revisionism has lowered his numbers and raised that of the Germans. 4) Most of the American political and military personnel of the 50s and even the 60s, many of whom actually served in the European theater, thought the Holocaust narrative was nonsense, 5) The American government was literally riddled with Soviet spies, as the Venona Papers conclusively proves, so much so that Joseph McCarthy is not only completely vindicated, but it's clear that he didn't go nearly far enough in his accusations.

So.. did Stalin actually perpetrate whatever Holocaust actually happened?  Vox Day isn't actually suggesting as much, merely pointing out that it's more plausible than the narrative that we actually have.

Anyway, again—read the entire article linked above.  It's kind of amazing.

On numbers and the dating market, part 2

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/20/living/mormon-dating-app/index.html

Some confirmation of a lot of my back of the napkin calculations, (in this post) especially after I looked up the BYU's sex ratio, and found that I had other, corroborating evidence that suggested that that number was correct not just for the universities specifically, but for the eligible bachelors and bachelorettes in the church overall.  A few quoted sections:

Mormons today face longer tenures in singledom and a skewed gender ratio. There are 150 Mormon women for every 100 Mormon men, according to one study, creating a statistical dilemma that complicates church leadership's bold project to ensure all youth attain a temple marriage. In total, 51% of Mormon women over age 18 are single, according to internal statistics cited in a church public relations video, which leaked on the website "MormonLeaks." For these women, the dream of previous generations -- 87% of married Mormons have a Mormon spouse -- may not be statistically attainable.

3:2 sex ratio in the church. Half of eligible women unmarried.  And unlikely to be so.

The Mutual app is presented as if it's the way to solve this dilemma, but it's not, except in the case of a relatively few individuals who find success with it. More quotes from the article:

There's no data to prove that Mutual will ensure the continuity of Mormonism. Stories of marriages from the apps are powerful anecdotes, but their evidence is only qualitative. 

Mutual also shares the criticism that has recently been levied at Tinder: that the prospect of infinite choice is making users lazier, and more selective. According to Pew, roughly 1/3 of online daters fail to convert on a fourth down -- they chat with matches on apps but say they have "never" been on a date with someone they met online. 

Yep.  The idea that Mutual will be more successful in the Latter-Day Saint niche than Tinder is more generally is a very, very dubious one that I wouldn't count on.

As I described in my last post on this particular topic, unless you're one of the General Authorities, or a Singles Ward bishop, or the High Councilor over YSA and SA in your stake, or some such, it's probably not something you should or even could worry about much other than making sure that your own kids—especially your daughters—are prepared for the environment.  Because seriously; what can you do about a 3:2 sex ratio?  It's all well and good to talk about retention and activation, but that's already a major emphasis anyway.  It's not changing the ratio overall.  Unless plural marriages come back, there's going to be close to half of all women who just simply can't get the temple marriage that they want because the numbers preclude it.  It's just math.  Harsh, black and white, and unassailable.  Plural marriage is the only solution to that particular conundrum.

But in the meantime, what you want to do is 1) teach your daughters how to greatly reduce the odds of being one of the nearly half of all women who are left behind by teaching them how important it is to be the kind of woman that will attract the kind of man that they want to marry, rather than simply believing that simply showing up at one of the BYUs is sufficient, and 2) teach your sons to take marriage seriously, and to be selective and discriminating.

The single biggest challenge most of the girls who end up not being married will face is the specific constant cultural thread runs through Western civilization that teaches women and girls to be narcissistic, honestly.  That they're entitled to everything that they want just because they're such special little princesses, who graced us with their presence. Because they showed up, and daddy loves them, and Heavenly Father loves them, so why shouldn't everyone else too? That being pleasant to be around, that being likable, that focusing on skills and personality traits that will actually make you a high quality wife, mother, home-maker, etc. are passé, and should be passed over in favor of careerism, self-indulgence, self-actualization, etc.  This persistent threat in our culture is one of the most pernicious, because there are few things that have led to more destruction (and less formation in the first place) of the family, which is integral to God's plan for us and our happiness.

Another recent anecdote from my recently married son.  He came out to visit us recently for a few days.  His wife couldn't get the time off work, but he was free, between classes, etc., and we were willing to pay for it, so he spent about a week here at home.  His wife said in church while he was gone that many other young married couples commented to her that they never would have "let" their husband go away on a trip to visit his family for a few days.  Huh?  My son is very lucky to have married someone who has no trace of this kind of entitlement, but it was a great opportunity to speak to my other, younger, teenaged sons about the idea.  It is important as a husband that you listen to and counsel with your wife.  That you take seriously her concerns and worries.  That you make decisions together, and be of one mind as much as possible.  But that's a long way from the idea that a wife has any right to "let" her husband do anything.  What kind of self-respecting man would ever take seriously as a spouse a woman who feels that she's entitled to put a leash on her husband?  What self-respecting man would tolerate for long having that kind of leash?  No, most likely that's a time bomb of building resentment waiting to happen.  And while maybe the "let" language is spoken halfway jokingly, I've been around long enough to know that it's only halfway, if that.  If it is a joke, it's funny because it's all too often true.

Now, I don't mean to put that burden entirely on the shoulders of the young women of the Church, of course.  Young Men falling into inactivity and otherwise being unavailable to marry worthy young women is completely unacceptable; an abdication of duty and privilege both.  Young men turning away from marriage because they're turned off by the bad behavior of too many of the young women that they interact with isn't much better.  This is sometimes called the MGTOW movement; "Men Going Their Own Way" and it is a reaction to the gynarcho-tyranny tendencies of our society.  Dr. Helen Smith in her great book Men On Strike refers to it as men "going Galt;" opting out of institutions that no longer serve their needs, and in fact, actively attack and thwart them.  (That book is really worth reading, by the way.  I highly recommend it.)  But deciding that marriage isn't for you because it's hard to find a worthy young women that you actually can stand to be married to for eternity is both a denial of the plan of our Heavenly Father as well as, ultimately, kind of an act of cowardice.

Young Men absolutely need to step up, be worthy, be the best versions of themselves that they can be, and be willing to preside over and lead a worthy young woman to the temple and into the formation of a celestial family.  But the reality is still what it is; there will be fewer such men than there are women. Which means that the men who do this can afford to be much more selective than young women sometimes wish to notice.  And that even so, a lot of young women will end up without a chair when the music stops, because of the mathematical reality. While this sounds rather bleak for young women (or the parents of young women) I think that things aren't quite so grim, or at least they don't have to be so individually.  Pleasant, nice girls who cause little in the way of drama and headaches tend to find that they rarely lack for social company from young men.  It's not sufficient, of course—but girls who do the best that they can to be as attractive as possible, to develop social skills, and frequent places where they can meet the kinds of guys that they want to meet, most often will do so, especially if they do so in a prayerful way, seeking and acting on inspiration from the Lord.

But again; you have to be the kind of girl that a man you want to marry would also want in return.  To me, that's the part that is often missing, and which few seem to be addressing, because few have seen the pattern and the trend so that it occurs to them to address it.  And so for those who can see the pattern, it's very predictable and easy to tell way in advance which girls are likely to find themselves unwilling old maids.  Because they've developed few if any of the traits that would make them less likely to avoid that.  I said flippantly to my sons once that those are the girls are might as well order up cat lady starter kits now, because the way that they're trending, that's the most likely outcome for them.  But what else do you expect when you're actively broadcasting how uninterested you are in having men take you seriously, by cultivating a brand that's unpleasant, sassy to the point of constant irritation, angry or bitter or resentful, entitled, bossy and pushy, and otherwise the kind of personality that any self-respecting young man would never consider suitable in a serious candidate for marriage?

Apparently, that's a mean thing to say, at least directly to a woman.  And I agree that flippant remarks are unlikely to be taken seriously anyway.  But unfortunately, it's true.  And in the end, what's meaner, telling someone a wintry truth (to paraphrase Neal A. Maxwell) that they don't want to hear, but which knowing will help them have a happier, more fulfilling life, or telling them a pretty little lie which may make them happier in the short term, but which increases their chance at finding little more than a lifetime of disappointment for missed opportunities that she didn't even know that she was sabotaging?

Are you a liberal?

I've said many times that we have moved so far into a radical, Marxist worldview, that most people don't even realize it and believe that normal, healthy ideas are in fact Nazi cave-man ideas (nevermind that the Nazis were, of course, thoroughly left-wing socialists...)  It's going to snap back, but it won't do so until it reaches a breaking point (although lots of signs point to that being relatively imminent) which will be extremely ugly for everyone to have to go through.

But a lot of people don't believe me, of course.  Let's go through a little exercise.  Vox Day posted this survey or test from James Burnham, who devised this test in 1965.  What you'll find is that conservatives are not, in fact conservative.  What they are is yesterday's radical progressives. Today's radical progressives are merely insane.

In any case, here's the questions, with my answers to them.  What may surprise many, who think that I'm an ultra-reactionary hardline right-winger is that I'm actually more moderate than my grandparents probably would have been, and my grandparents were not necessarily particularly hardline right-wingers back in the 50s and early 60s either.  As the survey says, the more Agrees, the more liberal—a liberal would have 85+% Agrees, and not even unusually, 100% agree.  I've allowed myself to score some as "halves" where I mostly agree with the sentiment, but recognize some really important contextual exceptions or caveats.  I've marked Agrees with A, Disagrees with D and halves with ½.

There's a lot of interpretation involved.  I took it last night and got 75% Disagrees.  This time, I got 85%.  But it's based on my interpretation of the questions, so you'll have to read my commentary to really understand, I think.

1. All forms of racial segregation and discrimination are wrong. — Naturally not.  Are you going to be the one who goes to the tribal elders and tells them that they need to give their reservations back because racial segregation and discrimination makes you feel bad?  I didn't think so.  No, most likely what you mean by this is that white people of Western Civilization are somehow uniquely unable to have their own institutions, countries and homes.  Which is, of course, a ridiculous bit of cultural Marxist bigotry.  D

2. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. — This is more a statement of fact than ideology.  There's very little you can do to stop everyone from having their own opinions in any case.  A

3. Everyone has a right to free, public education. — I don't know about the right to it.  But no; there's no such thing as free, and public education has been plague on our people and our culture for far too long, because it's nothing more than an excuse to indoctrinate and abuse and socialize in all of the wrong ways our children.  D

4. Political, economic or social discrimination based on religious belief is wrong. — No, it's not.  Especially when you throw in social.  What does that even mean?  Is it wrong, for instance, for me to teach my children that they should only date and marry people of our own religion?  Of course not, so social discrimination is right there.  The Right of Free Association is a freedom that the Constitution protects, but which "conservatives" are proud to have destroyed.  If you value the right of free association, then you have to accept that people may not want to do business with, be friends with, or otherwise deal with people of a different religious bent.  In reality, most people of course prefer to be with people of their own religion, and any protestations to the contrary are usually vacuous, Pharisee-like virtue-signaling.  D

5. In political or military conflict it is wrong to use methods of torture and physical terror. — I disagree with using torture, but the rest of this is kind of ridiculous; physical terror is how you break the morale of your opponent without having to kill them all.  Many people who would say agree to this would also approve of our use of nuclear weapons on Japan because it brought an early end to the war and saved many lives.  Most of them wouldn't even notice the obvious contradiction.  Most people aren't very bright.  D

6. A popular movement or revolt against a tyranny or dictatorship is right, and deserves approval. — It's really none of our business what government type any other country has.  When America revolted against the tyranny of King George and asserted her rights, we did not suggest that we should support or approve of any other such movements.  While I agree with this in very broad terms, it gets really thorny in the specifics to the point where you have to actually disagree with it after all, I think.  D

7. The government has a duty to provide for the ill, aged, unemployed and poor if they cannot take care of themselves. — Absolutely not.  The government does not have that duty at all.  The friends, neighbors and especially family of the ill, aged, unemployed and poor have that duty, as do churches and other organizations dedicated to charitable activity.  The government has a duty to stay out of it, as a point of fact.  Farmer Bunce, baby!  D

8. Progressive income and inheritance taxes are the fairest form of taxation. — Both are actually unconstitutional, and were only rammed through based on deceit and lies and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution by treasonous justices.  Both should be totally abolished.  Tariffs are the fairest form of taxation.  D

9. If reasonable compensation is made, the government of a nation has the legal and moral right to expropriate private property within its borders, whether owned by citizens or foreigners. — No, absolutely not.  D

10. We have a duty to mankind; that is, to men in general. — Yes, we do.  I don't think that this means what most progressives think that it means, but we do in fact have a duty to our neighbor.  But our first duty is to our own people and the only duty that the government has is to its citizens.  ½

11. The United Nations, even if limited in accomplishment, is a step in the right direction. — Completely disagree.  The United Nations is a step towards Trotskyite tyranny and should be immediately defunded by the US.  Who should also immediately issue an eviction notice for its offices in NYC and end of visa notices to all of its foreign staff who should make immediate plans to return home.  D

12. Any interference with free speech and free assembly, except for cases of immediate public danger or juvenile corruption, is wrong. — While I mostly agree, it's again in the details where it turns out that I don't.  In spite of the early and better adherence to the principles of limited government and the Bill of Rights that the Founding Fathers had, they certainly had no problem with protecting their people from lewdness, for example, and today our foolish and quixotic pursuit of the idealized version of free speech has brought us the scourge of pornography, for instance.  In private, people can assemble on their own property and say what they like to each other, for the most part, but that isn't really the same thing as saying that any interference is wrong.  D

13. Wealthy nations, like the United States, have a duty to aid the less privileged portions of mankind. — Absolutely not.  We do not have any duty to give our money to anyone else.  That's communism.  D

14. Colonialism and imperialism are wrong. — Mostly, yeah.  But given that my nation was founded by Colonists, I can't say that it's always true.  Curiously, it's a question of semantics.  If a liberal, for instance, believes that colonialism is wrong, does he have a consistent approach to the colonists from the Third World who are settling in our country?  Of course not.  Mostly, I'd suggest however that colonialism and imperialism are almost always strategically unsound and disastrous in the long term to the imperialists.  ½

15. Hotels, motels, stores and restaurants in the Southern United States ought to be obliged by law to allow Negroes to use all of their facilities on the same basis as whites. — Naturally not.  Freedom of association.  It is not the law's job or duty to tell anyone who they have to do business with, for any reason whatsoever.  D

16. The chief sources of delinquency and crime are ignorance, discrimination, poverty and exploitation. — This sounds great, but it turns out that it doesn't hold up to scientific investigation.  It's not true, and only those who are ignorant of decades of sociological study still believe this.  D

17. Communists have a right to express their opinions. — I'm a bit iffy on this one.  Communism is a profoundly anti-American ideology that, even under the various other labels its gained since the 60s, represents an immediate and dangerous threat to the whole concept of America.  So, although I'm hesitant to disagree for many reasons, I think I actually have to.  Sedition and blasphemy should not be protected by a foolish blind-spot with regards to free speech.  D

18. We should always be ready to negotiate with the Soviet Union and other communist nations. — Trump style negotiations with North Korea?  Sure.  Neville Chamberlain style appeasement with the Nazis, or FDR style collusion with Stalin?  Absolutely not.  I agree, but I would of course disagree very strongly with the type of negotiations that liberals would propose.  A

19. Corporal punishment, except possibly for small children, is wrong. — I don't know why this is something that people care about.  No, of course its not wrong in principle.  Why would this be worse than years of prison, for example?  Better chance of reform at greatly reduced cost.  Especially if its public, so it carries with it community-scale deterrence along with it.  In fact, I think the ending of the tradition of the ducking stool is one of the worst things that we've done in Western Civilization.  D

20. All nations and peoples, including the nations and peoples of Asia and Africa, have a right to political independence when a majority of the population wants it. — I tend to agree.  But I'm not sure what that statement means, exactly.  Does it mean, for example, that we should support the Free Tibet movement? No, I think Tibet can and should handle themselves.  Agreeing with the sentiment doesn't mean that I think we should necessary do anything.  (I'm not ignorant.  I know that at the time this was written colonial holdings like French Indochina, were still a thing.  But I'm trying to update the question to today.)  A

21. We always ought to respect the religious beliefs of others. — Should I respect the religious belief that my people only exist to be exploited (as in Talmudic Judaism) or dominated (as by the Hadith Islam?)  Did Elijah respect the religious beliefs of the priests of Baal?  While I agree that in general we should be respectful of others if we want to have peace, in reality, we have to be careful that this doesn't get distorted into a bizarre parody of what it really means.  ½

22. The primary goal of international policy in the nuclear age ought to be peace. — The primary goal of international policy should be peace anyway.  But again, I completely disagree with the methods that liberals think will bring peace, because they are r-selected rabbits who don't understand human behavior.  As we've seen just in the last two years, the appeasement of the Obama administration destroyed peace.  The harder, "we won't be bullied, and you bad actors need to knock it off" approach of the Trump administration brings peace.  So this is one where although I agree with the statement, the specifics, of course, mean that I'm in complete disagreement with the liberal on what it means.  Plus; bringing peace to some people who are fighting halfway around the world is none of our business.  D

23. Except in cases of a clear threat to national security or, possibly, to juvenile morals, censorship is wrong. — No it isn't.  Again; free speech doesn't mean that sedition, blasphemy or lewdness have to be tolerated.  D

24. Congressional investigating committees are dangerous institutions, and need to be watched and curbed if they are not to become a serious threat to freedom. — I tend to have a dim view of Congress and their committees, but this is clearly based on Joseph McCarthy, who it turns out, was completely right and justified in his investigation.  In general, it's the lack of Congressional investigating committees, and the lack of action based on the few that we do have that tends to be the serious threat to freedom.  D

25. The money amount of school and university scholarships ought to be decided primarily by need. — The money amount of school and university scholarships should be privately funded, and as such, the private funder can put forward whatever decision factors he pleases.  If the government is involved in this, they need to get out.  All that that has done is cause the runaway inflation of higher education costs.  D

26. Qualified teachers, at least at the university level, are entitled to academic freedom: that is, the right to express their own beliefs and opinions, in or out of the classroom, without interference from administrators, trustees, parents or public bodies. — Absolutely not.  Nobody has that level of lack of oversight.  D

27. In determining who is to be admitted to schools and universities, quota systems based on color, religion, family or similar factors are wrong. — Wrong.  Should a Catholic school be unable to prioritize the acceptance of Catholics?  What a ridiculous idea.  Public schools shouldn't use any such quota, but then again, publicly funded schools shouldn't exist in the first place and need to be torn down as they are a grave threat to American culture and the American economy.  D

28. The national government should guarantee that all adult citizens, except for criminals and the insane, should have the right to vote. — The national government should guarantee that only those with skin in the game have the right to vote.  That's almost the complete opposite approach, and one of the relatively few encroachments on states' rights that I enthusiastically support.  D

29. Joseph McCarthy was probably the most dangerous man in American public life during the fifteen years following the Second World War. — Joseph McCarthy was a patriot, he was right, and he's been completely vindicated by the Venona Papers, among others.  Absolutely wrong.  D

30. There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types. — This is of course false.  It takes almost no time at all to look at the average IQ by country, for instance, to see that this is nothing but delusional wishful thinking.  Let other people from other cultures structure their society in the way that suits them, protect our ability to do the same, and leave each other alone.  That's the way to peace and mutual respect.  Nothing else is.  D

31. Steps toward world disarmament would be a good thing. — Wrong.  An armed world is a peaceful and polite world, in general.  D

32. Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. — No, of course not.  What the devil is this even trying to say; that non-citizens have the same political and social rights as citizens?  How absurd!  D

33. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression. — Yes, mostly, although once you get to expression, you're starting to step into iffy territory.  You don't have unlimited rights to express your thoughts and conscience anywhere and to anyone.  ½

34. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. — This is indistinguishable from the above question, so it has the same answer.  ½

35. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government. — Yes, I agree.  But the will of the people should have checks and balances on it as well, hence the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who curbed the mob rule tendencies of "pure" democracy.  ½

36. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security. — Social security is not a right.  D

37. Everyone has the right to equal pay for equal work. — Every employer has the right to pay their employees whatever amount they've mutually agreed to.  D

38. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions. — Even public employees?  No.  D

39. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. — Everyone has a right to pursue such; they do not have a right to have it given to them, no.  D

Total: 6 agrees (although many of those were "halves".  Out of 39 questions; that gives me an 85%  conservative.  Kinda moderate, actually.