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.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Monday, August 27, 2018
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:
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:
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?
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.
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?
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
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.
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.
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Lord Giveth, and the Lord Taketh Away
I've obviously read 2 Nephi 1 many times in the past, but I don't recall ever reading it with this particular perspective in mind; thinking about exactly how it applies to today. For whatever reason, these verses really stuck out to me, because they are basically the details of the covenant made to those who inherit the Promised Land if they want to keep it.
Why? Because we have forsaken the great blessings that the Lord has given us. America was a more or less righteous and Christian nation. The Founding Fathers, indeed, believed that none other could endure the system of government that they set up without bringing it to ruin. That is true no longer. Now we're a people of post-Christian morality, who have allowed virulent anti-Christians to take over the halls of power and legislation.
People say that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. The Constitution has been made a mockery of for many years, but in any case, it's not true. The covenant God has instituted for those who inherit this land is the highest law of the land. And that doesn't mean that those who dispossess us will be righteous. The Nephites were dispossessed by the Lamanites for centuries before our people were brought by the Lord to dispossess them.
But it's clear that the only thing that could possibly save us at this point is a mass repentance. Major societal changes need to be reversed and undone, or replaced with Christian ideals again.
I don't know about you, but I don't see that in the cards in the near term. So, we need to prepare for the worst.
5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.This is what the American nation can look forward to. Being dispossessed by other nations. Being scattered and smitten. Great bloodsheds and visitations.
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.
12 Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them; wherefore, my sons, I would that ye would remember; yea, I would that ye would hearken unto my words.
Why? Because we have forsaken the great blessings that the Lord has given us. America was a more or less righteous and Christian nation. The Founding Fathers, indeed, believed that none other could endure the system of government that they set up without bringing it to ruin. That is true no longer. Now we're a people of post-Christian morality, who have allowed virulent anti-Christians to take over the halls of power and legislation.
People say that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. The Constitution has been made a mockery of for many years, but in any case, it's not true. The covenant God has instituted for those who inherit this land is the highest law of the land. And that doesn't mean that those who dispossess us will be righteous. The Nephites were dispossessed by the Lamanites for centuries before our people were brought by the Lord to dispossess them.
But it's clear that the only thing that could possibly save us at this point is a mass repentance. Major societal changes need to be reversed and undone, or replaced with Christian ideals again.
I don't know about you, but I don't see that in the cards in the near term. So, we need to prepare for the worst.
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Sarah Jeong
From my Facebook page: (Read this first) https://pjmedia.com/trending/the-liberal-hate-for-white-people-should-cost-them-big-at-the-ballot-box/
Nephi says that the wicked take the truth to be hard. In my experience EVERYONE takes the truth to be hard, if it contradicts something that they really want to believe, some pretty little lie that they use to prop up their notion of self, or believe because they can't face obvious realities without being emotionally overloaded. This issue is one where I've already crossed that particular Rubicon, so now I'm on the bleeding edge of political and social thought. But, alea iacta est—I'm quite certain that yet within my lifetime, the general, mainstream social and political mood will shift so far that I'll be left behind yet.
Let me quote (with a few minor edits for my specific audience) someone who gets this better than Hawkins in his article:
What can be done to mitigate? The Fake Americans have to go back home. Think of the analogy of an invasive species. If they aren't managed, they will throw off the local ecosystem and the native species will die off. Think of the analogy of your neighbors. How much peace do you have with them if they can't respect boundaries and the social contract, and actually want to actively dispossess you from your home? On the other hand, how much peace can you have with them if they DO?
From the 16 Points:
Liberalism is now full of people like Sarah Jeong who are excused for nursing racial grievances despite the fact that they are influential, privileged, and by any reasonable standard much more powerful than the average person. These are people who aim hatred toward white people because of the color of their skin, and then we’re told that they can’t be racist because minorities have no power in a country where a black man just spent eight years as president of the United States. Jesse Jackson has no power? Al Sharpton? Ta-Nehisi Coates? Julian Bond? Leonard Pitts? Marc Lamont Hill? Charles Blow? Cornel West? Shaun King? Aiming hatred at white people is an industry in the United States and it pays well in money and attention. That’s why it’s such a growing field on the Left.
So, if you’re someone who is hated by a political party because of your skin color, what do you do about that?
Liberals certainly express a point of view about what minorities should do in that situation. They habitually falsely accuse Republicans of hating minorities and then say that means those voters are crazy if they don’t vote for them. Of course, their claim is not true. Conservatives overwhelmingly believe in judging people as individuals, by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Still, this is how Democrats approach this issue.
So, should white people abandon the Democrats who hate their guts? Yes, they should. Why vote for someone who defends people who hate you because of the color of your skin? Why should any individual have to be a groveling apologist because he was born a certain color? Why support a party that is prejudiced against your white child because of the color of his skin? These guys are aiming the same kind of hate at white people as their ancestors used to do at black Americans -- and if you’re a white American who just shrugs your shoulders at that, you’re foolish.
You often hear this debate in America about whether people are “voting in their own interest.” If you are white, how is it in your interest to vote for a party full of people who denigrate you not because of your actions, but because of your race? How is it in your interest to support people who openly blame you for the problems in their lives because of your race and discount all of your hard-earned achievements because of imaginary “white privilege”? How is it in your interest to support people who gleefully say it will be a better country when more people like you are gone?He's actually wrong. It's not "liberals" who hate white people, although some "liberals" think that they can profit off of the hate for white people. It is Fake Americans pursuing their agenda of invading, colonizing and looting the nation of formerly British colonists and their descendants from their birthright. Although he's reaching, even somewhat blindly, towards the notion described below. We haven't yet reached the point where people want to accept reality, so they're masking it through proxies; things like kneeling for the anthem as an expression of identity conflict, for instance. But as quickly as they're moving, it'll be different sooner than he can imagine that we OPENLY have the White Party and the anti-White party in politics. When we do, Civil War 2.0 will be basically upon us and the question will be who makes who march in another Trail of Tears?
Nephi says that the wicked take the truth to be hard. In my experience EVERYONE takes the truth to be hard, if it contradicts something that they really want to believe, some pretty little lie that they use to prop up their notion of self, or believe because they can't face obvious realities without being emotionally overloaded. This issue is one where I've already crossed that particular Rubicon, so now I'm on the bleeding edge of political and social thought. But, alea iacta est—I'm quite certain that yet within my lifetime, the general, mainstream social and political mood will shift so far that I'll be left behind yet.
Let me quote (with a few minor edits for my specific audience) someone who gets this better than Hawkins in his article:
Apparently it's no longer a moral imperative to cuckishly posture about how color-blind and totally not racist you are, and how much you would LOVE to vote for a black candidate when doing so doesn't even slow down the 'liberal' attack dogs in their determined attempts to eradicate you. The next, and final, step for the likes of Mr. Hawkins is to realize that it isn't 'liberals' who are firmly prejudiced against whites, but non-whites pursuing their own competing interests.
Identity politics are now in effect. Get used to it and behave accordingly. The political system in the USA is now just like every other multinational political system in history. Defend your own, advance your own, or lose.
They don't care about your adopted black son. They don't care about your Chinese best friend. They don't care that you voted for Alan Keyes or Herman Cain or even Barack Obama. They don't care about your virtue-signaling or your virtue. They don't care what you think, what you do, or who you are. You are wearing the uniform of the enemy and you are in their way, so you are the enemy.
Consider this. Did any American soldier, throughout the entire course of World War II, ever stop to inquire of a German soldier his personal position on the invasion of Poland or how he voted concerning the Austrian Anschluss referendum of 1938 before shooting at him? That's about how much the average Chinese-"American", African-"American", Arab-"American", Mexican-"American", or Jewish-"American" thinks about what a genuine white Christian American happens to believe.
The various tribes inhabiting the USA pursue their own interests, as humans have done since the dawn of time. You would be well-advised to do the same.Do I regret that we are in a period of identity politics? Heck yeah I do. It's at best gauche, at worst, disastrous. But that's the inevitable result of a multi-ethnic empire who's alleged citizens belong to more than one identity. It's happened to every single multi-ethnic empire in history. Every. Single. One. The Hittites. The Persians. The Romans. The Parthians. The next wave of Persians. The Austrians. The Ottomans. The British. The Soviets. And now: the Americans.
What can be done to mitigate? The Fake Americans have to go back home. Think of the analogy of an invasive species. If they aren't managed, they will throw off the local ecosystem and the native species will die off. Think of the analogy of your neighbors. How much peace do you have with them if they can't respect boundaries and the social contract, and actually want to actively dispossess you from your home? On the other hand, how much peace can you have with them if they DO?
From the 16 Points:
5) The Alt Right is openly and avowedly patriotic and believes patriotism, regardless of your nation, to be a virtue. It supports all nations and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and migration.
9) The Alt Right believes that the hierarchy of decision making employed by humans is identity > culture > politics.
10) The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
15) The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, or people. Every race, nation, and people has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
16) The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
Friday, August 3, 2018
On numbers and the dating market
Here's a curious observation that I've recently thought about. I spent a day recently as one of the two "priesthood guys" at Girls Camp. For the most part, I like our young women. Which is good. I have two young men of my own who are friends, and potentially dating partners, for them, so I better like at least some of them. But the experience brought a few things up. I had this conversation with a few of the other camp leaders, many of whom are ward level young women's presidency members, stake level young women presidency members, or sometimes just moms of young women. Let's see if I can recreate the gist of it.
What was the sex ratio of our recent youth conference? About 3:2, or in other words, there were half again as many girls who came as boys. Has anyone been to an EFY recently or seen their registration numbers? I haven't seen their official count, but I've been told repeatedly that it's pretty close to 2:1. When they do the escort to dinner routine, each boy essentially has two girls with him, one on each arm. I get similar reports about BYU, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Idaho and SVU. In fact, some of them sound even more grim if you're the parent of a girl; I've had reports of 3:1, 4:1 and even as high as 6:1. I suspect those higher numbers are just exaggerated perceptions of people who don't really know what they're talking about. But even being conservative, it's pretty fair to say that in the dating and marriage market for active LDS kids and young adults, there are a good three girls for every two boys. That is, I don't think, a very controversial statement, and I expect that someone with better info than me might likely find that my estimate, handwavey and deliberately simplified as it is, is probably too conservative. It might be a higher differential. Math is math. So far, no interpretation, speculation, or otherwise anything controversial, even if this is data that people may not want to face. But where this gets interesting, of course, is when we start trying to figure out what does this all mean?
The obvious is that a lot of girls are going to go off to school, many if not most of them hoping to come back married, and they're not going to get married unless polygamy comes back. The pool of available suitors is smaller than the pool of available girls, so the math simply doesn't allow for any other result. While this isn't necessarily disastrous, anyone who pays any attention to how the real world works should admit two things: 1) the longer a woman waits to get married, in general, the less attractive as a potential spouse she becomes. I don't mean necessarily less physically attractive (although obviously that does happen) but she becomes less enticing to potential suitors. Who are even fewer and farther between once out of the college environment. Which segues into 2) once out of the college environment, opportunities to meet, date and court potential suitors becomes drastically more sparse and difficult than it is in the college environment. Now, I found that pointing out that women get less attractive as potential suitors was maybe a controversial statement to women who don't want to hear that while having some of these discussions at girls camp. But it was obvious what was going on there; and I don't think at this point that we've delved into material that's not obviously true. Unpleasant, maybe. But not controversial. Of course, it gets worse (at least from the perspective of girls and women), and we have to confront some things that are obviously true, yet even more unpleasant to face. Nephi says that the wicked take the truth to be hard, but in my experience, everyone takes the truth to be hard, especially if it contradicts some pet idea that you believe and don't want to give up for emotional or personal reasons.
So, let's dig a little deeper. What does that mean? Well, first off, let me make a small digression. I see a growing trend among the women and girls of western civilization (which includes many members of the church, although some aspects of our unique subculture and doctrine serve as a mitigating factor which makes this less prevalent than it otherwise would be) where girls think that they can be whatever they want to be. While not necessarily an adverse concept in it's own right, it has some dysgenic and dyscivil side effects, which can be devastating to the individual. Because honestly, much of this is couched in feminist propaganda. Women can do whatever men can do. It's sexist to assume that women should embrace traditionally feminine qualities, or pursue traditionally feminine pursuits like cooking, home-making, child-rearing, etc. Women no longer think that it's important to offer pleasant conversation and companionship, because they can be witty, sharp, sarcastic, demanding, pushy, bossy, dramatic, etc. with no brakes or filters on what they say and do. The world now encourages this. "You be you" is the refrain in a Diet Coke commercial that we see every time we go to the movies, which often gets translated in practice to rejecting the commandment that the Lord gave us through King Benjamin in Mosiah chapter 3 to put off the natural man rather than to embrace it. You be you means doing what comes natural to you. Reverting to the mean, if you will, your default behavior, not what you should be doing.
This suite of behavior: bossy, pushy, abrasive, entitled, often lazy and unmotived, etc. together creates a personality profile that I sometimes call "bratty princess syndrome" and I know a lot of girls (and fully grown women, for that matter) who exhibit it. So, it's not really any of my business if anyone other than my wife, sister, daughter, or someone else in my immediate family has this problem, although I'll certainly tell my sons to keep an eye open for it. But c'mon, girls—what do you think happens when you act like that? How attractive do you think that makes you as a potential suitor to the guys you'll meet? Yeah, it will reduce your attractiveness a ton. The reality is that being pleasant, loyal and nice to be around is extremely high on the list of attractive qualities for most guys (second only to actually being physically attractive—although few guys will accept a trophy wife that is physically very attractive but not very pleasant to be around.)
And it gets even worse. Because so many girls are conditioned by society to behave as if they are the scarce commodity in the dating market, many guys are either intimidated, frustrated, or demoralized by the whole affair of dealing with women who act like they actively don't want to date anyone or be taken seriously as a potential suitor. They voluntarily basically drop out of the market, participate very little, if at all, and will only themselves be successful in finding and marrying someone if some girl who's a little more astute than others and able to mine markets that her competitors won't, can coax him back into the game by encouraging him that she's not like those other girls. By the way, this is a great way to not only find a guy for which there isn't a lot of active competition, but it will also engender in him a much higher than normal loyalty early on—it's not a bad strategy at all. But in order to make it work, you actually have to not be like those other girls that turned him off in the first place. Because if you can't tap into this market, your already badly lopsided pool of available suitors is now even worse because of this voluntary dropping out that many men will do because they have been burned, intimidated, or otherwise turned off by the harrowing hazards of navigating the modern dating/marriage market.
When my oldest son started dating his future wife, he would tell some kind of funny yet mostly kind of sad stories about his interactions with her room-mates out there in Rexburg. And I'm paraphrasing my impression of several conversations I had with him a year ago now; I'm not sure that the details hold up 100%, but the gist of it absolutely does. They frequently lamented and were in fact kind of bitter that they were coming up on the end of their school careers, and yet had had no success finding someone "like him." One of them even rather clumsily made a half-hearted attempt to peel him off and see if he'd rather date her (not at all.) They were resentful. They were frustrated. And they were scared. Because reality had caught up with them. Because what my son noticed (and said) was quite honestly that if they wanted to attract a guy "like him" then they had done absolutely nothing to make of themselves the kind of girl that a guy like him would find attractive. Some of them didn't even meet the minimum threshold of demonstrating that living the Gospel was a priority to them, and even those who did had various stages of bratty princess syndrome. There really wasn't any way that a guy like him was ever going to take them seriously as potential suitors. And as that reality was starting to sink in, probably too late for most of them to change in time to take advantage of the opportunities that they had quite literally (albeit unconsciously) spurned while being students at BYU-I, they realized that what had already been a difficult task was about to get an order of magnitude more difficult. Although probably not consciously, at some level they thought all they had to do was show up and Prince Charming would ride immediately to her side, flash a big smile and invite her to hop in his car so they could swing by the temple on their way towards riding into the sunset. They were starting to realize that unless something happened soon, they could actually be facing the reality that they weren't going to find anyone to marry them that they considered an eligible suitor.
This is true of men and boys too, of course. If you want to marry a certain kind of girl, you have to be a certain kind of man. But boys are told that all the time. It's not new news to boys. And the odds aren't unfavorable to boys either. If it's important for boys, it's probably much more important for girls. I don't understand why in the world a girl or young woman, facing already odds that are not good, would deliberately make them even worse by engaging in bratty princess syndrome behavior, and generally acting like they don't want to be taken seriously as wife material. But many, many of them do. I guess people buy lottery tickets too and actually think that they may win. Maybe they are in denial about the math and think that they will be the exceptions. Good luck with that.
There are three things that I personally would encourage anyone who asks my advice to do. First, get close to the Spirit. Invite it into your life and make sure that it stays there by being as worthy and righteous as you can. Statistics are all well and good, but the Lord can certainly make the statistically improbable happen without too much trouble if he wants to.
Secondly, pray to find an eternal companion. Getting blessings from the Lord is not like walking onto a car lot, where pushy salesmen come up and follow you around asking you if they can help you. The scriptures command you to ask if you want to receive and knock if you want it to be opened, not just wander around in the neighborhood hoping that things will fall into place for you. Fast and pray specifically to find a worthy companion that you can marry.
And thirdly (and I don't know that this order means anything, because they are all about equally important) be the kind of girl that would attract the kind of man you want to attract. You can't have a weak testimony that you make no effort to grow and expect to marry a spiritual giant who will carry you spiritually. You can't be abrasive and demanding and expect to marry a man who is thoughtful and accommodating. You can't have demonstrated no interest in developing skills that will make you a successful wife and mother if you expect to marry a man who has skills that will make him a successful husband and father.
Reject bratty princess syndrome. Be humble. Be thoughtful. Be pleasant and fun to be around. You do that, and you'll find that opportunities will come your way repeatedly that your brattier, more entitled sisters simply will not get. Not only that, you'll be a better person, a better wife, a better mother, and happier in every respect anyway.
What was the sex ratio of our recent youth conference? About 3:2, or in other words, there were half again as many girls who came as boys. Has anyone been to an EFY recently or seen their registration numbers? I haven't seen their official count, but I've been told repeatedly that it's pretty close to 2:1. When they do the escort to dinner routine, each boy essentially has two girls with him, one on each arm. I get similar reports about BYU, BYU-Hawaii, BYU-Idaho and SVU. In fact, some of them sound even more grim if you're the parent of a girl; I've had reports of 3:1, 4:1 and even as high as 6:1. I suspect those higher numbers are just exaggerated perceptions of people who don't really know what they're talking about. But even being conservative, it's pretty fair to say that in the dating and marriage market for active LDS kids and young adults, there are a good three girls for every two boys. That is, I don't think, a very controversial statement, and I expect that someone with better info than me might likely find that my estimate, handwavey and deliberately simplified as it is, is probably too conservative. It might be a higher differential. Math is math. So far, no interpretation, speculation, or otherwise anything controversial, even if this is data that people may not want to face. But where this gets interesting, of course, is when we start trying to figure out what does this all mean?
So, let's dig a little deeper. What does that mean? Well, first off, let me make a small digression. I see a growing trend among the women and girls of western civilization (which includes many members of the church, although some aspects of our unique subculture and doctrine serve as a mitigating factor which makes this less prevalent than it otherwise would be) where girls think that they can be whatever they want to be. While not necessarily an adverse concept in it's own right, it has some dysgenic and dyscivil side effects, which can be devastating to the individual. Because honestly, much of this is couched in feminist propaganda. Women can do whatever men can do. It's sexist to assume that women should embrace traditionally feminine qualities, or pursue traditionally feminine pursuits like cooking, home-making, child-rearing, etc. Women no longer think that it's important to offer pleasant conversation and companionship, because they can be witty, sharp, sarcastic, demanding, pushy, bossy, dramatic, etc. with no brakes or filters on what they say and do. The world now encourages this. "You be you" is the refrain in a Diet Coke commercial that we see every time we go to the movies, which often gets translated in practice to rejecting the commandment that the Lord gave us through King Benjamin in Mosiah chapter 3 to put off the natural man rather than to embrace it. You be you means doing what comes natural to you. Reverting to the mean, if you will, your default behavior, not what you should be doing.
This suite of behavior: bossy, pushy, abrasive, entitled, often lazy and unmotived, etc. together creates a personality profile that I sometimes call "bratty princess syndrome" and I know a lot of girls (and fully grown women, for that matter) who exhibit it. So, it's not really any of my business if anyone other than my wife, sister, daughter, or someone else in my immediate family has this problem, although I'll certainly tell my sons to keep an eye open for it. But c'mon, girls—what do you think happens when you act like that? How attractive do you think that makes you as a potential suitor to the guys you'll meet? Yeah, it will reduce your attractiveness a ton. The reality is that being pleasant, loyal and nice to be around is extremely high on the list of attractive qualities for most guys (second only to actually being physically attractive—although few guys will accept a trophy wife that is physically very attractive but not very pleasant to be around.)
And it gets even worse. Because so many girls are conditioned by society to behave as if they are the scarce commodity in the dating market, many guys are either intimidated, frustrated, or demoralized by the whole affair of dealing with women who act like they actively don't want to date anyone or be taken seriously as a potential suitor. They voluntarily basically drop out of the market, participate very little, if at all, and will only themselves be successful in finding and marrying someone if some girl who's a little more astute than others and able to mine markets that her competitors won't, can coax him back into the game by encouraging him that she's not like those other girls. By the way, this is a great way to not only find a guy for which there isn't a lot of active competition, but it will also engender in him a much higher than normal loyalty early on—it's not a bad strategy at all. But in order to make it work, you actually have to not be like those other girls that turned him off in the first place. Because if you can't tap into this market, your already badly lopsided pool of available suitors is now even worse because of this voluntary dropping out that many men will do because they have been burned, intimidated, or otherwise turned off by the harrowing hazards of navigating the modern dating/marriage market.
When my oldest son started dating his future wife, he would tell some kind of funny yet mostly kind of sad stories about his interactions with her room-mates out there in Rexburg. And I'm paraphrasing my impression of several conversations I had with him a year ago now; I'm not sure that the details hold up 100%, but the gist of it absolutely does. They frequently lamented and were in fact kind of bitter that they were coming up on the end of their school careers, and yet had had no success finding someone "like him." One of them even rather clumsily made a half-hearted attempt to peel him off and see if he'd rather date her (not at all.) They were resentful. They were frustrated. And they were scared. Because reality had caught up with them. Because what my son noticed (and said) was quite honestly that if they wanted to attract a guy "like him" then they had done absolutely nothing to make of themselves the kind of girl that a guy like him would find attractive. Some of them didn't even meet the minimum threshold of demonstrating that living the Gospel was a priority to them, and even those who did had various stages of bratty princess syndrome. There really wasn't any way that a guy like him was ever going to take them seriously as potential suitors. And as that reality was starting to sink in, probably too late for most of them to change in time to take advantage of the opportunities that they had quite literally (albeit unconsciously) spurned while being students at BYU-I, they realized that what had already been a difficult task was about to get an order of magnitude more difficult. Although probably not consciously, at some level they thought all they had to do was show up and Prince Charming would ride immediately to her side, flash a big smile and invite her to hop in his car so they could swing by the temple on their way towards riding into the sunset. They were starting to realize that unless something happened soon, they could actually be facing the reality that they weren't going to find anyone to marry them that they considered an eligible suitor.
This is true of men and boys too, of course. If you want to marry a certain kind of girl, you have to be a certain kind of man. But boys are told that all the time. It's not new news to boys. And the odds aren't unfavorable to boys either. If it's important for boys, it's probably much more important for girls. I don't understand why in the world a girl or young woman, facing already odds that are not good, would deliberately make them even worse by engaging in bratty princess syndrome behavior, and generally acting like they don't want to be taken seriously as wife material. But many, many of them do. I guess people buy lottery tickets too and actually think that they may win. Maybe they are in denial about the math and think that they will be the exceptions. Good luck with that.
There are three things that I personally would encourage anyone who asks my advice to do. First, get close to the Spirit. Invite it into your life and make sure that it stays there by being as worthy and righteous as you can. Statistics are all well and good, but the Lord can certainly make the statistically improbable happen without too much trouble if he wants to.
Secondly, pray to find an eternal companion. Getting blessings from the Lord is not like walking onto a car lot, where pushy salesmen come up and follow you around asking you if they can help you. The scriptures command you to ask if you want to receive and knock if you want it to be opened, not just wander around in the neighborhood hoping that things will fall into place for you. Fast and pray specifically to find a worthy companion that you can marry.
And thirdly (and I don't know that this order means anything, because they are all about equally important) be the kind of girl that would attract the kind of man you want to attract. You can't have a weak testimony that you make no effort to grow and expect to marry a spiritual giant who will carry you spiritually. You can't be abrasive and demanding and expect to marry a man who is thoughtful and accommodating. You can't have demonstrated no interest in developing skills that will make you a successful wife and mother if you expect to marry a man who has skills that will make him a successful husband and father.
Reject bratty princess syndrome. Be humble. Be thoughtful. Be pleasant and fun to be around. You do that, and you'll find that opportunities will come your way repeatedly that your brattier, more entitled sisters simply will not get. Not only that, you'll be a better person, a better wife, a better mother, and happier in every respect anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)