With the permission of property owners, “Oath Keepers” took measures to prevent properties in Ferguson from being burned and looted.
Police, though unwilling to prevent arson and looting, shut them down.
With the permission of property owners, “Oath Keepers” took measures to prevent properties in Ferguson from being burned and looted.
Police, though unwilling to prevent arson and looting, shut them down.
Hey B, I recall you complaining that during the Russian revolution, those horribly racist police failed to defend the Jews.
Let me know when the U.S. cops disarm the shopkeepers and join in on the looting.
Well, they are disarming the shopkeepers.
Source?
No, you partisan shill…The Oath Keepers are acting as the armed guard for the shopkeepers, so removing them IS removing the shop-keepers arms.
No reasearch needed. It is that Basic!
A.J.P.
Dear Prick,
The shopkeepers have the right to arms. The cops removing the armed militia which showed up (whether good or bad) is not tantamount to taking away the shopkeepers’ weapons. Please stop moving goalposts.
They don’t however have a right to collective action using arms, nor assistance from armed men.
If we are moving the goalposts, we are positioning them to where it matters, to what really makes a difference.
Who said they don’t have a right to collective action using arms? Did the cops take down their comms nets and arrest their ringleaders?
The cops did not disarm the shopkeepers. They didn’t even disarm the Oath Keepers. They asked the OK guys to leave. Facts-they matter.
The cops had a word with their ringleaders.
B thinks if Orthodox Jews are capable of defending themselves then so are White groups. Whites will defend themselves and deport Jews to Palestine when this government falls apart or is pushed aside by Nazis. I don’t care which.
This is some good evidence for Henry Dampier’s claim: “The police and the national guard aren’t there to protect the townspeople. They’re there to protect the rioters from people who would defend their property with lethal force.”
I second this idea. I watched the LA riots live, the cops spent their time protecting the rioters.
Koreans were allowed collective defense in 1992, but even then we heard whining about Latasha Harlins. Whether they’re still allowed is an open question.
I guess the Cathedral has “graciously” allowed me to participate in collective defense then.
Jim, you’re wrong about the Koreans being allowed to defend themselves. The LA riots was setup by the media as a way to drive out the Koreans out through black violence. The build up was months in the coming and the police redeployed just beyond Korea town to give the rioters space to destroy the Korean community. The Koreans spontaneously defended themselves and the media kept pleading with the police on air to stop them. In fact the mayor did in fact order the police to disarm the Koreans and the police refused. The police were quite convinced that the Koreans would shoot them if they tried and due to the number of Korean cops they would know if such an order was given ahead of time. Eventually the police were deployed in the Korean areas to prevent them from going on the offensive and putting an end to the riot. The Cathedral was surprised and shocked that the police failed to do their bidding. So it’s not that Koreans are allowed to defend themselves, it’s that Koreans are willing to defend themselves even against cops, which is exactly the outcome that we saw with the Bundy ranch stand off.
If this group had really been committed to protecting the community they would have let the cops know they would shoot them if they tried to arrest them. Most cops by nature are cowards and they would have backed down from organized resistance.
Well that is good to hear.
So what we need is an urban Bundy ranch incident – which of course requires some urban Bundys, property owners who need, want, and competently utilize outside support.
In the Cronulla riots, the Christians dealt with the Muslims, and also resisted police. Police were ordered to try to protect Muslim rioters. It is unclear to what extent the police chose to fail to obey orders, and to what extent they were frightened to obey orders.
Jim you are right from title on.
It is however a grave and fatal error at every level to make police the enemy. I don’t mean an intellectual error only, I mean real world. Try it once and see. They’re entirely too well resourced and quite capable, and the person who touches them a pariah among whites.
The police are caught in the middle with anti-white orders, they are by nature followers. Convincing them to step aside is the correct answer.
Red is incorrect that most cops are cowards, most cops are followers given horrible orders to follow. And the ones giving the orders we do elect.
The police come from us, are us. They must simply be convinced that they can’t continue to follow orders from treasonous criminals whilst attempting to mitigate the evil the criminals feral pets do any longer.
You could point out to the police that the defense of evil in the name of the law was always unstable, and it’s time has run out. It has.
Then offer friendship, respect, alliance. They quite need allies now, they have the weight of the government and this Administration and DOJ in particular against them. Their local leadership is disgraceful, the true cowards are the quaking politicians. Make them afraid, and wisely forbear any misplaced anger towards the police. They forbear from anger daily, they risk their lives placing themselves between us and the USG’s feral pets, we can give them a break.
Cronulla riots offer an example. Police carried out evil orders in a way that was marvelously ineffectual.
“It is however a grave and fatal error at every level to make police the enemy. I don’t mean an intellectual error only, I mean real world. Try it once and see. They’re entirely too well resourced and quite capable”
I’ll leave this here…
https://33.media.tumblr.com/544a8f4c55641600c6d1f6c5fc942ff3/tumblr_mliy2h2qxv1qb65wgo1_400.gif
>Red is incorrect that most cops are cowards, most cops are followers given horrible orders to follow. And the ones giving the orders we do elect.
Modern Cops have a culture of cowardice where coming home no mater who they harm is their highest value. They’re quite cowardly. What they did during Dorner rampage should have been enough to prove that to anyone.
However, I agree with with everyone else you said.
everything else*
“The police come from us, are us. They must simply be convinced that they can’t continue to follow orders from treasonous criminals whilst attempting to mitigate the evil the criminals feral pets do any longer.”
Amen, VXXC2014.
George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin with a single shot directly through the heart. Darren Wilson sprayed and prayed. He has now “resigned”, which teaches us that in future cops should not trouble the likes of Michael Brown.
It was rentacops, usually outnumbered fifty to one, that prevented Occupy from occupying anything.
90% of the cops of Ferguson will have moved on in the next few years. It’s going to be an all black town now.
Taxi driver is more dangerous than police officer.
Put more simply, everyone had better get their own gang. Smart people will want cops in their gang, not to be hunted by Team Police Gang. No one wants to be hunted by that gang if they’ve got vengeance in their eyes.
No one here stopped Michael Brown. A cop did, and his life was ruined for doing his duty. Remember that.
And we need to learn from the Koreans. Not to threaten the police [if that’s what happened] but to stand.
This is our country. If we can’t take it back nationally, we take it block by block, town by town.
And let’s give the cops a break. They’re not used to us being anything but sheep, us morphing into primates is an adjustment.
You don’t need to threaten the police. Just respond in kind. If they point snipers at you, point them right back. If they have brandished guns then brandish your own. Organized groups of armed people isn’t anything a local cop wants to deal with especially when your not overtly hostile towards them.
Never point a gun at anyone unless you are going to kill him immediately.
To do an urban Bundy Ranch, you are going to need permission from the property owner or his authorized representative to be on the property, and direction from the property owner or his authorized representative to put out fires and remove or subdue unauthorized visitors. When a cop shows up, offer him coffee and donuts outside, but tell him he cannot come in unless he has a warrant or reasonably suspects a crime in progress, and he cannot make you leave, except he gets the property owner to make you leave or has legitimate grounds to arrest you. So you have a bunch of people in the shop whom he strongly suspects are equipped for trouble, and they politely tell him he cannot legally make them leave. The thought will occur to the cop that notwithstanding all the politeness, he is going to have to use actual violence to make you leave, and using actual violence on a bunch of people who are probably prepared for big trouble could be hazardous. It would be entirely unnecessary to say any words that might explicitly prompt this thought. You should employ words that could most reasonably be interpreted as threatening him with lawyers.
Always make your threats in the most polite and deniable manner. I have been trained in communist conspiracy 101 and a basic rule is that you never quite say anything illegal in entirely plain language even among friends. I have also done business with a mafia, and they made threats in the same style, like very civilized aristocratic gentlemen. They were unfailingly very nice.
Analogously, it is instant expulsion from boomershot for anyone who uses the B word.
Analogously, the conspirators for the Chilean coup managed to run full scale military exercises rehearsing the coup, complete with actual tanks rolling and pretend battles, without anyone actually speaking the fatal words until six hours before zero.
“Analogously, it is instant expulsion from boomershot for anyone who uses the B word.”
I’m having trouble parsing this, would you rephrase please? Thanks.
This is basic Anarcho-Tyranny. We whites are marked for destruction.
But are promised to win.
In general, forming a paramilitary organization with nationwide coverage in the media and using bombastic language is agreat way to ensure that you will be infiltrated, that the infiltrators will provoke parts of your organization to do stupid, extreme stuff which will get you disarmed, shut down and prosecuted. The Business Protection Association of Ferguson would have done much better. Ditto the Koreans, who kept things low-key and effective.
The Business Protection Association of Ferguson is an obvious conspiracy to commit racism, and will of course be required to have diversity and say politically correct things unless stores affiliated with it want to be sued for harassment, but that will of course mean nothing when a Business Protection Association affiliated individual interacts with a Black and the media notices.
Individual store owners can own guns and maybe hire guards, but apparently, they can’t really hire guards.
Meanwhile, the Jews of Crown Heights. Why didn’t the media start crying about racist attacks on Blacks by Jews? It must be because all Jews look alike or maybe because Jews don’t see the ability to beat people up with no consequences as power or something.
It’s a conspiracy. The Jews of the NYT are obviously enamored of their medieval ghetto-dwelling cousins and protect them. So it’s obviously futile to do anything and you are better off whining on this forum. One day, when the Nazis show up from Antarctica in their flying saucers, they’ll pull up these threads and appoint you Chief Whiner or something.
Yes, it most certainly is a conspiracy.
Orthodox Jews are allowed to beat up blacks for being black in an orthodox Jewish area. Mestizos are allowed to beat up blacks for being black in a mestizo area.
But whites cannot beat up blacks for being black in a white area.
This makes it a lot easier for Orthodox Jews to reproduce than for whites to reproduce.
I mentioned Chabad specifically because they were the exception (along with Satmar in Williamsburg.) The other Orthodox Jews left. Nobody was allowed to do anything. They just did.
Incidentally, the inferior Italians did and do the same thing. I guess they have a conspiracy with their Guido buddies in the NYT?
Balls and cohesion go a long way.
The American Italians (and before them the American Irish) were treated as criminals for protecting their neighborhoods from blacks, and thoroughly demonized. They were rehabilitated after they stopped. To this day progressives have a ready fund of evil Italian stories proving anti black racism is real, similar to their evil southerner stories.
Jews did it, no problems. Everyone looks the other way. Progressives have a pile of evil Jew stories about Jews oppressing Palestinians, but no pile of evil Jew stories about Jews oppressing blacks to match their pile of evil italian stories. (Evil Irish stories used to exist, but have mysteriously vanished) Blacks have a pile of evil Jew stories about Jews oppressing blacks, but progressives do not tolerate these stories.
The reason that Italians and Irish relied on criminals to protect their neighborhoods, and Jews did not, was that protecting their neighborhoods was deemed criminal.
The Italians went to jail for doing it. The Jews did not.
I lived inItalian neighborhoods in the 90s. Blacks did not enter. The same exact stuff happened in Howard Beach, where Italians were put on trial for beating a black and in Baltimore. The double standard exists in your mind.
Italians put on trial, Orthodox Jews not put on trial. Seems like you are admitting that there is a double standard – and one that makes it harder for white people to reproduce than Orthodox Jews.
Howard Beach was famously John Gotti’s neighborhood.
John Gotti died in federal prison.
>Italians put on trial, Orthodox Jews not put on trial.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. These Italians were put on trial for killing blacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Beach_racial_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yusef_Hawkins
These Jews were put on trial for, I guess, bonking a black dude swinging a board at them in the head with a walkie talkie, which would have made no news in Bensonhurst or Bay Ridge in the 1990s or today:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/eliyahu-and-avi-werdesheim-jewish-brothers-accused-of-beating-african-american-baltimore-teenager-seek-to-postpone-trial/
>Howard Beach was famously John Gotti’s neighborhood.
>John Gotti died in federal prison.
As well he should have, for being a racketeer and murderer. But I was talking about the crowd of Italians who chased blacks into highway traffic. I don’t think John Gotti was among them, or went to prison for anything having to do with them.
He was not swinging a board, and these Jews got off despite bonking a black man. The self defense claim was absurd. They came after him, and he never acted to defend himself.
The short of it is that three Jews made an unprovoked attack on a black man, and got off.
Which is a big part of why Jews find it easier to reproduce.
well anyway, Oliver Friedfeld, a student at GWU, mugged by a nigger, refused to cooperate with the police in catching said nigger and instead wrote an article about White privilege in his school newspaper. Friedfeld certainly sounds like a Jewish name. B, this might be the guy that is most dangerous to you. If Jews forget that they are Jews and the ashes of the six million justify anything, Jews will go extinct faster than Whites.
A sane society would charge him as an accomplice.
“Not once did I consider our attackers to be ‘bad people.’ I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay”
Jews being allowed to defend themselves against blacks and Palestinians is another unprincipled exception, and it is people like Friedfeld, not people like Peppermint, that want it cancelled.
I don’t think anybody challenged the statement that he had a nail-studded board. I trust the Werdesheim brothers’ testimony for the same reasons that I trust the testimony of Zimmerman and Wilson.
Friedfried is typical and not new. Supreme Court justice Frankfurter, when Jan Karski told him about the camps, said that he was not in a position to believe him. Which is why I have trouble believing that the NYT and the rest of the papers collaborated with the Chabad and Satmar hasidim who did what needed to be done to keep their neighborhoods livable. Rather, I think this was just a a successful strategy, using the rules of the game wisely, the same way the Irish and Italians did. There are other, less successful examples, detailed at length in the Slaughter of Cities.
At some point the black guy had a nail studded board. But he was not coming after anyone with it. The Jews were coming after him. And at the time that they whacked him, he no longer had a nail studded board.
Quite likely had they left him alone, he would have found a soft target and done something bad. But they did not leave him alone and he did nothing bad.
No way anglo saxons could have gotten away with this.
>At some point the black guy had a nail studded board. But he was not coming after anyone with it. The Jews were coming after him. And at the time that they whacked him, he no longer had a nail studded board.
Pretty soon you’ll be telling me that he was on his way to college where he was gonna study electrical engineering on a full ride scholarship.
Even the judge said he had a nail studded board and Werdesheim’s goal was to take it away: “Defendant Eliyahu Werdesheim followed Ausby into the 3300 block of Fallstaff and, when he knew that other Shomrim units had arrived at the location, determined to confront Ausby again and relieve Ausby of the wooden plank,” White said in her ruling. “Eliyahu Werdesheim stopped his car in the street and emerged to confront Ausby; he relied on his military training to take Ausby down, and injured Ausby in the process by hitting him in the head with a radio.”
>No way anglo saxons could have gotten away with this.
Oh, cry me a river. It’s ludicrous that Werdesheim was charged with anything.
Obviously the black was planning to steal something. Equally obviously, the judge did not believe he took a swing at anyone or attempted to take a swing at anyone.
The judge was obviously politically motivated. This was a piece of shit case if ever there was one, with no evidence other than he-said, she-said and a dent on young Jamaricus’ dome (judging by Jamaricus’ behavior during the trial, being hit in the head with a walkie-talkie had a beneficial effects, maybe unsticking certain relays which had gotten jammed from exposure to rap music-but I’m theorizing, and more experimental evidence is needed.)
All we had was “dindonuffin” on one side and “he swung a board at me, so I hit him in the head and held him down until help arrived” on the other.
How you can claim to know that Jamaricus did not swing the board which he had at Werdesheim from that is beyond me.
I am just going by what the judge appears to have believed.
And it is not true that the Jews attacked the black because he swung a board, nor is it true that they claimed they attacked him because he swung a board. They attacked him because they reasonably believed he was prowling the Jewish neighborhood looking for something to steal. If he swung a board, which seems unlikely, it was because they attacked him.
Anglo Saxons are not allowed to do anything about black prowlers until the prowler actually pounces, which makes it hard to raise kids.
Mr. B,
Seasons Greetings.
O/K infiltration: You are correct. And yet it moves, and yet it improves. I’ve stayed away from O/K because it *must* be infiltrated and even if not is entirely too public. And yet they continue to improve all the last year [from outside POV]. As Mother Jones said they cover the spectrum. They of course avoid illegality and are only committed to keeping the Oath and defending the nation, also anyone downrange so far – from them – is a trained pro with battle experience.
One must also consider war vets of the US MIL last 15 years also have experience of ROE, media witch-hunts and investigations just as our police do. O/K of course contains many LEOs. Many LEOs are veterans.
There’s a spectrum of these groups but again only from outside POV this isn’t the 90s bunch at all.
Also there’s a lot more of them.
The 90s bunch was people both reacting to the 60s/70s madness as well as rather a lot of displaced and ruined farmers.
This is different. I don’t think infiltration [certain of course] is only one way at all, and an organization devoted to Constitutional legality and self-defense isn’t a right wing terrorist cell.
The Russian revolution also moved and improved despite being infiltrated (see Gapon.)
I just wasn’t impressed by the rhetoric and the faces I saw in the profiles. Lots of talk.
The Talk part is true, then again it’s an open organization. I did see too many talkers there…but they’re improving. Also they’ve been delivering men all year to danger zones. Finally when you move away from the off-putting profiles into what messages the leadership is putting out it’s getting near both mainstream blogging [yes, I know that’s awkward metric] and into a broader and more acceptable message.
I’m not signing up for reasons that one may appreciate, but they are improving and growing. 35K isn’t a small number.
They don’t march to DC and take it back, but this sort of thing is growing.
And yes you can move forward despite infiltration. Although with cops being in open membership I’m not sure who is infiltrating who.
Well, G-d willing something good comes out of it.
I’m uninspired by the Constitution as their Schelling point. I mean, the Constitution is what got the US where it is today.
The part where you don’t know who’s infiltrating whom is the problem. That’s how, for instance, Rabin ended up getting killed by “right wing extremists,” who just happened to be linked to the Shin Bet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avishai_Raviv
So after his death, of course there was a massive crackdown on right wing extremists, mass renouncements by right wing public figures, and the path was clear for securing Arafat’s rule in the Judah and the Shomron, the training and equipping of his men by the US and Israel, a spike in violence growing into the second intifada, and the expulsion of Jews from Gaza. The right was completely fractured and paralyzed during this time-the opportunistic component switched sides when they saw where the wind was blowing, the extreme guys (the only ones who had anything of value to offer) were marginalized, and Rabbi Kahane’s son murdered by the very PLO special ops guys trained and equipped by Israel and the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binyamin_Ze%27ev_Kahane
All because of this murder.
So this kind of thing is very dangerous.
Boomershot instantly expels anyone who says the B word, and I hope and expect that Oath Keeper’s instantly expels anyone who says the C word.
But, one can discuss such matters indirectly, without saying fatal words.
I did recommend that the new US regime, no matter how radically different from the old regime, should purport to adhere to the old constitution, as the Roman empire purported to adhere to the Republican constitution.
B, what evidence do you have that the tyrants in American government complied with the Constitution rather than defied it? And if tyranny comes from denying the Constitution, then maybe freedom comes from conformity?
Consider:
1. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on record as saying that the South African Constitution is a better model for 21st Century nations. Why?
2. Might it have something to do with the 1st and 2nd Amendments which keep the Feds from outlawing as felonies the “crimes” of hate speech (a cause dear to you guys’ darkly enlightened hearts) and gun ownership?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,”
If all men are created equal, then everything short of Pol Pot’s communism is an unprincipled exception. History since then has been the removal of one unprincipled exception after another.
The constitution was a conservative document, intended to nail all these unprincipled exceptions in place, against the storm of radicalism. But it failed.
“Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” was not intended to prevent state religions, but to ensure that each state could have its own state religion. The mormon war and the civil war imposed one state religion on all the states, which brought us to our present pickle, where one religion is imposed on most of the world.
The current regime already purports to adhere to the old constitution, with results we can all observe.
Lack of honesty is the biggest problem of the current regime, and without remedying that lack of honesty, anything done to reform it will be worse.
“Jim”
Are you referring to the Constitution or the Declaration? Both are evil, but one has the line with the anarchist position more stridently presented than the other…
Best regards,
A.J.P.
The constitution was dangerously ambiguous – thus arguably allowing equalist measures that necessarily involved blood and fire. It was weasel worded. It was written so that it could be interpreted in accordance with the ideals of the declaration of independence, and, if so interpreted, would result in the disaster that follows from those ideals.
Ha ha ha! Pol Pot is the fulfillment of egalitarianism? Pol Pot was no more equal to the average Cambodian under his regime than a kid and the bug he imprisoned in a jar are equal!
You cannot get egalitarianism, therefore no one ever fulfills it, but you can try really hard. Fairly recently the Cathedral was trying to eradicate racism in the Congo almost as hard as Pol Pot was trying to eradicate inequality in Cambodia – with about as much success and with similar results.
If the Cathedral is causing less pain and death than the commies in its efforts to equalize the proles and the peasants, that is because it has pretty much given up on equalizing the proles and the peasants, indeed it was only serious about the proles and the peasants from about 1930 to 1960, but it is still escalating on equalizing blacks and women.
Once again I ask you, and once again you will dodge the question. Just how extreme do the measures to achieve equality have to get before you would conclude that equality is wicked ideal? Sounds as if Pol Pot has not convinced you, that the war on whites in Rhodesia and Tutsis in the Congo has not convinced you.
I think at this point I should refer to the anarchist position that state socialism is not socialism. While this assertion is arguable considering the existence of a common stock of goods from which each gets their fill (or not), it certainly isn’t equal. And while the anarchist argument that state socialism is really state capitalism ignores the role of the market, it does point that the state in the Soviet model simply replaces the capitalist class as owner of the economy instead of making the people equal owners of the economy. The anarchists are certainly right that true egalitarianism would require decentralization and federalism!
You guys tried anarcho socialism in Catalonia. It had a depressing resemblance to regular state socialism – terror, killing fields, and tyranny – except that it failed to do away with the features of capitalism that socialists had hoped to do away with.
I never said unlimited equality is an ideal of mine. Justice is preferable. Suppose there is a black rapist cannibal and he is enslaved or slain. I say if his guilt is proven, he deserves his fate, the same as a white man like Jeffery Dohmer. You say that he should be mistreated beforehand because blacks are savages. I say elevate or degrade based on content of character. You say his character can be determined beforehand based on the history of his race. I say it’s his individual history that counts not his racial history. You disagree making you a racist while I believe in justice though not social justice (i.e. unlimited rather individually earned equality).
Nonsense. I say no such thing.
Blacks should not be mistreated. They should be treated before the law differently from whites, just as women are treated before the law differently from men, and children over a certain age differently from children under a certain age.
To thrive, blacks need laws that are simpler, harsher, and more vigorously enforced. Consider for example drug laws: Smoking marijuana while white is de-facto legal, smoking marijuana while black is illegal – and it is very clear that if we legalize marijuana for blacks, it is going to be a disaster for the black community, that such legalization is going to wreak a lot more damage than the Ku Klux Klan ever did.
The reason that de-facto we have different laws for black and whites, even in such wacky far left moonbat enclaves as San Francisco, is because any idiot can plainly see it would be a total disaster to have the same laws for blacks as for whites.
> it does point that the state in the Soviet model simply replaces the capitalist class as owner of the economy instead of making the people equal owners of the economy.
Why would this be a good thing?
You have one person who spent massive amounts of time learning and inventing, and who took immense personal risks and as a result creates massive positive externalities. A product everyone uses and massively benefits from.
You have another one who did the absolute minimum, whether from innate laziness or conscious choice or just incapacity.
Why should they be “equal owners of the economy”? Why should people who can’t be trusted to balance a bank account or buy nutritious food for their children have any say in the economy (beyond their personal spending decisions)? Should a man driving a minivan full of children ask for their constant input on driving decisions?
If you were to somehow equalize everyone’s economic power, within a month massive inequalities would re-emerge, simply because big chunks of the population would squander their economic power buying spinner rims and big speakers for their cars if nothing else.
>The anarchists are certainly right that true egalitarianism would require decentralization and federalism!
Decentralization leads to more inequality, not less. When you let people rise or fall on their own merits, some will rise very high and others will fall very low.
The problem with the Constitution is not that it says “all men were created equal”-this is such vague language, obviously true for some aspects (we all need air, food and water,) obviously false for others (we are not of equal height) that it doesn’t necessarily lead to anything concretely harmful.
The problem with the Constitution is that it is a magic parchment, designed to convince people that they are ruled by a document as opposed to human beings. At first, perhaps those humans followed that document in good faith, but even then, if you are ostensibly being ruled by a document but in practice being ruled by its interpreters, there’s a lie right there and one lie leads to another inexorably.
And of course the principle of popular government is stupid, because it inexorably leads to a universal franchise and a professional class of politicians telling the voters whatever they want to hear and doing whatever they want to do. And eventually creating a new voter class, one way or another.
B, like I said, I’m not in favor of unlimited equality–I believe people should keep what they earn. Where I agree with the anarchists is that *if* unlimited equality is your goal, the Pol Pot/Mao/Soviet model is retarded. (It’s also retarded from a moral standpoint and to elaborate would require a whole another comment.)
Jim, allowing whites and blacks equal access to marijuana isn’t such a problem if the authorities are willing to hold blacks fully accountable for any and all consequences from any abuse of the drugs. And my explanation of your position on blacks was correct–you’re on record saying that blacks deserved to be slaves because they couldn’t be trusted with freedom due to their animalistic nature.
That was, and is, not my position at all.
I regularly give two examples of blacks being rightfully enslaved.
Example one:
A Tutsi rancher finds that some of his Hutus have killed one of his cows, and are in the process of eating it. He could legitimately kill them. It is impractical to imprison them. He does not want to kill them, because they are his Hutus, but he cannot let them off, because they will kill another cow. So he sends them off to a slaver.
This example implies that the Tutsi rancher, being disinclined to hunt someone else’s animals and gather in someone else’s fields, should rightly remain free, and rightly remain in aristocratic authority over his remaining Hutus, and that it was morally wrong for the colonialists to disempower the Tutsis and free the Hutus.
Example two:
In the British West Indies, if a free black had no visible means of support, they assumed he was hunting someone else’s animals and gathering in someone else’s fields, so they put him in the workhouse, and tried to find an owner for him. If they could sell him, they did, but often they had to give him away, and often they had to twist the recipient’s arm or pay the recipient to take the slave off their hands. Plantation owners were under considerable social, moral, and legal pressure to accept such unwanted slaves, and did so as part of their duty to the community.
This example does not suggest that a black who owns property and honestly earns a decent living should be enslaved – though if he owns enough property, he might well find himself under pressure to accept some of the unwanted slaves who are unable or unwilling to look after themselves if free.
I am in favor of selling all young able bodied people who are persistently and repeatedly on welfare, for example AFDC. into chattel slavery, selling all of them that are reasonably saleable. Of course, with such a disincentive to collecting welfare, most of those sold into slavery on this system would be black. The whites would mostly get their act together.
If equality under the law was all that easy, San Francisco, being full of moonbat leftists from outer space, wall to wall, would have equality under the law.
B, something else occurred to me. In the United States Army, privates get paid the same as other privates just as generals get paid the same as other generals–to the point, that soldiers will consider their pay grade and their rank as synonymous. If each state became its own nation with its own army, some would pay their privates more than others would. In that sense, decentralization would promote inequality. On the other hand, the less populated states would do away with the general ranks in their armies and even highly populated states would probably have Maj. Gen. as their highest rank so the inequality between the lowest rank and the highest rank would actually decrease. So whether decentralization promotes equality or inequality depends on how you look at the organization in question.
“Hidden Author”
You are talking about this RACE problem that you say only exists in white countries…You’re not actually talking about a RACE problem, you are talking about a WHITE problem and you want the Final Solution to it… You want White Genocide.
A.J.P.
Actually I oppose the way South Africa allows the Boers to be slaughtered by criminals so I don’t fit into one of the binary boxes you guys wish to stick me in.
Right, you oppose the consequences.
“I’m in favor of driving off the cliff but I strongly oppose crashing into the canyon.”
So you’re one of those Social Darwinists who says that somebody somewhere always has to have his face bashed in by a jackboot? How about no one has his face bashed in by a jackboot?
So you are one of those social justice warriors who finds it a lot easier to argue if he lies about his opponents position.
Oh wait, you’re even worse – “if you’re not in favor of driving off the cliff you’re evil!”
I’m in favor of civilization.
Civilization requires different rules for different groups. You can instead have a single set of rules if you have a single group but that bridge has been burned.
Instead you propose something that’s never existed before and bask in the moral purity of refusing to notice things. Good luck with that.
OK, good, you oppose the Boers being slaughtered by criminals. The fact that you believe and say that Boers are being slaughtered by criminals, and the fact that you’re here associating with us haters, might get you fired under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so I hope your authorship is hidden well from the prying eyes of gettingracistsfired.tumblr.com .
What policies would you like to see to prevent the Boers from being slaughtered by criminals?
Just to note Jim, chattel slavery makes economic sense when there is demand for labor. We have no such thing as machines do nearly every low skill job better than a human could and are beginning to do every medium and high wage job better as well.
Heck the Cotton Gin made many slaves obsolete in the 19th century. Unless you plan to basically close of the US or whichever economy and use government boots of necks to enforce inefficiency, you aren’t going to have that much work for people to do.
we don’t need labor and soon enough this lack of demand will affect about 2/3 or 3/4 of everybody. we will all be doing make work and junk jobs
The real solution to barbarism is to pay people to stay out of trouble with the law and maybe not to have children Its expensive but a decent incentive can even tame the high time preference high aggression crowd to some degree. Combine it with strong law enforcement and you can impose some degree of civilization.
Understand though that as long as we have computers and automation and urbanization, the overall fertility rate will decline. You aren’t going to get nearly as much social pressure to have children as you might like and such pressure will only cause more trouble.
And note here every even ,marginally civilized nation has diminishing fertility. Even most Islamic ones Every single one. This is a good thing and is in fact fixed to get better if th new birth control options for men proliferate.
In simple terms, civilization is already past its carrying capacity. That capacity peaked somewhere between 1950 and 1970 and is fixed to decline for an indefinite period till either barbarism wins or the population that remains is both selected for religiosity and has economic means ion which case it will stabilize
Diminishing fertility is not economics, but represents the triumph of progressivism everywhere. The abruptness of the collapse in Japanese fertility shows that it is politics, not economics. Poor people should reproduce less, not more.
You are buying the progressive story about how horribly unprogressive Islam is. In Islam, as in the West, two thirds of college students are women, due to affirmative action. In Islam, men stand up respectfully when a woman enters the room. In Islam, as in the west, when the male boss talks to a male executive, the boss asks him stuff the boss needs to know, and tells him stuff the boss wants him to do. When the male boss talks to a female executive, he flatters her and builds her self esteem, as though she was the empress and he was a courtier, or as though though he was a hostage and she was psychotic wearing a belt of high explosive, while she randomly interrupts him and talks over him with her inane stupid chatter whereupon he patiently pretends to listen.
The rituals of showing respect for women differ slightly in detail between Islam and the west. In Islam they stand up when a woman enters the room, in America, must stand up to greet a woman. But its perfectly clear that all women are higher social status and have more power and less responsibility than any man, just as in the west. In Islam, as in the West, women have all power and no responsibility.
I’ll consider the notion that Progressive thinking is part of Islam before I comment on that idea.
I have to say though as you know more of the human population is becoming urban and with a few rare exceptions at different times , cities have always been a population sink.
As far as Japan, the curve you shows correlates (and yes its not causation I know) nicely with economic trends, the abrupt collapse of the export economy means that the number of babies born in expensive urban areas declines. No money, no babies.
Also maybe just maybe the younger people in Japan don’t want the Salaryman Lifestyle or to be Corporate Property especially with Corporations no longer honoring their end anyway They really can’t rebel they don’t even have any idea of what could replace it as there is no political vocabulary to do so with so they simply refuse to participate and it self corrects.
I don’t know why there is such a blind spot among so many Conservatives on this issue but simply, babies are expensive in urban areas.
if you examine the income of say European young people and the unemployment rate, its staggering and a man without prospects won’t have the resources to start a family. You really can’t raise a kid on welfare even in Germany or Sweden very well so people don’t
Now the upper classes have no loyalty so they don’t care who they rule so long as they rule someone but you can pretty well be assured it will backfire as sooner or later the replacements will want what most of humanity regards as Freedom, i.e being ruled by the own jerks or will be genocided. by wither the displacers or displacees
Sorry to replay to myself, this wasn’t really done and I accidentally hit the submit comment thing
What I was trying to say is that, our societies are not coping well with fertility control among the rational for rational reasons, they are so accustomed to people having social pressure for families they don’t understand when people make entirely sound choices and do not have a child they don’t want or can’t afford.
Its not just Progressive ideas in play though that’s absolutely part of it but its changes away from older forms of irrational conduct, simply people don’t have to have kids they don’t to have and many who can’t afford them, no longer have them.
This is dysgenic in some senses since the high time preference low IQ types don’t care but really intelligence is highly overrated for humans, We don’t need that much to thrive and while I’d love a smarter species, evolution doesn’t care and may find the idea less useful. The less smart people will just die back anyway
I think Reason said it nicely “Maybe people don’t like kids” and frankly if they don’t I’m fine with it. we’ll lose some people who would change their mind when they actually have a child but on the whole, the people who do have kids will do a better job. Its a great trade off.
Now low fertility can be changed by changing the culture away from Progressive ideals but any replacement is utterly incompatible with he economy as we have it, Religion isn’t going to come back for some years outside Russia (and they aren’t at replacement either) and society is not going to be able to cheap out on peoples pay and get by with it. Also as a a group women neither want nor need power but baring collapse women won’t give up that power either.
Thus as I see it, if it takes say 60k per anum to get a family started and people expect a stable work environmen and a 30 hour work week than we had better find a way to give it to them or simply accept subreplacment fertility going forward (or demographic replacement if you are willing to take those risks and note even the replacers are dropping out)
As famously said TANSTAAFL
The economy we now have is the same economy as the Japanese had in 1947, that is to say urban and industrial, except that we are a lot wealthier than they were, so should find it a lot easier to afford children.
And it also the same economy as the Japanese had in 1949, when reproduction collapsed to levels not very different from our own.
What changed between 1947 and 1949? They did not become significantly more urban and industrial. They did not become more religious, they became less religions. They became like us in that women and children were emancipated, which immediately resulted in them becoming like us in not having children.
If you look at your graph, the drop was not limited to 1948 but extended into the ’60s. Again you’re a dishonest little boy, Jim!
A gradual drop can have lots of causes, such as boys raised under feminism, since lots of things happen over a long period.
A sudden drop gives clear indication of cause and effect.
Bunkum. It does not correlate with economic trends. The initial abrupt collapse in fertility reflects an abrupt political change, not economic change, the subsequent slow decline reflects the failure of males raised under feminism to marry and have children.
Similarly, the economic condition of Islamic countries is all over the place, but fertility does not vary with economic condition, but with status of women. By and large, fertility is highest where the US blowing up Islamic clerics.
Did Japan suddenly become more urban in 1948?
A century ago cities were population sinks because of disease, not because of reduced fertility. Disease is no longer a big problem.
I recently moved to a rural whitopia, where I discovered that the local police were quietly and unofficially turning a blind eye to eighteenth century patriarchy. I don’t see that children are markedly cheaper here than in the cities, but the fertility rate is way higher. Feminism is imposed by the state, and the closer you live to the capital, the more easily the agents of the state can get to you, the more you are subject to feminism.
Japan isn’t really the West and the motivations of a nation that has just been nuked and occupied might not translate to a mature industrial; power.
Also the Leftist cleric thing may well be more related to Nationalism than Leftism . The decline of nationalism and identity has caused a lot of harm. Most of the motivation was Cultural Marxism or to use people as cogs for the machine state IMO but there was a rational reason to try and reduce global tensions in the form of the hydrogen bomb,
One slip up or uncontrolled war and all Western civilization and anyone else stupid enough to be dragged along could be obliterated.
Its a big incentive to change. And note we have come very very close on multiple occasions to this outcome. I kind of think it gave the entire industrialized world mild PTSD but I might be wrong on that
Now you still really haven’t addressed the economic issue re: Europe and Japan. There is rather high unemployment and staggering underemployment. How can someone have a family on Welfare. The Telegraph shows the benefits and they are far from huge enough to raise a family on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html
Thats upwards of 25% of the population or more, approaching 50% in some countries, many Greeks can’t afford medicine or food hence the growth of the Golden Dawn
Now I do agree that many people who could have kids choose otherwise, I know people like this , Baby Boomers who could have had kids and were of excellent stock, they did not for family reasons (dysfunction from parents who wanted one child not three) and simple lack of interest. And note they are old enough to have been before the heavy feminism these days
Why is making this choice bad? Such people aren’t inclined motivated to parent in the 1st place and trading having 1 child instead of two for a nice annual vacation and more resources applied to that one child may not suit “society” whatever the heck that is or the needs of churches or business but its not wrong. It a fair trade off and an expected perk of urban and suburban living. Its why we have cities,
Besides if people in rural areas are having more children than they’ll eventually be the main group until they move to the city and I suspect will have fewer babies as they trade offs are made. Its rational and healthy not to exceed social carrying capacity.
Nuking did not drop fertility. Occupation did not immediately drop fertility. Emancipating women immediately dropped fertility.
And here in the west, during the period after the embarrassment of Amelia Earhart and before desegregation, the Cathedral forgot about feminism for a while, old, illegal social mores were quietly and unofficially tolerated, and lo and behold, fertility rose dramatically, to levels approaching those of pre-emancipation Japan.
Unemployment is effect, rather than cause. Who is going to get a job when the cool surfer/drug dealer dude who has a part time job folding sweaters has more young, pretty, high IQ, high socioeconomic status girls at his beck and call than he can shake a stick at, while the CEO has trouble finding an aging wife who has spent her hottest and most fertile years on the surfer dude?
In a society where valiant and productive males get the pussy, males will find a way to be valiant and productive. They will go off and conquer Manchuria or something.
For the record this has been a stimulating discussion. Thanks much.
I don’t exactly disagree with you on any point here though I think the fertility drop is generally a good thing for the time being,
Also you are right about the last point but valor isn’t everything. Its also highly overrated in a stable society that is not going to war, Frankly humanity needs to learn to have a degree peace or risk dying off. Another all out war like WW2 means no more Europe or North America or wherever. If the nukes, germ warfare or other horror weapons don’t get us, precision guided weapons targeting civilian infrastructure will. simply,large scale war is not affordable or the time being.
Peace is not perfect or eternal but we have no option but to avoid another big war and that means a lot less opportunity for exciting guys.
sometimes the space exploration crowd thinks we could go there or the smaller underwater crowd, there but simply. No. Its not going to work, too expensive, too little gain and far too few women would be interested.
And as for jobs, again automation play a big role,. Its not an industrial economy these days but a computer based one and as such jobs that would allow moderate IQ types to thrive and do the family thing as vs. get a bit of sex don’t exist.
Women will sleep with cads and the poor quality ones will sometimes have children by them but judging by nearly every example, they won’t have stable healthy families without a good income.
Its not a will issue but a lack of jobs issue. Simply the jobs don’t exist and can’t be created in the existing system
.
Also re: CEO. Women have never wanted boring men . They want male resources yes but baring a lot of resources or seriously deprived women,Old and boring always looses to young and interesting . How many folk songs are about running off with more exciting men and this was well before modern prosperity or feminism ? Lots . Its not a new thing at all.
Now we certainly could change the economy so that women can’t get jobs and that heavy regulation means its better to hire than to automate but good luck keeping that. It means closed borders and using force to control the economy.
Also even a need for resources and lower grades of feminism won’t help. Eastern European women are considerably less feminist than Western ones and are highly focused on resources, the old joke being all you need to get laid is a car but birth rates there among Whites are lower than in Cultural Marxist Sweden . Both are atheist too so its not religion, if anything Eastern Europe is more Christian.
As said we just need to let this shake itself out, so long as we keep highly natal savages in check or out, society will shrink to its healthy carrying capacity and a culture of fertility will replace the existing one
we can also train men to be more assertive and masculine in the mean time , this will mean dealing with the Cathedral but that clash is inevitable, As the system that supports it fades, the Cathedral will get more grasping and evil. we just have to keep it from starting WW3 in its death gasps
In the end if f we end up Evangelical, Race Focused Neo Pagan, Trad Catholic and LDS, so be it, Its a good thing anyway.
There will always be war, just as there will always be poor people, for those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don’t Rotherham and Ferguson is what peace at any price looks like. As Churchill observed “You faced the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and will get war.”
The progressive idea of peace is universal progressive empire, which everyone will accept, because the progressives are such nice guys. They are not nice, and not everyone is accepting it. Whenever colored people don’t accept it, the progressive reaction is to make bigger sacrifices of white males, but somehow it is not working.
There is no machine that can pick fruit, no machine that can drive a car, no machine that can do housework, nor is there ever likely to be one, except we solve the strong AI problem, which looks less likely and further away with every year that passes.
There is plenty of work for low IQ people if you could trust them not to hurt people, break stuff, and steal stuff. It is not the IQ that is the problem, but the character. The character problem could be solved by reintroducing school discipline, and by enslaving people of bad character.
Yet in Japan, women had healthy stable families on very low income.
In Australia during the early years, women were simply assigned to men, often men who had very low income. The result was stable families – by law, law enforced with the most draconian penalties.
Well yeah and it even works but most of us don’t women as chattel just so they breed more babies whose existence is better for the elite than the parents themselves, The idea of a chattel wife or even a concubine is appealing on some levels as a fantasy but only that. s. I understand the feelings but no thanks.
if we want more children we simply have to make them an asset and people will respond. Now where people live in cities, aren’t gaining general or in group status (i.e with co- religionaires) it becomes that children are an optional choice, I guess the progs got to me a bit but this doesn’t seem bad to me and even with all the loathsomeness of Cultural Marxism out there and the permanently moribund economy most people and most Whites still want children. Taking those who were wobblers out isn’t a bad thing.
I think if we were to stabilize the economy and maybe deport some people, the situation would quickly self correct and we’d get above the current 1.8 back up to our usual 2.1 or so. With a 300 million population its more than plenty
As for fruit picking. I’ve done this and many people would rather not have children than work those jobs. Me included .Agriculture work really sucks. If “common good” is the goal why not pay the stupid to not have kids? I know the religious hate this and for some reason NrX absolutely loathes eugenics but really if we are going with the good society route, higher IQ, better health and less people with a high time preference is what we want not cheap labor
As for machines, Google Cars s self drive, Roomba’s vacuum rooms pretty well and robots can make burgers all all right now. Roombas are consumer items!
We are a few years off from more general ag robots, 1 decade or less without much improvement in hardware. We cannot count on scut work being there baring of course regulation which strokes me as foolish.
No they will not respond because people don’t want children as assets. Never have, never will. Are you an alien from Mars who reproduces by spore pod explosion? If you are I suggest you read Luke 15:11-32 and 2 Samuel 15:2 – 19:6 to gain an understanding of human nature and the human condition.
The problem is that children can be taken away from a man and used as hostages against him. That is why men do not want children.
Sounds like you are from mars.
Google cars do not self drive. Never have, never will. They just have cruise control on steroids. As with regular cruise control, they would be insanely dangerous if they did not have at all times a human driver with his hands on the wheel and his feet on the pedals.
I have Roomba, it is no use. I stopped using it and hired a woman to come once a week and clean my house.
No we are not. General ag robots, like self driving cars, require AI and AI is no closer than it has ever been. We cannot emulate elegans, how could we possibly emulate a man? We have a complete map of the elegans nervous system and have tools that can read out the functioning of every synapse in the worm in real time (there are not that many) and are no closer to emulating the worm than the man.
The reason for declining fertility is even simplier than the elevation or degradation of women. It is so simple that we are all now on Mars, as Jim puts it, due to popular sociology distracting us from this obvious reason.
In Third World societies today and in First World society not that long ago, people effectively became adults when they were teenagers. But now with high school and college education rendering people in their teenage and early 20s years as (often full-time) students dependent on Mom and Dad to pay their bills, adulthood comes a full decade later. And even after that, there’s grad school and/or passing the entry-level rungs as an employee of one’s employer–two things, that depending on the person, have to be completed before one’s identity as an adult is fully formed. And then what do you know? You could be 25 but higher up the socioeconomic ladder, you could be 30 or 35–do you really want to focus on adding more than 1 or 2 children to your family at that late stage in life?
Dramatic fertility transitions, such as Japan’s and Thailand’s, don’t seem to be correlated with dramatic educational transitions.
If women were not also put on the educational treadmill, said treadmill would have less of an effect. But the ultimate cause is delay of adulthood.
Example 1: Going back to the Roman aristocracy, you can ask yourself: What is a fully mature Roman aristocrat? The answer is a Roman man who inherited the position of paterfamilias. But if all sons inherit, the estate is split and the sons are poorer than the father, giving an incentive to infanticide younger sons and daughters. By medieval times when the European population revived, this problem was solved by primogeniture, forcing younger sons to earn their own fortune before they could marry since their parents would not contribute. That in turn meant delayed parenting and eventually when the senior line of an aristocratic house died out, it would be a distant cousin who would inherit.
Example 2: But what of Japan and Thailand? Generally as soon as their economies revived from WWII even slightly, a scramble for the emerging jobs took place with child-rearing adjusting accordingly. Thus educational aspirations emerged long before the peak of the boom. Note that the 60s and the 70s were when blue-collar working-class masses shifted their children through subsidized education into white- and pink-collar lower-middle class masses in America and Europe. (And boy did it depend on subsidies! Since everyone wanted to advance their children but not all children were qualified for hard sciences, social science majors blossomed. And look where they are now!) Japan as a Confucian, Oriental culture was merely ahead of the curve in terms of parental aspirations for children’s educations. But as I said, putting women through the educational treadmill amplified the effects of said treadmill on procreation!
So improved economic prospects reduces fertility, and impaired economic prospects reduces fertility. Your theory has marvelous explanatory power.
You’re a moron, Jim. I mentioned improved economic prospects not by themselves which would be paradoxical. I mentioned them *in relation to modern education/primogeniture*. Both modern education and primogeniture do not merely add to people’s wealth; what’s important–and what you missed–was that they add to people’s wealth in a way *that delays adulthood*.
So what evidence do you have of an abrupt extension of childhood in Japan 1948 caused by economic forces?
You are just pulling explanations out of the air ad hoc, without bothering to see if they fit particular cases. Demographic collapse, you assume, has to be something other than feminism and female emancipation, so you pluck anything that might cause demographic collapse, out of the air at random.
What is happening is not an extension of childhood for economic reasons, but a new phase between what used to be childhood (no sex, no responsibility, no power) and what used to adulthood (marriage, children, responsibility, and one starts getting power) The new phase is extended adolescence, from age fifteen to about age thirty where girls have power and no responsibility, and fuck a minority of males, and males have little responsibility and no power, and no opportunity to have children.
This new phase was also spectacularly visible during the early settlement of Australia, whereupon the authorities set about suppressing it with irons and the lash.
Australia’s early female settlers were, for the most part, young single women who were sent to Australia as punishment for stealing from their employers. They showed an astonishing inclination to screw males who could not possibly take care of children, and screw so many different males that it was impossible to ascertain paternity. They “were so strongly desirous of being with men that neither shame nor punishment could deter them”
They had already rebelled against patriarchal authority, and being sent to Australia separated them from any restraints of family or culture. The state was, at first a completely ineffectual substitute for customary authority.
To solve this problem, the state took action. The girls were given a choice of marriage or assignment. Most got married the day they arrived in Australia, to a man they had never met before or even spoken to before the marriage. The authorities did not bother to check if they were already married, but this was rarely a problem. They seldom were, and if they were, the husband was usually in England, hence irrelevant. Selection of a wife tended to be wordless. The girls were lined, up and males that the authorities had determined were suitable would wordlessly pick one. A girl could wordlessly refuse, but if she refused, and no one else picked her that she accepted, she got assigned to any suitable male who would have her. Those that fucked around despite their marriage or assignment got flogged. Marriage was permanent and irreversible. Assignment lasted many years, and commonly ended in marriage.
Eighteenth century Australia faced a massive outbreak of twentieth century female behavior with absolutely none of the supposed twentieth century causes. The problem was naturally rebellious females separated from the restraints imposed by family and polite society. Australia in the late eighteenth century tells us that this is simply how women behave if they are not stopped.
In the ancestral environment, paternal certainty, and paternal care of children, was forcibly imposed by men on women. Women have not been subject to selection for inclination to cooperate in this arrangement, because, throughout most of our evolutionary history, they did not get a choice.
A woman who is naturally inclined to cooperate in this arrangement is a virtuous woman, who, the Bible tells us, is hard to find. Unsurprisingly very few of the women sent to Australia were virtuous, necessitating crude and drastic measures by the authorities to recreate patriarchy, assigning particular women to particular men able to support them almost at random.
Didn’t the Japanese transition from industrial labor to corporate salaryman in the late 40s? And I know of people who spent ten years in college to be librarians and still are searching for work: you can put in all the applications you want but no one’s hiring (something they don’t tell you).
No
You are just making shit up at complete random.
Checking Wikipedia:
So the salary man career path appeared eighteen years before the abrupt fertility collapse.
Everywhere we see female emancipation, we see fertility collapse. War makes no significant difference, peace makes no significant difference, prosperity makes no significant difference, poverty makes no significant difference.
Where females are not emancipated, (Afghanistan, Timore Leste, Japan before MacArthur), we see fertility doing fine, about four to seven children per woman, well above replacement.
Where marriage and divorce are in the hands of religions (Israel and the Philippines) we see fertility doing OK, reasonably above replacement.
Nothing else makes any readily detectable difference.
Keep in mind though that more than one cause can be in play. You yourself cite crime as a factor; the difficulty of becoming independent is also important.
In countries were it is difficult to become independent, people are rather too comfortable not becoming independent. And crime is a problem where people allow it to be a problem. If marriage was easier and safer, people would be more inclined to shoot the Ferguson rioters from the rooftops and lynch the survivors.
You’ve obviously never applied for a job for a year and not gotten acceptance for any. Or been under-employed with a part-time job. I know wealthy people often earn their wealth but I also know there are people who would like to earn wealth but don’t get the chance. The progressives are wrong for assuming that all heterosexual white males are privileged but obviously people like you who are oblivious to the real struggles of people just trying to make their way in the world are indeed very privileged.
Sounds like you are applying for jobs in a country or an environment where it is difficult to fire people. In such a country, it is unwise to hire people who you don’t know are going to show up on time, refrain from stealing stuff, refrain from assaulting the employer and the customer, refrain from vandalizing the office – and, of course, refrain from suing the employer or bringing charges against him for vague crimes impossible to disprove.
But this is, to some considerable extent, downstream of marriage and family formation. If the way to some pussy was to get a job and be able to support a wife and kids, considerably fewer people would call for laws that make employment impossible. The great majority of married people vote against such laws and the parties that support them. The great majority of unmarried people, particularly unmarried women, vote in favor of such laws and the parties that support them.
If only male property owning heads of household could vote, such laws would be abolished in a flash.
Comparing the voting habits of single people and married people, single people vote as if they don’t really want men to have jobs, and married people vote as if they really do want men to have jobs.
Its not the first time I’ve been accused of being a Martian.;) However re: the economic thesis , the Economist discusses it here http://www.economist.com/node/14743589.
In general the idea here is that people have large families because society dictates they should. Now the role of the State in mishandling families is a part of the decline but I think the idea that most modern people want large families is flawed. Family size has been shrinking since the 19th century when the State was quite hands off, there was no female suffrage to speak of either
Psychology Today on the same topic
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200903/history-s-mysteries-why-do-birth-rates-decrease-when-societies-m
with a quote here about the Kin Influence Hypothesis
Without this pro-reproductive encouragement coming from family, people are less likely to have children.
Also re: robots. Here is a new berry picking robot from japan, no Ai is required for most tasks
http://www.cnet.com/news/50000-strawberry-picking-robot-to-go-on-sale-in-japan/
These techs are not ready yet but but it will not be that long , 20 years or less before one can get into the car,, tell it to take you somewhere and it will, no driver or AI needed. Its not self motivated but even an autopilot on roids is more than enough to cut into driver jobs if Uber doesn’t wipe out the cab business first
And yeah Roomba’s aren’t all that, again its an early technology. Right now Merry Maids is cheaper. You can’t count on that or any other job sticking around, Heck while there are still travel planners, that is a moribund job now .
You can Google Ag Robots if you like and 100% agreed they aren’t fully ready but they will get here. simply, while there will still be some demand for human low skilled labor for some time, that demand is shrinking and it might be wiser not to assume employment as part of your social model for the long term.
Now energy might run out or wars reboot society in which case after the die-back patriarchy but it might not either,
This tech is a disruption in how human societies have worked well forever but until we run out of energy, we will have to deal with the issues and we cannot assume on the old systems holding up.
we might get a Christian or maybe a Pagan revival but its equally possible, we might not and while people will probably be more inclined to religion for biological and social reasons, we may not see the impulse directed at any established religion in the West
All that said, thanks for your forbearance and the most enjoyable discussion.
The attack on the family by the state started in England in approximately 1820, perhaps a little earlier.
The moral theory was that women would never do anything bad, so all the apparatus of coercion to restrain uncontrollable female lust for bad boys was wicked, merely used by bad men to hurt good women, and should never be applied.
Just as no evidence is sufficient to acquit a man of rape today, no evidence was sufficient to convict a woman of adultery back then.
Queen Caroline attends a ball naked from the waist up. She collects a man from the ball and takes him to her hotel room. The hotel staff report them being in bed together, and love stains on the sheets. This, however, is deemed insufficient to prove Queen Caroline’s adultery.
So of course family size started falling. You don’t want to wind up like King George.
This sort of thing destroyed the authority of husbands. Smash the family, reproduction drops. What do you expect?
Then, in 1857, came the matrimonial causes act, where a woman could walk away from the marriage and it would be as if the marriage had never been, but the husband could not walk away from the marriage. He would still have to support his wife. He was not yet officially required to support his faithless wife and allow her numerous lovers to abuse his children, that came later – but because it was extraordinarily difficult to divorce one’s wife for her fault, most husbands proceeded to fake up their own fault.
So in 1857 we had the current system where women get cash and prizes for breaking up the family and destroying their children defacto, though not yet de-jure. The propaganda offensive in favor of breaking up the family and murdering your children did not come in to force until considerably later.
The demographic transition came in slow in the west because feminism came in slow. Where feminism came in abruptly, the demographic transition happened abruptly, Japan being one of the most extreme examples. Feminism means smashing the family, women spending their hottest and most fertile years banging the top five or ten percent of males. So, naturally, reproduction drops.
I have been hearing that for a very long time.
The problem with your arguments is that you insist we should care very much when your opponents severely harm people but we should accept severe harm as natural when inflicted by you or people you sympathize with. How about we shift society away from severely harming people!
“How about we shift society away from severely harming people!”
More horseshit.
The actual implementation of this is “stop ‘severe harm’ anti-social people”. In other words, stop retaliatory violence. In other words, anarcho-tyranny.
Some one robs a convenience store and shoots the owner and rapes his wife. Well, too bad – there’s nothing we can do about that. Store owner shoots the thug – whoa – slow down – looks like you’ve violated the prohibition on “severe harm”.
“No one should ever be harmed!” – then do nothing about obvious bad actors and give them free reign to harm people as they please. That’s a pathetically obvious rigged game you’re trying to sell.
I never said black criminals should be let off scot-free. I think the Ferguson rioters are malevolent because they want to give criminals immunity. But you guys argue for a legal presumption that a black individual is inferior *before* he does anything as an individual (and not as a member of a race where others happen to be inferior) to prove that he is indeed inferior. I argue that people should be treated based on what they do and not on what their race does–that’s what I mean by ending severe harm and getting jackboots off people’s faces. (But you guys think you won the argument by assuming a binary either-or logic that doesn’t exist in reality. I present a third option in this argument behind you guys and malevolent crime-loving progressives.)
Legally we should expect blacks to be bad. But it does not follow that we should punish them before they do anything – merely that their deeds should be subject to simpler, harsher, more restrictive, and stricter laws than white people. We should expect, but we don’t know until they actually do something.
You back away now from the argument that blacks should be slaves but when I critiqued you for defending the Confederacy for “defending liberty”, you argued that the Forest Service could not make dumpsters that were inaccessible to the smartest of animals but not accessible to the dumbest of humans. You also said that some people have to put on leashes and that most of the slaves needed the guidance of a master. That sounds to me and to any reasonable reader as an argument for the enslavement of blacks.
if Blacks are dumber than monkeys, then yes, they should be slaves
But not all blacks and no whites.
It is an argument for enslaving people on their individual merits and needs. I expect that a large proportion of blacks would be enslaved under this process, and considerably fewer whites, but no one would be enslaved solely on the evidence of the color of his skin.
If this slavery is merit-based, how does being the child of a black slave woman on a plantation or being captured in warfare by a rival tribe count as “meriting” enslavement?
Suppose you are at war, and you win, and your enemies surrender, but then unsurrender the moment your back is turned. Then you have to kill them or enslave them. If they make war as a people, rather than individuals, have to enslave them as a people, not individuals.
The rule for slavery of whites was that it was not hereditary, but blacks presented a different problem, which was best addressed by making slavery hereditary, and then freeing individuals from time to time on the basis of merit.
I don’t recall an invasion of sub-Saharan Africans of Europe or its colonies; the Europeans went to Africa and acquired black slaves after crossing the ocean to do so.
Very few black people were enslaved by Europe or its colonies. They were enslaved by other black people, notably the ancestors of Obama’s father. Sometimes no doubt for bad reasons, but where the reason was known, looked to me like a pretty good reason.
That some humans are dumber than some non human animals is not an argument that all blacks should be slaves and no whites should be slaves. It is an argument that some people should be slaves.
You’re being disingenuous; you used that argument to justify the race-based slavery system of the antebellum South. Context matters.
Antebellum South was, for the most part, not race based. Some blacks were free, some owned slaves, as it should be.
Yes and even the enslavement of white-appearing octaroons was justified on the basis of their black ancestry. Not race-based at all!
Your history is massively falsified.
No one was re-enslaved merely on the basis of color. If someone was re-enslaved, it was because they needed care and supervision.
I’m labor talking about re-enslavement. Consider a white slave-master father who does not emancipate his mullatta daughter. She has a daughter with another master who likewise does not emancipate his daughter. The cycle then continues into a third generation of enslaved daughters. Legally the basis of keeping such a more-or-less white slave in such a situation was her black ancestry. Yet you claim no bias against black people in the antebellum South!
First sentence: I am not talking about re-enslavement.
Then what the hell are you talking about? Not every black was a slave, therefore no one was enslaved on the basis of the color of his skin.
But for a person to be born a slave, the law made black ancestry a requirement, you dishonest little man!
That is irrelevant to your claim. No one was enslaved merely for being black.
Black ancestry is a racial characteristic; thus Southern slavery was race-based.
now you’re arguing disparate impact. I agree. Blacks will be disparately impacted by laws that permit slavery.
But there’s a real question here. Would I advocate for this policy if my race would be disparately impacted by it? I think I would advocate for my race to be allowed to go live alone somewhere before I would advocate for us to be ruled by others.