Comments by "Tim Bucks" (@TimBitts649) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
2300
-
1100
-
566
-
533
-
450
-
361
-
321
-
312
-
301
-
300
-
287
-
209
-
138
-
133
-
131
-
131
-
98
-
93
-
86
-
77
-
73
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
63
-
58
-
53
-
50
-
47
-
42
-
So...if Trump's also old, why do I support him? Real story: Met a guy long ago, moved to my neighborhood, Victor was in his 70s. Fit looking guy. But raising a big family, Victor never any time for sports. After a lifetime of no sports, he's retired...in his 70s.
Victor took up running past 70, within 2 months runs a local 26 mile Marathon, in decent time. I tried training for a Marathon at age 30, it was brutal. For Victor, it was easy.
Age is just a number. Most men Biden or Trump's age, should not be President. Biden should not be President. But JFK is in super shape, could easily handle it. Trump? Bit of an anomaly. 1 in 10,000. Trump's gonna live till his 90s. For his age, he has incredible energy, just like Victor.
Lesson: you can generalize by age, but judge every person as an individual.
40
-
39
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
Using an Evolutionary Lens, to understand what is happening to black men and crime:
In evolution the male role is the protector/provider in humans. There is a biological deal between the genders: He wants sex from the female, he wants companionship and children. On her half of the equation, she wants sex, she gets to pick who she has sex with, who she has children with, she wants resources and much of her choice in men, come's down to their utility, as resource providers.
That's the basic biological compact between men and women.
...then we gave women the vote
What women voting leads to, is women voting for resources, via the government, as a Surrogate Husband. The Progressives and Democrats took to this, like ducks to water. Republicans do this too, just not as much. Both reduce the necessity for women, to have a man around. The Democrats make this central to their politics. When that leads to is the replacement of mostly black men as providers of resources, for their women. Suddenly he is worth nothing to her. He is worthless. That's what happened to black men. They were replaced by the government. I don't blame black women for supporting this. Like white women, they are wired to acquire resources from men.
When we men let women vote, their feminine resource acquisition instinct kicks in, they are wired that way, they vote in resources. Then the black men were degraded, made valueless by their own women. This leads to community failure, family failure, sons failing.
What happened in the black community is not a as much a racial thing, as it is a gender thing, best understood in terms of female nature, male nature and evolution. Then we can peel back the layers to see why it failed miserably: It went against evolutionary norms. It broke the basic biological compact between men and women.
Black Lives Matter is a feminist organization. Their principles are based on feminism. Feminism destroyed the black community. In the '60s feminists changed the financial rules. Black women got more money, if the father of the children was not in the home. Women had no reason to keep men around. Female headed households went from 20% of black households in the 1960s, to 80% of black households.
Black children...or white children, especially boys, don't do well without dad around.
Dr. Warren Farrell wrote "The Boy Crisis", he has the stats: Nearly 100% of men in prison, both black or white men, come from fatherless homes. Black Lives Matter is a feminist organization. It believes in kicking black men out of the home. The result is, black communities were slowly destroyed by white progressives and communists and feminists.
Feminism is an offshoot of communism. No wonder it turned out so bad for black Americans. Feminism is based on degrading men, taking away their power. This destroys the evolutionary usefulness of black men, and their sense of responsibility. They will destroy the white community just like they destroyed the black community.
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Konstantin Kisin nailed it. Triggernometry. "The Cobra Effect. Why Good Intentions Don't Solve Problems." Just like the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson figured out same thing, different angle: JP said compassion doesn't scale well. Ben said he's a communist, locally. Explanation:
Ben like me, doesn't like to use gov't money for social problems. Problematic. But the thing is, communism is about compassion. That's why it appeals to so many women especially, they are higher in some forms of compassion, they are also dependent on men. So it makes sense in a family setting for males to share resources with females, who have offspring, need help. So Ben is "communist" locally like me: happy to share resources with family, particularly wife. Sensible, compassionate, based on family, based on reciprocity.
But Dr. Peterson noticed something about this compassion, which is at the heart of leftism: it doesn't scale well. That's an odd, counter-intuitive thing to notice, but quite true. It means, that's the problem with communism: it has good intentions, it is based on sharing and compassion, but when the government redistributes your money for you, this is highly highly problematic, often simply screws up society. It interferes with normal pattern of inter-dependence of men and women in a committed marriage, with family. It replaces the man in the home with the gov't, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, for decades. This misguided compassion of the political left actively destroys the natural family, by replacing men in the home with the Substitute Husband: Government. The reason people don't usually notice is that this leftist impulse seems good at first, because it's based on compassion. All normal humans want compassion, particularly helping women with children is natural and good. So at first glance, leftism & it's emphasis on compassion hit the right notes in the song. But on closer examination, as Dr. Peterson pointed out, this just doesn't scale well. But as Ben Shapiro points out, it actually scales just fine, with proper rules, within a committed marriage and family, where the role of the dad is respected.
And that's the problem with Kamala Harris & DEI: it uses government to actively discriminate against men, discriminate in favor of women. This idea has been tested. It mostly failed. Thomas Sowell talks a lot about why the left's "compassion" failed black America. This worked for a long time in black America. But the problematic thing: In the 1960s black Americans had a higher rate of family formation, than white Americans. Then the government stepped in, forgot the wisdom of Ronald Reagan: "The most terrifying sentence in the English language is, I'm from the government, I'm here to help."
President Johnson in the 1960s wanted the black American vote for Democrats. Black Americans historically were always Republican voters, since the time of Lincoln. In the 1960s the American black vote flipped to Democrat, because they bribed black voters with gov't money: "The Great Society" forerunner to DEI. The problem with this compassion is it focussed on helping single women....regardless of their marital status....just like DEI. This incentivized black women to stay single, make poor choices, not get married, not keep dad around. The results of that social experiment were disastrous. Compassion doesn't scale well.
And now Kamala Harris wants to use DEI to do to White Americans, what Johnson did to Black Americans. No thanks. Curious thing from Wall Street Journal recently: For the first time since the 1960s, young black men are starting to vote Republican, just like young white men are starting to vote Republican...while young white women & young black women are voting Democrat. What's going on? I think you can figure it out....
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
Dave's written comment, above: "how modern feminism has become less about women's rights and more about men hating; and why most women still want traditional men."
How conservatives can win this fight, partly by agreeing with leftists: There was an English study done a while back, on female preferences. Turns out about 60% of women prefer working part time, being a Mom part time. About 20% of women preferred to be childless. And about 20% of women preferred to be a full time Mom, not have a regular full time job.
My answer: let them. We need to give women more options. I'm not interested in returning women, back to the home, except those that want that kind of life. For those women that want to be at home raising kids full time, we as a society owe it to them, to help them do that, if that's their choice. More choice. No force.
Leftists want women to work more. Let them. Conservative women have a higher preference for family. Support churches, mosques and synagogues that promote traditional family life. Conservatives should support government policies giving tax breaks to married people who want families. Support traditional men who want families. Traditional women, too. I don't care who stays at home, with the kids. But Leftists have a point. Some women want to work full time, have no kids. The feminist types. Let them. Some conservative women want to be full time moms. Let them. Be nice to leftists. Even be nice to the man-hater Joy Behar type. They have their own problems, looks like life hasn't been kind to Joy and Whoopi. More compassion, please.
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
The potential power of black conservatives: Elections in the U.S. are normally won by very, very thin majorities. A few votes. This is extremely important for black Americans to understand. Why? Because it gives them tremendous power. Whichever party gets to about 51% of the vote wins. Black Americans are 12% of all voters and they vote almost entirely for Democrats, so Republicans start every election, behind 12%.
Trump is the first President in my lifetime, who is Republican and is going after the black vote. He wants it. He wants it because he knows that black Americans overwhelmingly have voted Democrat, in his lifetime. Since black Americans are about 12% of the U.S. population, when they all vote Democrat, it gives Democrats a 12 point advantage, so it's always been easy for Democrats to win.
That's what Trump is doing by going after the black voter. He's going to the black voter, saying, "If you vote Republican this time, we'll do a bunch of things for you....create jobs in your community, Opportunity Zones, focus on hiring Americans, give you money for school choice...etc". Trump is doing this, not out of the goodness of his heart. He's doing this because if he even shaves 1% or 2% of the black vote away from Democrats, he wins the election, hands down.
Kanye West has figured this out. He's peeling votes, off the left. He's doing a favor for Donald Trump, to get influence in the Republican Party. If Kanye wins the election for Republicans, then they know they owe Kanye....BIG TIME
All this dynamic gives black American voters tremendous power in our current politics of razor thin wins....if they realize the game and their place in the game, how potentially the black vote is the King Maker. The power of the black voter now rests on the black voter NOT being loyal to the Democrat Party, but instead shopping around.
It's like that old song by Smokey Robinson from 1960, "My momma told me....you better shop around". My advice to black Americans: shop around when it comes to your vote. Get the best deal. Black voters should keep an open mind, go to both Democrats and Republicans and say, "If I vote for you, what do you have to offer? What can you do to improve my life? How can you improve my community and people I care about?"
....Black Americans need to make both Democrats and Republicans EARN your vote...it's valuable. Don't give it away, for nothing. Make them earn it. You better shop around...
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
@thecakelady52 The super rich have so much money, they just buy Presidents and Senators. No one said where Obama got $1 Billion it costs, to run for President. He did not disclose his donors. Likely it was George who elected Obama, who is gifted and is bringing in the agenda of the Open Society: George wants to flood the West with refugees, he said so. That way he can control them, control the vote, change America to what he wants, which is basically get rid of whites as a majority. As you recall, Biden said this publicly. Tucker played the clip on his show a week ago, of Biden coming out and saying he wants to get rid of whites as a majority in America. This is Obama's 3rd Term. Obama's agenda is the same as Georges: to get rid of whites. Professor David Horowitz is of the same ethnicity as George, he wrote a book about it, he was interviewed by Mike Huckabee, a book about the liberal agenda to end Christian America. Democracy is a thing of the past. Fascists are in charge now.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
The Elephant in the room. No one wants to say the obvious: this is about women. Most Social Justice Warriors are women. Is this a coincidence? No...it's a signal from evolution: Most people who study intersectionality are women. Females test higher than males for empathy...thus are more likely to support inclusivity. Identity politics includes feminism and that mostly interests women.
Women evolved caring for young mammals, their bodies literally evolved to protect the vulnerable. When women embraced feminism, they went against nature, because feminism tells women to concentrate on careers and competition with men in their 30s.
Women literally evolved to mostly bear young and have children in their 20s, not careers. Trouble is, by the time a woman is 30, about 90% of her eggs are dead. By age 40, about 98% of her eggs are dead. Since the birth rate is at an all time low, while women are now the majority of students at university for the first time in history, this changes things. For instance all those good and healthy female instincts to protect the young and vulnerable get displaced, since they mostly have no children of their own, due to feminism.
So now these otherwise fine female instincts, which sustained humans since the beginning of time, are being turned and twisted to destroy society. That's the Elephant in the room.
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
It's about votes. In the 1960s lots of black voters were still voting Republican, because Lincoln was Republican and freed the slaves. President Johnson offered The Great Society...government money to black voters. It worked. Black voters switched to Democrat and have voted 95% Democrat, since then. Then Americans largely won against racism, it's very unpopular now. Trouble is, Democrats count on the black vote. They need to keep racism alive, for the vote. The way they get the black vote is gov't money, plus keeping the fake racist narrative alive. How do I know the system is no longer racist? Here is a list of American groups that earn more money than white Americans:
-Indian Americans, parents from India
-Chinese Americans
-Korean Americans
-Nigerian Americans <Nigeria is where black Americans came from, as slaves>
-Filipino Americans
America was quite racist 60 years ago, in the 1960s. Now? Not so much. Democrats keep racism alive, for the votes. The Democrat plan for votes is: Tell black Americans that white people hate you, but we love you. Then give black people a bunch of money. The plan has worked pretty well till now, but the Morgan Freemans of the world are catching on.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
This is terrific stuff from Douglas Murray, but his explanation 'begs the question', of why history got so distorted and anti-white? I can think of a few reasons in the meta-picture of history:
1-Movable type was invented in Germany in 1440. This made book writing and record keeping of events, very easy. So Europeans colonized the world, because information was much quicker to move around, once the printing press was invented. This meant rapid technological expansion, military expansion, coming out of this invention. This means, among other things, Europeans kept far better records than other groups of people, of what they did. This includes the horrible stuff. Other groups of humans, with no printing presses, left far fewer records of their horrors. We kept records. Others didn't. We wrote books, because we had the printing press. Others wrote barely any, because they didn't. We left records of our crimes, as well as our virtues. Cynics only report on crimes. Cynics falsify history, pretend it was all about white people doing bad things, while everyone else was virtuous, till we came along. That's the Big Lie we are fighting.
2-Till 1895, most Europeans lived on less than a dollar a day, in today's money, according to Dr. Jordan Peterson. Why was that? Science and technology and capitalism are making us rich, but people underestimate how recent this was and how hard life was, before then. My grandfather was born a few days after the 1800s ended. So there are people alive today like myself, who remember people from that era. Why is that important? Feminists claim "women were oppressed by men, in history", that is a part of the many lies going on. The truth is more likely: Technological limitations had a severe effect in history, of limiting gender roles. Women's lives, and men's lives, were severely hard and limited by the demands of survival. Thanks to technology, women are now free to pursue other roles. Men too. We should thank men, not condemn them. Gratitude is appropriate, the male story is an heroic once. Jordan Peterson has a good video explaining this: "People who believe this are Unrealistic, Ungrateful, Resentful and Ignorant."
3-Jordan Peterson once said that in the long run of history, the West's lead on the world amounts to nothing. I think he's on to something. When I was a child, China was the China of Pearl Buck's The Good Earth novel, a land of very poor peasants living simple and very hard and short lives. China produced nothing. Now, within my lifetime, they make electric cars and computers. Thanks to technology originally invented by Europeans, the rest of the world is getting rich, in a hurry. Do Woke people talk about this? Of course not. The Woke people are severely under-educated, only focusing on the bad things, never the good. Hate has an odd effect on people. If you start from hate, you limit your perception. That's why bigotry is wrong and very dumb. Woke people are bigots, disguised in fake virtue.
10
-
Helmuth Nyborg of Denmark has written about how for the past several thousand years, most new technology, about 97% of it, was invented by Europeans. This led to our current predicament of white guilt: In Germany a few hundred years ago Gutenberg invented movable type in the printing press, making it easy to print books, for the first time ever in history. Before this, books were produced individually, written individually by hand, a very slow process. So, before Gutenberg there were very few books around. Then suddenly there was a mass explosion of books, all because of clever European people inventing technology.
This mass book printing happened in Europe first, just as Europeans invented other technology to allow them to expand and go around the world, conquering North and South America and Australia and much of the world. A great book about this is Winston S. Churchill's "A History of the English Speaking Peoples", which includes where America came from, in history.
All tribes and nations in all history do the same thing: expand and fight, it's human nature. We're all the same that way, we humans. For instance: Europeans practiced slavery, but the catch is, slavery was a human universal, all people did it. Not just white people. Bill Maher talked about how slavery was common even if Africa. Jordan Peterson has said the same thing.
When I was on the east coast of Africa in Mombasa on the equator, lots of Muslim women there with black head coverings. Why? Look at a map, Saudi Arabia a quick sail up the coast, so slavery and the sword were common, I was told when visiting Fort Jesus. That explains President Obama's middle name, Hussein.... a common Muslim name. His dad was from Kenya. So why are Europeans tagged with special guilt, if we act like everyone else? Why don't other cultures get tagged with so much guilt?
All humans act more or less the same, but only Europeans had the ability to write and then print books in massive quantities like no other group, like never before in history. Plus we came out of a Judeao-Christian past, which reflected good cultural values like compassion and guilt. So the end result of this after hundreds of years was Europeans wrote by far, the most number of guilt laden records of what we have done, plus other groups did not record themselves in detail, because they did not produce so much technology, including the printing press. The history of all other races and groups around the world are largely not on our radar. Why? Europeans wrote books, invented technology. We're successful.
So after a few hundred years of this pattern, add in Woke History, you get a distorted pattern or record of the past, mostly distortions and lies and emphasis on the negative, which are lies we feed to young people at university, who don't know any better. For instance in 1900 the average American lived till 50, now the life expectancy is in our 70s. Same with all countries. When I was a kid people in India lived till 40, now they are over 70. Why is that? European inventions and medicines. Is any of this taught? Of course not. We are in a spiral of confusion and short term thinking and self induced guilt.
Sherlock Holmes had in one of his detective stories, Silver Blaze, a clue to some mysteries that involve watching for things that did not happen, which give you clues as to what happened. Some times the most useful thing to know is, what did not happen. That can tell you by deduction, what actually happened. For instance: In the Silver Blaze, Sherlock Holmes refers to ‘the curious incident of the dog in the night-time’, namely that a watchdog at a crime scheme did not bark during the theft of a racehorse from a stable, suggesting that the dog probably knew the thief....
Mystery solved. Books of history are about dogs barking. We Europeans write a lot of books, we have a lot of dogs, we are the dog that barked loudly in the night. Other cultures did not have dogs that barked at night. They had silent dogs. This did not mean they were innocent. Lack of evidence doesn't mean innocence, it can mean other things: No innocent dogs among humans. We just bark louder. Woke is just bs.
10
-
Religious people tend to have more children than secular people. True in all races. Ben talked about this on Triggernometry, how in Israel, the most religious Jews, the Haredim, have the most kids, drive the demographics. He also said more or less, the same thing is happening in America: the more religious you are, the more likely you are to have a family. The most religious Christians are the Amish, who also have the largest family....and helped Trump win Pennsylvania in this election. Like the Haredim, the Amish are growing, in influence. Not a coincidence.
This is useful to know, for social policy. Trump likes Jews, as Ben Shapiro & Bill Maher agreed the other day on Bill's podcast. Trump likes Christians, very much. And there is a very strong alliance forming between Christians & Jews, breaking the historical pattern of antagonism, as we realize we have way more in common, than apart. Much inter-marriage too, as Alan Dershowitz wrote a book about this. Free online. The best general policy inclination going forward, is to do what you can in government policy, to help promote family.
This should be incorporated into Republican policy. It should be the party of family. Leave the cat men and women, to the Democrats.
Slowly America can turn over time, towards what it naturally is: a religious nation. Leave our secular past behind. Dr. Steve Turley, a Christian youtuber, talks a lot about this, on his channel. The future in America belongs to religious people of all faiths. Liberal people are dying off. Literally. Ben Shapiro has lots of kids. Bill Maher is a childless cat man. The future is religious.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
Why I support Putin: countries are more than just hotels, with temporary guests on holidays. Countries are memories and traditions including religious traditions, including the Judeo-Christian Western heritage. It's like Jordan Peterson's order and chaos. But it's about balance. It's about how much. We need order. We need change, a bit of chaos. Change is needed, but with limits. The core problem: Technology puts change on steroids. Like in Brett and Heather's recent book on evolution. Too much change is bad, it brings too much chaos, like at the southern border. Too much order, brings stagnation. No chance of that happening nowadays, with endless change brought by technology. Problem: Too much change just brings chaos. Even things like marriage are changing too much. Only rich people get married now, claims Jordan Peterson. Our sexual roles have changed beyond recognition. Family? What the heck is that now? Progressives now say there are dozens of genders, they want to remake the Supreme Court of the U.S.
No thanks. Too much change. AOC wants open borders, Hillary once said she wanted 600 Million new Americans to be brought in. No thanks. We have enough people. We're good. Eventually with too much change, there is nothing holding us together, any more. Justin Trudeau said the same thing about Canada, it supposedly has no core identity. Justin hates the truckers because they interfere with his agenda to permanently change Canada beyond recognition. They interfere with his fascist level of control, he uses to transform everything beyond recognition.
Progressives have no intention of reflecting the values or interests of those people they govern. They intend to dominate those people, then replace them, bring in new people to subjugate. George Soros wants the same thing for Europe: bring in a new population to replace the current one, open borders forever, with progressives managing the chaos. Putin says the opposite: slow this down, history and tradition still count. Globalists wont' control Russia, nor China. I don't see any open borders in China either, no endless immigration. Which concept will survive? Will countries survive? Or will progressive Globalist elites run everything? Their vision is simple: "In the future you will own nothing, and be happy". No thanks.
9
-
9
-
9
-
I think if Brett is right, it's because of gender differences. When I was a kid, most doctors like most people who worked in banks, were men believe it or not. As women now dominate in banks, at university and medical school, their evolutionary tendencies come with them: they rely more on intuition, social consensus and avoiding hurt feelings, than truth. So medicine went Woke. That's why Woke appeals to so many young people: women are the majority at university. Brett got into trouble for challenging Woke at school, and he's a biologist. He's also a feminist, which is the problem. He doesn't want to acknowledge that parts of feminism, are very problematic.
9
-
Lies and the internet? Dave's friend Jordan Peterson once said 80% of people who comment online, tend to be men, particularly conservative leaning men. That's important.
Combine that with free speech, this will eventually change the culture. Another interesting thing from Jordan Peterson: Silicon Valley people tend to be lefties, because of personality traits. Artists, comedians, entrepreneurs historically tend to be left wing more often, because they are born a bit more creative and open. Conservatives are the opposite personality pattern to lefties.
Elon Musk is a bit of a rarity, he seems in some ways conservative, other ways liberal. Balanced. I'm the same. I once took a personality test for political inclination. My test positioned me, dead set in the middle. Quite liberal on some things, quite conservative on others. My guess is the internet will balance things out in time. The curious thing too, is that 80% of Americans are like me: pretty much in the middle. The dominant voices though, tend to be on the extreme. Domination by a few people is ruining America. Democracy in a Republic is based on the idea of dispersing political power. The internet will help us do that. Give it time.
The internet is a lie detection machine, among other things. That's why free speech is so valuable. It lets us detect lies, so we eventually all evolve a bit more towards the reasonable middle. That's why I listen to this channel. It seems to be the best channel for reason, reasonableness, common ground, the reasonable middle....which is where most people are, really.
I think America is polarized because basically money is hyper-concentrated into a few hands, so a few people dominate the debate, influence government. The Rich Men, North of Richmond. If you look at lists of the richest people in America, 90% are Democrats. Why? Personality patterns. And I think this is what is wrecking America. A lot of conservative types seem to now buy into the idea like I do, that the real danger is hyper-concentrated corporate power That's why I support Republicans. They are changing. Dems, they changed, for the worst. The Dems are more bought and sold, by the elites. And they embrace crazy Woke ideas like DEI and Anti-Semitism....both forms of insanity, in my opinion. It seems to me, one way of balancing the national conversation, is a free exchange of ideas, to get to the reasonable middle.
Including calling out liars. I hope Whoopi subscribes to this channel. I mean, she's a pretty funny talented lady, but the point of comedy is not to become the joke, it's to tell the joke.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
The Elephant in the room. No one wants to say the obvious: this is about women. Most Social Justice Warriors are women. Is this a coincidence? No...it's a signal from evolution: Most people who study intersectionality are women. Females test higher than males for empathy...thus are more likely to support inclusivity. Identity politics includes feminism and that mostly interests women.
Women evolved caring for young mammals, their bodies literally evolved to protect the vulnerable. When women embraced feminism, they went against nature, because feminism tells women to concentrate on careers and competition with men in their 30s.
Women literally evolved to mostly bear young and have children in their 20s, not careers. Trouble is, by the time a woman is 30, about 90% of her eggs are dead. By age 40, about 98% of her eggs are dead. Since the birth rate is at an all time low, while women are now the majority of students at university for the first time in history, this changes things. For instance all those good and healthy female instincts to protect the young and vulnerable get displaced, since they mostly have no children of their own, due to feminism.
So now these otherwise fine female instincts, which sustained humans since the beginning of time, are being turned and twisted to destroy society. That's the Elephant in the room.
7
-
6
-
6
-
Fun Fact: In the late 1970s I was going to university, was looking at a book of statistics. Even back then Chinese, Japanese, Korean Americans earned more money than White Americans. Fast forward to today: Immigrants from India have the highest household income of any Americans. Chinese, Filipino, Korean and Japanese Americans still earn far more money that White Americans, have much better life outcomes. No one talks about this. Instead it's all "black people can't overcome obstacles" and "White males are evil" with Critical Race Theory....which indoctrinates kids to hate White Males....which is pure racism.
I stick up for Asians. Do you stick up for Whites?...we need that.
How would you like to send your kids to school, where they learn about your race being evil?....Let's talk about Nanjing during the WWII....lol
I'm sure racism exists. I don't support it. It exists, but it doesn't seem to interfere with Asians having far more money and better lives, better families than White Americans. With hard work and a good education, anyone can make it DESPITE racism. That's why I'm a Republican, on this.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Peter Zheihan had a recent video on food in the middle east. Arab countries are completely dependent of foreign food. Very vulnerable, so whoever controls food, controls the middle east. Peter Z also had a video on Ukraine. Rich black soil, the richest in the world, grows enormous crops....feeds much of the world, such as Egypt. Is that why we are in Ukraine?
Then there is my high school history teacher Mr. Biggs, who taught us all the rivers in Russia flow into the Arctic Ocean, which is clogged with ice. The rivers don't flow east-west Biggs said, making economic integration between Russia & the rest of Europe historically much slower than the rest of Europe.
The rest of Europe distance is smaller, between nations, more rivers in lucky places like in America. Western Europe is smaller, more near the coast often, making trade between European countries much easier to do, than with Russia, which is a very long ways off, over a vast European plane.....with Russian rivers mostly clogged up with ice, most of the year....making trade near impossible.
Napoleon & Hitler found that out, lost because the cold and distance beat them. Mr. Biggs noted that the one real year round port is on the Black Sea, which connects to the Mediterranean. I guess that's why we don't let them have one port, when they only have one year round port: to keep them poor, so we can control Russia, by controlling the export of Russian trade with the world...keeping them poor. I'm in favor of rich, not poor. For everyone. Not just Christians. Not just Jews. Not just Muslims. Geography matters.
As Bill Clinton might say, updated: It's the geography, stupid.
If the Abraham Accords have taught us one thing, it is that helping people have good lives through trade often reduces human aggression against countries like Israel. Why does this work? I once pissed off my girlfriend, saying something dumb. Luckily we had a trip planned to Hawaii the next day. By the third day she forgot the dumb thing I said, she was happy on the beach. 🏖Maybe Donald Trump isn't as dumb as some people thought.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Young women should not be going college. They should be having children.
Feminism includes young women going to college. That has failed. The reason feminists will fail, is nature or evolution itself. As Paul Joseph Watson said recently in his video on eggs, new science confirms that by the time women are 30, 90% of her eggs are dead....and she doesn't make new ones. By the time a woman is 40, 98% of her eggs are dead.
Young women going to college lowers the birth rate, to an unsustainable low rate.
Nature only gave women a few brief years to have a family...in her 20s, basically.
The sexes are not the same. Men make fresh sperm daily, till we are dead. An 80 year old man can father a child.
Women have a short window to be Mothers.
For feminism to succeed and women are to be "equal", then women must work just as hard as a man in her 20s, to get ahead. The more energy she puts into her career, the less time she will have for children. This is the pattern women are doing right now in the modern world, thanks to feminism.
And what is the result of it? The birth rate is collapsing in all advanced countries and the populations of those countries are being replaced by Third World Migrants. The elite are importing the Third World because the economy needs people, so we have to import workers, for all the babies we abort.
Pensions are all based on a certain birth rate to pay those bills. Feminism drives down the birth rate, so we don't have future workers to pay pensions, so we import people.
Keep up this pattern and in a few decades, your culture collapses...
So feminism attempts building a society that is at odds with nature and . It will fail. Young women should not even be going to college. They can go when they are in their 30s and their kids are in school.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I went to hear a lecture by Jane Goodal once. She talked about how, chimps our closest relatives are mostly peaceful. But from time to time, become very violent. I think it's evolution, humans are wired for aggression. Men, more overtly, often doing damage in the world. Religion was the first attempt at restraining that aggression: Thou shalt not kill.
But what feminists miss: In all mammals, it is females that make breeding choices, it is female choice that drove the biological patterns in humans. So the men we have around today, are the result of female mating choices in the past. And that's the big mistake feminists make: they separate men and women, pretend they live in different universes, where it is possible to simply blame the other gender and say things like masculinity is toxic.
Female aggression is very real as well, but since females evolved with less upper body strength, their aggression tends to go to inter-personal relationships and the social realm. Is toxic masculinity real? Of course it is. But the surprise to most people is: so is toxic femininity. Men should step up, be honest about the horrors they inflict. So should women. We all need to stop deluding ourselves.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
What happened in Afghanistan tells you something about the world. Tucker Carlson pointed this out. When the American military ran Kabul, the capital, at the local university they had degrees in feminism. After the disastrous Biden pullout, the Taliban took over, the feminist courses were cancelled.
To me, feminism makes perfect sense under the following conditions: You live in the first world, preferably in the United States, preferably in a very left wing state like California, preferably in a very, very liberal progressive city like San Francisco, preferably in one of the mostly white, well educated, very high income, very high education level, upper class neighborhoods, where all the girls grow up knowing they will get university degrees, be a doctor or a lawyer.
But that's only less than 1% of America. On a global stage, that's about .0000001% of the world.
And that's where our next President might come from. The trouble with that, on a global level, even an American level, is that most of the world doesn't follow the peculiar cultural pattern of rich liberals like Nancy Pelosi. Yet those people might attain global power & influence. The world is diverse. Diversity is our strength, but not a thing that brings us together. What we were doing in Afghanistan was protecting women's right to vote. That's something that evolved out of Western Judeao-Christian culture, but only for a recent brief time and only in very tiny pockets of, that culture. So we were taking our own cultural patterns, thousands of years in the making. Then we were jamming down the countries we invaded. We are cultural imperialists. Especially feminists. They wished to use the American military to forcibly get Islamic cultures to embrace Western values. That didn't turn out too well, I recall.
A President Harris would be more of the same: sending young men & women to die for global American dominance & feminism.
No thank you.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bdickinson6751 Thanks again BD. I would add: Nigerian Americans out-earning white Americans is a very curious thing, because black Americans are basically Nigerians, that's where the slave trade was. So why are Nigerians doing so well? They have only been in America, a short time, the Nigerians.
Part of the answer is the Nigerians who immigrate here, are quite clever. But part is, they have strong families. Dad is usually around, so the family is stable. Back in the 1960s, the rate of single parent black American households was 20% of their population. Today it is 80% of their households. Most people blame black American men, for not sticking with their families. I don't blame black men. Kanye didn't do this.
I think what actually happened was this: when we incentivize families, so they don't need one parent, what usually happens is families break up. Democrats incentivized black families, gave them incentives in money, if they were single parent homes. Over the course of 60 years, when families don't need to stick together for money, when the government bails them out, this breaks up families. So Democrats did this, not black men. Not Kanye West.
I don't think it was malicious. Most Democrats are nice people, well intentioned. They try to help. They are like Dave Rubin, a former Democrat. Nice people. This tragedy was just an unintended consequence of Democrats trying to help black Americans: they ended up destroying their communities.
As President Trump said: "14 out of 15 American cities with the highest crime rates, have been run by Democrats, for decades. Their policies don't work."
I don't think it's about race. It's about Democrat ideas: they don't work.
Interesting fact from the book The Boy Crisis by Dr. Warren Farrell, who is a Democrat: "85% of men in American prisons grew up in single parent households. This statistic is true for both black inmates and white inmates."
🤔👨🎓👨🔬Dr. Farrell nailed it.🎯
4
-
Hollywood used to be more tolerant. This political argument goes way back. John Wayne & Kirk Douglas never saw eye to eye on politics. The Duke was quite right wing, Kirk quite left wing, but they liked and respected each other. And worked well together. What happened? Left wing bigotry took over. With the rise of social media, the heads of studio demand political compliance. See: Dick Cavett talking to Kirk Douglas.
Then what happened was the complete victory of the left wing....just like at university. Bill Ackman, Harvard grad figured this out. A loyal American, he's holding his money back now, to slow down the anti-Semitism that came along with the anti-Christian Woke left. Hollywood? Same thing happened. Not the anti-Semitism, yet. But it's twin: anti-Christianism took over. They are both outgrowths of left wing ideology. When everything on the left is about postmodernism, dividing the world up into groups competing for power, the result is inevitable: it eventually turns into anti-Semitism. In Hollywood: There is very little cultural room for most people who don't adhere to the authoritarians who run the studios. The oppressed became the oppressors.
The sad thing is, Hollywood in its Golden Age loved America, celebrated it. That was still around in Reagan's America. Our hope is in remembering things, as they were. Why? Now, things have changed. From Dream Factory, Hollywood turned into an Anti-American film factory. They don't like America, especially don't like white Christians. The doppelgänger equivalent to anti-Semitism took over....anti-Christianism took over. Very sad. I think it's generational.
Carl Reiner was typical of the old guard in Hollywood. Left wing, but quite pro-American. Very patriotic. The Christian population loved that guy. Just like Christian America loved the older generation of talented Jewish Hollywood guys, like Mel Brooks. They were America.
Carl's son son Rob made a movie against white Christians. What's going on now? Most of Hollywood are left wing communists that don't like Christians. Jews tend to be well educated, dominate Hollywood, the heads of studios don't tolerate political dissent, just like the Soviets did not. See: Martin Short interviewing Mel Brooks, Martin Short in character as Jiminy Glick. Mel puts his finger on the ethnic intolerance, what the root is: who runs things.
Very sad, Hollywood became Hatewood.
What is the root of the rise of the Hollywood Hate Factory? The whole intellectual trend at university since World War II is basically anti-Christian progressivism. Jews are not immune to these larger philosophical trends, neither are Christians. Democrats are now basically anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian in their political philosophy. That's what is behind Woke, DEI, anti-Americanism on the left, anti-White philosophy etc. Thankfully some Jews have woken up, realized this DEI monster is eventually coming after them as well, since they are financially successful. The problem with the left: Jews are successful, the political left resents success, so guess who they will come after next? Ben Shapiro & Elon Musk figured out. Many others. Roseanne woke up. Dave is fully awake. We should not punish success, nor divide America up into competing teams. They did that already in Germany. Did not work. We ran that experiment already. This could go to a bad place, should be avoided. Sometimes things miss our ear, by inches. That's a temporary gift of time. To change course. To avoid the bad.
This left wing anti-conservatism came out of WWII. After that horror show, our elites wanted a less nationalistic based mentality among the population, so pushed left wing progressivism, communism more or less took over the universities. As Jewish right hand man to Trump Stephen Miller said today, if Kamala gets in, she'll be the first communist President of the United States. That's why Hollywood loves her, the View too. They are all communists. They want an America where, you will own nothing and be happy. When you own nothing, it means a few people own everything. That's the dirty little secret behind communism:
They get to rule, control all money, control the internet, open the borders, bring in new people to control, control all education, all movie making. It's fascism, in panty hose. That's what the political left commies are after...complete domination....and have mostly already won. As Elon Musk said, if Kamala wins, America is in very big trouble. Lefties don't like the majority Christian population, intend to dominate it, suppress it. That's a motivating mechanism, for ramping up conflict. It's what they are after, where it's going. The Democrats have become, about revenge. Very sad. The left is about victimhood. Sadly: The former victim turned into the bad guy. We are all on a hero's journey, both left and right. Sometimes in the hero's journey, the hero turns into the villain. That's what happened. To the left. Nothing sadder than good people, turning bad. That means Hollywood targeting conservatives or anyone holding onto religious faith, particularly Christians.
In some sense, this is a battle over time, how humans hold onto bad things in the past, we are wired for it, human memory. Oprah's speech at the DNC reminded me of that, so did first lady Michelle's speech. Oprah is worth $3 Billion. She enjoys a prominent place in American society. Did bad things happen to her when she was young? Undoubtedly. Same with Michelle. Did bad things happen to Jews? Undoubtedly. Did bad things happen in history? Undoubtedly. Did white people do bad things? Undoubtedly. Did all other groups do as well? No doubt. When we focus on the past, refuse to let go, we end up being trapped by our own past. So then Joe Biden, same thing happened to him. He was half a century old when the Soviet Union fell. Did this change his world view? No. Too old for that. Change in old people is rare. That's why we are at war with Russia, in Ukraine. Trump's a rare bird. He did change. He also said recently, we are very close to World War III. Why is that? Humans have a hard task, fighting our innate wiring of memories, letting the past go. I'm not a Democrat because they refuse to go on, get over it, they want to relive the past. No thanks. That leads to a bad place. Such as? Group vs. group...too much tribalism for me. Such as?
This should not be an inter-faith battle. Never buy into hate. Those that can't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. I already know the lessons of Germany. I don't want to relive history. That's the tragic mistake of the left: they never forget, never forgive. See author David Horowitz book, "Dark Agenda, The War to Destroy Christian America." A very wise man once said, "An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Cult? I guess that's one way of putting it. BLM was formed by three white feminists. They have ties to communism. But the story goes back to the 1960s:
How Democrats destroyed the black community:
In the 1960s most black homes in U.S. had black dads in them. The rate of female led homes was 20%. In the 60s is when the gov't tried to please feminists, who demanded that welfare be increased for single moms. Democrats complied...."The Great Society"... So single moms were incentivized to not get married....or to kick their men, out of the home. Black women respond to economic incentives, just like any other human being. No difference. Result: Over time the rate of fatherless homes in the black community went up from 20% of all black homes, to the current rate of 80% of all black American homes are now female led.
Dr. Warren Farrell is the world's leading expert on the problems of young men. He wrote The Boy Crisis. In that book he notes that 85% of men in prison come from fatherless homes. The stat is in The Boy Crisis. That's right. Almost all convicts are from mother led homes. No dad in house. That's not a racial thing. It's true of blacks, it's true of whites.
The pattern of single parents...almost always women, have very, very bad life outcomes for the children, who almost always do poorly. Having a dad helps a lot in life. We see this in prison statistics. That's why 85% of guys in jail grew up in single mom households.
So, single Motherhood is the leading cause of crime in America. It was encouraged by feminists who destroyed marriage, destroyed family, destroyed the black American home. Feminists hate men. They always have. Black Lives Matter is a feminist organization. It says so on their webpage. They want to destroy the family. It says so on their website. Feminists destroyed the black American family, destroyed the role of the black man in the home.... It used to be, a generation back, black American women had to count on their men to provide for them. Feminists made sure the Government replaced the black man in the family. This was all done by Democrats.
I'm not saying this was deliberate, by the way. I'm just saying that it's very stupid to construct a society with no dads around. Black children need their dad. Why is this controversial to say? We see the result of not having dad around, in the Black Lives Matter riots. People must start putting two and two together, without blame. Mistakes were made. Feminism caused this. Don't blame black women. Don't blame black people. Don't even blame white feminist women, mistakes were made. We should correct this mistake and move on.
Blame Democrats. As Trump said, Democrats have dominated politically in black cities, for decades, with the worst outcome. Wake up, America. Democrat ideas are garbage. Don't work.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Tell the truth, or at least don't lie? OK. If you have two parents growing up, it's a big advantage. If you have parents in the top 20% economically, it's a big advantage. If both your parents went to college, it's a big advantage. If you work hard, it's a big advantage. If you're an unmarried woman with no husband and you have children, you have a seriously hard mountain to climb, as a single woman. So, if feminism was all about improving women's lives, why didn't they?
Maybe we need to find out what works, encourage it for the rest of the population, instead of being resentful about people doing the right thing?
What's never discussed is nepotism. It's our biggest weakness, biggest strength. Nepotism is natural, it's human, we all want to help our kids succeed. But nepotism also rigs the system. Basically, as you succeed in life, you help your kids succeed, so over time, this gives some people a big advantage in life, they didn't earn. Such as George W. Bush got into Harvard, based on his dad's merits, not his own.
We need to look for patterns that work. Turns out, it's not really about race or religion: It's like that Patrick bet David video, Why Indian Americans raise successful kids. Their family income is 2X that of whites in America. Why is that? I thought all whites had "white privilege"....this just proves, Woke is bs.
So, it's not just about Jewish people. Lots of American groups are succeeding beyond average. And have been, for a while. We've just had Woke people lying about it: If you look at old government stats from the 1970s, then Chinese, Japanese, Korean Americans have had better outcomes than whites, on education and income, since the 1970s.
(See: A Statistical Abstract of the United States, late 1970s edition, at you library)
Woke is all about resentment. First resentment at white people, for our so called privilege. I always knew liberals would turn on Jewish people. Why? They did it before. Harvard is liberal. About 95% of it. Harvard is Woke now. When I was a kid they had quotas at Harvard, only so many Jews allowed. Now the rich white liberal Christian elite at Harvard, they put quotas on Chinese Americans, now that the rich liberal elite has embraced Woke. So did Germany in the 1940s. They were Woke too. The lunatic Adolf was totally into Identity Politics and resentment, for people doing better than him in life.
And of course, teaching people to be moral is a very good idea. The Jews have been religiously minded for thousands of years, teaching people to act better. There is good reason for that: humans left on their own, with no moral training, go bad very quickly. Even with moral training, they sometimes go bad. With no moral training? Things collapse. Harvard started as a religious college, long ago. Then they threw out religion. So now our genius Harvard intellectual class has been attacking religion, for decades. It's so "old fashioned". How's that working out? How's it working out, attacking religion? We lost, even the idea of a moral compass, so we'll believe any bs. Such as Woke.
Societies work best, if people are trained to be moral. Or else the government has to enforce it. That's a bad plan.
And now they teach this Woke crap at Harvard, our elite university? And other universities down the food chain, agree with Harvard, teach this Woke crap? Our liberal intellectual elites are obviously idiots. So now we have a generation trained by our universities, to identify based on oppressed group affiliation, to be resentful, to fight other groups for power, based on Identity. This is nothing new. It's very old. As old as the story of Cain and Abel. It's also: Very, very stupid and dangerous. Keep speaking out about it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Davos and the Ukraine War:
Why I want Russia to win the Ukraine War:
My guess is technology will prove to have the opposite effect, we thought it would have. We have always assumed that technology in the long run, concentrates power, into the hands of the few…not the many. And for a short term, that is true. By short term I mean the last few decades.
Banking has become more concentrated, wealth and money has concentrated due to globalization, into the hands of the elite. The Davos elite. But I have always been suspicious of this trend. Seems like a temporary trend. What I always thought would happen was, in the long run, alternative technologies would arise, democratizing power.
I see this already, is happening. That’s what the war against Russia, is about. That’s why I am cheering, for Russia, not America: The globalist world order depends on the American elites concentrating all their power, using technology to centralize political and technological control over all the other countries like Russia, India and China, into being subordinated to American power. The global American elites also want to control and subjugate the American population. We saw that in covid. Our elites aren't on our side anymore. Why should we be on theirs?
Why Davos globalism is failing: China and India and Russia have lots of smart people too. They have their own vision of political and economic and cultural life, often much at odds with the American view. Why Russia, China and India will do well, and in doing well, defeat globalism: Lots of Chinese and Indian engineers in Silicon Valley. Russians on their own, have done many technical marvels. They have the brains, they have the talent.
That’s why I suspect, American elites want to smash Putin: He’s a rival for power.
The problem for the Davos crowd: Technology has a life of it’s own, that doesn't follow the will of the elite. And that trend is really helped, by countries being free to make their own technology choices, rather than having one country like America, dominate everything. The problem with America dominating everything, is that the American government, in power and influence and control over the American government, has been captured by a small number of people, the American elite. Wall Street. The IMF, the Bank of International Settlements, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Davos elites. The elite people in charge, they don't care about the working class or middle class. They don't care about our borders, they don't care about our interests, they are not concerned with other Americans, they are more comfortable with non-Americans, more comfortable with rich people in other countries. They intend to run the world. People like the World Economic Forum, The New York Times, the International Monetary Fund and the globalists who offshored American jobs, to China...to get incredibly rich, at Americans expense, the working class's expense. Putin knows this. At least he's on the side of his own people. Our leaders are not. It’s not healthy when a tiny minority of mankind gets too much power.
As far as technology democratizing things: Same with crypto-currencies and the alternative internet. Russia invented their own internet, so did the Chinese, so Silicon Valley can't control them. A new form of information is arising in the world. Free from influence of New York Wall Street bankers and the so called global elite. The World Health Organization, who want to track us all with our smart phones, for “health” purposes, so when we catch a cold, they know about it.
It’s a power grab. 666….Mark of the Beast.
Globalism is failing because: Technology is doing the opposite of what we thought it would: it is starting to radically DE-CENTRALIZE power. I'll be happy is America loses, Russia wins. The American elite doesn't deserve support from the American working class. It doesn't have our interest at heart, pretty much has open contempt for us. I might feel different if Washington was on the voter's side.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Here is a science related thing, feminists got wrong. And it's screwing up, modern life. Feminists don't understand evolution of men and women. Their idiocy is why feminism is such mental rot:
Patriarchy and Evolution: Why did Patriarchy arise? Was it men conspiring to oppress women? Or is there another explanation? Underlying evolved differences between males and females, which are provable, seem a more likely explanation:
-humans are sexually dimorphic
-males are larger than females
-males have more muscle mass than females
-since humans pair bonded, it seems likely the males protected the female
-females are vulnerable to attack, when pregnant
-death rates were high among human infants during evolution, up to 50% of humans died before puberty
-adult human lifespan was quite short -as recently as 1900, humans died by about age 50
-till a few generations ago humans had not developed science, life was short, brutish and nasty
-as early as 1 day, science has found that human females spend more time looking at faces, than things
-as early as 1 day, science has found that human males spend more time looking at things, rather than faces
-until Donald Trump was 14 years old, humans didn't have reliable birth control, and females could get pregnant at any time
-until a couple of generations ago, humans had not yet invented the technology, which would produce jobs that females could do in large numbers, giving them economic freedom
-human males are slightly smarter than human females, and these differences show up in large numbers at the extreme high end, so most of the very smartest people in human history were male
-human females get to decide who they will have sex with, so human males must socially compete with each other, for higher ranking females So what sort of social organization system arises, when these sorts of factors are present in a species? What helped humans survive? Patriarchy....the same system feminist villainize is the thing that has kept women alive.
Like all things in evolution, the things that survive are the things that prove useful in pushing forward life. In Patriarchal systems, men lead, and run the political and economic structure of society, men are disposable, women concentrate of raising offspring, and children are the center of life. This has proved to be a winning formula in our history. We are all descendants of Patriarchs.
And Patriarchy won, not because men imposed it on women, but because women chose it, because it offered the best deal, for women. And men chose it, because it ensured them offspring, and gave them social respect and power. Women liked that they were protected, got to chose which man to mate with, and they were far more likely to survive under Patriarchy, than any other system.
And the human mammal, to survive, organized into small groups....tribes....and competed for other resources with other groups. Groups needed protection from other competing groups of humans, and from predator animals.
Which sex was best to lead and protect the group in this situation? Was it the sex that was physically weaker in terms of upper body strength, had lower overall testosterone levels, indicating lower aggression, and spent most of their lives pregnant?....human women. Or was it the sex that was it the sex that was physically stronger in terms of upper body strength, had higher overall testosterone levels, indicating higher aggression, and didn't have the burden of pregnancy?....human men?
Obviously biologically, the human groups that organized around male protection and leadership, had an enormous evolutionary advantage over groups that organized around female protection and leadership. And that's why Patriarchal societies totally out-competed any Matriarchal groups, and that's why they survived.
So Patriarchy was not some sort of evil conspiracy against women. Patriarchy is a natural evolutionary group strategy for survival and protection of women and children. And the other key variable, driving Patriarchy for the win as an evolutionary strategy, was the simple fact that human women get pregnant. Think about it.
If there is a theoretical tribe of 200 humans.....100 females, 100 males....and if the tribe loses 98 of the females, because they are off fighting to protect the males, then the tribe is finished in evolution, as there are only 2 breeding females left, of the original 100....But if the tribe loses 98 of the males? The tribe can continue in evolution, because all the remaining males, even if they are old, can do their biological role, impregnating females, keeping the tribe alive. So
Patriarchy arose, not as a conspiracy against women, but out of basic biology: Females are more important than males, in evolution, because they get pregnant. If there were other patterns that worked, they would have arisen.....but they didn't. Sometimes what didn't happen, is more important than what happened. And it tells you more, than what happened. More than likely, as the science of gender differences evolves, more and more evidence will be found, of slight biological differences between males and females, which contributed to the social pattern known as Patriarchy.
Another key piece of evidence for all this, is a simple fact that scientists uncovered, using some very clever techniques. What they found is YOU have twice as many female offspring, as male offspring. About 80% of modern human females have left offspring, in our evolution. But only about 40% of male modern humans have left offspring, in our evolution....why was this?
Basically, males died off quicker because they protected the group. And because females in humans, as in all mammal species, they do the choosing of mates. So this all indicates what common sense suggests: men were disposable in evolution and competed for access to females, just like males in other mammal species do. All this is highly suggestive of the type of social environment arising naturally, know as Patriarchy: human males that invest in their offspring, successfully compete against other males, and protect females, tend to survive in evolution.
This means Patriarchy is a natural process, deeply embedded in nature. Feminists seem hell bent on throwing out an established pattern that worked for a very long time in evolution. Most new things in evolution don't work. Will this one? Will the new feminist principles work, in keeping human societies stable and surviving into the future? It seems unlikely, but time will tell.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
My guess is most Jewish people are leftish and often so called "progressive" because they have been persecuted a lot in the past. Deep emotional scars last generations. Bernie Sanders once said his parents were victims, he remembers them talking about. So, there are people around, who lived through this. I've met a few. Very painful. We still carry cultural trauma that needs healing. Dennis Prager is a big help. So is Dave Rubin.
The left emphasizes emotion over logic. People who go through trauma, that's what they look for: relief from the pain, for healing emotion, making the world better. It's the same reason a Jewish guy Marx invented communism, which is emotionally based, it tries to make the world a better place based on sharing. It failed miserably, relying on emotion too much is a trap, in of itself...just like denying emotion is. Emotion must be balanced with logic, reason and evidence, or it leads people to very dark places. David Horowitz is a conservative Jewish writer who used to be a progressive, so he really understands this mindset. Mike Huckabee interviewed him. David wrote Dark Agenda. 3 choice quotes from David's book:
What feminists are actually demanding is not, in fact, the freedom to choose. They are demanding to be free from responsibility for their choices.
When Soviet Communism collapsed in 1991, progressives didn't give up their illusions. Instead they changed the name of their utopian dream. Today they no longer call their earthly redemption "Communism." They call it "social justice."
In the twentieth century alone, Communist atheists slaughtered more than 100 million people in Russia, China, and Indochina. Not even the bloodthirsty jihadists of radical Islam have killed innocents on anything close to such a scale.
3
-
@TheHigherVoltage Authoritarian dictator? Who do you mean? Justin Trudeau? 😅 The problem is not freedom and democracy. The problem is, the lack of freedom and democracy. George Soros and other rich people buy and sell politicians, destroying democracy and freedom.
Justin Trudeau's dad Pierre was Prime Minister of Canada, back in 1968. He used to work for globalist super-rich billionaire elites at Power Corporation of Canada, with ties to globalists like George Soros.
You can find all this on Wikipedia. Easy.
Other past employees of Power Corporation of Canada: Paul Martin, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, as well as Justin Trudeau's dad Pierre. Between all of them, this handful of men been Prime Minister of Canada for 65% of the time, since the Beatles era, when Hey Jude was #1 song worldwide.
Justin Trudeau is not a patriot. His deputy Prime Minister is Chrystia Freeland. She wrote a book on the super-rich billionaire globalist class, she's part of their social circle. This is not reported on Canadian TV because their national news stations and newspapers can't compete in the free market, so they are given billions of dollars by Justin Trudeau. Fake News, Canada.
You and I both support freedom and democracy. Wish we had it. 🤷♀
3
-
I went to Africa once, saw the Masai up close, they're a remnant tribe of our human past, rejecting most of modern stuff. Their tribe is near the Great Rift Valley. Masai are free. They live in small communities of friends and family, of a few dozen people.
My guide said when a newlywed couple are married, the community spends a couple of weeks building them a home. They don't work, for 30 years to pay for a mortgage. I was jealous when I heard that. They spend most of their day in nature, teach their own children, figure out their own local politics, have their own religion and strong and proud sense of identity, never eat our "civilized" food, so they are thin and healthy all their life. It's not unreasonable to be jealous of much of their lives. They self-police their own community. Like all humans they defend themselves from intruders both human and lion and have their own sense of territory. Unlike their American cousins, men are always part of the family there, so the children turn out very well. Masai feed themselves and clothe themselves, with no government interference or hand-outs. None are needed.
I think we need to our human past for new ideas on how to govern ourselves. Can all this apply to American cities? Sure it can. Think about it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HolyCanoley I disagree. He's one of the best minds, on the internet. That's not to say he's one of the best minds around. Far from it. Many people smarter than him, better writers, better thinkers. But the internet public intellectual is a unique set of skills....good public speaker, good debater, logical, reasons well, very broad education, courage, thinks quickly, can think on his feet well...Stefan has these skills.
Being an intellectual guru on the internet is a bit like being a great basketball player. It's a very specific set of skills, that most people don't do well at. Being good at basketball doesn't make you great at every sport, you might suck at gymnastics and ping pong and other sports, but on the court, you are king.
....If anyone is better with the unique bundle of skills Stefan has, let him stick his neck out, try to do what Stefan has done. Good luck with that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bdickinson6751 Exactly. LBJ made some huge mistakes...Vietnam, his Great Society project. Tragic mistakes, like the invasion of Iraq, which was Bush's big mistake.
My brother went to Vietnam a few years back, got to know a bunch of local Vietnamese families. My brother said the young people in Vietnam don't know anything about that war, their teachers don't emphasize it, in school. The young Vietnamese are very friendly, they like Americans a lot. No chips on their shoulder, from the war, because they were not taught to be resentful of history, not taught to be resentful of Americans. In America however, our young people are being taught to be resentful of history, resentful of white people, by Critical Race Theory taught in our schools. Democrats should know better. Promoting resentment is not a good idea. It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. 🕯
I think there is a lesson in that, for Americans: Harping on the past, harping on race endlessly, only makes things worse. We need to figure out a few lessons on how we screwed up as a country, then fix it and move on. 🥰America. Still the best. 👍🗽
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Geography is what's gone wrong. And nepotism. Due to geography and how history rolled out as America was built, most of the elite colleges are in the north east, which was built up first. Most Ivy League students are from rich families along the coast. Jordan Peterson once said almost all his students at Harvard had parents in the top 1% economics. That's nepotism.
This pattern is true in the top 20 U.S. universities. That's where the CIA hires from. They draw mostly from cities, not rural. They draw students mostly from the north east, not most of the interior of the country, where the Red States are. They draw students from upper class families in areas of the countries that for a variety of reasons, are voting Democrat, not Republican. So the CIA hasn't represented America by geography or economic class for a very long time, if ever.
That's why most people who work for the CIA are liberal, urban elites. That's part of America, but not all of it, not even most of it. Same with the broader government in Washington. I'll bet if you polled government employees there, 90% voted Democrat. Same number in Washington, of the population that votes Democrats. I mean, gov't is the local industry there, Democrats most in favor of siphoning off wealth, from the rest of America, to keep the elites in Washington, in the money. These patterns are easy to detect, seldom commented on.
Geography bias, nepotism, class bigotry in America, in the CIA a far bigger problem than anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Black Americans have a lot more political power than they realize. The power comes from choice. For decades black Americans loyally voted Democrat, almost exclusively. Black Americans are 12% of the population, so if they all vote for the same party, that party has a 12 point lead in every election. Last election that started to change, as Larry Elder said.
This means if black Americans go independent, they can look at both parties and ask questions like "What have you got to offer me?" and "How are you going to improve my life?" Then both parties are going to have to come up with real solutions to problems.
Elections in America are fairly close, usually 1% separates winners and losers. This means even slight shifts in the black vote, can swing whole elections. This gives tremendous political power to black Americans, if they play the game of choice. This power of course, it doesn't work if black Americans vote Democrat every time. If they do, the Democrats take them for granted.
My advice is: don't be loyal to any one party, make them earn your vote. If they don't earn your vote, take it elsewhere. Smoky Robinson had a great song about choice, back in the 1960s, it's on you tube, it's called "You better shop around"....
The next Governor of California could be Larry Elder. Shop around, folks. It's up to you.
3
-
Sam Harris once said something like, why look into race variations in different abilities? What's the point? What good can come out of it? Here's the good: We can all help each other, have better lives, by being honest about human variation. How I got there:
I flew over the Caribbean island of Hispaniola once, for a golf vacation. Dominican Republic is one of Tiger Woods favorite golf destination. Great place for a holiday, great hotels, golf courses, friendly people. As I was flying over the island, I saw a cutline of trees. All the trees were cut down on the Haiti side of the island. Haiti is very poor, compared to Dominican Republic.
Why is that? It's complicated, no single answer. But one thing is demographics. Haiti is 99.9% black, whereas Dominican Republic is about 20% Spanish European. Different cultures have different strengths. DR is able to draw on the local Spanish population, to run the place better, than the Haitian side. How American liberals made Haiti worse: We encouraged Haiti's best and brightest, to leave Haiti, move to America. We benefitted from that, Haiti lost. We are in denial about variation of human ability, we sugar coat our lies, with self-proclaimed moral virtue, which turns out to be a lie that hurts people. Liberals have no common sense. I'm speaking of Sam Harris, or Ham Sammich as I like to call him.
3
-
*The Social Justice Prayer:
*
Our Mother, who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name,
Thy Matriarchy come,
Thy will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven,
Give us this day our Daily Entitlement.
Lead us into all the temptations we want,
Deliver us from the Evil of the Patriarchy,
Forgive us our sins,
As we don't forgive those who trespass against us,
For Hers in the Queendom,
The Power and Glory,
Forever and Ever,
Oprah.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why I believe in free speech: What is free speech anyway? Thinking. It's thinking out loud. Let's get back to biology and survival. How do humans survive? By thinking. Cancel free speech? No thanks. That just means shutting our brains off, which lowers our chances of survival. I'm a fan of surviving.
We live in a very complex world now, with technology created by free human beings exchanging ideas. That complex world has many unintended consequences we must cope with and solve, to survive. Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying wrote a book about how fast and complicated the changes are in modern life. How do we solve the problems we are creating? In my opinion we need lots more free speech to solve them, just to understand and cope with all our new realities, solve new problems that might doom us. Here's what I believe: if we don't have free speech, we won't survive. The world is too complex now, to create a social order that restricts thinking. I understand, the internet and free speech mean we get exposed to all kinds of things we might not like. Turn it off then.
Will DEI help us cope with a multi-racial America that is emerging? I don't think so, it will just tear us apart.
One of Jordan Peterson's heroes was Marshall McLuhan, a thinker from the 1950s who came up with many ideas we use today, like "global village". This means technology links us all together now, around the world, so we perceive everything as real close next door, thus threatening to some. We see something online, it's like it happened next door in your village.
One of my heroes is Father Teilhard de Chardin, a scientist-priest who in 1920s saw ahead, just when radio was coming out, that eventually we humans would have all our consciousness linked together, which would create all sorts of problem. That's true. It happened. It's happening now. He called this linked consciousness, "the noosphere". Today it is here, but we call it "the internet".
One of the many problems with shutting down free speech is the blind men and the elephant problem: 😎🐘It's based on an ancient story from India, from Vivek's ancestors, who were Hindu. The story is something like this: A group of blind men come across an elephant. Of course, no one can see the elephant, the men are blind. So they construct reality together, by experience and talking to each other. One holds the ear, describes reality as he feels the elephant ear. Another blind man feels only the elephant's tusk, describes elephants based on that. Another grabs the legs and so on. What if reality is like an elephant and we are all blind? What happens when you tell all of us, you can't talk about what you perceive? What happens is we all get dumber. We all understand less. This is not a good idea, telling people not to perceive reality, which is what restrictions on free speech do.
One of the reasons restrictions on free speech don't work out in the long run, has to do with limits to human perception. The political progressive left now, by supporting restrictions on free speech, is implying that they know enough about reality, that if you differ from them, you must be wrong, you must be shut down. The arrogance among the progressive left is amazing. One of the problems of that progressive point of view is it's absurdly wrong, it's putting ordinary people in the position of God, knowing everything, so being justified in judging you, shutting you down. That's insane.
What's this about? Restrictions on free speech? This is a problem of people who can't cope. How do you solve things you don't like, can't cope with? Just should shut down listening or watching things you don't like....if you can't cope with it. There are all sorts of things online, I don't like. How do I solve that? Shutting people down? No. I just don't look them up. Why not? Not interested. So: I'll do my best to be a nice guy, but other than that, suck it up, butter cup. 🧈🧠
3
-
Elections in the U.S. are normally won by very, very thin majorities. A few votes. This is extremely important for black Americans to understand. Why? Because it gives them tremendous power. Whichever party gets to about 51% of the vote wins. Black Americans are 12% of all voters and they vote almost entirely for Democrats, so Republicans start every election, behind 12%.
Trump is the first President in my lifetime, who is Republican and is going after the black vote. He wants it. He wants it because he knows that black Americans overwhelmingly have voted Democrat, in his lifetime. Since black Americans are about 12% of the U.S. population, when they all vote Democrat, it gives Democrats a 12 point advantage, so it's always been easy for Democrats to win.
That's what Trump is doing by going after the black voter. He's going to the black voter, saying, "If you vote Republican this time, we'll do a bunch of things for you....create jobs in your community, Opportunity Zones, focus on hiring Americans, give you money for school choice...etc". Trump is doing this, not out of the goodness of his heart. He's doing this because if he even shaves 1% or 2% of the black vote away from Democrats, he wins the election, hands down.
Kanye West has figured this out. He's peeling votes, off the left. He's doing a favor for Donald Trump, to get influence in the Republican Party. If Kanye wins the election for Republicans, then they know they owe Kanye....BIG TIME
All this dynamic gives black American voters tremendous power in our current politics of razor thin wins....if they realize the game and their place in the game, how potentially the black vote is the King Maker. The power of the black voter now rests on the black voter NOT being loyal to the Democrat Party, but instead shopping around.
It's like that old song by Smokey Robinson from 1960, "My momma told me....you better shop around". My advice to black Americans: shop around when it comes to your vote. Get the best deal. Black voters should keep an open mind, go to both Democrats and Republicans and say, "If I vote for you, what do you have to offer? What can you do to improve my life? How can you improve my community and people I care about?"
....Black Americans need to make both Democrats and Republicans EARN your vote...it's valuable. Don't give it away, for nothing. Make them earn it. You better shop around...
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Muting_all_advice You mentioned feminism and thinking errors. Here's an example of how you might be right about that: If you look up a free study online called "The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness" by Betsey Stevenson, you'll find that women have reported declining happiness over a 35 year period that was measured.
Starting just after 2nd Wave Feminism in the early 1970s, researchers tracked female happiness levels. They wanted to know if the new sexual patterns in place were causing women to become happier.
The early 1970s was when most women in advanced countries started to enter the work force en masse, neglect being a Mother in her 20s and instead got a job or went to school, have sexual freedom etc.
So the researchers tracked women in advanced countries like Japan, Korea, European countries, the United States.
Then they found a surprise.
What they found was a long term and substantial decline in female happiness, worldwide in advanced countries. Despite the supposed "progress" women were making, they are getting progressively unhappier...completely counter to the claims of feminism.
(Men did not track a similar happiness decline, but had a slight happiness increase, if I recall properly.)
My guess to the cause of female unhappiness increases, is that our culture has been thrown badly out of whack by embracing feminism. That in fact the root cause of rising female unhappiness is evolutionary: women literally evolved to have families and are the happiest by far, when they are in stable long term relationships and having children when they are young, rather than competing with men for power.
The new social patterns brought in by feminism are likely causing rising female unhappiness levels. That would be the inference I draw, from my knowledge of statistics and general social patterns, as they evolve.
(but then again, I may be an evil old Patriarch) lol
2
-
@Muting_all_advice Different planet? Yes. The planet of Emotion. This includes males who can't think well. My belief is humans perceive reality through both emotion and reason. Cultivate the arts and science or we end up with half a human being. Emotion gets distorted into hate and anger and BLM when there is no human reason. When there is only human reason, we humans are cold and don't perceive suffering. That's as much a problem as too much emotion, not enough human reason.
When logical fallacies and statistical ignorance are allowed to flourish, people are not taught basic math and statistics, this causes more suffering, in the world. The sad thing is there are many things wrong that cause suffering, so suffering is quite real. But understanding the causes of suffering can allow us to relieve that suffering. The best way to do that sometimes, is using human reason and understand the math and statistics of things, so we can figure out what is going on.
So in a counter-intuitive way, math and statistics, which seem so abstract and dry, can actually help relieve human suffering. The radical left now says silly things like "science is a social construct". Trouble is science uses logic, reason and statistics all the time. Take those away, then modern life collapses and then the real suffering begins.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@oppothumbs1 I enjoyed reading your comments. My guess is religion is a quest, not a destination. It's a search for answers, not answers themselves. Faith is not knowing things, it's a search for things to know. In that sense science is religious. And in that sense, religion is scientific...being evolutionary. My guess is reality is infinite, the best of us see but a tiny glimpse of the greater reality. Like the famous Isaac Newton quote about him being a boy on a sea shore, picking up pebbles.
And I think life has a spiritual dimension, it's just an act of faith, but to me souls are real. I am not looking for consciousness in the afterlife. I understand your points on biology, very similar to my own. Similar to Jesus, too. In the Lord's Prayer, he says, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." To me, that's Jesus acknowledging context, environment, the limits of free will.
I'm looking for a part of myself sticking around, in some form. But I don't want to sit around, singing with a harp.
My soul may pop up again, is my guess. Like in the song, "The Highwayman" by the group The Highwaymen....Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, recently departed Chris Christopherson. That song catches the feeling most closely, about what I feel about life.
My favorite book on religion is Infinite in all Directions, by Freeman Dyson. For me, faith is knowing full well I'm going to die, but hoping anyway, that some of me may remain behind, influencing people and events. and feeling this life matters, a great deal. Religion gives me the idea, my life is of infinite value. And I think it is. So is yours. I couldn't be an atheist, if I tried. For me, the logical conclusion of atheism is, life has no point. I can't believe that, don't feel it's true. It's of infinite value, even if this life is all there is.
I think the point of religion is feeling connected to people and I certainly feel that. For me, belief in God is not about saving my sorry ass from death. It's about feeling connected and meaningful, in this life, to other people. And I certainly do. My life has infinite value, but not in the narcissistic sense. My life is about other people, not me. And other people's life, is about me.
I'm not much of a theologian, that's the best I can do. That's what feels right to me. Thank you.
2
-
2
-
Great conversation. Yeah, evil is still around, we must still fight it. KK is a great guest, great guy. Honest and moral and the guy in the eye of the storm. A Jewish guy, born in Russia, with the Russian pogroms in the past, he's worried about people blaming the Jews, again. Understandable. Me too, given the history of Russian Orthodox Christians going after Jewish people, with the pogroms. Tragic. That's our common European past. Let's not deny it. You can see this in the family tree of Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken, two Jewish Americans who had recent ancestors in Ukraine, who were persecuted by Russian Christians in pogroms in the late 1800s. Tragic. How do we deal with the tragedy of the past? By putting these two people in charge of a war on Russia?
Let's keep anti-Semitism out of America, by asking honest questions. Tell the truth, as Dave's friend Jordan Peterson keep saying. You should tell the truth. Me too. And ask honest questions. Here's one:
Why do a few Jews appear to hate Christians so much?
Not all Jews, most are fine people, including President Trump's son in law and his grandchildren. But the ADL? I think they are like that. Like what? In my opinion: ADL are anti-Christian like some creeps are anti-Semitic. They had their uses in the past. Now? Not so much. Why does the ADL hate Christians...if I'm right? It's an old hate, mostly done by the Christian side, on the minority European Jewish population. They remember. That's why they hate. IMO. So what was the moral logic of this, via history in the generations? Given the truth: The Holocaust was one of the worst human tragedies of all time. Given that: Were all Jewish people saints, who simply forgot this, with no thought of retribution? Is that likely? Or unlikely? My guess is Jews were treated horribly, but now that Jews have money, a few are turning it on Christians, in a religious ethnic war on Christians like Tucker Carlson. My guess: they are behind, getting rid of Tucker. Why? Tucker is not anti-Semitic. So why? Tucker came close to speaking the truth, challenging the narrative. The ADL doesn't like their narrative challenged, they don't believe in free speech. This is despicable. Let's not let a few bad apples, ruin everything.
This relates to honest questions about money and power. Look up for yourself, who has most of the wealth in America. Look up the biographies in wiki, 25 richest Americans. You probably already know the answer, if you read this far. Which leads me to wonder:
The New World Order: America is not a democracy, not even a Republic, in my opinion. It's an Oligarchy. I was watching Mel Brooks being interviewed by Jiminy Glick. (Martin Short) Look it up. It's about power concentration in Hollywood. A few rich families control everything, including Hollywood, the media and both political parties. Including Fox News. The CIA and FBI are controlled by a few in the elites. They got JFK, Tucker pretty much came out and said that, did he not?
If you look up wiki on the richest 25 Americans, Jewish people have a tiny part of their population, who have a lot of money. 1% of their population, which itself is 1% of the American population. A few people. Most are just ordinary Americans, but they are definitely over-represented among the academic and financial elites. Not an opinion. Not a conspiracy. Just a fact. Read their biographies, you'll see the family patterns. The people on that list control America. Comedian George Carlin saw this coming 50 years ago, in his routine "The real owners of America". Now our banks are bringing in digital currency. Why? To control the population? Who is running Wall Street? This is almost common knowledge now, being swept under the rug, where it gets dangerous and breeds viruses. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. When obvious truth is hidden, unhealthy conspiracy theories sprout like bad mold, along with anti-Semitism, which is a social virus.
How to defeat the virus of anti-Semitism. Lies don't work. Hiding the truth, won't work. How about some compassionate but brutally honest conversations, to get through this mess, to the truth: our common humanity. Sounds good to me.
Was Alex Jones right? They want to control you, just like they want to control China and Russia? It's like in the Bible, the number 666. Mark of the Beast. That's what the fight with Russia is about? Our elites want to run the whole world, put numbers on your arm, like they did in World War II, to unfortunate people?
Was Tucker on, to their game? The game of banking elites? So they fired him? Don't trust Fox. 🦊🚫❌They aren't on your side.
Am I full of crap? I hope so. Agree with KK, don't blame the Jews, but also don't blame present day Christians, for things in the past, done by different Christians. Present day Christians? They didn't do it. I also have never owned slaves. What kind of nutcase blames all white people for owning slaves? I was busy 400 years ago. Had other things, to do. Haha. So getting back to Tucker Carlson, who had him fired?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jenniferbarber2862 Agree with your comment. A couple more things I noticed:
Back in the late 1970s I was in university, was reading statistics in an official American gov't book of stats: A Statistical Abstract of the United States.
I had many Chinese and Japanese American friends, was curious if they were being negatively affected by racism. The stats said even back then, they were out earning whites.
How strange, I thought. Isn't racism holding people back?
There used to be a Chinese American guy in Seattle, a computer programmer Arthur Hu, had Asian Americans: Arthur Hu's Index of Diversity, he kept track of these stats. Michelle Malkin mentioned him once.
Jesse Watters had income stats the other day, on different groups in America. Same thing. Whites are actually in the middle of the pack, income wise. Nothing spectacular, lots of groups out earning them, including Americans from India, who have double the family income of white Americans. I know lots of well off Indian Americans.
Racism is still a problem, but the narrative we have been fed for decades, contains a lot of lies. Larry Elder speaks truth. I'd also rank schools at near the top of our problems....like you said.
2
-
My heart is with BLM. Emotionally, they have the right answer. Black lives matter. But my head is with Larry Elder. The way we get black success, is strong black families. My two cents on what went wrong:
In the 1960s, the black fatherless home rate was 20%. Now it's 80%. What drove that up? The welfare state. Lyndon Johnson brought it in. It subsidized black families. Sounds like a good idea. But it wasn't. Unintended consequence: it incentivized black women, to be single parents. This drove down the value of black dads. What does fewer black dads in the home mean? What do more black dads in the home mean? The answer we have already:
In prison stats, 85% of inmates, black or white, come from fatherless homes. (Warren Farrell, The Boy Crisis)
In Nigerian-American homes, high rate of dads in the home, that immigrant group earns more money than white American families.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Right on, Dave.
This is a nice counter narrative to Rob Reiner, from old guard Hollywood, who is making an anti-Christian movie. The future is putting aside our past bigotry, not stirring up old hates. Rob Reiner was right on many things, Archie was wrong. But the script has flipped. Archie, representing the white Christian working class, is now hated by Hollywood. The people like Rob, that I admired in the past, have become the new bigots. Anti-white bigots.
It's a sad thing watching Rob Reiner turn into a leftist meathead. He became the thing he didn't like. Stuck in the past like Sam Harris, when Sam wrote his book, Letter to a Christian Nation. That showed us, what was to come: The left evolved into anti-white, anti-Christian party of hate.
The Woke left became trapped in their own bigotry, while trying to evolve beyond past bigotry. Sad. Democrats who were classic liberals were so right on civil rights, long ago in the 1960s, but since then have become the very thing they hate. That's why Harvard is disintegrating. The end point of leftism, is anti-Semitism. Why? By attacking Christians, the majority of Americans, Rob like Sam, is encouraging the same despicable behavior we are trying to get rid of. Truly a meathead.
The future is an alliance between Christians and Jews in America, not hate. Ben Shapiro got that right, in his narrative supporting the Judeao-Christian point of view. You see that in marriage patterns, both sides of the aisle. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have Jewish grandchildren. Meathead is stuck in the past. Sad. Pray for him, if you are religiously inclined. Our culture arose out the Bible, Christianity arose out of Judaism. Israel must survive.
2
-
2
-
The Deal between Jews & Christians in America: Mark Levin has an interesting video today: "THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL BE DESTROYED:"
It's about the coastal elites. How they push for Marxism. How their plans don't include the American middle class. How their plans don't include white Christians in America, how they want to get rid of the Electoral College, flood America with immigrants that go to cities, in a plan to control the political future of America, with the communists in charge. How the universities are pushing Woke & DEI, as part of this. How the Democrat plan leads to anti-Semitism:
What the political left did not count on: Christians already know this, saw it coming, some of us, long ago. And what the left did not see, but Elon Musk & Ben Shapiro figured out: DEI targets the successful, so it's a matter of time before the radical left Woke comes after Jewish Americans, simply because they are more successful than average and Woke people want to judge by group outcomes, not the individual. This will lead to a massive increase in anti-Semitism. Konstantin Kissin & Sam Harris were talking about a similar thing, on Tom Bilyeu.
"It Will Collapse Society!" - Why The Modern World Makes No Sense | Sam Harris vs Konstantin Kisin
The reason the Democrats keep calling Donald Trump Hitler, is partly they recognize a pattern in history: in Germany the Jewish population were starting to succeed, the German Christian people had a terrible time, after WWII. This led the nutcase with the moustache to gain power and the rest of it is history. What Dems are not being honest about: DEI is now a driver of American political division, unfortunately the people will be blamed are Jewish Americans.
On a global level, Israel is surrounded by hostile forces, technology gets around in a hurry. The Muslim world will catch up to Israel in military technology. This means Israel needs America's help to survive, the coming century. Who fights America's wars? Mostly white Christians from the working class. That would be the same people under attack, from rich coastal elites in New York, Washington, a few in Los Angeles.
My preference is the Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson option: an alliance between Christians & Jews in America, to promote our common values and interests. The trouble is, a lot of Democrats, particularly the rich ones funding the Democrat Party are Jewish, even foreigners like George Soros, actively trying to destroy the white Christian American middle class, as Mark Levin explained.
I was talking to a Jewish scholar one time about the Christian Golden Rule: Do unto others etc. He explained that the rule had it's origin before Christianity, by a Jewish Rabbi, Hillel. I'm not a real scholar, but it sounded correct. Interpreting that way of looking at the world: Applying that to today's political situation I just mentioned: What comes around, goes around.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm half German, half Dutch. I was watching Bob Newhart being interviewed by Johnny Carson, an old clip. Bob's best friend in real life was Don Rickles, the late Jewish comedian. Bob said in his Carson interview that he was 1/4th German, 3/4 Irish and that Germans are very literal people.
That's the German culture, very literal and serious, which is why there are not lots of German comedians around, he said. Germans are a very literal culture. When Hitler wrote that awful book, he meant it.
Jewish people are less literal, more creative, they didn't quite understand what that lunatic was saying: he meant it.
@debblouin
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is a story about an uncomfortable fact we need to address. About what men prefer, what women prefer, in mate selection. Jordan Peterson has videos on female preferences in fantasy: pirates, vampires, billionaires, surgeons. What does this mean? Not women's fault. They are wired to select for high status men, prefer high status men in the same way men prefer thin pretty young women.
I know lots of men like Huberman: smart, high status older guys, doing well with the ladies, because of female choice: The women can't get enough of them. Many I know went through dozens of women, the men are now in their 60s. I call them Peter Pans. Boys that never grew up. My question is, why did they not grow up? We need honest answers, even if it embarrasses us.
Donald Trump once made a disgusting remark about women, late at night in a drinking binge with a buddy. The recording about cats was recorded, became how he was targeted as supposedly hating women. Does he? Grabbing cats, what does it mean? It means women prefer high status men, will compete for those men, give them lots of leeway in their behavior. Andrew Huberman having 6 women interested in him? This is not surprising, it's called female hypergamy, for high status men. And of course men are hypergamous too, generally prefer younger women in their 20s. Dr. Peterson has lots of videos on the science. Again, honest answers will help both genders.
In the book "A Billion Wicked Thoughts", google data by the billions was collected, on female dating apps preferences. Google engineers found a surprise in the data: 80% of young women are pursuing only, the top 20% of men. Ignoring the bottom 80% of men. Ooops, truth slipped out. See: Jordan Peterson on Chris Williamson channel interview.
It's no wonder Andrew is so highly sought after. Feminists pretend this is about men acting badly, which it is. The dishonest part is what we leave out: female choice can influence men to act badly. When I was young, watching early Johnny Carson, he had endless jokes about "The Hollywood Casting Couch". We all knew, what he meant. Huberman? More of the same. Let's try being honest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Why are white women sometimes beautiful? That has a lot to do with our current economic inequalities. Explanation:
To understand that question, first ask yourself: what are we humans? Where did we come from?
My answer: we are animals shaped by the selection forces of evolution.
So: Why are white women sometimes beautiful? Because white men like that. We desire that. We desire beautiful white women. There are men with almost beautiful features, almost female-like, but not that many. Beauty in the white feminine sense almost always shows up in white women, not men.
It's like neo-natalism...having child like features. Why are some women like that? Because some white men in our evolutionary history, found that attractive. So they slept with white women, who had those qualities, passing on those genetics...which show up again, generations later in other white women.
Why are some white men extremely smart? Because that's what white women found attractive in the past. So those women chose to have sex with those men in the past who were clever, passing on those genetics. That's why Ben Shapiro is quite clever.
Milo Yianopoulas wrote an article about it. He said that there were differences between the sexes. Basically there are a lot more very smart white men, than smart white women. That's because white women select men out for intelligence. So that shows up more in the male line. That's why there are more smart white men, than smart white women.
So, there are a lot more beautiful white women, than beautiful white men, because white men prefer beautiful white women. There are a lot more smart white men, than smart white women, because white women prefer smart men. What white men don't care about generally is how smart she is. Sure that's nice and a bonus if a woman is smart, but that's pretty far down the list on top qualities they look for in a woman. But intelligence in white men, is particularly highly prized by white women, so there are quite a few very smart men around.
Sorry girls, there is no "Patriarchy" oppressing women, stopping women from inventing the modern world. There is only nature. And in nature, it is white women who, by their sexual choice of preferring smart white men, it's the women who created the men who built modern civilization and the modern economy. Feminism is a fairy tale.
This explains a lot about the modern economy. White men earn about 27% more than do white women. One of the reasons for this is white men are more clever than white women. The reason white men are more clever than white women is that white women prefer smart white men, so they selected out smart white men to sleep with, making smart white male babies who would grow up, invent modern civilization and out earn those women.
According to H Nyborg, white men invented about 97% of all technology and science. We would all of us on earth be living in grass huts, were it not for white men, who are only 5% of the world's population. We white men created it all. I don't apologize for this, nor do I really take credit for it, as a white man.
For one thing, only about 1% of white men, the top 1%, are clever enough to have invented the things that created the modern world. I'm fairly clever, but I'm not in that group. I don't believe in taking credit for things I didn't do, for things I'm not capable of doing. And about 99% of white men are just run of the mill men and could not invent something earth shattering, to save their lives. We're just like anyone else.
That explains a lot of why black and white Americans have different economic outcomes. There are different group outcomes because there are different IQ averages. While there are many smart black Americans, the group averages are different, so you get different economic outcomes, since IQ plays a major role in economics. Same with Americans like Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin. Their ethnic group tend to have quite high IQs, so this explains why only 1 in 100 Americans are their ethnic vroup, but 1 in 3 American Billionaires, are of their ethnic group..
But I'm not about the white men taking credit for nature itself, just for accepting it. For instance: The 1% of white men who themselves invented all of the modern world, even they can't take any credit for it. For it is white women who created those clever white men who invented the modern world....just as white men created white women. According to Dr. Ed Dutton, Europeans are more sexually dimorphic than other groups of humans. This means there are bigger variations in Europeans, between the males and females...than in other races.
This means for instance the difference between white men and white women on things like height or intelligence is a lot higher than the difference between black men and black women. This means for instance there is less intelligence difference between black men and women, than the larger difference between white men and white women.
This greater sexual dimorphism in whites explains why there are so many white geniuses, compared to other races. It explains why men invented all technology. It explains why white men in particular, so small a percentage of the world's population, invented virtually all technology and science. It explains why white men earn more money than white women.
To start unraveling our current miseries and the Black Lives Matter movement, we need to be honest about race and gender and how it impacts economics. Currently we lie through out teeth. Everyone knows our current explanation about racial disparities and sexual disparities is a big fat lie.
Not everyone is the same. Imagine that. Sorry to the progressive left, but nature and evolution is the real problem here. It's racist and sexist.
2
-
2
-
@AlbinosaurusR3X Well, that's a great comment. I think everyone normal has a conscience. That's why I suggested a woman should listen to the heartbeat of her unborn child, before abortion. Pregnant women are also impacted by the attitudes of people around them. The more we create a natalist culture, the better. It should be positive for her to bring a life into this world.
I agree economics is not everything, but it's something. Morality is the main thing, but economics is part of it. I was watching a short Jordan Peterson video the other day, called "People who believe this are Unrealistic, Ungrateful, Resentful and Ignorant."
Dr. Peterson noted in that video that in America, marriage itself is now largely a domain of the upper class. The economic top 20% of Americans are living like it's the 1950s...in stable long term marriages with family and low divorce rates.
Why is that? It's largely economics....in my opinion. The upper 20% are not more moral than anyone else. They simply have most of the economic winnings in society, they have enough money for viable marriages to occur. They can afford the American Dream: a nice house and cars etc. Most Americans don't earn enough money for that life anymore. That's a consequence of income inequality.
Dr. Peterson was on another recent video where he talks with a guest named Rob Henderson, Dr. P talks to Rob about female hypergamy...an evolved trait in women, where their strong preference is to marry men who are socially and status wise and economically above the women.
Since women started economically competing with men in the economy, often they earn more money and status than the men. Then they don't want to marry men on their level or many men around them who are lower than them in status. That's what is happening to the economic 80% of women...the men around them are not worth marrying, for the women. Notice this isn't true for the upper 20% of women. That's because the men they marry, they are already the men at the very top. Their female hyper-gamy has been satisfied. They could hardly do better, these women.
So now we have constructed an economy where houses are very expensive, marriage and divorce laws are diametrically dead set against men, and we have a feminist economy and feminist education system that preferences girls over boys. What are the consequences for women?
Those girls have grown up, got great educations, often outcompeted the boys around them. They have spent their young years on their career and education. Troubling fact: Female fertility is limited by biology to basically when she is between 20 years old and 30 years old.
The young women look around them in their social circle, they find there are no men worth marrying for them. Women don't want to have the babies plus economically look after men as well.
So now as a social consequence of these feminist conditions, about 1 in 2 American children are born to single mothers...no dads around...because these women could not find men worth settling down with.
I recently read "The Boy Crisis" by Dr. Warren Farrell. It turns out 85% of men in prison are from single mom homes, with dad not being around.
Under these conditions, is it any wonder we have so many abortions? I'd say it's a damn miracle we don't have a lot more.
Obligations you talked about are a fine thing, so is family. Your social conclusions about the negative outcomes for women long term, are spot on. They lose their looks over time, they end up sad and alone. Female looks are a sign from biology, for women to be Mothers. We have constructed a culture that actively tells them they should not be Mothers. It's not their fault. We need a better culture, a better economic system.
One that supports young people who want families. I don't agree with abortion, but I won't judge those women who have one. The solution is in creating something better for them.
Interesting video recommendation on this topic: Black Pigeon Speaks, leftover women
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bdelectr7411 The left took control of the universities, long ago. That's why so many admin and teachers are activists: they have been trained to be that. Jordan Peterson has talked about this, the left is fully in control of training teachers, who they use to indoctrinate young people, for long range political purposes.
This has taken decades to pull off, it's well organized the Marxist Slow March through the universities. The right stood idly by.
Ideas at university tend to get out of hand, by nature intellectuals get off on all sorts of crazy theories, that's what Marxists did. I'm ok with that, I'm in favor of free speech, but new theories needs to be balanced by perspective of ordinary moms and dads, to stop the intellectuals from running away into nutty land, with their ideas. It's just a fact of life that the best new things come from creative thinkers...and also the worst things. Cameras put power back into parents hands, let parents have their say.
Camera technology gives the dads and moms on the right to have their say, to counter the power of the left, who run everything now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Roseanne & Trump & someone I know: When I first saw Roseanne on the Johnny Carson Show for the first time, I thought: She's incredibly talented... And I don't like her.
The first part is still true. The second part, I changed my mind completely on. I like her a lot. Trump & someone I know are similar: they annoy me at times, their personality. But over time, I saw I was wrong, missed the story, of who they are. In other words, bigotry in various forms, effects us all.
I'm not a shrink, so I can't put it in words, what this means. But I just think, these people have personality patterns that are rare. So, many people legitimately say nasty things about this sort of person, missing the entire story, of who they are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think the mega-donors will find out, if Kamala gets in, that she will be much harder to control, than Puppet Joe. The reason is: Joe learned to play the game of politics, since a young age, catered to people, good or bad. Joe Biden was playing that game successfully in Washington, since he was first elected at age 29. Joe is smart at least to the degree of playing the political game, necessary to keep his political base happy.
But is Kamala? I doubt it. Why not? She never played the game. She's like someone trying to play chess for the first time: unlikely to be any good at it. Joe at least, could play checkers.
Kamala was selected, not elected. Selected by the Democrat elite. Now the media is programming voters, to elect her. It might work....like Joe Rogan said.
The trouble: Kamala could not even win support, get delegates, in her own state of California, when she ran for the Democratic ticket against Joe 4 years ago. So if she gets in? What will happen? I think she'll end up with a big ego, not willing to compromise, thinking she is the best thing since Lincoln. She'll think: I earned it. I'm here, because of me. Bigger ego than Trump, who actually accomplished many things, before he became President. But she'll hide it better.
And she's Woke, a feminist cat lady. Her idea of reality is based on radical left wing books about feminism, smashing the Patriarchy, getting rid of "White Privilege" the 1619 Project, etc.
She's never even looked after a baby, never even been responsible for caring for a child, never mind a state or country or business. So if elected, she will have have the world's most important and influential job, with great power, great consequence for the world, good or bad, without doing anything in life that would prepare someone for that world level of responsibility. Having great power, without any sense of responsibility, is a recipe for disaster.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I lived in Vancouver during the late 70s/early80s. I was from a working class white background....very poor. I had mostly Chinese and Japanese friends. Their parents sold the apartment in Hong Kong for a lot of money, then moved to Vancouver, bought a house. They tended to be quite well off, could afford to pay for their kids education, buy them a car. I had no such advantages. At the time in the 1970s cab drivers could afford a house in Vancouver. Now with massive immigration it has pushed up housing costs so much, so owning a home is out of reach. It's the end of the Canadian Dream.
I now have a young Chinese female dentist who grew up in Vancouver. She told me "I know a lot of professional couples that are not having kids. Too expensive. It takes 2 couples working together, to have enough money to buy a house."........ahhhhh "Progress"....isn't it great?
I was thinking the other day of "Helen"....a 50 year old Greek immigrant lady I knew, totally uneducated, used to clean tables at Robson Square, in the food court by the underground skating rink. Her husband Gus and her bought a nice house in Kitslano, near the beach.....back in the 50s or 60s. Helen's kids both went to university, but her kids had a hell of a time buying a house and her grandkids can't afford it.....ahhh progress.
Your generation got screwed by a part time ski instructor and his dad, who needed to import people to vote for him, so he could stay in power. And now? Your society turns on you. Cheers.....
2
-
2
-
2
-
Feminism: it was brought in by elite women in the upper classes, to give them more power, to allow them to access education and the modern economy. Sounds good. ☑ I like women doing well. But most women who do well in life, are from the upper classes. So opening the world of work and money for women, it mostly benefitted the upper class women. This strengthened the economics of the upper classes in advanced countries. How? Most women in university are from the upper classes, getting trained to take their place at the top of the economic pyramid, making a lot of money. The upper class women get married at university, get well paid careers, then bring in lots of household money, so it's not just the upper class husband bringing in lots of household money. That's why you have a pattern of marriage has continued to be strong in the upper classes...money. Jordan Peterson has mentioned this often. Feminism was a roaring financial success for women in the upper classes. Bright women from well off families got careers, two professional family incomes. So upper class women really cleaned up, with feminism. ✅
But...but...an unforeseen problem that arose was feminism also decimated the lower class women, while benefitting rich women. How? Lower class women get less education, less opportunity, have less family backing them up in life. They must work hard to get ahead. The bottom 80% of women, who now often outcompete men their own age, focus mostly on career over family now, wealth is heavily concentrated in the top 20%, so men in the bottom 80% have little to offer women, in marriage. The women have little interest in getting married to the men around them, men they often out-compete. There is nothing in it, for lower class women, to get married. For what? To support their guy? Women don't want that.
It's a joke. The joke is on women, unfortunately. Who do women now work for? Lower class women working mostly generates money for the elite class, at the expense of their own lives. Feminism got lower class women to generate wealth for the elite, while telling them they were "empowered" and "liberated". In the 1960s the American marriage rate was 80% for all classes. Now, only well off people marry.
The marriage rate is now extremely low, at the lower ends of society, because we brought in sexual liberation....liberal values...trained lower class women to out-earn the men around them, then robbed the lower class women of the benefits of marriage, while freeing men to be cads, who sleep around. Not a useful social pattern. Short answer: rich girls won, but the bottom 80% of women, lost badly. Feminism helps women who are from well off families, hurts the rest.
It is poor and middle class women that are hurt by the new social patterns. Only rich women benefit. Remember Chesterton's fence. Old patterns, have a purpose. Even conservatives get this wrong. Ben Shapiro thinks it's about morals, too much. Money.
💸
2
-
You are welcome for the civil response! I notice that Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin, they both bring that out, in my replies, on their channels.
As to being fair without being compassionate, yes you are right, that is possible. Like many things "fair" is a complex concept, you can't always nail it down to one thing...so you are right there.
My guess is, the amount of compassion varies quite a bit, from person to person, and not everyone is aware and in touch, to the same degree, of their emotions, and why they do things. People may have compassion deep inside them, they just don't feel it, can't articulate it....but they act like they have compassion, so I think they have it.
I see this as a basic gender difference that comes up, from time to time, with women and men. Women are more commonly articulate about their emotions. Many men are not. The men are not even aware of them, and often can't articulate them. There may be some cultural programming involved there, but I think it runs deeper than that, and there are likely different group averages between men and women, as to how "in touch with their feelings" a person is.
For instance most young males play a lot of video games. A lot of young women sit around and discuss their feelings. Why is that? All cultural? I don't think so. The genders are wired a bit differently....imo
As to communism being built on emotion, I have been around a lot of very, very socialist people. Envy is very common among them. An awareness of relative social position, a sensitivity to economic differences among people, is acutely perceived by them. They are much more likely to talk about whether things are "fair" or not.
Jordan Peterson has talked about this. If you know enough about personality types, you can ask anyone a list of questions, and pretty quickly figure out their political inclinations. People on the left tend to be much more concerned about whether life is "fair" than conservatives.
So this is about jealousy and being emotionally upset that some people might suffer, and others do well. And what is communism concerned about? Addressing social inequities, so that a new economic structure is put in place, equalizing all people in society, in order to minimize envy.....everyone becomes "equal"....and this seems to be, in my opinion, a process that at the root of it, motivated by emotions like envy and fairness....and out of those emotions, a political model to re-organize the economics of society, is proposed.
I should add that a lot of those personality difference are innate....people are born with "liberal, compassionate" personalities...or conservative personalities, that put higher value on other things, like order, authority, group identity and tradition....over 'fairness".
As to your comments on feminism, they were pretty sensible. I support equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. And yes, it is a matter of people saying they are being treated unfairly, when the reality may be very different, as you said.
There are many reasons why feminism won't work. I'll give you a couple:
1-Current feminism pushes women to all having careers, but if you actually ask women what they want, as Dr. Hoff Summers did, you find the 20-60-20 rule. That is: 20% of women want to work full time, have a career, have no kids. And I'm perfectly fine with that. 60% of women want to work part time, and have kids and be at home the rest of the time. 20% of women prefer to stay at home, full time.
Have you ever heard current feminists pushing this narrative? I haven't. I think it's pretty unreasonable to think women can handle a full time career, and be full time parents. And it's not even, what women want.
2-Female hyper-gamy: The science on this is not even in dispute. Jordan Peterson has videos on this. What it means: Women tend to mate across and up, Dominance Hierarchies. What this means is women want their mate to be higher up the social ladder than they are. Men are the opposite. Men are fine dating down the social ladder. A male doctor will have no problem dating a hot looking woman who only has a job as a checkout clerk in a grocery store, but a female doctor would never dream of dating a guy stocking shelves in a grocery store.
And feminism is leading us to a place where women are starting to outperform men, in many areas: For instance at University of Toronto, where Professor Peterson teaches, there are about 330 males, per 1000 students....which means there are 670 female students, for every 330 male students...
Now think about what that means for the future: A lot of disappointed women, who can't find men who are "up to their level"....so they will end up lonely old cat ladies, because women simply won't "marry down"....and that is every women, every race, every religion, they are all the same, because we all evolved the same way.
And feminism means currently in America, women under 35 years old out-earn men under 35. Dave Rubin has talked about this. He says he knows lots and lots of straight women, who have their lives together, but can't find men to date....as women succeed from feminism, the downside is they economically out-perform men, and as things get equal between the sexes, women lose.....because there simply are not enough men around, for the women.
The way societies in the past have handled this was to keep the genders separate, so they don't directly compete for power. We have done away with that, and men and women are integrated, into common work places, and compete for economic and social power. And as women can win half the time, they do. And when they do, they automatically eliminate any man that they are above, in terms of economic or social dominance.
So basically feminism is leading us to a new social pattern, which simply will not work, because it creates a huge man shortage for the women. It sounds good in theory, for "women to be equal to men", but in actual practice, it never works, because all women want to mate with men, who are above them, in social dominance.
One more proof of this was found by computer guys, analyzing internet dating patterns. It turns out, 80% of single women are chasing 20% of all single men. Guess who these men are? Obviously they are the top men, the economically dominant men. They get all the attention, while the bottom 80% of men get very little attention.
So feminism combined with female hyper-gamy, and our new sexual openness, and freedom, which feminism pushed for, and we have a new social and sexual sorting mechanism, where 80% of women are chasing 20% of men.
Can such a system last? I doubt it.
As to your comment of feminism being built on the desire of women to vote, that is part of a narrative that feminists tell the public, that is far from the truth. The narrative is always, men had the right to vote, women didn't. So women bravely fought for the right to vote.
Actually, that's not even close to what happened.
Take for instance in England, the home country that founded America....where America got the ideas for voting right from, and most of our political ideas from. It took MEN in England, 800 years, for the common man, to win the right to vote. It started in the reign of King John, issuing the Magna Carta...in 1215...which gave a very very tiny amount of rights, to a few men.
After that there was an 800 year process of the development of the rights of all men, very slowly, and the evolution of Parliament, which took 800 years to eventually take all the power away from the King or Queen and hand it to the voter.
Only then, did men at first, get the right to vote. And not even all men. Men with no property or limited income also could not vote. And unlike women, men had to go into the army, risk their lives, often dying for King and Country....that was the price men paid, for 800 years, to eventually win the right to vote.
And the price women paid? After men did everything, won the right for themselves, a few women protested a few times, often against the wishes of a lot of other women, who did not want voting rights for women, as they wished women to continue to live in a separate social sphere, apart from men, focused more on family and friends...and much less in the world outside the home. The women who were given the vote were never asked to die for their country, in order to win the right to vote. No serious harm was inflicted on them. With virtually no price paid for that right, in a very short time after men won the right to vote, for other men, based on centuries of bloodshed and social development.....
....after all that, men stood up in Parliament and simply handed the right to vote, on a silver platter, to women
You can read the details about all this that I am claiming, in a series of books called "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" by Winston S. Churchill, who was Prime Minister of England, during WWII. He worked with 100 of the top British historians on the book series, and won the Nobel Prize for Literature for it in the early 1960s.
So, the very long historical evolution, including centuries long evolution of philosophy. That's actually what happened. And when America became a country, it was first men with property who could vote, then a bit of social evolution, and eventually American women could vote, with almost no effort on their part, and no sacrifice...much like the women in England.
If you want sympathy for a group who got the short end of the stick on voting rights, it was black Americans, not women. White American women were treated like Queens, black Americans....not so much....
So, yeah, fake history narrative from feminism.
And yeah it's sometimes hard to follow my remarks as I generalize and just say "feminism" when it's a complex thing. Some aspects of "feminism" I support...other aspects I consider rubbish.
And 3rd Wave Feminism is, I think terminal cancer. It gets chucked out, or it ruins civilization, in my opinion.
2
-
Good answer Tselan Cade, but the emotional reason we are fair, is we have compassion....and put value on the other person. So they are two different things, with the same root in human emotion.
As to communism being based on the idea that everyone is on the ground level, I agree it doesn't work. But it doesn't work, because it relies on "human fairness" to implement...and that does not work. What will work: Technological innovation will make everything much cheaper. This will lead to super-abundance for all...making it indistinguishable from communism, in outcome. Everyone will have, what they need. See link below, Elon Musk, Peter Diamandis.
As to your comments on feminism, I agree with your narrative. But I should note that I have looked into the historic claims of feminism, and there was unfairness to both genders, not just women....and the view of history that feminists push, is largely b.s. I'm all for gender equality, I just don't believe or agree with the feminists on what that means.
Your observations on religion are quite astute, thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f22CGnnhmCI
2
-
I blame white liberals for the mess. Here's why:
Black Lives Matter, as part of their agenda, wants to deconstruct the nuclear family and replace it with a welfare check for a woman. Back in the 1960s, only about 20% of black homes were headed by a woman. Now it's closing in on 80%.
White women are mostly to blame for this mess. Here's how: If you look at voting patterns, white women mostly vote Democrat, the party that pushes welfare the most. Feminists in particular, white feminist females push this and have for decades. In the late 1960s Democrat President Johnson and his "War on Poverty" meant the federal government pushed more assistance to black women, particularly if the dad of the kid was not around.
This pattern led to black women realizing they could pay their bills, have a roof over their heads even if the dad of the kid was not around. So they did so. From female led houses in black community being 20% of all black families, back in the 1960s, the figure has climbed to 80%. Its not irresponsible black parents that are the problem, it's white liberals, particularly feminists, pushing the agenda of giving help to women, even if dad's not around. This incentivizes irresponsibility.
Fast forward to today, I read "The Boy Crisis" by Dr. Warren Farrell. He used to be one of the leading American feminists, back in the 1960s. In his book is a very telling statistic: "85% of men in prison are from fatherless homes. This is true of both black inmates and white inmates."
And there you have it. Bad outcomes are caused by fatherlessness. And fatherlessness is promoted and economically subsidized by white liberals, particularly white feminist women. Oh and I don't think they are bad people, they are just wrong. Ever heard the expression "Killing with Kindness"?. That expression comes from those times in life, we think we are being nice and compassionate and helpful, when in fact we are hurting people, by doing things that seem nice on the surface, but are actually quite harmful.
White liberals have already destroyed the black community. Black Americans don't need to be blamed for the nasty things liberals did to them. Amen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, BLM are crazy, but quite sane about their plan to dismantle this country. They are linked to communists, funded by George S., who said he wants to destroy the United States. But the back story goes to the 1960s, to Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats:
To destroy the United States, George is using the black community, against the United States. Step one in that, is destroying the black community. It's a plan decades in the works:
How Democrats destroyed the black community:
destroy the black family, then turn black Americans against the United States. How the Democrats destroyed the black American family:
In the 1960s most black homes in U.S. had black dads in them. The rate of female led homes was 20%. In the 60s is when the gov't tried to please feminists, who demanded that welfare be increased for single moms. Democrats complied...."The Great Society"... So single moms were incentivized to not get married....or to kick their men, out of the home. Black women respond to economic incentives, just like any other human being. No difference. Result: Over time the rate of fatherless homes in the black community went up from 20% of all black homes, to the current rate of 80% of all black American homes are now female led.
Dr. Warren Farrell is the world's leading expert on the problems of young men. He wrote The Boy Crisis. In that book he notes that 85% of men in prison come from fatherless homes. The stat is in The Boy Crisis. That's right. Almost all convicts are from mother led homes. No dad in house. That's not a racial thing. It's true of blacks, it's true of whites.
The pattern of single parents...almost always women, have very, very bad life outcomes for the children, who almost always do poorly. Having a dad helps a lot in life. We see this in prison statistics. That's why 85% of guys in jail grew up in single mom households.
Democrats have been breeding revolution for a long time.
So, single Motherhood is the leading cause of crime in America. It was encouraged by feminists who destroyed marriage, destroyed family, destroyed the black American home. Feminists hate men. They always have. Black Lives Matter is a feminist organization. It says so on their webpage. They want to destroy the family. It says so on their website. Black Lives Matter is communist. It says so on their webpage. Look it up. Feminists and communists destroyed the black American family, destroyed the role of the black man in the home...to destabilize America and because they hate straight white men. It used to be, a generation back, black American women had to count on their men to provide for them. Feminists made sure the Government replaced the black man in the family....to destabilize America. Read their literature. This was all done by Democrats.
The communists and feminists at university got money from Soros, took over the Democrat Party and have funded BLM, destabilized America, hoping for a Civil War. Don't take it out on black Americans...they been played. Put blame where it should be: On Democrats.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JanPBtest When I was in Varadero, Cuba, I was walking on the beach. I ran across an old home of Al Capone. It is now a restaurant. The American Mafia used to run Cuba.
Then I saw all this old Soviet stuff around, from the Cold War era. Back then, the Russians had taken over Cuba, for decades, since they were both communist.
So Cuba was already run by Americans in the past, then by Russians.
But the thing is, it works two ways. Cubans are also taking over America, in a sense. Soon I'm sure we'll see our first Cuban American President. Why not?
Hispanics in Florida are about a third of the population now, but the fastest growing group. They'll soon be more than half. I'm happy with that. Florida will be largely Hispanic, there is lots of intermarriage, like between Jeb Bush and his wife. That's great.
It seems obvious the cultures are merging, long term. Florida will be Hispanic, at least half....so why can't Cuba be American, to some degree? Works two ways.
Cuban immigrants fit in real well, are revitalizing Florida. Why can't the same be true, of Cuba?... Why should they not welcome Americans to move or settle there, once Cubans fully embrace capitalism?
It's a really good fit, culturally and economically. It would really benefit America...and Cuba. Americans already benefit from Cubans. Why can't Cubans benefit from Americans?
I don't know if they are interested, but many Americans are interested. I'm not sure who is taking over who in that case. Are Cubans and Hispanics taking over Florida? I don't care and if they are they seem to be doing a good job of it.
Americans have to start thinking differently about immigration. It's fine if people want to come here, we have a great country. We should be able to go there, too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dr. Peterson is always banging the drum on young men to adopt responsibility. Nothing brings you up to speed on responsibility, like being a new dad. But again, life is currently unaffordable, family is unaffordable for much of the population and the feminist mating system is crashing human pair bonding. What good is capitalism if it doesn't provide the basics, like the chance to work hard and have a family? It's hard to be responsible when your life is a biological failure. Wall Street Investors Morgan Stanley have an online article, Rise of the Sheeconomy. The future is cats. Within a decade, 50% of women between their 20s and age 45 will be childless and single. And women are limited by biology, when they can have kids. Quickly, it's over for women. This has never happened before in history. And if it did happen, they went extinct.
No wonder most Woke people are women. What do you think their pink hair and concern for the vulnerable means? It's an evolutionary signal. It means they are potentially good people, with an instinct for new life, nurturing and caring for new life. It means human females evolved to protect and care for offspring, in their 20s. We turned young women into consumers and corporate drones, to enrich the 1%, while destroying their chances of biological success. Shame on us. Our form of capitalism is a failure. Humans were meant to have families. Many Americans embrace the Woke Religion, because they have no real life. It's mostly, biological losers. Solution to Woke? They need an alternative: a real life, a real family.
Donald Trump had a great idea. He wants to re-build 10 large American cities, in order to improve the lives of people there, in order to make housing and the cost of living affordable. That would solve a lot of this problem, if we could start building cities, with families and affordable housing and a working, living wage for young men, so they could start families, be attractive to women. If we change the rules to favor committed couples, we could do this. Fatherless homes produce 85% of our criminal population, according to Dr. Warren Farrell, so we have to stop the epidemic of fatherlessness, provide a key role for young dads in the family. Or it won't work. To be clear: don't blame women for this. It's not women causing the crime. It's the absence of dads, in the children's lives.
It's interesting that it is mostly young men who show up to Dr. Peterson's lectures. Why is that? Why not young women? I'd guess it has something to do with biology. Women don't need to achieve goals or status as much as men, since women select men. Men are impressed by women, just as they are. That's how life is wired. Women are life, women generally find their purpose in life pretty quickly, due to their biology, when they become a mother. Not much of a need for hundreds of thousands of women to show up, to be told about accepting responsibility. They are born with it. Different for men, due to biology. With men, social roles and impressing women are needed, to get a life. So far, we have set up society so women outcompete men in their 20s, women avoid having children in their 20s, economic policy, school policy and work policy and feminist theory believes that the genders will follow the male pattern in biology. That doesn't work. Let's admit it. Feminists believe women can act like men in their 20s and society will remain stable. I don't believe that's true. I think we will collapse. Countries without families and purpose for males, collapse.
Tucker Carlson had a great video 4 years ago: The American Dream is dying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The American Army in Afghanistan were told to look the other way, about the "bachi boys". A Los Angeles Times article I read long ago said about half the Afghan married men had them, at home. Are people born gay? My guess is it's part nurture, part nature, in ways we don't yet understand.
My point is the number of gay people varies depending on culture, so while I'm supportive of their rights, I'd guess that to some degree human sexuality can be molded, when people are young....in ways we don't understand. So it's a very bad idea to let the left control sex education, only because we actually don't really know why some people are gay, some are not. Patrick bet David had a video on this. Among old people, the number of gay people is really low. Among the young, very high. Why is that? The evidence suggests human sexuality to some degree, is a bit moldable, especially among the young. That's why the left wants to indoctrinate your kids.
It's like learning a new language. When you are young, your brain is more moldable, so it's quite easy to learn a new language. The older you get, the harder it gets to learn a new language. I think human sexuality works a bit like that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Religion worked out a bunch of things, to make human life work in the past. For instance the Bible verse Genesis 3:16. It's about the biological deal, between men and women. Sure that verse needs updates, the biological deal between the genders needs updates because of technology. But it's still essentially true, from an evolutionary perspective: life and civilization is based on a biological deal between men and women.
A curious fact from evolution: Modern humans have been around, for about 200,000 years. Most of that time they didn't know about the existence of most humans, due to technology and distance limitations. Yet curiously hundreds of thousands of isolated cultures came up with basically the same social hacks for group survival: Create a religion, invent myths of an afterlife, work our moral principles for group survival, be they the ten commandments or local tribal rules. To me these were hundreds of thousands of experiments in evolution, on the problem of: what works for human survival? In my opinion the most ethical religious survival pattern worked out was the Judeo-Christian pattern. For instance: though shalt not bear false witness. (JP: "don't lie...tell the truth, or at least, don't lie." Of course progressives and atheists have attacked that nonstop, since the time of Darwin. I maintain if you attack religion, you don't understand evolution.
Brett once said we need to update the biological deal between men and women. Smart man. That's going to be maybe the most important thing for survival, this coming century, due to technology changing gender roles. His friend Jordan Peterson was talking about collapsing birth rates today, with Chris Williamson. Same problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agree. Ask a 20 year old woman about abortion, she's likely had one. Ask her if she thinks a good man will be around to marry. She's gonna say no. Then ask her if she's happy now, ask her in 20 or 30 years, she'll say she's miserable, has to work, has no family. Only the smart women are turning conservative. Jordan Peterson said the top predictors of people being Woke are:
1-low language IQ
2-being female
3-had a university course in feminism
Feminism has pretty much wrecked America, wrecked young women, so they abort and are hopeless, will end up cat ladies, lots of them, live alone till the end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How to Win the Culture War:
Conservatives should do more technology developing like Bitchute, to help conservative causes.
Here's why:
-Hollywood is dominated by the far left....has been for decades
-the media is dominated by the far left....has been for decades
-academia is dominated by the far left....has been for decades
-Silicon Valley is dominated by left wing people
-comedians tend to be left wing
Jordan Peterson has made a number of observations:
-left wing people tend to be more creative and open minded
-most business startups are done by left wing people
-right wing people tend to be better managers
-right wing people are better at things that require systematizing
-engineers tend to be right wing
-coders are often right wing
-bankers tend to be more right wing
-lawyers tend to be more right wing
-certain kinds of medical doctors tend to be more right wing, like surgeons
-there are no differences in IQ between the left and right
-you tube's politics is dominated by the right wing sites and stars
-80% of you tube commentators in the comments section, are men
-talk radio has been dominated by right wingers, for decades in America
What does all this data mean? I think there are slight underlying biological differences between left and right wing people.....just like there are differences between men and women. And I think that some types of technology favor people on the left, other forms of technology favor people on the right....for reasons unknown. The internet was created largely by left wing people, who tend to be more creative, open minded and risk takers....they are more likely to be the innovators. But certain technology, once created, tend to favor right wingers: such as radio and talk radio in particular, and now the new one: the internet. This is HUGE......because the internet will dominate everything in the future, and the right wing is more suited to the internet, than the left. The importance of this can't be over-stated.
But...why?.....does the internet favor people with right wing views? I have no idea, but it does. Just like it seems to suit men, better than women. I think this has huge significance. This may in fact, be the root reason, for the rise of nationalism, worldwide, for example. The people who created the internet, I remember reading about them. They were left wing progressive people. They thought that with exposure to other views and other people, that most people online, over time, would end up becoming more and more liberal. Instead, the opposite seems to be happening....conservatives are gaining in strength and the world actually started dividing along political lines....left and right.
Over time, because the internet favors right wing men, they do better than other groups, the world is becoming more and more right wing....thus the rise of nationalism. In personality surveys, men tend to be quite a bit more patriotic than women, who tend to push more for compassion and open borders....left wing ideals. That's because God made women to look after children.....Right wing men tend to be far more patriotic, more about controlling borders and limits to things, than are creative left wing men....who focus on "compassion" and things like open borders. So put all these people together on the internet, what happens? Right wing men totally kick ass, for the first time in a very long time, in the war of ideas. The minds of right wing men finally found an outlet......the internet. It's like Talk Radio....but only in this new form, unlike Talk Radio...now every conservative man, gets a say.
However, a word of caution:
Today left wingers at You Tube totally dominate and control the internet, can kick anyone off you tube. Just yesterday one of conservative you tuber Dr. Steve Turley's videos on progressive radical George Soros, was banned. (it's now back up) Lefties invented the internet because they tend to be more open minded and creative. However, right wingers can certainly do the same thing. We can invent our own internet, our own you tube....like at Bitchute..it's already happened. We can create our own Paypal, so we can't be financially discriminated against, by the left. The lead that left wingers have on technology, over right wingers, is very real, but actually quite slight, in the long run. That's why it's important for the right wing to put a lot of effort into building new platforms like Bitchute....and alternatives to Paypal....to support conservative content creators.
That may be the most important thing right wing people can do, to further their causes. That would change the world. It already is starting to.....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Roseanne mentioned feminist professors. They divide men and women. That's immoral. Why do they do it? Lots of reasons. History has patterns. Mostly, history as it used to be taught, was men doing things, inventing things, running things. Why is that? Why was history, mostly about men? Feminists say it was men oppressing women. I doubt it. More like, based on biology, certain patterns are more likely to work, given certain levels of technology.
We see today, Professor Scott Galloway explained this, how women actually always outperformed men at school. But we did not notice it. Why not? Women get pregnant. So their life patterns tended to be, being Mothers in their 20s and 30s. Not competing directly for power, with men. So, men dominated everything. But now that technology changed, birth control was invented, so social patterns change, women compete for political power now. Kamala gets to run to be President. In times past, before birth control, she'd be a grandma by now, a Mother of 6. Now, she has no children. Which raises a question: So, was it really men holding women back? Or was it, technology was primitive in the past, this forced certain gender roles, like women being mothers when they were young, in order for the population to remain stable, not die off? Yeah, that's what it was, not some insane paranoid leftist fantasy about men supposedly "oppressing" women.
We need better explanations of history, so we don't go off the deep end, come up with batshit crazy theories. Such as feminism, which says "The Patriarchy" must be destroyed. What do they mean by "The Patriarchy"? Patterns where men have power, social patterns like Western Civilization. So feminism at the root of it, is about destroying the West, overthrowing "The Patriarchy"...which is just code for men, or Western Civilization. These Marxists are psychopaths, civilization destroyers. Feminism is how they want to end things, by turning men and women against each other, destroying each other. It's about crazy Marxist professors, wanting to turn women against men....like Roseanne said it was. They did this by taking over academia, then writing books, brainwashing women to distrust men.
I think the left is well intentioned, even the communists. But, the old saying is true: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Communism was like Woke. It was about evening things out, between different groups of people. That's a good intention. But then, something happened. It won. Communism won. In China, Russia. The experiment was run. Did the initial good intention roll out in good outcome? No. Then what happened, was 100 Million dead. Despite good intentions, the most evil this last century was not by Nazis, who were awful. They went after Roseanne's relatives, Dave's relatives. It's worse than that. It was well meaning leftist communists, the people who inspired Kamala Harris, who put in motion ideas that ended with 100 Million dead.
I prefer to look at outcomes, not intensions. That's how we need to judge things, because that's closer to the truth.
What about feminism? How is it doing? Well I'm all for women having great lives, with no barriers to success. But in human populations, if women don't have enough kids, the culture dies. That's where we are at now. That's where feminism comes in. It's not that they are causing demographic collapse. It's more like, their ideas about how gender works, is so clueless, they are not providing answers, that help women, while keeping populations alive. Vivek Ramaswamy talked about this, the other day: he said we in America now have the lowest birthrate in our history. We're dying. I would not exactly say, feminism is to blame. All sorts of things are to blame, basically technology is driving this decline. But I would say, feminism is how women understand the world now. The answers that feminists are giving are so dead wrong now, we are dying. They have no clue. And they are in charge of how women see their role. I blame the Feminist professors. Clueless. They are all clueless. We need better answers. Women need better answers, better solutions.
The political left has a lot to answer for: the coming demographic collapse of America, the awful state of gender relations, the turning of women against men, communism, with 100 Million dead. The main thing they have to answer for, is their answers generally don't work....despite good intentions. The biggest thing probably, they must answer for, are their endless lies. The left thinks they are morally superior to the political right. Boy, are they wrong. Dead wrong.
1
-
1
-
😴@Woke people: you sure you thought this DEI thing through?
Harvard and elite universities like Yale are about 30% Jewish students and professors. Should we care, what religion you are? They used to have quotas on Jews at university, when I was a kid. Should we go back to that? Dave is Jewish, what does that have to do with anything? He's good at what he does, I agree with 95% of his opinions. I don't care about his religion. Do you?
Harvard now actively discriminates against Americans of Chinese background. Is that fair? Americans with parents from India, those households now earn 2X the white American average. Do they have Indian Privilege? Should we limit their accomplishments? Or just limit white straight Christian males?
What about class? To be honest, if you look up the stats, for the top 20 American university, over 60% of their students are drawn from the economic top 1%. They have Rich Privilege. Their parents are rich, but there are lots of smart poor kids, who don't get in. DEI was invented by rich kids, with rich parents. How about we just limit rich kids, of any race?
Should we have quotas on rich kids? Or just quotas on white men? The NBA 🏀has few disabled lesbians. Should we care? Or celebrate our differences? Or fight over what's fair? Hint: Life's not fair. Also: 98% of the homeless are men, can we shoot for gender parity?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mrbfgray lol...good answer, I appreciated reading it. Yeah, I'm a presumptuous prick.
How do we get rid of all those liberals you don't like? I'd suggest student loan remission. Work a couple years overseas, all those people with useless degrees, have their tuition bills paid off. Get rid of all the liberal socialists you don't like. Many would stay in the Third World, figure it out themselves.
I almost moved to the Third World. In the 1980s I went to Africa for a few months. I ran across a boating business for sale in Mombassa, taking tourists out diving. I wasn't rich but almost did it. Wish I did.
You really have limited imagination on this sort of thing. People relocate on their own, once they have a bit of experience travelling. I know lots of people who moved overseas. All it usually takes, is one or two holidays, they realize the world is a big place, lots of interesting places besides America. I know a group of young people, went to Mexico on a church mission. Five went back on their own to live there.
There are 9 million Americans already living overseas. One thing we could do is just give them tax advantages for doing so. More would leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mrbfgray Another option beside "green cards" would be "temporary citizenship". Little true story:
I was flying in the Caribbean, over the island of Hispaniola. As you likely know, one side of the island is Haiti, the other side Dominican Republic, where I did some golfing. You can see from the air, the trees are all cut down on the Haiti side. On the DR side, it's a nice place to visit.
Same island. DR has the advantage of having about 20% Spanish population, so they are able to generate enough educated people to run a civilized country. Haiti doesn't have that option, it's strictly one race and all the smart Haitians have moved to the United States. We brain drained then well enough, they might not recover.
I was staying at a nice 5 star resort on the beach, thinking "Why not let private companies build nice resorts here, where your every need is looked after...laundry, all the food you want, recreation, they clean up after you...etc. Then we can have people from the rich countries get jobs here for a few years, go into the city to help the local economy, stay for 5 years, while the resorts look after them? Temporary citizenship."
1
-
@Mrbfgray And to do what? Not to be insulting, but that's a ridiculous comment....so short sighted. Sounds like you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Where do you think our world of technology and advanced economy came from?
My grandfather was born in 1900, a few days after the calendar rolled over, from the 1800s. He had a grade 2 education, taught himself many trades, many useful things. The Dutch and English settler to South Africa did not come to a place with ready made infrastructure. They built everything, from scratch.
I'm not suggesting any specific plan, I'm just saying that having a diverse population is helpful, that in time if you do, the new immigrants will eventually become useful.
People that appear useless now, don't stay useless forever. They are mostly useless because they are privileged, spoiled and pampered, have never been put in an environment of opportunity and challenge.
I agree on the Left spoiling the natural mechanisms of supply and demand, in useful fields.
On your comment on "green card", I agree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorting out Ye's comment:
Republicans often don't like Television and Hollywood and entertainment for obvious reasons: Why? They don't reflect their values. Why did this happen? There are general personality types in people, that sort themselves out, in what occupations people chose, where they want to live etc. Even what political parties they end up voting for. Jordan Peterson and Professor Jonathan Haidt have done work on this: People self-sort into occupations and political parties, based on innate personality types. Of being born a certain way. That's more important than race now. More important in figuring people out, than religion.
The general pattern for personality: Liberals tend to be more creative, open minded. Liberals and progressives sort out, tend to want to live in large coastal cities. Places where universities concentrate, media and film making concentrate. So progressives are far over-represented in all these places. The American elite sort highly for over-representation for liberals and progressives. Many never meet a conservative, in all their life. Some are around them, but they stay in the conservative closet. Conservatives are way under represented in media, Hollywood, the academic elite. (surprisingly the right hasn't really caught on to this till now, they should be pushing for academic diversity for conservatives, as a pushback to the Woke agenda, way more sensible and realistic)
But: Why do liberals tend to be more open minded and creative? Born that way. Conservatives tend to value tradition and order more. Why is that? Born that way. That's why I'm a 'live and let live libertarian' on many things: I'm not a bigot. Some bigots are on the right, but way more on the left now. It's hiding in plain sight:
On the left this turned into America-hating, revising history to demonize patriotism , fake concepts like White Privilege, trans-gender rights, demonizing normal life. And Bill Maher and Jon Stewart spending decades on TV spewing hate filled vile about half the country, pretending decades of insults are "comedy". No it's not. It's just hate, Jon. What do I want on the right? Way fewer bigots. Less Jon Stewart. You remember he ranted on about so called 👻privilege? Yeah, less of that.
James Woods was talking about this to Tucker. About how Democrats in Hollywood ruined his life. But he missed the back up question: why is Hollywood mostly run by Democrat and Progressive people?
The big lesson: People naturally sort themselves out based on the way they were born. The creative types tend to go into these industries, TV, movie making. You see this pattern in comedy as well: Over 90% are left leaning. You see this pattern in journalism: Over 90% are left leaning. I noticed this 40 years ago about newspaper journalists. Even back then, that was the pattern. The pattern continues, to this day. It's the same in higher education. The top 20 elite American universities are entirely dominated by the left.
Entire fields are as well, like psychology, are dominated by certain personality types. Jordan Peterson gave a talk at Oxford/Cambridge 4 years ago: He made a joke about him being the only remaining conservative psychologist, left in the world. He said the only remaining conservative in the world, is sitting in my chair. So, no. It's not about "Jews run the world". That is fake news. It's about, what are the patterns? In personality types, as well as ethnicity. And why? Kanye is a creative genius and is black. His personality has far more in common with Hollywood, than Ben Shapiro's friends in Nashville. It's not "the Jews" Kanye. Grow up.
This has political implications: When progressives and liberals push for 'diversity,' they only mean skin color, not diversity of opinion. Bad move. Progressives and sometimes liberals, tend to be political bigots. That's why so many are against free speech. They want everyone to be just like them, they want everyone to think just like they do. That's typical bigot-think. Oddly, liberals have become the new bigots. I say 'oddly' because it didn't used to be this way. Progressives are not the old type of bigot, based on skin color. Archie Bunker is no longer a thing. The new bigot is someone who thinks everyone should align with their own views, rather than let people be, who they are born to be. Progressives are like Archie Bunker, with a PhD.
It's all about balance, this thing in America. When you get too many conservatives in an area dominating, things get stultified, but they run well, lack creativity. When you get too many liberals in an area, like California, morals degenerate, things are very creative but too much of anything, is a bad thing. Jordan Peterson has talked about this. He called it "chaos vs. order". We're in a period of chaos. Too much of creative chaos. Not enough order. The positive thing in this is when I see rich New Yorkers or Californians move to places like Texas, Tennessee or Florida. New Yorkers or Californians are often very creative people. This makes other places better. Like Elon or Joe Rogan moving to Texas. Or Dave Shapiro moving to Florida. Or Ben Shapiro moving to Nashville. This is a good trend.
The creative class is by temperament liberal and progressive leaning, have been for decades. In Hollywood, there is now open hostile bigotry towards conservatives. Originally being a liberal or progressive was a good thing. No longer. Bigotry is how liberal sentiment goes wrong, when one side dominates something, too long: Like gay people long ago, most conservatives now stay in the conservative closet, for fear of career ending hatred, from the left leaning Hollywood elite. If someone kept track of the data, made a chart showing how often television or movies or entertainment push progressive values, anti-white values, anti-Republican values, it would show the same thing as this chart. The left took over television and movies and higher education long ago and the hate hasn't stopped since then. Like poor Sam Harris. Don't be like Sam Harris: As Mr. T said decades ago, "I pity the fool!"
So on the right I'd say: Let's not be bigots, based on religion or race. Let's be nice. To everyone. That's gonna p*ss them off. 😅🤣😂
What does this have to do with Kanye's remarks? If you read "An Empire of their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood" by Jewish writer Neal Gabler, you get some of the history of the terrible oppression the Jews suffered, before coming to America. Very tragic story. But, they turned that story into heroism. They turned their suffering around, then started to tell wonderful stories about America. That was the Golden Age of Hollywood. I grew up watching those old movies. Turner Classic Movies. I loved them. Still do.
What does this have to do with Kanye's remarks? Kanye is poorly educated, but he in on to something he doesn't fully understand: Yes, in America for various reasons, you have various ethnicities succeeding at different rates, as Lex Fridman said in a conversation with Ben Shapiro. And you also notice this, politically and in education levels. For example most Jewish Americans tend to be left leaning, but there are many exceptions like Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin. But more broadly there is a much larger political and economic trend as I just wrote, people sort themselves out in America, about where they want to live, what professions they chose, based on born innate tendencies. Personality types. That's way more important.
The broad lesson of all of this is don't stigmatize people based on their religion or race. That's not too bright. 💡🙂 Life is a lot more complicated than that. And that's why Kanye was wrong. As they say, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That old saying still runs true. Kanye has a little knowledge. That's why he's dangerous. However, it's also true Kanye is a genuinely nice guy, who means well, is a huge asset to music and culture. He can lead people, to a better place. I hope people around him like President Trump at their dinner, lead him to a a better place. The greatest advantage America has, over every other country, is we have so many people with diverse talents, that different things succeed in America. We need to continue sorting that out, so this stays a huge strength for us, not a weakness.
Politically for Republicans it means: talk nice about people
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Meetoo? Why is it taken seriously? Women evolved as the center of social life, at the tribal level, where we spent 99% of our evolution. Women evolved to emotionally manipulate men, and men evolved to be emotionally manipulated by women. It's not a complete separation of traits, by gender, just a general one: There is a lot of over-lap on traits with men, but women as a group are more emotional, less rational, less able to take things objectively, more likely to personalize everything, more likely to follow the herd instinct, which was necessary for their survival. By the leading females imposing social rules and taboos and attitudes on the tribe, our ancestors kept society balanced. Women were kept separate, had the world of women and children, bonded with other women, did not take most of the burden of leadership and sacrifice, because biologically women were more important than men, in evolution. Women had to be protected, or the tribe would not survive. But now we have changed everything and thrown out the long evolved social patterns of organization of our ancestors, and integrated the genders.
How will this turn out? Our little experiment in integrating the genders, of women leading society, will end in disaster: they did not evolve for it. Many of the traits I just mentioned, that women evolved with, they work well at a family or tribal level and are necessary for human social harmony. But when women move into the broader world of a university, they impose on all men around them, their personal and emotion based narrative of reality, destroying the university for young men, who are leaving in droves. And on a tribal level, women tend to act together as an organized group. At university it's the same thing: women want social uniformity, imposed on all males and females, by Alpha females.
The trouble is, this imposition of tribal patterns does not work at a complex level, where there are millions of separate tribes. That's why women working side by side men, leading equally with men, will never work, long term. We are headed for the cliff.
Most of the women at university level are in their peak child bearing years. For all of human evolution, except the present era, these young women would be raising babies. Now? The more intelligent the young woman, the less likely she is to have babies. Eventually feminism makes us all dumber. Young women evolved to keep the tribe alive, by having children. Now we bring in replacement children, from the Third World, which will eventually end in disaster. Young women having babies, that's how we evolved and survived as a species....till now. Now we think we can do away with all that evolution and we think we can do away with nature. We are fools, and will pay the price. Elon Musk sees clearly where this madness is going:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dswbe1S6LuA&t=3s
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Muting_all_advice I find it hilarious, this claim of "objectifying" of women. Because sorry, but the way men are wired, the thing men value most in women, is her physicality and youth. Again, being horny just comes from evolution, for procreation. It's a sign of female power over men, our desire for women. So I find it amusing that the thing that gives women the most power over men is the thing women supposedly object to. Yeah men "objectify" women all the time, if you mean think of them sexually. When I was a horny teenager I thought about sex about once every 1 second, on a slow day. That's a problem? Or is that just old Mother Nature, at it again? ..meh, it's just Mother Nature, asking us to breed.
Most of this talk by women, this nonsense over being "objectified" is likely women just projecting their own innate pickiness, onto men....to avoid feeling guilty of how they treat men. It's pretty obvious that for biological reasons, women are born far more picky than men. That's obviously because women get pregnant, bear a far higher burden for sex, than men. That's at the heart of evolution and mate selection, women are wired to pick the best men, to keep the species healthy. So no doubt, every woman I ever knew was picky as hell about men.
One of the big mistakes women make about men is assuming their psychology matches a man's perfectly. I doubt it. There are all kinds of differences. But likely all this female bashing of men is just women projecting their own pickiness onto men, feeling guilty over that, turning the tables by claiming men are "objectifying them"....to throw men off from the obvious fact that it is females by far, that objectify the other sex, far more, because they are born picky.
This often works because men are often quite dumb and willing to put up with anything from a woman, for sex. And women are born to manipulate men and to use the power of sex and the slavery of male desire for sex with women. Females play this manipulation game well. Better than men manipulate women.
However I've been around long enough so I see through that nonsense...lol
Penis shaming is a thing? I've never had any complaints...lol
1
-
@Muting_all_advice Yeah, good comment on separate gender groups for some things and visiting the Amish and what you noticed on gender roles and separation in some areas.
I think the genders appreciate each other more, like that. Also the women in the Amish communities, they get what they want and need: financial security for life, a social circle, a sense of meaning, children and family and extended family. They have much better lives than most women in affluent American suburbs. I've been to both, seen both up close....No wonder the birth rates and family size in those Amish communities are so high...highest in the world.
In the Amish community, it's not everything women or men need, there are limitations to that pattern, mostly centered around lack of choice. But in that Amish pattern I'd say, there are things that work well. The Amish work because they follow tribal patterns, which are central to our evolution. Amish social structure and sexual norms are in line with evolutionary patterns that work....they are variations on Patriarchal patterns, based on making women and children the center of life, the center of male obligations.
The economics of the Amish work very well, because the ones better at management and money look after those less inclined that way. Those good at mechanics do their thing etc. So the Amish community organizational structure also resemble the same reasons that modern corporations are a useful tool for economic advancement: large groups of people cooperate on common rules. The talented ones lead. In one case it's religious rules, in the other case corporate rules...these are variations of the same thing, really. This takes advantage of the variability in human talent, allowing the talented to flourish, while taking care of the vulnerable.
We would be better off finding variations on that Amish/corporate pattern: For instance in Hungary the government gives financial bonuses and long term security to women who have a lot of kids. My guess is architects and city planners should use evolutionary insights to plan cities so women can more naturally and easily form circles of women who can depend on each other for child care and social support....sort of cities full of little tribal units.
So my view of the Amish is that they are not so much backwards as some believe, but instead closer to the natural truth in many ways.
1
-
@Muting_all_advice You said "And as much as they love them, (children) they are hard work and it makes sense to join forces with other women in groups as a labour economy of scale. Then you can cook and clean and other domestic stuff."
Yup and that is exactly the pattern in my family background of small religious communities. Women worked together, socialized together, formed intense and complicated social and psychological bonds with each other, bonds formed over labor of economy and cooking, domestic stuff, children.
You've never seen a more happy group of people. And when things didn't work, a more nit picky group either, squabbling...lol
The men loved the women, but were happy not to be so directly involved in their social circles, so much.
But I think that's the basic human pattern that works. The modern world of integrated gender is a big mistake, in my opinion. It's probably very unsatisfying to women.
1
-
@Muting_all_advice On Elon Musk I agree. What feminists want to remember is only the male successes, never the failures men have. If you look back in human evolution, you find a curious fact: 80% of modern human females left offspring, 20% did not. But on the male side, only 40% of males left offspring, 60% did not.
(the exact numbers are in dispute, but the general pattern of females being much much more likely to leave offspring, is not in dispute)
Why is this? It goes back to nature. Men are nature "rolling the dice", trying new things, much more often, than with women. New things usually fail and seldom succeed in a big way. That's why men have far more likely to have big "winners" like Elon, but also many many many times, the number of genetic "losers" than women.
It's like when you see children who have severe mental disabilities. Most of them are male, just like when you see the most gifted people, most are male.
1
-
@Muting_all_advice Wow, your highlighted comment was so great, I'll leave a few more comments. Your last comment on male identity, female identity:
Agreed on the genders need their own unique identity. I can see the sense of this intuitively because my ethnic background is a bit odd. My background is quite religious and conservative and rural. You know who the Amish are? My background is basically something like that. That was a very social different world, than what most people know.
So the men and women basically had their own worlds to some degree. I guess Jordan Peterson would call them separate dominance hierarchies. Men had the men's world, women had the women's world. The women squabbled with each other in their world, the men in theirs.
And you know what? Based on what I know of anthropology, separation of genders into non-overlapping magisteria, to borrow a term from biologist Stephen Gould, has been the human norm in every culture, till now, till our culture.
That's why my long term guess is, our culture better change back to the human normal pattern, or we are done. Men and women are not supposed to form the social patterns, we currently have....full gender integration, so everyone is basically part of the same gender. Won't work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Muting_all_advice Yeah, I think you are right, that women don't want, what feminists say they want. They don't actually want that. So then why do they do it? My guess:
What I think happens is women evolved quite heavily for in-group consensus and preference....women evolved for being with other women, forming extended family communities, based on common group or tribe identities and mostly around children. Jordan Peterson said the largest difference between men and women is that women are far more interested in people, men are much more likely interested in things.
Karen Straughan has videos on this. Basically women are more likely than men, to follow social norms. So when social norms form, by powerful people...like the feminist norms now taught at school... women go along with those norms, enforce them socially...more than do men.
Why do women conform? It's the same reason in reverse, that there are a hundred times more males in jail, for anti-social crimes, than females: male tend to take more risks, do stupid things, go against social norms. Women do this, far less so.
So our culture has set up social norms for women, to become just like men....wanting money and recognition and power at work...to be very competitive with men, to be "equal" to men. Women have bought into this basic feminism. They should question it. Does it make you happy?
Women conform to these male norms....endless work, competition, making those the center of your life, like a male would likely do....because he's male. I think that's a bad option for women. It leads to an unhappy life. You should watch a video by "Black Pigeon Speaks" called "left over women".
My guess is women need to form an identity in the modern world, that is from a female perspective, not a male one. Sam Vaknin talks about this a lot. Women have basically taken a male identity to adapt to the modern world, rather than the female identity like their grandmothers had.......being Mother and social center of the community and family.
This is causing women a lot of grief, in my opinion. It just isn't right.
1
-
@Muting_all_advice On female happiness, yes what I found may be correlation, I'm willing to shift my view, if convinced.
Three people that I have tuned into lately, for insight into this are Professor Sam Vaknin, an Israeli scientist on you tube. I like his video "Where have all the Wo/men gone?" I like him because everything that he says, is based on a lot of research. He's been looking into female happiness and many related things, for decades. He's on you tube.
Another unlikely recent source of insight was Elon Musk. A couple days ago he released a video on how civilization itself may be in peril, due to the advanced country's low birth rate....which comes from modern feminist ideas. I like Elon's video on "Elon Musk Zone" you tube platform, called "My final warning" released two days ago.
Another person with a lot of insight into this topic of female happiness and choice in the modern world, is Alex Kaschuta. She is a woman from Romania who moved to London, had a high level career in technology and finance, then ditched it, for motherhood and working at home. I saw her on Triggernometry today, the interview was called "Does progress make us miserable?"...she I think, makes a lot of sense. Based on your comments, I think you would find her interesting.
There are a great many things that need to be sorted out, including as you said, better insight into psychology....much of which you are correct to say, the left gets wrong.
...so I think a lot of smart people are thinking about this now
1
-
1
-
@Muting_all_advice yeah, exactly on anti-semitism, I think to some degree, you see this because of what you said. The Holocaust gets in the way. How could this group, so persecuted, end up on top? Doesn't fit their victim narrative.
When I was at university in the 1970s, the tribe in question, the government of the U.S. were keeping track of income stats on them. They were far far ahead of other groups, in household income....in official American government statistics in the fed gov't book "A Statistical Abstract of the United States."
Then at some point, the American government just didn't keep track of the income of that group. I wonder why. Then this whole thing about so called "White Privilege" came along.
Now the truth about income and wealth in America is pretty simple: Most of it is concentrated in the top 1%. Yeah, most of those people are "white", but only a tiny minority of white people are super wealthy. In fact the bottom 50% of whites have only 5% of national income. Most whites have next to nothing.
But within that tiny minority of people who are super rich Americans, Dave's ethnic group are vastly over represented, to the point of being 50% of the richest 25 multi-billionaires. That's a lot, because they are only 1% of Americans....they are 50 times as likely to be super rich. Antisemitism is real, but it hasn't slowed them down from prospering, just like prejudice hasn't slowed down Asian Americans.
But the main point is, wealth is incredibly concentrated to a few Americans, particularly within a few minority ethnic groups....and particularly one small group: Dave's.
That's what the numbers say.
How to keep the public dumb about this? Invent this thing called "White Privilege". Then many people will believe in that nonsense philosophy, they will direct their questions and anger at the most common type of white person: Bob the white working class truck driver...as if he has some sort of special white privilege....when if fact he's just a schmuck, struggling along, hoping to feed his three kids. It's the same with Dave's group. Ordinary people in that group are just normal Americans, the vast majority are. But they get picked on, because a few have lots of money. The vast majority of people in that ethnic group are not super rich, but people make over generalizations about people in that group, based on simplistic categories.
Why is this not talked about?
The elites are just trying to keep us uninformed, so we don't question things.
So I think the whole "White Privilege" thing is mostly a diversion tactic by the super rich, to stop Americans from having honest, informed conversations about how America actually works. My hero George Carlin the late comedian has some famous rants about this, he figured it out, decades ago, has some famous rants about "the real owners of America"...still on you tube.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why Larry Fink is wrong about forcing feminism and ESG scores on society:
Thomas Sowell's great insight, there are no permanent solutions to human problems. Just tradeoffs. Tradeoffs for women: Yes, you can compete with men. Girls outperform boys at school now, women now earn more money than men for people under 35. Tradeoff? You don't get married or have kids. Women are not attracted to men, they outcompete. That's part of an evolved trait in humans: Biologists call it hypergamy. It means: women mate across and up hierarchies. Female dominance over men has a tradeoff price for women: You live till 85, buy a lot of cat food, make more money. But also there is a tradeoff: female happiness is in long term decline, according to The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, Yale University's Betsey Stevenson. That's because women evolved for family, children and community, when young. Have a career? Go ahead, but: Female success means less of mating success and family for women. That's the tradeoff. You get less of the things that matter most in life. A lot of that has to do with female fertility patterns and age, explained by Paul Joseph Watson in his video No More Eggs, where he links to the science explaining declining female fertility. In other words, Mother Nature has patterns. We follow them, or we lose.
The Big Lie women were told? Feminism is a pure win. No downside for women. Wow. Amazing that people still believe that. Look at the evidence, people.
We need clarity on gender relations, to help both genders. Larry's views are wrong, hurt women, are out of date. Why? Larry doesn't understand gender between the sexes, how it works:
Women decide who they want to sleep with. Women make the rules of sex. Online data for single people say 80% of single women are trying to date the top 20% of men. That's an evolved trait in females: hypergamy. Due to the introduction of the birth control pill, women are more fussy about men, than ever, more hypergamous than ever. Men evolved to sleep with a lot of women, because sperm is cheap. Women evolved to be fussy about men, because raising babies takes work. So women must make the rules and they have. Women decided to embrace feminism, free love, it's not men driving this pattern, it's women, since they control sex. The idea of male guilt in this, with no attendant female guilt or responsibility, is laughable. We just let women off the hook, for something they control.
Larry still buys into the old fashioned feminist beliefs about gender. That has already been debunked by Mary Harrington and others like Louise Perry.
Dave should interview Louise Perry, who was interviewed by his friend Jordan Peterson. Louise Perry is a feminist, she wrote about how the Sexual Revolution has failed women. She understands where things went wrong on feminism. Larry still believes the old answers, that don't work, never did. Larry Fink is decades out of sync with reality, lives in the past. Feminism has failed women.
1
-
Why Larry Fink is wrong about race and ESG scores: In the 1960s the black fatherless rate in America was very low, around 20%. Now it's close to 80%. Culture matters. Having dads around matters. Fink has good intentions. I believe that. He's just wrong. He thinks, if you just force people to hire more black people, you can fix social problems, economic problems. No you can't, because at this point it's not racism driving problems in black populations in America. It's people like Larry. How? They push big government money for single parents, Affirmative Action, which only benefits women, not men. This undervalues black American men by making them socially deposable. The gov't replaced black men, in the home. Thomas Sowell explains this, very well. So it's actually guys like Larry, so out of date, driving racial problems, while trying to fix them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bullitt1017 Elon Musk is not a hypocrite. He's not saying people should not be having kids. He's saying clever people...including clever women...should have more kids, if that's what they want. I agree with him.
I agree, women should be making their own choices. I'm not here to tell women to have a family or not. I'm not interested in telling women what to do with their bodies or lives. I'm here to say, for various reasons, feminism creates a world where it is unusually difficult for smart women to have families. We need to make it easier and more natural for women to do so...if that is their choice.
The reason we should do this, is to make women happy.
Here's how that works: The largest study ever done on female happiness, is called "The Paradox of the declining female happiness." It's available online.
It tracked female happiness, over 35 years in most advanced countries. They found that female happiness is declining in all countries where women go to school in their 20s, work in their 20s and avoid forming families. So, what I call 'the feminist pattern'...this is making women very unhappy.
Guess who's happiness has been increasing since the early 1970s? Men's happiness....the female happiness study says that, as well. No, Elon Musk didn't tell me this...lol... I think the reason feminism makes men more happy while making women miserable is this: men get a lot more access to women for sex, because feminism told women to be sexually free. Men like free access to women's bodies. Feminism gave them that. This pleased men a lot, but this made women unhappy, because women are built for family and stable relationships...not to be sexually promiscuous and going through one relationship after another...most women don't want to be just another notch in his bedpost.
The people who support feminism are the people who benefited the most from feminism: men who are jerks to women....they get to sleep with a lot of women. Women certainly didn't benefit. Feminism seemed a nice dream at first, but over time it's becoming obvious: it makes women miserable.
The data is in: feminism makes women miserable. If women want a career? I say let them. I won't interfere with their choice. I'm just here to say: that makes them miserable.
1
-
1
-
@bullitt1017 You said " Less people on this planet is actually a good thing. Until we make the jump to complete renewable energy resources, less is better."
You make a really good point, but your thinking is flawed. When you said less people on this planet is a good thing, I agree. Here's the problem with that: Modern life gives women a choice: the brightest ones can go to university, get several degrees, make a lot of money.
That all sounds good at first, but here's the problem with that: Nature itself places limits on women, not me. We both know who is most successful in education: smart women.
Here's the trouble: When smart women in advanced countries get a lot of degrees rather than having children, the the proportion of smart people in the population goes down.
One thing we need, to solve the problems you brought up, is more smart people. The nature of education is such that generally the smartest women get the most education. This means they have fewer and fewer children. This over time means fewer and fewer smart people around, to solve our problems.
Elon Musk explains this in his videos.
1
-
@bullitt1017 You said "Besides, look at Japan, their numbers are dropping but you never hear about feminism there, do ya?"
That's a really good point. The reason I go after feminists is that, they should know better. They set the agenda for young women, they give them advice on how to plan their lives. Prominent feminist intellectual Camille Paglia has a y tube conversation with Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, another prominent feminist academic.
It's on: Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia on the lack of biology in gender studies. (Viewpoint American Enterprise Institute)
They discuss the fact that "women's studies" in university is completely ignorant about science and biology. They have none. That's why feminists don't even know what I'm talking about: they are ignorant about biology....yet they tell young women what to do in their lives.
As to Japan, the fact that their birth rate is so low, it reflects the same thing: young women there, they focus on career, rather than family. That does not work, because it goes against biology and nature.
So it's the same thing. But to be clear: feminism doesn't directly cause low birth rates. What it does, is encourage stupid behavior, which goes against biology...that's what drives down the birth rate.
So it's the same in Japan as in America. Elon Musk explains this in his video "No More Kids"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bullitt1017 You are wrong. Here's why:
First of all, the American birth rate is at an all time historic low. Look it up. That's just a fact, Jack.
Second, biology is, what it is. All societies have planned themselves around young women having children, because that is the only population that can have children. Again, just biology.
Third, I don't see everything in absolutes. For instance: Ben Shapiro interviewed Christina Hoff Sommers, the prominent feminist. Dr. Sommers explained the 20-60-20 rule. It goes like this: When polled, about 20% of young women prefer to work full time, have a career rather than a family. About 20% of women prefer to be full-time stay at home Moms, if they had a choice. And about 60% of women prefer to work part time, be a Mom part time.
I simply say: we need to change the economic rules so that women who prefer to be full time Moms, can financially afford to do so. They can't right now. Also feminists stigmatize women who prefer to be Moms, over careers. That has to stop.
1
-
1
-
What happened to our American sense of humor? CNBC is full of dimwits. Like Andrew Ross Sorkin.....who claims: Trump is Hitler. Is that true? No, Trump has a Jewish daughter, Jewish grandchildren, nitwits. Hitler would not have Jewish grandchildren. That's the flaw in Andrew's logic. Andrew is Jewish. Think about that.
Jewish Americans used to have a sense of humor about the War or Hitler, even though they had family that lived through it. Jokes, they had. Johnny Carson once said to Joan Rivers, there were a whole lot of Jewish American comedians, many of them Johnny's friends. Jews used to know humor. They were the face of American comedy, after the war. The list is endless....
Andrew Ross Sorkin, the "journalist" questioning Bill Ackman? Andrew is Jewish, went to Cornell. He's quite smart. So why does he believe the lies about Trump?.....Andrew Sorkin is a liar, is my guess. I refuse to believe someone who went to Cornell could be that dumb. As Bill Ackman said, the claim that Trump admires Hitler is absurd.
He's either stupid or a liar. My money would be on: Andrew is a liar. He's not that dumb.
We used to laugh more, when journalists like Andrew didn't lie so much.
Jewish people are often comedians, funny. Comedy requires a grasp on reality, plus truth telling. Where did that go, on the political left? It's full of liars like Andrew Ross Sorkin, telling absurd lies no one in their right minds, would believe. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Ross is born without humor. A dead fish inside.
Why are some young Jewish journalists like Andrew so absurd, believing or claiming to believe, such nonsense....like Trump is Hitler? I think maybe it's a generational thing:
I once went to a Don Rickles concert. Don had served his country, in the war. Rickles called a bunch of people onto the stage, to talk to. He asked everyone their ethnicity. He did ethic jokes. One guy in the line said, "I'm German-American". Rickles proceeded to roast the guy, said, "Let me make you feel welcome".....then Don goose stepped around the stage, thrusting his arm into the air. The audience roared with laughter, to the point of tears. Don was funny. And Jewish. What happened to our American sense of humor? The young generation are sometimes clueless, self righteous twits on the political left, like Andrew Ross Sorkin. Spoiled children of privilege, feasting on the 2nd hand experience of a previous generation....not getting the jokes. Why?
The left is full of these humorless creeps. I once saw a video of young Justin Trudeau sitting, talking to George Soros, now in his 90s, George lived through the war as a Jewish teenager, George did horrible things. The young Justin was all ears, absorbing the experience of the war, in his twisted way. And that idiot Trudeau once claimed a Canadian Member of Parliament was a Nazi. The problem came out: she had relatives in Auschwitz. And then Justin invited an actual living Nazis, now in his 90s, to the Canadian Parliament, as an honored guest. Why? He's an idiot. No vetting, based on reality. Why so many left wing idiots on this issue? Where is our sense of proportion, humor? The political left used to be smart. They used to be the smart ones. No more. They have become stupid. I think Bill Ackman is picking up on that.
Hogan's Heroes was a great show, a comedy in the 1960s. Not long after World War II. The show was about a German Prisoner of War Camp, with Nazis running the camp, with American prisoners of war. The Nazi camp guard characters were played by Jewish actors like John Bannerman, Robert Clarey, and Wernerer Kemperer, Leon Askin. Andrew Ross Sorkin is the sort of lying dimwit would would fail to see the humor in a bunch of Jewish actors pretending to be Nazis. Too subtle for his 2 X 4 he calls a brain. Why was the Hogan's heroes show funny? I guess you have to live through the times, to get the humor. Just like Don Rickles.
Andrew is Gen R.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Education today is based on resentment and lies of omission. That's what post-modernism and the 1619 project are. That's how they brainwash young people into lack of gratitude. Young people lack context. Why is that? Their lives are quite different than previous generation. They enjoy comfort beyond what their ancestors could imagine. They judge the past, out of that comfort.
Comfort ruins education and society and people: I was listening to Konstantin Kisin, interviewed on John Anderson channel. Growing up, KK heard personal family stories from his grandparents about many horrors in Russia and the Soviet Union. This gave KK lessons in life. Very unusual for a young man today. I heard similar stories about the horrors of communism back in 1971, firsthand from Soviet writer Haralan Popoff, who wrote the book "Tortured for His Faith." He spoke at my church on one occasion when I was young.
Here's how life lessons usually go bad: Once people have material comfort, it quickly ruins them. This affects politics. Looking back: I admired the old Kennedy Democrats, the "classical liberals" because they actually cared about the working and middle class. Why? How did this political pattern of care happen? Many earlier Democrats had roots in the working class, were immigrants or children of immigrants from Eastern Europe. People like KK's grandparents. Democrat writers like Studs Terkel came out of the American working class. That was very, very good for America. Then it was ruined, by time.
Time passed, a generation moved on. Then the wealthy liberal children and grandchildren grew up in wealth, so the American elite is now dominated by these spoiled children of wealth, descendants of Kennedy Democrats. Harvard and CNBC, CNN newsrooms and the Democrat Party are now dominated by their grandchildren. Anderson Cooper is heir to an old money fortune. These are the spoiled very rich people, who are prominent in Democrat politics. Similar in Hollywood. You can read about it in An Empire of Their Own, by Neil Gabler. Hollywood used to be good, used to like America thanks to those poor immigrants. Now thanks to the grandchildren of the people who founded it, now Hollywood is a horror show of progressive nonsense. Just like Democrats.
Same with progressive ideas and academia. It was ruined by post-modernism and Gender Studies and the 1619 Project and many other progressive intellectual horror shows. That's why our elite, believe such stupid things. It affects everyone. The foolish children of the elite you can see this in all communities now. Comfort ruined them.
That's why Democrats are no longer the good party. That's why Donald Trump had to come into power. To save the American middle class from these people. The old Kennedy Democrats were heroes. Their grandchildren run Woke and big corporations. Now along comes Konstantin. KK, because of the life stories of his parents, is a very good young man because of those stories he heard from his grandparents. He's married now, will be a father. Will his children be ruined? I hope not.
🍺🍻🍻
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know how Trump does it. He has genius insights. Like on Canada.
The head scratcher: He knows very little about Canadian politics, I'd guess. But he correctly joked an intuition of his: that he could make Justin Trudeau a Governor of an American state, by turning Canada into an American state. How does he come up with this stuff? Canada becoming part of the United States? It could happen. Not likely, but it could happen. That's unlikely to happen, but here is how it could happen:
In a paragraph, all Trump has to do, is say the following few sentences in public: "I hear the Canadian Province of Quebec is having a vote, to see if they can be a separate country, from Canada. Lots of French speaking people in Quebec. I'll respect the outcome of that vote."
That's it. All he has to do. How that would end Canada, make it part of the United States:
Donald Trump made a remark recently, he was interested in buying Greenland from Denmark.
Why President Trump's remarks on making Canada part of the U.S. is based on realistic things:
In 1993 Quebec had a referendum vote on sovereignty. Leaving Canada. The Leave Canada side of the French population in Quebec almost won. They barely beat the remain in Canada side. The difference was about 2,000 votes. That's a tiny margin. That's a very small town's population, in Ontario. And the thing to note is, 20% of Quebec are not French-Canadian. They are a variety of English speakers, not French in origin. They all voted to stay in Canada. The remain in Canada side started with a 20 point lead. Barely won. This means a large majority of the 80% French original population in Quebec, voted to leave Canada.
What would Canada look like, if Quebec left? Here's the math:
-50% of the remaining Canadians would be in 1 Province: Ontario
-50% of Canadians would be in PEI, Nfld, NS, NB, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia
The way Canada would work at that point is, if Quebec left Canada: Ontario would do pretty much anything they wanted, that was in Ontario's interest....not much the rest of Canada could do about it. Why? Ontario would have half the population. They have the population numbers in Ontario, to dominate Canada, if Quebec leaves.
That's a political fracture line. In the past few decades, a new political party emerged: the Reform Party of Ezra Levant. The Canadian guy behind Rebel News. Rubin Report had him on. A few years ago. Ezra knows the retired leader of Reform, Preston Manning, used to work with him, long term friends. Reform emerged because of political frustration with Ontario's overwhelming political power in Canada, how politically unbalanced that made Canada. Almost impossible to govern such an unbalanced geographically big country, with almost all the political power, in one Province. Ezra Levant knows this stuff, like the back of his hand. Lived it.
Would such a political balance be stable, functional?...if Quebec left Canada, Ontario dominated the rest of Canada? I don't think so. Canada would fall apart. What keeps Canada together is Quebec. Why? Quebec has a big population. French is the main language there, based on history. Quebec balances off Ontario in power, gives Canada a bilingual identity. Without Quebec, Canada is a bunch of cold Americans. Not much difference left then, between Canadians and Americans.
If Trump ever signals, he'd respect a vote on Quebec sovereignty, Canada could be finished. It would fall apart, the rest of Canada would eventually become states, join the Union.
When Justin was a toddler, his dad Pierre was Prime Minister of Canada. Pierre took toddler Justin along, in his meeting with Richard Nixon. Pierre was Prime Minister of Canada in the 1960s, 1970s. His dad Pierre was well aware that the United States was 10X the economy of Canada, had all the power, plus Canada has no real military, can't defend itself, has a 5,000 mile undefended border. And 90% of Canadians live in 4 urban areas, within an hour's drive of the American border. It would take the United States military a weekend to take over Canada. With time to stop at Tim Horton for coffee breaks.
One thing Pierre Trudeau did to destroy Canada, he started a policy continued by his son Justin continued, a policy of endless immigration, without building enough houses for newcomers. That destroyed affordability of owning a home for young people, while making boomer home owners rich.
This forced young Canadians with long roots in their country, to be unable to afford a home. That's not how it was in previous generations. The Trudeaus destroyed Canada, the Canadian Dream. This betrayal started with Pierre. It's an intergenerational elitist project to destroy Canada. Look up wiki, "Power Corporation of Canada"....a bunch of globalist billionaires with ties to WEF. Former employees and family list: Pierre and Justin Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin. It you add the numbers, how long they all were Prime Minister, you can say: About 70% of the time since the middle of the Beatles era, the Canadian Prime Minister was a globalist who used to work for international billionaires.
The betrayal of young Canadians, has deep roots in the Trudeau family. It's an inter-generational elitist project. You will own nothing. And be happy.
Canada is not a real country. Not really sovereign. It's Puerto Rico, with snow. It's a 35 year old, living in it's parent's basement. Or alternatively, Canada is geographically, America's hat. 🤠 It relies on the United States for it's survival. In terms of trade dollars, Canadian trade is a very small percentage of the American economy, but American trade is a huge part of most Canadian provincial economies.
Canada is an accident of history. Pierre Trudeau once said, "Living with America on a continent, if you are Canada, is like a mouse sleeping in a bed with an elephant. You just hope the elephant doesn't roll over in the middle of the night" Quite right, Pierre.
🐘🐭🐁🛌The Elephant just cracked a joke, that it might roll over. Governor Trudeau?
1
-
🐘🐭🐁🛌Canadian Tariffs understood, by way of a joke about an Elephant & a Mouse: The Canadian economy relies quite heavily on the American economy. But the American economy doesn't rely much, on Canada. About 90% of Canadians live within 1 hour drive of the U.S. border, in 4 major city metropolitan areas. Ontario & Quebec are by far, the two biggest provinces & economies in Canada. Both rely on American trade for about 15% of their provincial economy, last time I checked.
In general, Canada is far more reliant economically, on the U.S., than the other way around. All American states rely on Canada for about 1% of the state's GDP....not much. Not much at all. Except Michigan, which is a bit higher, because of Detroit. Plus: The entire Canadian economy is about 1/10 the American economy.
So....Canada is vulnerable to American tariffs, but is the U.S. vulnerable to Canadian tariffs?...two way vulnerability? Not so much. Canada is sort of, Puerto Rico, with snow. 🏂🏔🌨❄☃Not really sovereign. Don't even have a real army or navy, can't protect their own borders, relies on the U.S. Not a real country.
Justin Trudeau is the current Canadian Prime Minister. I remember his dad: Pierre. His dad Pierre was Prime Minister in the 1960s and 1970s. Pierre took toddler Justin, to meet Nixon once. Pierre understood this economic relationship, strong vs. weak. Long ago, Pierre once joked, "Being a Canadian is like being a Mouse, sleeping in a bed with an Elephant. You just go to sleep, hoping the elephant never rolls over!"
Elephant & Mouse Economics: The elephant just rolled over. 🛌🐘🐭🐁
1
-
1
-
I'm pro-choice, but: Birth control is cheap, widely available. There is no excuse for 60 million abortions. I'm all for women controlling their own body, But: Roe vs. Wade is about no accountability for women, letting women off their offspring. I looked up the free U.S. Abortion Clock: 64 million abortions. We were told it would be rare, when it was legalized in the early 1970s.
But I wonder, without judging women: Why do so many women get pregnant, despite wide-spread knowledge of how not to get pregnant?...plus endless birth control. Women are not stupid. They know how to avoid pregnancy. Yet they still get pregnant so often. Why? Why did birth control fail? Why are they pregnant so often, in the first place? Why don't women avoid pregnancy, since it has never been easier to do? I think the truth is: I think young women are fighting their own instincts. They know they could get pregnant. It's what they want. They want to be moms....but their left wing social programming in schools screws them up, into behaving badly, getting pregnant and then aborting.
We need to face the truth: young women want to get pregnant, have families, very badly. We need to help them in every way, to do so. Make life good for them. Stop encouraging them to focus on careers over family. Set up social and financial incentives so young women in their 20s can chose life, over abortion. Just banning abortion, with no help for young women? No thanks. That's evil. Churches should get involved. Help these young women. They want to be moms. That's why they're aborting. Let's help young women, stop condemning them. Men have just as much responsibility for this, as women. Life is a beautiful thing.👶🤰🤱👰♀
1
-
1
-
Life between the sexes is a deal. The Bible figured out the basics, in the Torah, Genesis 3:16. Men are supposed to protect and provide, women have life. That's the basis of most marriage, family, Western Civilization really. Of course the deal needs updated due to technology, but the basic deal is still the same. Nowadays: Poll data shows young women are trending heavily politically progressive, young men are trending conservative. Why?
These trend lines seem to indicate, men and women want different things, but appearances are deceptive:
Most young people want family, both men and women. Young men are trending conservative because that's the side most favorable to young men, who want a traditional life, family. Male biological interest is not represented in feminism. But young women also want family. So they have chosen feminism and Big Government to stick up for female biological interest...using Big Government money...
Interesting political fact that points to an explanation: 80% of young single women in their 20s, vote Democrat. Then married women over time, trend more conservative. And the overall political trend is, Democrats are becoming the Party of Women. Republicans are becoming the Party of Men. The question is Why?
My guess: The government has replaced the male role in marriage. How? Women like resources, young single women look to government for answers and resources. Governments are failing women, Big Government is a mess, doesn't help women have better lives. On the conservative/Republican side, our answers are failing women too. We need new answers for family formation. 5 years ago, Tucker Carlson had a video: The American Dream is Dying....outlining the problem:
Young women still prefer young men that are capable, economic winners. DEI reduces the number of young men who are winning. So women now have a shortage of mates. Our feminist answers don't work, because the genders only work together, so putting in place policies that only help women, end up hurting women in the long run...because we rise or sink together. Feminist policies like DEI help women...short term...plus hurt men. Then in the long run, the DEI policies hurt women, as they reduce the number of men in the population who are motivated and capable of having families. The gov't screwed this up royally, by only listening to feminists.
Vivek R. talks about the government role in this, in his recent conversation with Tom Bilyeu. Young women are looking to government for resources, to help them juggle work life, plus family. The real problem is that government DEI/Woke policy mostly benefits women, not men. We already tried that. It did not work. it was called The Great Society in the 1960s. Thomas Sowell talks about this, Vivek also mentioned this in his talk with Tom B. What's needed is help for young people....but only as a committed couple...to start a family, buy a home, build a life....rather than just helping one gender, over the other.
Young women & young men both want the same thing: family and a normal life. The American Dream. But the female Woke answer: involve big government, DEI, rig the system against men...it mostly doesn't work....because its a gov't attack on the people women need and cherish: men
And on the male/conservative/Republican side, our policy makers provide no answers to young couples. Proof? The birth rate is at an all time historic low. We aren't even reproducing Americans. Why? One of the great failures of feminism is they look at female interest only, not male interest, not the interest of married couples who want families.
Why did feminism fail? Why is Woke/DEI failing?
Feminism is about dissecting society into two basic genders, then villainizing half the population, putting them at war with each other, while replacing males in the work force. Feminist Woke ideology contains ideas that benefit females, not males, not couples. It's quite sexist, in the misandry sense...not liking men.
So what's the answer?
The answer to this all is public policy that benefits both genders, helps them start a life together. That will only work if family is restored. When I was a kid, almost all families had dads in the home. Today, 50% of children are born to single moms. And prison data shows 85% of men in jail....black or white...started life in a single mom home. We are failing.
Feminism is terribly divisive, it's failed answers are a result of only seeing things from a female point of view, then rigging the system around that.....rather than realize men and women only succeed if both genders succeed, we need answers that benefit both women & men. The answers, whatever they are, they are certainly not DEI/Woke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Think about evolution and how it impacts voting: Women live longer than men, so it turns out 55% of all voters are women. They decide every election. If you look up voting patterns for single women in her 20s, they vote 80% Democrat.....because Democrats offer them help.
Our social patterns are all wrong now: Morgan Stanley Investors have a free online article called "Rise of the Sheeconomy". They give investment advice, based on social trends. They claim that soon, nearly half of American women of child bearing age, between 20 and 45, will be childless and unmarried. The American birth rate is plummeting. About 50% of children in America are born to single moms. In the book The Boy Crisis, Dr. Warren Farrell has the data on how well boys do, when raised by single moms: 85% of men in prison, regardless of race, were raised in single mom homes. Clearly American life is broken. Yes, I agree with Dennis: large government doesn't work. Small government is best. Trouble is, unless women get local help, small government will never work. Women will reject it, as they should. Conservatives like Dennis are well meaning, but have failed women. And young couples. Conservatives don't really have any good answers, to help young people get married and lead good lives. So the young, particularly women, vote left. That's a tragedy. So our government will continue to grow, as women vote in Democrats, for the husband they don't have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MAGA and the CIA. The problem with the CIA is everyone knows it's there to interfere with other societies, start wars, all for the goal of making the world safe for corporations to exploit. It's all about continuing American dominance, globally. But people have caught on: this is a fraud.
How so? Wealth and political power in America, for a variety of reasons, evolved to mostly benefit the managerial class, mostly people in the north east, where most elite universities are, to draw upon for CIA employees. We have wealth concentration, so that all this adventurism globally, mostly goes to the prestige and financial benefit of at most the top 20% of Americans.
Victor Davis Hanson was interviewed by Megyn Kelly 3 days ago, he talked about how politics can be understood in America as a contest between economic classes, with the college educated having a whole bunch of social beliefs that are completely at odds with the rest of the population. That's true. It also reflects what I said, wealth concentrations and a set of ideas about the how the world works, this has patterns for who benefits from the projection of American power. In America the pattern is the elite patterns of the CIA view of the world, really is about the college educated benefitting from American adventurism around the world. It's an upper middle class racket, especially a racket of the 1%. Patriotism is now about being enthusiastic about the American elite getting richer around the globe. For instance Black Rock wants to exploit Ukraine, Joe Biden blew up the Nordstream pipeline, so that Russia would be hurt, so that Iraq could replace Russia, as Europe's gas station. That's why we are going to war with Iran, to weaken Iran while we continue to build up Iraq to balance out Iran. To me this geo-political game seems obvious and again this is just rich Americans manipulating politics and using the working class to go fight their wars, since the Army is not a draft anymore, it's the working class 'volunteering' for the Army. Then it's rich Americans making money in Iraq or Ukraine or wherever American power is projected. The nub of it all is American power is projected for the benefit of the few in America, not the many. We should be patriotic about this? We should all turn into cheer leaders for the rich, while getting nothing out of it? No. Not so much. That's a very bad social deal, for most people. Nothing in it for most Americans. Don't make me laugh.
The only real objection I have to the CIA running the world, all this is the same time as the American elite are trying to run the world, as all empires do, is the same American elite is simultaneously trying to actively screw over, the bottom 80% of the country. Then, the bottom 80% is supposed to enthusiastically get aboard with the American elite view of things, go fight their wars, so the wealthiest Americans, the Larry Finks, can run the world and make more money for themselves. No thanks. We should all be enthusiastic about wealthy Americans running the world, using the government, for their own benefit....while most people's lives get no better, and often worse? No thanks. In other words the American elite agenda is everything for themselves, while power and wealth is concentrated in a small part of the population. Start cheering America? To which most Americans react by MAGA and by electing Donald Trump in the maybe naïve belief that he can reverse the exploitation of the bottom 80%, by the American financial elite. MAGA is just Americans reacting to the social order, realizing the elites are not on their side, they really aren't then many Americans telling them to go take a hike.
The border is just one more example, we're supposed to protect Ukraine's border, obviously so Larry Fink can exploit Ukraine. Same time our elites push Open Borders, to flood America with hard working fine people who take our jobs, drive down wages for the bottom 80%, both black and white. Open Borders has a curious effect: most fine people coming here have low levels of education. They aren't lining up to be doctors and engineers. So they don't drive down wages for the top 20%. Open Borders tends to hurt the poorest Americans, black and white, the most, since most people who come here can do most jobs done by Americans with lower education levels. So Open Borders is obviously the elite Americans screwing over, the middle and lower classes. And MAGA is telling our elites, we've caught on, we noticed, we're not quite as stupid as you obviously think we are, the social order is the American elites get everything, run the world, while our elites actively screwing over most Americans. And this is the thing we should support? lol....no. Memo to Martha's Vineyard: we've caught on.
Life's a deal. The American deal is great for the rich, horrible for 80% of the country.
1
-
Elon Musk does a lot of business in China. He said one of the differences is they are more serious about education, have more smart people than us, for engineers and such. China has 5X the American population. Our culture is better for innovation. But our best innovators in the past. were based on who was best mostly. Not on the current nonsense, are you the right skin color or religion or gender?
One of our big American cultural mistakes in the past, Alan Dershowitz talks about this: He's 80, remembers when universities were "Woke" in times past, put quotas on Jews in America. That meant a lot of talented kids could not get ahead. Then thankfully that changed, for the better. But not before we ruined a lot of lives, threw away a lot of talent. That was Woke 1.0
Now? The new Woke 2.0 don't like Jewish people again, but the change is, the new Woke 2.0 is also coming after Christians too. We're the new Jews. Especially white male Christians. Your grandad's Woke was anti-Semitic. The new Woke is anti-Semitic and anti-Christian. They expanded their bigotry.
I was listening to Candace Owens yesterday talk to a young white guy, at Turning Points. He asked her for advice on how to navigate current culture in America, as a straight white male. Candace was pretty blunt: America is rigged against you as a straight white male, things are rigged against you now, especially DEI. See: "Candace Owen's Honest Message to Straight White Males" Turning Points USA.
By the way, they won't stop at straight white males or Jews or Christians. No way: gay Americans are next.
Dave Rubin is gay. I'm fine with that. But one curiosity in the economic data, is that gay men have higher incomes and education levels on average, than straight men. I could care less about this. But it's a fact, where one group is doing better than another. Dave works hard. He deserves his success. But where is this going? It seems obvious: given our current crazy trajectory on Woke DEI, which insists on equal outcome for all groups, it's only a matter of time before Democrats and the Woke turn on gay men like Dave, put on quotas. After all, they are doing well. Woke people resent success.
Oh yeah. Dave's gonna be a target. I'm sure he knows that. 🎯
Recommended video: History Debunked, today, "How affirmative action in British and American universities aligns well with Nazi ideology"
I'm a practical guy. I'm not just about, what's the right thing. I'm also about, what works best? Lack of bigotry works best. Diversity with quotas ruins everything. But: Diversity with no quotas? That helps the best of any group, succeed, so all succeed. Diversity is fine. It's a strength...so long as we judge fairly on an individual basis, not on group identity. Following up on Elon Musk's observation about all the talent in China our kids will compete with, this century:
If America wants to compete with China, which has 5X our population, they have lots of smart people, way more than us, that's a big advantage for them. So to compete, we better start honoring the talent we have, whatever it's religion, orientation or gender.
The Chinese have an interesting history. One of the things they have done well for thousands of years, is all advancement is based on merit. The best people move forward.
In America, as AOC reminded us, we put Ankle Bracelets on the best Presidential candidates, so they can't run. The Woke people want Trump in jail. The best thing the next American President can do to help our economic future as a country, is to end Woke.
Trump: "Everything Woke turns to 💩"
Vivek: "I'll end Woke. I wrote a book about it."
Me: Trump/Vivek 2024
1
-
1
-
@TheHigherVoltage Horses? Mules? Carts? You rely on those for your argument? You want to throw in a bow and arrow while you are at it? A stone axe?
When Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade Russia, they both learned geography the same country: Russia is a big country, with a very nasty winter. You would have thought Hitler would know better, he had the fool Napoleon to follow. Both tried to fight the Russian winter and lost. Turns out, snowflakes are quite powerful. ❄☃❄
Russia got excited about Crimea and the Black Sea during the Obama years, because they wanted to keep their only fresh water port alive, for shipping goods, as it connects to the Mediterranean. Again, geography rivers and transportation.
Rome has a Mediterranean climate. Good for moving stuff around in boats. Trade. Moving people. Moving armies. All roads led to Rome because roads can be built more easily in warm climates. That's why civilization tends to start in warm climates, not Siberia near The Arctic Circle.
Just now in this day and age, China is getting around to building The Silk Road, connecting China to Russia, Western Europe, the Middle East. Kind of late, huh? No not really. For various reasons it took this long for it to happen.
All your comments on Mongols are a waste. That happened long ago and no consistent large trade took place between Western Europe, and Russia. This was important in the big picture because it is the countries of Western Europe who more or less invented the modern world. Russia was on the periphery of all that.
Helmuth Nyborg from Denmark catalogued all that technical scientific development, put a map on it, where it happened. The map fits with what I wrote: the modern world came out of Western Europe, Russia was cut off from that history, was on the periphery, due to geography.
You ever actually tried to ride a horse? I have. Damn hard. That's why most invasions, tend to be as local as possible. Germany attacks France, or England attacks Scotland, that kind of thing. Easier to do, that's all, if it's local. Less energy. Takes a lot of energy to ride from Mongolia to Budapest. Walking? Forgetaboutit...For a Russian to get on a horse and end up in France, seems very unlikely. That's why it almost never happened. Same with moving goods. Try moving some stuff in an ox cart, you'll find out.
That's also why people make comments here. Easy to do. 😆Try writing a book.
Old saying: "Americans learn geography by invading countries and blowing them up.".....you American? 😂
1
-
@TheHigherVoltage You claimed: Russia was, and still is, comprised of a wide variety of peoples and cultures.
No, Russia is 80% ethnic Russian. It's largely an ethno-state, like China.
Wiki on Russian demographics: Some four-fifths of the Russian population was of European descent according to the 2010 census,[21] counting Slavs and with a substantial minority of Finnic peoples and Germans. The 2010 census recorded roughly 81% of the population as ethnic Russians, and rest of the 19% of the population as other minorities belonging to over 190 ethnic groups across the country.
You claimed: Russia was never cut off from Europe geographically.
Look at a map. West European countries are smaller, closer to the Atlantic, rivers sometimes flow between European countries. Geography has a big effect. One thing that made the U.S. was we have a huge Mississippi River system, connects the middle third of country, made developing it easy, as water is cheap to float stuff on, move people and goods around. Plus we had the Great Lakes.
Russia is huge. Till recently the technology to move things and people, relied on boats. That's hard for Russia since it has rivers emptying into the Arctic Ocean, not connecting it with Europe.
You claim quoting me: "Democracy is one of those things that works best, develops best, in a slow and organic way....if at all."
Your claim about me: Huh? Every time democracy has been introduced, it's been done as a 'flick of the switch' between authoritarian rule into a democratic rule. A simple example is the US and French revolutions." end quote
My answer: Flick of the switch? No.
Read Winston S. Churchill's book series "A History of the English Speaking Peoples". It took England about 800 years to slowly and organically, put in place and develop, the basics of democracy. America was a colony of Britain, so it was relatively easy for the Americans to take what they were given from the Mother Country, fine tune and make it better. The French Revolution? It was covered in blood. No thanks.
I am in favor of democracy, I just don't push other people, to be like me. You do. Russia is none of our business. Go make your own life better, before improving the world. And I'll make mine better. Do something, for your own town or city or family.
1
-
@TheHigherVoltage Russia has a bunch of rivers that flow northward, into the Arctic Ocean. And they have a big land mass. Very big. This meant for their history, Russians were largely cut off from the rest of European life, especially the Enlightenment and Renaissance. A few Russian Czars tried to integrate Russia into Europe, bringing in French and German engineers to build Petrograd. (Also called Leningrad or St. Peter's) The point is, for geographic reasons, Russia was cut off from the rest of Europe for a very long time. It's really not at all like the rest of Europe. It's on a different timeline.
Your comment reminds me of George W. Bush wanting to introducing democracy into Iraq, nation-building, while being completely ignorant of the vast, long and complex history of that region. Doesn't work. Democracy is one of those things that works best, develops best, in a slow and organic way....if at all. Neo-cons were fools. $7 Trillion dollars later, most Americans can see that John Bolton is a fool. Leave people alone. Stop bothering them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Understanding Justin Trudeau:
What did our leaders know about this covid-19?...at the start? Not much.
Our leaders didn’t know much. About covid-19. That’s the point, about Trudeau.
In defense of Justin: How could anyone know, in such a short time? You can’t. That's why we have been cautious about vaccines in the past: we are usually aware of our ignorance and we used to know, we should be cautious. I can not blame Justin for not knowing about the virus. But I can blame him for being clueless and reckless and many other things. Testing vaccines usually takes years, for a good reason. That’s why the drug usually takes years to test and roll out.
Our leaders were afraid. And weak. And they didn’t know if this pandemic would mutate to something lethal. No one knew. Those are the unknown unknowns, to quote Donald Rumsfeld.
Our leaders were trying to manage the public’s fear. So they lied, claimed more knowledge, than they had. Justin is the Prime Minister Cartman. He wants you to respect his authority. Justin claimed to have more control, than Prime Minister Cartman actually had.
What Justin wasn't honest about, was the risk of the virus, about how little we knew about the virus, and how they were rushing production of the virus, and how deadly that decision might be. He's a reckless fool who doesn't know his own limitations and isn't honest about it.
Governments are about control. Maintaining control. That’s why they lied. I knew that was a joke, from the start. You can’t control a virus. Justin lied to maintain some sense of authority, to tell people, he Justin could control this virus, if we only listened to him. All hail Emperor Justin. Trouble is, the Emperor had no clothes. And not a lot of grey matter. I laughed at that notion of Justin claiming control of the virus, from the start. So stupid, so obviously untrue. I knew everyone would end up getting the virus, there was no stopping it. And I said so. And I was right. 99% of people now, have been exposed to the virus, the science says. Follow the science: These things can’t be stopped. They show us who is boss: Mother Nature, not Justin Trudeau, pitiful little fool that he is. Egocentric Justin, thinks we should look up to him. I never did. A Trust Fund Prime Minister. Justin stumbled into the job, via his dad’s name. Justin's the George W. Bush of Canada.
People can accept risk, if you are honest with them, about the risk.
To me his behavior shows not so much lying, as contempt. Justin lied because he has contempt for the public, think they are not worth an honest answer. And he thinks too much of himself, at your expense.
Why did Justin handle things this badly? Lack of trust of the public, didn’t think they were worth, telling the truth to, looking down on people.
These are Justin’s real problem, why he deserves to be thrown out. He thinks we are all fools.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackdeniston59 Maybe you missed my 2nd comment. I said "-local nurses, trained at regular American universities". I'm not for throwing out modernity. Not at all.
But: The Masai were doing fine 5,000 years ago, before Christianity was invented. So your comment on Masai living on our indulgence is false. Masai are obviously very poor, at a level I don't want to live at. I like my smart phone and organic veggies. If you looked at how Masai were dressed and their houses, you'd know your comment was not true.
My idea is not to go back to the primitive, it's to figure out the evolutionary principles that are eternal, then base our gov't policies on those time-tested principles.
...Our Lorrie stopped by the side of the road near the village, the Masai women ran up to our windows to sell us jewelry. We got out but didn't go to the village. So there was no village set up, no paid set up.
My comments and observations were gleaned by listening to our black African guide, who was not a Masai, but grew up in Kenya, so we didn't go mingle in the village on a tourist set up. So there was no paying Masai for our visit, it was an impromptu stop at the side of the road, to allow the Masai men and women to try to sell us locally made products like local wood carvings of African animals and jewelry.
We Americans can have our cake and eat it too. We can keep our modern conveniences, but better organize our lives, but let's remove ourselves from this god awful modern pattern that led to BLM.
I disagree with those people who think BLM is the problem. White people and the patterns of modern life that we invented, are the problem. Our technology is wonderful, but our social organization is stupid. It's out of whack with evolution. It makes everyone miserable and produces rioters. We are creating these problems, BLM is a symptom, it's not the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why Josh Hawley is well meaning about men, but wrong: He keeps telling young men to step it up. This is good advice, in a world that is set up with the correct incentives. We don't have that world. How to fix this problem:
I was listening to Dr. Jordan Peterson talk about how women select men. Turns out women are wired by nature, to select men who have more status than they do. It's called hyper-gamy. See: The Number One Reason Why Women Ruin Their Marriage & End up Lonely! on Motivity Channel.
Women select high status men. Here's the problem with feminism and modern life and women competing against men for status: The real problem for women is, women are now 60-70% of college students, as feminists rigged schools, to favor girls over boys. Professor Scott Galloway has videos on this. Problem for women: Education and income are highly correlated with perception of status. Women choose on the basis of perceived status of men. Problem feminists created for women: When women outnumber men in high status occupations, there is no one for the women, to have families with. This means feminists have created for younger women, a permanent shortage of men for mating. That's called ideology blowing up in their faces.....because feminist ideology conflicts with nature, with evolution, with what women actually want....which is high status men, as explained by Dr. Peterson.
Now Rollo Tomassi, author of The Rational Male, said that "Within a few years, about 50% of American women between the ages of 25 and 45, will be childless and single, this has never happened before, in history." Our new social pattern of feminism, is blowing up in women's faces. Help women. How?
Another problem: A female Scottish scientist figured out the numbers on female fertility. (See Paul Joseph Watson video, Empty Egg Carton) Female fertility, is very different than male fertility. We need to follow the rules of evolution, not make up ideological nonsense: Larry King fathered children in his 70. Men can do that. Women can't. For women, basically it is game over for having a family, by the time she is age 35. This is terrible for women, as it conflicts with modern economics. Give women, a break please. Feminism was set up, for women to economically compete for status, with men, during a woman's most fertile years, when she evolved to have a family. This is bad for women. Very bad. If she wants a family. No wonder the American birth rate, marriage rate, is at an all time low.
The solution? Increase the status of males. My solution is easy: Very very generous tax breaks, for women with 4+ children. As Thomas Sowell said, "You get more of what you subsidize". They do this in Hungary, as Dave has said, as did Ben Shapiro in his Triggernometry appearance. Also generous tax breaks for all couples who get married and have a family. Not for single unmarried women. This would mean, in the eyes of a young woman, that her marrying a young man who is not doing as well as she is, he is still very valuable to her, he still has high status, because marrying him helps her out, economically. We need to rig the tax code for all married couples both straight and gay, so that marrying young men becomes a much better deal, for mainly young women. This means we need to help women, by advantaging young men, over women. Why? That's actually the way nature works. Just favoring women over men, basic feminism, just means screwing over the chances of a young woman, finding a husband. We have it backwards.
So it's great that Josh Hawley is telling young men to step up, be good dads. But how to do this? Give young women very good tax breaks, if the women, who do the choosing, if the women decide to start a family.
1
-
1
-
Progressives want to sort out people, judge people, based on what group they belong to. I say no, Martin Luther King was right, still is right. Do we really want to sort out equality on the basis of group identity? Rather than the individual? Dave's Jewish. I like Jewish people. Here's one problem with the Woke Equality Agenda, of group identity sorting, having to do with ethnicity:
Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin are good friends. Dr. Peterson has lots of Jewish friends. That ethnic group is very common in higher education like Harvard, where Dr. Peterson taught. The figure I found was about 25% of Ivy League professors are Jewish. That culture embraces education. Same with the student body. About 25% of the Ivy Leagues are Jewish. But it comes with a back story: That ethnic group really was oppressed in history. No doubt about it, I've visited Anne Franke House in Amsterdam.
I still remember life in the Martin Luther King era. That's when American anti-Semitism was still around, much stronger, people got turned away from medical school back then. One famous Hollywood guy grew up in my neighborhood, Jewish guy, he got the very top marks at the local university in science, but could not get into medical school. Too smart, too Jewish to be a doctor. They had quotas back then. That was still happening back then.
Woke is about sticking up for who is oppressed. Is Dave Rubin oppressed?
Today, 50% of Joe Biden's Cabinet is Jewish, but only 1% of Americans are Jewish. Are they still oppressed? If you look up the richest 25 American billionaires, who collectively have much more money than well over half the American population, about half are Jewish or have a Jewish parent. Are they still oppressed? Do they need special protection? Identifying by group opens a can of worms that will lead to endless bitter fighting. Everyone thinks they had a harder time, than someone else. So who do we help? It won't be white Christian males. Our elite hate them now. You know where that kind of hatred and bigotry will go: white males fight back.
Woke is about so called White Privilege. Problem: The bottom 50% of white Americans have about 5% of the country's wealth. The truth is: White privilege only really applies to the very top of the white Christian population. The Woke don't care, because they hate white Christians. Even judging all Jewish people, based on a few Jewish people being rich, is stupid: In the same way as most Jewish people are pretty ordinary, just a few are super rich....just like Christians.
But: If Woke is right, if white privilege is real and we must equalize all outcomes in society, are we going to go back to anti-Semitism, to even things out? Jewish quotas again? After all, if you go by group, they have privilege now. Hitler felt the same way. He was Woke. Just say no to Woke.
The Jewish population is interesting. Over 90% vote Democrat, many are Progressives, like Bernie Sanders, whose parents told him first hand, about how they suffered in the war. Many are secular, don't care much about their religious background, but are nonetheless far over-represented in wealth stats. Many Jewish people are quite Woke. Considering their past, no wonder so many Jewish people seem to want to over-correct society for past sins. But: What are they going to do about their own ethnic group, outperforming other groups now? Are they going to hide reality, under a rug?
Maybe it's just genetics. Jordan Peterson once said, their average IQ is around 110 and if that's true, small differences show up in large differences at the extreme ends of the distribution. If that's true, are we going to biologically equalize everyone? The 1940s already sorted through this Woke Agenda in Germany. No thanks to Woke. Go away, Woke. You can't run a society based on racial and ethnic sorting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When I was a kid long ago, there was a kid in my neighborhood, had the highest marks at the local state university science department, 4 years in a row. He could not get into medical school because he was Jewish. Harvard used to be that way, Alan Dershowitz has a video on that, he remembers that too. So now we're back to the old days, with white men targeted instead of Jews.
I was watching a Glenn Greenwald video, 2nd gentleman to wef. At 11 minutes Glenn has a chart, highest income levels in America, based on religion. Jewish people first, then a close second are Hindu Americans. It's been that way a long time, with whites actually being out earned by all sorts of groups. How can that be, since most doctors are whites? The background of all the white doctors are all people from the upper class white population. Upper class whites have all kinds of advantages not available to middle class whites, so DEI is targeting them now.
The reality of the white women being helped to become doctors is almost all white women going to medical school have two parents, both with advanced college degrees. These are almost all, upper class women from well off families. They will usually marry another doctor, so family income with two professionals will be extremely high. The family is never taken into account in setting up these programs like DEI. That's why they are basically a form of deception used by the upper class to further advantage their own children, particularly their already privileged daughters. The white women being helped have all kinds of family advantages, family money based on class. Back in the 1970s we started calling them Yuppies...young upper class professionals. Almost no white women from the middle or lower classes go to medical school. So DEI is about further advantaging the already privileged upper class white women, whose dad may be an engineer, mom may be a dentist. It's about reinforcing upper class white female privilege. Then it's presented in a way of supposedly helping all white women. That's a lie.
The reality: Since the 1970s official government stats said Chinese, Japanese Americans out earned whites, as a whole. (see A Statistical Abstract of the United States, available at the local library) Add to that list of American groups out-earning whites, add now Filipino Americans, Korean Americans and now Nigerian Americans are doing well. Will DEI reflect this statistical reality, put quotas on these groups, that are outcompeting whites? Of course not. DEI is about restricting whites, particularly they want quotas against white males. DEI is racist, sexist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The left hates men. That's at the root of it, but it's more specific. The left hates working class men. Especially working class white men. But white liberal men with a lot of money? The left loves those men, so long as those men support feminism and hate on working class men.
Where does leftist hatred of men come from? They misunderstand history. They think history is a long narrative of men suppressing women. No it's not. History is a long narrative of men slowly evolving technology so that moral progress could occur....for everyone. In the long run this made women's lives better.
Women are unaware of the real story because feminists and leftists hijacked history, misrepresented it in school because they had an agenda of hating men, of "over throwing the Patriarchy"....which is just code for hating men.
So why don't leftist women hate white liberal men with a lot of money? Because those men support feminism, while those leftist men turn their back on lower class men. How did we get to this awful place?
Feminists made the error in calculation that the best explanation for the past, is that it was group vs. group competition in history....Marxism and post-modernism. Progressives believe if some groups win, they do so at the expense of other groups. That's nonsense. Reality is, all groups can win.
Feminists and so called "Progressives" are dressed in women's high heels, stepping with their high heels on the faces of working class men. They think this misandry makes women's lives better. No it doesn't. It just encourages hate. Feminists and progressives step on working class men, because working class men are politically powerless, so feminists want to put them down. The trouble with this feminist cruelty is, those men you want to put down, they usually have a wife or girlfriend or children they are trying to support. Step on these men, you step on their children and wives and girlfriends.
The irony is that if there was any oppression of women in the past, it was because upper class men allowed it. Lower class men have always been powerless. Feminists stepping on these men, these feminists remind me of the creepy man who comes home after a hard day at work, then kicks the dog when he gets home, to take out his frustration. Despicable and cruel.
Feminists and Progressives should be ashamed of themselves. Haters. Call them out on their hate.
1
-
1
-
@harrisonbergeron4372 1-Musk is putting up satellites everywhere, so anyone on any point of the earth can get an internet signal. Who will rule the future? China is putting up The Silk Road, to help other countries, give China more dominance. Other countries are quickly catching up to our technology.
Why did we lose and run away, in Afghanistan? My guess:
It makes no sense. Why did we lose? America has the most sophisticated army in the world. That's our side.
But: On the other side in Afghanistan were a 5th Century goat herding Muslim culture, culturally where Europe was, a couple thousand years ago. The goat herders won, the technical people lost. Us. They won, they beat us using 70 year old Russian rifles. Why? My guess is, once technological sophistication reaches the level of rifles, differences in military power as it scale up for us, will mean a lot less than we thought, as an advantage. Basically, men on donkeys beat use, with antique rifles. We can't dominate the way we did. Not possible. We'll lose. They are catching up. Rifles and a strong heart is all it takes to beat a superpower.
America should control outer space, the Silk Road internet instead. Why? Dominance is easier to win without violence. Cheaper than invading, more effective: Give 1 laptop per child, online learning, to all Muslim countries, societies will evolve themselves. Then they can connect with the world in ideas and trade, get rich. They'll deal with the Mullahs. No need to invade. And a lot cheaper to give free education. Books not bombs. Computers, not carnage. I prefer Prime Directive from Star Trek. I read Winston Churchill's book series A History of the English Speaking Peoples. He said it took England 800 years to evolve from absolute rule of kings, to ordinary Brits getting the vote. We're rushing them. With violence. Things grow best, naturally, with minimal prodding at their own pace.
3-Yeah, I agree. But I read the book The Ugly American. We usually get much more of that wrong, than right. Things in life tend to turn out a lot more complicated, than we first thought. We understand far less about other cultures, than we think we do. Another reason to have minimal interference.
Your list of alternatives to Tucker are very solid. Thanks for interesting post.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are more important things like manipulating people's emotions over race, Joe. Like helping them have better lives. What we need now is a President who rises above that sort of crap. Trump needs to rise above this junk, to Lincoln-level morals, to bring people together, when he gets in. I believe the black vote is in play because voters just want answers, help, not being played.
Have you noticed this pattern: Why are we at war in Ukraine? We're stuck in the past. Why are people focusing on race? We're stuck in the past. Why are Democrats doing this? They are worried. About black voters waking up, realizing they are the key to the Democrats winning or losing. Black voters have tremendous power, now that elections are so close. Black voters could show Democrats the door. There is great power in that. Democrats are hoping black voters don't wake up, use their power, for choice. The black vote has always gone in the recent past, for Democrats. But now black voters are, as the old song says, shopping around.
🛍🛒
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How the progressive left went mad:
The historical roots of censorship: In the past, 77 years ago, Dave's ethnicity, his relatives in Europe had much cause for being afraid. They were attacked by horrible people, in Europe. They are good and decent Americans, most are progressives. But: Do they have cause for concern now? No. They have blended in quite well. They are not "the other". They are us. Realistically members of this community are some times now extremely rich, have tremendous political power. They had reason to fear, in Europe. Much reason, past tense.
Back in the 1970s, we had a next door neighbor who fought on the German side. Ethnic German, Gunther. He ended up hanging himself in his garage, at the end of a rope, his wife said. I wonder what Gunther did, in the war. I'll never know. Let the past go.
Does America have mental health issues, which arose from European history of oppressing people? I think so. That's where censorship and lunatic left arose, from intellectuals from traumatized families.
Bernie Sanders is typical. His parents actually suffered horribly, from white supremacist's in Poland who were evil people. I have books in my garage, personal accounts of this horror, bought from a friend of this ethnicity. Justin Trudeau has a personal friend who is now 91 years old, born in Europe, who funds extreme causes. You know who it is. Justin is fixated on so called "white supremacist's" in Canada. The problem is, there are none. It's a fairy tale. I'm very sympathetic.
So what is really going on? Some sort of PTSD from history: long ago, bad things happened. The victims and their children and grandchildren, they haven't got over the trauma. They think clamping down on free speech will solve this problem. No, it makes it worse. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Their allies like Justin Trudeau now live in a reality not of their own experience, but a made up reality, living in the memory of a reality, of long ago. Justin is a nice guy, but a little warped. His 91 year old friend lived in that era, in Europe. You know who I mean. Justin lives through his 91 year old friend's experience and life. For progressives like Justin, it's like the movie Groundhog Day, with Bill Murray. But it's Groundhog Day in Germany 77 years ago, every day you wake up to the same world, long gone, full of Nazis. Dr. Freud, we need you...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Race grift? Yes, but dig deeper. Black people did not come up with CRT. Most of it was thought up by white academics. CRT & DEI was put in to alleviate guilt, based on a bunch of rich kids who got into elite schools because their parents are rich. Jordan Peterson once said almost all his students at Harvard had parents in the richest 1%. The kids know they did not earn their place, they just got in, on their parent's coat tails. The DEI nonsense appeals to them out of guilt, it emotionally appeals to them, because the basic DEI premise is, some people have unearned privilege. That's true, it's the story of their lives. DEI is a class grift started by rich white folks. These are Luxury Beliefs of the wealthy, as Rob Henderson put it. It's a class grift. Now, black people are blamed for the stupid ideas of guilt ridden rich white kids. It's all crazy.
1
-
1
-
How atheists screwed up our culture: Christianity grew out of Judaism, both emphasize compassion, helping the weak. But they also emphasize a whole bunch of other values. We used to say the Lord's Prayer in school. Then the Bill Maher atheist type removed it from school, with help from the Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins type. They think they're so clever.
Trouble is, if we don't teach humans at a young age, a whole bunch of good values via religion, they have less reason to believe in things like right and wrong. Religion works because it says, humans aren't all that good and need to be trained to be good, or else they often aren't good. But the Richard Dawkins type disagreed with that. And they won. Many people are secular.
Of course, here comes progressives, with a bunch of ideas that exploit young human brains, hack them with Woke ideology and moral confusion. Elon says he believes in moral absolutes. Trouble is, if there is no belief in God to support belief in moral absolutes, then people generally don't. And the trouble also is, humans are wired for religion, so when Judaism or Christianity are not taught, other religions are created, like Woke. They have a lot of appeal because humans really are, partly wired for compassion. So Woke hijacked that wiring, but without an attached belief in God. But if you take God out of the equation, what happens? Something replaces it: ideology, the thoughts of the Woke elite?
Curious fact from a scientific point of view: Modern humans have been here about 200,000 years. Most of that time they didn't even know most other humans existed. Hundreds of thousands of separated tribes and races and languages, all came to basically common agreements about life: Belief in a God or gods, moral codes, the idea of an afterlife. No atheist tribes or nations lasted in evolution. Why is that? We're wired for belief in God, because that's what works. I was saying to an atheist friend the other day, "Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, but a kind of an idiot." My friend agreed.
I don't have all the answers, but the Dennis Prager types are obviously right on this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dave's friend Jordan Peterson sheds light 💡🔦on this, on why black Americans are underperforming, in an interview with Dr. David Buss, evolutionary scientist, talking about female mating choices. Human females evolved to mate "up and across", meaning they want men who are competent, can help women raise her babies. The Welfare State interferes with that natural process, it replaces the black man in the home, lowers the status of the black man in the home, as women turn to gov't to help them, replacing black men. This is wrong. Black men in America need to be raised up, given more opportunity and higher status in family life, so natural families can form, with strong black men in the home. Start respecting black men, America.
American jazz legend Otis Redding intuitively figured this out in the 1960s, in a song he sung with Karla Thomas, called "Tramp"...it's about how all females select males: based on competence, status. Otis was a genius, decades ahead of his time.
The scientific data supports Dr. Sowell: in the book, The Boy Crisis by Dr. Warren Farrell, there is an interesting statistic: 85% of men in prison grew up in single parent homes. That's true for both white and black prisoners. Why this pattern? Skin color doesn't cause crime, fatherlessness causes crime, like Dave said and Larry Elder and Dr. Sowell before him. Who supports policies that weaken family, weaken the role of black men? Democrats, with their feminist policies. Also:
Black Americans are genetically Nigerians, that's where slaves came from, according to Alex Haley, author of Roots. Guess what? Nigerian Americans have high success in school and the labor market, do very well. Why? They have dads in the home. Same with Japanese, Chinese, India Americans. All do better than whites, all have dads in home. Most gov't policies in Affirmative Action favor black women, while not helping black men. Dr. Farrell talks about this, has solutions. Time to admit: Democrat social policy is well intended, but wrong. It cause crime, Democrats are the worst friend black Americans ever had. I don't care how well meaning they are. They are wrong. Dead wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How to get around prison: Trump can be sworn in as President in prison. Then he can resign, allowing his Vice President to become President, then pardon Trump. Then the Speaker of the House, who is next in line to be President, can resign. Republicans can elect Trump as Speaker of the House. Trump becomes Vice President, then the President who was his Vice President, resigns, making Trump legally President again. Then President Trump should make an appearance on the View, where he lays out his plans to launch an investigation into misdeeds by Democrats. Then Trump should turn to Sunny and Whoopi and tell them, you are full of hatred, that's terrible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Patriarchy and Evolution:
Feminists have a point: The human past was Patriarchal. But why?
Why did Patriarchy arise?
Was it men conspiring to oppress women? Or is there another explanation? Underlying evolved differences between males and females, which are provable, seem a more likely explanation:
-humans are sexually dimorphic
-males are larger than females
-males have more muscle mass than females
-since humans pair bonded, it seems likely the males protected the female
-females are vulnerable to attack, when pregnant
-death rates were high among human infants during evolution, up to 50% of humans died before puberty
-adult human lifespan was quite short
-as recently as 1900, humans died by about age 50, when averaged out
-till a few generations ago humans had not developed science, life was short, brutish and nasty
-as early as 1 day, science has found that human females spend more time looking at faces, than things, which is useful since females tended to most of the early human care in evolution
-as early as 1 day, science has found that human males spend more time looking at things, rather than faces….which is why boys are good at video games, men at hunting and protecting and war
-until Donald Trump was 14 years old, humans didn’t have reliable birth control, and females could get pregnant at any time
-until a couple of generations ago, humans had not yet invented the technology, which would produce jobs that females could do in large numbers, giving them economic freedom, and women were completely dependent of men
-human males are slightly smarter than human females, and these differences show up in large numbers at the extreme high end, so most of the very smartest people in human history were male…see “The Smartest People in the World are all Men”….Breitbart Magazine, for numbers.
-human females get to decide who they will have sex with, so human males must socially compete with each other, for higher ranking females, and this meant men competed to protect and provide for females
So what sort of social organization system arises, when these sorts of factors are present in a species? What helped humans survive? Patriarchy.
Like all things in evolution, the things that survive are the things that prove useful in pushing forward life. In Patriarchal systems, men lead, and run the political and economic structure of society, men are disposable, women concentrate of raising offspring, and children are the center of life. This has proved to be a winning formula in our history. We are all descendants of Patriarchs.
And Patriarchy won, not because men imposed it on women, but because women chose it, because it offered the best deal, for women. And men chose it, because it ensured them offspring, and gave them social respect and power. Women liked that they were protected, got to chose which man to mate with, and they were far more likely to survive under Patriarchy, than any other system.
And the human mammal, to survive, organized into small groups…tribes…and competed for other resources with other groups. Groups needed protection from other competing groups of humans, and from predator animals.
Which sex was best to lead and protect the group in this situation? Was it the sex that was physically weaker in terms of upper body strength, had lower overall testosterone levels, indicating lower aggression, and spent most of their lives pregnant?…human women. Or was it the sex that was it the sex that was physically stronger in terms of upper body strength, had higher overall testosterone levels, indicating higher aggression, and didn’t have the burden of pregnancy?…human men?
Obviously biologically, the human groups that organized around male protection and leadership, had an enormous evolutionary advantage over groups that organized around female protection and leadership. And that’s why Patriarchal societies totally out-competed any Matriarchal groups, and that’s why they survived.
So Patriarchy was not some sort of evil conspiracy against women. Patriarchy is a natural evolutionary group strategy for survival and protection of women and children. And the other key variable, driving Patriarchy for the win as an evolutionary strategy, was the simple fact that human women get pregnant. Think about it.
If there is a theoretical tribe of 200 humans…..100 females, 100 males…and if the tribe loses 98 of the females, because they are off fighting to protect the males, then the tribe is finished in evolution, as there are only 2 breeding females left, of the original 100…. But if the tribe loses 98 of the males? The tribe can continue in evolution, because all the remaining males, even if they are old, can do their biological role, impregnating females, keeping the tribe alive.
So Patriarchy arose, not as a conspiracy against women, but out of basic biology: Females are more important than males, in evolution, because they get pregnant. If there were other patterns that worked, they would have arisen…..but they didn’t.
Sometimes what didn’t happen, is more important than what happened. And it tells you more, than what happened. More than likely, as the science of gender differences evolves, more and more evidence will be found, of slight biological differences between males and females, which contributed to the social pattern known as Patriarchy.
Another key piece of evidence for all this, is a simple fact that scientists uncovered, using some very clever techniques. What they found is YOU have twice as many female offspring, as male offspring. About 80% of modern human females have left offspring, in our evolution. But only about 40% of male modern humans have left offspring, in our evolution…why was this?
Basically, males died off quicker because they protected the group. And because females in humans, as in all mammal species, they do the choosing of mates. So this all indicates what common sense suggests: men were disposable in evolution and competed for access to females, just like males in other mammal species do.
All this is highly suggestive of the type of social environment arising naturally, know as Patriarchy: human males that invest in their offspring, successfully compete against other males, and protect females, tend to survive in evolution. This means Patriarchy is a natural process, deeply embedded in nature. Feminists seem hell bent on throwing out an established pattern that worked for a very long time in evolution. Most new things in evolution don’t work. Will this one? Will the new feminist principles work, in keeping human societies stable and surviving into the future? It seems unlikely, but time will tell….
1
-
1
-
1
-
Feminism destroyed human pair bonding in America. Here's how that works: Women are all hyper-gamous, they evolved to choose men who are higher than them, on the Dominance Hierarchy. And today the DH is money. Feminists push integration of the genders working together, competing with each other for resources, money and status. No society has done this, except ours. Other human societies kept men and women apart, had men compete for status, then the women picked among the winners. But we changed that basic evolutionary formula, with feminism. Now we push for equal pay for women. In America, for the under 35s, women now earn more money than men. That means, mathematically there are not nearly enough men who are higher up on the DH, for women to be interested in these men, to marry. For instance a female doctor will not marry a male trucker.
So the closer we get to wage parity for the genders, the worse it is, for women. If we reach the point where men as a group earn the same amount of money as women as a group, then there will be a 50% chance, for any random man and any random woman, that the woman will earn more than the man. Then what happens is, she is not interested, no marriage occurs.
We see this play out in statistics. In the early 1960s the illegitimacy rate for children was under 10%. Now 40% of American children are born out of wedlock. Remember: women started going to work, going to university, in the early 1970s....so now they have their own money, their own status. Now they don't need men, unless the man earns more than she does. And since women can compete and often win against men, this creates a large segment of men who are unmarriageable, because women out-earn them, for money....the women won't marry men they can beat, economically.
We see the proof in stats about marriage. The rate of marriage is at an all time low in America, historically.
But the curious thing is, almost all the people getting married are in the upper classes. There, marriage is common and stable. Guess why? Again, female hyper-gamy. All women want high status male. If a woman marries an engineer, a professor, an accountant, she knows there is no going up, generally speaking. That's the Hyper-gamy Ceiling, for women. She's done as well as she can, so she sticks around, marriage is stable, and divorce is very uncommon for the upper classes.
However, the bottom 70% of men have no such protection. Women in the bottom 70% often earn more than the men do, women are always looking for a better deal, so divorce is very common among the bottom 70% economically, women initiate 70% of all these divorces.
So the curious thing is, feminism has been very good for the top 30% of society, very bad for the bottom 70% of society. In the top 30%, women get to have careers, make a lot of money, marry men who make a lot of money....this used to be called "yuppie couples"....it's win win for them....life is good, lots of money, stable marriage.
But the bottom 70% don't generally go to university, but the women now work, earn their own money, and the men often don't earn as much as the women. So then the women get angry, the women initiate 70% of all divorces. She figures, "I can do better". ....and so marriage is very, very unstable for the bottom 70%...when it does in fact happen, which is not often now. Marriage is becoming uncommon in the bottom 70% economically.
Women evolved to pair bond with men of higher status than them. It's natural, as women evolved to be dependent on males, when pregnant, women lived short lives, spent most of evolution pregnant. When we merge the two genders into one world, have them compete for power and status, the top men, top women, they benefit. But the bottom 70% do not. So by promoting wage parity for the genders, feminists actually screw up most women's lives. They create a situation where the top women, they win, win, win. But the majority of women....70%....lose, lose, lose. Thus feminism actually makes most women's lives miserable, destroys human happiness, destroys natural pair bonding in humans.
And the root reason feminism doesn't work, is we evolved in a certain way. We are Sexually Dimorphic. We evolved for gender separation. We evolved for women to bear children when they are young, rather than compete with men for group status, when they are young. In fact we would not have survived as a species, if women in the past competed for group status with men, because not enough babies would have been born, for the only way for women in the past to have competed for group status, would be to avoid pregnancy,. We evolved for women to be directly dependent on men for survival. We did not evolve for women to avoid pregnancy and compete for power, with men. That's feminism, that's an evolutionary dead end. We evolved for men to compete with each other, and women to pick from the winners, for mating.
Feminism has destroyed much of that natural biological logic of human pair bonding, thus destroying family life in America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gender Affirming care is on to something, but not what they think. They think people have endless numbers of genders. Not true. But likely true: human brains are plastic. Wired for embracing new patterns. Brain plasticity. It means human sexuality can be to some degree molded by the environment. Likely with heavy genetic tendencies. Likely this means being gay is a bit like being Catholic.
Most people are born Catholic. Others convert. I'm fine with gay rights, gay marriage for adults, but think it's a huge mistake thinking children can settle on a sexual identity, with all the cultural influences of Hollywood promoting being gay, schools promoting being gay. I think the big lie we are being told is we are all born with a fixed identity, which means people who are gay are all born that way. Meaning the current wisdom is like the song, "Born this way". I doubt it. I think it's probably partly genetic, partly cultural influences, but science refuses to do serious studies looking into this, for fear of offending the Woke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Japanese Americans and discrimination. I met an old guy who was in a Japanese internment camp. It was a real thing, for a long time. But has it stopped? Are they still oppressed?
But in college in the 1970s, I was in the library. Reference Section. Picked up a book of statistics. Official American gov't stats. The online version is around now. Book, "A Statistical Abstract of the United States". I looked up income data on various groups. I was interested since I had Japanese friends, wondered if they were being discriminated against, like I was told, they were. I was a bit surprised. The data did not fit the narrative. Even back then, Japanese, Chinese Americans were out-earning white Americans, went to college more often.
Arthur Hu was a Seattle area computer programmer who was interested in the topic. He kept track of the data, one Asian Americans, for decades, on his site, something like "Asian American Index of Diversity". Michelle Malkin the Republican writer interviewed him. We called Arthur "The Chinese American version of Rush Limbaugh". The left hated him. He exposed via data, that so many false myths had been built up, by the political left.
Same thing is happening today. Japanese Americans, Chinese, Korean, Filipino Americans, now Indian American like Vivek Ramaswamy or Kamala Harris earn far higher income, than whites. Kamala's mom was Indian. Glenn Greenwald has the data. Video, "2nd Gentleman to WEF"....11 minutes in. If Kamala wants to bring in DEI if she is elected, if she actually believes in levelling group differences in income, she's up against a real problem.
What is it? She's half Indian. She'd have to discriminate against herself. Her husband is Jewish. Another high earning group. If Kamala wants to level differences in income, she'd have to discriminate against Jewish Americans like her husband. As Ben Shapiro and Elon Musk agreed on a recent video on this Rubin Report site, basically DEI is anti-Semitic. Very true.
If she actually believes in DEI, it would also mean, if fairly implemented, we'd also have to bring in quotas on Asian Americans. To me, this DEI stuff is anti-American, punishes hard work, achievement. Of course, most people would figure out: in real life, the more we bring in DEI, the more behind the scenes rigging of the process, we'll see.
1
-
The Feminist DEI Fraud.
Coming Apart was a book by Charles Murray the Libertarian, long ago. He noticed that Americans were starting to marry and sort out socially, along class lines. Intermarriage between classes was more common, long ago. Tucker Carlson cites him as an influence on his thinking. What are the problems this brings up?
People who go to college tend to come from good families. And the children tend to often inherit genetic advantage. If Mom's a dentist, Dad's an engineer, chances are pretty good, the children will be bright. And have a good home to grow up in. And have their parent's money and social connections in life. Their parents will believe in education and start the kids out at a young age, headed for college.
Then feminism came along. Girls should be let into college. DEI pushes advantage to girls. But who goes to college? Girls from the upper class. Mom may be a Dentist. Dad may be an Engineer. Feminism says women & girls were not historically advantaged like men in the past. So then we rig the rules of society, to let more girls into college. But who benefits? Poor girls? Not a chance. It's girls of the upper classes, who benefits. It's mostly them at college.
Then at college, the girl is likely to meet and marry a young man, of similar background. They marry, have kids, the virtuous cycle continues, regardless of the political affiliation of the parents. So when a young woman with a college degree meets and marries a young man with a college degree, guess what? She gets to use his money. His money helps her buy a house.
But feminist analysis of society does not measure women's progress, based on class or marriage, taking into account the parent's money, the husband's money. It only takes into account how much women are paid....the fictitious "wage gap"...Warren Farrell the former feminist, friend of Gloria Steinem wrote a book about it, debunking the "wage gap"....doesn't exist in reality because women simply make different choices than men.
So feminist accounting of social advantage doesn't take into account family, parents, husbands....or even class advantage. Therefore the enterprise of the feminist analysis is a complete fraud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David Horowitz is a former leftie who wrote books about the plot of the left, to destroy America. Tom Cotton is right about that. However, conservatives and Republicans went along with the plan to destroy America, by the bad conservative policy on family. The left has a a plan to destroy American families. Most young American women are voting Democrat. Why? That's the key to this.
Conservatives show they don't understand the problems of family, when they reject helping young women, on student loans. Republicans scared young women this election, over abortion. That's not the core problem. Affordable middle class life, is the problem. Fix that, you can end abortion. It shows how conservatives are aiding and abetting the left's destruction of America, by not understanding huge family issues and roadblocks facing young American women today.
How conservatism failed young women:
Tucker was talking about this. Young people are not getting married. Young unmarried women vote overwhelmingly Democrat, young men are voting Republican. Not young women. But once women are married, they vote Republican. Trouble is, marriage rate is at all-time low, birth rate at all time low, housing unaffordable, family life quite affordable for the top 20%. But life is quite unaffordable for the bottom 80% of young women. Family life is unaffordable for them. They don't get The American Dream.
New York Times had an article on this in 2012. Marriage is now only a thing, for the upper class. So most young women know they will have a hard life, no men around to start a family, so they turn to government for help, which means voting for the Democrats. Republicans and conservatives have failed young women, so they vote Democrat. This will lead to the destruction of America, like Tom Cotton talks about. Tucker had a show on this 3 years ago: The American Dream is Dying. Republicans should stop helping the left destroy America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
India, home to Vivek's ancestors, was based on the Caste System. For 5,000 years. That meant endless discrimination, based on group identity...just like the Woke. Caste is 1st cousin to racism. So is Woke. So Vivek knows this cold. It's his history. It's also why he recognized that America is so great: it actually has ideals, it aspires to. No one else in the world does.
Charlamagne needs an education. Like: did white people run slavery? Sure. So did every race, every ethnicity in human history...including Africans. (History Debunked channel has videos on this) Who ended slavery? White people, Christians, drawing on Judeo Christian traditions in the Bible, we evolved out of slavery. FACT.
Christianity is an ethnically universal religion. It's not based on race. Judeo Christian principles help create America. Christianity grew out of Judaism, which is concerned with morals. That's why we're better than other countries: we become better, over time, because we are a country based on morals....just so long as we keep evolving our religions.
By the way, Indian Americans like Vivek, their household family incomes are 2X...that's two times, the income of white Americans. America is a place where all colors of skin can succeed. That's why Woke is bs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These two guys are heroes. Both very smart, with lots of common sense so the ordinary guy like me, looks up to them.
Find the flaw in my logic: In tests now, over 99% of people have antibodies for covid. Either they got it or got the vaccine, or both. Why did 99% of people end up with antibodies, because not everyone got the vaccine? My guess is this means that when people are exposed to low levels of covid, it's small enough an exposure, the body can handle it.
Like if you were on a train and a lady 3 rows back who had covid, if she sneezed, the air would disperse the virus, so when it got to you, then you would get a much lower dose of the virus. And your body could handle a low dose. So you don't get sick, but can fight off the virus, especially if you are young.
So what if viral load is the key factor, not the virus itself? What if, all we needed to do to defeat the virus, was to tell everyone over 65 to take a year off, stay away from people? What if we told medical doctors: for people under 65, if you think they are medically compromised, you can write a note saying they get a year off?
And what if we told people: Keep windows and lots of ventilation open, take some Vitamin D, go for a walk daily, buy a fan and keep it plugged in, we want to thin out the virus. Why? For why? To speed up the virus. You'll get it in the end, no stopping it. But your body can more easily handle a low viral load.
Then what? Then the death rate, the rate of disease would have been much lower. And Big Pharma would have earned less money. And more people would have survived, lived to a ripe old age. And we would have not spent the past few years, running around like a brainless chicken, with it's head cut off.
🔪🐔🏃🏃♂🏃♀😜🤯🧠
1
-
Republicans need better answers, to compete for those people who tend to vote for Kamala. Interesting political trend among the young: men tend to trend conservative or Republican, whereas younger women tend to trend liberal or progressive. Why is that?
I think it's because the Democrats have done more, to appeal to younger voters, their concerns....particularly women. But why are young men not voting Democrat? Many now realize that Woke feminism is about economically advantaging women, over men, in all areas of life, from school to the workplace.
So, if Kamala gets in, expect more of the same, more of advantaging women over men etc. It's built into the cake of Woke. Which all means, Republicans have to come up with better answers, to solve the problems of those voters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why the stand alone, two parent nuclear family is such a bad idea: If you look at who is successful, it runs in families. Extended families are natural. They run on nepotism. They help members, be successful. And extended families based on nepotism are helpful, because people are wired to look after kin, in small tribes. See: Valuetainment: Why Indian Immigrants Raise Successful Kids. Our social policy should hijack human nepotism to reduce government dependency.
It's like suburbs. The suburbs were a great idea, long ago. So were isolated nuclear families. Both evolved into bad ideas, due to social chance. Now, suburbs and isolated nuclear families are going away because isolated nuclear families are disadvantage and rely on the state too much, rather than kin. They are failing, in their competition with other family structures, in my opinion.
It's interesting that the two most successful ethnic or religious groups in America are Jewish Americans and then Indian Americans. Both have reputations for clannishness, as if that's supposed to be a bad thing. I think it's a good thing. Individualism is a fine idea, but like anything it has it's limits. It's usually just promoted by the powerful, in order to weaken rivals for power. Powerful families never run on the basis of isolated nuclear families.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Think outside the box, people. Trump is lining up who runs for the House. He's quietly stacking the decks, bringing in people to help him with his agenda. The Rinos are getting turfed. America firsters are going to run things. So when Trump gets in, he doesn't need 4 years to get what he wants, done. He needs 2. He has the option of bringing in DeSantis as Vice President, then Trump resigns after 2 years. Then Governor Ron gets 2 years of Trump's Presidency, to do what he already wants to do, put in more of very similar policies, to President Trump. If all goes well, President DeSantis is elected twice, on his own, giving Republicans a 10 year lock on the Presidency. One more thing: you have to win the Classic Liberal vote. Here's an idea: Put Martin Luther King Jr. on Mount Everest, beside Lincoln. Do it, for the ages. For a signal, what kind of country we aspire to be. 👍
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
"he's wrong"....you keep trying to simplify everything I say down to one point.....which is missing the entire point of what I'm saying....identity is not just one thing, 100% this or that.
As to "He Who Decides"...."supreme label-judge"....your comments about me: boy are you wrong. I'm deciding for myself, what to believe about other people. I'm not deciding for you. I'm not deciding for him. I'm not deciding for anyone else....just me.
And to repeat myself, you can believe anything you want. One thing you aren't getting is: I don't care what you believe....in the sense that everyone gets to decide for themselves in the end. My meaning is not being imposed on you, or anyone else.
I get to decide what I think is true, as do you.
Why is this even an issue? You seem to act like there has to be one final answer, one way of looking at this? bs to that, I say....believe what you want. This is not science, it's opinion. Anyone following this conversation can decide to believe me, or believe you, or think we are both full of it....and you know what? If that's what they think, I don't care....they are entitled to their opinion.
You are reacting to me as though you think I'm trying to force my opinion on you. That's the opposite of the truth. Did you ever in your life say, "OK, whatever dude. Believe what you believe, I'll believe what I believe...we are getting nowhere....good bye and have a nice day"
...life is easier that way. I see foolish liberals and foolish conservatives both trying to impose their meaning and interpretations, on people with different interpretations, of things that need interpretation. Both think things can only be one way. Hogwash.....live and let live.
1
-
*****
If it came up in conversation, I would tell my Muslim friend that the past never leaves you. If you told me my friend with a Muslim past would always be part-Muslim, that would not be weird at all. I don't look at identity as fixed and solitary and only one thing. It's complex....at least in me it is. I don't find complex identities "jarring" or "disturbing"....not at all.
Just because you decide that you are going to embrace a certain set of ideas or a new identity, that doesn't erase the past....at least not in me it doesn't. I'm fine with identity being complex and confusing, as opposed to simple.
My lady works with a woman whose husband is a tranny. My reaction? So what?...not a big deal. I'm sure his/her identity is very complex. I think lots of people have complex identities. Humans are complex creatures, that's the way it is, at least all the ones I know....full of multiple identities, and multiple, often contradictory personality trends, and even contradictory beliefs at times....that's just the way life is, I think.
1
-
*****
Labels? They are often useless, as they over-simplify complex things....which can create illusions... I suppose that works in this day and age of tweets.
However, people can label themselves as they choose, I have no trouble with that. If Obama wants to say he is a Christian, I'll take his word for it.
I know a Christian who used to be a Muslim. He has given me a lot of real insight into Muslim radicals, because he was around a few of them.....his knowledge comes from experience. He now identifies as a Christian. I have no problem with that, though the past is something no one really ever leaves fully behind. Even modern humans have a small part of our brain that is a vestige of our reptile past, though it is layered over, by more recently evolved parts.
However, I appreciate your thoughts. We'll call it a draw. I'm not trying to change your mind, you can believe whatever you like, as will I. Take care.
1
-
*****
Well, I agree with most of that....good analysis of Catholic behavior, at it's worst. I've seen mostly the good side of religion, and have very fond memories of early Baptists in my life, they were very, very good people, but from what I know of the Catholic Church, I think you are right.
Allan Jackson's song, "Small Town Southern Man" comes the closest I can think, to my early religious Baptist experience.
..I have no proof, but I suspect the same sort of abusive and sick things goes on in Muslim religious circles, as Catholic...likely for similar sick reasons. I have seen enough pictures of 50 year old Muslim Afghan men marrying 9 year old Muslim girls, to believe that.
As to your comment that claims that I say that "Obama has been running a 40+ year conspiracy"....I make no such claims. There is no conspiracy, there is only a downplaying of the early religious influences in his life, for political advantage. And that is really the only thing that bothers me in his Muslim past: his dishonesty in not really "owning" his heritage. I would have been much more comfortable with a lot more candor.
This whole thing reminds me of the old days, when people used to hide their sexuality.
I don't think it's a big deal, to have a Muslim past. My Muslim friends tell me that the prophets in Islam read like a "who's who" of the old Testament.....most of the Hebrew prophets are in there, as is Abraham, as is Jesus Christ. Islam, I'm sure you are aware, is pretty much, sister religion to Christianity, from an historical perspective.
Which means, it's no big deal, in my opinion....that Obama had early Muslim influence, and a Muslim father. He never embraced the radical portions of his early faith, and only embraced, the better parts.
No big deal. A hundred years from now everyone will look back and laugh, and wonder what the fuss was all about.....
1
-
*****
You are being ridiculous in order to avoid the truth, that is obvious when you say, "I would debate whether Catholic dogma includes molesting children".....of course it does not, and you know it. However, you almost put your finger on something close to that, which happens to be true: Within the Catholic Church, there is, or has been, a group of sexually perverted priests, who have been allowed to continue, after the truth has gotten out, and the Catholic leadership, in order to save face, has transferred these people around, and covered up these crimes. That much is true and obvious, and not that far from what you are saying, but no, molesting children is not part of Catholic theology. You are obviously exaggerating, to make a point or something.
Yes Obama was raised mostly by his Mom and his grandmother, in the U.S. Quite true. One thing I noticed one time was the church that Obama attended, as an adult, with Jeremiah Wright, it has a large number of Muslim or former people who attend there. Coincidence? Hardly. You have put a finer point, on what I just said, when you emphasized his Christian heritage, as well.
What's the truth? Both. Obama is a mixture of Christian and Muslim background.....I guess "bi-religious" might be a useful term to invent. He is neither purely Muslim, nor Christian, but a mix of two, in his emotional mind.....and likely atheist or agnostic, in his rational mind, in my opinion.
Obama once said, in public, that the Muslim call to prayer was the most beautiful sound on earth. That is likely a harking back to his boyhood days in a mosque or Muslim school where he attended in Indonesia, if I remember right. I also have very sentimental memories of the churches of my childhood, and just love seeing white churches, and church bells ringing.....like in that Johnny Cash song, "Sunday Morning Sidewalk", that refers to memories lost, and nostalgia for religious memories of childhood. A beautiful song.
I know why everyone avoided the subject till now. They did not want to give ammo to the Religious Right, who claimed he was a Muslim. However, now that his term is ending we can all start to be a little more honest. The truth is mixed, and subtle.
He's partly Muslim, partly Christian, partly agnostic or atheist. A complicated, intelligent modern man, and a pretty good President, in my opinion.
1
-
***** The problem with your point of view is that Catholics don't teach you to molest children, and only a few sick priests do that.....and everyone hates them. Religion teaches a lot of lesson from the Bible based on good things, that accord in harmony with the nicer aspirations of human nature. Love, compassion, kindness, belief in a supernatural power that cares about you....woven into a set of beliefs contained within a Catholic narrative. We humans evolved with primal wiring that makes these messages resonate with us, and that is why we accept Catholic teaching, based on them, and that's why they stay with us. With sexual perversion, it's the opposite effect. Most of us are wired with a complete abhorrence and revulsion for that kind of thing.
So when it happens within the Catholic community, it reinforces group disgust at that behavior, it doesn't encourage it.....quite the opposite, which you think, when you said, "Therefore all Catholics are pedophiles"
....dude, that's just retarded. Life and humans don't work like that. Forget "logic" for a moment. Does my answer "feel" right? Of course it does, cause it's right, and you know it.
And, by the way, I could care less if Obama is a cultural Muslim. What's the big deal? I've known Muslim people since the 1980s. Most are quite nice people, and the ones I've known well are very well educated, successful people....professionals. So for me, there is no stigma, in calling someone a "cultural Muslim".
Maybe for you there is a stigma? If being Muslim is a problem for you, that's your problem, not mine.
1
-
1
-
They brought up the old question: Is Obama a Muslim? Let me put that, to rest: Yes he is.....a cultural Muslim....Fact: when he was young he went to a Muslim school, with religious training. Fact: what you learn as a child affects you deeply, for your entire life. Fact: The Catholics have a saying, "Give me a child for the first 12 years of his life, and you can have him forever, for even if he leaves, he will always be a Catholic.".... If you ask Obama, are you a Muslim, he will say "no"....that's the rational part of the man......but in his heart, his emotions, the deepest part of him.....Obama was, is, will always be.....a Muslim.
I have a brother who was raised a Baptist. He now calls himself ''an atheist"'.....yet if you get to know the guy, know his mind, it's freaking obvious that Christianity imprinted on him deeply, as a child. The rational part of him is an atheist. The emotional part of him is Christian. My brother is "a cultural Christian"
Obama? 100% Cultural Muslim......till the day he dies.
1
-
The problem is women. They are wired differently than are men. They are emotional and try to impose their political will, their sensitivities of the moment, on the rest of the population. And the internet and chat rooms brings us together into a "Global Village".....as Marshall McLuhan suggested it would. Feminists and social justice warriors are mostly females. They don't believe in free speech, they don't believe in honest disagreement. They think everything has got to be one way: their way....and they think everyone should be in one pack, one group, and they want to enforce that groups pack-norms. What a fucked up way to build a culture. Free speech is under attack from feminists and social justice warriors who are too dumb, too bigoted to have real tolerance, and to know that conflicting opinions are part of the creative process in human beings, how we change and debate and move on....they take dumbness to a whole new level and can't even comprehend their own stupidity, and small mindedness. Which means the politically correct ideas of today could prove to be, in the future, pure bullshit that we will eventually reject. These people, mostly women, (not all) turn everything into a religion, and all must believe, and they take it on themselves to enforce their morality and views on others. No thanks. Of course, most women are not like that....it's just the 20% of women who are feminists and SJWarriors are the insane cancer on society. And since everyone wants to get into their pants, sane people listen to these fools. I've seen this kind of herd mentality before, in the sickest fundamentalist religions, I once belonged to. I rejected that kind of oppressive enforced belief system in the past, and I reject it now. it's just a way that stupid people can control others. I'm not stupid, I won't be controlled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'd add wealth concentration along class lines in America, has a lot to do with this. I'm a small business owner, from way back, not a socialist. But it's true that under capitalism wealth concentrates severely under class lines. See: Forbes Magazine, 2017, Noah Kirsch. So Ben and Dr. Peterson are all about keeping the status quo going, for the well off and tend to concentrate on things like Dr. Peterson interviewed the head of Black Rock, an elitist, who doesn't have the middle class interests at heart. I understand Ben's concern about Israel, I support Israel. But we should be able to walk and chew gun at the same time like Dave says. But I'm just pointing out, the political class doesn't much care about the priorities of middle America simply because for the most part, The Rich Men North of Richmond set the priorities in America, for Black Rock and supporting Israel. And Israel I support. Black Rock and globalists, no. They don't care about this country. Ben cares about America. But does he care about the needs of the middle class? No. Not a bit. He's a globalist, elitist. But it's actually, not about caring. It's about: what are Ben's priorities? Dr. Peterson's priorities?
1
-
I blame the invention of the airplane 🛫🛬. It's reducing patriotism. I'm guilty too. I might retire in the Caribbean.
I blame neo-liberal economics. That theory said ship jobs overseas, to save on labor. That was an attack on the American working class, by Americans like Ben Shapiro and Mitt Romney, who are rich enough to make a lot of money, on betraying the American middle class, destroying it. Chinese are good workers, worked for cheap. Democrat economist Mark Blythe from Brown University, he figured it out. He had a working class Scottish upbringing, but an elite education. He's seen both sides, elite and working class. He came up with "The Elephant Graph" on who wins, who loses from globalism. Winners are China, especially their elite, the biggest winners are rich American investing overseas. The biggest losers are the American middle class.
Then the neo-liberals like Ben started living in the past, to make money. The Soviet Union ended when Ben was a baby, but he supports American wars. Neo-liberals like Ben and the Liz Cheney type make a lot of money on foreign wars, at the expense of the prioritizing Ukraine and Iraq under Bush, spending $7 Trillion there, money that could have been used making the American middle class better off. So it's really about priorities.
Tucker's right, Ben's wrong.
Ben works with Jordan Peterson. Both think elite Americans should run the world. No. They should not.
1
-
1
-
@yuzuchuhai880 No. It's not just you. The Canadian Dream died. Vancouver was a very much better place a generation or more ago. The Canadian elites killed it, to make money.
....all this "equity" nonsense will just drive up hatred
I know a few very old guys who made a ton of money on real estate in Vancouver. One was a bus driver who was a buddy in high school. He bought several houses when they were dirt cheap, rented them out. Now he's a multi-millionaire. But his grandchildren can't afford to buy houses and raise families. I believe we need to look at life as an inter-generational contract. We should not screw over the next generation with short term thinking.
One man I admired was Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, who is dead now, was a believer in population control and in making sure all citizens of Singapore...of every ethnicity... had housing guarantees. Chinese were outcompeting every other ethnic group in Singapore and it was enraging the other ethnic groups.
Chinese are unusually good at business and are outcompeting most whites in Vancouver and will take over that city completely. It will be a Chinese city. In multicultural cities you have different outcomes for different ethnic groups that compete against each other. The losers won't be happy. Everyone sticks to their own kind. This housing guarantee by Yew provided social stability in Singapore among the various ethnic groups.
Upper income whites are still doing quite well in Vancouver, but the white elites basically deliberately threw the white working class and many middle class whites under the bus in the 1980s by endless immigration. They knew what they were doing. If you criticize it, you are labelled "racist"....which is nonsense. Endless immigration was great for jacking up prices. It was great if you owned property, but the next couple of generations are getting screwed over.
Life was far, far easier and more affordable back then, for the basics like housing, especially for young people. Our elite old Boomers are greedy and don't care. It was a slower pace of life back then. My Hong Kong friends used to remark on moving to Vancouver was like going to a sleepy town. I came from a town of 200 so I laughed at that...
The Canadian elites are fools. Justin Trudeau is the biggest fool. So was his dad. Not in wanting multiculturalism, but in being too stupid and greedy to know there is a limit to everything.
They killed a beautiful thing. I tried going back to Vancouver, thinking I'd live there again. I let that dream go. I realized it's changed. Less gentle with a faster pace. I don't want this Vancouver. I can't reclaim the past. It's gone...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What Scott Galloway's comment mean: I've thought for a long time, Democrats basically discriminate against white males, particularly white Christian males. Turns out, my instinct was right. And that's what DEI is about: a new form of racism, where the people who started America are actively discriminated against....white men. DEI is bigotry, the bigot disguising their bigotry, with moral pretense. Part of this happened because Democrats embraced feminism long ago. Along with some good stuff from feminism, came a whole lot of bad stuff arising from discriminating against men, while promoting women, over men.
Sometimes solutions are problematic and have unintended consequences that are not always good, often what no one wants....especially women. For instance:
Scott has videos where he talks about how in the past, universities were mostly male. I remember that: Almost no females around on campus, long ago. When? Around the time of, no birth control. Then, with women on birth control we opened the door to opportunity for women, we found a big surprise: women can often outcompete men at university. We thought till then, men could outcompete women always, no matter what. Turns out, that's not true.
Why is this an issue? It's not, for men, actually. It's a problem mostly for women, not men. How so? At Jordan Peterson's last teaching position, at University of Toronto, about 70% of students are women, about 30% are men. Who are the women going to marry, have kids with?
A lot of this pattern of lots of women in higher education is, women are good students. The problem is, when women graduate, they have huge student loans, they can't have families, they are too busy paying off those loans. So then the birth rate drops like a rock, as Peter Zeihan noted the other day. The American birth rate is at an historic low: As women get educated, they stop having kids. Also women are wired for top men. They don't like to be in relationships with men they have to support financially. But women are starting to outcompete men, economically. So then women look around hoping for a partner and the women say: where are all the good men? They are still here, ladies. You outcompeted them, you created your own shortage, which is a perceived shortage, not an actual shortage.
See: The Diary of a CEO "Why 80% of men are invisible to women"
Also it turns out, feminism is very good for the upper classes, but very bad for the lower classes. Why is that? Charles Murray was on to something when he wrote his book long ago: "Coming Apart" ....how the classes are coming apart, living in different realities, even marrying different people. The upper class men who mostly go to university tend to marry upper class women, who also went to university. This drives more wealth inequality in America, money tends to stick in the upper classes, less class mobility now. The upper middle class couple have kids, the girls go to university....then complain there are no good men around. It's mostly rich girls at university, like the Chinese Taiwan daughter of a hedge fund manager Scott talks about, who go to elite schools. There are very few low income people at university. It's a playground for the bright children of the wealthy. The bright children of the white middle class, get left behind.
We rigged the system to favor people who already have 2 parents, with both parents university educated and the parents have lots of money. Then we call their daughters "Oppressed" and let her into elite schools, while a hard working white Christian male has zero chance of getting in, even if his grades are excellent. Then at university, we teach rich white and non white girls, how horrible men are. So, we are culturally trapped in feminist misperceptions, we end up helping the daughters of rich Americans and rich immigrants. All the while the daughters of the middle class suffer, because they are doing less well due to in part, all the anti-male discrimination promoted by Democrats....which means the men they marry, aren't doing so well.
Same thing in the black community. Zuby was talking to Larry Elder the other day, of the various ways feminist Democrat policies end up really hurting black Americans....basically destroying their families. Thomas Sowell has lots to say, about that. Nothing intended there, all unintended bad problematic consequences of policies, where we think we are helping people, but end up creating bigger problems. Zuby would make a great guest.
Alan Dershowitz had something interesting to say on all this DEI stuff, yesterday his appearance on Triggernometry. Alan is over 80, remembers when universities had "Jewish quotas"....I remember that too. Universities were "Woke" long before woke. Then eventually they let in Jewish students, the kids thrived, became about a quarter of students in the Ivy Leagues. Then fast forward a few decades, DEI came in. The logic of DEI is: whoever is successful is a target. Their success must be, because they exploited people...the "oppressed/oppressor" narrative is basic to higher education now. It's the world view of the young, now that learning itself was corrupted by the political left.
Alan explains how Jewish people are successful, so they are natural targets of DEI. He says the number of Jewish students in the Ivy Leagues is plunging, how many parents are looking for alternative schools like in Florida for their kids, where there is less anti-Semitism allowed, thanks to the Governor. As Dave said the other day, whites are the next target for the Left, we are in their cross hairs. But as always the real nasty stuff currently happening is, DEI and far-left Democrats are going after Jewish Americans. "First they come for the Jews...." So true.
If Jews & Christians can stick together, we can win this fight.
1
-
Why Democrats need racism: To get elected. In the 1960s under Lyndon B. Johnson, The Great Society, black Americans were bribed with money, to vote Democrat. It worked. Black Americans used to vote Republican, because Lincoln freed the slaves. Today, 95% of black Americans vote Democrat. Black Americans are 12% of the American population. This math means Democrats can't win a single election, without getting almost all the black vote. That's why Ana Navarro pumps up racism all the time. She wants black folks to live in fear that the KKK Republicans are out to get them. But it's a lie. Ana is a liar. She knows that racism has declined remarkably across America. Democrats by the way, helped push that back in the 1960s. The culture changed. Democrats get a lot of credit for that. Racism is no longer socially acceptable. In 1957, 85% of white Americans were against mixed marriages between blacks and whites. Today 85% of white Americans are OK with mixed marriages between blacks and whites. So Ana's claim of racism being the real cause of problems for black Americans economic mobility, is a lie. Flat out lie. Why does she lie? To hide the truth, found by President Trump. Remember: "14 out of 15 of the most crime ridden American cities are run by Democrats. And have been for many decades." That was President Trump stating the truth.
Democrats know their policies failed black America. But they have to keep lying to black Americans, claiming that whites are all racist, in order to keep black Americans hooked on public money, which Democrat Lyndon Johnson started with the Great Society, which is the Grandfather of Woke. Why Democrat policies hurt black Americans: If you look at Nigerian American immigrants, they are the most successful group of immigrants. The cultural pattern for them is strong families, emphasize education. Johnson Democrats gave money to black families, if Dad wasn't around. They bribed black moms to vote Democrat. Ben Shapiro talked about this. So did Larry Elder and Candace Owens: In the 1960s, the black fatherless rate was 20% of black families. Today, 80% of black American homes are headed by women. Democrats basically bribed black women, to destroy their own families, break up their families, replace the black American Dad, with government money and preference for black women. Some call it Affirmative Action. It destroyed the black American male, replaced him in the family.
Larry Elder has been trying to enlighten people on this, for a long time. We're not their yet. If black men in America, if most of them ever figured out, it was rich liberal Democrats who destroyed their lives, their communities, they will be very angry. Racism was a horrible stain on American history. Almost as bad as racism, was Democrats attacking the black American men, replacing him in the family with Government being a Substitute Husband, for black women. Ana knows this. She is terrified the truth will become broadly known. So she keeps lying and fear mongering, hiding the truth, covering it up, by her crazy rants about Republicans all being neo-Nazi white Supremicist and racist. Ana is lying to win elections for Democrats. She's lying to keep down black folks. She's lying because if black Americans find out, they have a political choice now, they don't have to vote Democrat, this will end the Democrat majority. That's why all the hate speech towards whites. That's why, Critical Race Theory is pushed in schools. They are brain washing your kids, to hate each other, so they vote Democrat. Stop them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
In Gen Z's defense, from a Boomer: Social media and the internet are all new, we are unpacking in real time what it's doing to us, how to deal with it. My guess is there is a yin/yang about online information. ☯🛰📡🖥🖱
Yin: The Dunning Kruger effect, is when ordinary people think they know more than they actually do. It's like in that Ryan Long Video "Man Whose Life's a Mess Has Middle East Figured Out"
Yang: The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, explained by science fiction writer Michael Crichton. Murray Gell-Man was a friend of Albert Einstein, Murray also won the Nobel Prize for Physics. Gell-Man Amnesia is where a very smart person can see holes in the online media, but only about things that he or she really knows a lot, about. Other things, they don't see the holes in all the nonsense out there. Some of what smart people end up believing is nonsense....because you can't know everything, even if you have access to all the information.
Gen Z knows the least in some ways, less life experience than older people, yet has access to virtually unlimited information now online, that's never happened before. That's too much to sort through, too much to know what's real, what's not, what's good, what's not. How do you sort out junk from good stuff? Even smart people like Eric Weinstein are having trouble, he's become very humble.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The real answer is, feminism was a good solution to problems that no longer exist. It's a Boomer answer to problems we no longer deal with. New problems arise and feminists have no clue, to the answers. For instance there is class and feminism. Feminism allowed women access to college. Great. But the main people who ended up benefitting were girls from well off families, it's they that go to college. This left out the bottom 80% of women. Not great. Feminism reinforced class privilege.
Some feminists are very smart. Camille Paglia and Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers sat down at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, talking about "The Absence of Biology in Gender Studies". Combined, these women have 100 years experience in feminism. In that short conversation they reveal that feminists don't have an education component of biology, in their "education". Not a clue. No understanding of science and gender or biology. So, much of feminism is rooted in that scientific ignorance as they make up fictitious ideological harmful ideas like Woke and DEI which, if you unpack those ideas, end up hurting women, while proclaiming to be helping.
Gen Z women has access to men's forums for lots of criticism of feminism, access to the internet, information gets around at light speed, Gen Z will have to be the generation that reinvents feminism, all it's many defects, to make it relevant. Or at least, not destructive. Now, it's a set of ideas mostly very destructive to everyone, sure doesn't help anyone, just the well off. See: Breaking Points today, " US Happiness PLUMMETS As Youths Say American Dream DEAD" Also see Brett Cooper: Women Are Waking Up To The Reality of Hookup Culture
1
-
1
-
@AFriedChicken How the internet can fix the legal system:
On the Republican side, they are worried about fair trials and legal proceedings. American law arose out of English common law and it is based on a right to a fair trial. Republicans say Democrats are trying to replace the right to a fair trial, with social justice based trials, which are extremely problematic, to say the least. Social justice based trials mean a new group is discriminated against, to make up for a group that has been historically discriminated against. Racism is the new cure for racism, Dems say. I don't think so.
How to fix the unfair system? As a Republican I say Democrats do have a point. Blacks were historically discriminated against. Also poor American, both black and white, have been discriminated against. OJ Simpson got off, despite having committed his crime, because OJ was able to hire a great legal team. OJ is rich. It's not always about race. It's usually about money.
I remember right after the OJ trial, when he got off of his crime, Chris Rock my favorite comedian, did a comedy show in front of 5,000 mostly white people. Chris smiled in a big grin and looked at the audience and said, "Yeah, black folks know OJ was guilty". The audience laughed. Yeah, OJ did it. He had money.
But how do we fix the real discrimination against black Americans....and poor Americans...that has always been there? Put trials online. On the internet. Provide a lot of funding. Hire actual lawyers, half are Republican, some are black, some are white, half are Democrat, to watch the trials, educate the public how the rules of evidence works, so people can see if someone is getting a fair trial.
We should not listen to Don Lemon. He's a racist moron.
We put cameras on cops. Next comes teachers in classrooms, as Tucker Carlson suggested. They are teaching CRT garbage to children. Let parents watch to see if they agree with what is being taught to their kids. Now lets put cameras in all court rooms, let the public decide if a fair trial is happening.
Democrats are right: black Americans need to be sure they are getting a fair trial, if charged with a crime. Put it on the internet. I don't mind my tax dollars used in this way. Cheaper than having riots, because Don Lemon lies to people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How to look for answers, using free speech:
I was listening to Alan Dershowitz, recent video on Harvard restricting free speech. He's a great guy, loyal American, even though a Democrat. He teaches at Harvard, so he knows that Harvard is against free speech. That's weird. Terrible. Anti-American. Woke. That's a war on normal Americans. Here's why I think Harvard went bad:
Free Speech helped get rid of anti-Semitism. That's good. Very good. That's what free speech is for: getting rid of bad ideas, like anti-Semitism....or Woke.
I have a long memory. When I was a kid there was a bright kid in my town who was Jewish. He could not get into medical school. Why not? Because he was Jewish. Funny thing was, he had the highest marks in science at the state university, 4 years in a row. We had free speech, we Americans sorted it out, we eventually tossed that anti-Semitic garbage where it belonged: in the garbage.
Same with gay marriage. We got rid of persecuting gay people, by free speech. At one time we had terrible persecution of gay Americans. Now we don't, thanks to free speech. Better now. Good.
Now liberals at Harvard want to get rid of free speech? Idiots....they want to get rid of the very thing that made life better for Jews and gay people in America? Crazy. Anti-American.
The political left used to push free speech back in the 1960s, because it was moral, because it helped solve or fight: racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism. Now the political left pushes at Harvard, against free speech. Why?
My real question is: are they really against free speech? What's their motive at Harvard? And: Is the left actually against free speech? Hard to believe...I actually don't believe so. They are liars, at Harvard. Just a guess. I believe they are lying, even about that. That's not what is actually what's going on, it's not what's actually motivating lefties. So what's actually going on? Nepotism
....it's about nepobabies, just like Bill Maher explained about Hollywood.
Jordan Peterson taught at Harvard. He said almost all his students had parents in the economic top 1%. Back story: Harvard and elite universities have operated for decades as an inter-generational wealth transfer mechanism, for the upper classes. The same pattern shows at all top 20 American universities: almost all their students are drawn from the very upper classes, economically, the top 10%, particularly the top 1%.
You can see this in data in the Harvard Crimson Magazine, available online. The average family income for the parents of Harvard students is 3X the national average. So what's the liberal Harvard objection to free speech about....really? It's about nepotism.
Would you like me to prove it? Here goes:
So in the current time, the admissions people at Harvard have spent a long time making sure hard working Chinese American students don't get into Harvard, based on merit. That's racism. In your face racism. Harvard is racist. Who is racist there? It's: Woke upper class white racism against Chinese...by the very same people who supposedly are against racism: white liberals. The Supreme Court had a comment on that, recently.
How do you explain that contradiction?...Harvard says racism is bad, but supports it, in practice?
Based on merit, about 40% of Harvard should be Chinese Americans. That would be fine with me. I don't care about skin tone. I prefer fairness and not judging by skin color, because I am not a racist, like most at Harvard. What's going on? The rich upper class Harvard Woke people keep the Chinese numbers low. It's a Chinese quota, just like Harvard at one time had a quota on Jews. That's bigotry. Both are bigotry. Harvard's cap on Chinese students reminds me of what it was like when I was young: This reminds me of the anti-Semitism so popular, at the time of my youth. That was wrong. So is this. We should say no to Woke bigots.
Funny thing is, about 30% of Harvard professors are Jewish like Alan Dershowitz...as are 30% of Harvard students. So I'm happy that anti-Semitism was defeated, Jewish people can do well. That's good. But I'm not impressed that the same people who suffered bigotry have now turned into bigots.....Archie Bunkers with a university degree from Harvard. Same with white Christian rich liberals: meatheads.
Shame on them.
Yes, I think they are bigots, wealthy upper class white liberals. Meatheads.
However, appearances of racism are deceptive.
I think the actual reason the upper class white Americans are bigots, is to protect their own children, from fair competition. It's nepotism, not real racism. Why do I say that? Most of the elite jobs on Wall Street go to Ivy League grads....the inter-generational wealth transfer system is changing. Rich liberals want to continue to use higher education to keep it going for their children, via the inter-generational wealth transfer system, that elite colleges like Harvard have become. Both Jews and Christians.
Go Woke, rig the system for little Johnny and Jill.
Remember: Harvard lectures America about so called "White Privilege". Get real, Harvard.
The notion of "White Privilege"...taught at Harvard: is a lie. But it masks a reality: White Privilege is actually real, but misunderstood. It's narrow: It's mostly upper class rich white privilege that exists, not so called general white privilege.
You want proof of my claim? Look up Forbes Magazine, February 2017, Noah Kirsch article....writes about it. About how Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos have combined wealth greater than the bottom 50% of Americans....combined.
All 160 Million of us, mostly white people.
White privilege for the bottom half of America....most of whom are white? Don't make me laugh. It's rich white upper class Harvard set privilege, by the people who lecture us, then want to take away our free speech. The nerve. Chutzpah much? The same privileged people who lecture the middle and lower classes, about their so called privilege.
Harvard is Woke...meaning full of crap. 💩
That's the truth that dare not speak it's name. White privilege as a taught idea at Harvard, is used to hide their own rich white upper class guilt, by transferring guilt onto the lower classes, pretending they are responsible for the actions of the white elite, long since dead. This too, is just another Woke lie. It's using history, the media, the school system, to demoralize the people with not chance. They can't stop lying. Our Harvard elite are liars.
That's why the Oliver Anthony song, "Rich Men, North of Richmond"....they just want total control.
What is Woke? What is their, so called sensitivity to race...and history?
In reality?
It's nepotism, more than bigotry that's their problem. Woke people appear to be bigots, but it's a fake bigotry. Their bigotry is just an expression of their narrow minded nepotism....just a bunch of greedy immoral jerks.
That's what ruined capitalism. We have to fix this.
Bunch of liars in the Ivy Leagues. A degree from Harvard is just a degree in self interested lying. 🤑Our Harvard elite are morally bankrupt. Disgusting.🤮
1
-
Economic Justice, why it's hard for a multi-racial state, like America:
Humans vary in many ways. America is becoming a multi-ethnic, multi-racial state, in a big hurry. That's a beautiful thing that should be celebrated, it's a strength, if... If, if we handle it right. If, we handle it honestly, morally. Everyone deserves a chance to win at life in America. The problem? Humans vary. And we lie about it. For instance:
IQ and capitalism, how the economy was rigged against the working class and middle Americans...by accident, with no conspiracy, no villain and no one noticing why.
A few lunatics say there is a "secret cabal" who control America. Is that true? No.
Why did we get that impression? Dishonesty. It's a false impression, based on something real, we don't want to talk about....
Basically, humans vary in IQ across groups, this distorts economics, creates a lot of unfairness.
Look up: Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending, University of Utah.....free paper online, "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence"
That population has quite a few bright people in it. That's why 25% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish, as scientist Richard Dawkins has pointed out.
Look up Jordan Peterson and Glenn Loury talking about this.
And at the same time, the ADL is correct about Jewish people suffering from anti-Semitism. Problem is, that was long ago, just like slavery. The reality is very different today, it's more about privilege now, not oppression. The ADL is pushing fairy tales about oppression, while hiding the real narrative.
Basically: IQ varies among populations. It's a genetic fluke. Jordan Peterson has talked about this. He has lots of Jewish friends, has a few videos on this. Jewish people are a very small population. If you know statistics: Even small variations in IQ among populations cause large differences at the tail end of the distributions. This means: Lots of smart Jewish people, even though small population. Especially in math. Look up: Harvard, World's Hardest Math Course.....30% of graduates Jewish. That's why 50% of world's chess champions, have that background.
No, IQ variation is not a conspiracy. No cabal exists. Just genetic variation in humans.
What does history say about this?
History: New York became the financial center of the world, after World War II. Lots of Jews migrated there, got educated, got jobs on Wall Street, got rich, using their math skills. Largest population of Jews in world is in New York, next in population to Israel. The Jewish population in America made enormous positive contribution, in finance, media and Hollywood. Why does this ethnic group do well financially? They do well at math, innate talent, so they made a lot of money. History and biology and math came together, to make some populations richer than average. A lot. I'm happy for their success, but I don't buy the ADL narrative, because it's a misleading lie about history.
So: No, immigration is not a conspiracy. The rise of America in the 20th century was not a conspiracy. No cabal here.
Then there is, 'The Pareto Effect': Also called Price's Law in Economics. Jordan Peterson has talked about this, has quite a few videos on it. Basically in capitalism, most of the money ends up in a few hands. It's a function of economics, not a conspiracy. It favors clever people, the people good at math. Guess who? Not a conspiracy.
Mitt Romney said once, "corporations are people too"....yeah, legally they are....a bunch of people working together, to make money. Legally they function as a person. Corporations also display The Pareto Effect, just like individual people do.
Professor Scott Galloway has you tube videos on this, "The Big Four" how just 4 corporations have more money than almost any country in the world, except the top 6 biggest economies/countries. The Pareto Effect combined with legal corporations, to create tremendous wealth. That's a great thing, but again, this has a strong tendency to concentration wealth in society....it's an economic law, The Pareto Effect.
Economic laws are not a conspiracy. Biology is not a conspiracy.
The political problem: Politics is run on money. The monied class in America bought our Presidents, most of them, our political class. So the political solutions we come up with, favor the very rich. The rules get set, to favor the rich, whatever their religion. Guess who benefits? It costs a lot of money to run for the Senate. It's tempting for politicians to only listen to the donor class, only take care of their interests. And that's what is happening. Jennifer Lawrence figured this out in her latest appearance on Dr. Steve's channel a day ago. This is an American problem, not a Jewish problem. A rich American problem.
-50% of Joe Biden's Cabinet are Jewish, but only 1% of the population. Conspiracy? No. A talented population.....just like Vivek Ramaswamy comes from a small minority: Indian American family income 2X white American family income...conspiracy? A cabal? No, a talented small group
Also in India, a very similar thing happened: the Parsees are Indians with very high IQs, they have a huge amount of India's wealth and political power. There is no Parsee cabal, just human variation playing itself out in economics. Same thing.
-look up wiki on the richest 25 American billionaires, their family backgrounds, more of the same, not a conspiracy, just talent. Not a cabal, just human variation.
-look up Forbes Magazine, Feb. 2017, Noah Kirsch article, good summary of wealth concentration in America.....more of the same, highlighting rich people of Christian heritage.....Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos...how rich they are: it follows Pareto Distribution....a few people get everything.
Basically those 3 men have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of Americans, combined.
I'm all for people getting rich, but we must be realistic about money and power, if we are to run a Republic where everyone has a chance at a decent life, where our political class is not bought and sold by rich Americans of all religions....as it is now. Again, completely opposite of the corrupt ADL narrative.
Because the winners in capitalism end up with so much money, they influence the rules, in their favor. To make more. This means the rules of capitalism have been shifted over time, resulting in too much poverty. The rules are set up by the clever and the rich, to keep the rich making more money. Then the well off send their children to Harvard, where they feel guilty over their family wealth and buy into a ludicrous Woke World view.
Our economic system runs on: the Matthew Principle, sung about by Billie Holiday long ago in her song, "God bless the child, that's got it's own." Them that's got, get more.
To the untrained eye, political corruption and buying the political class looks like a back room conspiracy. It's not. It's rich, corrupt elites. People are catching on. That's why that song is popular: Rich Men North of Richmond touches on the theme: wealth concentration. New York and Wall Street are north of Richmond. Wall Street bought Washington, D.C. Now Blackrock wants to own first Ukraine, then Russia....for the money. We need fair laws.
Moral ethical Jews, they know all this, should do something about it. Most Jewish people are very ethical, many support President Trump and are patriotic.
Tucker Carlson once said, "What happened to the America I grew up in? Where a guy with a 100 IQ had a shot at a decent life?" Exactly. I want that again. Most people of all races need to win, I want the middle class to win, the Homer Simpsons of the US to win...have a decent middle class life.
Or else our American Dream of a multi-racial society is going to tear apart. People like the ADL lie about economic reality, fairness and corruption and paint themselves as victims, while representing the powerful. That's ruinous to fair capitalism, which depends on morals and honesty and human decency. Capitalism must take into account human variation. Economics must be redesigned, so most people of all races and classes, win.
What I don't want: I don't want anti-Semitism. No. Absolutely not. Reject that, completely, with no reservations. We've already been there, done that. America is now a place most of the winnings go to Rich Men, North of Richmond. That's tearing this country apart, that's what Black Lives Matter was about: people want better lives. Do better, America. Demand our economic elite do better. Let's all win together united, black and white, all religions, all ethnic groups, proud and United Americans, in the land of the free, home of the brave. Greatest country in the world. Ever.
1
-
How smart people are ruining capitalism. My odd theory:
Let's start by explaining Elon Musk's family history. Recently someone...at the ADL.... suggested Elon is anti-Semitic. Nonsense, I say. As Elon put it recently: "If anything I'm pro-Semitic." I admire Elon. Millions of Americans do. Great creator of wealth. Great human being.
Why it's crazy to say Elon is anti-Semitic: Isn't Elon Musk's dad Jewish? Far as I know, he is. And his mom is Christian. How can Elon be anti-Semite? Makes no sense: Elon went to a Jewish pre-school, according to the you tube channel "Elon Musk Fan Zone", the video, "Elon Musk: Does God Exist?" At 3 minutes 15 seconds in.
The ADL....Anti Defamation League... used to be useful. Recently Douglas Murray has ripped into it.....Sky News Australia, on you tube. "Woefully high opinion of themselves.
The ADL was formed in 1913 when there really WAS a lot of prejudice against Jewish people, like Dave. Today Jewish Americans do very well, they marry into the Donald Trump family, the Bill and Hillary Clinton family. We need to understand why the ADL is wrong and how it hurts justice:
Basically my guess is, wealth is hyper-concentrated in America, along ethnic lines, because IQ varies in humans. And at the same time, the ADL is correct about Jewish people suffering from anti-Semitism. Problem is, that was long ago, just like slavery. The reality is very different today, it's more about privilege now, not oppression. The ADL is pushing fairy tales about oppression, while hiding the real narrative. What's the real narrative? Two things. First:
Basically: IQ varies among populations. It's a genetic fluke. Jordan Peterson has talked about this. He has lots of Jewish friends, has a few videos on this. Jewish people are a very small population. If you know statistics: Even small variations in IQ among populations cause large differences at the tail end of the distributions. This means: Lots of smart Jewish people, even though small population. Especially in math. Look up: Harvard, World's Hardest Math Course.....30% of graduates Jewish. That's why 50% of world's chess champions, have that background.
Second, wealth is concentrated in America. That ethnicity has an unusually high percentage of total wealth. And this translates into political clout. Such as? Such as 50% of Joe Biden's Cabinet is Jewish and 50% of the richest 25 Americans are as well. They are a bright group, lots of smart people for a tiny population. Yes, they were historically oppressed. Not now. The ADL is lying about that. They have a high opinion of themselves. Jewish Privilege is now a thing, unfortunately. The ADL is all over that. Keep in mind: the vast majority of Jewish Americans are just normal average patriotic Americans, but they have more high achievers, that's all. And this means the rich in America, have basically rigged capitalism for themselves, the rules all favor rich Americans. Longer explanation to follow.
1
-
@briancoughlin6732 You are right. Here is how I think this happens, how we ended up creating tribes, tearing the country apart:
America has had very massive immigration in the past. That's how America was created. David Horowitz's dad's family came here in 1905. He is fully American.
The thing is, in the past we also shut our doors for up to 100 years, to give time for immigrants to assimilate, become Americans. Now we let in too many, give them no time to assimilate, then we wonder why open borders are creating tribes of people.
Joe Biden said in a video on bit chute, that he wants endless immigration, he wants to be sure it never stops, he wants to be sure that white Americans are, from now on, a permanent minority in America. He said that. You can look it up. That's what the left wants: to destroy America by destroying it's historical ethnic composition.
The solution?
We need a 100 year pause on immigration. Let everyone integrate slowly. Our current policies are just population replacement....they will blow up America...just like you said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Cody I agree with most of your comments. But one curious thing: Costa Rica, a very poor country, has higher life expectancy, than the United States. Link below. Why is that? Wiki says "The country spends one tenth as much per capita on health care as the United States, focusing on preventive care.[7]"....so based on that, I don't think the determining factor in a healthy population is, whether it is "socialist healthcare" or "private". My guess is, the important things is, if you focus on preventative care, focus on how to keep people healthy rather than treating illness, then you get much better health outcomes, for much, much less money...whether that is in a private system or socialized system.
I think a useful yardstick to try and figure out what works, is longevity. Countries with long lived people may be doing things that are useful, since the populations must be pretty healthy, as they are outliving Americans. Despite all the money America spends on healthcare, we don't live that long. Why is that?
Of the top 3 countries in the world, in terms of how long people live, on healthcare, according to wiki, Japanese people live the longest. So then you might ask: What kind of healthcare do the Japanese, who live so long, what type of healthcare do they have? Japan seems to be a mixture of public healthcare for all, mixed with personal responsibility and private healthcare. Also I'm familiar with Japan, and in my opinion the food supply is overall better than America....and that contributes to better health. Many in America suffer from obesity due to poor food at places like McDonald's.
The number 2 country in longevity is Switzerland, and it is a private system, similar to Republican ideas.
The number 3 country in longevity is Singapore, with health care savings accounts that Sean Hannity has been promoting on his show, for a long time. It is a mixture of socialized medicine and a very strong private system, with compulsory medical savings account.
So I think if Americans look around the world, see what works, what does not, they can take the best ideas and revamp our healthcare. My guess is the Singapore model is best suited to the U.S., because the Swiss model of total private healthcare won't work, because a large part of our population is too useless and irresponsible to look after themselves. Also Japan has a very good system because it takes care of the basics for everyone who wants it, via a public system, but has a gold plated system for those who can afford it. And it focuses on a good food supply, which is essential in maintaining long term health. Americans who are willing to pay for it, should be entitled to gold plated healthcare.
So:
I don't think socialized medicine will work for everyone in America.
I also don't think private healthcare will work for everyone in America.
With our population, we may need some sort of hybrid system. And as Costa Rica shows, we are likely wasting most of our health care money. We could likely have better outcomes on health, at 1/10th the cost, by focusing on prevention and early detection. Healthcare is just, for the most part, another money making scheme....for both private and public systems.
I had a sister die of cancer, and she had expensive treatment at gold plated clinics in Phoenix. I could not help but thinking at the time, yes the doctors were sincerely trying to help her, but she was going to die anyhow as she was too late. Catching her disease early would have meant she would be still alive today. So treating her at the stage of advanced cancer was, despite the best intentions of the wonderful medical staff, was still largely useless, expensive, an enormous income generator for the medical company, and in the end, completely medically useless.
We need to start thinking differently about "healthcare"...just spending a lot of money, won't make us healthier, won't make us live longer. We need smart spending. We have too much dumb spending. As an example of smart vs. dumb spending, Hillary outspent Donald Trump 10 to 1 during the last election, and Trump still won.
And just throwing money at things, is the greatest weakness of socialized medicine. If throwing vast quantities of money into healthcare was the key to good outcomes, we Americans should be living till 100, considering how much money we currently spend.
Preventative care, is where it is at....imo
Thanks.....just my two cents....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Black Lives Matter, as part of their agenda, wants to deconstruct the nuclear family and replace it with a welfare check for a woman. Back in the 1960s, only about 20% of black homes were headed by a woman. Now it's closing in on 80%.
White women are mostly to blame for this mess. Here's how: If you look at voting patterns, white women mostly vote Democrat, the party that pushes welfare the most. Feminists in particular, white feminist females push this and have for decades. In the late 1960s Democrat President Johnson and his "War on Poverty" meant the federal government pushed more assistance to black women, particularly if the dad of the kid was not around.
This pattern led to black women realizing they could pay their bills, have a roof over their heads even if the dad of the kid was not around. So they did so. From female led houses in black community being 20% of all black families, back in the 1960s, the figure has climbed to 80%. Its not irresponsible black parents that are the problem, it's white liberals, particularly feminists, pushing the agenda of giving help to women, even if dad's not around. This incentivizes irresponsibility.
Fast forward to today, I read "The Boy Crisis" by Dr. Warren Farrell. He used to be one of the leading American feminists, back in the 1960s. In his book is a very telling statistic: "85% of men in prison are from fatherless homes. This is true of both black inmates and white inmates."
And there you have it. Bad outcomes are caused by fatherlessness. And fatherlessness is promoted and economically subsidized by white liberals, particularly white feminist women. Oh and I don't think they are bad people, they are just wrong. Ever heard the expression "Killing with Kindness"?. That expression comes from those times in life, we think we are being nice and compassionate and helpful, when in fact we are hurting people, by doing things that seem nice on the surface, but are actually quite harmful.
White liberals have already destroyed the black community. Black Americans don't need to be blamed for the nasty things liberals did to them. Amen.
1
-
Understanding Equity and so called White Privilege: Most of the people who push this philosophy are young and upper middle class white kids, of college age. They came from spoiled backgrounds. They never had to do a real hard day's work in their lives. Most of the wealth in America tends to accumulate in the economic upper 20%, most of the top 20% are in fact rich whites with kids. Their kids tend to buy into "White Privilege" because the kids in fact have been born into a situation where they basically are born with golden horseshoes up their rear, life almost always goes well, seldom really goes wrong.
So for maybe 20% of white kids, it makes sense, this whole notion of "White Privilege" as it fits the stories of their personal lives. Trouble is, these young white kids are too clueless to see that the "White Privilege" story doesn't fit the pattern of the lives of most whites.
Part of the problem with the "White Privilege" story is that many other ethnic groups show variety in economic outcomes, which are far better than the outcomes for whites in general. That's where their White Privilege narrative breaks down, because it stresses the importance of skin color as the dominant factor in economic outcomes. Here are a few things that don't fit the pattern:
-since the 1970s Chinese, Japanese and Korean Americans all have had income and health and education achievement levels far above Whites in general.
-at elite universities like Harvard, Chinese, Japanese and Korean Americans are vastly over-represented, based on their percentage of the population
-Americans with parents from India earn about twice the White income average and have educational achievements far beyond the White norm, despite their brown skin
-Nigerian-Americans are incredibly successful in America, economically and in education
-Jewish Americans are far more successful than other whites. (half of Joe Biden's Cabinet is Jewish and if you look up wiki on the 25 richest Americans, you'll find half of them are Jewish, despite Jewish Americans only being 1% of the American population)
"White Privilege" is a fairy tale that lucky, half educated rich mostly liberal White kids tell the world. They do so because they feel guilty at their luck and privilege, they dumbly assume all whites are in their luck category and they are also projecting an opinion they have of minorities, particularly Black Americans. Rich white liberal kids obviously have a very very low opinion of American blacks. They think they are beyond help, beyond redemption. There is a common word to describe such a low opinion of other races. That word is "racist".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why are white women sometimes beautiful? That has a lot to do with our current economic inequalities about race. Explanation:
To understand that question, first ask yourself: what are we humans? Where did we come from?
My answer: we are animals shaped by the selection forces of evolution.
So: Why are white women sometimes beautiful? Because white men like that. We desire beautiful women. We desire beautiful white women. There are men with almost beautiful features, almost female-like, but not that many. Beauty in the white feminine sense almost always shows up in white women, not men.
It's like neo-natalism...having child like features. Another evolutionary feature in white women. Why are some white women like that? Because some white men in our evolutionary history, found that attractive. So they slept with white women, who had those qualities, passing on those genetics...which show up again, generations later in other white women.
Why are some white men extremely smart? Because that's what white women found attractive in the past. So those women chose to have sex with those men in the past who were clever, passing on those genetics. That's why Ben Shapiro is quite clever.
Milo Yianopoulas wrote an article about it. He said that there were differences between the sexes. Basically there are a lot more very smart white men, than smart white women. That's because white women select men out for intelligence. So that shows up more in the male line. That's why there are more smart white men, than smart white women.
So, there are a lot more beautiful white women, than beautiful white men, because white men prefer beautiful white women. There are a lot more smart white men, than smart white women, because white women prefer smart men. What white men don't care about generally is how smart she is. Sure that's nice and a bonus if a woman is smart, but that's pretty far down the list on top qualities they look for in a woman. But intelligence in white men, is particularly highly prized by white women, so there are quite a few very smart men around.
Sorry girls, there is no "Patriarchy" oppressing women, stopping women from inventing the modern world. There is only nature. And in nature, it is white women who, by their sexual choice of preferring smart white men, it's the women who created the men who built modern civilization and the modern economy. Feminism is a fairy tale.
This explains a lot about the modern economy. White men earn about 27% more than do white women. One of the reasons for this is white men are more clever than white women. The reason white men are more clever than white women is that white women prefer smart white men, so they selected out smart white men to sleep with, making smart white male babies who would grow up, invent modern civilization and out earn those women.
According to H Nyborg, white men invented about 97% of all technology and science. We would all of us on earth be living in grass huts, were it not for white men, who are only 5% of the world's population. We white men created it all. I don't apologize for this, nor do I really take credit for it, as a white man.
For one thing, only about 1% of white men, the top 1%, are clever enough to have invented the things that created the modern world. I'm fairly clever, but I'm not in that group. I don't believe in taking credit for things I didn't do, for things I'm not capable of doing. And about 99% of white men are just run of the mill men and could not invent something earth shattering, to save their lives. We're just like anyone else.
That explains a lot of why black and white Americans have different economic outcomes. There are different group outcomes because there are different IQ averages. While there are many smart black Americans, the group averages are different, so you get different economic outcomes, since IQ plays a major role in economics. Same with Americans like Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin. Their ethnic group tend to have quite high IQs, so this explains why only 1 in 100 Americans are their ethnic vroup, but 1 in 3 American Billionaires, are of their ethnic group..
But I'm not about the white men taking credit for nature itself, just for accepting it. For instance: The 1% of white men who themselves invented all of the modern world, even they can't take any credit for it. For it is white women who created those clever white men who invented the modern world....just as white men created white women. According to Dr. Ed Dutton, Europeans are more sexually dimorphic than other groups of humans. This means there are bigger variations in Europeans, between the males and females...than in other races.
This means for instance the difference between white men and white women on things like height or intelligence is a lot higher than the difference between black men and black women. This means for instance there is less intelligence difference between black men and women, than the larger difference between white men and white women.
This greater sexual dimorphism in whites explains why there are so many white geniuses, compared to other races. It explains why men invented all technology. It explains why white men in particular, so small a percentage of the world's population, invented virtually all technology and science. It explains why white men earn more money than white women.
To start unraveling our current miseries and the Black Lives Matter movement, we need to be honest about race and gender and how it impacts economics. Currently we lie through out teeth. Everyone knows our current explanation about racial disparities and sexual disparities is a big fat lie.
Not everyone is the same. Imagine that. Nature is not equal, so founding an economic theory on imaginary "equality" won't work. Sorry to the progressive left, but nature and evolution is the real problem here. It's racist and sexist....not equal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What is Tim Cook afraid of? What is the left afraid of? Truth. Why are they afraid of debate? I think I know why. It's something Jordan Peterson mentioned.
He said:
-most innovators tend to be liberal/progressive types
-Silicon Valley is very dominated by left leaning people
-a few exceptions like Elon Musk
-creative people tend to be more open minded
-80% of the people who comment on you tube, turn out to be men
-for some reason, most of the people who are good at debate, seem to be right leaning men
I think what happened was the more creative types, they invented the internet. The inventors tended to be the Tim Cook type of people: very liberal or progressive, very open minded. They the innovators, they expected most people, once exposed to ideas online, would be come like them, politically and culturally. That turned out, to be not true. Not only not true, but the exact opposite happened:
The right leaning people took over the internet, once it was established by the creative types. Right leading people actually have an advantage online. They aren't particularly creative, not nearly as much as the left. But right leaning people use reason and logic a lot more, are one hell of an opponent online. The political right is killing it, online. That's a big surprise. But that just means, we are only now starting to understand exactly why this happened. I don't think it's an accident most of the best content creators tend to lean right, most of the best people arguing and leaving comments, tend to be male and right leaning. It's a surprise, but not an accident. There's an explanation. All this was a big surprise to Silicon Valley and the creative class. They are now afraid of debate, because they will lose. They know it. Why? The Ben Shapiro type have a huge, huge advantage online.
The same sort of thing is happening in education. The root reason: It goes back to how people are born, what their natural tendencies are. And about how people sort themselves out, in life, based on their natural tendencies. Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt have figured some of this out:
All of this sounds like Jordan Peterson's many comments on chaos vs. order, conservative temperament vs. liberal temperament. A lot of this is genetic. Jonathan Haidt has done work on innate political differences. It's influenced by genes. Why are some people more open, like to explore? Born that way. Why do some people like orderliness? Born that way. Especially people who end up being accountants. The trouble with progressives now, is they are bigots. We are figuring this out. It's a surprise. It's not the old bigotry. It's a new sort of bigotry, they don't even recognize in themselves. It's the sort that assumes every child comes out the same, every child is born close to their progressive ideals. Every child is a future progressive, if we can only brainwash, err I mean educate him or her, along those lines, getting rid of tradition, family, religion and have drag queens educate them all.
Jordan Peterson once gave a lecture at Cambridge 4 years ago. Someone once asked him if a lot of what he was saying as a psychologist, was just the conservative psychologists reacting to liberal psychologists. Dr. Peterson responded something like: "There are no conservative psychologists in the world. The profession is entirely dominated by the progressive types, just like the overwhelming majority of academia. The only conservative psychologist in the world, is in this room. He's sitting in my chair." That's quite true. The creative elite, the academic elite, is 95% progressive/far left. Harvard and all elite universities are like that.
Of course the progressive view on education is rubbish, for many people. Most people don't want men in dresses to teach their children. For some reason, likely rooted in genetics, turns out scholarly work and some professions, just like Silicon Valley tend to attract people who are quite progressive and liberal in temperament. Progressives dominate the educating of our teachers. To terrible results. This leads to a massive philosophical blind spot in education. These people are wonderful and creative, but they have huge blind spots. That's what the culture war is about. A few eccentric creative people want everyone to be just like they are. It ain't happening. Just like all people are not cut out for pro basketball or being ballerinas. 🩰Their progressive theories about politics and education are inaccurate, because they don't take into account, people are born with all sorts of innate tendencies, and the children who weren't born the way they are "supposed" to be born, will suffer. In the end progressives will lose, victims of their own success, with it's accompanying blind spot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Donor Class. Larry Fink and Uncle George especially are huge Democrat Party funder/donors. Here's how they destroy the middle class.
Is there a "secret cabal" out to control the world, keep Americans poor, thru the World Economic Forum?....or the Democrat Party? No. Absolutely not. That's dumb. It's based on a false impression, based on something real, we don't want to talk about....But here's how we got the false impression, that a conspiracy to control the world exists:
Look up: Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, Henry Harpending, University of Utah.....free paper online, "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence"
....that's why 25% of Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out.
Basically: IQ varies among populations. It's a genetic fluke Jordan Peterson has talked about this. Jewish people are a very small population. Even small variations in IQ among populations cause large differences at the tail end of the distributions. Lots of smart Jewish people, even though small population. Especially in math. Look up: Harvard, World's Hardest Math Course.....30% of graduates Jewish.
No, IQ variation is not a conspiracy.
History: New York became the financial center of the world, after World War II. Lots of Jews migrated there, got educated, got jobs on Wall Street, got rich, using their math skills. Largest population of Jews in world, next to Israel.
No, immigration is not a conspiracy.
The Pareto Effect: Also called Price's Law in Economics. Jordan Peterson has talked about this. Basically in capitalism, most of the money ends up in a few hands. It's a function of economics, not a conspiracy. It favors clever people, the people good at math. Guess who? Not a conspiracy.
No, economic laws are not a conspiracy.
The political problem: Politics is run on money. The monied class in America bought our Presidents, most of them, our political class. So the political solutions we come up with, favor the very rich. The rules get set, to favor the rich, whatever their religion. Guess who benefits?
This means the rules of capitalism have been shifted over time, to keep you poor. And keep the rich making more money. But they do know this, haven't changed it. Jerks.
No, political corruption is not a conspiracy. It's just rich jerks doing bad things. I mean you, Larry Fink of Black Rock. Jerk. Greedy jerk. I don't care about your religion. I care that you are a greedy jerk.
No, the World Economic Forum and and the Democrat Party keeping you poor, this is not a conspiracy. To the untrained eye, it looks like a back room conspiracy. It's not. People are catching on. That's why that song is popular: Rich Men North of Richmond happen to be Jewish. New York and Wall Street are north of Richmond.
Moral ethical Jews, the smarter ones, they know all this, should do something about it. No secret cabal. Just greedy self interested very smart, but immoral jerks. Yeah, I mean you, Larry Fink.
This is a fight between the good and moral Jewish people, like Dave Rubin and Jason Miller, great Americans both....and the Finks of America.
1
-
1
-
Black crime is all Scott Adams fault. Here's why:
Woke and Racism and Scott Adam's Cancelation: Why are crime stats so high in the black American community. First off, I'm pro-black. I'm white. I have a different take on this. It's all liberals to blame. Progressives to blame. Guys like Scott create black crime, by their push of Big Government, which destroyed black America, leading to black people being so angry, taking it out on America. Conservatives didn't cause this. Liberals, Democrats, Progressives did. These things are all Woke. Remember, Woke pushes a theory that white people are evil in our hearts, that all the social failure in black America was caused by white people disliking blacks. That's bunk. Most white people don't hate black Americans. Most white people like black Americans. We don't yet realize it is Woke Democrats, that cause crime in black neighborhood. Trump figured this out. Here's how I think it works:
Scott Adams the cartoonist, was cancelled. He said white people should stay away, from black people. He says black people are angry. And their personal lives and communities are often falling apart. So they act out. But why are they angry? Racism? Systemic racism? As traditionally understood by the left, meaning: white man bad? I doubt it. Sounds like bunk. No it's something else, we refuse to look at. There is a driving mechanism, of racism. It breaks down black families that otherwise would be peaceful, normal Americans. That mechanism was created by Democrats in the 1960s. What was it?
All his life he tried to help black people. Scott describes himself politically as "left of Bernie Sanders." Scott claims that in the 1980s in San Francisco, management met with him at the bank he worked for. They told him they could not promote him, because he was white and male. That mistreatment of Scott, was racist and sexist. But slightly different than just, white man bad. It was white man bad, with a twist. Early Woke said, so lets treat white man bad, treat black people as victims who are better than white man. But, as part of our Woke cultural narrative, we added misandry: hatred of men in general. Not just white men. But all men. Including black men.
Scott was extremely competent, the best person to be promoted at his bank, because of being born male. Scott wasn't promoted because of sexism. But not sexism against women. Sexism against men. Misandry. Treating one sex as if they were bad. That's the male sex. So, back then we started to embrace feminism, the rotten idea of promoting women over men, based on biology. We also started a race based thing back in the 1960s, giving money to black Americans, based on skin color, long ago. A type of racism. This 1960s hippie philosophy was Woke's grandmother. I lived through it. Hippies were wrong.
Woke can be traced back to The Great Society. In the 1960s, under President Johnson, a left wing government program started. Based on skin color, black people were paid money. The Great Society.
The Great Society was based on skin color. That's racist. Same as Woke. It's racist. How did that work out? If you look at who got the money, it was mostly women. Black women. The white liberal American government gave black women money, even if the man in the house was not around. What did this do? This incentivized black American women to get rid of men in the house. Back in the 1960s, the fatherless rate in black homes was about 20%. Today after liberal government policy, the black fatherless rate is about 80%. Candace Owens and Larry Elder have talked about this.
I'm a fan of black R&B. A very clever and talented black American musical legend, Otis Redding, figured out what was going on. It's in a song of his. A hit from the 1960s. Called "Tramp". Sung with Carla Thomas, another great black American singer. The song is about men and women. All men and women. How it works. How it works is, women select men. Women select men on the basis of: can he help her? Can he help her raise her kids? Part of this, means money. Does he have any money?
You can see why this was the mechanism. It was the Woke racist mechanism, that destroyed black families. Black American women, decent people, were bribed to destroy their own families. Bribed by Woke liberals, to take government money. That replaced the proud black man in the home. That's where single parent black homes, really started. That all leads to social dysfunction. It destroys families. Kids don't have dads around. That leads to kids growing up, getting angry, not doing well...and crime.
By the way, I love Elvis Presley. He had a heart of gold, grew up poor, grew up in the South, grew up around poor black people. But Elvis had Daddy issues. He didn't see the value of Dads in the home. That's why he sang that ludicrous song, "In the Ghetto". Remember that song? That song says everyone who is white, is responsible for looking after black kids. But where is dad, in this picture? Where is black dad? He is no where to be found. I'm sticking up for black Dad. He is key. Empower him, to reduce crime and anger.
Scott Adams is a typical Woke leftist, he said he is "left of Bernie Sanders, politically." Exactly. And these are the people who created Big Government, Woke Government, that destroyed black America. And led to lots of black people being justifiably angry. It's Scott's fault. He's a well meaning progressive twit.
My problem with Woke is, well intentioned that it is, it doesn't work. It makes social problems much worse. Helping black Americans is a good idea, but paying black women to break up families is very destructive. It's based on feminism. Attacking men. Giving money to women, if Dad wasn't around. The left really does want to destroy the male-female bond. Problem is, evolution. We need each other. Men and women need each other. Men and women of all races need each other. And the children of all races need Dad. Simple as that. Larry Elder and Candace Owens understand this perfectly.
It's interesting that the most successful immigrant group are African immigrants from Nigeria. They have lots of intact families, dads in the home. Guess where black Americans originate from, biologically? Nigeria. It's in the book Roots. Good read. So I don't think it's about biology. I don't think it's about race. I think it's about family structure. I think it is about: is Dad around? If he is, life works. Boys especially need a dad in the home. Race is irrelevant. I remember looking up in The Boy Crisis, a statistic. Dr. Warren Farrell wrote that book, after decades of research. He said that 85% of men in prison are from fatherless homes. Same statistic for both black and for white prisoners. To me, that's the evidence:
Progressive Woke ideas are a disaster. If they worked, I'd support them. They don't work. In fact they do the opposite of help. They destroy. Woke combines feminism with racial reparations. That's just racism and male hating. What conservatives have missed till now: this is not just a bad racist idea, Woke. It's also an attack on men. That's feminism. Conservatives are very reluctant to criticize women, because men love women, we evolved to protect women. That's our weakness when women do insane thing. We need women to speak up against sexism against men, stop just protecting other females, using government to destroy families, because you think you are 'helping'. To all the white progressive Woke Karens of this world: You're not helping. You're hurting. Stop it.
The effect of Woke progressives, was to destroy the black American family. Based on money and bribes and misandry...hating men. The Democrats did this, to buy votes. Scott Adams is on to something. Black Americans are angry. But Scott should not blame them. He should look in the mirror. It is not the Ben Shapiros of this world causing this problem. It's not conservatives. It's not Megyn Kelly. It's sure as heck not Mark Dice. He doesn't support any of the Woke lunacy. Quite the opposite. Conservatives don't support these policies. Liberals do. Woke does. AOC does. It's the Scott Adams of the world, the Woke Progressives, causing these problem. It's Scott's fault. Anti-whitism is caused by white progressives doing dumb things. Scott and the feminists. Scott should be ashamed of himself. Woke twit. Scott should be mad at himself. Not black people. People like Scott, white progressives, have caused these problems.
Don't blame black people. Support black people. Not their fault. It wasn't white conservatives that caused these problems, it sure wasn't black Americans causing this problem. It was rich white upper class privilege Woke professionals, like Scott Adams. Well meaning twits.
As usual, with only common sense, President Trump instinctively nailed this, saw through the malarkey, years ago, when he said liberal policies don't work. Trump said that 14 out of 15 of the most crime ridden American cities, are run by liberals. And have been, for decades. And that their policies don't work. 🎯
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's missing in this conversation: Yeah I agree, Jews are being scapegoated, to cover up people's failures. But that truth implies, what everyone knows: Jews are successful. Thomas Sowell said more or less the same thing about the Jews. Through history, around the world, they were successful. So I think something deeper is going on. Deeper than just hating Jews. It's about hierarchy, responsibility, jealousy, human variation, cultural variation.
The Arab world in particular. There was a study done by a group of Arab scholars, pointed out the obvious: when it comes to science, they are pretty backwards. Jews tend to be well educated, high income, do well at science. Arabs are jealous of Jews, want to blame the successful, for their own failures. Oldest trick in the book.
DEI and Woke, it ties into this. It's about equalizing between groups. It's based on resentment against success. Jews are top of the list because they have had lots of success. But white Christians, not far behind Jews. Woke/DEI, it has a whole theory that proposes looking at history through the lens of "oppressor/oppressed" narrative, to view reality. Feminism came out of that, came to dominate the universities, now trains American young men that "The Patriarchy" meaning men, is the reason women as a group have not succeeded to the level that men as a group have succeeded. This is a nonsense explanation of reality, but the Democrat Party and Kamala Harris run on that nonsense. It's based on resentment of men, as an explanation of reality, the lived experience of women.
Trouble is, governments create nothing. They don't solve problems. Put Kamala in charge, she'll do the only thing she can, since she can't change a lightbulb on her own: she'll use the power granted to her by the voters, to impose her will, impose the government's will, upon the population, to "even things out". That's just fascism in high heels. Big Karen. 👠
There are cracks in Kamala's worldview. For instance she's all in on the feminist/racism oppression narrative. I remember when Kamala ran against Joe for the leadership, she pretended to be African American, said she rode a school bus into a white neighborhood, accused Joe of racism, to get votes. Kamala played the race card. The fake race card: Trouble is, Kamala's mom comes from India. Has a PhD. Kamala's half Indian. Not African American. And Kamala is very privileged: Americans from India are in a neck and neck tie for the most educated, high income group, with Jewish Americans. See: Glenn Greenwald, 2nd Gentleman to WEF....11 minutes in.
Kamala's husband is Jewish, very high income. Kamala comes from a very privileged background, lives in the most privileged household, by income in America. She's a con artist. She knows how privileged she is, just like she worked in the office in the same building as Joe Biden for years, knew his cognitive decline, lied to us about it. She knew. So now privileged Kamala wants to even out income between groups? Really Kamala? Even out things between groups? You're half Indian. Your husband is Jewish: Following Kamala's warped Woke logic: Sooner or later she'll have to put quotas on Jews & Indians Kamala, as KK and Sam Harris explained, last visit to Tom Bilyeu.
Lunacy. Woke is lunacy. Based on feeding human resentment. One of the deeper questions we are deciding in this election: What is behind the variation in human outcome, human ability? Is it all rooted in oppression? Is Kamala right? Can we run a successful multi-religious, multi-race society that America is quickly becoming, based on Woke ideology?
I don't think so, because for whatever reasons, there are average group variations. This means, if we are to even everything out like the Woke suggest, it would mean the government must use a very, very heavy hand, to prop up some groups, tear others down, like they are already doing on American campuses, with the war on white men. White men are clueing in. They know what's going on. History doesn't repeat. It's more like a boomerang. 🪃 We already tried this Woke experiment in Germany long ago. No thanks to Woke. Adolf was Woke. No thanks.
I agree with this guy. And in an American context, Christians should stick up for Jews for the same theme this guy is on: If they go after the Jews, then White Christians are next. We're next. That's who Kamala is after. White men. Christians. As Elon said in his Trump interview: if Kamala gets elected, we're in deep trouble. Woke is a mind virus, as Musk said it was. Spreading mind viruses is way easier now, thanks to the widespread use of computers and the internet. Ben Shapiro said Woke has the same pattern as anti-Semitism. That's true. Computers, books and school is now used to spread that virus. Mattias Desmet has an interesting theory that ties into this: Mass Formation Psychosis. But what's different between now and Nazi Germany is, our computers are better.
There's an old book, written by E. Black, a Jewish guy who had relatives in the camps in Germany. Book is called IBM & the Holocaust. This is something for Mark Zuckerberg to think about: Computers were used to organize the Holocaust. Now, a lot of rich progressive Jews like him, are on Kamala's side. I think Mark is manipulating our news feeds, like Elon said. Mark thinks Woke is the way to a better world, a better America. Think again, buddy. You sure you want to ride that Tiger? 🐯🐅
1
-
1
-
Reality: gay men like Dave have far higher income levels, than straight men. Gay men have higher education rates, than straight men. Higher family incomes. Nice to see people doing well. All people. The right attitude? As Donald Trump said when he had dinner with Dave Rubin: "No one cares about gay marriage."
So: the left won on gay marriage, most on the right made peace with that long ago, let it go, moved on. But not the left. They still fight like it's still 1970s. I remember the father of gay marriage Andrew Sullivan, early in the debate Andrew was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria, who supported gay marriage early. The interview is still on you tube. You can look it up.
Andrew said he got hate mail against gay marriage, for the first 10 years after he started his campaign to legalize gay marriage. I assumed at the time it must be Christian conservatives sending Andrew hate mail. I was wrong. In that interview, Andrew said he got hate mail against gay marriage, from gay people. Imagine that. That's the truth. Most gay people at the start, were completely opposed to gay marriage, seeing it as imposing straight institutions, on gay people. So now twits like Justin, who was barely born when this happened, they get on their moral high horse about this, lecturing foreign leaders, about battles long won.
Meanwhile in Vancouver, B.C., the government of Canada has run things so badly that well off straight young couples are having a hard time buying a house, starting a family. Why? It costs a million dollars to buy a house in Vancouver. They used to be very affordable when I was young there, in the 1970s. How did this happen? Liberal gov't mismanagement of housing ended that great life for most people.
Rather than offer affordable solutions for young families, Justin wants straight couples to feel morally good about a battle long won before they were born. Rather than building a life of their own....which they can't afford to do, Justin hopes to make them feel better about their hopelessness. It's a religious thing. He hopes to be Pope, offer then hope in an Afterlife. Gay rights are a new religion of Woke.
So Justin complains the most privileged among us, who most accept their lifestyle, we must proclaim our allegiance to their lifestyle...rather than fix the economic mess most young people feel today. At this point gay rights are a distraction from real problems. It's a way leaders manipulate, with guilt, over crimes people don't commit.
What a mess. Justin is a rich twit. As Jordan Peterson said, he never talks without an endless stream of lies coming out of his mouth. I'd add, lies and misdirection. I guess when you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth to a very rich family like Justin, then spend your 20s on ski hills and theatre, chasing a very long list of women and using drugs, you don't end up all that in touch with the ordinary person and their problems. Prime Minister Justin Twiteau.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@godzillamegatron3590 Trump said he would bring back American jobs from China. Lots of these were industrial jobs that would go to black Americans. Everything from WalMart is made in China. American economic policy for decades pushed neo-liberal globalist policies, which meant American workers had to compete with workers in the Third World, like China.
Since the cost of living was much cheaper in China than Detroit and American cities, our huge manufacturing base was moved offshore. The Republicans and Democrats, were both in on it.
The big winners in this were the American economic elite, who invested in China, the Michael Bloombergs, the Mitt Romneys. They made almost all the money on this, driving up wealth inequality in America. The Chinese worker benefitted as China became prosperous. The big loser in this was the American middle class worker. That includes lots of black Americans, who lost jobs due to global competition.
This was something Trump understood long ago, he wanted to change that economic pattern. The main people benefitting from bringing back jobs are black Americans, particularly men, who often ended up winning these jobs, being particularly good at them. Black men figured this out when Trump campaigned on it. So: Black men started to switch their vote and voted for Trump and Republicans for the first time since 1964.
All this can be validated by looking up "Mark Blythe" on you tube. He talks about "the Elephant Graph" which displays who won, who lost in globalization: American middle class lost, China won, the American economic elite won the most.
By the way Mark Blythe is a Democrat who voted for Hillary, he is very honest and he has a working class background, he has a brilliant education and mind for this, he teaches at an elite American university, Brown. He knows his stuff.
Also you can look up the video "What Trump voters know that the Democrat elite Don't on the Jimmy Dore show"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hi Dave, I'm a fan. Here is an idea for you: I would like to see a "sit-down circle" show, about the issue of political correctness, post-modernist and feminism, using the old format of the The 4 Horsemen with Sam Harris? Remember that?.....the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris....the New Atheists. They had a "sit-down" at one of their houses, and taped the whole thing. Time to revise that idea, for what Gad Saad spoke of: the destruction of science and reason by post-modernists, feminists, etc. You could have a new set of 4 Horsemen....your choice, but my choice: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Gad Saad and Camille Paglia, since you are discussing women and feminism in the mix. It would be absolutely amazing. I'd pay to see that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This "cult of personality" started long ago. It's a continuation of past trends: George W. Bush would never have been President, if his dad was not previously President. Hillary would never have had a real shot at being President, if her husband was not first President. Oprah has a fair shot at being President, because she is well known among the elites, and loved by them. Trump was a Reality TV Star like Oprah, part of the media elite, these people have something in common:
They are part of the very small family/media elite, that runs this country. And no doubt these same people anointed Obama to become President. Obama was the only President in recent memory who was not directly part of this cabal, but young black men in politics in Chicago do not become President, unless very powerful people in the media elite, wish it so.
Oprah is Hope and Change 2.0.....are we suckers enough, to fall for it? I think so....lol...Oprah/Spacey 2020!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every time the bluebird sings
My heart takes wings to the sky
The bluebird grey side fly
To my place in your eyes
Because after all, I did all I could
And you did your best, just the same
Nobody won, we both lost, no one's to blame
But I'll fly away to you, if only pretending
We'll be like bluebird do, the beautiful lie
The beautiful lie, the beautiful lie
Every time the bluebird sings
My heart takes wings to the sky
The bluebird grey side fly
To my place in your eyes
Because after all, I did all I could
And you did your best, just the same
Nobody won, we both lost, no one's to blame
But I'll fly away to you, if only pretending
We'll be like bluebird do, the beautiful lie
The beautiful lie, the beautiful lie
-Dolly Parton
1
-
Simple atheism basically says God doesn't exist, or I don't believe it. I have no problem with people believing that, but my question is: human life, will it survive without religious beliefs? My answer is not likely. The evidence supports the notion, there is something about the human animal that, the people who survived the most in the past, tended to be mostly religious.
When you have a family, many will die for their family, they love their children so much. Having brought them into life, being an atheist means telling the people you love the most: essentially life is just here, now. Beyond that, your life has no meaning.
Whether atheism is true or not, that does not seem to be a good strategy for the maintenance of life. At the core of life, wired into humans is a need for meaning about life itself, as well as the need to create narratives, create meaning in people's lives. The lesson of atheism is essentially: life is pointless. My guess is that atheism, whether it is true or not, works against deeply embedded, evolved biological patterns in humans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gay Marriage? Gay people were strongly opposed to it, when a few people started pushing. Proof is on you-tube, the gay intellectual Andrew Sullivan has an interview with liberal Fareed Zakaria, about it. Andrew was the first intellectual to write a piece of serious journalism, supporting the idea of gay marriage...over 40 years ago. Andrew says in that interview that for the first ten years, he got lots of hate mail on the subject of pushing for gay marriage. From who? Conservatives? Christians? Religious Jews? No....from gay men, who were overwhelmingly against it, from the start. I'll bet you didn't know that.
Here's something, that you might know: gay men were right, from the start, to oppose the idea, and think it either silly or stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The thing I'm looking for, is putting in place policies to guard against nepotism.
I see that as a largely untalked about problem, that's ruining us:
Under the old British and European monarchy system, wealth was transferred to young people, via their parents. The problem with this was, not enough turnover among the elites....the best the brightest. It's the George W. Bush problem:
Bush got into Harvard, on the merits of his dad, who was a hero. George H.W. Bush fought in the Second World War, in the Pacific theatre if I remember, as the youngest pilot ever. He risked his life for his country. A genuine hero from The Greatest Generation. Although Bush Sr. himself was a child of rich parents, he didn't get spoiled, didn't get privilege by money.
Then Vietnam happened. Sons of the well connected and rich often got out of serving. Bush Jr. was one of them. He didn't go to Vietnam. He served in the National Guard, flying airplanes over rural Texas, chasing waitresses and perhaps using recreational drugs. But, despite being an unimpressive scholar, Bush Jr. got into Harvard....that university trains a large portion of our elites.
Jordan Peterson said once, when he taught at Harvard, most of his students had parents in the economic top 1%. As you recall, Harvard is America's elite university, it sets the intellectual agenda, including Woke....which lectures America about so called White Privilege. Of course, this message is a little rich, considering most students who go there, have enormous class privilege.
Most people succeed on the back of their parents, not alone. In the quest for power and success, it sure helps, having well off parents. Which brings me back to the British class structure. We founded America to get rid of the idea of privilege extending to the next generation. But that idea snuck back in. Nepotism.
Most of the people in the WEF want their children to succeed. Problem: Wealth tends to accumulate in a few hands, in capitalism. This leads to distortions in political influence. The recent song about this is, Rich Men North of Richmond. Washington has been captured by money, most of America's elite had rich parents. This resembles too much, the old English caste system of class and privilege, we had to get rid of. Let's not bring it back.
Harvard got rid of free speech, said Alan Dershowitz recently. He should know. He taught there. He said on an interview recently with Mike Huckabee that he's now ashamed of his old alma mater. When people get rid of free speech, I start to get suspicious, I start to think: what are they hiding?
Harvard has race quotas now. Against Chinese Americans. This is racism, unacceptable. I am old enough to remember the anti-Semitism quotas Harvard used to have. That is unacceptable. About 90% of students at Harvard are liberal, big city kids with rich parents. And surprisingly 25% of Harvard students are now Jewish. Question: Why are the children of the elite at Harvard turning on Jewish people? I'd like to know.
My suspicion is the answer to this, it circles back to nepotism and self-interest. My guess is our elite want their children to do well, dominate into the future. Nepotism is a natural human inclination. We all want our children to do well. So did George H.W. Bush, a fine man.
The trouble is, just because you have rich or smart parents, the kids might not, for various reasons, the kids might not turn out well. America is being run, by 2nd or 3rd Generation wealth, much like under the old British system. Nepotism. Prince Harry is not exactly King material, is he? I don't think so. That's the problem with intergenerational systems of privilege transfers, be it in England or America....the best and brightest or most deserving don't always make it to the top. Nepotism.
Bill Maher pointed out, the same thing happens in Hollywood. He calls them nepo-babies. For instance Kirk Douglas was a fine actor. His son Michael became a movie star, mostly because his dad was a fine actor. That story is repeated many times in Hollywood. Nepotism.
Prediction: the WEF will just turn into just another nepotism racket. Our elites want to bring back neo-Feudalism, said writer Joel Kotkin a year or so ago, on John Anderson's podcast. (former Deputy PM of Australia)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Capitalism gives rise to anti-capitalism" says Vivek. How I think it works:
Interesting stat: Of the top 20 American universities, about 60% of students are from the economic top 1% of Americans. So these are young people, mostly women, who won the genetic lottery: born to rich parents. So the young people go to top universities, they hear about "white privilege". Woke. It makes sense to them: their lives have been all about, unearned privilege. Their kindness induces guilt in them, guilt and manipulation form an unholy alliance, an arranged marriage with money. Lacking life experience and judgement, they project guilt that onto all white people, not realizing privilege applies almost entirely to only rich white families, the top 10% at most. Not to Bob the Truck Driver in Alabama and his 3 kids in the trailer court. The rich kids, their parents got rich from capitalism, their kids were born into unearned money, they feel guilty about their unearned privilege, because they are nice people, if a bit naïve. Sitting in a beach chair 🏖at Martha's Vineyard 🍇with other rich people, they enjoy the sun and their white privilege. 🌞The rich young women notice the rich men paying attention to them. Thus Woke Inc. is born, anti-capitalism is born.👶
And honest men like Vivek get to write a book on it, and Dave gets a good interview and you get to read my comment. 😜
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christoochi Your point is more accurate, my 12% figure was a simplification for reasons of easy understanding. I'm sure you are aware you could get into a lot more political nuance if you wanted to, on the black American vote.
I have seen a few polls that say black men especially, are ready to give Republicans a try. Black women get a lot of government money as they are often struggling single mothers, so I think it's far easier to convince black men than women. And younger people of all races are less likely to be hung up on race.
With Trump's America First policy, it means training Americans for industrial jobs. Black men are a good labor source for that type of industry and many would likely take an offer if the pay was high enough.
Trump's immigration plans mean we limit immigration, especially at the bottom end. This means general American wages rise, black Americans get to move up the ladder, this means black Americans get to compete at a lot more jobs, as there will be fewer workers brought in, to compete with him.
That's just smart economics. Look after our own first. I'm not interested in making our main competitor China, more money. Black Americans built this country along side of whites, for hundreds of years and they did so under pretty harsh conditions. The least we can do is give them economic priority over immigrants.
You should convince them the system will work for them by telling them, they should damn well demand it work for them, they should keep on insisting they built this country, alongside of whites and they are entitled to opportunity just like everyone else. Tell them to look around, see all the wealth and realize they are entitled to a good life. They built the damn place. Convince them to DEMAND they be listened to and given opportunities.
Don't ask. Demand.
1
-
1
-
@stanleycross6000 Yes, instincts will only get you so far. I agree. I think that applies to everyone, myself included. You may turn out correct in your observations on Mnuchin and Trump's cabinet and risk management and America not being a business....
I think we live in a day and age where we are becoming aware of a great many screw ups....due largely to the internet meaning a lot more people are engaged, are aware of more things, simply because they have more access to more information. We are dealing with the effects of that, which are not properly understood yet, as we are barely into the age of the internet.
What inevitably happens in human life, are screw ups. It does not take a genius to come to that understanding. I hope Trump does enough that is right during his time in office, so that the inevitable screw ups and mistakes he will continue to make, will be offset somewhat, by the good things he does.
I think this is one of the main themes of our times: Many people did many wrong things, while sometimes doing right things along with good things....and we are all sorting all this out. I'm sorting them out too. A few decades ago a guy like me would just occasionally venture down to the library, spend a few pleasant afternoons thinking or reading a few books....maybe making a few comments to his mates down at the pub later on and that would be the end of it.
Today? With time on my hand I'm a demon on the internet...lol...and there are millions and millions just like me. This has never occurred before, in human history. It's happening because of the invention of technology and free time. I call it "A mid-wit Revolution", to be self-deprecating...lol
The Urban Dictionary defines mid-wit as "Mid wit unknown <origin>...A midwit is someone whose range is above average but either not quite genius level....<a>... Midwit can't even name every state but posts political spew 24/7 " lol...yeah that's me. I'll own up to that.
1
-
1
-
@stanleycross6000 I think Trump believes that economic nationalism is the way, going forward. I think he sees the defect in the current economic order, of neo-liberalism, on trade. The defect is that when a country offshores it's factories, the working class suffers the most. This hit the lower income blacks, whites and latinos the hardest. I watched Mark Blythe the economist at Brown University. Mark is a Hillary supporter but quite honest about the effects of neo-liberal economics, over the past forty or fifty years. Basically what happens under globalization is the very elite in America, the top 1% have benefited financially enormously, the American middle class has stagnated for decades on wages and the poor working class...black, white, latino....have fared the worst. China of course has benefited economically tremendously from American investment. At a global level the last few decades have seen the largest fall in global poverty in the world, with basically most of the increasing quality of life in China. Pearl Buck's The Good Earth is fading, they now make televisions. I'd be fine with that except as things changed, the American elite neglected the economic interests of the American middle class, preferring to make the Chinese rich instead of ordinary Americans. Trump is the first President to have figured all this out.
I think the American elite knew exactly what they were doing, knew they were betraying their own people and did it anyway. I think Democrats and Republicans were both in on it, it's a class war, not so much a political party war. The elites in America have disregarded the economic interests of the general American public and engaged in behavior that has ruined the middle class in America.
Yes I think Trump cares for the ordinary American, but for me whether he cares or not is not the issue. The issue is, which economic paradigm will make more Americans wealthy going into the future? I think it's the Trump model, of the elites having to take care of the common man.....Economic Nationalism. Steve Bannon has lots of videos on this. The power of the corporation is out of control, the power of money is out of control, overwhelming the economic interest of the common man. With global inter connectedness we are in a world having no borders and with large scale mobility of capital and mobility of high end labor, this all means there are enormous new winners...and economic losers....and many of our elites don't even think of themselves as "American"....they prefer to be "global citizens". The American middle class has been made into the massive economic loser, under our current economic global order....while our elites run away with all the prizes.
My other reason for supporting Trump's economic nationalism is that going forward, America is becoming multi-racial. Combine that with the growing power of a few people to basically have and control all the money....and you have potential for social disaster. I recently looked up American net worth figures in Wikipedia. The top 20% of Americans basically are worth 85% of all wealth in America. The bottom 85% of Americans are worth 15% of all wealth. Huge concentration of wealth in a few hands is now being combined with a country that is more and more multi-racial means ordinary American people will have less and less in common with each other going forward, will be less and less united will have less and less feeling that they too are Americans, with a vested interest in the future of the country. This all seems to me a perfect recipe for political disaster and may have something to do with Black Lives Matter riots. We all win, or we will all lose. Capitalism doesn't work well. I used to run a business for twenty years. I'm quite pro-business. But put it this way: it works unevenly. Capitalism works extremely well for maybe the top 20% of the population, but capitalism works very poorly for the bottom 80% of the population. No wonder there are communist riots in our street. Communism is a fool's game, but the fools have no other choice.
Economic nationalism says that government has a responsibility in it's policies to ensure the economic interests of all Americans, over the economic interests of the financial elites. This would be in direct opposition to how America has been run for a long time. No wonder our elites despise Donald Trump. Whether he means it or not, he has the audacity to say that the political leaders of a country should actually look after the economic interests of the ordinary citizen....as opposed to our current system of neo-liberal economics which heavily favors the elite classes. Economic nationalism? That's radical talk these days. Robert Putnam is a thinker I admire and has written about how societies that are multi-racial can easily come apart. My guess is, in the long run, the only way to hold together a multi-racial, multi-religious society is for a strong middle class including all races and religions be built, where most people can economically have a decent middle class life. That's economic nationalism, in a nutshell. I put to you evidence of this: Black Lives Matter riots.
Technical change and innovation will vastly speed up this change and it's problems, as we can technically accomplish producing a good life for all, but in reality only a few people control all the wealth. Will we become like the novel The Hunger Games? ...by Suzanne Collins? The challenge going forward will be: can we find proper rules and find it within ourselves to set up a society where all Americans of all races, all ability levels, all economic classes win? We better, or we're done.
My guess is, Trump or no Trump, we are at the start of a very long and vicious economic war. The elite want to control everything. So far, the American elites are winning handily, in my opinion. If they win, democracy is done.
Trump is doing well. They have tried to lock him up on a bogus story for three years. The most reliable evidence I have that Trump is doing well, is the degree to which our elites despise him.
1
-
1
-
@stanleycross6000 Yeah, a return to simplicity, to the 3 R's may be the best way forward. I'm not a guru, I believe to some degree everyone must follow their own path forward. Be one's own mentor. I believe strongly in self education, home education, de-institutionalizing education, 3 R's and setting up new rules to allow much more individually designed education choices.
The problem may very well be that our social structures, political and economic structures, education structures have just gotten too big, to make sense any more.
My belief is that economics and technology will take an unexpected turn this century: very heavy localization, which will destroy large educational institutions, destroy most large corporations, destroy nation states.
Due to evolving technology: The world may turn out to be much more local, independent in economics, with less need for economic inter-dependence, less need for large governments, less need for centralized education structures, with local small economies being much more common and self-sufficient.
As part of this I believe there will be a very much anti-individualist trend to counter the John Gault individualist nonsense. Humans evolved in small tribes and bands and we survive best in that context. Part of our genetic legacy is a collective spirit. Localization will result in a much deeper, more humanly connected and inter-dependent series of local Americas.
My guess is the root of many of our problems is we currently needed to organize in very large groups....far beyond what made sense, what we evolved for. This leads to a variety of social problems. Localized communities that are economically self sufficient are coming and will greatly help human flourishing....and decrease many of these problems.
Intersectionality and cancel culture to me are signs of mental malignancy in our collective mind. I made my comments on the connection with evolution because I think the connection is real and it signals that the human animal has mind diseases loose in the world, that become toxic....due to lack of social mooring.
Pandemics in the past used to be very local because of low transmission rates. They didn't spread widely like this one has. Mental pandemics like BLM and Intersectionality now spread quickly because we are over connected. Localization will decrease that.
Nassim Taleb talks a fair bit about future localization, as well.
...Evergreen is losing a lot of students, last I heard. Agreed Bret likely suffered PTSD from his experience there.
Yes the IDW bashes it all, likely the "cure" is as obvious as what you say: return to the basics. 3 R's....Localization combined with continued technical advance will push this return to basics trend along. One of the silver linings of the pandemic will likely be a strong boost to independent education....a feature of localization.
1
-
@stanleycross6000 Yeah I'd agree with that BLM/1619/Cancel Culture Dynamic. At root of it is education, I agree, but with a different twist on education:
Post-modernism and feminism has taken over public schools and universities. At most universities women are now a majority....whereas in the past most university students were men. This change tilts the population, in a certain way.
I'm religious and Christian but agree with evolution. There are some natural evolved tendencies in humans, that are a bit different in men than women. Women are wired more strongly for emotion. Carol Gilligan the feminist did some research with Martin Kohlberg on this. (stage theory of moral development)
At the same time, post modernism took over the universities. It de-emphasized logic reason and evidence. In it's place in pre-eminence came emotion, which has taken center place in education now. Women are built for emotion.
So women are now the majority at university, they get trained and educated in feminism and it's twin post-modernism, they have gone into the classroom for decades now, educating a generation or two. All this gave rise to BLM/Cancel Culture/1619....funded by George Soros, if you can believe his website, the Open Society...which explicitly states he has been funding BLM.
So because of all this I believe our cultural wiring is now too heavily tilted towards the feminine....emotion. America is off balance, democracies can't run on pure emotion. We are no longer tilted towards traditionally masculine qualities....critical thinking, objectivity, logic reason and evidence.
BLM/1619/Cancel Culture all arise out of feminism/post-modernism. Jordan Peterson and others have lots of videos on this, online. He was in the heart of it, teaching at elite universities, as was Bret Weinstein and Jonathan Haidt and Stephen Hicks....great sources to understand this stuff.
Black Lives Matter say directly in their website they are feminist and communist. All this is philosophically extremely closely aligned with post-modern philosophy that has taken over education. Michel Foucault etc...All of this stuff took off like a rocket because it aligns quite closely with evolved female tendencies towards the emotional, coupled with the fact that capitalism has done a very, very poor job of organizing itself so that all Americans could get a piece of the economic pie.
You said it better and more quickly: We are "ahistorical" in our analysis...not that many of us are interested in where things come from in the past, what caused them.
Somehow, we have to sort through all this in America to get our politics back to being reasonable...lol....this will take awhile. I put my faith in guys like Jonathan Haidt and Bret Weinstein, Peterson if he stays healthy, and Stephen Hicks might the the best one explaining things....they will help us sort this out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1