Post: #201

(11-13-2014 05:56 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  When talking about moral problems, it isn't always possible to legislate solutions. Attempts to "legislate" morality by political leaders have mostly been failures. The emperor Augustus tried it in Rome during his tenure in office. The Puritans tried it in England in the early 17th century. And some Islamic countries have tried it. But they have mostly been failures.

When I say that our society has confused liberty with license, and that the result is decay, there isn't any "prescription" or "solution" that can be offered except solutions based on culture, education, and indoctrination.

So here are my solutions, if you want them.

1. The entire educational system needs to be changed. Men's education is a subject I have written about before at Return of Kings. Re-read:

http://www.returnofkings.com/16957/leade...ng-for-men

Education needs to focus more on character, and less on stuffing a weak body and mind with politically correct liberal bilge.

I read that piece (even though the flashing annoying pop-up on ROK almost gave me epilepsy) and agree with its points. As a practical matter in a free society, I can see more physical education, more single-sex education (also backed by some feminists) and less political correctness as possibilities. Parents are pretty vigilant in the USA in opposing indoctrination they don't like, which of course has mixed results for your solutions.

Quote:2. The popular culture needs to be elevate beauty, gender roles, and positive social values. Those who produce television and movies need to understand that they share a role in the molding of the youth, and that they need to act accordingly.

Most popular culture does, especially that targeted towards kids. For an example, look at Disney and Pixar. These films dominate children's film programming, and also elevate "beauty, gender roles, and positive social values." Feminists and homosexuals regularly complain about "heteronormative" values in those films. The market pretty much demands that they maintain those values, because parents control children's movie attendance and few parents would take their kids to a gay version of Snow White.

Things get off track in media catering to teenagers, which is part of teenagers' developmental rebellion against their parents. This is the Tipper Gore issue. She was right, but excoriated in a lot of the media because she wanted some kind of standards to warn about gangsta rap and death metal music.

Still, most of popular music follows the time tested script of "I love you, yeah yeah yeah."

The solution for the nasty stuff is more countervailing voices and morals and ethics education.

Quote:3. The ethic of "profit over all else" is what has caused the exploitation of the young and women. This is evil. Corporations need to understand that they cannot just bleed the young, the old, and women, tell them what they want to hear, and cater to their most selfish instincts.

There should be advertising restrictions on not peddling shit to minors. Children now are only seen as resources to be exploited by corporations. Advertisers cater to their basest instincts. It was not always so.

Western society now has a big problem in that they have legal "persons," i.e. corporations, which are powerful psychopaths. Psychopaths in that the essential purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder return, every other value be damned. They are not just bleeding "the young, the old, and women," they are bleeding everyone they are not feeding, and they are feeding a lot less people than they are bleeding, on net. The psychopathy of corporations is assisted by the conscious or unconscious agency of thousands of directors, managers, shareholders and lobbyists to shape law and society to their benefit. They even have a justifying philosophy - "Objectivism" - which has been widely, even unconsciously, adopted in the economic sphere at the same time traditional social norms have been abandoned.

This is why we have plutocracy - the agency of millions of people with trillions of dollars, without a strong countervailing narrative. The opposition to this is derided as "socialism" or "communism" in the USA. In Europe, strong labor unions and the state regulation do a better job at keeping the psychopathy in check, at least economically.

America is looking for a populist politics which is not racially-based, but for the broad majority of working Americans. One reason I oppose racial nationalism.

Quote:4. Religion needs to be recognized for its positive role in inculcating morals, culture, and cohesiveness. The popular culture needs to shop denigrating it. Laws that have banned it from the schools should be repealed.

The "law" that "bans" religion from state-run schools in the USA is the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, but no state establishment of religion. You really want to repeal that? In Europe, I think religion has had more of a free hand in schools, with a worse outcome for adult church attendance.

Religion is not "banned" in public schools, anyways. Students are free to organize their own prayer groups, etc in public schools. And of course private religious schools are legal.

It's only the imposition of religion on a captive audience of public school students which is illegal. What religion do you think should be imposed?

I am all in favor of more ethics and moral education, built around the Golden Rule and values of abstinence and modesty of all types. Establishing religions in schools? No.

Quote:5. The popular culture needs to stop peddling the ethic that "nothing matters" and "who am I to judge?" relativism. This ethic leads to nihilism, negativity, and despair.

I don't think popular culture does that at all, other than the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody, which maybe is even saying that in an arch way. Tons of movies with high-stakes contests and conflicts, music promoting strong emotions of love and sometimes hate. I can't think of an example of a "nothing matters" movie or song (other than Bohemian Rhapsody).

Quote:Basically, what I'm advocating is an entire spiritual revolution. That is the only thing that will work. Trying to force people to do this or that is not efficient. It does work in some situations, but usually not.

Sounds a little like Cass Sunstein's thesis in his book Nudge: the Politics of Libertarian Paternalism

He advocates more state speech to persuade people to benign ends. I agree the state should speak more on personal conduct and living issues. Now, the American government pretty much sticks to "Only you can prevent forest fires," and "Take a bite out of crime." They could say more and persuade more, without compelling or prohibiting more.

Quote:The only real revolutionaries are saints and philosophers. The revolution starts in each and every man. I'm doing my part the best I know how.

I have written extensively on all of these things. Anyone who wishes to know can find my thoughts in my articles at ROK and my book.

As for forms of government, I prefer democratic republics. But they should be true democracies. We don't have that now. We have plutocracies controlled by the super rich for their own benefit.

So, those are my specifics. State and local governments should implement laws that are consistent with these principles, as outlined above. I consider myself a social conservative and a humanist.

Fair enough. I endorse Feisbook Control's idea that there are no utopian solutions, so we will all - RVF members, feminists, freaks, geeks and saints - have to smell a lot of shit not to our liking in the future living in this imperfect world. I just think that liberal democracy offers the most acceptable outcome. Even with the shit we have to smell, I can't understand how someone living in the USA, Canada, western Europe, or Australia/NZ can get that exorcised with life as it is now in those places. It's mostly freedom, opportunity, and prosperity, what's not to like? Everything is really tinkering and a constant process of political, social and economic adjustment.

Post: #202

Sp5, I remember when I was in highschool and a kid was told to leave the classroom because he prayed during our daily "moment of silence". It's not that people don't want religion imposed on them (imposition being the forced practice of a said religion), they want to be completely removed from it and not be exposed to it in any way, shape, or form. That's why atheist groups in Michigan will sue a school in Texas for having a "10 Commandments" slate anywhere near public property.

A crucifix in a public highschool hallway isn't the imposition of religion. The school mandating religious courses, or preventing others from practicing separate religions (or none at all) is what the 1st Amendment protects and nothing more. Our legal protections for religion are a result of the interwoven nature of the Church of England and the English government.

Just like the 2nd Amendment, which for some reason people think is for hunting deer and keeping robbers out of your house, all Constitutional rights need to be put into proper context.

Post: #203

Read an article today in a large danish newspaper about the decline of leftism among the younger generation. Here is a good quote:

Quote:Young people are waking up and begin to realize that the self-centered humanistic grasshopper generation before us has been in a vacuum, which in its self-righteousness imagined that everything would go well, as long as all boundaries in human life was torn down. This generation chose to flush any notion of spirit, heritage and order out in the toilet. But the youth are now discovering that it was a lie and an assault. It may be very basic: either we wake up and understand that we must safeguard the people and country, or we perish. This is nature's harsh law, and I have no reason to believe that we should not get that point before we fall into the abyss. Our people have endured for 1,000 years - and has previously been under considerable pressure. Holger Danish (mythological figure) sleeps heavy, but when he wakes he will go to work. Then day and deed is poetry of giants (reference to danish psalm about the warrior nature of the norse).

This is in a mainstream paper.

Post: #204

(11-14-2014 04:59 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Because obviously the massive amounts of data periodically collected on these matters isn't correct. A more accurate analogy than yours would be reading a ratings guide for restaurants and finding that it was in line with experience, i.e. that the prices in the guide were actually accurate, the items on listed on the menu were accurate, and even that more nebulous criteria such as cleanliness or service were also accurate. Are you telling me that you don't ever use such kinds of inductive reasoning? That's why I mentioned that it would be interesting to experience a day in the life of such a person.

I'd sooner trust someone with first-hand experience eating at a restaurant over someone who applies a system of inductive reasoning to a priori judge the same restaurant. Wouldn't you?

Moreover I think you're being excessively deterministic if not binary in your thinking. There are countries that have intelligent people but poor overall organization, and there are countries with not overly intelligent people that function pretty well. Success in these matters isn't purely a thinking contest...if that were so then the Greeks would have conquered the Romans and not the other way around.

Post: #205

(11-14-2014 06:41 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Sp5, I remember when I was in highschool and a kid was told to leave the classroom because he prayed during our daily "moment of silence". It's not that people don't want religion imposed on them (imposition being the forced practice of a said religion), they want to be completely removed from it and not be exposed to it in any way, shape, or form. That's why atheist groups in Michigan will sue a school in Texas for having a "10 Commandments" slate anywhere near public property.

A crucifix in a public highschool hallway isn't the imposition of religion. The school mandating religious courses, or preventing others from practicing separate religions (or none at all) is what the 1st Amendment protects and nothing more. Our legal protections for religion are a result of the interwoven nature of the Church of England and the English government.

Just like the 2nd Amendment, which for some reason people think is for hunting deer and keeping robbers out of your house, all Constitutional rights need to be put into proper context.

Well, praying audibly during the moment of silence is not only a religious issue, it's a school discipline issue, because the point of the moment of silence is to be silent, STFU, be alone with your thoughts, silently pray to God, think of the ass of the girl in front of you, etc.

I had a case which involved the First Amendment implications of "captive audience." One of the freedoms protected in the First Amendment is the right not to have to listen to things you don't want to. The problem with a kid praying during the moment of silence is that state power (laws requiring mandatory school attendance) is creating a captive audience for his religious beliefs. They have to be in the classroom and have to listen to him. Who's being the asshole, the school or the kid who can't let the moment of silence be without trying to prosthelytize?

I saw a few of these guys in the military. Always trying to push Jesus, being saved on everyone. Of course they have freedom to do what they want off-duty, but let's not be praying to Jesus in a formation guaranteed to have people who don't believe in that.

As far as a crucifix in a public school hallway, that is absolutely establishment of religion. The test is simple: do you think it would be OK for a Muslim crescent and star, or a Hindu Ganesh statue to be displayed? Even many Protestants would object to a crucifix, if you mean one with the figure of the suffering Christ, because they think it violates the prohibition on worship of graven images, just as Sunni Muslims do not portray religious figures. Display in a state institution implies endorsement by the state.

Post: #206

I've come around to believing that public schools should be abolished. There may need to be an exception for some areas, but kids would be better off in private or home schooling where there is less government involvement.

Post: #207

Interesting discussion going on here.

It is a very difficult situation to measure really, as there a lack of accurate reporting on the matter of the negative effects of immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness all in all. In the U.K, critics of immigration are mostly in an anti intellectual form, such as the daily mail. Hence why its difficult for people with a worse off education to articulate their disapproval towards multiculturalism. The left wing and media/politicians, certainly do use that to their advantage, as you can see with these bbc comedy skit shows, making fun of EDL supporters.

Coming from the millennial generation myself, I do have to say that it is not all doom and gloom. Especially in Europe there is a growing number of young people who rationally object to this modern culture we are describing here. Genuinely they are mostly coming from a rational, pragmatic and well intentioned outlook on the situation, rather than one which is intended to stir up hatred and violence.
In my opinion these people stand better career prospects along with opportunities in the future. They know how to play the game and won't bend or bow down to shaming tactics used by the opposition.


In regards to the questioning of liberalism and capitalism. Again the problems foreseen with liberalism were articulated back in the turn of the century by marxists and what were to become fascists alike. The emphasis on the material can sometimes lead to its downfall in the long run. Yes in a supposed free market economy in the truest sense of the word. People will have to be a lot more dynamic and with a christian backdrop, there will be little room for anti social behaviour which is celebrated in our modern day culture. People would have to grow up quickly and you will see great people being created from this, think of the men of the Victorian age. Fredrick Douglas, Tesla etc.

Although the inevitable prosperity will lead to the same thing which has always happened to prosperous civilisations. Which falls back again to the writings of the Russian/Serbian orthodox philosophers who denounced the materialism of the West. The theories of the law of compensation are being proved correct however. The absence of patriarchal spiritualism is being filled with something, in the case of Britain this is Islam.

Many on those on here may roll their eyes on here, but take it from someone who has lived in the Middle East and is currently living in a British city that has a large Islamic population. Ideological and religious sentiments do spread quickly and although its most contained to the ghettos, it is beginning to grow.

The future of the European Union or whatever super national organisation replaces it will be consisted of former radical Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans who migrated and studied in Britain/France/Germany. EE who study in these countries aren't so susceptible to the SJW narrative and hold on to liberal values despite being still traditional in their way of thinking. This comes from the history of the Ottomans and their lack of a PC education. This is just a theory but that will certainly play into a lot of what is happening.

Post: #208

(11-14-2014 11:16 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 06:41 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  Sp5, I remember when I was in highschool and a kid was told to leave the classroom because he prayed during our daily "moment of silence". It's not that people don't want religion imposed on them (imposition being the forced practice of a said religion), they want to be completely removed from it and not be exposed to it in any way, shape, or form. That's why atheist groups in Michigan will sue a school in Texas for having a "10 Commandments" slate anywhere near public property.

A crucifix in a public highschool hallway isn't the imposition of religion. The school mandating religious courses, or preventing others from practicing separate religions (or none at all) is what the 1st Amendment protects and nothing more. Our legal protections for religion are a result of the interwoven nature of the Church of England and the English government.

Just like the 2nd Amendment, which for some reason people think is for hunting deer and keeping robbers out of your house, all Constitutional rights need to be put into proper context.

Well, praying audibly during the moment of silence is not only a religious issue, it's a school discipline issue, because the point of the moment of silence is to be silent, STFU, be alone with your thoughts, silently pray to God, think of the ass of the girl in front of you, etc.

I had a case which involved the First Amendment implications of "captive audience." One of the freedoms protected in the First Amendment is the right not to have to listen to things you don't want to. The problem with a kid praying during the moment of silence is that state power (laws requiring mandatory school attendance) is creating a captive audience for his religious beliefs. They have to be in the classroom and have to listen to him. Who's being the asshole, the school or the kid who can't let the moment of silence be without trying to prosthelytize?

I saw a few of these guys in the military. Always trying to push Jesus, being saved on everyone. Of course they have freedom to do what they want off-duty, but let's not be praying to Jesus in a formation guaranteed to have people who don't believe in that.

As far as a crucifix in a public school hallway, that is absolutely establishment of religion. The test is simple: do you think it would be OK for a Muslim crescent and star, or a Hindu Ganesh statue to be displayed? Even many Protestants would object to a crucifix, if you mean one with the figure of the suffering Christ, because they think it violates the prohibition on worship of graven images, just as Sunni Muslims do not portray religious figures. Display in a state institution implies endorsement by the state.

You're correct.

Interestingly enough, James Madison (the father of the Constitution), thought even having chaplains in Congress was a violation of the establishment clause.

However, I have a big problem with outright prohibition of religion in schools. The founders never intended the establishment clause to be universally applied across the country in every state.

Before the incorporation of the 1st amendment against the states via the 14th amendment, the states used to be able to decide these issues for themselves. Meaning if one state banned religion in schools, someone who didn't like it could always move to another state where that wasn't the case. There was freedom of choice in that regard.

Now it's universal. Public school? No religion.

Not exactly an ideal situation.

Post: #209

This thread is just :



It seems like Quintus,scorpion and Samseau has been watching all episodes of Game of Thrones lately.
Like Sp5 already said earlier, if you have something to say, then just say it and don't crawl around like snakes.

I don't know how the culture is where you are from, but here in the North we are raised to speak in a way of old fashion straight up speaking.

I highly recommend you guys to pack your bags, get out of the USA and spend some time in the So-Dangerous Muslim world. Sure, I had AK-47's pointed to my head by a group of men in a mountain pass close to the Afghan border in Western Pakistan. They asked me two questions.
1. Are you American?
2. Do you accept Islam?

I don't blame them for their questions.
I guess I answered correctly as I'm still alive.
Still I have never been treated with so much respect anywhere else in the world like in the Muslim world.

But that doesn't mean I want Talibans running around my house in my country.
Here in Finland we always use to say " Maassa maan tavalla"
It can be translated to "Being in the country on the country's own terms"

That's a thing I always try to live up to when I visiting other countries.
But I also demand the same behaviour from visitors coming to my country. Simple and easy amd respectful.

As it comes to Sweden I agree with most things said here, it still makes me smirk since most of you guys have never even been in Sweden and can't speak or understand Swedish. Without those two factors it's hard to understand the Swedish mentality.

In this corner of the world things always goes one way.
Firstly Sweden are pioneers wirh everything, Finland lays low and looks how it's working out for Sweden and then adapt. Then Estonia always having their eyes on Finland and how things are going and adapt themselves according to that.

This is the reason why we have strict immigration laws here compared to othe EU countries.

And Quintus Curtious.
I happen to live and have grown up in a place not far from the ideal society you described.
Homogenous and religous.
These days the churches are empty on Sundays and Priests are getting convicted for fucking their own grandchildren in their asses.
Children are getting born with serious illnesses because they are marrying with their cousins to prevent "unclean blood" being mixed in their families.

I'll invite you to have a look.
I'll fire up my sauna and pour up some tall vodkas and we can listen to the church bells ringing in the cracking cold.

Post: #210

(11-14-2014 12:54 PM)Chaos Wrote:  And Quintus Curtious.
I happen to live and have grown up in a place not far from the ideal society you described.
Homogenous and religous.
These days the churches are empty on Sundays and Priests are getting convicted for fucking their own grandchildren in their asses.
Children are getting born with serious illnesses because they are marrying with their cousins to prevent "unclean blood" being mixed in their families.
I'll invite you to have a look.
I'll fire up my sauna and pour up some tall vodkas and we can listen to the church bells ringing in the cracking cold.

Nice try with the straw man argument, Chaos. I never said that I thought living in a theocracy was a ideal thing or an aspirational goal. You're failing to grasp my points.

My point was that religion has always been (since the dawn of history) an important force in human affairs.

My point was that organized religion serves an essential function in the disciplining of the young, imparting moral codes, providing solace to the infirm, the old, and the bereaved, and transmitting a people's cultural heritage. This is clear.

Do you deny this? Can anyone deny that the Torah, Talmud, Bible, Koran, Baghavad-gita, Upanishads, Vedic poems, etc., were instrumental in providing a sense of culture and cohesiveness to Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus for thousands of years.

Is religion perfect? No. Like any institution run by men, it abounds in cruelties, stupidities, absurdities, and bigotry. Anyone looking for examples of this can easily find them in all religions. But what atheists never get is the fact that without religion, things would be even worse.

To promote social order, it is not enough just to admonish people to do good. There needs to be some supernatural sanction behind it. People need to believe that a sentinel is watching. Would Moses have had any success in getting his laws approved if he had not said they came from God? All the great lawgivers of history: Lycurgus, Numa Pompilia, Moses, Hammurabi, etc., all claimed that their laws originated from heaven. It cannot be otherwise.

This was my point. And this is something atheists never get. They underestimate the importance of faith, spiritualism, and the irrational in human affairs. Atheists, for all of their pretensions, don't understand human nature was well as they claim. It is cruel to take away from people the consoling faith that gives them comfort in their hardships, soothes their pain, and elevates their humdrum lives to something beyond just a mere struggle for survival.

And this is why people will never listen to atheists for long. Because what are they offering? Nothing except that life is a meaningless struggle that ends in annihilation. The average person, who works hard and feels pain every day, does not want to hear this.

As for those communities you spoke about that are in-bred churchgoers: so what? I'm against that too. And that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Those isolated, ignorant people you speak of have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You can find stupidity, ignorance, and close mindedness everywhere in the world. It detracts nothing from what I've said. There are idiots in the backwaters of Finland, in the halls of the Vatican, on the streets of New York, and in the boulevards of Paris. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Finally, I've spent time in the Muslim world also, and know Arabic. So I'm not going to get lectured to by anyone about how I need to broaden my horizons.

And one other thing: you're not the only ex-military guy here on this thread who's been in hostile fire zones.

Post: #211

(11-14-2014 12:54 PM)Chaos Wrote:  This thread is just :



It seems like Quintus,scorpion and Samseau has been watching all episodes of Game of Thrones lately.
Like Sp5 already said earlier, if you have something to say, then just say it and don't crawl around like snakes.

I don't know how the culture is where you are from, but here in the North we are raised to speak in a way of old fashion straight up speaking.

I highly recommend you guys to pack your bags, get out of the USA and spend some time in the So-Dangerous Muslim world. Sure, I had AK-47's pointed to my head by a group of men in a mountain pass close to the Afghan border in Western Pakistan. They asked me two questions.
1. Are you American?
2. Do you accept Islam?

I don't blame them for their questions.
I guess I answered correctly as I'm still alive.
Still I have never been treated with so much respect anywhere else in the world like in the Muslim world.

But that doesn't mean I want Talibans running around my house in my country.
Here in Finland we always use to say " Maassa maan tavalla"
It can be translated to "Being in the country on the country's own terms"

That's a thing I always try to live up to when I visiting other countries.
But I also demand the same behaviour from visitors coming to my country. Simple and easy amd respectful.

As it comes to Sweden I agree with most things said here, it still makes me smirk since most of you guys have never even been in Sweden and can't speak or understand Swedish. Without those two factors it's hard to understand the Swedish mentality.

In this corner of the world things always goes one way.
Firstly Sweden are pioneers wirh everything, Finland lays low and looks how it's working out for Sweden and then adapt. Then Estonia always having their eyes on Finland and how things are going and adapt themselves according to that.

This is the reason why we have strict immigration laws here compared to othe EU countries.

And Quintus Curtious.
I happen to live and have grown up in a place not far from the ideal society you described.
Homogenous and religous.
These days the churches are empty on Sundays and Priests are getting convicted for fucking their own grandchildren in their asses.
Children are getting born with serious illnesses because they are marrying with their cousins to prevent "unclean blood" being mixed in their families.

I'll invite you to have a look.
I'll fire up my sauna and pour up some tall vodkas and we can listen to the church bells ringing in the cracking cold.

Can anyone count how many cliches are in the above post? I stopped counting after twenty. This must be an RVF record, most cliches in one post.

Not sure why you mentioned my name or what point you're trying to make. The fact you say "here in the North we are raised to speak in a way of old fashion straight up speaking" and yet fail to make a single coherent point is comical.

Also you claim "So-Dangerous Muslim world." and then the very next sentence:" Sure, I had AK-47's pointed to my head by a group of men in a mountain pass close to the Afghan border in Western Pakistan."

Yep, I think having assault rifles pointed at your head is the definition of dangerous. Not sure how dangerous is defined in these culturally-dead Nordic countries are, but here in America having an Assault rifle pointed at my head falls under the definition of dangerous.

So overall, your post made no sense, consisted of almost entirely empty cliches, and contradicted itself multiple times. Would you like to try again?

Post: #212

(11-14-2014 05:10 AM)Deluge Wrote:  I don't know where this idea that Iranians are dumb came from. The Iranian diaspora is a "model minority" group. Theocratic government aside Iran is supposed to be on the modern and well-educated states in the Middle East, I'm sure Chaos can say more about that and you can see that in their pre-Revoultion history. Iranians I've met are very different to Samseau and Quintus's Arab cousins, for instance. Also less than half of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi (who have heightened intelligence) and East Asian IQ scores are supposed to ~105 not 115.

No one said they are dumb, only that Israelis are smarter. Any diaspora is likely to be significantly more intelligent than the population from which it is drawn.

Saga: I think the topic of intelligence is orders of magnitude more complex than the topic of eating at a restaurant. I'd be on the fence with restaurants (trusting someone's opinion who really liked Italian food and knew a lot about it would not necessarily mean anything about Mexican food), but with the intelligence debate (which is orders of magnitude more complex), I'd trust organisations that gather statistics on the matter.

There is generally a correlation between a nation's intelligence and how well it functions. We could quibble about countries in the same ballpark, but I don't think we would over countries that had radically different levels of intelligence. Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that (I'm not suggesting otherwise). The best countries to live in on a lot of measures are still Western or East Asian. That may be changing, but it's still the case right now. Who here is about to pack up and move to sub-Saharan Africa, for instance?

Post: #213

Post: #214

(11-14-2014 11:19 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Saga: I think the topic of intelligence is orders of magnitude more complex than the topic of eating at a restaurant. I'd be on the fence with restaurants (trusting someone's opinion who really liked Italian food and knew a lot about it would not necessarily mean anything about Mexican food), but with the intelligence debate (which is orders of magnitude more complex), I'd trust organisations that gather statistics on the matter.

There is generally a correlation between a nation's intelligence and how well it functions. We could quibble about countries in the same ballpark, but I don't think we would over countries that had radically different levels of intelligence. Obviously, there's a lot more to it than that (I'm not suggesting otherwise). The best countries to live in on a lot of measures are still Western or East Asian. That may be changing, but it's still the case right now.

That's true, but as you alluded to intelligence can be applied and misapplied in many ways. We should remember Orwell's dictum that "some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe in them". People who perform brilliantly with abstract tasks often falter when it comes to the nitty-gritty of making those ideas work; people who show formidable logical strength often deal poorly with chaotic situations that require spontaneous thinking. As you said it's a nuanced issue, intelligence is only one of many virtues that civilization requires of us, and it's something best observed and judged in person (in addition to other sources of knowledge). I suppose that's the long and short of what I'm saying so I'll leave it at that.

Quote:Who here is about to pack up and move to sub-Saharan Africa, for instance?

Point taken, but let's imagine what popular music today would be without Africa and its diaspora: just about nil. The majority of what the world listens to (rock, rap, pop, house, salsa, reggae, funk, jazz, techno...) can be traced to sub-Saharan African contributions. In many ways these innovations are as important as scientific and technical inventions, and how does one quantify the creativity required?

Lastly I wouldn't be against moving to Ghana, Gambia or a few other countries for a time. Most African countries have been engaged in self-rule for half a century or so...mastering good governance takes time and a lot of mistakes, Europe knows that as well as anyone.

Post: #215

Christianity is the main pillar of European-Western-Latin Society.
Christian values are the same as the French Revolution values, which modern European society has.

You don't need to go to church every Sunday to be a christian. You don't need to pray every day to be a christian. If you follow the basic values, commandments and morals, you are Christian.

Post: #216

Not sure why Drudge chose to link to a story from 2006 but it provides a clear contrast between a society that is willing to defend itself and one that is not (in this case America under Eisenhower vs. America under GWB). I was familiar with the deportations of the 1950s but hadn't realized how few resources were required or how militantly self-interested business was in using and defending illegal labor back then http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

Post: #217

Apologies for bumping this (edit: looks like I'm no longer the bumper ), but there's a few things I wanted to say after reading this thread.

(11-13-2014 12:36 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  If society collapses and we must start again, one of the most important things to do would be to explicitly and clearly state that women are not permitted to hold office or vote, and that this particular provision is unable to be overturned by any amendment. Everything we are experiencing today is a direct result of women influencing politics with their oblivious and irrational choices.

The problem doesn't simply revolve around women. That's a far too simplistic line of thought. I actually work in the sphere of state and local government and believe me I can tell you that most people that vote now in general, not just women, should not be allowed to vote.

Last year a colleague and I embarked on a project wherein we went around the city (it was a mayoral/council election last year here in New York) to various neighborhoods and asked people what was important to them. Most of them couldn't even answer that question logically (they had reasons, but their ducks were not in a row), let alone who they would vote for or even knowing who to vote for.

What was the result? We elected a mayor who had no qualifications whatsoever because he had the flashiest campaign that played to the heartstrings. This applied to men and women voters equally. The result has been the incompetent administration that all of the insiders not beholden to any party predicted.

These voters, men and women alike, must be kept away from the ballot box. There must be a barrier that blocks them from entry.

To give a counterexample, this news might be a bit unpopular around here, but the co-admin of my upcoming gaming site is a woman who I have known for a while (I mentioned her before in that Ebola thread where she went on a cruise I thought might have been the one that related to the Duncan case). I hold her opinion in high esteem. She knows what she is doing and while we don't always agree on everything, she is well-informed and can always explain her positions in a logical and well thought out manner. She has never once emoted on anything in all the time I've known her.

I can very, very confidently say that I would trust her with a vote over the dregs of men that I encounter in my work routinely. She knows how to analyze things and does not make decisions based on what is flashy or feels. They do. Don't kid yourself thinking they don't.

Yes, she is a somewhat rare breed among women, but those women do exist (a Russian girl I approached a few weeks ago would qualify as another).

What is needed to fix the voting system and ensure the integrity of, what Quintus calls, a functioning democratic-republic are, in my opinion and experience, the following:

1. Voting must be restricted, as Berserk says, to those with something to lose. This requirement actually used to be in place during the time of the Founding Fathers, but went by the wayside. The qualifications typically meant that you had to own a certain amount of land or pay a certain amount in taxes. These should be resurrected. Being in the military or some other job wherein you have a direct stake in how the state is run are also good qualifications. These don't need to break the bank (literally), they just need to be stringent enough to keep the mob looking for gibsmedats away.

2. You must have at least a high school diploma or GED and an IQ of 90. Something should be at work in your brain.

3. A test must be administered prior to the day of voting regarding the issues at stake in the election and who the candidates are and where they stand. Takers must be able to show that they can logically connect the dots behind the positions they think they have and how they would be beneficial to the society. The days of pretending that any barista at Starbucks is qualified to decide on how the force of the state should be used must end.

4. People receiving government assistance should not be allowed to vote, period.

Of course, none of these would ever hold up in a current court but trust me they would work wonders more than any blanket or arbitrary restriction.

(11-11-2014 05:28 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  I'm sick and tired of your Hitler apologia. All Hitler cared about was the glory of Hitler and murdering anyone who opposed his regime. National Socialism was a wicked ideology led and championed by a wicked man.

You can be a nationalist leader without being an egomaniacal mass-murdering psychopath.

And just so you're clear on my position here, I don't believe everything the allies did during the war was right. They did a lot of wicked things too. Like allying with Stalin, bombing Dresden, terror bombing, etc. etc.

Both Mussolini and Franco were less loathsome than that piece of trash, who was so craven that he shot himself rather than fighting for what he claimed to believe in. He had no problem sending millions of German boys to the front to fight and die but he didn't have the guts to shoot it out with the Soviets as they were closing in.

The fact that he was anti-Stalin and anti-Communist doesn't automatically make him a good person anyone should hold up as a hero.

He and the war he caused is as much responsible for the troubles Germany faces today as the cultural marxists are.

They brought in the Turks and other Muslims after the war because they lost a lot of their labor base.

He also made it easy for the left to turn nationalism into a dirty word.

To hell with Hitler.

I second this notion. The degeneracy that we are seeing is a willful amnesia that is a direct reaction to Hitler and his completely irrational race-based fanaticism.

It is because of Hitler that nationalism has taken on a dirty meaning. It is because of Hitler that Europe lives in such irrational guilt and fear that it thinks it needs to let the third world in, completely unfettered, in order to prove that it isn't racist. It lives in such fear of being called racist and associated with Hitler that Europe will adopt ridiculous and irrational policies of its own to avoid that one word at any price, even if that price is the disappearance of its people and culture.

Hitler's delusions have led to such an aghast reaction that any illogical policy suggested by the Cultural Marxists will do. Anything, anything to not be a racist. Please don't call Europe or its people racist!

The results are the willful ignorance of Rotherham, Sweden having the highest rape rate in Europe, and an attack on any and all people that wish to preserve European identity amidst this sea of third world masses.

The ridiculous veneration of this man by white nationalists is precisely the reason why they will never accomplish anything and will always be a joke.

While I do agree with Scorpion that the Hitler=evil meme will eventually run its course and lose meaning (we may see the beginnings of that now), let's not turn a blind eye to the disastrous legacy that that lunatic left behind for Europe.

Post: #218

(11-18-2014 01:10 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Apologies for bumping this (edit: looks like I'm no longer the bumper ), but there's a few things I wanted to say after reading this thread.

(11-13-2014 12:36 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  If society collapses and we must start again, one of the most important things to do would be to explicitly and clearly state that women are not permitted to hold office or vote, and that this particular provision is unable to be overturned by any amendment. Everything we are experiencing today is a direct result of women influencing politics with their oblivious and irrational choices.

The problem doesn't simply revolve around women. That's a far too simplistic line of thought. I actually work in the sphere of state and local government and believe me I can tell you that most people that vote now in general, not just women, should not be allowed to vote.

Last year a colleague and I embarked on a project wherein we went around the city (it was a mayoral/council election last year here in New York) to various neighborhoods and asked people what was important to them. Most of them couldn't even answer that question logically (they had reasons, but their ducks were not in a row), let alone who they would vote for or even knowing who to vote for.

What was the result? We elected a mayor who had no qualifications whatsoever because he had the flashiest campaign that played to the heartstrings. This applied to men and women voters equally. The result has been the incompetent administration that all of the insiders not beholden to any party predicted.

These voters, men and women alike, must be kept away from the ballot box. There must be a barrier that blocks them from entry.

To give a counterexample, this news might be a bit unpopular around here, but the co-admin of my upcoming gaming site is a woman who I have known for a while (I mentioned her before in that Ebola thread where she went on a cruise I thought might have been the one that related to the Duncan case). I hold her opinion in high esteem. She knows what she is doing and while we don't always agree on everything, she is well-informed and can always explain her positions in a logical and well thought out manner. She has never once emoted on anything in all the time I've known her.

I can very, very confidently say that I would trust her with a vote over the dregs of men that I encounter in my work routinely. She knows how to analyze things and does not make decisions based on what is flashy or feels. They do. Don't kid yourself thinking they don't.

Yes, she is a somewhat rare breed among women, but those women do exist (a Russian girl I approached a few weeks ago would qualify as another).

What is needed to fix the voting system and ensure the integrity of, what Quintus calls, a functioning democratic-republic are, in my opinion and experience, the following:

1. Voting must be restricted, as Berserk says, to those with something to lose. This requirement actually used to be in place during the time of the Founding Fathers, but went by the wayside. The qualifications typically meant that you had to own a certain amount of land or pay a certain amount in taxes. These should be resurrected. Being in the military or some other job wherein you have a direct stake in how the state is run are also good qualifications. These don't need to break the bank (literally), they just need to be stringent enough to keep the mob looking for gibsmedats away.

2. You must have at least a high school diploma or GED and an IQ of 90. Something should be at work in your brain.

3. A test must be administered prior to the day of voting regarding the issues at stake in the election and who the candidates are and where they stand. Takers must be able to show that they can logically connect the dots behind the positions they think they have and how they would be beneficial to the society. The days of pretending that any barista at Starbucks is qualified to decide on how the force of the state should be used must end.

4. People receiving government assistance should not be allowed to vote, period.

Of course, none of these would ever hold up in a current court but trust me they would work wonders more than any blanket or arbitrary restriction.

(11-11-2014 05:28 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  I'm sick and tired of your Hitler apologia. All Hitler cared about was the glory of Hitler and murdering anyone who opposed his regime. National Socialism was a wicked ideology led and championed by a wicked man.

You can be a nationalist leader without being an egomaniacal mass-murdering psychopath.

And just so you're clear on my position here, I don't believe everything the allies did during the war was right. They did a lot of wicked things too. Like allying with Stalin, bombing Dresden, terror bombing, etc. etc.

Both Mussolini and Franco were less loathsome than that piece of trash, who was so craven that he shot himself rather than fighting for what he claimed to believe in. He had no problem sending millions of German boys to the front to fight and die but he didn't have the guts to shoot it out with the Soviets as they were closing in.

The fact that he was anti-Stalin and anti-Communist doesn't automatically make him a good person anyone should hold up as a hero.

He and the war he caused is as much responsible for the troubles Germany faces today as the cultural marxists are.

They brought in the Turks and other Muslims after the war because they lost a lot of their labor base.

He also made it easy for the left to turn nationalism into a dirty word.

To hell with Hitler.

I second this notion. The degeneracy that we are seeing is a willful amnesia that is a direct reaction to Hitler and his completely irrational race-based fanaticism.

It is because of Hitler that nationalism has taken on a dirty meaning. It is because of Hitler that Europe lives in such irrational guilt and fear that it thinks it needs to let the third world in, completely unfettered, in order to prove that it isn't racist. It lives in such fear of being called racist and associated with Hitler that Europe will adopt ridiculous and irrational policies of its own to avoid that one word at any price, even if that price is the disappearance of its people and culture.

Hitler's delusions have led to such an aghast reaction that any illogical policy suggested by the Cultural Marxists will do. Anything, anything to not be a racist. Please don't call Europe or its people racist!

The results are the willful ignorance of Rotherham, Sweden having the highest rape rate in Europe, and an attack on any and all people that wish to preserve European identity amidst this sea of third world masses.

The ridiculous veneration of this man by white nationalists is precisely the reason why they will never accomplish anything and will always be a joke.

While I do agree with Scorpion that the Hitler=evil meme will eventually run its course and lose meaning (we may see the beginnings of that now), let's not turn a blind eye to the disastrous legacy that that lunatic left behind for Europe.

I should also clarify that I agree with that last point.

The only reason I brought it up is because Sawyer keeps going around the forums spamming Hitler love all over the place, which leads to him claiming ridiculously false things like "Hitler was fighting for Christendom" in a Churchill thread and implying I'm anti-Hitler because I must be a Christian Zionist (which I'm not).

Post: #219

If you guys wanna debate the historical nuances of WW2 and Hitler, go start a thread in the knowledge forum about it.

Post: #220

(11-15-2014 08:19 PM)Wreckingball Wrote:  Christianity is the main pillar of European-Western-Latin Society.
Christian values are the same as the French Revolution values, which modern European society has.

You don't need to go to church every Sunday to be a christian. You don't need to pray every day to be a christian. If you follow the basic values, commandments and morals, you are Christian.

Are you sure? The French Revolution was anti-Christian:

Quote:The de-Christianization of France during the French Revolution is a conventional description of the results of a number of separate policies, conducted by various governments of France between the start of the French Revolution in 1789 and the Concordat of 1801, forming the basis of the later and less radical Laïcité movement. The goal of the campaign was the destruction of Catholic religious practice and of the religion itself. There has been much scholarly debate over whether the movement was popularly motivated or something forced upon the people by those in power.

Post: #221

Looks like the Sverigedemokraterna are beginning to turn the tide in Sverige, and the leftists and centre-right are attacking each other or blaming each other probably

Sweden calls snap election after far-right fails to support budget plans

Heja Jimmie

Quote:Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Loefven called the country's first snap election in over half a century Wednesday after a far-right party torpedoed his two-month-old government's budget in a parliamentary vote.

The announcement of March 22 polls came after the ruling minority coalition failed to push its budget past the populist Sweden Democrats, who refused their support in parliament in response to the government's pro-immigration policies.

The snap vote will be Sweden's first since 1958 and is highly unusual for what is often considered one of Europe's most stable democracies.

The March election "is meant to let voters take a stand in this new political landscape," Loefven said at a briefing.

Loefven's Social Democrats emerged as victors of parliamentary elections in September, joining the Greens in a minority centre-left government that ended eight years of centre-right rule.

However the Sweden Democrats became kingmakers after winning 13 percent of the vote.
Wednesday's drama was centred on the budget, the ruling coalition's version winning only 153 of 349 votes, while a centre-right alternative was passed - with the help of the Sweden Democrats - with 182 votes.

The government's proposal contained more public money for job creation and higher taxes for the rich than the opposition's rival proposal.
Underlying the right wing's attack on the government was opposition to Sweden's liberal immigration laws, which the Sweden Democrats have described as "extreme."

"The Sweden Democrats want the election to be a referendum on immigration," the party's interim leader Mattias Karlsson said, according to Swedish news agency TT.
Some analysts have pointed out that the centre-right opposition's policies on immigration only differ from the government's in the details.

A high-profile decision to allow all Syrians arriving in Sweden immediate residency in the country was made by the centre-right while in power last year.

Loefven on Wednesday lambasted the four parties in the centre-right opposition for allowing "the Sweden Democrats to get decisive influence."
"They are letting the Sweden Democrats dictate the conditions in Swedish politics," he said.
"I have taken responsibility all along and intend to continue taking responsibility for our country. I will not tacitly accept what is now happening on the right wing," he said.
The opposition, on the other hand, criticised Loefven's coalition for allowing the crisis to happen.

"This is a clear failure for the Social Democrats," said Annie Loeoef of the Centre Party, one of the four parties in the opposition, organised in the so-called Alliance.
"Their government's competence has really been put in question," she was quoted as saying by TT.

Both left and right in the Swedish parliament have clearly and publicly announced an unwillingness to work with the Sweden Democrats, which made an exit out of the current crisis difficult.

"Few parties want an early election, but once you're stuck in this way, it's hard to extricate yourself," Ulf Bjereld, a political scientist at Gothenburg University, told the daily Dagens Nyheter.

The Social Democrats' junior partner in the coalition, the Greens, had entered into government for the first time after the September vote, and appeared eager to remain in power.

"We are prepared to negotiate about everything in the budget," the Green Vice Finance Minister Per Bolund told the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.
Even before this week's crisis, Loefven's government got off to a weak start, with relatively low support in opinion polls.

According to a survey carried out by polling service Skop prior to the current crisis, 29 percent of those surveyed approved of the government's actions so far, while 28 percent had unfavourable views.

Analysts say the modest approval ratings reflect, among other things, a view among core Social Democrat voters that the Greens have too much influence in the new coalition.

Post: #222

I actually hoping this wasn't going to be. The big problem with the Sweden Democrats is while they have a solid political program and ideology, they are runned by smhucks. Jimmie might be a great speaker but every time someone asks about his claims about all rapes are committed by immigrants or something similar he doesn't have the ability to respond it's always a imaginary number . The only good thing that the Sweden Democrats are doing is that they are spring cleaning and removing all the bad weed and what i have heard with more logical people.

Post: #223

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/...immigrants

Heard this article on the radio the other day about Syrian immigrants in Sweden. The NPR article is completely biased towards the desirability of diversity. They talked about the problems caused by all this immigration, and the strong resistance to it, but they acted like there wasn't even an alternative to continuing the immigration.

The sign off from the radio piece was that immigration next year from Syria was expected to be 95,000, a new record.

It seemed like satire, but they were serious

Post: #224

(12-07-2014 06:28 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/...immigrants

Heard this article on the radio the other day about Syrian immigrants in Sweden. The NPR article is completely biased towards the desirability of diversity. They talked about the problems caused by all this immigration, and the strong resistance to it, but they acted like there wasn't even an alternative to continuing the immigration.

The sign off from the radio piece was that immigration next year from Syria was expected to be 95,000, a new record.

It seemed like satire, but they were serious

most of them are of Catholic background, so they don't have to worry about Syrians going back for ISIS.

Post: #225

(12-07-2014 06:47 PM)alexdagr81 Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 06:28 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/...immigrants

Heard this article on the radio the other day about Syrian immigrants in Sweden. The NPR article is completely biased towards the desirability of diversity. They talked about the problems caused by all this immigration, and the strong resistance to it, but they acted like there wasn't even an alternative to continuing the immigration.

The sign off from the radio piece was that immigration next year from Syria was expected to be 95,000, a new record.

It seemed like satire, but they were serious

most of them are of Catholic background, so they don't have to worry about Syrians going back for ISIS.

Definitely not Catholics, but they are Christians. I doubt they'll be even close to the level of dysfunction of Muslims.