The never ending war in Afghanistan

Too many Americans have died in order that Afghan girls can be taught how to put a condom on a banana.

Trump has reversed course on Afghanistan. Perhaps he needed to do that to keep the officers on side, but this war needs to be won or lost. Keeping it going forever is costing far too much blood and treasure.

How do you win an Afghan war?

It is not hard: You need a genuinely Islamic strong monarch who can accomplish the difficult job of keeping order, and let him know that if trouble comes out of Afghanistan and reaches you, he is going to die.

The problem with our existing war is that it is a holy war, fought to emancipate women in Afghanistan, and to destroy conservative Islam, not to create order under the control of someone who can be held responsible for any trouble coming out of Afghanistan. If you are going to fight a holy war against a live religion, need to kill huge numbers of people and level their cities, which we are reluctant to do – although if they were white Christians, I am sure there would be no hesitation.

If we are reluctant to slaughter and burn on the require scale, then we need to let Afghans be Afghans. It is time to shut down those prog schools in Afghanistan.

Too many Americans have died in order that Afghan girls can be taught how to put a condom on a banana.

We forbid our soldiers to piss one hundred yards upwind of Koran, we forbid them to carry bibles, while we attempt to destroy the values taught in that Koran.

I would totally support holy war against the Afghans, fought with the methods necessary to win a holy war. I am not so keen on unholy war. We are fighting to destroy what is right with Islam, rather than what is wrong, fighting to corrupt Islam as Christianity was corrupted, and the Taliban rightly sees this as wickedness.

203 Responses to “The never ending war in Afghanistan”

  1. jon dough says:

    I thought Vox Day’s comment was insightful…

    “My take is that Trump has told the generals and the CIA something like this: “It’s been 16 years. You say that you haven’t been successful because my predecessors kept interfering with you and forcing you to play nation-building dollhouse. That’s true. Fine. Hands off it is. You have carte blanche. Tell me what you need and I’ll give it to you. And if you still can’t deliver, well, then we’ll know and you’ll have no excuses.””

    • Paul Rain says:

      If Trump stopped being a pussy little bitch on this, it would be the first time.

    • viking says:

      and then theres this story they showed him pics of afghan chicks in mini skirts and he got all weepy and wanted to bring them a miss america franchise.
      It really makes no sense if he truly intended to build a wall deport them all what does he care about terrorists we wont have them. no this is trumps gets all tingly talking to generals

    • Filthy Liar says:

      Trump is not and has never been that intelligent. It’s foolish to think otherwise, Jim’s pining for a God-King included.

      • viking says:

        Yeah I’ve been saying trumps a dummy forever, he does seem to have a sort of reactionary small R instincts but not the intellect to make a consistent idea out of it Bannon at least gave him the economic nationalism frame

        • jim says:

          I repeat: When you have a hot wife, a flying castle in the sky with gold plated toilets, and make yourself president in the face of united media and government opposition, then you can call Trump a dummy.

          • viking says:

            ok I have actually started preferencing my trump remarks with “jims says when I ….” Ive had hot wiives and airplanes and have been president of things and most importantly since (((moldbugs))) not king nor (((trump))) I get to say what I want and I still say hes (relativly) a big dummy who has decent instincts but not the brains to express them, not the brains to arrange them strategically,and not the brains to win them.And ill end as usual that I would lve to be wrong assuming of course that the real trump is the one we imagine and not the one increasingly revealed

  2. c matt says:

    Welcome to the 100 years war, round 2.

  3. Hidden Author says:

    “We are fighting to destroy what is right with Islam, rather than what is wrong, fighting to corrupt Islam as Christianity was corrupted, and the Taliban rightly sees this as wickedness.”

    Gotta whip that them their women’s exposed ankles!

    • jim says:

      The problem is not women exposing their ankles, it is women exposing their ankles to pull someone more alpha than their current man.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Don’t lump the concerns of your ilk (dicks the size of thumb tacks) with those of other ilks!

        • jim says:

          Pretty sure I know what the Taliban is concerned by. They are mighty good at making themselves mighty clear.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes the fear you share with the Taliban over women’s exposed ankles groups you into a brotherhood of micro-dicks. On the first summer of your married life, do your wife use her sandaled feet to help cuck you?

            • jim says:

              As I said, exposed ankles are not the problem. It is female disobedience that is the problem.

              • Hidden Author says:

                Answer the question about your wife, dickhead!

                P. S. With all this angst about violent antifa, here’s a non-violent approach they could try. http://www.neatorama.com/2007/09/03/clowns-kicked-kkk-asses/ Imagine if you guys were schooled in such a fashion!

                • jim says:

                  I propose that we stop teaching Afghan girls to put a condom on a banana, because it has cost two thousand American lives and fifty thousand seriously wounded, and lo and behold, a prog is violently triggered.

                  Thus are the real objectives of the Cathedral in Afghanistan revealed.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  Um, I think we should leave Afghanistan too and that people these days are too quick to divorce–even that family courts probably are bias in favor of the mother but all that does not oblige me to pretend that some Third World method of governance is not, in fact, petty and ridiculous. Certainly a white supremacist such as yourself who would condone calling blacks niggers and monkey people could concede that much!

                • jim says:

                  It is teaching other people’s daughters to put a condom on a banana that is petty and ridiculous. That is as if Muslims forbade us to eat pork.

                  Indeed it is worse than being forbidden pork. I can eat chicken, but I am unenthused by the prospect of substituting tranny assholes for virgin pussy.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  Yikes! Charlottesville has got HA feeling excited and he’s been raiding the exclamation mark supply again!

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Thus are the real objectives of the Cathedral in Afghanistan revealed.

                  “Afghanistan’s opium poppy production goes into more than 90% of heroin worldwide.”

                  “In 2007, 93% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

                  1. USG occupies Afghanistan.
                  2. Opium production triples.
                  3. ???
                  4. Profit.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure it is not the US elites that are profiting from that.

                • StoneMan says:

                  True, US elites don’t profit, but they do get to teach girls how to put bananas on condoms.

                  Bananas on condoms
                  +
                  Massive opium production
                  =
                  Everyone wins!

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Pretty sure it is not the US elites that are profiting from that.

                  Elites always prosper. If the “elites” aren’t profiting, look somewhere else.

                  http://www.reuters.com/article/financial-un-drugs-idUSLP65079620090125

                  Oops.

                • pdimov says:

                  “We went there for the opium” is less stupid than “we went there for the oil” or “we went there to teach girls to put a condom on a banana”, but only just.

                  The opium and the banana are opportunistic infections.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Cavalier –

                  Someone profits from literally anything. Burn down a city and someone will make money renting out tents.

                  That’s the problem with reasoning backwards from cui bono – it’s incapable of making predictions because someone benefits from any action and the someones who benefit are those who have the ability to benefit – meaning men who are capable or savvy or lucky or who control the right resources, etc. Once someone has a stream of income he’ll use some of it to keep the stream flowing.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >less stupid…but only just
                  >Someone profits from literally anything, etc…Once someone has a stream of income he’ll use some of it to keep the stream flowing.

                  It’s a clusterfuck, there’s no denying that. All I’m saying is that US involvement in Afghanistan serves (or served) someone’s interests, and has absolutely nothing to do with patriarchy, woman-property (i.e. wives), or condoms on bananas. USG doesn’t give a shit about any of that, it’s just what’s imposed after victory is achieved. Opium, I would imagine, is just a nice bonus — cannabis, too, as apparently Afghanistan is also the largest producer of that plant.

                  I don’t know the value of Afghanistan, because I don’t really care about the Middle East, but Wesley Clark’s infamous clip, specifically the part about how they started on Afghanistan before they started even on Iraq (!), combined with the previous Soviet involvement, leads me to believe that Afghanistan is some kind of strategic linchpin.

                  My question, at least with regard to the hit list (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran), is: what force ended up interceding to save (at least) Syria and Iran? They’re under enormous and escalating indirect pressure (ISIS, etc.), and have been for some time, but there’s nothing that makes Syria or Iran intrinsically stronger than Iraq or Libya, at least not enough to matter — all four are flyspeck countries. Was Russia anything but a trainwreck in the 2000s? Is it simply that the Pentagon wised up, or what? Maybe there’s a good answer, but I’m not sure what it is.

                • pdimov says:

                  “what force ended up interceding to save (at least) Syria and Iran?”

                  Syria was saved by Iran. Who saved Iran, I don’t know. Obama’s Iran deal is similarly incomprehensible to me.

      • viking says:

        women should pull as alpha man as they can thats why nature programmed them to do so you bitch in every betas bed is dysgenic.
        I agree we should encourage as much dysgenics in other races countries as we can as long as it costs us nothing
        it might b e cool to allow single girls to dress as they wish but once married more covered, we sort of have this or a remnant in how we allow girl children more licence. but forcing through custom a change in married women’s dress would force a conscious acceptance of what marriage entails for society and actually place in womens minds on a daily basis a submissive meme this works well on them they actually enjoy this

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Enforced polygyny is arguably more eugenic than enforced monogamy, but free-for-all is more dysgenic than either as quality women simply don’t reproduce.

          Enforced polygyny is hard to combine with a mass mobilisation army.

          • viking says:

            doesnt seem like we need mass army though imin favor of full draft
            not for sure in favor of polygyny just saying betas be whining while frontin they all alphas and thats cause they baby daddies was betas

        • jim says:

          women should pull as alpha man as they can thats why nature programmed them to do so you bitch in every betas bed is dysgenic.

          If women went for the guy in the corner office in the high building, that would be eugenic. But they instead hit on the fat forty year old ice dealer in motorcycle leathers. This may be because the guy in the corner office has so much to lose that he is terrified of women, and if we eased up on domestic violence/sexual harassment/statutory rape/alimoney/palimoney, he would find it easier to behave in a way that registered as high status with women. But the fact is, for whatever reason, they do not hit on the guy in the corner office, they hit on the thug with the room temperature IQ, who makes a little money from folding sweaters, a little money from small time burglary, rather more money by dealing ice, and a lot of money by sponging off his numerous high IQ high socioeconomic status hot cute girlfriends.

    • viking says:

      yes but we should not be fighting at all except for our own interest which are zero these days

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Is there a word for being willfully disingenuous about things that poke you in the amygdala?

      • Alrenous says:

        It’s not an amygdala poking thing, it’s just a bad propagandist. If his jimmies were really rustled he’d stop reading Jim sooner or later. “I can’t even,” and all that. Instead it’s low-quality outgroup shaming. How dare Jim not conform to the norms of a group he’s not even part of. He should suffer from knowing how low status he is within Hidden Author’s clique.

    • StoneMan says:

      Condescending to patriarchal political philosophy on the internet and declaring it to be psychological compensation for having an insufficiently sized phallus isn’t going to get you laid, it isn’t going to stop women from cheating on you, and it isn’t going to stop your daughters from becoming the town bicycle during puberty.

      You don’t actually care about whether ankles are exposed or not. You are undermining men who want to dial back the rampant whoredom and vanity of the feminist legal system. Unless you are in broad agreement, you just think that ankle covering is too far, in which case, you’re a legalistic moron. The more likely alternative is that you don’t actually have a good defense of the feminist legal system and its accompanying levels of infidelity, illegitimacy, and familial asset liquidation, so you pretend that everything is fine and anyone who recognizes that it isn’t fine clearly has an insufficient physical attribute.

      You seem to be implying that insufficient phallus is the reason women cheat, so a woman paired with a well endowed man will not cheat, and a woman paired with an insufficiently endowed man will almost certainly cheat. That thesis is blatantly false. The predominant driver of female adultery is not phallus acquisition, it is gene acquisition. Micropenises deliver genes.

      • StoneMan says:

        In other words, back to the kitchen with you. Men are talking.

      • hullabaloo says:

        What she’s saying is true. Just replace phallus with status.

        • StoneMan says:

          So women will not cheat when paired with a high status man, and will certainly cheat paired with a low status man.

          The wives of hollywood actors would be notorious for their fidelity, and the wives of church-going Joe Schmos would be notoriously adulterous. My understanding is that the opposite is the case with the former, and the latter are not more adulterous than the general female population, perhaps less so.

          Once again, the thesis does not hold up.

          HA and others who use those types of Freudian rhetoric want to create a false sense that being alpha nowadays is great, being beta nowadays is awful, and being a female nowadays is better than it used to be. Male disposability as an evolved strategy is meant to override our higher reasoning, causing us to not give a shit about the betas and pretend that they are the only ones who suffer.

          It’s true that it’s never been easier to get laid a lot of you’re alpha. You can get laid a TON. But even the alphaest get tired of it. Alphas, too, are men, and normal men, most men, want to own a house, women, and children. If not now, then later, eventually.

          You can’t make a housewife out of a ho. Feminism means that you can’t stop a potential housewife from becoming a ho. As Jim says, women are sticky tape, and even the alphaest of alpha get the chance to marry them only after they’ve lost some or all stickiness.

          So yes, patriarchy is better for beta males. Patriarchy is also better for alpha males once they’ve had their fill of tattooed communications majors and set about getting a wife. It’s better for women too, ultimately, because they are not making their own decisions about reproduction, therefore they are not making bad decisions about reproduction, therefore they do not suffer the consequences of their bad decisions.

          But it is irrelevant whether or not women embrace patriarchy. My aim at this time is to dispel the myth that patriarchy = beta and alpha = siring dozens of bastards to be aborted by tattooed career womyn.

      • viking says:

        I broadly agree I also think we are into our next decade of broadly agreing and maybe ought to get specific about the exact place we want to arrive and what specific steps would get us there. A certain amount of legalism is involved in that.I dont really even see a broad agreement on the basics except a lot of reactionaries seem not to know how to get laid or keep women and they think beta rule is the answer.Now beta rule over women rule is a step in the right direction, but its arguable beta rule like a lot of white traits has been a two edged sword. Theres also the problem that higher status for women is a white trait working against HBD is not supposed to be a reactionary thing,acting like niggers will yield nigger results and probably will fail.whites excel at nuance nuance may be what is called for in white patriarchy the blogosphere prefers to bloviate about putting mih bitches in burka but have no bitches to put in burkas. The problem of how to put genie back in her bottle is not negligible and requires thought on the multi generational scale the left used. This (((moldbuggian))) waiting for muh collapse so I can seize power is bullshit not happening, you can go to hot war now or go to 4G war now in the end you have to physically take over the cathedral and run it.

        • Filthy Liar says:

          Broad agreement is all you’re ever going to get because the people involved in the broad agreement will instantly start knifing one another when specifics are required.

        • StoneMan says:

          Putting the genie back in her bottle is really not as complicated as we like to pretend it is. Even we reactionaries tend to think like democratists from time to time; that is, we think that the only way to get anything done is to get a majority of the quantity of people to agree. We don’t need a majority of the general population. We only need a majority of the strength. A majority of the quality. Let the left have their hordes of dregs, if the stronger portion of the male population realizes that patriarchy is a better deal, the weaker males will get in line with the stronger, and the females will get in line with the males, as they are wont to do when men actually have the strength to back up their will.

          I just laugh whenever I see women talking about how “WE’RE NOT GOING BACK!”

          • Filthy Liar says:

            They’re right though? They would die before they went back to the kind of Patriarchy you’re looking for. That doesn’t mean you can’t successfully kill the people in your way, but they’re explicitly saying that they’ll die rather than submit. The genie is stronger than you want it to be, and your allies are going to shank whenever they can.

            • jim says:

              Women desperately want to be owned by a strong man. They resist only to test the man’s strength.

              Emancipation was a shit test that we failed, and they are importing the rapeugees in the hope that they can pass it.

            • StoneMan says:

              The women are explicitly _saying_ they’d rather die than submit.

              Don’t judge women by their words, judge them by their actions. The vast majority of shit tests are merely verbal.

              • jim says:

                Women say lots of things they don’t seriously mean. It is just drama, just a shit test.

                As was emancipation itself.

                Observe that the overwhelming majority of white converts to conservative Islam are fertile age women.

                • StoneMan says:

                  Exactly.

                • jim says:

                  Yes: Gnon intends a man’s resistance to enslavement to be actually effective in resisting enslavement, a woman’s resistance to enslavement to only be effective against weakness.

                  Current female behavior is adaptive in an environment where their tribe is about to be conquered by hostile outsiders who will kill the men and seize the lands and women.

  4. viking says:

    like most you mistake the theoretical sultan for yourself he will not care if he lives or dies only that allah’s will is fulfilled. There is no winning with these sand niggers just build a wall around them deport them all back home let them drink oil eat sand and kill each other till they are all dead and by all of course we include the jews

  5. Alrenous says:

    Afghanistan == kriegsspiel. Creates veterans in case of real war.

  6. viking says:

    Assads always been alright by me, my only point is we shouldnt have to even care, maybe even prefer they grind themselves to dust. ultimately there can only be one race in the universe why would be want to encourage the growth of any other.Are we nation building?

  7. viking says:

    YES BIG PROBLEM
    I have recently wondered aloud if reaction hasn’t died very few of original left and now this week altright took a big hit and been reduced to nazis. though its not clear they were even involved. It was a stupid operation from the beginning.
    How much of the disagreement is actual and how much everyone wanting to strut in the comments section. and how much actual disagreement comes from faulty premises.and how much is about timeframes, what we might insist on as an end goal may be much different than our next step. Its as if the left had gone for toddler tranny rights back in 1870s.
    I have tried to steer a conversation about identifying some of the areas to work on some really are tough like the jew question others just need hard work.

    • Garr says:

      “some are really tough like the jew question”:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1HwVmY28Pk

    • Garr says:

      (That’s just “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria”)
      Viking and his friends after the jew question has been solved (Kazotsky Kick montage from TF2):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYzQIa3qTHY

    • jim says:

      We are not reduced to Nazis. Rather, no one except Nazis are willing to speak in public.

      • recognizing the plain truth that a foreign 2% of our population has 50% of the wealth and power which is largely used to viking says:

        simply recognizing that a 2% foreign occupant has amassed in a few short decades 50% of the wealth and power of your nation and uses that mostly for your oppression and dispossession is well fundamental.The canards that they are only the swing vote and they have quisling wasp co conspirators, that they earned it, that every last one of them is not consciously aware of what they are doing, are so trivial excuses in comparisons that to dismiss them as envious nazis is well vichy.
        This rhetorical gambit that you can not notice or act on this information because you would be a socialist, a thief, a nazi, jealous, proving you deserve it,have low self esteem, are low class, and whatever else is fucking absurd.
        if you look at east asian college admittances and test scores you realize this same scenario is beginning an order of magnitude worse with east asians and because you cant muster the balls to call the jews out you cant stop the slants either- youre done game over because fickign neo reaction is too squeemish to simply state foreign overlord are unacceptable. no you cant come into this national infrastructure we built and exploit it for your non white interests nor can you even accidentally end up ruling us. This is not nazism its what every nation on earth but white nations have.neoreaction is jew cucked which isnt surprising since its jew founded and half jewish

        • jim says:

          Redistributionist solutions to the Jewish problem fail catastrophically for the obvious reasons. Even if your facts are correct, the conclusions to which you point lead to self destructive actions.

  8. Jake Simpson says:

    “put a condom on a banana” is a sales pitch to garner support from normie progressive, or more so, minimize opposition.

    There is interfering with China’s new silk road. Possible 3 trillion in minerals, so cock block others, again China.

    Any time white men die or injured is cause for joy for some.
    Borrowing money from the banks.

    Keeping in the neighborhood for a war on Iran.

    • jim says:

      Pretty sure it is not just a sales pitch. It is so violently unpopular that it has to be the real payload.

      • Alrenous says:

        It’s -a- real payload.
        Pressuring Saudi enemies is another real payload. Iran lacking a Rothschild bank is another real payload. The war is in Afghanistan as opposed to somewhere else because Afghanistan is where those interests align. Afghanistan is probably part of the Daesh supply chain, so there’s that too.

        • jim says:

          Not seeing how it pressures our Saudi enemies. If you want to pressure our enemies, you need to win, rather than make our soldiers wear high heeled shoes.

          It is kind of obvious that the Cathedral does not want to make our enemies fear us. It wants to persuade them to become progressives.

          • Alrenous says:

            Stirring up chaos is hardly not pressure. Continuing to lose a fight is more costly to the opponent than winning.

            Afghanistan is immediately to the right of Iran. Iraq, to the left. None of these countries has anything to do with Al-Qaeda, or at least didn’t in 2001. However, Iran sure does like pissing off Saudi Arabia. What a coincidence.

            • jim says:

              That makes no sense at all.

              • Alrenous says:

                Arabia is probably where Soros’ money comes from. Colour revolutions are not profitable, so his money-hole has to keep being refilled. Major options are the IRS or oil money, and Saudis keep getting otherwise bizarre concessions. E.g. planes were grounded for everyone except Saudi nationals on 9/12. IRS is corrupt but not quite that corrupt. It’s not deniable enough.

                http://www.isegoria.net/2017/08/researchers-have-quantified-muhammad-alis-mental-decline/
                Imagine someone came every day to brawl with you. Lost every day, but you still accumulate bruises, sprains, perhaps occasionally broken bones.

                Alternatively, they win once, and impose a new order. You spend some time in hospital – once. Costly, yes, but not as costly as fighting a war every day.

                Normally someone who loses a fight repeatedly learns not to fight. However, Foggy Bottom sees the opportunity to continually bleed Arlington, while simultaneously making Iran’s neighbourhood a shithole. (They would invade Iran directly but they have a real army.)

                Consider this: oil power plants are a thing. Nuclear therefore competes with Saudi profits.
                American oil drilling competes with Saudi profits. Venezuelan oil business competes with Saudi profits. Russian pipelines…
                Indeed, does Foggy Bottom ever sponsor anything contrary to Saudi goals, even by accident?

                • jim says:

                  There is no mystery about the source of Soros’s wealth. He buys worthless debt from broke countries, and then the IMF, aka the US taxpayer, bails out the countries that issued the debt.

                • Alrenous says:

                  That would certainly explain it.

                  I still think the Saudis are funding Demobrat operations in one way or another.

        • peppermint says:

          Why don’t you believe that the mission in Afghanistan is female education?

          Because you think our enemies are sane?

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Leftists are constantly proposing twinky economic motivations for all strategic actions of the US, and yet those actions keep losing the US more and more money.

  9. viking says:

    one of these days I gotta visit your world jim.-One thing to consider is we are to far gone to use current trends to deduce anything we are pretty much in chaos at this point. for instance half the girls today didnt even have a father and odds that if they did he was a cuck, among many reasons they make poor choices.

    My only point up there was when redesigning white civilization as reactionaries we ought to not fight HBD no matter how expedient or satisfying emotionally or rhetorically. the most beautiful women in the world white women have built in exposed ankles, otherwise known as blond and red hair and light eyes. and one one of the traits we have is higher female status.

    the other point also HBD related is theres two main theories of what went wrong the jews pwnd us which you reject and (((moldbugs))) the wasps pwnd us which is loosely associated somehow with the suicidal altruism theory. Putting aside the jew/wasp thing its pretty certain theres something to our monogamy which requires lots of beta participation. obviously this has had what might be thought civilizing influenced and might well be worth finding a way to continue, but must also be understood that same civilizing effect is problematic.
    You seem to be proposing solving the problem of increasing male effeminacy and thus unattractiveness by niggerizing our courting and marriage practices. This could have all sorts of unintended consequences you never address.
    you also proceed from todays anarchy and since you wont touch the white nationalist answer it may will and i think probably assumes all sorts of conditions that dont actually have to exist and then be solved. get rid of the niggers and jews and we are back to the 1800 not such a bad place despite your concern for the cucked king.and lets not forget actually we would be back in the 1800s knowing what we have learned since then

    • jim says:

      > You seem to be proposing solving the problem of increasing male effeminacy and thus unattractiveness by niggerizing our courting and marriage practices

      I don’t see how you reach that conclusion: Families with fathers present, and durable marriage, are the opposite of innate and natural black behavior.

      • viking says:

        i’m using the more general sense of nigger as nonwhite, in this case sand niggers specifically. I mean you see we have more betas getting betaer and women looking for more alphas men and your proposing not more manliness but putting them in burkas etc.Im not saying its an easy problem though.

        • jim says:

          I propose a return to eighteenth century English norms – which are not terribly different from early twentieth century middle eastern norms, except that middle easterners allow polygamy and easy divorce. Obviously I am not proposing polygamy and easy divorce.

          • viking says:

            I think that works its white normalcy, but its a far cry from a lot of your bombast thats sounds more like the taliban. lets be honest white 18th century norms were a fairly broad range and varied across class, we should be able to raise all to higher class standards once we own the cathedral but i think the devils in the details about the policy on the outliers. I think leaving it to chance oe pretending it doesnt happen or threatening to stone them wont work. will jane austin emily dickenson and the bronte sisters books be burned?what do you do about a madam pompadour? I just think getting into the weeds would be more productive than the current fare

            • jim says:

              The policy of the Australian authorities in the late 1790s and the early 1800s was closer to that of Islamic State and Boko Haram (forced marriage and public whippings for speaking back to or disobeying one’s husband) than it was to the Taliban, and by 1820, by the early nineteenth century, those policies had come to be viewed as disturbing.

              Which is to say, fertility started to fall at about the same time as those policies came to be viewed as shocking.

              The trouble with the Taliban is that by the standards of eighteenth century England, they are a little bit feminist.

  10. viking says:

    Garr I don’t really think i have friends on the JQ because Im one of the few it seems to feel its as important a question as it is while still really liking jews. It seems youre not allowed to be like that and i assume reactionaries who wont consider the question are letting their emotions get in the way of their judgement and so I tend to kvetch and then am assumed a nazi.
    Of course the JQ is to borrow from a J a catch 22 ( or was that really a saying when he wrote it?) By which i mean to say asking the question elicits the exact behavior you’re trying to get rid of, and that’s really exacerbated by NRX being so jewish. I have been around from the beginning and the place is like moscowitz and lukowitz on a thursday night. Now you can take that as hey great theyre learning or you could get paranoid and say here we go again.You dont need any conspiracy theories its a rabbit warren as it is. because of course just this situation has been used by both sides as part of the recruitment to conspiracy and on anon.
    To me it boils dowwn to this jews are 2% they have 50% power wealth and they are not us by choice, ths choice is made by using said power and wealth to destroy us. many are not part many do not understand full extent doesn’t matter enough do who could have explained it and changed it. whites dont see jews this way partly because jew stealth mostly because jews seem like us from outside so we dont get threatened. If however 2% of the us was chinese and held 50% of power and wealth and used it to destroy our culture we sure would notice and we would kill them all. this is important because this argument that so jews earned it is beside the fucking point, they were not entitled to earn it as outsiders they were giving american privilege as insiders it fraud, but its worse they have set up the situation where an even more serious threat is coming from other outsiders who can and will do the same the east asians. only by the time we notice if we are allowed to notice because jews dont want this noticed east asians will be a bigger problems than jews because though less intelligent more numerous. the jewish question is really the jewish asian cog elite multicultural question. whites are being replaced in our own nations by all cog elites but jews purposefully engineered this.There can be no reaction if this is not recognized particularly by all jews in reaction. It might still be possible to salvage the jews I have said it might actually be the best chance at survival, that if jews could finally convert and become white and put all that wealth and power behind white nationalism we would win. Yes some would say what victory, I would say obviously we are talkjng unconditional assimilation and how you ascertain this god knows but jews becoming white nationals would be a pretty big down payment. short of this iits death or war I dont believe whites are going gently I dont think they have yet really flelt personally the cost but its happening fast now and there will be a hard right shift and well I bet jews get caught up in this not just because they will are fighting it but a reckoning is going to be had and we will start to see what we in reaction already know jews really did engineer 90% of bad leftism. It would be nice to avoid that but f not jews have a place to go now so theres no hitler problem of no one will take the jews

    • Garr says:

      An idea’s lighting up my head: Viking, you should write “an open letter to my jew friends” — use second person (address them as “you”), be yourself, make it long. I can do the line-breaks if you want. I think it’ll become canonical very quickly.
      It’s also occurred to me that you could sell an entire e-book of your poetry online, proceeds to support your Idaho endeavors perhaps. There could be permanent links to it at various blogs.

      • viking says:

        what cant go on wont and when the anarchy ensues and extreme measure are needed the jews will be scapegoated as they should be. theyre smart enough to to know whats coming in fact they are already outraged they have been shuttled back 100 years overnight. they can do as I suggest or not, if anyone should explain to them its one of them.
        Mexicans is only a proxy for all non whites we all know this. we have a president who openly ran on a white power platform and won even with dank memes in the background because no one gives a shit about your holocaust anymore no one but faggots and women and real losers the niggers sandniggers and spics hate jews. The young people are primed for a cultural revolution from the right.and its the same internationally.the west is a powder keg and the jews are the elite in an age when every race is in play you think jews can continue to stay above the fray at some point soon they get examined and then the facts speak for themselves.Ill stay in north idaho and watch

  11. RA Landbeck says:

    That ‘Holy’ war may already be starting. But this is one of a very different order! http://www.energon.org.uk

  12. TheBigH says:

    Hi Jim you might find this intresting:

    Why the Former Elites With the Best Access to Information are the Most Misinformed?:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/17/why-the-former-elites-with-the-best-access-to-information-are-the-most-misinformed/?C

  13. pdimov says:

    “It is not hard: You need a genuinely Islamic strong monarch who can accomplish the difficult job of keeping order, and let him know that if trouble comes out of Afghanistan and reaches you, he is going to die.”

    This implies “you” being honest on whether trouble comes out of Afghanistan and reaches “you”, which hasn’t generally been the case.

  14. viking says:

    watching the decline of NYC in the 80s/90s i realized people will put up with a lot if boiled slow. just before I left i entered a large atm kiosk where a homeless nigger was camped he was extracting tolls at the door and shitting in another corner while his pallet was in the third. maybe 30 yuppies were lined up for cash gagging on the stench but pretending they didnt know what the source was I evicted the nigger on sight only to find the yuppies begin to rouse from their stupor. I punch the boldest one on the face and dressed them all down for the spineless scum they were. By then the city was in ruins when only 30 years earlier it was the wonder of the world.It was then I realized there was no limit if someone didnt step up average people would continue to step around. Urban faggotry is perhaps not a representative sample of america or the west but rural people are not prepared either they havnt seen the endgame they cant imagine the evil of the enemy. women will do whatever is expected they are conformists,They dont really enjoy this life but theyre obedient. sure the jews will scream. But the bigger question really is how do you get there, war is a good way if you can manage it, people get war has consequences they get again that the winners are deadly serious. but any war to stamp out leftism will have to be one hell of a war with a cultural revolution like followup.The other way is a long slow march through the instustutions

    • Nehemiah says:

      Viking wrote: but any war to stamp out leftism will have to be one hell of a war with a cultural revolution like followup.The other way is a long slow march through the instustutions end quote

      There may be a third way, also slow, but without the high risk of war followed by a counter-cultural revolution, and without facing the hyper-vigilant resistance of the those who already control the major institutions.

      Secularism is the most powerful contraceptive. All over the world, as religious participation goes up, so does fertility. (This is even more pronounced in Europe than in the US, although their believers seem to be starting from a lower numerical base, not counting Muslims.) Somewhat above replacement fertility for the more frequent church attenders is, however, offset by apostasy through assimilation, facilitated by the schools and media and close daily contact with the more secular majority.

      • jim says:

        Bullshit.

        Some religions are fertile, some are not. What you are calling secularism is conversion to anti natalist, anti family, anti marriage religion.

        We see high fertility where we see religions that enforce the marriage contract. We see low fertility where we see religions that do not. What you are calling secularism is one of those low fertility religions.

        • Nehemiah says:

          jim wrote:
          Some religions are fertile, some are not. What you are calling secularism is conversion to anti natalist–end quote

          I don’t have a link because my sources are “dead tree,” but the numbers are very clear: as frequency of worship attendance increases, so do TFR’s; as attendance decreases, TFR’s decrease. These are factual numbers, actual measurements, not my private armchair hypothesis.

          Also, stricter or “high demand” sects have higher birthrates than lower demand sects.

          +peppermint: no, by secular I’m not talking about secular humanism, just lower levels of religious practice, which can be numerically quantified.

          • Your Wife's Son says:

            Idiots don’t need religion to reproduce, they do so of their own volition. It’s the intelligent who need religion to impel and compel them to reproduce instead of following “dreams” which are incompatible with family life.

            As such, when religiosity is correlated with low-IQ, which right now it is, that’s nothing to be happy about. Need to reverse the trend, and come up with a pro-natalist religion for high quality people, while preferably secularizing the idiots.

            Right now, there is pro-natalism for low quality people, anti-natalism for high quality people. Meaning, right now religiosity is a force for evil and dysgenics, rather than a positive influence on society. To reverse that state of affairs, need to fundamentally re-think religion. Your position: “support religion because it increases TFR” is evil and wrong, because the wrong kind of people reproduce.

            This state of affairs necessitates a religious revolution.

            • jim says:

              Nah

              Without external enforcement, relationships between men and women tend to be defect/defect, making it difficult to reproduce. I know this well, having been stuck in quite disastrous defect/defect since my wife’s death, despite massive and honest efforts to get out of it.

              There really is no effective response to female bad behavior other than one’s own bad behavior.\

              The role of the church is to make family possible by socially enforcing good behavior.

            • jim says:

              Right now, there is pro-natalism for low quality people, anti-natalism for high quality people

              This is 100% a reflection of the Cathedral targeting smart upper class women for high status educational, (which is to say religious) roles, entirely a result of the fact that smart women have a greater tendency to spend more time in state education. You are blaming on non state religion what you should be blaming on attendance at the state religion

            • jim says:

              From direct personal experience of women, I know this is not true.

              The natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect, which makes successful reproduction difficult.

              Since my wife’s death I have been subject to a whole lot of defection, including one attempted paternity fraud. And I have, with considerable reluctance, responded by engaging in a whole lot of defection.

              External enforcement is needed to get out of this.

              We don’t need external compulsion to get men and women to reproduce. They are naturally inclined to reproduce. We need external enforcement to make reproduction safe and feasible.

              • Alf says:

                Not sure if I agree with this.

                I find white woman to be naturally cooperative with men. Women are after all obsessed with love. It is more that they are by nature ruthless in their search of love, that they are hypergamous, testing and fickle.

                It is true that woman in general are too demanding of men, that they are more likely to defect on men of similar sexual market value. But in [current year] women mainly defect because men as a society encourage them to defect. (Which is not to take away from your experience of patrrnal fraud, wtf).

                Also, women are naturally inclined to have sex, not to reproduce. Birth control is booming business, women are basically addicted to those pills.

                • jim says:

                  PUA analysis can be paraphrased as “women are going to defect, so you need to defect faster and harder”. This is totally consistent with my experience with numerous women. (Except, of course, for my wife.)

                  Few of whom have shown any thought about birth control. “It just happened”.

                • Alf says:

                  PUA analysis can be paraphrased as “women want high status badboy men, here’s how to be one”. Which can be used to pump and dump many women but can also be used to keep one woman in line.

                  Yes, the average woman is horribly unreliable in birth control, but I find that the higher-quality the woman, the stricter she is with birth control.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Seems like a racial (or “cultural”) issue to me. Some ethnicities produce decent women on average, while others produce a majority of insufferable cunts.

                  Perhaps women from inside the Hajnal Line are drastically worse behaved than those from outside of it, while the opposite should be said of the men. Men from inside the Hajnal Line tend to be dads, rather than cads, and the women seem to have developed a corresponding proclivity to exploit that tendency with callous efficiency.

                  This map showing the European individualism gradient is pertinent:

                  https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/individualism-map-2-hajnal-line.jpg

                  Individualist men are likely to cooperate rather than defect, while individualist women are likely to defect rather than cooperate. Goes the other way around with collectivists.

                  Which perfectly fits ethnic variation in women’s behavior.

          • jim says:

            > frequency of worship attendance increases, so do TFR’

            Rather than correlating attendance at non state worship with fertility, you have to control for attendance at education. Female attendance at education reduces both fertility and attendance at other forms of worship.

            Female attendance at education is worship of the state religion. As attendance at education increases, fertility and attendance at other forms of worship decrease.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            This is why the quantification nerds are idiots.

            You have a giant confounding effect here – the religion in question is productive of fertility. Then you look at data and say “well, it looks like religion is good for fertility” and any counter-argument is dismissed with “look at the data”.

            The data doesn’t think for you.

            Let’s pretend you had a robust data set on Shakers – what does that data tell you about religiosity and fertility? How about Carthaginian worship? Piously stuffing your children in a bronze bull to be killed positively correlates with fertility, right? Meso-American human sacrifice religions?

            Or in other words – “Some religions are fertile, some are not. What you are calling secularism is conversion to anti natalist”

            • jim says:

              > Some religions are fertile, some are not. What you are calling secularism is conversion to anti natalist religion.

              Exactly so.

              There is nothing secular about the doctrine that all men are created equal. It is a lot easier to believe in young earth creationism.

              You always have a state religion. In order for a state religion to avoid oppressing people, crushing intellectual life, crushing science, crushing engineering, and crushing the economy, it really needs to stick to stuff that is either demonstrably true, or conveniently difficult to disprove.

              “Christ died for our sins” and “God is three and God is One” is consistent with a high intellectual life, a society where reason is in the driver’s seat.

              “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” is Black Lives Matter burning down the supermarket and ethnically cleansing whites out of town. Inalienable rights inevitably becomes the right to an Obamaphone.

              The point of the declaration was to get a mob onto the streets, and inevitably the mob went downhill from there.

      • peppermint says:

        By secularism, you mean secular humanism.

        True atheism acknowledges biological realities instead of implicitly accepting soul theory.

    • Nehemiah says:

      (Dadgum hypersensitive software posted my comment before I finished typing! I want my computer to do things *only* when I click, not every time my cursor nonchalantly brushes against something. Aaarrrggghhh!)

      Some groups (e.g. Amish, Hutterites, Old Order Mennonites, Haredi Jews, polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists, the Closed Brethren, and the Laestadian Lutherans) compensate for the assimilation problem by bearing very large families. And in some of these sects, most defectors seem to wind up in some conservative evangelical sect.

      As a rule, the strictest groups have both the highest birthrates and, counterintuitively, the lowest defection rates.

      Interestingly, these groups do not have to demand high birthrates in order to get them. For example, rabbinic law only demands each woman bear one boy and one girl, and although a few couples might produce, say, a long string of boys before getting a girl, on average it still works out to only a little more than 2 children per woman; but, in practice, nearly every Haredi woman bears a lot more children than she is officially obligated to bear.

      These groups also do their best to close the back door by maintaining their own schools and often other institutions so as to minimize contact with outsiders.

      No one alive today will live to see groups like these, even collectively, become the majority. But, exponential growth being what it is, they should become the majority in a relatively short time, from the perspective of future historians.

      As progs become increasingly aggressive, I expect to see more theologically conservative groups, feeling increasingly besieged, imitating models like these, perhaps picking and choosing the most effective customs from each such group. Think of the “full quiver” movement among Southern Baptists. It is a first step in that direction. Cultural evolution happens.

  15. Hindu_Sage says:

    Honestly speaking, you americans went there for your own personal greed. You didn’t went there to “liberate” them. Your army personneld regularly commit rapes and murder against their people. Bombing of afghani hospitals by american forces. What did america do against the saudis who were involved in 9/11? Pay them $100 billion deals and trump danced with saudi royals. Did america take action against Pakistan when osama bin laden was found there? American govt is only good for killing innocent civilians.

    • jim says:

      Definitely did not go to Afghanistan out of greed. Nothing there to steal.

      Went to Afghanistan to teach twelve year old Afghan girls to put a condom on a banana. Observe the hysterical reaction to my complaint. I obviously touched a nerve.

      • pdimov says:

        Encircling Iran per Alrenous makes sense and explains both wars. Bananas do not.

        • jim says:

          Iran is not encircled. No pressure is being applied via Afghanistan.

          To apply pressure, assist Sunni resistance movements. The opposite policy is applied. Compare and contrast with Syria. You could plausibly claim that Syria is encirclement.

          • Alrenous says:

            Every day, your next-door neighbour holds such wild party you literally can’t drive down the street that way. Amazingly loud. It sounds like they’re shooting off guns and rockets.

            No pressure though. They stay on their side of the fence!

          • pdimov says:

            Encirclement is the neocon modus operandi. I’m not saying it makes any sense. That’s just what they do. Look at the map, and consider that there’s a US base in Turkmenistan too.

            • Alf says:

              Considering how quickly Trump dances to the Pentagon’s tune it’s worth considering their influence.

              Have to agree Iraq/Afghanistan is stupid military strategy.

              But perhaps that fits the red warrior/blue priest dynamic – if the priest spouts nonsense, the warrior blindly hits people.

        • peppermint says:

          Just because the liberals I’ve heard quietly explain in conspiratorial tones that we need to say in Afghanistan for 20 years to teach them to be liberals are useful idiots doesn’t mean they’re useful idiots for someone else.

          What was the plan with the Arab Spring?

          Why did they go after Andrew Anglin first instead of child rapists?

        • Alrenous says:

          Bananas are a necessary part of the coalition. If proggies didn’t get their domination kicks there, then the party would have been held somewhere else. Afghanistan is the alignment of several or all corrupt interests. Saudi, Rothschild Bankers, Foggy Bottom, Arlington, and probably the KGB too. Arlington is losing, but Foggy Bottom has successfully manoeuvred them into a “Death before Dishonour!” stupidity spiral.

          • pdimov says:

            Bananas are an afterthought. Liberals played no part in the decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

            • Alrenous says:

              That’s untrue, but I have no interest in changing your mind.

            • peppermint says:

              The ((legacy media)) aren’t liberals now? Boomer liberals, to this day, on my normiebook, are defending the Afghanistan debacle on the grounds of female education.

              • pdimov says:

                I’m not saying that they aren’t. I’m saying that this is not why the war was started.

                One may plausibly make an argument that this is why the war persists, but I doubt even that.

                Female education has a budget, and this budget is going to be spent, but it doesn’t matter where. Wherever’s available.

      • Nehemiah says:

        Different people had and have different reasons for supporting war in Afghanistan. Harboring al quaeda may have been opportunistic pretext, but also appears to have been a legitimate one. Once there, many feminists supported it because many of them reason that as long as patriarchy survives anywhere on earth, feminist gains are not secure anywhere in the long term. They may be right. The CIA probably wanted to save the poppy industry (which the Taliban had decided to suppress) because, long floating rumors have it, they get cash from the heroin trade with which to fund some of their black ops (which is their primary activity, not intelligence analysis). Before the war, negotiations with the Taliban to build a pipeline across Afghanistan ended in frustration at the Taliban’s obstinance, and one western delegate warned them they would be carpet bombed into submission if they did not concede at the negotiating table. By a sheer stroke of unforeseeable luck (?), 9-11 would soon provide the needed pretext. Finally, the Pashtuns (Pathans) are the Afghan majority and they also provide the ethnic base for the Taliban movement. Many of them also live on the other side of the border in northern Pakistan where the Taliban is also active among them. Most Pakis tell pollsters they are in favor of restoring Sharia law, so the success of a Taliban led Islamist revolution is not far-fetched, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Neither the US nor Israel (and the latter’s influential supporters in the US) want those weapons to fall into the hands of Jihadist revolutionaries.

        Why did Russia invade Afghanistan in 1979? It may have been part of a long term strategic plan to eventually get port access on the Indian Ocean, which Russia had desired since Tzarist days. OTOH, the premier was drunk when he gave the order to invade, and once the deed was done, maybe they just did not want to lose face by admitting “We screwed up and we are not powerful enough to beat a bunch of illiterate goat-herders.”

        Earlier in the 20th century, the Brits invade Afghanistan, fighting especially the Pashtuns. I don’t remember offhand what their reasons were then, but they had them. Did not work out well, and Kipling wrote a memorable poem about the experience. At least the Brits had the good sense to cut their losses and get out. They don’t call it the graveyard of empires for nothing.

        • jim says:

          Afghanistan was the first war of political correctness.

          Brits failed in Afghanistan for internal British political reasons – anti colonialist ideology.

        • pdimov says:

          “The CIA probably wanted to save the poppy industry (which the Taliban had decided to suppress) because, long floating rumors have it, they get cash from the heroin trade with which to fund some of their black ops (which is their primary activity, not intelligence analysis).”

          Plausible.

  16. Nehemiah says:

    jim wrote:
    Some religions are fertile, some are not. What you are calling secularism is conversion to anti natalist–end quote

    I don’t have a link because my sources are “dead tree,” but the numbers are very clear: as frequency of worship attendance increases, so do TFR’s; as attendance decreases, TFR’s decrease. These are factual numbers, actual measurements, not my private armchair hypothesis.

    Also, stricter or “high demand” sects have higher birthrates than lower demand sects.

    +peppermint: no, by secular I’m not talking about secular humanism, just lower levels of religious practice, which can be numerically quantified.

    • peppermint says:

      Can be numerically quantified, and are correlated with secular humanism. You are another pseudoscientist citing data no one questions in support of conclusions it does not support. Pseudoscience has infected all discouse due to universities, which is why esse delendam.

      The Nazis were called atheistic and consequently the most right-wing party permitted to exist was called Christian Democrats.

      Throughout history secularism has been a proxy for cosmopolitanism and poz, with few exceptions, while strict observance of traditions is naturally tied to fertility.

      Today we have christcucks who literally tell their wives to adopt black embryos – the first case of a female mammal getting cucked ever – and atheists calling for White Sharia.

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        Samuel Skinner had said to me in a comment to which I did not respond that the only thing that matters is “survival.” Technically true, but instantly begs the question: whose survival? The survival of Somalians isn’t the survival of Swedes. A belief system is only good insofar as it promotes eugenic natalism among humans (whites).

        The “we need to become like orthodox Jews” crowd fails to take into account the dysgenic nature of modernity.

        In fact, even within Jewry, you’ve got these orthodox black-hatters and, in stark contrast, you’ve got the Einsteins, and instead of Einsteins outbreeding the black-hatters, it goes vice versa (soon the Jews will run out of Einsteins). Which to a weaselly, disingenuous, clever-silly dumbass kike like B proves that orthodox Jews are superior, but that’s like saying that Somalians are superior to Swedes due to “possessing a superior lifestyle.”

        No, it’s just that low-IQ groups are naturally fecund, and need to be forcibly secularized and forcibly sterilized (and also “humanely” sterilized by way of pozzing them); while high-IQ high-quality groups need a pro-natalist religion which commands absolute patriarchy and bans all forms of contraception and infanticide, modern and primitive alike.

        Christcucks preach abstinence and fail to eugenically reproduce, while Jews preach sluthood and also fail to eugenically reproduce. The conclusion to be drawn is not that slut-shaming a la 1950’s will save the day – it won’t, and your daughter will marry a mystery-meat mulatto gentleman at age 28 or simply become a catlady because she will be too nervous for PIV coitus.

        Rather, the conclusion to be drawn is that sluthood is irrelevant as long as your daughter brings you at least 3 well behaved grandchildren who are human (white). It literally doesn’t matter if she fucks 1 man or a 1,000 men as long as the end result is eugenic reproduction. If you ingrain this mentality into your daughter, she will not fuck a 1,000 men; she will marry young, albeit probably not to the man who’ll have deflowered her, and be very fertile without getting nervous about coitus.

        But because your instincts tell you otherwise due to an eon of evolution (that has been rendered null by modernity), your methods will result in her becoming a catlady, and you won’t fare any better than a christcuck; indeed you’ll be a christcuck-by-osmosis with a nervous emotionally-unstable daughter who will never reach the psychological maturity requisite for fertile coitus. Then an aggressive extroverted mulatto will seduce her, or if not, she will die childless. That’s what going back to the 1950’s entails for atheist “social conservatives.”

        Teaching sexual anxiety to women as a “reaction” to MTV telling them to become mudshark sluts will not improve the white race’s state of reproductive affairs, because either way the result is sterility.

        Teaching daughters that “your purpose in life is to bring me quality grandchildren, I don’t care what you do to reach that goal, as long as you reach it” will result in your daughter fucking some 10 men, realizing this is not fun, getting married young (not older than 23) to man number 11, and having a large family.

        Since your instincts tell you that this is not good, and you have a bunch of statistics (which you totally fail to comprehend) to “back you up”, you will not teach that to her, and so you will not have any normal grandchildren from your sexually hung-up daughter.

        Which is the epitome of feelz before realz.

      • Nehemiah says:

        peppermint wrote: Can be numerically quantified, and are correlated with secular humanism. You are another pseudoscientist

        1. I assume it is correlated, but I don’t know that anyone has actually tried to measure the correlation, or that anyone has even developed a mathematically valid psych inventory that would allow the measurement of “secular humanism” as a continuous variable. The beauty of measuring church attendance is that it is a continuous variable (just like fertility), and no special test must be developed to measure it. Worship attendance (unlike these psych test many times) can also be measured cross culturally without worrying that the questionnaire “items” may lose their validity in a different culture.

        2. Since I never claimed to be a scientist, I can hardly be a pseudo-scientist. I’m just well read, relatively speaking.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        Today we have christcucks who literally tell their wives to adopt black embryos – the first case of a female mammal getting cucked ever – and atheists calling for White Sharia.

        Fun fact – not actually the first time.

        There was a woman who absorbed her twin in the womb and became a chimera with the ovaries of her sister. She’d be the aunt to any child that she bore.

    • jim says:

      Sects that have higher birthrates are those that socially enforce good behavior on women.

      • Nehemiah says:

        Jim wrote: Sects that have higher birthrates are those that socially enforce good behavior on women.-end quote

        I do not disagree with this at all, but I would not stop there. Even when people are affiliated with the same sect, members who attend services more frequently produce more offspring than those who attend less frequently.

        Also, women who attend services not only have more children than those who do not (and this is a continuous variable, not just a “toggle switch”), but they also report wanting more offspring than the non-attenders.

        I suspect if someone examined more variables to measure practice than just attendance, that the relationship between religious practice and fertility would grow even stronger; but this last point is just a guess, although I think it is a logical one.

        BTW, sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor U has published a short little book called “Original Blessing” in which he shows that church attendance, after controlling for social class (upper, middle, lower), is positively correlated with a large number of behaviors or outcomes that are considered socially desirable.

        • jim says:

          Secular humanism is a religion, a predominantly female religion, and can, like other religions, be quantified by attendance at religious service, aka female “education”

          It is not so much that attendance at non state religious service is correlated with fertility, as that attendance at state religious service is correlated with becoming a cat lady.

          • Nehemiah says:

            +Jim, I understand what you are saying, and that many people regard secular humanism to be a religion. I have 2 observations about this.

            1. Many non-churchgoers (or mosque, synagogue, whatever) are not so much humanists as just apathetic or lazy or confused or socially isolated or even just timid. They still have lower fertility.

            2. The problem with defining all belief systems as religions is that it obscures the distinction between belief systems with a supernatural element and, on the other hand, naturalistic belief systems, or belief systems that simply don’t address the question. Traditionally, the former were called religions and the latter something else, such as ideologies, and I think that this distinction is often useful. Using one term for both reduces clarity in discussions and perhaps even in thought.

            I would like to add as an afterthought that you are not the first to compare our universities with temples of worship. Deist intellectuals in the Enlightenment often hoped that colleges and universities would become the new “temples” of learning after everyone had abandoned Christianity for their new, rational religion that had no need for a God who was concerned with human affairs. (I should perhaps note in the interest of thoroughness that some of the more conservative Deists allowed that God might indeed involve Himself in human affairs, so long as he did so in a “non-miraculous” way.)

            I think this–Enlightenment Deism–is the real source of “progressivism” (which applies to ideologies with some strikingly contradictory views in the early 20th century and the early 21st century, and of course NRx must find ways to make matters even more confusing by apparently using the word in yet a third way, which does not seem to be clearly defined–I blame Moldbug, whose writing is no model of clarity or consistency). It is quite easy to trace the lineage of progressivism2 to liberalism2/social democracy to progressivism1 to Marxism to “utopian” socialism (Marx’s term for pre-Marxist or non-Marxist socialism) to liberalism1, which was associated during the Enlightenment with the rights of man (before sexual egalitarianism made it “human” rights), republican government (before it became democracy, which is a system of universal adult suffrage), Deism, religious toleration, capitalism, free trade, and the adoration of science and technology. Obviously, it has been a moving target since then, especially as regards economic policy.

            And of course the Enlightenment (liberalism1) had intellectual predecessors, some of them going back to the fifth century BC, but that was not a continuous chain of cultural evolution but required appropriating models from the past, which makes the Enlightenment by definition a reactionary project (isn’t that ironic?), but Puritanism was definitely not one of those predecessors. If anything, Puritanism was on the opposing side of whatever predecessors the Enlightenment had in the 17th century. This is all fairly straight forward history, uncontroversial among historians of the Modern period.

            • jim says:

              > 1. Many non-churchgoers (or mosque, synagogue, whatever) are not so much humanists as just apathetic or lazy or confused or socially isolated or even just timid. They still have lower fertility.

              If their women attended whore school, their women have an anti natalist pro defection religious belief.

              In third world countries where significant numbers of girls leave whore school before puberty, girls who left whore school before puberty have the same high fertility as girls who attend religious school instead of whore school.

              High fertility religious belief only matters to the extent that it opposes the religious beliefs taught at whore school, or causes parents to prevent their daughters from attending whore school in the first place.

              Empirically, what high fertility religions teach does not make much difference. By far the most important factor is the absence of anti natalist, pro defection, religious beliefs. The highest fertility religions are those that keep their daughters out of whore school, and if poverty and illiteracy keeps girls out of whore school, this has much the same effect on fertility.

              As I said “Boko Haram” means “Bullshit is Forbidden”, meaning prog education is forbidden for girls. It does not mean “Mosque Attendance is Compulsory”.

            • jim says:

              2. The problem with defining all belief systems as religions is that it obscures the distinction between belief systems with a supernatural element and, on the other hand, naturalistic belief systems

              I don’t think the proposition that all men are created equal constitutes a naturalistic belief system.

              Further, it is a simple fact of empirical practice that the proposition that God created the world etc just does not seem to make a big difference to female behavior, nor does the proposition that in the next life they will be rewarded for good behavior or punished for bad behavior. What does make a big difference is whether or not you teach girls the false life plan in whore school. Boko Haram wants to keep its girls out whore school, rather than put them in religious school, and statistics relating education to fertility suggest that they are in fact correct.

              Statistics in low literacy countries indicate that absence of any education has much the same effect as absence of whore school education due to replacing whore school education with Mohammedan education.

              The difference you are talking about may be important for some purposes, but it simply does not matter much for female behavior.

              Maybe it matters in some sense for some purposes, but not in a sense that practitioners of successful high fertility belief systems care about.

              • Nehemiah says:

                Jim writes: I don’t think the proposition that all men are created equal constitutes a naturalistic belief system.

                Ha, ha! Well, only because of the word “created.” But the equality part–if you interpret it biologically and not just as meaning “equal in rights”–is empirically testable.

                This whole idea of the equality of all men began with the 17th century author of _Leviathan_, Thomas Hobbes, an early English atheist (according to those who knew him best, although patriotic Victorians would later try to clean up his image). He says we need an autocratic ruler *because* all men are pretty much equal in their innate qualities.
                Otherwise, a “war of all against all” would rage and life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” because there would not be enough human differences for a natural hierarchy to emerge from the struggle.

                During the Enlightenment, Rousseau would popularize this idea of equality, but without the link to absolute monarchy. I’m sure that’s how Jefferson picked it up.

                Nowadays people want to say, “Oh, equality comes from Christianity,” but I have not found this equality teaching in anyone before Hobbes.

                • jim says:

                  the equality part–if you interpret it biologically and not just as meaning “equal in rights”–is empirically testable.

                  And instantly fails the empirical test.

                  It is rather difficult to falsify young earth creationism. It is instantly obvious that equality is false.

                  For a while they could get away with strategic ambiguity between the other worldly meaning, equal in rights, and the this world meaning, biological equality. But today, if you suggest that it merely means equal in rights, you will lose your job, your business, and likely get the shit beaten out of you.

                  Today, it is a religious meaning in that it is a claim about this world that is sustained only by organized social pressure and legal coercion, like belief in witches, only even more so. Yesterday, it was a religious meaning in that it was an other worldly claim, not a claim about this world, like the doctrine that God is Three and God is One.

                • jim says:

                  As I recall Hobbes, he said not that men were pretty much equal, but that the weakest man could kill the strongest.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Peppermint, who is anti-Christian, is going to like this one:

                  “The Labour problem is the attempt to have the democracy of Paris without the slavery of Rome. Between the Roman Republic and the French Republic something had happened. Whatever else it was, it was the abandonment of the ancient and fundamental human habit of slavery; the numbering of men for necessary labour as the normal foundation of society, even a society in which citizens were free and equal. When the idea of equal citizenship returned to the world, it found that world changed by a much more mysterious version of equality. So that London, handing on the lamp from Paris as well as Rome, is faced with a new problem touching the old practice of getting the work of the world done somehow. We have now to assume not only that all citizens are equal, but that all men are citizens. Capitalism attempted it by combining political equality with economic inequality; it assumed the rich could always hire the poor. But Capitalism seems to me to have collapsed; to be not only a discredited ethic but a bankrupt business. Whether we shall return to pagan slavery, or to small property, or by guilds or otherwise get to work in a new way, is not the question here…

                  What made the difference? What was it that had happened between the rise of the Roman Republic and the rise of the French Republic? Why did the equal citizens of the first take it for granted that there would be slaves? Why did the equal citizens of the second take it for granted that there would not be slaves? How had this immemorial institution disappeared in the interval, so that nobody even dreamed of it or suggested it? How was it that when equality returned, it was no longer the equality of citizens, and had to be the equality of men? The answer is that this equality of men is in more senses than one a mystery…”

                  In short, Chesterton points to Christianity.

                • Nehemiah says:

                  jim says: As I recall Hobbes, he said not that men were pretty much equal, but that the weakest man could kill the strongest.–end quote

                  That is one thing that Hobbes said, but his claim of equality went beyond this, and he believed more strongly in the equality of mind than of body (like today). Thus, men could use their approximate mental equality to compensate for individual differences in bodily size and strength, to kill by cunning or alliance. The Enlightenment would fall in love with this equality meme, one of a few assumptions that have been constant in the Left’s shifting ideologies.

                • jim says:

                  That is not how I recall Hobbes.

                  Give me a quote and chapter.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              The more I think about it, the more it appears to me that Jim is correct. Fertility is being sucked dry by “education”, primarily the education of women. It actually goes further than Jim suggests. Jim focuses on the influence of “education” on individual fertility. But I see a problem just as big: society collectively going though “education”, which adversely affects the fertility of every member of society *irrespective of their personal education level*.

              “Education” is a collective illness affecting the broad spectrum of society, not merely the individual person who goes through it. When your entire milieu is “educated”, then even though you may not personally pursue a course through the state propaganda service, you are nevertheless affected by it. Your relatives, friends, and most especially, prospective spouses, have all been pozzed by the school-higher-ed complex. Thus, even working-class proletarians who never set foot in academia have their fertility rate reduced due to the Cathedralization of society at large.

              We don’t know, therefore, whether or not non-state religious service increases fertility. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t. We can’t reliably measure it, because the entire structure of society disintegrates under the contagion of pozzed “education”; whatever your vocation in life, chances are that someone close to you, perhaps everyone close to you, are “educated”, so you cannot really escape the consequence of this social ill. Like fish in a toxic aquarium, you inhale the poz with every breath – it’s everywhere around you, permanently.

              It follows that rolling back “education” will positively affect the fertility of all members of society, not merely prospective catladies, but also including those who would never pursue academic brainwashing. Proles are contaminated with low fertility as their higher middle class counterparts are taught nonsense in the Cathedral; thus, reducing the scope of pedagogy would increase fertility among all social strata. After “education” is rolled back, *then* we could measure non-state religious attendance’s influence on individual fertility.

              • Alrenous says:

                The correct solution is not up to us, it is up to Gnon.

                The correct way to pray to Gnon is to form a market. Allow strict marriage, patriarchal marriage, matriarchal marriage, equalitarian marriage, living in sin, everything. Humans will try all of them, by mistake if nothing else.

                Perhaps charge extra for significant polygyny, due to the substantial externalities.

                The superiority of the superior option will quickly become obvious.

                Further, this becomes a meta-prayer. There will be a superior option. Will it be widely chosen? If so, then markets are sufficient. If not, then not. This test is well below the unmistakeability threshold. It is almost immune to spin.

            • jim says:

              Deism, religious toleration, capitalism, free trade, and the adoration of science and technology.

              The Enlightenment is obviously hostile to technology: environmentalism, “Dark Satanic Mills” and all that.

              As for science, the Enlightenment dresses itself in priestly robes that puport to be lab coats, but Marxism is antiscientific for the reasons explained by Popper and Peer Review is anti scientific for the reasons explained by Galileo.

              The Enlightenment loves what it calls science, but it hates the scientific method, and has hated Darwin and Darwinism from the beginning.

              It loves science the way it loves Islam: It treats Science has a hostile rival religion that it hopes to take over. Just as true Islam, rightly understood, is actually progressivism, it is just that these ignorant Muslims misunderstand it, true science, rightly understood, is actually progressivism, it is just that these ignorant scientists misunderstand it.

              Gould will explain to you that all men are created equal is a scientific fact about human biology, it is just that large numbers of scientists need to be sent to the gulag in order to make it true.

              • Nehemiah says:

                jim wrote: The Enlightenment loves what it calls science, but it hates the scientific method, and has hated Darwin and Darwinism from the beginning.–end quote

                Not from the beginning. At first Darwinism was unreservedly popular among people who thought they could use the theory as a propaganda weapon against Christianity. There really were very few “anti-racists” in the 19th century. Even Marx believed in the mental inferiority of colonized races, especially the Blacks. It was in the 20th century, especially with Franz Boas and his disciples (Margaret Meade and Ruth Benedict, the only gentiles in his “inner circle,” and a number of Jewish devotees, including Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg)) that the tide really began turning against admitting the evolution of group differences above the neck. Jews especially were obsessed with promoting a theory of human equality, and this was before anybody ever heard of a man whose initials are AH.

                But after Hitler did rise to power following the election of 1932 (the same year FDR was elected in the US and brought an unprecedented number of Jews into the White House, some of them closet sympathizers with the USSR) the social acceptability among the cultural elite of theories of racial differences dropped like a stone.

                And then came WW2 and the incessant “anti-fascist” war propaganda. It really had an effect on the generation that was coming of age then. I read once that when Patton was quoted in the press as having made “anti-Semitic” remarks, soldiers began asking things like, “Isn’t that what we’re here to fight against?”

                After the war, things suddenly began changing. Truman, a segregationist in private, order the armed forces to be integrated. Jackie Robinson was allowed to play in the previously all White major leagues. Other changes were being implemented. Polls began to show that most White Americans believed in the mental equality of the races–even in the South. Many colleges began to adopt strict color blind admission standards.

                20 years after WW2, the men who fought against the “nazis and fascists” in their twenties were now in their forties, and many of them were in Congress, or sitting on the courts, or editors of newspapers or managers in television or radio, and both political parties united in Congress (except of course for the Southern delegations) to pass the egalitarian legislation of the 1960’s that transformed relations between the races, transformed relations between the sexes, and re-opened the nation’s doors to large scale immigration, only this time it would favor the “third world” rather than Europe. Most Americans continue to celebrate that era as a great victory for “social justice.”

                Like I said earlier, the Left is a moving target, although it seems to move in a predictable direction. But for more than half a century after the publication of Darwin’s _Origin_, almost no one on the cultural left had any problem with Darwin, or with applying his theory to explain human differences. Especially not the original Progressives, most of whom were unabashed eugenicists.

                As an example of the tenor of the times, Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican Progressive, a professing eugenicist, and a close friend and hunting buddy of Madison Grant, the author of _The Passing of the Great Race_ which promoted Nordic racial superiority, wrote a book called, I think, A Short History of the United States. He wrote therein words very similar to the following: “Now I would not say that the only good Indian is a dead Indian, but nine out of ten of them are, and I would not look too closely at the tenth!”

                And let’s not forget Frank Baum, advocate of the silver standard and, not unrelated, author of the beloved children’s classic, “The Wizard of Oz,” later made into a popular movie. In a newspaper editorial, he publicly argued for his preferred solution to the Indian problem: extermination.

                These were perfectly mainstream public figures just four generations ago, even a little less than that. Nowadays they would be permanently ostracized from respectable society and blacklisted from any media attention except for the occasional ritual denunciation.

                • jim says:

                  jim wrote:

                  > > The Enlightenment loves what it calls science, but it hates the scientific method, and has hated Darwin and Darwinism from the beginning.

                  Nehmiah wrote

                  > Not from the beginning. At first Darwinism was unreservedly popular among people who thought they could use the theory as a propaganda weapon against Christianity.

                  Still is, but from the beginning, they did not like what he said about women. They thought the same things about what we now call evolutionary psychology then as now.

                  Then they hated Darwin for sex differences, now they hate him for sex and race differences.

                • Nehemiah says:

                  jim wrote: Then they hated Darwin for sex differences, now they hate him for sex and race differences.

                  Well, there *were* a few feminists around then, some very outspoken, but I find it quite surprising (meaning I am rather skeptical) that very many people found his views on women surprising

                  Even though Darwin thought women mentally inferior to men, many men had held that opinion throughout history, so people were used to it, or so I have always assumed.

                  By the way, I ran across this great quote from natural scientist Joseph Le Conte:

                  “women were incapable of dealing rationally with political and other problems which required emotional detachment and clear logic”

                  In his heart, even the most progressive-minded man must know it is true!

                • peppermint says:

                  That’s right. You don’t actually care about the niggers, you don’t actually care about the kikes, you don’t actually care about the women, you only care about wanting prestige despite doing nothing worthy of it.

                  Progressives are always stupid faggots.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >You don’t actually care about the niggers, you don’t actually care about the kikes, you don’t actually care about the women. You only care about [yourself.]

                  Words to live by.

        • qu says:

          Also, women who attend services not only have more children than those who do not (and this is a continuous variable, not just a “toggle switch”), but they also report wanting more offspring than the non-attenders.

          Consider the taliban. They are fighting a war to resist being forced to send their girls to be educated in sluttery by sluts. They are not fighting a war to be allowed to send their girls to Mosque.

          Women who attend non state religious services more attend state religious services (aka “teaching” and “education” less. Women who attend state religious services less have more children and want more children, because they are more likely to be in a life long stable relationship and lifelong stable household with a male head of household.

          Consider the Amish. The key to Amish fertility is that they are allowed to get away with sending their girls to their own schools and withholding them from being educated in sluttery and cat ladyship by slutty cat ladies.

          Look at high fertility religions – Amish, Boko Hara, and conservative Muslim. It is not church and mosque attendance, it the absence of slut and whore attendance.

          “Boko Haram” translates as “Bullshit is Forbidden”, meaning attendance by girls at prog shools is forbidden. They don’t call themselves “Mosque attendance is Compulsory”.

          If you want to know why certain religions have high fertility, don’t ask Boko Haram members how often their women attend Mosque.

          • Dave says:

            I’m inclined to believe you because I once read an account of a white woman who converted to Islam, married a Muslim, and moved to his country. She was surprised at how little religious devotion was expected of women. Women seldom prayed, went to mosque, read the Koran, or acquired more than the most basic knowledge of Islamic theology. They just stayed home, looked after the children, and did as they were told.

            • Nehemiah says:

              Dave wrote: She was surprised at how little religious devotion was expected of women. Women seldom prayed, went to mosque, read the Koran, or acquired more than the most basic knowledge of Islamic theology.–end quote

              Dave, traditional Judaism is much the same way. I think this is a shared Middle Eastern heritage. Although Christianity expects more of women, St. Paul nevertheless says that women should remain silent in the churches, and if they wish to learn anything, ask their husbands at home. Some modern women really hate that passage, but “obedience is better than sacrifice.”

            • jim says:

              By and large, the behavior of high fertility groups suggests that the important variable is not the presence of pro natalist anti defection teachings, but rather the absence of anti natalist pro defection teachings.

              There are also education statistics to this effect: Girls who leave school before puberty have similar high fertility as girls who go to Mohmmedan religious school during and after puberty.

              It really looks like the only religious education that has a substantial impact on fertility is our official religion for women: whore school.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              Asatru Vikings allowed women to keep their old witchcraft religion, but burned every male witch (seithmadhr) they could find.

          • Nehemiah says:

            qu wrote: Consider the Amish. The key to Amish fertility is that they are allowed to get away with sending their girls to their own schools and withholding them from being educated in sluttery and cat ladyship by slutty cat ladies.–end quote

            You know, don’t you, that any community can do this? You don’t have to be Amish. You just need enough like-minded people to live close enough together to make it practical.

            BTW, many Amish communities used to send their children to the local, small town “English” public school. But several decades back, those schools started changing, getting too worldly, even those small towns, so the Amish had to start educating their own children. There was some resistance at first from the local school authorities, but eventually the courts ruled for the Amish.

            Now that even home schooling is legal in, I think, all 50 states, there is a lot more tolerance than there used to be for people creating alternative arrangements for their children’s education. The Haredim form their own schools as a matter of course, and it seems to be an important key to their survival, along with intensive religious (Talmudic) education for their young men. After WW2, all the other Jews were sure the Haredim would die out fast in the modern world, especially in America, but instead they experienced a revival, which seems to have surprised even the Haredim themselves, and everyone agrees their religious educational practices are the reason why. Christians could learn something from them.

        • jim says:

          When we have several wars going over the issue of forcing girls to attend whore school, one of these wars being disturbingly long, dreadul and bloody, the conjecture that attendance at non whore activities is the important variable should be given a low prior.

          • Nehemiah says:

            Jim, the numbers don’t lie. It’s true in both the US and Europe. It can be measured. It has been measured. In the data I saw, the most frequent church attenders had birthrates like mainstream US women had in the post-war baby boom.

              • Nehemiah says:

                True, Alf, but look at rates of church attendance throughout Europe. I have read that in many European cities there are probably more people attending mosques on Friday than churches on Sunday. Lack of religious participation among Christians explains the abysmal fertility rates there. And it bodes ill for the future that church attendance is reportedly falling now among their American cousins. Reversing this trend should be a priority.

            • jim says:

              Numbers don’t lie, but liars count something different from what they claim that they are counting.

              Keep girls out of whore school during early puberty, you get the same huge fertility boost regardless of whether you are sending them to religious attendance or making them plant rice.

              You should not correlate fertility with Church attendance, but fertility with Church attendance among women with the same years of education at whore school.

              Where I have that data, women with less Cathedral education have approximately the same (high) fertility regardless of the amount of religious education, with the critical variable being Cathedral education during early puberty, regardless of whether the reason for failure of Cathedral attendance is religious attendance or something else.

              Not attending Cathedral religious observance has the same effect on fertility regardless of whether the girl is skipping whore school to plant rice, or skipping whore school to attend an Islamic religious school.

              Religious education and and religious attendance only matters to the extent that it negatively correlates with female attendance at whore school.

              The common factor in high fertility groups is that they keep their girls out of whore school.

              That girls kept out of whore school for religious reasons have higher religious attendance is irrelevant. The numbers from third world countries show that if girls stay out of whore school due to poverty, it has much the same effect as staying out of whore school due to Islam. Therefore it is not what girls are taught in Muslim school that makes the difference, it is what is taught in whore school: Promiscuity, infertility, and adultery.

              Muslim and Haaradim girls are not really taught Islam and Judaism in religious school. Boys are taught Islam and Judaism in religious school, but girls are just there to keep them out of whore school.

              I don’t know what the deal is with Amish, but the big thing with the Amish is keeping their kids out of whore school, and we are fighting wars with the Taliban and Boko Haram over this issue.

              That girls with very little education have the same high fertility as girls with education in a religion that keeps girls out whore school tells me that the critical variable is not the presence of divinely enforced pro natalist anti defection rules, but the absence of anti natalist pro defection life teachings.

              • Nehemiah says:

                jim wrote: You should not correlate fertility with Church attendance, but fertility with Church attendance among women with the same years of education at whore school.–end quote

                Ah, but, in all social classes, as church attendance goes up, so does the probability of completing school. So the probability of completing school and the lifetime fertility rate both go up together with church attendance!

              • Nehemiah says:

                jim writes: That girls with very little education have the same high fertility as girls with education in a religion that keeps girls out whore school tells me that the critical variable–end quote

                Not quite. The Amish are likely to have IQ’s similar to other Europeans, but the Mideast and N. Africa have IQ’s in the 80’s, and around seventy in black Africa. Since fertility goes down as IQ (not just education) goes up, Amish girls should have lower fertility, but they don’t.

                Also, I am not convinced at all that typical Muslim fertility is as high as the Amish. Fertility has been falling across most of the Islamic world. For example, in Iran, it has been below replacement levels for a number of years now.

                Among the Amish fertility is typically higher in the stricter communities and lower in the more lenient (while defection rates are just the reverse–lower with higher strictness, higher with lower strictness), but the overall range is reported as 5 to 9 children per woman in a lifetime. It is rarely that high in Muslim countries.

                Okay, look at this link:

                http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables75/

                Muslim fertility is higher than the average non-Muslim in the same countries, but not by as much as you are probably thinking.

                And in the Middle East an North Africa, it is 3.0 (and, from other sources, falling). Among US and European Christians with the highest church attendance rates, it was somewhat higher than that in the data I saw, even with all the cultural forces working against us.

                • jim says:

                  The Amish are likely to have IQ’s similar to other Europeans, but the Mideast and N. Africa have IQ’s in the 80’s, and around seventy in black Africa. Since fertility goes down as IQ (not just education) goes up, Amish girls should have lower fertility, but they don’t.

                  Fertility simply does not go down as IQ goes up, if you control for whore school education. If two people have the same amount of whore school education but different IQs, the smarter one will have higher fertility on average.

                  If not for whore school education adversely affecting the smartest women, we would have eugenic fertility.

                  Okay, look at this link:

                  http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables75/

                  Muslim fertility is higher than the average non-Muslim in the same countries, but not by as much as you are probably thinking

                  You need a breakdown that distinguishes between Muslims that send their daughters to learn how to put a condom on a banana, and those that do not, thosde that go to school to get covered in alpha semen from head to foot, and those that do not.

                  We have been trying to genocide the Syrians because they declined to let their daughters get covered in alpha semen from head to foot.

                • pdimov says:

                  “We have been trying to genocide the Syrians because they declined to let their daughters get covered in alpha semen from head to foot.”

                  Total nonsense. Syrians did no such thing, whereas many other countries actually did, and weren’t attacked.

                  Closest you can get is claim that Iran declined, and Syria was the softer target.

                • jim says:

                  Iran has a depraved Cathedral controlled education system. Syria does not.

                  In Iran, affirmative action for girls means that two girls go to university for every boy, and in university they learn that marriage is bad, that having children early is bad, that beta males are creeps, etc, that one should have a career first, while having sex with lots of different cool alpha males, and marriage and children will interfere with your career.

                  Syria, on the other hand … girls think they should marry alpha males, and are happy to be third wife of an alpha male, and because he is confident they will all stay together, they are apt to bear him lots of children. In Iran, women can frivorce men, so a man having children is giving hostages to his potential enemy

                • jim says:

                  Massive over representation of women in higher education is not transmitted by satellite TV.

                  If girls are over represented in higher education at age eighteen, they are being taught to put a condom on a banana, and that teenage pregnancy is terrible, and that teenage marriage is terrible, at age twelve.

                  And if they are not being taught this at age twelve, the US state department is trying to murder them.

                  Any place in the Muslim world where fertility is collapsing, girls are massively over represented in higher education.

                  Orthodox Jewish girls in the united states get satellite television, but not secular humanist education, and their fertility is not all that far behind Afghan levels.

                • jim says:

                  Iran has massive over representation of women in higher education. Syria does not.

                  To a good approximation, you can tell if the education system is Harvard controlled by the over representation of women. Also by whether the state department is trying to murder the women and children.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Massive over representation of women in higher education is not transmitted by satellite TV.”

                  Read the link.

                  “Iran has massive over representation of women in higher education. Syria does not.”

                  I was going to mention that in order to disprove the “Syria because Iran” theory, but decided against.

                  I’m willing to be proven wrong. My recollection is that Assad was one minute liberal media darling, next minute an evil dictator, with no reason given and no actions on his part that could explain the sudden change in attitude.

                  It’s possible that my understanding is incorrect or incomplete, and that Assad did do something, female education related, to provoke the war.

                  What was it?

                • jim says:

                  Your link is uninformative and irrelevant, since it aggregates Arabs whose schools have fallen to Harvard, with Arabs whose schools are resisting.

                  You need a breakdown that distinguishes between those girls Harvard is trying to murder, and those it is teaching to be sluts, whores, and cat ladies.

                • pdimov says:

                  “To a good approximation, you can tell if the education system is Harvard controlled by the over representation of women.”

                  I can accept that.

                  “Also by whether the state department is trying to murder the women and children.”

                  Syria (pre-war) had only 57% women in tertiary education. That’s indeed less than the two-thirds in converged countries such as UAE, Kuwait, Oman etc.

                  But Saudi Arabia 52%, Jordan 41%. Not bombed. Bangladesh 37%. Colombia 58%.

                  Not sure where you’re getting the 2/3 number for Iran though. I see no such data. Iran is at about the Syria mark. There’s one study citing 66%, but it’s selective. The undergraduate total is at about 60%, the total total is at about 53%.

                • jim says:

                  My link shows female and male students in tertiary education exactly equal when the war began. Equality is utterly unacceptable to the Cathedral, and I was seeing reports on how horribly oppressive this was to women.

                  Looks to me that Assad was ordered to make women equal to men, and foolishly took Harvard at its word, ignoring the subtext to make women more equal than men.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Your link is uninformative and irrelevant, since it aggregates Arabs…”

                  Nope, my link

                  http://www.iadb.org/res/files/WP-633updated.pdf

                  aggregates nothing of the sort. It’s on an entirely different subject matter. Namely, TV and its effect on fertility. This is as clear an experiment as it gets.

                  “My link shows female and male students in tertiary education exactly equal when the war began.”

                  Your link (a very nice resource, thanks) shows a straight line upward trend with no indication of stopping or reversal that would warrant a war.

                  Look at the Iran stats on the same site. No 2:1 overrepresentation at all, a clear downward trend from 2008 ending at 47.3%.

                  Look at Oman, Jordan. Lebanon even. Nothing significantly different from Syria.

                • jim says:

                  aggregates nothing of the sort. It’s on an entirely different subject matter. Namely, TV and its effect on fertility. This is as clear an experiment as it gets.

                  A television universe that primarily depicted happy and successful child free women, and depicted child free women as happy and successful, lowered fertility by 8%. Big whoop.

                  What is it that lowers fertility by 50%?

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Come on, Jim. We all know that the State Department is unhinged, but you don’t truly believe that Assad is undermined and ISIS is supported by the Blue Empire primarily/solely due to Assad’s insufficient feminism, do you? It’s impossibly irrational, because the result is not Harvard schools, but fanatical sharia schools.

                  Syria may no longer be safe for non-Sunnis, but the Sunni schools will be poz-free if secular Assad is gone. So if the purpose is whore school… they’re doing it wrong.

                • jim says:

                  The intent and usual effect of a color revolution is a bloodless victory, feminist schools, and a brutally cucked religion – example Philippines.

                  They did not figure on Syria and Libya turning out the way it did turn out.

                  They expected, and continued to expect, a “compromise” government, which exterminates Christians and Alawites, whereupon they would drop the support for Islamic State in return for Harvard getting control of the education system, after the fashion of Egypt, where the deal was that Muslim Brotherhood would be allowed to murder Egyptian Christians and flatten their churches, but Harvard would get the education system.

                  Egypt, the color revolution in Egypt, was the prototype for the entire Middle East. But Egypt did not work out too well, and much of the middle east worked out even worse. Mass murder was not their intention, their intentions were good, but when things turned out badly, well, mass murder is all the fault of those horrid people that they are murdering. And anyway the girls are better off dead than suffering the horrid fate of becoming wives and mothers.

                • jim says:

                  They are doing a lot of things wrong.

                  They are following the color revolution template in Syria, and until Libya and Syria, color revolutions worked great for them, despite a few teensy weensy itsy bitsy genocides here and there, so following that template is not stupid.

                • pdimov says:

                  A television universe that primarily depicted happy and successful child free women, and depicted child free women as happy and successful, lowered fertility by 8%. Big whoop.

                  “The magnitude of this effect is comparable to that associated with an increase of 2 years in women’s education.”

                  What is it that lowers fertility by 50%?

                  Continuous application of propaganda.

                  There’s no question that “female education” is (also) a vehicle for anti-fertility propaganda, and there’s no question that women are susceptible to propaganda.

                  But ignoring TV as a propaganda vehicle, or downplaying its effectiveness, is stupid.

                  What I also take from these results is that the content of the “education” is important, and not just its presence.

                • jim says:

                  An extra two years education in university has modest effect, in Junior High enormous effect.

                  What lowers female fertility by around fifty percent is Cathedral education during puberty, 11,12, 13, or so, on the general principle of “give me a child until he is seven”

                  In particular and especially the year they spend in school at age thirteen. Hasidic Jews watch the same television as everyone else. They participate in the same developed economy as everyone else. Their pubescent girl children do not go to the same school as everyone else.

                  To explain this fact you invoke a magically powerful pro fertility religion. But in countries where poverty or lack of educational infrastructure means a lot of girls drop out of school at age ten or so, the ones that drop out of school at age ten or so to plant rice have similar high fertility to those that attend religious school. As I keep repeating, “Boko Haram” translates as “Western Education is Forbidden” (Literal translation “Bullshit is forbidden”) It does not translate as “Mosque Attendance is Compulsory”

                  What matters by far the most is the absence of an anti natalist pro defection religion. The presence of a pro natalist anti defection religion has surprisingly small effect.

                • pdimov says:

                  “They are following the color revolution template in Syria, and until Libya and Syria, color revolutions worked great for them…”

                  The color revolution failed in Iran. (The color there was green if I’m not mistaken).

                  It succeeded in Ukraine (orange) initially, but long term, also failed.

                  Can’t really think of a color that worked great.

                • jim says:

                  Ukraine worked great, continues to work great. Iran fell short of their desires, but remains substantially successful – they managed to smash marriage and gain control of the education system, and control of the education system will in time give them control of everything. Philippines is the archetypical example of a color revolution that worked great, and everywhere every time they hold a color revolution, they are trying to rerun the Philippines. It is the template for all of them since then. The first Arab color revolution, Tunisia, worked great and continues to work great.

              • Nehemiah says:

                Interesting:

                According to a leading demographer, a “sea change” is producing a sharp decline in Muslim fertility rates and a “flight from marriage” among Arab women.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-a-demographic-shift-in-the-muslim-world/2013/02/08/54ce7bf0-7152-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html

                • jim says:

                  And where the sea change fails to happen, we overthrow regimes and we bomb the stuffing out of people.

                  Yes, a sea change is under way, but the proposition that this change is natural and spontaneous is ludicrous. The change is a side effect of persuading people that Islam, rightly understood, is progressivism, which persuasion involves a great deal of war, bombing, (as for example Afghanistan) and frequent genocide, as for example Syria.

                • pdimov says:

                  The sea change is western culture, transmitted in the Arab world mostly via satellite TV.

                  http://www.iadb.org/res/files/WP-633updated.pdf

                • jim says:

                  Massive over representation of women in higher education is not transmitted by satellite TV.

                  If girls are over represented in higher education at age eighteen, they are being taught to put a condom on a banana, and that teenage pregnancy is terrible, and that teenage marriage is terrible, at age twelve.

                  And if they are not being taught this at age twelve, the US state department is trying to murder them.

                  Any place in the Muslim world where fertility is collapsing, girls are massively over represented in higher education.

                  Any place in the Muslim world where girls are not massively overrepresented in higher education, the US state department is trying to murder them.

                  Orthodox Jewish girls in the united states get satellite television, but not secular humanist education, and their fertility is not all that far behind Afghan levels.

                • pdimov says:

                  “The change is a side effect of persuading people that Islam, rightly understood, is progressivism, which persuasion involves a great deal of war, bombing, (as for example Afghanistan) and frequent genocide, as for example Syria.”

                  Your theory simply doesn’t fit the facts. Alawites and Christians are much closer to progressivism than Sunni Muslims, let alone ISIS.

                  Also,

                  https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2014/5/10/1399722504864/Michele-Obama-017.jpg

                • jim says:

                  Alawite and Christian population growth in Syria is about two percent or three percent a year, which indicates a family structure similar to conservative Muslims. Universities in Iran have about two female students for every male student, which indicates standard Cathedral education policies promoting education and careers to women, explaining the fertility collapse in Iran. That, and female frivorce in Iran. No right of divorce for Alawite women.

              • Alrenous says:

                Horror: students are poorly educated because school doesn’t work.

                Existential horror: school does work. The schools are specifically to prevent the education of their ‘students.’

                • pdimov says:

                  Jim needs to implement a “Like” button for comments.

                • peppermint says:

                  Like buttons are for lemmings. But, at some point this blog will attract a thousand or ten thousand comments on each article, and then we will need a like button and a dislike button to keep things interesting. Successful communities make who does the likes and dislikes invisible, unsuccessful communities turn into mobs of terrified terrorists.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Then we will need to find a new blog.

                  Or the author will end it and lock comments preemptively, like Moldbug did.

                • Cavalier says:

                  When I was a child, I railed against the gross incompetence I saw around me.

                  When I was a teen, I lapsed into apathy.

                  As I became a man, I realized with dull horror the evil genius of the system.

                  Now I am even beginning to appreciate the exquisite refinement of the thing, to delight in its subtle detail and Prussian engineering.

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              Again, as I wrote above, considering merely the individual aspects of “education” is short-sighted. All members of society are adversely affected by it, as one’s milieu is filled with anti-natalist, pro-defection dogma emanating from the Cathedral and diffusing all over the place, so that the attendance of church goers is simply not as relevant as the attendance of academia goes.

              An educated milieu prevents those inside of it from having a socially acceptable path to high fertility. You can say that the more “educated” society is, the lower is the status attached to high fertility. “Education” renders the high-fertility of *anyone* as low-status. When sterility is high status, and fertility is low status, everyone seek to emulate the sterile. (except the lowest underclass, who follow their own rules and live in their own hierarchy) Thus, overall fertility, average total fertility, is in decline, not just the fertility of catladies. Catladies merely “lead the way.”

              If and when the Cathedral burns down to the ground with its priest-fessors trapped inside the consuming flames, *then* it will be time to consider what the statistics have to say.

              • Nehemiah says:

                Y-W-S wrote: When sterility is high status, and fertility is low status, everyone seek to emulate the sterile. (except the lowest underclass–end quote

                And the Amish, and the Hutterites, and the Old Order Mennonites, and the Haredim, and the “Modern Orthodox,” and the Mormons (polygamous and monogamous), and the Closed Brethren, and the Laestadian Lutherans, and I will bet more exceptions are waiting to be found. Any community can have different values from the mainstream, although usually these are religious communities.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Almost exclusively religious. Attempts to found secular communes in the 19th century failed significantly harder then the religious versions. Religion involves a much higher investment and so weeds out/forces commitment and prevents free riding more effectively.

  17. Nehemiah says:

    Let me correct my dates. The Brits invaded Iraq early in the twentieth century, the invasion of Afghanistan was much earlier, around 1839, and again in 1878

    . In January of 1842 a British force of 4500 troops accompanied by 12,000 civilians was slaughtered in a decisive battle. Only one British soldier escaped, and about a hundred prisoners would be rescued a few months later. The Brits retaliated by sacking Kabul, but then they got the heck out. From then own, the natives of the subcontinent were less awed by the British occupiers, much as Africa lost much of its awe of the colonizers after WW1.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul

    The 1878 invasion included a daring rescue of surrounded and apparently doomed British forces in Kandahar. They stayed about 3 years before signing a treaty, in which they agreed not to interfere with Afghanistan’s internal affairs in the future, and returned to India.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/britains-second-war-in-afghanistan-1773763

    Kipling’s advice:

    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
    An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.

    • peppermint says:

      …is your point that an empire that’s unwilling to fight is going to be forced to? The universities should never have been allowed to exist in the first place.

      • Nehemiah says:

        +peppermint, sorry if my point was unclear, I should have spelled it out. I think the Brits got out because it was hard to win there, and generally not worth the cost, not because they were under pressure by anti-colonialists back in the UK. From a geopolitical point of view, Afghanistan is neither an exceptional strategic nor economic asset, in fact an asset of minimal utility, and fighting in the mountains is always tough. Technological advantages can not achieve anything like the effectiveness they have on flat, open land. Also, the locals often know the lay of the land, and they will never go home because they are already there, but they know that the foreigner eventually will.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      The first British army was simply commanded by a general of spectacular incompetence not to mention various debilitating diseases of old age. Since he died in Afghan captivity shortly after the catastrophe it is hard to argue he was complicit.

      The second and third Anglo-Afghan wars had defined goals short of annexation and were actually quite successful in their own terms. Arguably annexation was not on the table because of anti-colonialist sentiment at home. Possibly it also just wasn’t worth it. (The third one was actually started by the Afghans invading the British Raj which is an amazing piece of chutzpah.)

      • jim says:

        Not incompetent.

        Rather, politically correct.

        Britain was defeated in 1840 for the same reasons and in the same way as it was more recently defeated.

      • jim says:

        The British general in charge of the Afghan invasion applied tactics that were perfectly sensible if one believes that the purpose of the invasion was to do the Afghans a huge favor, and the way to win was to persuade the Afghans that the British were doing the a huge favor.

        If, on the other hand, the way to win is to drive your enemies before you and hear the lamentations of their women …

        Surely this delusion is familiar.

  18. Nehemiah says:

    Jim, et al., have NRxers or others with niche views ever bandied about the idea of created one or more parallel societies? When people cannot change the society they are in to any meaningful extent within the foreseeable future, or at least when that seems like a far-fetched objective, parallel societies might be the next best thing, and the US seems like an especially opportune place for undertaking such a project.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

      The NRx passivist strategy is avoidance of anything USG could identify as a threat to its sovereignty. Therefore, Hestia Society may form clandestine networks, but it will not declare any form of official sovereignty until USG is destabilized to the point where its monopoly on sovereignty could no longer be maintained. The idea being that one regime is “retired” and a different one is “hired” instead, with no friction resultant from competition between rival regimes.

      There are two main problems for NRx in creating a “parallel society”: no billionaires supporting NRx; no critical mass of NRxers. Were these two issues fixed, there could be a chance to succeed. Someone on twitter claimed that NRx had stalled, which claim appears accurate. This blog is the most interesting thing going on in NRx right now, while everything else has fizzled out.

      • Nehemiah says:

        +your-wife’s-son, sorry to hear things are stalled. I don’t know the future–lots of strange things could happen–but it looks to me like USG might totter along for a very long time, in decline, but still able to maintain an approximate monopoly of violence within its official borders.

        I don’t think parallel societies require billionaires. Even poor Muslim immigrants in Europe are developing parallel societies.

        Critical mass is more of a problem, but I think the initial critical mass might be very low. The whole Amish population descends from about 200 ancestors, so, a few centuries ago, about 200 persons created and sustained a parallel society. And I am sure they are not the only example. Not that more people would not be preferable, but my point is that a large number is not really essential.

        Of course, people could still struggle heroically over their keyboards for counter-revolutionary change just like they do today, or whatever else they are currently doing, but they could do something else at the same time.

Leave a Reply