OneSTDV writes today on a theme he's touched on before: Ron Paul's alleged lack of nationalistic and/or patriotic fervor. For instance, Paul has claimed that Michele Bachmann "Hates Muslims" and has suggested that "Islamophobia" is behind opposition to the Ground Zero mosque.
I'm agnostic on whether or not Paul is any of the things that One claims for him, and I wouldn't defend him for the above statements, but I wonder who One, or those like him, will vote for? Romney? More of the same establishment nonsense that got us into this mess in the first place? Gingrich, the man who will make Bush's policy of immigration, invasion, and indebtedness (the 3 I's) look like a warmup? And so we could go on to the rest of the candidates: while they each have individual and common flaws, virtually none of them that I can see possess more patriotism or nationalism than Paul does. If they seem as if they care about this country, it's only lip service, because they plan to do nothing about the 3 I's. If Paul seems less nationalistic, it could be because he's merely more honest than the others - which I realize is damning with faint praise.
Another reason for Paul's statements could be his going along with the zeitgeist in an appeal to more liberal voters. The recent attacks on Paul for racism and Paul's disavowal of his old newsletter illustrate this, for I strongly suspect that his denial isn't wholly truthful and that he still believes like he formerly did, but understands that he can't get elected president if he stands by them. Again, that isn't to excuse Paul for going with the flow, but may explain him.
The fact that the establishment, and most especially the media establishment, so obviously hates Paul and everything he stands for is the best sign that Paul will move the country in the right direction. (I wouldn't say that for just anyone the establishment hated, but they never seem to hate anyone on the Left, no matter how far left and how marginal his views.) Paul isn't my ideal candidate; someone like Pat Buchanan would be, but Paul might get us to a place where electing someone like Pat would be at least possible.
The other candidates are just more of the same.
I'm looking more at RP than ever before, and even a lot of his newsletter statements aren't that outrageous to me. Except, I don't buy AIDS as a govt plot...it's worse than that, ie due to the egregious promiscuity & drug habits of gays in the 70s, which RP also understood. (It's almost like two different guys were writing, hmmm.)
ReplyDeleteBut really, I doubt anyone could turn this ship of state around from its present course. He'd probably die trying.
I tend to judge candidates mostly on the immigration issue. Paul is clearly better than Gingrich or Perry. Bachmann is preferable to Paul, although I'd wish she'd drop the Israel worship and the inclination to roam the world looking for monsters to slay. Romney is pretty debatable on the immigration issue. He's rated I believe a C- by NumbersUSA and has been the governor of a very liberal state. That he's a whore is without question, the only question is whether he'd be OUR whore.
ReplyDeletePaul's problem is that he's against all of the immigration restriction strategies that actually have a reasonable record of working inside the past 30 or so years (E-verify, employer sanctions, attrition through enforcement), and I REALLY don't see him initiating Operation Wetback II. The Ron Paul of the 80s and 90s was a lot more solid on this issue.
I do rather like Bachmann except for, as Jehu says, the Israel worship. Maybe if we posit that the Israel worship isn't going anywhere no matter who wins the election, Bachmann would be acceptable.
ReplyDeletePaul has been shilling for the left in his attacks on Bachmann. Hating Moslems isn't a bug, it's a feature. He's a fool playing a sucker's game, and a Moslem-lover on top of it. Back to East Texas with him. (I was going to say hell, but East Texas is close enough.)
ReplyDeleteTrying to understand Ron Paul is like looking at one of those optical illusions illustrated in psychology textbooks, where figure and ground change before your eyes, or first it's one thing and then another. Part of the problem is that the Leftist Establishment and their running dogs in the media so loathe Paul that it's hard -- without a lot of digging that some of us lack the time for -- to be sure what he actually does or did say, and what his positions are. Of course, like all politicians, he doubtless trims his sails according to the winds, which makes it even harder to penetrate the mystery of what a vote for him would be a vote for.
ReplyDeleteMark Steyn, filling in for Rush today, said Paul was self-contradictory in various ways including supporting open borders while wanting the U.S. to mind its own business. If that is actually what Paul thinks, I have to agree with Steyn. But it's hard to know whether any Paul bashing is directed at the man or a caricature.
Anyway, thanks for taking a stab at sorting out what this most unusual candidate would mean. The very fact that he is grudgingly conceded to be among the front runners (although of course he couldn't possibly get the nomination) is all the proof we need that significant numbers of people are fed up with "wet" Democrat-like Republicans and faux conservatives. The question is, has desperation led them to follow a false idol just because he is perceptibly different?
OneSTDV is just as antirational as any liberal. He dislikes abortion even though that position is silly, accepts the nonscientific "game" worldview and sees the entire universe as good versus evil. While the most extreme leftists see "racism" in widely divergent phenomena that have nothing to do with each other, to One everything liberals claim to believe stems from something that is truly anti-American and anti-male. There's never any criticism of any conservative view, or acknowledgement that there is anything good about liberals.
ReplyDeleteHe always pulls out the arguments of the stupidest leftists to shoot down and then shakes his head about how stupid everyone is. There's no indication from his writing that he's familiar with arguments of more intelligent liberals, or for that matter has ever read a book in his life. I don't even remember him ever mentioning a book that influenced him. But he apparently has an unlimited amount of time to devote to pop culture.
I remember once he mentioned that he chastised his parents as a little kid because they laughed at a skit poking fun at the first President Bush. Everything he believes stems from emotion, not reason.
I read him a lot because he's an interesting psychological study, but by far the worst HBD blogger.
Whiskey hates Ron Paul. (Or should I say, hates HATES HATES!) If there was no other reason to support Ron, that would be sufficient in and of itself.
ReplyDelete@MSmarch,
ReplyDeleteLots of very rational people are against killing fetuses, and many accept the nonscientific "game" worldview. I can't say I've ever seen One make a post as bad as yours.
Ron Paul is not what the Paulbots think he is! The fact he could make millions promoting a newletter and then claim he knew nothing about them and disavow them says volumes about the guy. A Principled Man would defend his Priciples - to the Death if need be, but this guy is not a Principled Man.
ReplyDeleteHe's just another Politician! And a Cowardly One at that! Just threaten to use the Race Card on him, and he folds!
He's not Capable of Leading! He wouldn't have the Will to Actually Change the Course that America is on.
Of all the GOP stiffs, I like Bachmann the best. She's twice the Man Ron Paul is!
Oh, and Merry Christmas to Dennis! Your site is a must-see for me every day. While it's easy to get bitter addressing the topics you do and come to the conclusion that waking Americans up is impossible, I hope you'll take heart from the idea that whatever comes out of the wreckage might be pretty good.
ReplyDeleteLots of very rational people are against killing fetuses, and many accept the nonscientific "game" worldview.
ReplyDeleteA rational person may have one or two irrational beliefs, but One has a lot of them, and even the views that are rational which he holds are held for irrational reasons.
I can't say I've ever seen One make a post as bad as yours.
Well, you need to read him more often.
Paul must and will be destroyed because he threatens huge rice bowls.
ReplyDeleteI just ask myself, would he be better for me and those I care about than the current president? A second term might embolden the one we have now to really push hard for what's close to his heart, which is the dictatorship of the multi-cult via the hard fist of governmental intrusion and authoritarianism.
ReplyDeleteBetter, worse, or no difference whatsoever; which would it be?
Jim Jones: Thank you, glad you like the blog, and a Merry Christmas to you too. I do struggle a lot, especially lately, on whether the effort is worth it, so as always it's nice to hear appreciation.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to make this an attack on OneSTDV, but I have to agree with the commenter who said that there's little evidence that he's read serious books while there's abundant evidence that he's steeped in pop culture. Seems almost daily he features some pop phenomenon that I've never heard of (though I am out of touch that way). He really needs to turn off the TV.
ReplyDeletePaul has been shilling for the left in his attacks on Bachmann. Hating Moslems isn't a bug, it's a feature. He's a fool playing a sucker's game, and a Moslem-lover on top of it. Back to East Texas with him. (I was going to say hell, but East Texas is close enough.)
ReplyDeleteLOL. Yeah, I'm sure he just "loves" Muslims. Does saying that Hitler hated Jews mean that one is a Jew-lover?
Paul has been shilling for the left in his attacks on Bachmann. Hating Moslems isn't a bug, it's a feature. He's a fool playing a sucker's game, and a Moslem-lover on top of it. Back to East Texas with him. (I was going to say hell, but East Texas is close enough.)
ReplyDeleteI can't say you got anything right. Paul's from Pennsylvania, Paul's been in SOUTH Texas for decades, and East Texas is actually a great place to be.
And hating Muslims most certainly IS a bug.
Excluding Muslims from this country (and Europe etc.)would be a "feature". A allowing dicrimination between ourselves and Muslims would be a "feature". Hating Muslims is a hallmark of Israel-firstism.
I agree with Jim Jones; this is a great blog.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree that since the neocons hate, hate, hate Paul and the MSM liberals hate, hate, hate Paul, there must be something good about him.
ReplyDeleteI too wish Buchanan would run. He has been preaching the correct message of opposition to free trade and mass immigration for 20 years. But in 1992, America was still too fat, dumb and happy to take his message to heart. We were coming off the end of the Cold War and the 100 hour Gulf War. Not enough wanted to listen.
His message would really resonate today. It is too bad he did not run.
From OneSTDV's post:
ReplyDeletePerhaps the foremost reason I dislike Paul is his soft-exoneration of Muslims.
One claims to support noninternventionism but then finds everyone who actually supports noninterventionism to be a Muslim-lover. The only thing that he's able to quote Ron Paul on to justify his dislike is Paul's statements that American foreign policy motivates terrorism. One is so ideologically blinded by his dislike of liberals and nonwhites that he even goes insane upon hearing statements that are obviously true.
An introspective and interesting thinker can hold conflicting ideas in his head at the same time: liberals might be wrong to blame whites for black pathology, but might be right that American foreign policy motivated 9/11; America might have done more good than evil throughout its history, but it occasionally acts unjustly. One, on the other hand, divides the entire world into one camp he likes and another that he dislikes. Good: America, whites, masculinity, tradition. Bad: Nonwhites, leftists, disorder, feminism. He lashes out at anyone who suggests that the world is any more nuanced than that.
Pat Buchanan is too old to run I think---isn't he around 80 now?
ReplyDeleteEven so, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over any of the existing choices, despite the fact that he's a bit more socialist than I favor.
The kind of person genuinely worried that Ron Paul might win the Republican nomination is either a Jewish supremacist or a useless piece of shit.
ReplyDeleteOneSTDV: Perhaps the foremost reason I dislike Paul is his soft-exoneration of Muslims. He has also blamed American foreign policy for the unbridled and historically persistent hatred of Islamic terrorists
ReplyDeleteOne is exonerating the foreign policy of the US ruling class. He sounds too emotional on this subject. He's got such a romantic view of the US he probably can't bring himself to even consider the possibility that Muslim anger towards the US may by rational and justifiable.
OneSTDV: I don't begrudge Paul's non-interventionist stance. I don't speak on foreign policy because I don't follow it very closely; but I surely reject our violent exportation of American ideals.
I find that curious coming from someone who loves the military and hates Muslims. I'm sceptical about this claim to being anti-interventionism.
his reflexive antipathy towards neocons is the primary motivation of his foreign policy.
Wrong. Paul's anti-interventionism is rooted in his view of the role of the state. Paleolibertarians like Rothbard opposed US intervention long before the neocons arrived on the scene.
Ron Paul won't win the nomination. His anti-military, "America sucks" stuff will fail miserably in South Carolina, and other places with large military voting blocks. So he's going nowhere fast. Just as Buchanon did, just as Huckabee did, just as that evangelical guy did in 88 who won Iowa (and name escapes me).
ReplyDeleteWhat is important with Ron Paul is that the Dems and Media (but I repeat myself) can label the entire GOP as Paul-like.
Elections are won and lost on who gets most of the White professional female vote. Those voters, vote en-bloc, like Obama a lot, have not had much economic hardship, and have to be peeled off.
You ask Mangan what's the choice between Romney and Obama? Whites being made a minority in three years (with nothing to be done or any hope at all) or that day put off another two decades. When there is time to do something about it.
Yeah Romney is basically a less liberal Democrat. Wow there's a surprise. There is a REASON for that.
Blacks, Hispanics (rapidly growing duh), all vote Democrat. White men of all socio economic status vote Republican about 70% or so. Blue collar White women (waitress moms) vote Republican. Because of who gets what spoils, nothing more or less.
Those who make or break campaigns are ... WOMEN. White professional women, who voted enough to make the following Presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama. As Whites decline, Republicans must more and more appeal to White Professional women. They won't get votes from Blacks or Hispanics. They are capped out on Male White votes, about 30% or so will always vote Dem because of Government unions, or being rich, or various media/infotainment jobs.
Does anyone honestly think here that Paul will EVER capture even a significant minority of White professional women? He's older than McCain, crankier, more nutty, and less liked by the Media (which most White professional women take their cue from).
Paul's also a non-starter among White men who want America to kick ass. Since if you want groveling and abasement and "America sucks" and deserved 9/11, you can get it more and better with Obama.
My goal in 2012 is real simple: avoid an Obama re-election, which would make me a third class minority nationwide (I already am in California) with nowhere to go. I can't afford fantasy, or moralistic sermons, or anything like that. Like it or not, that means a candidate Alpha Male enough to appeal to White professional Women, with nothing that will turn them off (crankiness, conservativism, any hint of non-worship of Black/Hispanic people, etc.) Someone hunky, wholesome, leading Man dominant, as close to George Clooney as possible. Making primarily an economic argument against Obama with a bit of Alpha Male posturing thrown in (this is more important than it seems -- Al Gore lost to GWB because he became a joke that way).
As far as "all the right enemies" Sarah Palin has that in spades. And is similarly poison among White professional females (thanks Tina Fey!)
If you liked what Tina Fey did with Sarah Palin (made her into an eternal punchline) just wait till Saturday Night Live gets ahold of Ron Paul. The longer he's on stage, the better for President Obama.
At this point it is likely Romney. Hence the attention to Paul to paint all Reps as crazy lunatics who smell of Beta Male to repel as many White female professionals as possible. Hence, victory.
Go ask ten White female professional women who you suspect to be swing voters on what they think of Ron Paul. You won't like the answers.
[We need more interventions abroad, not less. Just successful ones. Because particularly women love a winner and hate hate HATE a loser. Slinking away is beta male loserdom, and a sure turnoff for White women voters. Look at Reagan. Sure he beat up on ... Grenada. But people and particularly women LOVE LOVE LOVE a winner.]
a romantic view of the US he probably can't bring himself to even consider the possibility that Muslim anger towards the US may by rational and justifiable.
ReplyDeleteHere's a link to a grassroots Ron Paul ad that addresses that point (the production is unfortunately in that annoying in-your-face style geared to ADHD sufferers).
Referring to a 76 year old as a "Beta Male" just seems retarded.
ReplyDeleteWhiskey, have you or any relatives served in the military? Are any currently serving or planning on serving in the future?
ReplyDelete[We need more interventions abroad, not less. Just successful ones. Because particularly women love a winner and hate hate HATE a loser. Slinking away is beta male loserdom, and a sure turnoff for White women voters. Look at Reagan. Sure he beat up on ... Grenada. But people and particularly women LOVE LOVE LOVE a winner.]
ReplyDeleteYeah, we all know how much more pro-war women are than men.
You're a sick individual who sees everything through sadomasochistic lenses and projects your sickness on to the rest of the world. If only you were simply a Jewish supremacist.
"Whiskey hates Ron Paul. (Or should I say, hates HATES HATES!) If there was no other reason to support Ron, that would be sufficient in and of itself. "
ReplyDeleteAye. As a member of the White professional female vote that Whiskey claims is the Singular Cause of All that Ails Us, I'll vote for Ron just to tick him off, and seeing's how, as Whisk assures us, we all of us vote en bloc, not like the Jews, that means he'll win, too.
Jehu,
ReplyDeletePaul is actually 3 years older than Buchanan. I'd love to see a Paul/Buchanan third-party ticket. They serve as canaries in the coalmine. Also, Paul served on Buchanan's economic team during his '92 primary run.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/22/ron_paul_and_the_second_coming_of_buchananism/
Whiskey,
ReplyDeleteIs that just an observation or a rationale for not voting for a presidential candidate? If it's a rationale then we should just let white professional women have all the votes and accept whoever they choose.
But as for your argument that Paul's is an "America sucks" attitude, you're completely off the mark. You think that America is defined as the federal government or the body of politicians and bureaucrats that make technocratic decisions. If you operate from that premise then you're right. But I - and Paul and a lot of voters - consider "America" to be the actual people who make up the citizenry. We define America; our wars and our foreign entanglements do not define America.
One serves "America" by combatting and rebutting the politicians and bureaucrats who get paid to spend the nations resources - whether tax money or soldiers. This point needs to be made by someone, and it most likely won't be made by someone who has a good chance to be elected.
Whiskey hates Pat Buchanan as well.
ReplyDeleteApparently Whiskey's vision for America is some sort of demonic death cult that sacrifices the lives and limbs of young white males from the heartland to satisfy the bloodlust of single white females.
ReplyDeleteTell me who will do most in limiting immigration and I will vote for that person. Heck, I'll vote for Obama if he somehow happens to do more than any of the GOP candidates. Everything is secondary to the preservation of the ethnic character of the country.
ReplyDeleteI've listened to Paul extensively during the previous election cycle (not so much today) and while many things he says make sense, the overall impression is that he is not a very smart person who holds this idealistic believe in libertarianism without ever thinking it through.
I do struggle a lot, especially lately, on whether the effort is worth it, so as always it's nice to hear appreciation.
ReplyDeleteOh, in this case a note of appreciation from me, too. Thank you and please keep on. Merry Christmas!
Actually, I think Whiskey likes Pat Buchanan. It's this "Buchanon" fellow he can't stand.
ReplyDeleteWhiskey, which candidate has collected the most donations from active duty service members? (Honestly, I'm asking here. I know in '08 it was Ron Paul, and would wager a ducat or two it is today, as well.) As GL Piggy pointed out, you have committed one of the cardinal fallacies of confusing the US with the USG. Ron Paul probably hates most of the Federal government, but Ron Paul does not hate America. Two different things. Two very different things. Or do you buy into Bill Clinton's line that "You can't love your country and hate your government"?
We need more interventions abroad? Wow, Whiskers, you have knocked me stupid with that one. How many more, Whiskers? Already not a sparrow falls but that the vital interests of the US are affected, we're militarily active in how many countries now?
Paul is older, crankier, and nuttier than John "We are all Georgians now" McCain? Pass the spliff, Whiskers, I'll have a hit. In case you (like OneSTDV) don't follow foreign affairs, John McCain thought we should stand up to Russia over the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, because picking a shooting fight with the only other country that has a ton of ICBMs is sober, reasonable, responsible foreign policy.
Also, Whiskers, are you saying that the media is playing up the Ron Paul campaign in order to make the GOP look bad? Sometimes, I shrug. I admire your chutzpah, but "lots of mainstream media attention to the Paul campaign" is pure fantasy. They have run, ducked and covered, they have ignored him left and right, they have done everything possible to avoid discussing Paul's candidacy and his platform.
Ron Paul is a politician, yes. He's also a US Air Force veteran flight surgeon and OB/GYN with a long, stable marriage and four or five children. Beta? Yeah, sure. He's a mensch, you're a schlemiel.
I've been accused of being a Paulbot and a Paultard. Whiskers is just a 'tard.
I cannot think of a politician who is so deficient in leadership qualities as Ron Paul. There is no way this man could effect change in Washington even if he were to wake up King of America. Not that actual change has ever crossed the minds of other candidates.
ReplyDeleteI hope for a deadlocked convention and the eventual nomination of a tomato can, which is more gratifying than spending my time trying to pick a sweet potato out of this shit stew.
James Wilson
GLP,
ReplyDeleteIs that so? Well then, what is there to say but
Go Pat Go!
How many times would a Protestant have to say the Hail Mary for a brokered convention to give us Pat as a nominee?
Merry Christmas Dennis and to all who sail this good blog.
ReplyDeleteThe neocons hate Paul for two reasons. First, he doesn't support the oversized military-industrial complex that far exceeds our actual defense needs. And second, he doesn't support the constant in-your-face interventionism that requires America to put its nose into every conflict in the world.
ReplyDeleteLet's see why neocons don't want the military budget cut. From the godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, in 1973:
Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel… Jews don’t like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States…American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don’t want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.
Let's see why the neocons are fearful of so-called isolationism. Norman Podhoretz had this to say about the issue in 1979:
There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail again, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.
So there you have it. Most of the fear and loathing directed against Paul is not because of anything raciss he did or did not write, it is not because he is lax on immigration which is required for the top GOP leaders, it is not because of abortion which the GOP never seems to address, and it is not due to not defending America.
It is because they fear his positions would be bad for Israel. And this is not an indictment on American Jews, most of whom would probably support Paul's positions on foreign policy. There are far more whiskeys out there than Jews who support the neocon position.
Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top
ReplyDeletehttp://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
"The fact that the average American working woman earns only about 8o% of what the average American working man earns has been something of a festering sore for at least half the population for several decades. And despite many programs and analyses and hand-wringing and badges and even some legislation, the figure hasn't budged much in the past five years.
But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%).
Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.
The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. "These women haven't just caught up with the guys," says Chung. "In many cities, they're clocking them."
"Significantly, the conditions that are feeding the rise in female wages — a growing knowledge-based economy, the decline of a manufacturing base and an increasing minority population — are dominant trends throughout the U.S. "This generation [of women] has adapted to the fundamental restructuring of the American economy better than their older predecessors or male peers," says Chung. While the economic advantage of women sometimes evaporates as they age and have families, Chung believes that women now may have enough leverage that their financial gains may not be completely erased as they get older.
The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully."
This is a very volatile situation. They have to basically kill off their excess men somehow. And they need to destroy the potential of other industrial nations, if they remain independent and out of some form of control, from surpassing them, becoming hegemonic, and jeopardizing their power, which is assured over the long term simply from more pro-male policies. And they need cheap technical imports and labor. They have a limited time window for this while their relative military strength is greatest and they still have enough technically competent men left. There are potentially some very powerful inducements to major conflict in the not too distant future.
ReplyDeleteHunsdon wrote, Already not a sparrow falls but that the vital interests of the US are affected
ReplyDeleteThat's good. "And the very hairs on your head are all numbered - by military drones!"
Ron Paul is by far the best option we have. To even contemplate voting for another candidate is unfathomable. Better a Muslim lover than a Jew lover.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Mangan:
ReplyDeleteThank you, sir, both for your approval of my small turn of phrase, and more generally for your maintenance of this blog. I quite enjoy your writing, and this is one of the first two or three pages I check each morning with my first cup of coffee.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteWorkplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
"The fact that the average American working woman earns only about 8o% of what the average American working man earns has been something of a festering sore for at least half the population for several decades. And despite many programs and analyses and hand-wringing and badges and even some legislation, the figure hasn't budged much in the past five years.
But now there's evidence that the ship may finally be turning around: according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group.
Here's a hint, Anon.
When someone mixes up averages and medians you know that they are spewing shite. And then they threw in that bullshite about knowledge workers ...
--The holdout cities — those where the earnings of single, college-educated young women still lag men's — tended to be built around industries that are heavily male-dominated, such as software development or military-technology contracting. In other words, Silicon Valley could also be called Gender Gap Gully.--
ReplyDeleteWhat a shock...
I agree with Whiskey that white middle class women are the swing vote but Steve Sailer has shown which way they swing depends more on whether or not they are married than who the Republican candidate is. Married white women vote Republican along with their husbands. With the marriage rate dropping, things don't look very good for the Republican party in the long run.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone mixes up averages and medians you know that they are spewing shite. And then they threw in that bullshite about knowledge workers ...
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say they're "spewing shite". They should have emphasized the difference, but the information is still valuable. Median is more important in many ways. Average can be a lagging or misleading indicator. A higher median indicates that at least half the number of the young working women earn more than at least half the number of young working men in their peer group. This is an important social indicator with major ramifications. Average is skewed by outsized compensation for some males on the upper end.
The "knowledge workers" bit is just a typical euphemism they use in the mainstream media.
"We need more interventions abroad, not less. Just successful ones. Because particularly women love a winner and hate hate HATE a loser."
ReplyDelete"Middle class women" exactly as "middle class minorities" are an artificial government thing, due to affirmative action or inflated state jobs or gender equality laws, or any law for putting in charge the less intelligent and competent. So putting in a disadvantage the white males.
And the USA should kill and destroy the rest of the world so those shallow, stupid and rich females cold become wet - the SOLE way they can attain that?
***
That One, is not he your religius zealot who confuses atheism with left? And look how Whiskey hijacked the thread. If I want know what they think I read their blogs.
I do not like when a blogger writes a post about other bloggers' posts. With all the respect it seems a lack of style, or ideas. If one is stimulated by a blog post, for sure there is a way to express that without resorting to discuss the other blogger attitude. Personal opinion.
As with this sleight of hand with stats: Italians work harder than Germans?, the original anon would have done better to point out that the comparison that Time Toilet Paper article makes is probably actually between public-sector employees vs private sector employees.
ReplyDeleteWomen are concentrated in the public sector, while men tend to eschew the public sector in favor of the private sector and public sector incomes have outpaced lower-level private sector ones. The little bit about Silicon Valley at the end tends to support this contention.
It would have been fun to see info about earning differences between males and females in the financial sector in NY City as well.
There's no sleight of hand here. The study apparently compared median full-time salaries between young men and women in 2,000 communities and found certain differences. If you're interested simply in whether there is a difference, and if there is, its magnitude, then the source of it is not relevant. A dollar in income from the private sector is the same as one from the public sector.
ReplyDeleteIn the areas where they found a higher median, at least half the number of the young working women earn more than at least half the number of young working men in their peer group. Many of these areas are heavily young female-saturated areas, with high female to male ratios. So there are even fewer men who are able to successfully economically compete for these women.
In areas like Silicon Valley, with a higher median for young men's full-time salaries, at least half the number of the young working men earn more than at least half the number of young working women in their peer group. Silicon Valley is a young male-saturated ghetto. So even though there are more young men with greater relative economic status, there are fewer women available.
I doubt that Ron Paul will be able to effect any change.
ReplyDeleteI think that the trajectory of the US is already set by the actions of the many participants and the end result is in sight ...
Be prepared.
Jews on the mainstream left and right hate Ron Paul, and so do many Jews in the HBD community. Ron Paul opposes going to war against Iran and favors American neutrality in the middle east. Since Ron Paul goes against "what's good for the Jews" on those two issues, Jews don't like him. For them, it's always about what's good for the Jews.
ReplyDeleteBob Brinker is as close as I come to believing anyone and he says the notion of a gold standard benefitting the vast middle class is a fool's notion.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Paul has never actually met any Muslims who hate non-Muslims. I have, and they're just what they appear to be-raving lunatics.
Maybe Paul has never actually met any Muslims who hate non-Muslims. I have, and they're just what they appear to be-raving lunatics.
ReplyDeleteHas Ron Paul ever suggested that there aren't any Muslims who hate non-Muslims, or that there are no Muslims who are raving lunatics?
Anonydroid 5:34 said: Maybe Paul has never actually met any Muslims who hate non-Muslims. I have, and they're just what they appear to be-raving lunatics.
ReplyDeleteHunsdon replies: Dear Anonydroid: It is not so much the existence of Muslims who hate non-Muslims which seems in doubt in our fair country. It is the existence of Muslims who don't hate non-Muslims that seems to be denied. The default assumption prevalent in America today seems to be: THEY ALL CRAZY, THEY ALL BE HATERS, and when they don't be all hating on us, it's taqiya.
I've met a lot of Muslims, both at home and abroad. The vast majority of them seemed like, you know, people to me. A fair number of them struck me as people I liked and trusted. I've set my feet under a goodly few Muslim dinner tables. One day I had a nice lunch at a madrassa cafeteria, only later realizing that I hadn't tucked my cross under my shirt before entering, and had a nice chat about comparative religion with the imam.
Monolithic Islam is no more real than monolithic communism was.
I dont know what to think about One. Every once in awhile, he makes a good post. But in many ways, he doesnt seem very mature. If you look at the older posts on his blog, he had alot of 'new atheist' type crap that appeals to 18 year olds. As others have mentioned, he cares about pop culture garbage - even a post about how great the TV show Glee is for how 'positive' it is. After that post, I really started to suspect One is gay.
ReplyDeleteI am not normally one that obsesses over Jews, but anytime a blogger/commenter is overly Jew sensitive I naturally become suspicious. I dont know Ones racial origins, but he seems to have the same dislikes of Paul that the Jewish HBD or Paleo bloggers have.
Lew @ 4:58 is correct. I've noticed, even in the HBD world, anytime someone defends the Federal Reserve for anything more than pragmatic reasons - he is usually doing it for as Lew says, "what's good for the Jews" type reasons (see Half Sigma - who thinks if youre against the FR you're a raging anti-Semite).
IRS and DoJ to squeeze more money out of everyone.
ReplyDeleteAlso, DoJ to expand gun walking to Canada. Hah, fooled you there, didn't I?
Yishai: Every African 'infiltrator' will return home
ReplyDelete"Interior Minister Eli Yishai vowed Thursday to exert every effort to see that "the last of the infiltrators return to their countries," referring to the some 50,000 African economic migrants, asylum seekers and refugees currently in Israel.
Speaking with Army Radio, Yishai dismissed the notion that Sudanese, Eritreans and other Africans in Israel have any standing to seek political asylum. "These are not refugees, these are economic migrants who want to come to Israel for work," he said.
Their presence "is an existential threat" to the State of Israel, he asserted, vowing to "defend the Jewish majority." The interior minister added, "Each and every one of them will return to their countries."
The statements come as the government is advancing the construction of a detention center in the South to house asylum seekers and infiltrators and construction of a border fence along the Egyptian border is being accelerated."
Military Service my father's side: Mexican-American War, Illinois First Volunteers Civil War; Mother's side: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I personally know those who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (some have passed away, sorely missed). So yes I am familiar with the military.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing to contradict my thesis that White professional women swing from Rep to Dem depending on candidates. That's why they call it the Gender Gap.
White men vote Republican, year in and out, at around 70%. You can't gain much on them, nor White Blue collar women who are even more Republican. Those who defeated Al Gore, elected Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush (against Gore and the feckless Kerry) and Obama.
Obama basically WON with that group, and went from 52% in 2008 to 56% last Summer. That's why Obama rejiggered TARP to cut out White guys and reward women (when NOW complained). That's taking care of your electoral base. That's why Obama is giving up on White working class people:
All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
Has ANYONE here ever been in SALES? I mean, ever? You can't afford to tick off buyers on the Fence. That's Professional White women. They are screwed like everyone one else in the grocery aisle and gas station when they pay. They can't really connect it directly with Obama however since the Media is running "the Economy is now booming" (two stories today on KCAL-9 in LA on how LA business is booming -- right after sob stories of people who had laways paid off by an anon donor).
You can't tick these women off. Not if you want to win. These are the women who made Oprah a billionaire as she posed as every White woman's imaginary Black Best Friend. These are the women who gave Whoopi Goldberg a second career as a professional Black woman on daytime talk TV. These are the women who made the Help both the movie and the book hits.
Yes the media wants to cement Paul as "weird nutty icky old uncle" the way they nailed Palin to the "stupid hick no one likes" (and I like and admire Palin in many things). Why? Because its effective on voters on the fence.
White men will vote against Obama. Same with Waitress moms. It is the voters on the fence, who historically go from one party to the next based on candidates not coalitions who matter. They are the margin of defeat or victory. Anyone who have EVER sold anything EVER knows that.
The sale does not make itself. And the first rule of the sale -- don't tick off the customer.
Military Service my father's side: Mexican-American War, Illinois First Volunteers Civil War; Mother's side: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I personally know those who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (some have passed away, sorely missed). So yes I am familiar with the military.
ReplyDeleteOn the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
You're not an American, and you never will be. Your loyalties lie elsewhere.
whiskey,
ReplyDeleteyou've mentioned twice that "waitress moms" will vote against Obama. you might have it backwards if you think that white professional women will lean more towards Obama than will blue-collar women.
it's merely anecdotal, but i'm a waiter. i work with a lot of "waitress moms". they're all Obama voters, and i live in a red state.
your argument doesn't make sense. blue-collar women (mostly the moms) benefit more when a Democrat is in office, and they are also more comfortable with minorities - being themselves closer to minority groups, criminal culture, weed culture, hip hop, and frivilous pop culture. they would also be more likely to prefer the candidate who will provide them with free health care, access to abortions, and student loans.
Military Service my father's side: Mexican-American War, Illinois First Volunteers Civil War; Mother's side: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I personally know those who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (some have passed away, sorely missed). So yes I am familiar with the military...
ReplyDeleteWhite men vote Republican, year in and out, at around 70%.
LOL! You're such a liar about easily verifiable voting statistics, why on earth would anybody listen to you about your family's military record? Really man, something is wrong with you. You can't even go a few sentences without lying, even when you're trying to convince us of a bigger lie.
@Scotsman: I went over Half Sigma after reading your comment. HS is making statements that are typical of how Jews think. Take this exchange between HS and a reader.
ReplyDeleteI don't deny that ethnicity matters: I think it does quite a bit, although not as much as some of the more extreme (and loud)black, brown or white nationalist types do. Jews have been unfairly accused of subversive behavior in the past, but on the other hand, there does seem to be something unique about Jewish behavior and it often brings them in conflict with the larger society in which they live.
Half Sigma retorts:
What's unique about Jews is that they refused to convert to Christianity. And they have higher IQ than the average gentile. That's all.
It's every Jew's signature. Jews are never at fault. Ethnic conflict between Jews and other groups is never because of Jewish behavior.
Alan Dershowitz, Jew, once wrote this (my emphasis):
How does one understand — not even forgive, simply understand! – the virulently anti-Jewish statements of intellectuals throughout history? Their numbers included H. L. Mencken (‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of’); George Bernard Shaw (‘Stop being Jews and start being human beings’); Henry Adams (‘The whole rotten carcass is rotten with Jew worms’); H.G. Wells (‘A careful study of anti-Semitism, prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritation they inflict’); Edgar Degas (characterized as a ‘wild anti-Semite’); Denis Diderot (‘Brutish people, vile and vulgar men’); Theodore Dreiser (New York is a ‘kike’s dream of a ghetto,’ and Jews are not ‘pure Americans’ and ‘lack integrity’); T. S. Eliot (a social as well as literary anti-Semite, even after the Holocaust); Immanuel Kant (‘The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning … They are a nation of swindlers.’) Other famous anti-Semites include Tacitus, Cicero, Aleksander Pushkin, Pierre Renoir, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and, of course, Richard Wagner. This honor roll of anti-Jewish bigotry goes on, and included people of every race, religion, and geographic area, political leaning, gender, and age. The answer to the question why? probably lies more in the realm of abnormal psychology than in any rational attempts to find understandable cause in history, or economics. Anti-Semitism is a disease of the soul, and diseases are best diagnosed by examining those infected with them
So according Dershowitz's own definition, "antisemites" show up among every race, religion, geographic area, political leaning, age and gender. How does Dershowtiz explain it? His explanation is that they're all suffering from abnormal psychology. Like Half Sigma, he does not acknowledge that Jewish behavior might be at least partially to blame for "antisemitism" among every race, religion, geography, etc.
As Kevin MacDonald quipped, for Jews like Dershowitz the normal is abnormal.
What does this pattern of Jewish behavior have to do with Ron Paul? Well, for one thing, it shows that most Jews can't be objective about him, because if elected president he would not be a slave to AIPAC and Israel. Paul is not "good for the Jews," so their analysis stops there.
People come to these HBD blogs from many different backgrounds and perspectives. Not enough non-Jews realize that anything a Jews says, or anything a Jews does, must always be evaluated by asking the question "how does it benefit the Jew"?
When anyone reads a comment by a Jew, if that question is asked each and every time, the agenda will become quickly apparent. And the agenda, in the end, is always about doing what's best for Jews at the expense of everyone else.
Anonymous above seems incurious about where the money is coming from for those median women who now earn more than the median male.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with more and more public bankruptcies in the offing, I suspect we will soon see people whining about how women are losing out, just as they have been about black women losing employment.
The tax payer does not want to subsidize unsustainable behavior.
Anonymous above seems incurious about where the money is coming from for those median women who now earn more than the median male.
ReplyDeleteI'm not incurious about it at all. I am interested in it. Obviously questions such as how and why it has come about are important.
One of the reasons to watch pop culture shows, like Law and Order (at least while you are doing other, more serious things) is for observations like the following:
ReplyDeleteThe Media always depicts itself as valuing the truth above all else, for example, in an episode of L&O where an embedded reporter was shot by a soldier for allegedly revealing troop movements in Iraq.
The reporter claims, in the episode, that he was following a higher calling.
With such methods the Main Slime Media indoctrinates many that they tell the truth about everything.
Hardly.
Knowing the mechanisms allows one to resist their indoctrination.
Ron Paul comes off as mentally unbalanced. The guy is also against building a border fence. He lost my vote.
ReplyDeleteVito, who comes off as more mentally balanced than Ron Paul?
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue, I'm just curious. Everyone I have seen on TV running for President recently has seemed mentally unbalanced (unnatural delivery, robotic movements and gestures, nonsensical answers implying they can't parse simple questions, etc.)
Anyone who cannot tell the difference between RP and all other candidates is completely uninformed and his opinion in the matter is void. If you want the real deal, the only honest man in politics, the only one who really means what he says when he will follow the Constitution and the intention of the Founders, then there is no other choice. If Ron Paul succeeded in eliminating the oppressive government and succeeded in removing all manner of affirmative action, then whites would once again have a level playing field, we would once again have freedom of association.
ReplyDeleteAttack dogs unleashed on Ron Paul.
ReplyDeleteHe comes off like he has a few screws loose. No way I would ever feel comfortable with his finger near the button. Paul is not presidential material. Nor are most of the other candidates. The republican candidates are terrible this year. My man Tom Tancredo would have had a chance if he ran this time.
ReplyDelete"Whiskey said...
ReplyDeleteMilitary Service my father's side: Mexican-American War, Illinois First Volunteers Civil War; Mother's side: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I personally know those who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam (some have passed away, sorely missed). So yes I am familiar with the military."
No military service on your mother's side? Or does arm-chair military knowledge not pass down through the mother's side, unlike certain other things.
I have known veterans too. I've even read books about war. So I am familiar enough with it to know that ceaselessly bellowing for war and actually being willing to put your own life on the line are not the same thing. But many cowards who espouse all those things you do seem not to.
And why don't you try to learn how to spell "Buchanan", Whiskoy?
Whiskoy's view, in a nutshell, seems to be this: that white women are to blame for all the problems our nation faces. His solution? Vote for whichever candidate they prefer. Does that really make any sense?
I agree with your assessment, Dennis. Paul is not ideal, but he is certainly better than any of the rest of them. And I do believe that Paul is sincere in desiring to limit the power of the federal government. That in itself is a big plus. The damage a genuine constitutional purist could do, even if he holds some bad beliefs, would be limited by his own more fundmental belief that the government is constrained by the law.
ReplyDeleteAs always, Dennis, this is a great site. Keep up the good work. And I would like to wish you, and all the regulars here, a belated Merry Christmas.
I like Ron Paul because he's decent on both immigration and civil liberties. Most of the big Republican immigration restrictionists are pro-PATRIOT Act and pro-Big Brother, and needless to say the Democrats who support civil liberties are all for open borders. Paul's a flawed candidate in many ways, but I agree with Dennis et al. that he bests the competition.
ReplyDeleteThe damage a genuine constitutional purist could do, even if he holds some bad beliefs, would be limited by his own more fundmental belief that the government is constrained by the law.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. His beliefs regarding immigration, if they can be pinned down, do not match mine. However, there is the further question of what he would do to impose his beliefs on the rest of us.
It seems likely to me that he might disagree with the statutes enacted by legislatures in Arizona, Alabama, and elsewhere yet refrain from using the force of the central government to invalidate them.
"And why don't you try to learn how to spell "Buchanan", Whiskoy?"
ReplyDeleteOkay, this is good.
May I borrow it, Martin?
"JSM said...
ReplyDeleteOkay, this is good.
May I borrow it, Martin?"
Of course. I have no copyright on mispellings.
Yeah, but it's funny.
ReplyDeleteOur "Scotch-Irish" friend insists on misspelling Buchanan as Buchanon, so spell his name with an o. Also, "Whisk-OY" also works on the level that, him being "Scotch-Irish", ahem, the lamentations and kvetching about women being fueled by distilled spirits like Johnny Walker, not kosher Manishewitz, oy!
This sounds like more of the same.
ReplyDeleteOneSTDV has referenced this post in what I would describe as an emotional tirade against RP and his supporters. One is beyond reasoning with.
ReplyDeleteThe Rev. Phillip G. Kayser endorses Ron Paul and says, "Under a Ron Paul Presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them..."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GabD0Nucwa4
Rev. Kayser believes homosexuals should be executed.
The Paul campaign welcomed Rev. Kayser's endorsement, though it eventually removed a statement on its website welcoming the endorsement.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/02/ron-paul-s-christian-reconstructionist-roots.html
ReplyDelete"The most radical faction of covenant theology is called Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoony that seeks to turn the book of Leviticus into law, imposing the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, unchaste women, and myriad other sinners."
"Ron Paul has long been a favorite politician of Christian Reconstructionists....“The people who I know who are big Ron Paul guys are old school Reconstructionists,” says Paul supporter Brian D. Nolder, the pastor of Christ the Redeemer Church in Pella, Iowa.
It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law."
"Paul has been able to create one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists’ preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North’s words, “cheap, plentiful, and convenient.”)"