Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(07-19-2016, 08:23 PM)Dan Wrote: [ -> ]

VDARE

VDARE is an American website that publishes socio-political commentary pieces, particularly focusing on advocating for a moratorium on immigration into the United States as well as arguments related to race and American politics.[2] According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, VDARE is "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites."[2] Salon calls it a white supremacist group.[3] VDARE editor Peter Brimelow rejected Southern Poverty Law Center's accusations as guilt by association.[4]

The name VDARE refers to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English settlers in the New World (in 1587). Contributors to the website have included Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, J. Philippe Rushton, Samuel T. Francis, and many others.[2] The site was launched in 1999 and run by journalist/editor Peter Brimelow, who supports the site through his VDARE Foundation.

Designation as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), VDARE was "once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page"; which, according to the SPLC, had become by 2003 "a meeting place for many on the radical right".[2] The SPLC describes VDARE as "an anti-immigration hate website" which "regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites."[2]
The SPLC cited examples such as a column concerning immigration from Mexico that warned of a "Mexican invasion" where "high teenage birthrates, poverty, ignorance and disease will be what remains," and an essay complaining how the U.S. Government encourages "the garbage of Africa" to come to the United States.[2] SPLC criticized VDARE for publishing articles by Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, whom it has called "outright white nationalists".[2] VDARE was labeled "white nationalist" by the Rocky Mountain News, a charge which Brimelow denied in an op-ed published by the newspaper in 2006.[8][9]

[/url]
VDARE editor [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brimelow]Peter Brimelow rejected the SPLC accusations as "guilt by association". Writing that "We have published writers of all races, and most political tendencies—including self-identified 'progressives.'" and "We are certainly politically incorrect—but the merest glance would show that we are not "white nationalist."[4]

Hurricane Katrina and IQ

Steve Sailer argued on VDARE following Hurricane Katrina that the lower average IQ of African-Americans found in intelligence research correlates with "poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups resulting in the need for stricter moral guidance from society". He said that looting after the 1995 Kobe earthquake was minimal because "when you get down to it, Japanese aren't blacks".[10]

National Review writer John Podhoretz called Sailer's comments racist.[11] Sailer responded that his accusers had acknowledged a correlation between low IQ and poor judgment by supporting the Supreme Court's 2002 Atkins v. Virginia decision "that, in effect, banned the death penalty for killers with IQs under 70".[12] John Derbyshire defended Sailer, citing large variance in incarceration rates by race and birth rates for unmarried women by race.[13]

*********

Nasty group of racists.

Donald Trump Jr. appeared to give a rather substantive speech that was clear and emphatic. I wondered, people have talked about the Bush dynasty and the Clinton dynasty-in-law; if Trump becomes president, and he also becomes virtual dictator, could he make the presidency virtually hereditary? So, if Trump Jr. ran for president, would he have a good score on my system? Of course, if we are no longer a democracy, that may not matter. But in case it does, the answer is no; he does not have a chart of someone who can be elected. The score might change somewhat if I know his time of birth, but as of now, it is 8-16.

It appears that Trump family members can't write their own speeches, or have their own ideas. Some of Junior's speech was written by the author of an article in The American Conservative. He was an actual speechwriter for junior's speech though, so technically it wasn't plagiarism.

Oh, and we already knew Ben Carson was bat-shit crazy. Next question?

(07-19-2016, 05:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]I know some here have a near-genetic hatred of the GOP (I don't - I believe the American Eagle needs two strong wings - Left and Right - in order to soar).

No. The party of Eisenhower, or even Herbert Hoover or Nixon, or TR, yes. The post-Reagan disaster? NO. Yes, the USA Eagle needs two wings, and the Democrats need to be the right-wing.

(07-19-2016, 09:41 PM)Dan Wrote: [ -> ]

I voted for Carson in a primary election. What Carson does not understand is that it is already too late. The Secular Humanists are the majority and in control of thought in the USA. 
I fully expect Secular Humanist Clinton to be elected.

Quote:http://www.bustle.com/articles/173676-tr...-a-big-way

Transcript Of Ben Carson’s RNC Speech Renounces Political Correctness In A Big Way

… “ it won’t be four or eight years, because she will be appointing people who will have an effect on us for generations and America may never recover from that.”…

… "It is about we, the people, and Thomas Jefferson said that we would reach this point because we the people would not be paying attention and it would allow the government to grow, to expand, and to metastasize and to try to rule us. But he said before we turn into something else, we the people would recognize what was going on, what we were about to lose, and we would rise up and we would take control of our nation and I say now is the time for us to rise up and take America back.”…

(07-19-2016, 05:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]I know some here have a near-genetic hatred of the GOP (I don't - I believe the American Eagle needs two strong wings - Left and Right - in order to soar).

The GOP convention seems to be hexed.

The latest - a norovirus outbreak.

It is a tragedy.

The American Eagle needs two strong INTELLIGENT wings; that's not what we have today.  The Right wing is diseased with xenophobia and know-nothing sheeple lead around by their collective noses by Ayn Randian elite that doesn't actually give a shXt about them other than manipulating their confusion, desperation and hatred at the ballot box to maintain the elite's power and economic wealth over them and hopefully the rest of us.

It's a tragedy alright, but the part that the norovirus plays in it is relatively too tiny to measure.

Feminists have been savaging Melania, who is one of the most
accomplished women in the world, who gave a fantastic speech to a
worldwide audience, even though English is her fifth language. Right
after the speech, I heard one of the BBC's typical left-wing
pro-feminist reporters say something like: "Melania was a supermodel
who traveled around the world without knowing anything but fashion.
The news this evening was that she was able to utter coherent
sentences."

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has been credibly charged with raping at least
seven women, and is treated as a god by feminists. Julian Assange is
charged with raping two women and is treated as a victim.

A girl today who is raped by a Democrat knows that she'd better
keep her mouth shut, or feminists like Hillary will savage her
brutally the way she savaged the women her husband raped.

Feminists have no ethics or morals, and spread hatred with no
regard for anyone but themselves. They are the most destructive
force in America today.

No wonder that feminists are savaging Melania. No matter what you
might think of Trump, she's all that feminists are not, but wish they
could be.

(07-20-2016, 09:54 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]Feminists have been savaging Melania, who is one of the most
accomplished women in the world, who gave a fantastic speech to a
worldwide audience, even though English is her fifth language.  Right
after the speech, I heard one of the BBC's typical left-wing
pro-feminist reporters say something like: "Melania was a supermodel
who traveled around the world without knowing anything but fashion.
The news this evening was that she was able to utter coherent
sentences."

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has been credibly charged with raping at least
seven women, and is treated as a god by feminists.  Julian Assange is
charged with raping two women and is treated as a victim.

A girl today who is raped by a Democrat knows that she'd better
keep her mouth shut, or feminists like Hillary will savage her
brutally the way she savaged the women her husband raped.

Feminists have no ethics or morals, and spread hatred with no
regard for anyone but themselves.  They are the most destructive
force in America today.

No wonder that feminists are savaging Melania.  No matter what you
might think of Trump, she's all that feminists are not, but wish they
could be.

I think that the most destructive force is the de facto state religion of Secular Humanism that tolerates no dissent.

Quote: Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazi....html?_r=0

(07-20-2016, 10:50 AM)radind Wrote: [ -> ]> I think that the most destructive force is the de facto state
> religion of Secular Humanism that tolerates no dissent.

That's an interesting statement. During the 1990s, I was spending
a lot of time arguing with feminists online and reading dozens of
feminist books and hundreds of feminist articles.

I ended up writing a book, "Fraternizing with the Enemy: A book
on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about men."

That book is available as a PDF file from my download page:
http://generationaldynamics.com/download

The 1990s started with feminists leading the charge at trashing
Clarence Thomas because he was a successful black man who married a
white women, which is something that I learned really infuriated women
in general, and feminists in particular. Then you had the whole thing
with Bill Clinton.

So after I'd written the book, and we entered the 2000s, I recognized
that "secular humanism" manifested the same kind of self-absorbed
intolerant hatred that feminism did, only on a much broader scale. So
I see feminism as the early manifestation of secular humanism, and I
see secular humanism as a metastasis of feminism.

I suppose if you focus on some radical, extreme and doctrinaire feminists, or other particular such groups, you can find people who "tolerate no dissent" from their views, but that is not a "state religion" and most "secular humanists" are more open-minded than religious right people.

Male and female equality is fair and necessary, just as is racial equality. These subjects should be no-brainers, and we should be long past controversy over them.

If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.

by James Kirchick
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-...story.html

Americans viewing the recent failed coup attempt in Turkey as some exotic foreign news story -- the latest, violent yet hardly unusual political development to occur in a region constantly beset by turmoil -- should pause to consider that the prospect of similar instability would not be unfathomable in this country if Donald Trump were to win the presidency.

Trump is the most brazenly authoritarian figure to secure the nomination of a major American political party. He expresses his support for all manner of strongmen, and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has actually worked for one: former Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin ally Viktor Yanukovich. At the Republican National Convention here Monday, Manafort put some of the tricks he learned overseas as a dictator whisperer to good use, employing underhanded tactics to avoid a roll call vote on the convention’s rules package and quietly removing language from the party platform expressing support for Ukraine’s democratic aspirations.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly bragged about ordering soldiers to commit war crimes, and has dismissed the possibility that he would face any resistance. “They won’t refuse,” he told Fox News’ Bret Baierearlier this year. “They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me.” When Baier insisted that such orders are “illegal,” Trump replied, “I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

Oh really? Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business, a criminal operation (the distinction is sometimes blurred) or a dictatorship. It does not, however, work in a liberal democracy, legally grounded by a written constitution, each branch restrained by separation of powers.

Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational. Something so dangerous that it put the lives of Americans and the security of the country at stake. (Trump’s former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Marco Rubio, said the United States could not trust “the nuclear codes” to an “erratic individual.”) Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t?

Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business...or a dictatorship. It does not work, however, in a liberal democracy.

In that case, our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it.

They might well choose the former.

“I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as head of the CIA and the National Security Agency under President George W. Bush, said in response to Trump’s autocratic ruminations. Asked by TV host Bill Maher what would happen if Trump told American soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, as he has promised to do, Hayden replied, “If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

Previously, in those rare situations when irreconcilable disagreements have arisen between America’s civilian and military leadership, it is the latter who were ultimately deemed out of line. This was the case when President Truman acrimoniously fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur after he publicly criticized Truman for denying him permission to bomb China in the midst of the Korean War. Though MacArthur returned to the United States with a hero’s welcome, Truman’s decision endures as one of the most important in the history of American civil-military relations.

Trump could pull a reverse-Truman, firing a general who refused to bomb.

If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things -- from open racism to blatant lying. Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or -- heaven forbid -- a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. Rubio might detest her, but he cannot honestly say that Clinton, a former secretary of State, should not be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes.

Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to.

James Kirchick is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Initiative. His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press.

(07-20-2016, 11:22 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2016, 10:50 AM)radind Wrote: [ -> ]>   I think that the most destructive force is the de facto state
>   religion of Secular Humanism that tolerates no dissent.  

That's an interesting statement.  During the 1990s, I was spending
a lot of time arguing with feminists online and reading dozens of
feminist books and hundreds of feminist articles.

I ended up writing a book, "Fraternizing with the Enemy: A book
on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about men."

That book is available as a PDF file from my download page:
http://generationaldynamics.com/download

The 1990s started with feminists leading the charge at trashing
Clarence Thomas because he was a successful black man who married a
white women, which is something that I learned really infuriated women
in general, and feminists in particular.  Then you had the whole thing
with Bill Clinton.

So after I'd written the book, and we entered the 2000s, I recognized
that "secular humanism" manifested the same kind of self-absorbed
intolerant hatred that feminism did, only on a much broader scale.  So
I see feminism as the early manifestation of secular humanism, and I
see secular humanism as a metastasis of feminism.

 They may be part of the same club. 
It is the religious aspect ( that is denied by many), that most disturbs me.
The other factor is the collapse of Protestant Christianity.

(07-20-2016, 01:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose if you focus on some radical, extreme and doctrinaire feminists, or other particular such groups, you can find people who "tolerate no dissent" from their views, but that is not a "state religion" and most "secular humanists" are more open-minded than religious right people.

Male and female equality is fair and necessary, just as is racial equality. These subjects should be no-brainers, and we should be long past controversy over them.

This is not over, in fact it is just getting started with the emergence of Secular Humanism as the majority religion. Christianity is in severe decline.

(07-20-2016, 03:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.

by James Kirchick
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-...story.html

Americans viewing the recent failed coup attempt in Turkey as some exotic foreign news story -- the latest, violent yet hardly unusual political development to occur in a region constantly beset by turmoil -- should pause to consider that the prospect of similar instability would not be unfathomable in this country if Donald Trump were to win the presidency.

Trump is the most brazenly authoritarian figure to secure the nomination of a major American political party. He expresses his support for all manner of strongmen, and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has actually worked for one: former Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin ally Viktor Yanukovich. At the Republican National Convention here Monday, Manafort put some of the tricks he learned overseas as a dictator whisperer to good use, employing underhanded tactics to avoid a roll call vote on the convention’s rules package and quietly removing language from the party platform expressing support for Ukraine’s democratic aspirations.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly bragged about ordering soldiers to commit war crimes, and has dismissed the possibility that he would face any resistance. “They won’t refuse,” he told Fox News’ Bret Baierearlier this year. “They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me.”  When Baier insisted that such orders are “illegal,” Trump replied, “I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

Oh really? Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business, a criminal operation (the distinction is sometimes blurred) or a dictatorship. It does not, however, work in a liberal democracy, legally grounded by a written constitution, each branch restrained by separation of powers.

Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational. Something so dangerous that it put the lives of Americans and the security of the country at stake. (Trump’s former rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Marco Rubio, said the United States could not trust “the nuclear codes” to an “erratic individual.”) Faced with opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and back down. But what if he didn’t?

Blimpish swagger might fly within the patriarchal confines of a family business...or a dictatorship. It does not work, however, in a liberal democracy.

In that case, our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it.

They might well choose the former.

“I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign,” retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as head of the CIA and the National Security Agency under President George W. Bush, said in response to Trump’s autocratic ruminations. Asked by TV host Bill Maher what would happen if Trump told American soldiers to kill the families of terrorists, as he has promised to do, Hayden replied, “If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”

Previously, in those rare situations when irreconcilable disagreements have arisen between America’s civilian and military leadership, it is the latter who were ultimately deemed out of line. This was the case when President Truman acrimoniously fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur after he publicly criticized Truman for denying him permission to bomb China in the midst of the Korean War. Though MacArthur returned to the United States with a hero’s welcome, Truman’s decision endures as one of the most important in the history of American civil-military relations.  

Trump could pull a reverse-Truman, firing a general who refused to bomb.

If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things -- from open racism to blatant lying. Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or -- heaven forbid -- a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. Rubio might detest her, but he cannot honestly say that Clinton, a former secretary of State, should not be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes.

Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to.  

James Kirchick is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Initiative. His book, “The End of Europe”, is forthcoming from Yale University Press.

I don't think that a Trump coup is in the cards. 
In addition, I don't see a path for the election of Trump.

(07-20-2016, 01:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]> I suppose if you focus on some radical, extreme and doctrinaire
> feminists, or other particular such groups, you can find people
> who "tolerate no dissent" from their views, but that is not a
> "state religion" and most "secular humanists" are more open-minded
> than religious right people.

> Male and female equality is fair and necessary, just as is racial
> equality. These subjects should be no-brainers, and we should be
> long past controversy over them.

So, since you're not one of those radical, extreme and doctrinaire
feminists, then you must agree that a man like Bill Clinton who's been
credibly charged with rape by seven women, should face criminal
charges for rape in court?

I assume that's what you meant by your last comment.

(07-20-2016, 09:54 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]Feminists have been savaging Melania, who is one of the most
accomplished women in the world, who gave a fantastic speech to a
worldwide audience, even though English is her fifth language.  Right
after the speech, I heard one of the BBC's typical left-wing
pro-feminist reporters say something like: "Melania was a supermodel
who traveled around the world without knowing anything but fashion.
The news this evening was that she was able to utter coherent
sentences."

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has been credibly charged with raping at least
seven women, and is treated as a god by feminists.  Julian Assange is
charged with raping two women and is treated as a victim.

A girl today who is raped by a Democrat knows that she'd better
keep her mouth shut, or feminists like Hillary will savage her
brutally the way she savaged the women her husband raped.

Feminists have no ethics or morals, and spread hatred with no
regard for anyone but themselves.  They are the most destructive
force in America today.

No wonder that feminists are savaging Melania.  No matter what you
might think of Trump, she's all that feminists are not, but wish they
could be.

WTF?

What exactly has Melania achieved that makes her one of the most accomplished women in the world???

And WTF does "credible charged" mean???

Why is it that guys who can't get laid always blame feminists, get angry at guys that can, and make shixt up???