Where have all the good earners gone?

The WSJ is perplexed.  The Unemployment Puzzle: Where Have All the Workers Gone?

No doubt there is more than one answer to this question, but our forfeiting the patriarchal dividend has to be a factor.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Patriarchal Dividend. Bookmark the permalink.

171 Responses to Where have all the good earners gone?

  1. jf12 says:

    Mayhap we should all invest in Call Of Duty and Cheetos stocks.

  2. “The U.S. unemployment rate is down, but rising numbers of Americans have dropped out of the labor force entirely”

    What’s so hard to figure out about this? If someone drops out of the workforce, the government no longer counts them as unemployed to game the number and make it look better than it is. It’s been that way for decades. The WSJ is just now noticing this?

  3. Mayhap we should all invest in Call Of Duty

    Watching X-Men last night with the Rifftrax audio, and the girl at the beginning kisses her boyfriend and he sorta freezes and goes into a coma. Mike says, “That’s why I prefer to avoid girls altogether, and just play endless games of Tomb Raider.”

    Amazing that they can write an article that long about the fact that the total number of jobs is up, yet the percentage of people working is down (meaning that the percentage of people not working, regardless of whether they’re collecting unemployment, is up), without once using a word starting with the letters i-m-m-i-g-r-a. That must take real dedication, but I expect no less from the WSJ.

  4. Tilikum says:

    underground economy.

    just never register to vote……thats what gets ya.

  5. TRP, they know that, but that doesn’t explain how the total number of jobs is up. A person who gives up on trying to find a job when his unemployment runs out doesn’t add to that number.

    Let’s make a simple example with their numbers. In a tiny town fenced off from the rest of the world at the beginning of 2010, there were 107 people employed, and a labor participation rate of 65%, meaning there were 165 people aged 16 or older in the town. Then in March of 2014 there are suddenly 116 people employed, but the labor participation rate has dropped to 63%, meaning the town now has 184 people 16 or older in it.

    What’s happened is 19 new people climbed over the fence into town and either didn’t find jobs or displaced people who are now out of jobs. That’s the only explanation (other than simple bad numbers). Their others don’t hold water: Baby Boomers retiring would reduce both figures, not just one. Ditto for any other explanation, like men dropping out and working for cash to play video games. This indicates a growing working-age population, and it’s not coming from native-born Americans with their 2.1 kids/family.

    But the WSJ is a firm, 100% supporter of open borders, so they can’t even begin to consider that line of thinking, which leaves them looking at those two graphs and scratching their heads.

  6. deti says:

    Maybe it’s just me.

    But I’ve always found interesting that on this graph of percentage of whites with zero income, the following:

    1. There is a wide gap between married men and married women.

    2. The numbers for unmarried men and unmarried women cluster together.

    3. Married men occupy the lowest percentage of people with no income.

    4. Married women occupy the highest percentage of people with no income.

    To me, this is (some) evidence that:

    1. Married men have a strong incentive to work and earn.

    2. Married women continue to retain the option of the SAHM.

    3. There are probably a lot of single women occupying jobs that men held or could hold.

  7. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great Post!

  8. elmer says:

    The joke is that nobody standing in a job fair line has any chance of getting an actual job. The WSJ should retire that cliche stock photo.

  9. jf12 says:

    I have a son age 23, making good money as a mechanical engineer. He’s never been on a date. On my side of the family, there are five nephews. The youngest is 28, married with one child (so far) and works offshore in the petroleum industry to make money and pursues his calling of preaching otherwise. All of the others are ages 30 to 40 and usually unemployed, terminally lazy; the 40 yr old has three children with two different mothers, married twice, once to one of the mothers, and is himself living with his newest girlfriend and her mother. On my wife’s side there are three nephews, the oldest 45 and alcoholic, in and our of rehab, never married, no job, considers himself a genius, trying to peddle drunken php coding; a gay 39 yr old living the dream on a beach north of SF, “married” to a rich old man, loves decorating; and a nerdly 37 yr old that never got over nearly killing a girl in a car wreck when he was a teen – he’s a journeyman welder that has never had a girlfriend, I think, living in his mom’s garage.

  10. @ Deti 3. There are probably a lot of single women occupying jobs that men held or could hold.

    And immigrants. This piece at VDARE looks at American vs immigrant-invader employment gains:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-march-jobs-native-born-americans-still-trail-immigrants-in-obama-era-employme

    I wonder how much (if any) of the third world immigrant importation scheme is driven by a desire to replace (White) American men who can’t or won’t work.

  11. LBF, add “as cheaply as their employers would like” to your last sentence, and you’ve got it covered.

  12. Joe Blow says:

    >>>TRP, they know that, but that doesn’t explain how the total number of jobs is up.

    Fewer workers in the work force (10 million fewer since 2008, for a total work force in the low 60 million range) but more workers in part time jobs – combination of Jose, the under employed, and those needing to hold multiple jobs in order to keep the home together. You want fries with that latte?

  13. Dalrock has it.

    If society does not respect or admire men (or give them any protections from being frivorced) how can a civlized society expect men to continue being resource mules for women?

  14. Badpainter says:

    “I wonder how much (if any) of the third world immigrant importation scheme is driven by a desire to replace (White) American men who can’t or won’t work.”

    I am not an open borders advocate but….

    Having spent a lot of time working around these nuevo Americans I might suggest some employers are looking to hire people who will actually do the damn job without complaining the entire time. Believe me those employees aren’t easy to find amongst the delicate pampered natives. The language barrier is a huge problem, but work ethic more than compensates.

  15. Luke says:

    Quick excellent response to any careerist broad who openly laments that she can’t find a man (who makes 1.4x as much her to satisfy her hypergamy):

    Tell her, “You have your [would-be] husband’s job!!” Fun to watch the spinster-to-be first get confused, then wilt.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    CC
    TRP, they know that, but that doesn’t explain how the total number of jobs is up.

    Note that is not “total number of full time jobs”, it’s “total number of jobs”. Lots of organizations, both public and private, have been quietly downgrading jobs to “part time” status as a result of the Affordable Care Act. So it is not at all unlikely that the total number of jobs has increased even as the total number of full-time jobs has decreased.

    These events are not occurring in some economists ideal friction-free world, but in the real world where businesses and nonprofits alike can go bankrupt in a fairly short period of time if the managers are not careful.

  17. Joe, I thought you might be onto something with people having multiple jobs. But from what I can tell, “total nonfarm private payroll employment” is a count of people employed, not the number of jobs held. So a guy who went from one full-time job to three part-time ones would still only count once there. If someone knows otherwise, please let me know.

    But if I’m right, then a worker is a worker, and the charts don’t say anything about jobs in the first place. There are only two numbers here: the number of people working (let’s call that W), and the number of working-age people (let’s call that P). The first chart simply shows W. The second chart shows the ratio W/P. If W is going up but W/P is going down, there’s only one conclusion: P is going up even faster than W.

    According to those two charts, 9 million more people are working than were at the beginning of 2010, but about 20 million new people entered the working-age population during that same period. About 4 million of those would be legal immigrants.

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    Badpainter, I don’t buy it. I’m aware of three different meat packing plants that were raided by INS during the previous administration, one in the Southeast, one in Colorado and one in the midwest. In every case after Immigrations had removed scores to hundreds of illegals, and the plants needed workers to reopen, there were lines around the block of various-hued American citizens.

    The law of supply and demand applies to more than commodities.

  19. Will says:

    @Cail Corishev

    Regarding your quote here:
    “So a guy who went from one full-time job to three part-time ones would still only count once there. If someone knows otherwise, please let me know.”

    The actual numbers counted are off, but not through direct obfuscation of number counting.

    http://www.bls.gov/ces/cesfaq.htm#qc8

    “Establishments report the number of persons on payroll during the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. A person working multiple jobs at different establishments is counted once at each establishment. A person working different jobs at the same business establishment is counted once.”

    This indeed means that as more people need to work multiple part time jobs, and each of those part time jobs are at different establishments, some people are counted as employed more than once.

  20. Highwasp says:

    Badpainter says:
    “I am not an open borders advocate but….”

    …but ya just can’t help bashing the men.

    White male privilege has finally become front page economic news hey Badpainter? sniveling bunch of whiners with no work ethic! no wonder they are all a bunch of losers and this country needs immigration to keep functioning!

    except for these stats I just pulled outta my hat:
    (you want sources? do your own research you evil-white-male-patriarchical-selfrighteous-overprivileged-losers):

    Unsheltered Homeless (2009)
    Women – 12,000 – 4%
    Men – 240,000 – 96%

    Life Expectancy (2006)
    Women – 82.8 Years
    Men – 75.7 Years

    Suicides (2008)
    Women – 7,585 – 19%
    Men – 28,450 – 81%

    Deaths by Homicide (2004)
    Women – 3,856 – 20%
    Men – 14,717 – 80%

    Deaths from Cancer (2004)
    Women – 269,819
    Men – 290,069

    Deaths from HIV/AIDS (2004)
    Women – 3,357
    Men – 8,756

    Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research
    Women – Breast Cancer – $631,000,000 – 40,000 Deaths
    Men – Prostate Cancer – $300,000,000 – 33,000 Deaths

    Deaths on the Job (2010)
    Women – 355 – 7%
    Men – 4,192 – 93%

    Injuries on the Job (2007)
    Women – 36%
    Men – 64%

    College Enrollment (2009)
    Women – 58% – 11,658,000
    Men – 42% – 8,770,000

    Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific)
    Women – Yes
    Men – No

    Unemployment Rates (2010)
    Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000
    Men – 10.5% – 8,626,000

    Average Hours Worked Per Week (2010)
    Women – 36.1
    Men – 40.2

    High School Graduation Rates (2005)
    Women – 72%
    Men – 65%

    Incarceration Rates (2009)
    Women – 114,979 – 7%
    Men – 1,502,49 – 93%

    Child Custody Rates
    Women – 11,268,000 custodial mothers
    Men – 2,907,000 custodial fathers

    US Military Deaths From 1950 – 2010
    Women – 139 – 0.001%
    Men – 100,063 – 99.99%

    Federally Funded Battered Shelters
    Women – 2,000+ $300,000,000 per year
    Men – None – $0

    Federally Funded Health Offices and Research 1970 – Present
    (not including cancer research)
    Women Only – Office, Projects and Programs 70+ – Funds – $100,000,000,000
    Men Only – None – $0

    Forced Selective Service
    Women – No
    Men – Yes

    Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Abuse Rates (2010)
    Women – 5.8%
    Men – 12.2%

    Unfortunately, real world data shows the stark truth of men’s disposability within our society. The “delicate pampered natives” is nothing more than a bigoted term based on ignorance and hate, used to ignore and deny the brutal situation that men often face.

    “The language barrier is a huge problem, but work ethic more than compensates.”

    Right – and the profits gained from using slaves more than compensates for the increased male disposability. You Go Gurrl!

  21. fakeemail says:

    I’ve come to believe that the social movements of the 60s on were engineered by corporations in order to increase the amount of labor (women and immigrants).

  22. Highwasp…

    as Dalrock said “…whom shall we tax?”

  23. galloper6 says:

    Ever notice that those who scream the loudest for open boarder live in gated communties?

  24. galloper,

    Ever notice that those who scream the loudest for open boarder live in gated communties?

    This is wil I love Ann and why I cursed my country when we didn’t elect Mitt Romney.

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-25.html

    If you’re not sure how you feel about illegal immigration, ask yourself this: “Do I have a nanny, a maid, a pool boy, a chauffeur, a cook or a business requiring lots of cheap labor that the rest of America will have to subsidize with social services to make up for the wages I’m paying?” Press “1” to answer in English.

    If the answer is “no,” illegal immigration is a bad deal for you. Cheap labor is cheap only for the employer.

    Today, 70 percent of illegal immigrant households collect government benefits — as do 57 percent of all immigrant households — compared to 39 percent of native households.

    Immigrant households with the highest rate of government assistance are from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (tied at 75 percent). This is based on the latest available data from 2009. The immigrant households least likely to be on any welfare program are from the United Kingdom (7 percent).

    British immigrants aren’t picking the tomatoes Karl Rove doesn’t want his son to pick. (That’s how he justified Bush’s amnesty plan.)

    You can either pay a little more for tomatoes picked by Americans or you can pay a lot more in welfare to the illegal immigrants who pick them, as well as to generations of their descendants.

    Yes, many illegal immigrants work hard, but it’s not our responsibility if their employers don’t pay them a living wage. This is known as an “externality,” which we hear a lot about in the case of greedy businesses polluting the land, but not when it’s greedy businesses making the rest of us subsidize their underpaid employees.

  25. DEN1 says:

    There are some jobs, because of automation, that will never see a human hand again. Unfortunately, most of the jobs that automation displaced affect men more than women. And those jobs which automation has not affected, are being taken up by immigrant (legal and illegal) labor.

  26. Hey! DA GBFM has da solutionz!!

    All dat men must do is LEARN SOME GAME!

    Dat way dey will need a jobz so dey can afford a furry hat like mysteteirez!

    PROBLEM SOLCVEDX!

    Da gbfm at your serviceezo1o1!

    lzlzlzozozlzozo

  27. Open immigration for all robots!!!!!

  28. sunshinemary says:

    I’ve read multiple articles at The Atlantic (like this one: How to Save Marriage in America ) suggesting that women should be the breadwinners now and fathers should stay home with the children. Despite our elites pushing this utopian role-swap model, most women don’t adore this idea. I don’t think most men love the idea either and probably won’t be as likely to marry if they don’t think they have a reasonable chance of earning a living wage, and if they think they probably won’t ever marry, they’ll have less incentive to even try to improve their job prospects.

    That’s a pretty scary circle there, when you stop and think about it.

  29. MarcusD says:

    If someone drops out of the workforce, the government no longer counts them as unemployed to game the number and make it look better than it is.

    The BLS keeps multiple statistics when it comes to (un)employment – it’s a matter of which statistic is cited.

  30. deti says:

    Sunshine:

    I agree that most women aren’t enamored of the idea that they should be the breadwinners and their husbands should be SAHFs (Stay-At-Home-fathers). But most women DO very much like the idea of having as many choices as possible. ONe of those choices is to work at a not very physically or mentally demanding job, for a while, so long as men bail her out and do the taxing work; until she no longer wants to do that job and can then transition into motherhood and SAHM status.

    I think that’s one of the problems the OP and the graph points up, and that you’ve discussed at your blog before — jobs being taken up by women earning their feminist merit badges, when there are men who would do them and would stay in them longer. Many women simply don’t stay in full time employment because they simply don’t want to.

  31. The One says:

    When the country was still christian men would work to fulfill their mission of serving god and women would come later. With both religion and marriage incentives, 3d porn or monks are the future.

  32. jf12 says:

    Monk porn = icons. Another good investment.

  33. Elspeth says:

    But most women DO very much like the idea of having as many choices as possible.

    That’s true.

  34. enrique432 says:

    There was a discussion here lately in the DC area (conservative talk radio) about how allegedly, high-status women in the DC area looked down on SAHMs. What they didn’t seem to realize is, about five feet out of the District, being a SAHM, with a well-paid/earning husband is considered the HIGHEST of status (or is it “stata”?). Being able to live in a fancy neighborhood, have your 2.3 kids in school all day, while you hit GOLDS, grab a mocha and perhaps have a “night nanny” (another new invention) do the cooking and all, is basically akin to second-tier Royalty in some countries. Many of these women practiced law for one year, or were teachers for two years, or “ran a business” from home for a few months, before deciding that letting him do all the work was most fun.

    Ironically, many of them worked while their 2.3 kids were babies, hiring a nanny to take care of them, then quite their jobs when their 2.3 kids were in public (or private, preferably) schools, as if they wanted to avoid actual mothering. Still can’t figure out the SAHM aspect of a woman with two kids in school, particularly teens…

    the reality is, most women don’t want to work, which is why you hear “Oh, I just want to be a stay at home mom, etc” all the time. It’s not for the kids, it’s because they don’t like dealing with bosses, schedules and stress. If it were for the kids, they’d be back at work in a few years, doing SOMETHING.

  35. sunshinemary says:

    Good lord, if this woman is what men have to look forward to working with, no wonder they are becoming more interested in cheetos and video games:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/technology/technologys-man-problem.html?_r=0

    And on a side note, someone ought to help poor Pax Dickinson locate his missing manhood.

    Crikey, what an article. I think if I were a man, one interaction with the likes of Ms. Shevinsky would turn me into a confirmed bachelor working at 7-11 for life.

    @ deti
    Yeah, I know what you’re saying, and I agree. I think women should pursue flexible fields if they’re going to work outside the home, but my reasoning is that this flexibility should be used to serve her family, not her own selfish preferences.

  36. Badpainter says:

    Highwasp,

    Several things:

    1. I am a white man.
    2. in my last career there was an ever increasing amount of immigrant mexican labor. They were paid the same as everyone else because; union contract not minimum wage work.
    3. Collectively they worked harder than any other demographic; black,white, old, young, redneck or yankee, etc. Because of this I’d see the same faces all over the country, poor workers do not get invited to the next job.
    4. I agree the system is rigged if not actually against white men, than certainly with a bias in favor of those other than white men.
    5. American workers regardless of race, sex, job, or age are often whiners about doing the job they are hired to do. See UAW for example.
    6. Some jobs Americans just won’t/can’t do. Like picking vegetables which is actually highly skilled work.
    7. The problems with labor market aren’t solely or even largely because of immigration. The real culprits are off-shoring, Wall Street’s quarterly investment horizon, and corrupt government/big business relationships where rent seeking is more profitable than innovation, invention, or production.

  37. John VI says:

    Do keep in mind that the government doesnt actually COUNT new jobs created. They use a mathematical formula that turns how much money the government pumps into the economy ie “stimulus” and they apply a formula to it that turns every X million dollars into Y new jobs.

    There could be NO new jobs anywhere, less jobs than last year, or any number of unexpected complications to jobs and employment numbers in the US and the Government wouldnt even begin to know how to count it, let alone FIX it… Because all these numbers are a STATISTICAL Fiction, brought to you by paid government flunkies whose jobs depend on maintaining the fiction, NOT on providing useful data.

  38. MarcusD says:

    Something highly amusing (slightly NSFW): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2598969/Taking-flirting-new-level-Dress-turns-transparent-detects-youre-turned-on.html

    To me it describes, in a nearly analogous way, the state of modesty in the US: immodesty displayed for those men that women want to be attracted to them (i.e. who they themselves are attracted to), and modesty for those men that they don’t want attracted to them.

  39. Bucho says:

    I skimmed both Dalrock’s and SSM’s linked articles. Both articles remind me how mentally exhausting having a career is. And that’s not even taking into account fulfilling the actual job description part.

    No wonder people are supposedly dropping out of the workforce. Navigating the job search and interview gauntlets are tough enough. Then once you get the job, you have to deal with a bunch of fluff that eats away at your productivity….

  40. Yep, same as the bra that unclasps for the magic person.

    It’s like that line from Harry Potter, near the end. “If you have to ask, you will never know. But if you know, you need only ask.”

  41. Casey says:

    It seems to me that society is ’rounding a corner’ so to speak.

    Men are getting wise to the rigging of the roulette wheel. They may or may not fully understand their participation in a ‘Going Galt’ movement…..but it seems to be happening nonetheless.

    Take Highwasps list of statistics, and extrapolate that reality to the largest generation since the Baby Boomers, their children…..the Millennials (or Gen Y).

    With each household created without a solid father figure, you run a high likelihood of a maladjusted child. For girls, it means a perpetuation of poor attitude, and lack of respect for self & others. For boys, it means a lack of quality in character & principles.

    Boys grow up into men, these men see little benefit in trying when they have nary a masculine thought that hasn’t been feminized down to meaninglessness. Dad wasn’t present to counter the feminine culture.

    Girls grow up into women, these women believe the claptrap that they are somehow oppressed. Yet all the while women are oppressing men in ever new diabolical ways.

    Welcome to equality girls, you get to carry more of the burden alone, while simultaneously failing at motherhood, mate-hood, AND career-hood.

    Brilliant. Ladies, you are your own worst enemy.

  42. jf12 says:

    @Casey re: “own worst enemy”. Women and their enablers often or usually blame men for not preventing the women as sternly as they could have. “Why were you so stupid as to have believed me when I lied?” “Why weren’t you strong enough to have carried her bodily away from that bar?” “Why did you give your wife access to the main account, knowing how she is about shoes?”

  43. embracing reality says:

    Where have all the gone earners gone?

    I’m a good earner who’s thinking about leaving the US and I won’t tell them where I’ve gone.

  44. Johnycomelately says:

    One in every seven unmarried men in their peach marriage age (30-34) earn zero income and when that bus passes it quickly hits 1 in every 4, incentives?

    Shame the unmarried women can’t be subdivided by those that are single no children and those that are unmarried but with children and child support, I have a sneaking feeling that a lot more single unmarried women with no children are working.

  45. Mark says:

    @SSM

    Thanks for the article over at the Atlantic.A very good read! I know a quite few guys that that the article pertains to that are involved in “HIP” marriages.The article is correct in stating that the parents are committed to their children.What the article does not state is that these men who are committed to their children are not committed to their wives.Every guy that I know that is involved in a “HIP” marriage has a ‘booty call’ on the side.

  46. MarcusD says:

    Weight Struggles – Maybe God’s path for me is to NOT be thin?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=873125

  47. MarcusD says:

    http://watchdog.org/136876/study-school-spending/

    “The 0.075 figure reported here suggests that there is essentially no link between state education spending (which has exploded) and the performance of students at the end of high school (which has generally stagnated or declined),” Coulson wrote in the 60-page report.

    All the more reason to increase funding – so it can continue to be a training ground for people of certain political leanings. [/sarcasm]

  48. feeriker says:

    underground economy

    The only kind that can function in the long run in our Sovietized, overregulated environment. Not that the neocon ideologues who run the War Street Journal will ever be capable of figuring that out.

  49. Tam the Bam says:

    ” .. need a jobz so dey can afford a furry hat like mysteteirez!”
    So my carefully scraped, brained and smoked roadkill collection was a waste of my time? Oh no da GBFM, whatever shall I do?
    (Although I shall still wear the badger loincloth in private. With woad).

  50. Opus says:

    Amusing to see that Ann Coulter seems to like the idea of British Emigrants to the United States picking tomatoes. What Miss Coulter overlooks is that about fifteen per cent of people who call themselves British look more like the immigrants she despises: on that basis I would be entirely happy for British Emigrants to decamp to The United States.

    Yesterday I was in Witchfinder General country (half timbered Sixteenth-century house, Cockrels running freely in the road – though Vincent Price was missing – the national flag patriotically waving on many buildings, the landscape, flat, Rape-seed being grown in the fields – its quite different where I am though that is only fifty miles away): in the middle of nowhere, amongst old corrugated-iron farm buildings, all sorts of small businesses producing things – my concern was a business recycling used IT equipment. My friend is a Parish Councillor and he tells me that the Council sent a questionnaire to the 1700 hundred households in the Parish. The survey revealed that no less than in excess of three hundred of them were running businesses – small scale perhaps, but I thought that a remarkable figure. People clearly have incentives.

    We are so rich that the Prime Minister has been boasting that he has given away Eleven Billion Pounds worth of our money to Third World countries. That must be about $15 American billion. Places like India, where last Sunday broadcast live from Bombay the BBC Scottish Symphony (on Tour) gave a concert – I think that remarkable – whilst the rest of India were glued to the Cricket. Including setting up the first printing press in India and their first three Universities in 1813 what have we not given that sub-continent.

  51. Tam the Bam says:

    “The survey revealed that no less than in excess of three hundred of them were running businesses – small scale perhaps, but I thought that a remarkable figure. People clearly have incentives.”
    I’d need more info on these microbusinesses before I doff my titfer and sing Rule Brittania (written by a Jethart loon, i.e. a Sweaty like me, I note with satisfaction).
    I have a nasty feeling that a lot of it may have to do with the thankfully soon-to-be-abolished “Working Tax Credits”, or Speenhamland System de-nos-jours.
    Effectively, Outdoor Relief, simply an outright dole for indigent cottars/electronic homesteaders who are willing or able to assert that they are starting up some sort of notional enterprise.

    Otherwise they would be compelled to swell the unemployment rosters, since the ready availability of almost wage-free labour has persuaded the Proprietors that the labourer is in fact not worthy of his hire, and can in fact be used as a helot, either as an undocumented/”self-employed” EU migrant or as a virtual slave on a “zero-hours contract”, or even the sleazy “work-experience” bondage for native youth, that the likes of Tesco gleefully seized on. With the “externalities” i.e food, shelter, nominal pay of course being sucked up by the idiot taxpayers along with the formerly waged but now discarded employees they displaced, same as “Tax Credits”. Which is my gripe with the scam. Especially as the profits thereby generated are eventually placed beyond the reach of HMRC’s highly selective grasp.

  52. sue says:

    So many (young) single women taking up sustainable jobs which men could do (and probably do better). The single women are going their own way because they see no other choice. Way too many men their age, and older, prefer the easy life with mom – no rent and no trips to the laundry mat. Everytime i turn around, i hear of yet another 20 or 30-something man mooching off mommy. You’d think mom would get fed up – oh, some do, but beefing about it is about as far as it goes.

  53. Opus says:

    @Tam the Bam

    Such cynicism

    Rule Brittania was written in 1740 by Thomas Arne (one of the many – although in this case perhaps forgivable – things the P.M. got wrong on Letterman – ah, the benefits of an Eton and Oxford education) – and comes from the Masque Alfred – a Masque, for those who do not know, being an English alternative to Opera – a rival thereto, rather like Betamax; so you don’t get them these days.

  54. jf12 says:

    @sue, I can imagine many of the single young men would be a lot more amenable to working hard if they suspected there would be tangible rewards, such as a warm body in their bed they can poke in the rear of a night.

  55. jf12 says:

    Re: unsexy sons. Given that even moms don’t want nerd sons around, I wonder if moms have a harder time cutting the umbilicals of sexy sons, even though the sexy sons probably reproduce more out from under mom’s roof.

  56. Just Saying says:

    This is easy – there is no return for men to “play by the rules” any longer. When you can have a PhD in a topic and two post-docs and a woman without a PhD, and never published a paper can be hired over you, where is the incentive to work? I’ve seen it happen more times then I care to think about. When I started my first company and couldn’t get business and found out from a friend that he had two businesses fail because he owned them (white and male), but the one he had a partner (black and female) as the owner and that one had more business than they could handle. It becomes pretty obvious that playing by the rules doesn’t work if you aren’t a member of a “favored group”. I learned and started to “game” the system – just like I learned what works and doesn’t work with women.

    Don’t blame men for catching on that the odds are stacked against them. Blame a Government that is set on the destruction of the economy and punishing those that built this country. The US is doomed. Everyone knows it – most of us are preparing to jump ship ASAP. I have been off-shoring businesses, after building them up by gaming the system to reduce my tax load – you would be amazed at how many incentives there are to move OUT of the US. It’s all “legal” which is the only bar that counts, but the money never comes into the US, and is never owned by a US entity. When I retire I will look like any of a million schmoe’s that are leaving the US, but I’ll have other revenue streams that I’ll be able to finally tap. That is what smart people are doing. The US is in a race to the bottom. The Liberals always hated that the US lived better than others – so they are dead set to destroy the wealth of this country. Why do you think manufacturing is gone? (That was the fastest way into the middle-class. So those jobs went first.) Why do you think you are taxed to death? They want you to fail… It’s time to give up and look out for number one. Children born in the US today are going to be worse off then 3rd World children of 30+ years ago in the next 10-20 years. The US is a has-been. It’s days of greatness are behind it – killed on the spear of Liberal Progress.

    When all you do in import poverty, reward failure, and penalize hard work and effort – all you grow is poverty… Simple. And they act like this isn’t exactly what they want. Anyone with a brain can see this is where their policies lead. Romney understood – and the American people said they want mediocrity and failure by re-electing a failure – and they are getting just what they wanted… Why do you think I’ve been going to China? The US is doomed, so I’m setting up for the future. Have your children learn Mandarin if you want to do something for them – their “Masters” will be from China so they might as well learn how to talk to them. Look on the bright side – at least their wives will be lovely, sweet, and feminine – at least if they marry Chinese women…

  57. Marissa says:

    Still can’t figure out the SAHM aspect of a woman with two kids in school, particularly teens…

    Laziness? If you’re a SAHM, you should be homeschooling.

  58. Sue,

    Funny that in your little description about how women are going their own way, you only mention “Mom” getting “mooched off.” You mention mom several times, but any mention of dad is absent.

    So in other words, mom was either a single mom or frivorced dad, and now the sons don’t want to get frivorced themselves, huh?

  59. Tam the Bam says:

    James Thompson. Arne set it to a bangin’ choon.

  60. Elspeth says:

    Still can’t figure out the SAHM aspect of a woman with two kids in school, particularly teens…

    I had three kids in school, and my husband didn’t want me to go to work even though I really, really wanted to. That was his call. I spent so much time at my kids’ school that people thought I worked there. When they started middle school I got myself on track to go to work but then we had two more kids.

    Laziness? If you’re a SAHM, you should be homeschooling.

    We are homeschooling now but even if we weren’t he wouldn’t want me to go to work. Ultimately, it’s up to the man of the house how his wife spends her time. Period.

  61. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    >> there were lines around the block of various-hued American citizens.

    Yes, and I believe that. But how long did they last? The tomato growers found the same thing a couple years ago. A lot of Anglos came to work, and most were gone before noon. Only one lasted two weeks.

    A personal anecdote on American vs. Mexican workers. I live in Mexico, and many of our neighbors at one time were illegals in the US. We are doing work on our house. Sometimes we get cement in 110 pound (50 kg) bags. I bring in a few. One of the cousins was absolutely shocked when he saw me carry in a 110 pound bag, not least because he well knows I am older than 70.

    He said in all his years in the USA he never saw any North American any age, move over 50 pounds of anything. I thought he was joking; he was not.

    A few weeks after he first told me that, we drove back to the border. I bought a five gallon bucket of paint at Wal-mart. The young thirty something man working there asked me if I wanted him to put the bucket back in my cart after he colored it. I laughed and told him, “I may be old, but I am not dead yet.” And, added that in Mexico, I help move the 110 pound bags of cement.

    He whined, “I tried that once. They are too heavy. I almost broke my back.” So, yes, anyone with any brains doesn’t want North Americans for any work involving physical labor.

    My last job in the Sixties before becoming an electronic technician was at a feed mill. I used to take 3 of the 50 pound concentrate bags from the pile to the truck, each trip. Total each trip, obviously 150 pounds. I could carry 4, total 200 pounds, but it tired me too fast. No one even noticed. In the 60’s, that was not worthy of note.

    @embracing reality says:
    April 7, 2014 at 11:45 pm

    >>Where have all the gone earners gone?

    >>I’m a good earner who’s thinking about leaving the US and I won’t tell them where I’ve gone.

    Study hard on it before the move, but from my perspective, and having contact with many expats, you will never regret it. The biggest problem is finding work. Not all can transport their skills, which is why I didn’t expat until I retired.

    As far as not telling them where you have gone, be aware you must still file income taxes, as barbarian as that sounds. You get a large exemption, but it has to be filed.

    If you really drop out of US and never need go back for anything, then maybe it doesn’t matter.

    sue says:
    April 8, 2014 at 5:59 am

    Um, maybe those mommies should punch a feminist in the mouth? Hee, hee. Your own sex demanded the changes which caused men to drop out, or to be unable to find work even if they want. I guarantee you my sex was telling them, “This is a really bad idea.” They called us every name in the book. I for one think every modern woman should be supporting a man, heh, heh.

  62. Marissa says:

    We are homeschooling now but even if we weren’t he wouldn’t want me to go to work. Ultimately, it’s up to the man of the house how his wife spends her time. Period.

    Don’t be so provincial, Elspeth. The vast majority of SAHMs who send their kids off to public school do not have a “man of the house” set up. The wives do what they want regardless of their husband’s input. That’s why blogs like this exist in the first place. You already know you are an exception to most marriages, so try not to get offended every single time your experience doesn’t fit in to the vast majority when that majority is criticized.

  63. Boxer says:

    The single women are going their own way because they see no other choice.

    The choices were made by their mothers and grandmothers, who wanted to “have it all”. They “had it all” at the expense of their daughters and granddaughters. All that social capital has been wasted on boy toys and martinis, and then some. You sluts are in the red now.

    The vast majority of women aren’t worth a cup of coffee. I — and all my friends, not just those with game — can now have my way with one of these ho’s for no money at all. Nearly all of them are laboring under the delusion that they will one day get wifed up by one of us, but I don’t see that happening very often.

    In short, the single women who have “gone their own way” are like prostitutes, only without the title. When we want to get married, we’ll head to Asia or Eastern Europe and find a fit, hot, marriageable specimen. No American ho can compete. You’re only good for f**k and chuck.

    Regards, Boxer

  64. Elspeth says:

    You already know you are an exception to most marriages, so try not to get offended every single time your experience doesn’t fit in to the vast majority when that majority is criticized.

    It wasn’t offense, Marissa. I wasn’t offended, just pointing out something that is often missed in these discussions. That ultimately it’s up to a man to decide for himself how he wants his wife to be his helper.

    I feel exactly the same way when I read railings against wives who are working at their husband’s command. And there are a lot of women who work when they’d rather not.

    The majority of Western women are every bit as horrid as is pointed out here, but my comment wasn’t about that, but about taking care not to pass judgment on what a wife should or shouldn’t be doing. The only thing we can say with certainty that she should be doing is living in godly submission to her husband.

  65. jf12 says:

    @Boxer, tell ‘em to bring their own Skittles. Oh wait, better yet, qual them with “If you can snatch this Skittle from my hand, then you will know you are ready.”

  66. Marissa says:

    I’m sorry, Elspeth. You are just so different from the kind of women we are talking about. I don’t even consider you in the same species. So when I say something about the really heinous people who use up their husbands and ignore their children, you are never included in that. Most of the wives who are either working or not working are not doing so at the behest of their husbands. Most of the things they are doing are not even at the behest of their husbands.

  67. Novaseeker says:

    There was a discussion here lately in the DC area (conservative talk radio) about how allegedly, high-status women in the DC area looked down on SAHMs. What they didn’t seem to realize is, about five feet out of the District, being a SAHM, with a well-paid/earning husband is considered the HIGHEST of status (or is it “stata”?). Being able to live in a fancy neighborhood, have your 2.3 kids in school all day, while you hit GOLDS, grab a mocha and perhaps have a “night nanny” (another new invention) do the cooking and all, is basically akin to second-tier Royalty in some countries. Many of these women practiced law for one year, or were teachers for two years, or “ran a business” from home for a few months, before deciding that letting him do all the work was most fun.

    Exactly. It’s what I’ve been writing in comboxes for years. In some parts of the country (and greater DC is clearly one), this is the highest status for a woman. It has pre-requisites, however. One of them is actually collecting the degrees, including professional degrees, and working at a prestigious enough job for long enough such that the “box is checked” in terms of credibility when it comes to saying things like “Yeah, I miss my career sometimes, but I’m just so blessed that I had the option to spend more time with my kids” and so on. The important part is that she establishes credibility in that she *could* do what the career woman is doing, but chooses not to – and having that choice available without taking a significant lifestyle hit is the ultimate luxury good for women in this class. “I could work and be in the corner office just like you, but I don’t have to, and live the same lifestyle you do without having to work, while spending more time with my kids … don’t you hate me now, bitch?” kind of thing.

    As Dalrock has said, there is the “feminist merit badge” to be earned before a woman can make this choice without losing credibility with the herd. If that path is followed the choice is seen as “empowering”, whereas if it is taken before the feminist merit badge is duly collected, it is seen as oppressive. Of course, there are women like Sandberg who see all women who make that kind of choice as sex traitors, but they are not the majority of any given local herd of educated women. There is a divide between the women who make this choice and the women who choose to chase the brass ring themselves, but the criticism is muted for women who have the feminist merit badge.

  68. Just Saying,

    When all you do in import poverty, reward failure, and penalize hard work and effort – all you grow is poverty… Simple. And they act like this isn’t exactly what they want. Anyone with a brain can see this is where their policies lead. Romney understood – and the American people said they want mediocrity and failure by re-electing a failure – and they are getting just what they wanted…

    I agree with all of this.

  69. Cicero says:

    Well looking at the numbers shows that Etienne Bastiat was right on the money.

  70. sue,

    So many (young) single women taking up sustainable jobs which men could do (and probably do better). The single women are going their own way because they see no other choice. Way too many men their age, and older, prefer the easy life with mom – no rent and no trips to the laundry mat.

    Of course sue. Makes perfect sense. Why work when Uncle Sam just takes away so much money for taxes? He can’t take what you didn’t make. As far as living at home goes, mom can’t frivorce their sons the way she frivorced his dad. Or, mom is getting her apartment for free from government (section 8) so why should he move out and pay rent? Just stay with mom until her death, then figure something out.

    Everytime i turn around, i hear of yet another 20 or 30-something man mooching off mommy. You’d think mom would get fed up – oh, some do, but beefing about it is about as far as it goes

    She needs son at home because she frivorced dad (or never married dad.) Son sleeps all day but when she can finally wake him up, he lifts and moves furniture and fixes the toilet. Adult son at home is physical protection for mom. Now she is not alone.

  71. Luke says:

    1) Good luck on broke American men landing a Chinese wife 15 years from now when we’re all broke and ruled by the People’s Republic of China (official name for mainland, or “Red” China). The decades of widespread selective-sex abortions targeting female fetuses (in cities) and infanticide of girl infants (in rural areas) has resulted in tens of millions of fewer marriage-age women than of men in the PRC. Plus, the young single women there now have hypergamy of a level comparable to or exceeding those in the largest, most liberal cities in the U.S., such that half or more of the unmarried men in China RIGHT NOW are in despair that they’ll ever be able to afford a wife.

    2) A distant relative of mine runs a taxi service. One of his female drivers (40-ish, former meth user) was supporting herself by picking vegetables in fields when he hired her. So, at least some native-born Americans are both able and willing to do picking work. (End the criminal justice system’s “catch and release” policy of arresting/releasing/rearresting hoodlums, along with shutting down the welfare system, including WIC/AFDC or whatever they’re called today, and there’d be PLENTY of Americans willing to pick in fields, and stay with it.)

    3) Agreed most SAHMs should be homeschooling. I met a recently retired (30 years at it) schoolteacher yesterday; she told me that this new Common Core thing was what she got out. (I’d already decided that anything the government or Education degree holders was involved in wasn’t going to enter my kids’ minds.)

  72. Seth Connor says:

    As a 20-30 y/o in the top 5% (actually higher) of earners in the country, I can tell you that I’ve gone (wife hunting) to Ukraine. If that doesn’t work out, Colombia beckons.

  73. Cicero says:

    Correction not Ettiene Basiat. Frederic Basiat. I confused the name with that of Ettiene de la Boetie. My apologies for the mistake.

  74. BradA says:

    Anon71, I would tend to agree that most Americans are not into heavy labor, but I think a big part of the problem is that business here doesn’t pay enough to make that worthwhile. Thus only those at the bottom of the chain are willing to do the work so cheaply. Stop importing such workers and the price will rise to a price it is worth it for manual labor or to automate it (if possible).

    Someone else moaned about manufacturing jobs. Those will never return to what they were. Too many things are automated now and I am very glad for it. I do not want to return to the 1700s or earlier! We have some serious adapting to do, but going back is not a good idea.

    IBB, you think Romney would be any different? Ha! Just a slightly slower speed toward the wall, but no significant change in direction. Think Romneycare as an example. Republicans are trying to jump on the “more immigration” bandwagon as well, even though most disagree with it.

    Frivorce is an issue, but it is not the only issue.

  75. Sue, you obviously don’t get it, do you? Mooching off mom is better than getting married to an American women. Ouch! That’s got to hurt!

  76. It’s all about responsibility and reward. Society decided to remove those two things from men and replace them with welfare and women’s rights, and now is getting it’s ‘reward’.

  77. Titanium says:

    The U-6 number is the one to track. Even so, I don’t trust any number coming out of the current administration.

  78. If employers are struggling to find labor, then that’s a signal they need to raise wages. Or they could call picking crops “agricultural internships.” That way lots of white college kids will be lining up to do it for free.

  79. Brad,

    IBB, you think Romney would be any different?

    Yes, of course. That goes without saying. McCain would not have been any better because he didn’t really know anything. Romney knew what all the problems were and he would have moved in the opposite direction that President Obama is/has.

    Ha! Just a slightly slower speed toward the wall, but no significant change in direction. Think Romneycare as an example. Republicans are trying to jump on the “more immigration” bandwagon as well, even though most disagree with it.

    Massachusetts had (prior to Romneycare) the highest percentage of college educated adults in the country. They still do. They also had the highest percentage of health insured in the country. This was all prior to Romneycare.

    The goal of Romney care was to force the 24 year old “invincible” male who makes $35/hour (cash) temping at Fidelity Investments to buy something incase he broke his leg. He was temp and wasn’t going to buy any insurance even though he could.

    Mitt Romney forcing a mandate upon the people of Massachusetts to buy something almost all of them already bought (or got every single time they changed jobs, provided they weren’t temping for cash) meant next to nothing for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Romney understood this. President Obama does not and apparently, neither do you.

    Frivorce is an issue, but it is not the only issue.

    Not the only issue but it is the main one. There are fewer and fewer incentives for men to marry and greater and greater disincentives. So President Obama (instead of fixing the problem) doubled-down on frivorce to try and force young bachelor males to marry (against their will) or else pay the “bachelor tax” (Obamacare) since there really is no real reason why a young single male should have health insurance.

  80. Random Angeleno says:

    Tech outfits would rather expand H-1B visas than pay more money. Listening to Zuckerberg expand on this topic makes me sick. Have to stop reading that crap.

    Tons of older tech workers included in that U-6 number, but most of them can’t get callbacks for interviews. Because the Zuckerbergs and the Pages of the tech world are not only determined to be cheap, they’re determined to hire younger so they can work these kids to the bone.

  81. Random A,

    Tech outfits would rather expand H-1B visas than pay more money. Listening to Zuckerberg expand on this topic makes me sick. Have to stop reading that crap.

    I just gave two weeks notice yesterday. (Got a 10% pay bump at my next job plus better management structure.) When I informed management the first thing that happened is the CIO yelled at all the directors for allowing us to be that “vulnerable” such that my resignation f-cks them as hard as it has. They informed the business (whom I support with custom applications) that I was leaving and the business went over the CIO’s head and told the CEO that he better do something because they have no confidence that any furhter work will be done for them. CEO said we have a hiring freeze and there is nothing he can do… so the director of that business told me he is now looking for a job.

    Temporarily they are looking at H-1Bs. But I have a lot of sources who inform me that they are too expensive to bring in temporarily. Company just wont do it.

    They don’t backfill H-1B Visas as much as you’d like to think because importing India and letting them live here is still MORE expensive that hiring people because there is the “middle man” who eats quite a bit of the hourly rate paid for each H-1B-Indian you grab. Moreover the H-1B-Indians do NOT think outside the box (the don’t know the business, they can only code.) Unless they have a clear, precise, business requirement document, (that the business does not know how to write because they are too busy doign their own job) you don’t get any real production from the H-1B.

    So it is coming around…. getting H-1Bs is pennywise, pound foolish. And we all know the triangle:

    Cheap-Fast-Stable: Pick TWO (only two)

  82. BradA says:

    IBB, worship the state with Republicans in charge if you want. Both are immoral and will collapse the system. They will not receive my support any more.

  83. Well you asked a question Brad. I gave you an honest answer. If that is not good enough, save your meaningless rhetoric because I don’t want to hear it.

  84. Just Saying says:

    @Luke: Good luck on broke American men landing a Chinese wife 15 years from now

    Yeah – that was mostly added for the humor value, since American women are basically the worst of the worst these days – although they are quick to spread their legs when young, so there are certain pluses which keeps me amused…

    All of your points about China as far as shortages of women and such are all true if you look at the numbers – yet, there are mitigating circumstances if you aren’t Chinese. Like most of the men are in rural areas and they (men) cannot just move like you would in the US. As such, they have to stay where they are – and of course the women are big into “marrying up” (that doesn’t change) and the fact is that “light/pale” skin is a major plus, as are “round” eyes, and “prominent” nose – so those broke white guys have some major physical pluses when it comes to Chinese women. Of course if you are going there to live – you have to work – but you aren’t penalized as you are in the US. I spent most of my time in cities – and there are a LOT of women there. I was impressed at the number of VERY ATTRACTIVE women – unlike the Land-whales that waddle about in the US.

    Yes, you are *always* a foreigner – but hey, in the US I feel more out of place since I believe in hard work and getting rewarded for it – that is downright un-American these days. I constantly shake my head that a Communist country (China), is more Capitalist than the US… But the US gave up on Capitalist ideals long ago in favor of Socialism – read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” – it’s almost prophetic in how eerily similar it is to the US today. But there is no Galt’s Gulch in the US… And when the Japanese bring out sex-bots, the US will be done for – those guys in basements will never come out – but they will have all sorts of “patches” and “hacks” for their sex-bots… (snicker) :)

    Seems in the US, I’m a foreigner these days – so I might as well go to China (or elsewhere), where they acknowledge that I’m a foreigner, but they can work with me. The US basically operates with a gun pointed at you these days, If you are male, you ARE the enemy from the Government’s position – heck, you are: a rapist, a pedophile, a racist, and whatever else they can think of to call you when they aren’t picking your pockets, and using you like an ATM. So when it comes to the US these days – it’s easier to just punt and go elsewhere. If you can… No point in fighting a battle where to “win” is to “lose”… I mean – imagine if the MRA’s get everything they want – they still are stuck with American women, and the present trip to Socialism… Thanks… But… Um… No thanks, I really don’t like that option…

  85. TFH says:

    Opus,

    I understand that you would have only grown up reading textbooks which said that India ‘benefited hugely’ from British Colonization. Now for starters :

    1) Yes, the British were the best possibility among other Europeans seeking to colonize India. The Portuguese, French, Dutch, and Danish all were vying for control of India.
    2) Yes, Indians were morons for letting themselves even be colonized this way, and letting the colonizer take their wealth. The colonizer cannot be blamed if you just make it too easy for them…. sort of like a mangina who gets swindled by a woman.
    3) India’s failure after 1947 is not the fault of the British, but rather the fault of India not taking economic lessons from America during the Cold War (and to a lesser extent, Britain).

    But what you are wrong about is the following :

    1) Britain did leave India much poorer than they found it. An astronomical sum of gems and precious metals were seized from India and taken to Britain. This includes the Koh-i-Noor diamond, as well as many shiploads of silver. Recently, 48 tons of silver that the British took from India, were recovered from the ocean floor (the ship sank en route to Britain).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176025/SS-Gairsoppa-US-company-recovers-48-tons-silver-British-wartime-shipwreck.html

    This is in sharp contrast to America, which doesn’t merely take Middle Eastern oil, but buys it from the Gulf at market prices, and even develops the fields for them (allowing Gulf Arabs to become rich from their own natural resources). The treatment of Gulf Arabs by the US vs. that of India by the UK shows a major difference between a win-win vs. a steal-from-them mentality.

    2) Winston Churchill, in 1943, diverted food from India to feed British soldiers during WW2, knowing full well that millions of Indians would die of starvation. While that is not a direct killing of people (like Hitler did), it was still a deliberate decision that was made knowing millions would starve. Churchill deliberately starved 3 million Indians to death.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    3) As per The Economist (a British magazine) India was 25% of World GDP in 1701 and 16% in 1820 (more than Britain at each time), but fell to 1% of world GDP by 1947. Note the precipitous decline under British colonization.

    http://futurist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452455969e201543830d4b6970c-pi

    That India’s decline as an economic superpower coincides with colonization, is indisputable.

    India was never poorer than Europe for the 5000 years before the 19th century, but as per above point 2), British plundering was pretty thorough.

    4) Indian troops fought for Britain in both World Wars (even while Churchill was diverting food away from India). Over 100,000 Indian troops died for the British Empire,

    5) English Language : That has pros and cons. Sure, it enables Indians to work overseas, and for Hollywood to earn some ticket sales in India. At the same time, most ‘feminist’ content is also in English (due to its origins in the US and UK), and so ‘feminist’ memes and thus laws get enacted in India much faster than in China, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Italy, or even France. The English language means India takes in whatever is the dominant meme of the US or UK at any given time. At this time, that is ‘feminism’…

    ___________________________________________________________________

    So, Opus, while those who claim that India only lost from British colonization are wrong, it is equally wrong to claim that India gained an immense benefit from British presence. I understand that you would have only read textbooks indicating a major bias in favor of wonders of British colonization (much like the same textbooks claim that most of America’s success is due to Britain).

  86. Opus says:

    I am always impressed when Americans (in this case TFH) show such knowledge about other countries.

  87. TFH says:

    Opus,

    What Miss Coulter overlooks is that about fifteen per cent of people who call themselves British look more like the immigrants she despises: on that basis I would be entirely happy for British Emigrants to decamp to The United States.

    So, 85% are white English, then?

    At any rate, neither English nor British-Indian immigrants to the US pick tomatoes. Both are at the top of the skill ladder, and work in knowledge-based professions.

    I doubt that the Jamaican-British immigrants to he US pick tomatoes either, even while not being high on the skill ladder. Not sure what they do upon arrival…..

    Now, about Miss Ann Coulter, she dated Dinesh D’Souza for a long time (as did a few other women who seem to look very similar to her), that too in the 1980s, when she was young and pretty. So she is ultimately a skills bigot (as am I), rather than a skin-color bigot. If anything, D’Souza’s Republican-ness appeared to be irresistable to Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and his eventual wife, Dixie Brubaker.

    This too from a UK publication, the Daily Mail.

    IBB,

    Take note. I mentioned before how your best bet is for your daughter to marry an Indian or Chinese man. They are the ‘beta bux’ you covet, and are also raised to give tremendous respect to their father-in-law (you).

    Although, as per the link above, Dinesh D’Souza is an alpha.

  88. TFH,

    That was nice. Very detailed. Sadly it might not have any impact on Opus and his “outlook.”

  89. TFH says:

    IBB,

    That was nice. Very detailed. Sadly it might not have any impact on Opus and his “outlook.”

    Opus is a brilliant man, and I agree with him on every issue, except the issue of Britain’s divine benevolence in ‘creating’ my country (the United States of America) and ‘saving’ my parents’ country (India pre-partition, which is now 4 countries).

    To be fair, British school textbooks from the era of when Opus was a schoolboy, were far more nationalistically biased than comparable textbooks in the US, India, or most other countries. You have to admire how much Brits of that era loved their country (a lot of this was a suave of patriotism to assuage the feelings of loss after losing the vast colonies they had across the world).

  90. Just Saying,

    Yes, you are *always* a foreigner – but hey, in the US I feel more out of place since I believe in hard work and getting rewarded for it – that is downright un-American these days. I constantly shake my head that a Communist country (China), is more Capitalist than the US… But the US gave up on Capitalist ideals long ago in favor of Socialism – read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” – it’s almost prophetic in how eerily similar it is to the US today. But there is no Galt’s Gulch in the US… And when the Japanese bring out sex-bots, the US will be done for – those guys in basements will never come out – but they will have all sorts of “patches” and “hacks” for their sex-bots… (snicker)

    About 11 years back, I worked with a guy who went out and bought a Real Doll.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealDoll

    Creepy. I mean real creepy. But he had it. He was a good worker, got his stuff done at the office. But he had a Real Doll for his own personal sexual gratification. And it was obvious why he had the Real Doll. He was short. He was fat. He was ugly. He made good money and he had a lot of friends (a large friendship network), but women didn’t give him the time of day. So, this sexually frustrated fat little man with a severe case of short-man’s-syndrome would work all day and screw his Real Doll all night.

    Well.

    If the Japanese complete these sex bots (get them to the point where sex with them feels just like sex with a woman) then that is a game changer for marriage because…. well… men don’t typically marry women for resources. It is not very often women only marry the man for the penis. If he is getting sex from a robot woman that requires no financial resources from him (after her purchases her and plugs her in at night to “recharge”) then without religion, there is no purpose for marriage.

    The Devil is laughing his ass off right now.

  91. Opus says:

    Actually I was rather surprised that during the concert interval when the radio guests, like Calcutta born Sir Mark Tully were gushing over the rapport between India and England – and I believe that there really is one; at least the only Indian I met in America treated me like a long lost but favoured cousin – that no one bothered to mention that Nicki Benedetti’s instrument; she was playing the 5th Mozart Fiddle Concerto – namely the Violin, derives from India.

    ‘Wider still and wider’ we sing (on the Last Night of The Proms) and apparently the word Ukraine derives from a Mr Hughes (thus Hugheskraine) a man from Wales such that some parts of The Ukraine wish to become part of the Empire; as we say over here, there are those who are English and those who want to be English.

    I can answer any question put to me in India as I have bedside me Vincent A. Smith’ M.A.’s The Oxford History of India from the earliest times to the end of 1911. Just to prove I am not inventing this there is a Swastika on the front cover.

  92. Darkheart says:

    I am always impressed when Americans (in this case TFH) show such knowledge about other countries.

    Says the guy with the massive America-shaped chip on his shoulder.

    In my experience, limeys are obsessed with Americans in the same way blacks are obsessed with whites.

  93. Holy moly!

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tech-firms-may-no-poaching-005407951.html

    Nice, a giant “we-don’t-poach-each-other” cartel. $9,000,000,000

  94. TFH says:

    Opus said :

    Including setting up the first printing press in India and their first three Universities in 1813 what have we not given that sub-continent.

    You can’t be serious.

    1) Here is an animation of the historical spread of the printing press (invented by a German in what is today Germany).. You and everyone else must see this animation.

    I note that it took 40 years for the Printing Press to cross the channel and reach England. Germany, France, and Italy had it for decades before it.

    Also, India got the printing press by 1500, which is only 20 years after England, and certainly not due to England.

    In fact, India got it sooner than any part of the world other than Western Europe and Spanish colonies in Mexico. Earlier than China, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East, and only 20 years after England.

    Not to mention that handwritten books where produced in much greater volume in India than in Europe, before 1436. Which leads us to the second error………..

    2) You believe the first three Universities in India were founded by England???

    No. Or, as we Americans say, Helllllll No.

    Ancient Institutions of Higher Learnings.

    Nalanda University was founded in 427 AD, and accommodated 10,000 students and up to 2000 professors. It drew students from all of Eurasia, and survived for 800 years. It also had a 9-story library. How many 9-story libraries were there in Europe in the Middle Ages?

    Puspagiri was another university, founded even earlier in the 3rd century AD.

    So India had Universities before England had anything of the sort. Let alone before the British came to India (200 years after the Portuguese, mind you). Let alone there being any chance of the first 3 universities in India created by the British as late as 1813.

    I have bedside me Vincent A. Smith’ M.A.’s The Oxford History of India from the earliest times to the end of 1911.

    If your grossly wrong information is from this book, then this book fits what I described in the earlier comment. You have been had. There is one thing much worse than not knowing something, which is knowing an entirely wrong thing. You should file suit against the estate of Vincent A. Smith.

    For a much more accurate description of India from the start to present, by a Brit, that too as a BBC video documentary rather than a book, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_India"The story of India by Michael Wood. As a source, this supercedes The Oxford History.

  95. TFH says:

    Almost everything Opus says about how India was before the divine British intervention is in fact true of Africa. It seems he read something that does correctly apply to East African areas colonized by Britain, but transplants that wholesale onto India.

    Fixed link : The Story of India by Michael Wood : A 6-part BBC Documentary.

  96. Opus says:

    I think Darkheart has a point. It is true (as I have often noticed) that in bashing America (as people often do over here) that there is a considerable measure of jealousy; after all we were for a couple of centuries top nation, and now you are; but as America began at number 59 Palace Street Canterbury in the year 1620 we can feel proud of how our rebellious offspring has done. Sadly America seems intent on re-exporting the worst of its excesses (that is to say the Puritanicalism we got rid off) back to Canterbury.

    I only bait TFH to determine whether he passes (or fails) what Norman Tebbitt calls the Cricket Test. That is to say, Tebbitt (who was one of Thatcher’s favourite and whose wife got blown up by the I.R.A. in Brighton) observed that Indians of British Nationality always supported India in the Test Matches – that is to say games of Cricket between England and India (and thus failed the Test). Recently Martin Amis observed that a Pakistani who lives in Boston MA would think of himself and indeed be treated as an American, but observed further that a Pakistani who was British would never quite be English, which is perhaps why we have some Indians who are ‘more English than the English’ and let me say in case TFH thinks I am bashing Indians, that the best client I ever had (save that he never paid) was Indian and the most articulate client I ever had was also Indian.

  97. TFH says:

    I can answer any question put to me in India as I have bedside me Vincent A. Smith’ M.A.’s The Oxford History of India from the earliest times to the end of 1911.

    1911. I dare say that the timing of the book proves it heavily revisionist source.

    1911 was when the British Empire bestrode the world as a colossus (they had, after all, extracted more gold, silver, and diamonds out of India than existed in all of Europe before then, so had a lot of assets at their disposal). At the peak of its powers, any empire starts cranking up the propaganda machine, and such books existed in order to revise history as to show every colonized people as having been so primitive that the colonists were actually saving them.

    Rubbish and codswallop, as the English would say.

    A load of bullshit, as we say in America.

  98. TFH says:

    Opus,

    Ah, the Cricket Test. I was hoping you would bring that up.

    I could simply say I am an American, and have no idea about cricket, and you would happily believe that. But instead, I shall confuse you a bit further (as impress you with how much some Americans know about things you assume they just would not know about).

    Recently Martin Amis observed that a Pakistani who lives in Boston MA would think of himself and indeed be treated as an American, but observed further that a Pakistani who was British would never quite be English,

    The team I, as an American, support(ed), is neither England nor India. There is only one team Americans ever heard of, that too only from about 1979 to 1995, and that because US sports publications (like Sports Illustrated) were interested enough to write about it (partly also do to geographical proximity to the US). Sports Illustrated named the West Indies Cricket Team the sports team of the 80s, across ALL sports, on account of winning 5 times as many games as they lost. No team of the 80s, in any sport, could match that (most of this was at England’s expense).

    After they ceased being good, I ceased following cricket…

    Which brings up another question : it seems the standard under which Knighthood is bestowed by the Queen has been greatly diluted. Recently, three former cricketers from the tiny nation of Antigua were knighted. This was a surprise, since I thought Knighthood was reserved only for the very best of the best (a Bradman or a Sobers). These players are merely very good, not great. And now, all four significant cricketers from the tiny nation of Antigua, are Knights. All four.

    How is Knighthood being given out so easily?

    Then, I remembered a photo I saw from my youth. It appears that the queen (this is 1980, so she is a bit younger here) is getting some gina tingles that she does not customarily get.

    What else explains the unusual generosity by which Knighthoods are being handed out to a few obscure athletes from some tiny islands in the Caribbean?

    I suspect that when it is time to knight the Barbadians and Jamaicans, the Queen will make sure she attends personally, if only to grant Big Bird and Whispering Death the honor herself :).

    Now…. Opus is thoroughly bewildered :).

  99. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Skipping briefly out of the existing thread, yesterday I remembered something I did several years ago here in Mexico.

    My wife likes to go the Baptist temple in a nearby village.

    Five or six years ago, the old pastor (now retired and deceased) decided on Mother’s Day he’d have the husbands read the verses from the Bible, Songs of Solomon, “For thou art fair, my love…”

    I thought, “WT* Am I back in the States?”

    When it was my turn, he said I could read it in English if I preferred. So, I did, slowly and loudly and clearly.

    When I finished, as I handed my wife back her Bible, I said in the same loud, clear voice: “Actually I married you for your money.”

    A slight flea in the ointment. A woman in the back understood English and knew what I said, and started laughing. In a couple seconds, my wife, probably amused that I got busted, started giggling, too.

    Obviously, everyone knew I had said something interesting, and obviously as soon as service was over, people were busting to find out what I said.

    In the US, the womenb would have been screaming for my head on a platter.

    I am 100% sure that here my status went up with the women, not down. They do love a good joke. And, this was almost certainly a good joke.

    I feel it was sort of a minor game trick, even though I didn’t plan it that way.

  100. Tam the Bam says:

    TFH, “To be fair, British school textbooks from the era of when Opus was a schoolboy, were far more nationalistically biased than comparable textbooks in the US, India, or most other countries.”
    I still have an absolute corker I picked up in a junk shop, slim volume, green cover, post WWI, I think (I’ll dig it out if interested). A European’s Guide To Hindustani, containing awfully pertinent translations not only involving how to correctly demand a chota peg (my personal favourite, obviously), but technical, touristique phrases such as “Form ranks! Fire over their heads”, and “Burn the village!”. As one does, from time to time, abroad and that.
    I kiddeth thee not.
    To think I nearly gave it away decades ago, to a terribly good American Kipling recitateur at the Festival (I was dismayed to find that myself and the good memsahib comprised exactly half his audience, and wished to encourage him).

  101. Opus says:

    Sadly I am not privy to or responsible for the advice given to Her Majesty when dolling out gongs – all I can say is that she has so far failed to reward me either for Cricket (a wise decision) or anything else. I would also like to blame the Scots for everything as they are the ones largely responsible for whatever TFH does not like in this strange revisionist history of his.

    Why by the way would Europeans need to know about Hindustani: one of the things for which India is surely grateful is that we booted out both the French and The Portugese before they could get their Garlic-breath and Men-of-War on the dusky maidens of the Punjab.

  102. Tam the Bam says:

    Personally I think the French would have been preferable, as they would have whinged about the food from Day 1, and not rested until they had abolished it in favour of some fat-laden slop of their own devising. Leaving precious little time for military matters, as usual.

  103. TFH says:

    Opus,

    India is surely grateful is that we booted out both the French and The Portugese before they could get their Garlic-breath and Men-of-War on the dusky maidens of the Punjab.

    As I said, among the alternatives (Portu, French, Dutch, and Danish), the British were least problematic of the bunch.

    TFH does not like in this strange revisionist history of his.

    Revisionist? I provided exhaustive details, with supporting links, about :

    i) The printing press came to India just a couple of decades after it came to England (and was certainly not brought by the English).
    ii) India had elaborate universities (Nalanda, Puspagiri, Taxia, etc.) long before Britain had any. The notion that India had no Universities until England built them, that too as late as 1813, is one of the greatest inaccuracies I have seen in a while.
    iii) India’s GDP was comparable to all of Europe combined for thousands of year until 1800 or so (source : The Economist).

    I provided supporting evidence. You have not provided anything comparable, so you would have to retract at least your statements about India having neither the printing press nor universities before the British generously blessed India with them (again, India had universities before England ever had any).

    Ditch whatever source is feeding a story from some planet other than Earth, and see the evidence presented above. Also see the BBC Documentary : The Story of India, by Michael Wood.

    I have even provided British sources where possible (The Economist and BBC).

    Evidence has been presented to the jury, in the form of the exhibits above. I move that a judgement be made that many British historical sources and textbooks from 1890 to 1966 are revisionist, agenda-driven, and should be expunged, due to defamation by those sources of nations such as The United States of America, India, and many others.

  104. greyghost says:

    IBB
    Ever see the movie Cherry 2000? I would take a robot of that caliber over a live woman as they are today in a heartbeat with out even thinking about it. But you can bet your ass if there are robots like that on the market the usual skanks will be trying to get them banned, the clueless bitches still making sure there is a market for sex bots and then the smart women that make for some serious competition for the sex bot dollars with some big time feminine pleasantness.

  105. gg,

    Ever see the movie Cherry 2000?

    Yes I have. A very young Melanie Griffith driving a 1965 Ford Mustang. Not a bad Grade-B movie actually. And yes I remember the concept.

    I would take a robot of that caliber over a live woman as they are today in a heartbeat with out even thinking about it.

    In our lifetimes, female sexbots will not be made like that.

    But you can bet your ass if there are robots like that on the market the usual skanks will be trying to get them banned, the clueless bitches still making sure there is a market for sex bots and then the smart women that make for some serious competition for the sex bot dollars with some big time feminine pleasantness.

    Feminists don’t really care about the RealDolls that much because the guys that choose those are typically fat, short, ugly losers whom they don’t want anyway. Infact, feminists are not going to give a damn about sexbots either….

    …until….

    the good looking alphamales start choosing them. That is when it will matter, when the great looking, intelligent, tall, slender, well educated, well earning man opts for purchasing a sexbot rather than marrying a feminist with whom he must now share his life and resources. If sexbots should become so mainstream as to be normalized into the mainstream of society (instead of a perversion the way a RealDoll is) then THAT will be the turning point. But not before. Either way, wont happen in our lifetimes. We will never see this.

  106. greyghost says:

    IBB
    I’m a father of three that put his wife through school. A male birth control pill, artificial womb, sexbot aka stepford wife, party sluts with student loan debt. Buy an egg off the sluts of proper physical appearance and body type jack off into the fake womb and turn on the stepford wife to watch the house while you earn a living. The actual women will be used as live vaginas (booty calls) Plenty of good family men, The most hated people in western society (only a male child molester is despised more) once he has the delusion and lie of the “good” man he lived up to used to rape and demonize him will be ready for the chance to opt out of “love”. Especially a man that has ever held or spoken to his own child.

  107. Opus says:

    Technology is all pervasive: other than my year long sojourn in America were it not for the permissive presence of Cinema and Television, Americans would have been almost unknown to me. I have only otherwise, now I think on it, ever met four; two men and two women. Of those, both men were con-men, one (a lawyer from Texas – so he said) ran off to the other Cyprus from which he could not be expedited leaving a disgruntled fiancée and even more disgruntled creditors, and the other departed with the wife of one of my friendly acquaintances, having assured everyone that he was merely in ‘the friend zone’ – never trust a man boasting of being LJBFd. Of the women, one was a frivorcee from California who had married an English lawyer and notwithstanding the fact that she was living in a property in central London valued at today’s prices at more than one million pounds was bemoaning her fate. I sympathised, but only professionally. The other was the mother of a school friend who (I was eleven) seemed very modern (compared to my Mother’s friends) and offered me ‘Cookies’. Hey, cookies, they taste really great, in fact rather like biscuits.

    As for Indians (of whom I have known many – though not in the biblical sense): My siblings played with the children of Dr and Mrs Nandy – two doors up the avenue – but I was a little too old for them and became friends with another neighbour by name of Feldman. He was a bright child, with another rather modern (read: good-looking) mother. My own mother did not really approve of the Nandy’s and even less of the Feldmans, not that I quite understood why. She introduced me to a couple of English boys, but I never really got on with them, and sent one of them packing after which I never saw him again (and I went off to Boarding School) – so much for White Nationalism.

    Dalrock’s friend Dr Malthus of course taught at Hayleybury College, which is now a school. The East India Company (its founder) having been dissolved (or whatever you do when you end a Royal Charter) after the 1857 Mutiny. By complete chance we were talking about Malthus yesterday, and my friend observed that Malthus could not have been really English as Malthus is not an English name – he thought him probably Scandinavian by origin – you see how difficult it is to become truly English.

  108. Cicero says:

    @ innocentbystanderboston

    “In our lifetimes, female sexbots will not be made like that.”

    Maybe not in real life, however there is always the mad world of the Matrix.

  109. greyghost,

    IBB

    I’m a father of three that put his wife through school. A male birth control pill

    Probably already have that. That will come shortly…

    artificial womb

    How do you “feed” a Zygote (now fertilized human egg) artificially? The Zygote attaches to the wall and an umbilical cord is created where the baby is nourished by the mother. All of this material is organic material. How do you create this process artifically?

    Even if they figure out how to do this (like in that movie “Creator”) it will not happen in either of our lifetimes. So wishing for science to remove the purpose of Eve (as God created her) is an effort in futility.

    sexbot aka stepford wife, party sluts with student loan debt. Buy an egg off the sluts of proper physical appearance and body type jack off into the fake womb and turn on the stepford wife to watch the house while you earn a living.

    They make some crazy sh-t in Japan. Yes this will probably happen (not in our lifetimes, as I said earlier), but she will not have any artificial intelligence nor will she be like that Cherry 2000. She will probably look like a RealDoll and move like a RealDoll. She will not keep the house. She will be designed for one purpose and one purpose only, the bedroom. All the engineering will be about maximizing your nighttime pleasure (artificial lubracation in the vaginal and possibly anal area, and mouth designed for nothing but felatio.) I suppose they could even have the hymen reseal itself so you get the sensation of f-cking a virgin each night.

    Bad news. She will not wash clothes. She will not cook meals. She will not push a vaccum or a dust wand. She will not answer the door. She will not answer the phone, pay a bill, tend children, or ever drive a car. She will sit there (plugged into an electical outlet) and patiently wait for your return from the office.

    Good news? Well I suppose this is great news. She will not spend your money. She will not have any debt. She will not f-ck other men. She can never contract. She will not frivorce you. She will not be entitled to any of your property or future earnings. She will not call the cops on you and have them escort you out of your own home. She will not complain to you that you never take her anywhere. She will not complain to you that you never buy her anything. She will not complain to you that you are always with your friends while she sits at home. She will not complain if you go out and get another sex bot for variety. She will not complain AT ALL!

    But you and I will never see this.

  110. Badpainter says:

    “Bad news. She will not wash clothes. She will not cook meals. She will not push a vaccum or a dust wand. She will not answer the door. She will not answer the phone, pay a bill, tend children,”

    Nor will many real wives.

  111. That is true.

    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what Japan finally creates. This real-life Cherry 2000 will not be created in the United States. We don’t have the demographic nightmare (yet) that Japan has so the market is not as great here as it is in Japan. Also, those American men who WOULD be interested in the model as I have described it, generally speaking they can’t afford to buy it. So it doesn’t really matter.

  112. So Much For Subtlety says:

    TFH says:

    I understand that you would have only grown up reading textbooks which said that India ‘benefited hugely’ from British Colonization.

    That is amusing. No one has produced books praising the Empire for a long time.

    1) Britain did leave India much poorer than they found it. An astronomical sum of gems and precious metals were seized from India and taken to Britain.

    Well no. They did not. Yes, many British people came to India and made out like bandits. But India’s economy, in real terms, grew at about 1% per year. Not much but Indians preferred to produce children rather than re-invest. This is well documented and it is childish to deny it.

    2) Winston Churchill, in 1943, diverted food from India to feed British soldiers during WW2, knowing full well that millions of Indians would die of starvation. While that is not a direct killing of people (like Hitler did), it was still a deliberate decision that was made knowing millions would starve. Churchill deliberately starved 3 million Indians to death.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

    That is not only an outright lie, it is an outright lie in defiance of the source you cite. Food was exported from British India during the war, but the British government had no idea famine was in the offing. The harvest did not fail so they had no reason to expect one. What seems to have happened is that the Indians expected a Japanese invasion and so Indian speculators bought up the crop hoping for a profit. Which they probably got. Although being cut off from Burma may not have helped either.

    3) As per The Economist (a British magazine) India was 25% of World GDP in 1701 and 16% in 1820 (more than Britain at each time), but fell to 1% of world GDP by 1947. Note the precipitous decline under British colonization.

    Notice the decline well before British Imperialism controlled much at all. What you are not being entirely truthful about is that this is a relative decline – India wasn’t getting poorer, the rest of the world, especially Europe, was getting much richer.

    That India’s decline as an economic superpower coincides with colonization, is indisputable.

    If you are talking about Muslim colonization, sure.

    4) Indian troops fought for Britain in both World Wars (even while Churchill was diverting food away from India). Over 100,000 Indian troops died for the British Empire,

    Some Indians, from some parts of India, fought for Britain. Sure.

    So, Opus, while those who claim that India only lost from British colonization are wrong, it is equally wrong to claim that India gained an immense benefit from British presence. I understand that you would have only read textbooks indicating a major bias in favor of wonders of British colonization (much like the same textbooks claim that most of America’s success is due to Britain).

    Most of America’s success is due to Britain. None of these books exist. It is a fantasy. The Left is too strong in British education. But of course the Indians benefited hugely from British rule. There is simply no denying it.

  113. So Much For Subtlety says:

    TFH says:

    Revisionist? I provided exhaustive details, with supporting links, about :

    But you did not understand them. And you are not quoting them honestly. Thus the revisionism.

    i) The printing press came to India just a couple of decades after it came to England (and was certainly not brought by the English).

    Indeed. Nice of the Jesuits to bring civilization to the natives.

    ii) India had elaborate universities (Nalanda, Puspagiri, Taxia, etc.) long before Britain had any. The notion that India had no Universities until England built them, that too as late as 1813, is one of the greatest inaccuracies I have seen in a while.

    Those are not universities. Yes, India had great centers for the study of Buddhist texts. So what? Universities they were not. India had none until Britain introduced them.

    iii) India’s GDP was comparable to all of Europe combined for thousands of year until 1800 or so (source : The Economist).

    Indeed.

    I move that a judgement be made that many British historical sources and textbooks from 1890 to 1966 are revisionist, agenda-driven, and should be expunged, due to defamation by those sources of nations such as The United States of America, India, and many others.

    As if such books exist. PC drivel is mainstream.

  114. GDP of India in 1800? Really guys? Really? Listen to yourselves.

    How in on God’s green earth could anyone ever fully estimate what the Gross Domestic Product of India was in 1800 when the entire concept of Gross Domestic Product did not even exist? Any publication (not matter how reputible such as the Economist) would only be speculating. There is no true level of certainty, not like what we have now.

    We all know what the GDP is of nations today. It is frighteningly low (insignificant really) compared to the United States, China, Western European nations, Japan, and Russia. Measuring what India produced for the world in 1800 is an effort in futility. Complaining about it or arguing about it is even more futile. It doesn’t matter.

  115. Just Saying says:

    @1BB:he had a Real Doll for his own personal sexual gratification.

    These days nothing surprises me when it comes to humans. Long ago – when I was young and stupid – I (and a young woman) got the standard virus screens. Mine was clean – still is which really shows how over-hyped the odds of a man contracting something from a woman is – and I refuse to wrap that rascal. Anyway – in among her negatives, was “Parvovirus: Positive”. Now I had no idea what that was – turns out it’s a sexually transmitted disease among dogs. Causes wolf pups to be still-born. But I thought it was weird and found there are actually related viruses that cause innocuous things in humans. But at the time, I figured she got it from being licked in the mouth, by a dog or something mundane.

    Anyway, when we were chatting about the results, I say, “Parvo? Anything you’d like to tell me?” I was trying to be funny (never try to be funny when it comes to women and sex) – so she turns beet red and admits to having sex with several dogs – but only the bigger ones… (She seemed to think that was better than riding the human cock carousel.) Yes – call me a speciesist – but I draw the line at sex with dogs, and by extensions – primates other than humans, dolphins, etc… And this is the sex that has the better PR when it comes to what they will spread their legs for – or bend over for… Needless to say, I learned a valuable lesson: Don’t ask if you don’t want to know.

    So a Doll falls into the category of something like a vibrator for women, and that doesn’t cause me to bat an eye. Heck, I use them in various female orifices since it improves the experience for me as well… :) So while I may draw the line with humans to females ONLY (for myself) – I’m so conventional… I broaden that with women to include both males and females, as long as she’s willing to share – and I’m the only man involved at the time. Seems very fair to me.

    Yeah – I have all sorts of rules – but it’s my appendage, so my rules…

  116. TFH says:

    “So Much For Subtlety ” (who might that be?) said :

    No one has produced books praising the Empire for a long time.

    It is known that textbooks in Britain produced between about 1890 to 1966 were over-the-top in their fictions, which leads to extreme falsehoods about the world being believed by those who read them.

    Those are not universities. Yes, India had great centers for the study of Buddhist texts. So what? Universities they were not. India had none until Britain introduced them.

    Nope. Nalanda was a University that had departments in mathematics, science, economics, and everything. The link says so. By not conceding this fact plainly stated in the text, you are in “La La La…I can’t year you” mode.

    India had Universities centuries before England had anything of the sort, and indeed had more centers of higher learning than all of Europe combined, at the time. The link proves it.

    Notice the decline well before British Imperialism controlled much at all. What you are not being entirely truthful about is that this is a relative decline

    The Carnatic wars started in 1740, and the Battle of Plassey was 1757.

    It appears things were high in 1700, and only slightly lower in 1820, so yes, the steep decline coincides with British colonization.

    Islamic invasion was from the 11th to 15th centuries, so well before the decline.

    That is not only an outright lie, it is an outright lie in defiance of the source you cite.

    From the wikipedia link on the Bengal famine.

    “By August 1943 Churchill refused to release shipping to send food to India.[59][60][61] Initially during the famine he was more concerned with the civilians of Nazi occupied Greece (who were also suffering from a famine) compared with the Bengalis.[62]”

    Yep. Winston Churchill knowingly let 3 million people starve. India sure benefited from being a place that Britain strip-mined (‘colonized’, as you say).

    Now, if you are not going to read the sources that disprove your fictitious beliefs,

    At least you conceded that it was not England who brought the printing press to India, but the Portuguese Jesuits (England having only just gotten it from the continent).
    ________________________________________________

    Most of America’s success is due to Britain.

    Suuuuuure. Perhaps from 1813 to about 1850. But it is not 1850 anymore. Also, that the US buys oil from Arab Sheikhs at market prices, in contrast to Britain’s plundering of India, shows the chasm between a ‘win-win’ American model, and a ‘let’s plunder them’ British model.

    Now, if you are wondering why Indians in Britain fail the cricket test, but even Muslim Pakistanis in the US become Americans….. just look at this debate here.

    An American (man), if corrected about a misconception, will admit that he did not know that, and revise his opinion.

    A British man who is heavily steeped in nationalism will double down on his erroneous beliefs, ignoring sources provided, and also providing none of his own to back up his blind beliefs. Really, to say with a straight face that Nalanda and Puspagiri were not Universities even though details are provided in the link (back when Londinium was a backwater outpost of the Roman Empire), but cannot provide any links to back up your absurd claim that there were ‘no Universities until Britain started them in 1813′, is quite pathetic.

    By providing zero sources, your statements are just blind fanaticism.

    The level of ‘ignore all facts in order to assert that Britain is god’s gift to humanity’ is simply a level of behavior not seen in Americans (even though Americans are accused of being US-centric).

  117. deti says:

    “she turns beet red and admits to having sex with several dogs – but only the bigger ones”

    Oh my God. Words fail me.

    And people say men are sex perverts.

  118. deti says:

    “she turns beet red and admits to having sex with several dogs – but only the bigger ones”

    Words fail me. And people say men are sex perverts. Sheesh.

  119. So Much For Subtlety says:

    TFH says:

    It is known that textbooks in Britain produced between about 1890 to 1966 were over-the-top in their fictions, which leads to extreme falsehoods about the world being believed by those who read them.

    I doubt anyone reads them any more. Anyone here ever even seen such a book? And no, of course it is not known and they didn’t. The British being, by and large, rather truthful and perfectly willing to concede their faults, even when they shouldn’t.

    Nope. Nalanda was a University that had departments in mathematics, science, economics, and everything. The link says so. By not conceding this fact plainly stated in the text, you are in “La La La…I can’t year you” mode.

    Wikipedia doesn’t. It says people could study mathematics etc. Which does not make it true. Why should I concede a fact which is not a fact?

    India had Universities centuries before England had anything of the sort, and indeed had more centers of higher learning than all of Europe combined, at the time. The link proves it.

    I do not know which link you are pointing to, but no it does not. Indian nationalists often suffer terrible butt-hurt and need to assert nonsense claims to feel better about being a Third World sh!thole. India was more civilized than the West early on, but universities it did not have.

    The Carnatic wars started in 1740, and the Battle of Plassey was 1757.

    And your point is?

    It appears things were high in 1700, and only slightly lower in 1820, so yes, the steep decline coincides with British colonization.

    Again you are lying, and I expect knowingly lying. This is a relative decline. You are not proving Britain made India worse, but that the British had an industrial revolution. India’s share of world GDP shrinks because the world’s GDP becomes so much larger after 1700 and India grows so slowly. Nothing to do with British Imperialism. China suffers exactly the same relative drop.

    Islamic invasion was from the 11th to 15th centuries, so well before the decline.

    Sorry but where did India’s government in 1700 originally come from?

    That is not only an outright lie, it is an outright lie in defiance of the source you cite.

    From the wikipedia link on the Bengal famine.

    Again you knowingly distort what Wikipedia has to say. The very next passage points out that there was no point releasing shipping:

    “Any aid from abroad would have arrived too late to prevent most deaths: apart from the usual delays in assembling and shipping, and the long shipping route, it would have had to be delivered at west coast ports – the Allied navies did not operate east of Ceylon, and the Bay of Bengal was covered by Japanese naval and air power. The railways were overstretched, with men and equipment sent to war zones, most of the capacity devoted to supplying the Burma front and US and Chinese forces,[63] sabotage by Congress, major flood damage to the main routes etc. And they were not geared to shipping large quantities of bulk goods. Distributing the food to the famine areas was extremely difficult and time-consuming, even with Army help.”

    Sabotage by Congress? You don’t say.

    You also ignore the real causes of the famine:

    “In 1942, with the permission of the central government, trade barriers were introduced by the democratically elected Provincial governments. The politicians and civil servants of surplus provinces like the Punjab introduced regulations to prevent grain leaving their provinces for the famine areas of Bengal, Madras and Cochin. There was the desire to see that, first, local populations and, second, the populations of neighbouring provinces were well fed, partly to prevent civil unrest. Politicians and officials got power and patronage, and the ability to extract bribes for shipping permits. Marketing and transaction costs rose sharply. The market could not get grain to Bengal, however profitable it might be.”

    Oh wait, who are these democratically elected Provincial governments? That would be …. the Indian National Congress! Indian politicians starved Bengalis. So they could extort bribes and make sure they got re-elected.

    “The Government of India realized a mistake had been made and decreed a return to free trade. The Provinces refused ‘In this, again, the Government of India misjudged both its own influence and the temper of its constituents, which had by this time gone too far to pay much heed to the Centre.’[38] The Government of India Act 1935 had removed most of the Government of India’s authority over the Provinces, so they had to rely on negotiation.

    “Thus, even when the Government of India decreed that there should be free trade in grain, politicians, civil servants, local government officers and police obstructed the movement of grain to famine areas.[39] In some cases Provinces seized grain in transit from other Provinces to Bengal.[40] ‘But men like Bhai Permanand say that though many traders want to export food [to Bengal] the Punjab Government would not give them permits. He testified to large quantities of undisposed-of rice being in the Punjab’[41]

    “Eventually there was a clear threat by the Government of India to force the elected governments to provide grain, when the new Viceroy, Wavell, who was a successful general, was about to take office. For the first time substantial quantities of grain started to move to Bengal.[42]”

    Now you can dispute this if you like, but what you cannot say is that Churchill had anything to do with it. This is an Indian famine, caused by Indian failures over the objections of British people.

    Yep. Winston Churchill knowingly let 3 million people starve. India sure benefited from being a place that Britain strip-mined (‘colonized’, as you say).

    Not a single source you have quoted shows Churchill as being aware of the deaths in India much less wanting them. What your sources do show is that Indian incompetence and corruption is to blame for the deaths. Churchill could not have saved one life even if he had wanted to – your own source makes that clear.

    Suuuuuure. Perhaps from 1813 to about 1850. But it is not 1850 anymore. Also, that the US buys oil from Arab Sheikhs at market prices, in contrast to Britain’s plundering of India, shows the chasm between a ‘win-win’ American model, and a ‘let’s plunder them’ British model.

    Britain did not plunder India. Although some individuals did. Just as some Americans take bribes from Arab oil sheikhs. And no, the success of America is built firmly on British culture and ideology. From the Revolution onwards, America has been the working out of British Classical liberal philosophy.

    A British man who is heavily steeped in nationalism will double down on his erroneous beliefs, ignoring sources provided, and also providing none of his own to back up his blind beliefs.

    I don’t need to. Your sources agree with me. You are misquoting them.

    By providing zero sources, your statements are just blind fanaticism.

    That might be true if I were British.

    The level of ‘ignore all facts in order to assert that Britain is god’s gift to humanity’ is simply a level of behavior not seen in Americans (even though Americans are accused of being US-centric).

    It is simply a fact. I can stand outside this and admit the truth. A pity you cannot.

  120. TFH says:

    Alas….

    On one hand, I often meet ignorant Indians who think :

    1) Their failures today in 2014 are due to British colonization, and Britain foisting an unsuitable system (parliamentary democracy) onto India, in order to keep India down.
    2) India is a dynamic, high growth economy.

    Both of these beliefs are untrue.

    But at the same time, I see Brits who believe :

    1) India had no universities until the British started them as late as 1813, when in reality India had some of the largest and multidisciplinary institutions of higher learning in the world, in the 5th century AD (long before England had anything of the sort).
    2) The British brought the printing press to India (false)
    3) Most of America’s success is due to Britain (false)

    All three of these beliefs are wrong too.

    If only I can get both camps of dogmatic ignorance to war with each other…. Then a fact-based historian like myself can save my efforts for pupils with objectivity and curiosity.

    ____________________________________________________

    So Much for Subtlety,

    That might be true if I were British.

    Then what are you? Are you not Opus? If not, then you should stop subtly impersonating him, and attempting to cause strife between him and others.

  121. BradA says:

    You are right IBB, I did ask it as a question. I should have been more rhetorical. Romney would have been as bad or worse than what we have now. Government is not the savior and never will be.

  122. Brad,

    You are right IBB, I did ask it as a question. I should have been more rhetorical. Romney would have been as bad or worse than what we have now. Government is not the savior and never will be.

    Romney is no savior, neither is government. He’s not even a “prophet” (not that I believe there are any) but his church has prophets. But to say he would have been as bad or worse than what we have now is (on your part) an unwillingness to think critically.

  123. So Much For Subtlety says:

    TFH says:

    On one hand, I often meet ignorant Indians who think :

    Changing the subject is not going to help. Yes, Indians often have a massive, and entirely justifiable, lack of self-confidence. Because they have had to be taught pretty much everything that matters. Their butt-hurtness takes them to strange places. But they ought to look at themselves and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.

    But at the same time, I see Brits who believe :

    1) India had no universities until the British started them as late as 1813, when in reality India had some of the largest and multidisciplinary institutions of higher learning in the world, in the 5th century AD (long before England had anything of the sort).

    Because it is true. Both those claims are true. And they are not going to become any less true because Indians suffer from a lack of self-confidence.

    2) The British brought the printing press to India (false)

    Only on a technicality. Yes, the Jesuits may have beaten them to it but 16 years or so. But in the general sense of the word, yes the British introduced the printing press. Producing India’s first newspaper and so on.

    3) Most of America’s success is due to Britain (false)

    I doubt many people are going to object to this claim. But off you go.

    All three of these beliefs are wrong too.

    No they are not.

    If only I can get both camps of dogmatic ignorance to war with each other…. Then a fact-based historian like myself can save my efforts for pupils with objectivity and curiosity.

    Given your massive dishonesty over Churchill’s lack of involvement in India’s efforts to starve their own poor to death in 1943 it is absurd to call yourself a fact-based historian. You are not. Your work here has been political hackery at best.

  124. greyghost says:

    IBB
    Things are not as far off as you think.

    http://www.thesciencenews.info/2011/04/artificial-uterus.html.

    These boys are seriously horny with high standards.


    Check out the number of views.

  125. greyghost,

    You know that whole thing you linked to (the youtube of that “robot”) is a joke right? Are you sure you didn’t find this at the Onion?

    She’s a human woman made up to look like a robot. What you want is not happening in our lifetime.

  126. TFH says:

    So Much for Subtlety.

    I see you still cannot produce a single source to back up your beliefs, nor can you bring yourself to read my heavy contribution of reputed sources.

    On Universities, when cornered by my solid sources, while providing none of your own, all you can say is :

    Because it is true. Both those claims are true. And they are not going to become any less true because

    Pathetic. That is all you can say “it is true, just…..because”. Lame, pathetic, and ‘butthurt’.

    Nalanda had 10,000 students and 2000 professors, and taught sciences, mathemetics, metallurgy, economics, etc. All that is in the Wikipedia link that you are afraid to read. The ruins of the campus cover acres of land that anyone can verify on Google Earth. Puspagiri was similar.

    Your only response is : “But what I want to believe is right, just……..because”…

    No sources from you = you have to basis for your ignorant beliefs.

    over Churchill’s lack of involvement in India’s efforts to starve their own poor to death in 1943

    er…. not only did I provide sources for this, but this is somewhat well-known outside of Britain. This diversion of food from Bengal is blacked out of the British media (or at least was)

    Here is another source about Churchill’s diversion of food from India (a UK source at that) :

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/churchills-secret-war-by-madhusree-mukerjee-2068698.html

    “Mukerjee has researched this forgotten holocaust with great care and forensic rigour. Mining an extensive range of sources, she not only sheds light on the imperial shenanigans around the famine, but on a host of related issues, such as the flowering of nationalism in famine-hit districts, Churchill’s fury about the sterling credit that India was piling up in London, or the dreadful situation in the villages even after the famine was technically over. Her calmly phrased but searing account of imperial brutality will shame admirers of the Greatest Briton and horrify just about everybody else.”

    But since you are desperately trying to avoid the sources I already provided (while producing none of your own), no weight of evidence will lead you to change your indoctrination.

    The only thing that is debatable is whether Churchill was saddened by his decision to let 3M Indians starve, or whether his rationalization hamster made him decide it was necessary.

    I don’t expect you to swallow in just one day, that your idol was not such a noble man. But the facts don’t need your approval.

    But anyway, who are you? I was only going through this trouble for Opus, who is (still) my friend. If you’re just a random passer-by who is also an ideologue who can’t concede points even when the sources I provide outnumber yours by 10 to zero, then you aren’t worthy of the honor of my time.

  127. ysv rao says:

    @Subtelty ,OPUS

    Either counter what TFH has stated with facts of your own or STFU

    Just stating Nalanda and Takshashila weren’t universities and dismissing them as Buddhist centres of learning doesn’t really do well for British self confidence
    Dismissing the legacy of those universities only exposes your ignorance

    It is actually the British who get butt hurt when Indians claim that India was an advanced civilization before the British came along. This owes to a fundamental insecurity and brittleness about British society-their self confidence as a nation owes a great chunk to their uh “civilizing” mission esp in India(the Jewel of the Crown) and when that falls apart , they grasp frantically at straws
    And don’t give me this claptrap of Left and Right, the Guardian readers are just as Raj nostalgic as Tories.
    Whether Labour or Conservatives were in power didn’t make much difference to prospects of Indian independence before 1945, so please don’t try and feed that bull to us

    OK you Brits have a hard on for Churchill which I get. Lets forget about famines which occurred under his watch (which you bizarrely ascribe to Indian speculators even though the British had the authority to end such speculation but never mind) Lets talk about the famines in the late 1700 which were caused by the East India company forcing farmers to grow opium and other cash crops.
    Milllions died. And even in aftermath of the “mutiny” of 1857, tens of millions died in famines in atleast partially engineered famines.
    The rehabilitation camps were little better than concentration camps of Nazi Germany. If you scoff at the notion of British using concentration camps because remember you are the “moral” empire, why don’t you ask the Afrikaaners re Boer War their opinion on this matter. They are of European heritage and therefore “civilized” so surely their opinion must weigh more in your eyes.

    Isnt it odd that India never had famines of such magnitude after independence?

    The British Raj was an evil exploitative monstrosity and their apologists such as yourself are morally bankrupt. As the moral case for the Raj collapses, so will Britain as a political entity and nothing would make me happier

  128. ysv rao says:

    And hows this for poetic justice. Your English roses are being ravaged left and right by Pakis right under your noses and you are so thoroughly emasculated that you are unable to do anything about it.
    If this is not a symptom of decline, I don’t know what is.
    But judging by your debating skills, I wont be surprised if your daughter is being gang raped right in front of you by Muslims , you are likely to deny it and say “its not true, its not true, you cant prove its happening”

    LOLL

  129. MarcusD says:

    @greyghost

    Two things after seeing that video.

    1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley (despite being a human)

    2) One of the top comments on that video:

    The “perfect man” will be a tall, broad-shouldered, lean, well-muscled, robot with a full head of hair that can say many phrases including, “You poor thing,” “That was so unfair,” “I like you better without makeup,” “I’m so lucky to have you,” “You look hot in those sweat pants,” “You’re right. I’m wrong,” “What would you like to watch, honey?” “You are so smart, and that’s sexy,” and, “You don’t need to work out…you’re only 200 lbs.”

    For a small upgrade he comes with additional features, such as throwing himself in front of a bus to protect the owner, requiring no gratitude or thanks, and fighting and defeating other men aggressively, while being sensitive and tender to its owner. Also equipped with a reliable “clitoris-discovery” finder which never fails.

    The standard unit comes with a 9 inch member.
    The premium unit comes with a member 17 inches length, pepsi can girth, progammed with 64 sex positions including the “Wheelbarrow,” the “London Bridge,” and the “Eskimo Handstand,” and can last up to 7 hours before recharging.

    All units come with the ability to take out the trash and mow the lawn, as well as pay all the bills and perform the housework with no additional fees.

    Please be advised that we offer a 100% money-back guarantee,
    as this robot has a high level of returns
    and disappointed/dissatisfied customers.

    Incidentally, a few commenters considered the robot an example of “misogyny.” I honestly am baffled at what is considered “misogyny” nowadays – Orwell’s commentary on the word “fascist” seems appropriate.

  130. greyghost says:

    IBB don’t take yourself so serious. But your responses are interesting. MarcusD the comments and reactions to the videos and concepts are very interesting. The views are over 1.3 million and last night was the first time I even saw it. So there is an interest in this female robot thing. People are getting tired of the bull shit and want peace.
    What is going to shorten the time from fantasy to reality is technology advancements in unrelated fields. The small and cheap accelerometers used to stabilize cell phone screens make good sensors for unstable aircraft flight control software. (drones) See where facial recognition software for antiterrorist screening can be used to add an emotion recognition feature to a companion /baby sitter robot. The military and hazardous industry’s need to do more with less human capital also motivates the desire for robots and will fund and motivate as a market for investment . The artificial limb industry will be where life like human features come into play. The feeling of warmth to the touch may come as by product of a desire to create a realist heat signature or thermal image for surveillance or targeting sensors.
    The whole point of the posting drill and conversation was the reaction to a sexbot and to gauge interest and I think the interest is there just not the technical ability. Me personally a male birth control pill and an artificial womb (which will come for career woman if pushed that way) are good enough.

  131. Opus says:

    Perhaps (new boy) ysv rao has a dog in this fight – I know TFH doesn’t because he is American and is merely rooting for his parents (and of course I am rooting for my ancestors whose military careers involved deployment in India at such choice locations as Lucknow and times, 1857). Perhaps I will go and ask Mrs Patel and her husband who work our corner shop, why, if England is so awful they came to settle here. The interesting thing is, Mr and Mrs TFH might have come here too, but whether coming here or going to our former American colonies they end up in an Anglo world – a world of Puritanism, Leveller aspirations, John Locke and Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith and David Hume or wild Quakers like Tom Payne and where the lingua franca is English. The inevitable truth is that (for better or worse) the world is Anglo, Science is Western, and likewise if you want to do advanced music (that is to say, written down on 24 staves or more of manuscript paper) you must adopt western ways, techniques and instruments for wherever you go you cannot really get away from Enlightenment values and the Industrial Revolution. Christianity – a Western religion, at least as it has come down to us, has colonised the world, along with the adventurers, merchants and soldiers.

  132. BradA says:

    IBB,

    “an unwillingness to think critically.”

    You are good at projecting aren’t you?

  133. ysv rao says:

    Perhaps (new boy) ysv rao has a dog in this fight – I know TFH doesn’t because he is American and is merely rooting for his parents (and of course I am rooting for my ancestors whose military careers involved deployment in India at such choice locations as Lucknow and times, 1857
    )”

    .What difference does it make whether TFH is an Indian citizen or Indian American? Facts are facts. Indians don’t think like Arabs ie we consider the English to be Jews to be slaughtered in blood vendettas that would visit the sins of the father on the son.
    So whatever horrible acts your grandfather was involved in ,we have no beef with you.
    However we do object to you justifying or glorifying said acts.

    Perhaps I will go and ask Mrs Patel and her husband who work our corner shop, why, if England is so awful they came to settle here. ”

    That is a straw man argument. No one said England is an awful place. Indeed it is far more pleasant than India even now. And it is not a racist place (any more) . The issue if England was always this wonderful and India always so awful
    You can read the various Portuguese, Chinese, Greek travelers descriptions of India- spoiler alert it was anything but a hell hole. They describe the rulers and benevolent and righteous, cities as well planned ,clean and prosperous, Indians as self confident, brave, tall and healthy and its countryside as pleasing and fertile.
    Conversely we all know how unpleasant England was well until the Victorian era.
    What happened ,well things change. Not always for the better for some people , and not always for the worse for others.
    India was doing pretty well before the British came along, the Hindu Marathas had defeated the most powerful empire at the time , the Mughals . The Sikhs who were a lesser power conquered Kashmir,Tibet and Afghanistan(something you failed to do and thereby creating all sorts of fables about indomitable Afghans to hide your humiliation. Heck Bengalis conquered Afghanistan under the Palas).
    The lying Brit historians later claimed that if weren’t for the English, Hindus would be chafing under Muslim rule. Shameless apologists like Niall Fergusson and William Dalrymple still spout such nonsense
    And please I am not interested in the opinion of Vincent Smith , while he had done some good work on Indian history, his pro Western Hellenism was so bizarre that he devoted almost an entire volume to the Macedonian invasion, an event that is barely a footnote in Indian history.
    The British ill effects on India lingered well after independence.The British legacy on the Indian economy until 1991 was Fabian socialism and we all saw how that turned out.

    The interesting thing is, Mr and Mrs TFH might have come here too, but whether coming here or going to our former American colonies they end up in an Anglo world – a world of Puritanism, Leveller aspirations, John Locke and Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith and David Hume or wild Quakers like Tom Payne and where the lingua franca is English.”

    Adam Smith and Edmund Burke both despised the English imperialism in India as they saw it a perversion of conservative and free market principles
    It is a bit absurd for you to keep taking credit for American achievements. At some point you have to get real. Using this logic, India can gloat about the successes of South East Asia and to a lesser extant China as her colonists have spread Indian art, architecture, religion, sciences, dance and music to those regions which they carry forward to this very day.
    Tom Paine, who born an Englishman, himself ridiculed the view held by the Loyalists that the colonists should remain joined to the mother country due to the various ties you alluded to by mockingly inquiring if England should pay obeisance to France and Germany seeing how her rulers and populace respectively had hailed from those countries.

    The inevitable truth is that (for better or worse) the world is Anglo, Science is Western, and likewise if you want to do advanced music (that is to say, written down on 24 staves or more of manuscript paper) ”

    Obviously you are not aware of Carnatic and Hindustani music and their incredible richness and range otherwise you wouldn’t make such obtuse statements.
    Indian mathematicians had discovered the fundamentals of calculus before Newton and trigonometry before Pythagoras.
    The Western science you crow about would be quite impossible without the Indian decimal system.

    you must adopt western ways, techniques and instruments for wherever you go you cannot really get away from Enlightenment values and the Industrial Revolution. Christianity – a Western religion, at least as it has come down to us, has colonised the world, along with the adventurers, merchants and soldiers.”

    Eh? Christianitys role in “civilizing” the world was at best a mixed record. The Pagan peoples of Europe ,America and Africa may have an opinion on how on Christianitys “civilizing” mission

    So color me unimpressed with all these arguments for the indispensability of Anglo culture

  134. Brad,

    “an unwillingness to think critically.”

    You are good at projecting aren’t you?

    You aren’t thinking critically. Instead, you simply denigrate the man who should have been President by refusing to acknowledge the difference he would have made over our current President. If you don’t like me saying that you don’t think critically, fine. How about this? Brad, if I am good at projecting, you are good at being lazy. Is that better?

    If you disagree, then explain where I came off the rails in describing the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. I don’t think you can because you wont think critically.

  135. Cicero says:

    @ innocentbystanderboston

    “Instead, you simply denigrate the man who should have been President by refusing to acknowledge the difference he would have made over our current President.”

    I am confused on this point. I thought US presidents get elected by the mob. What you are implying with “the man who should have been President” is that it is some form hereditary succession. Are you implying that the current president did not win the election with a majority points in the electoral college or are you claiming that he jumped the line of succession?

  136. Darkheart says:

    but as America began at number 59 Palace Street Canterbury in the year 1620 we can feel proud of how our rebellious offspring has done.

    There’s an old ghost story about a redcoat who had been hidden by his sweetheart in a whiskey barrel in a tavern cellar when the patriots took the town. He was betrayed either by the sweetheart or someone else in the town, and the militia came around to run the barrel through with a sabre. I like to speculate on what that redcoat and all the others felt about their “cousins” and “rebellious offspring” as they died in agony and horror.

    Much is made (mostly be trads, whose motives are highly questionable, to say the least) of how close we are as people, and about the Old Country. I get the strong impression that those making this argument would prefer to forget that we killed your soldiers until they left our shores. Not once, but twice. And both times your only goal in being here was to end our sovereignty. The French are not guilty of this, and historically have done us many services besides, yet no one argues for a “special relationship” with the French.

    And let’s not forget the despicable manipulations of your flagging empire in the last century, from instigating the murder of Rasputin to Operation Keelhaul. Perhaps, from the Ministry of Nostalgia on Palace Street, you can also take credit for our own imperial ambition and propensity for meddling. We’ve certainly picked up some of your more negative habits.

    If you scoff at the notion of British using concentration camps because remember you are the “moral” empire, why don’t you ask the Afrikaaners re Boer War their opinion on this matter.

    I have Afrikaner friends who view all those dead British boys in Flanders as poetic justice for what they did in SA. And thank god the Brits got their way in SA; the country is greatly improved due to their endeavors .

    Eh? Christianitys role in “civilizing” the world was at best a mixed record.

    When everything you’ve built is crumbling around you, it’s easy to sink into a nostalgic hubris. Brits like to pretend they invented America, and Christians like to pretend they invented the West entire.

  137. TFH says:

    Addressing Opus,

    Perhaps I will go and ask Mrs Patel and her husband who work our corner shop, why, if England is so awful they came to settle here.

    That is weak even by strawman standards. Clearly, England is a better place than India today (although the US is better than England). It is not today we are talking about, and you know it.

    Is this how you argue cases in front of the Magistrate?

    You asserted that ‘India did not have Universities until the British started them in 1813′, which I have heavily proven to be false. Nalanda, Puspagiri, and Taxila were among the greatest centers of learning in the world at the time (3rd to 5th centuries AD) and people from all the civilized parts of Eurasia traveled to go learn there. The civilized parts of Eurasia at the time included Rome and Greece, but not the Northwestern islands of Europe..

    I also provided proof of Winston Churchill’s relatively untroubled decision to take food away from India and let 3 Million people starve.

    Furthermore, Opus states :

    and likewise if you want to do advanced music (that is to say, written down on 24 staves or more of manuscript paper) you must adopt western ways, techniques and instruments for wherever you go you cannot really get away from Enlightenment values and the Industrial Revolution. Christianity – a Western religion, at least as it has come down to us, has colonised the world, along with the adventurers, merchants and soldiers.

    Wait, so upon failing to support claims of English divinity, you widen the goalposts by a factor of 20, to tout ‘Western Civ’? What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about England.

    Changing the subject to a broader ‘Western Civ’ is what Eastern Europeans do in order to hide the fact that they are not first-worlders. An Englishman (from a much more successful society than Romania or Poland or Belarus), should not have to hide behind this umbrella when his original point was English uber-supremacy (i.e. how America’s success is due to England, etc.).

    Changing the subject by widening the goalposts twentyfold (or, in cricket terms, bowling from 3 feet in front of the batsman), is lame.

  138. TFH says:

    vsv rao,

    Good job. You should know that Opus is an English barrister who argues cases in front of the court all the time, and his command of the English language is exceptionally high. To out-debate him is a feat to be proud of.

  139. Escoffier says:

    If India was so strong and successful pre-Raj, why were the Brits able to take the whole place over with about 20 guys?

  140. MarcusD says:

    See, I wonder how readily this would be considered ‘sexism’ if the genders were flipped (men receiving monetary support, and women not): https://www.hackerschool.com

    It’s the WAW Effect, again.

  141. Cicero says:

    @ Darkheart

    “I have Afrikaner friends who view all those dead British boys in Flanders as poetic justice for what they did in SA. And thank god the Brits got their way in SA; the country is greatly improved due to their endeavors .”

    Well seeing as the Brits killed almost half the Boer children and over 7000 women in the new founded idea of concentration camps, employed scorched earth policy (because the mightiest empire of the world at the time with more than 300 000 men couldn’t beat the a few thousand Boer Kommando) then it doesn’t take a genius to see that anything other than that is an improvement. I must say either your Afrikaner friends don’t know their own history or I am calling Bravo Sierra on your claims of having Afrikaner friends. Because there was no country called South Africa at the time. It was 2 Boer Republics and 2 British colonies and only became a Union (not a country) in 1910. So how on earth could they have left South Africa a better country if there was no South Africa to begin with. Oh and just so you know Afrikaners and Boere are not the same thing. The Afrikaners from the cape colony helped the Brits against the Boere. And as for Afrikaners calling Flanders poetic justice I also call Bravo Sierra. Because men from the union were there fighting for the Brits. http://www.1914-1918.net/south_africa.html

    So Churchill’s Britain can swim in the blood of the women and children of the Mighty Aapies and justify its god of progress all it wants however the living God does not sleep.

  142. TFH says:

    Escoffier,

    If India was so strong and successful pre-Raj, why were the Brits able to take the whole place over with about 20 guys?

    Tremendous ignorance, in just one sentence.

    It took them over two centuries to colonize India. 350 years if you could the Portugeuse landing in 1498 until British control of most of India by 1848 or so….

    In the process of colonization, Britain lost several wars (three against Mysore, and three against the Marathas). It also took the British two wars to subdue the tiny Sikh community

    Also, Mysore assisted George Washington in the US revolutionary war (since both were fighting the British at the same time), due to Mysore rocket technology being the most advanced in the world at the time (a technology Britain in turn learned from Mysore, and used to defeat Napoleon).

    Get a clue. Or fifty.

  143. Escoffier says:

    I gather you’re very proud of your culture, which is great, I wish more in the West were proud of theirs (ours). But it’s a valid question. India has always been vastly larger than Britain in both territory and population. (In fact, the Raj was much larger than today’s India, but included Pakistan, Bangladesh and Ceylon, plus parts of Burma.) It’s also very far from the British Isles, and was functionally even farther before the advent of steam in the 1820s and the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. And yet the faraway, non-numerous British managed to govern India with a tiny force for about two centuries. All the while they were governing a far flung empire in every part of the globe with similarly very small forces. I think one obvious reason why is that India was not united, and in fact often was at war with itself, which made the British way much easier. In fact, it was really the British who united Inida–politcally, legally, and through infrastructure.

    To point this out is not to disparage any of the legitimate glories of Indian civilization.

  144. TFH says:

    I should also mention that the Mysore rockets wee the origin of rockets mentioned in ‘The Star Spangled Banner’

    Escoffier,

    And yet the faraway, non-numerous British managed to govern India with a tiny force for about two centuries.

    Now you are talking about how they governed. Your first question was about ‘how they took over with 20 guys’, when it in fact took two centuries and several defeats just to subdue India. Two very different things.

    Britain also defeated much larger China (although did not colonize it), the same way.

    I think one obvious reason why is that India was not united, and in fact often was at war with itself,

    Yes. Because Indian empires had a lot of infighting. Sort of the same reason that small German states and Italian principalities could not unite into a single country for centuries upon centuries.

    In fact, it was really the British who united Inida–politcally, legally, and through infrastructure.

    No, because the Mughals already did this. Queen Elizabeth wrote letters of admiration to Emperor Akbar about how much he accomplished, over such a huge empire (larger than all of Europe at the time). In fact, Britain dis-united India by encouraging the partition of India.

    Also, the British stripmined India of resources, as explained above, with sources.

    Railroads are given as an example of what the British ‘built’, but this implies that countries not colonized by Britain would not have railroads of their own.

    You really must see ‘The Story of India’ by Michael Wood (linked above). It is a BBC documentary, and will correct your notion that ‘the British took over India with 20 guys’…

  145. Tam the Bam says:

    Escoffier,“If India was so strong and successful pre-Raj, why were the Brits able to take the whole place over with about 20 guys?”
    Flags

  146. Darkheart says:

    It was 2 Boer Republics and 2 British colonies and only became a Union (not a country) in 1910.

    And you think arguments are won on technicalities such as this? States matter a great deal less than the people who create and maintain them. This is a lesson all Westerners need to learn, and quickly.

    And as for Afrikaners calling Flanders poetic justice I also call Bravo Sierra. Because men from the union were there fighting for the Brits.

    LOL, call whatever you like, kiddo. The Brits also brought along the Irish on their many foreign adventures, yet you’d be hard-pressed to call Ireland a pro-British state or the Irish a pro-British people. The British Army in South Africa (oop, I mean the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, since that’s hugely important) also employed a good number of local white scouts against the Boers, so by your logic that must mean that all the whites in the region were pro-British, perhaps even the Boers themselves.

  147. Escoffier says:

    The “20 guys” crack was a joke, but based on the general British Imperial policy of keeping very small garrisons in all of their colonies. I am certainly not the first to point out how hard it would have been for the British to handle a serious ground challenge, especially in more than one place at a time. The British Army was always historically very, very small–they put most of their resources into the Navy. They peaked at around 50K in India, supplemented by a much larger Indian army. Still tiny compared to the size of the country, though.

    Regarding unity, I mean at the time the British arrived. By that time, the region was very fractured. They united it. And, my recollection from what I have read was that the British did not want to partition India at all. Indeed, the opponents of “dominion status” used exactly that argument: if we let go of the reins, the place will break up. It was Jinna who drove that, not the British. (Gandhi didn’t want it broken up, either.)

    Anyway, I will watch that.

  148. Opus says:

    I was merely keen to test just how American TFH is, and all this vitriol (from him and South Indian Rao) arising from an aside in my comment about incentives – and I was being nice to India! His indifference as a full-bloodied American, to the game of Cricket is certainly a point in his favour as and I quite understand that he would be knowledgable as to his parents original country of origin, yet I detect some special pleading. Now, personally, I have no problem in recognising the glories of India throughout its long and glorious history, and indeed any country that drives Morris Oxfords with Ashwaira Rai as a passenger gets the thumbs-up in my view. I merely compare TFH with other Americans – for example our good friend Bill Price, for Price, like all Americans, is keen to let you know his European roots for although being 100% American he is also 50% Welsh, 50% Dutch and 50% Norwegian – a fully-fledged Viking in fact – oh to have such illustrious and varied forebears rather than as I am the last (and indeed only and founding member) member of the Anglo-Saxon liberation front, for we have been groaning under the Norman yoke for nearly a thousand years.

    Does not every American President, soon after taking office, visit the British Isles, and on his visit, pay a stop at the village from which his ancestors hailed – even Obama managed this – and in Ireland – obviously one of the O’Bamas from County Kerry.

    Life and bandwidth are too short to take up the challenge of answering all the points of calumny from Rao and TFH – and indeed I would regard it as beneath my dignity to do so even were I to know the answers to all these varied questions (which I do not). All I will add is that until last year we provided Millions perhaps Billions of Pounds sterling of Foreign Aid to India (and this only came to light when India decided to reject our munificence. This then enraged all true Englishmen not for the refusal but because we objected that a country that had its own Space Program should receive Aid which we might otherwise have for ourselves but as I mentioned above, The Prime Minister has been boasting that he has given away Eleven Billion pounds of the stuff. Given the lack of gratitude on this thread I think the sooner that stops the better.

  149. ysv rao says:

    @ Opus

    I do not doubt that you are an Indophile with a broadminded appreciation for chicken tikka masala, Aishwarya Rai, Sachin tendulkar and all that. However that does not preclude you from being an Empire apologist clearly

    Forgive me I didn’t see your innocuous comment initially (there are 134 , I just went through the latest ones featuring your row with TFH)

    That comment about Pakistanis and English girls was below the belt for which I apologize. It was just that Subtelty fellow didn’t seem to be interested in debate but vulgar triumphalism so I had to respond in kind

    As for the foreign aid , a wise man said it is what poor people in rich countries give to rich people in poor countries
    India doesn’t need it ,shouldnt take it and it should stop. It just enables corruption both in India( it need not be mentioned a good chunk finds its way into Swiss bank accounts of various politicians) and UK(involves parasitical civil servants with sticky finger who are employed just to dispense the monies)

    I admire many things English especially Chaucer, Shakespeare,Marlowe, Francis Bacon and Christopher Wren. All of whom please note preceed or have little to do with Empire
    The problem with Empire and imperialism that it demands an admiration and identity which is zero sum. It tends to displace all other points of pride which preceeded it

  150. BradA says:

    IBB,

    Romney was just one wing of the bi-factional ruling party. He would have been, at best, just like GWB who was a disaster. You should really study a bit and you can see that the US President has very little ability to drastically change things. That is why Obama’s foreign policy was largely so much like Bush’s foreign policy and on back the chain. Little tweaks here and there, but not significant changes in direction. The direction is still headed for the wall.

    Though Romney got what he deserved with the way he treated Ron Paul supporters. It looks like the 2016 nominee may have trouble getting sufficient delegates due to the rules changes meant to keep Paul supporters out. Rigged games have a way of coming back to bite you.

    The Republicans get by with less from the press, but are not all that different in practice. “We are all big government conservatives now” is a thought most of them share and is the root of countless problems.

    8 Years of GWB didn’t help, how would 4 or 8 years of Romney?

  151. TFH says:

    No country should take foreign aid. As Rao correctly pointed out, it is merely a transfer from the taxed class of the wealthy country to the coffers of the top few people of the poor country.

    The Nehru family probably has $100B or more in Swiss bank accounts. That Sonia Gandhi is Italian is a convenient way of visiting their money frequently. Other Indian politicians each as $1B to $10B stashed away.

    There should be no aid from one country to another. America, in particular, should stop all aid it gives out.

    Opus,

    Given the lack of gratitude on this thread I think the sooner that stops the better.

    As Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again.

    Gratitude? Again, no country should give aid to another. As an American, I say all American aid should stop (including the military aid we provide to Europe via NATO, which saves them $300B/year).

    But to deny the vast wealth in gold, silver, and gemstones Britain has strip-mined from India, is dishonest. The ‘aid’ represents a tiny fraction of that, for which you want ‘gratitude’.

    So if India doesn’t want the aid, and you don’t want to send it, why isn’t it stopping? Why?

  152. Darkheart says:

    Does not every American President, soon after taking office, visit the British Isles, and on his visit, pay a stop at the village from which his ancestors hailed – even Obama managed this – and in Ireland – obviously one of the O’Bamas from County Kerry.

    Willfully ignoring the wars I mentioned, the anti-British sentiment that pops up with some regularity, and the vast differences in political philosophy, especially when it comes to privately-owned weapons, but whatever. Just stick to the script, I guess. While doing so, however, understand that Putin just went into the Crimea because everyone in the Ukraine is really Russian, and therefore their country is just a Russian colony. Sometimes that special relationship can really stick it in and break it off.

  153. Escoffier says:

    GBP 11 billion is kind of nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially as transfer payments among nations, and ESPECIALLY to a country as large as India. Foreign aid at that level is really not intended to make a material difference in the lives of nations (though it is when it comes to wealth transfers to really small, really poor countries). It’s a proxy for other things.

  154. So Much For Subtlety says:

    TFH says:

    I see you still cannot produce a single source to back up your beliefs, nor can you bring yourself to read my heavy contribution of reputed sources.

    I have been reading, and quoting, your sources. They support me. You are being dishonest about what your own sources say. Why should I provide more when you’re own support my case?

    Pathetic. That is all you can say “it is true, just…..because”. Lame, pathetic, and ‘butthurt’.

    Because it is. Even your own sources make it clear. Nalanda was a large Buddhist site where people could study Buddhist texts. Not a university. There is no point even arguing over that.

    Nalanda had 10,000 students and 2000 professors, and taught sciences, mathemetics, metallurgy, economics, etc. All that is in the Wikipedia link that you are afraid to read. The ruins of the campus cover acres of land that anyone can verify on Google Earth. Puspagiri was similar.

    That is not what Wikipedia says:

    “In Nalanda university,the Tibetan tradition holds that there were “four doxographies” (Tibetan: grub-mtha’) which were taught at Nālandā, and Alexander Berzin specifies these as:[34]

    Sarvāstivāda Vaibhāṣika
    Sarvāstivāda Sautrāntika
    Mādhyamaka, the Mahāyāna philosophy of Nāgārjuna
    Cittamatra, the Mahāyāna philosophy of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu”

    It is true that they cite some modern, unattributed crap off the internet that says otherwise, but they have no evidence for it. A university it was not. Their numbers seem way off too given the people who actually went there reported much lower numbers of students. Again, Indian butt hurtness is not a surprise. You just should not believe it.

    er…. not only did I provide sources for this, but this is somewhat well-known outside of Britain. This diversion of food from Bengal is blacked out of the British media (or at least was)

    Your sources *comprehensively* excuse Churchill and point out that Indian politicians were to blame. You lied. You are lying. You know your claims are untrue and you are making them anyway.

    Here is another source about Churchill’s diversion of food from India (a UK source at that) :

    A review of some Indian woman’s book. Not evidence. We all know Indians suffer from butt hurt, and to be frank often have a problem with honesty. It is meaningless.

    But since you are desperately trying to avoid the sources I already provided (while producing none of your own), no weight of evidence will lead you to change your indoctrination.

    I have quoted your own source Wikipedia extensively. Proving that the problem was Indian. Not British and not Churchill.

    The only thing that is debatable is whether Churchill was saddened by his decision to let 3M Indians starve, or whether his rationalization hamster made him decide it was necessary.

    There being no evidence at all that Churchill wanted or intended to starve anyone. You are being dishonest again.

  155. So Much For Subtlety says:

    ysv rao says:

    Either counter what TFH has stated with facts of your own or STFU

    Sorry but have you bothered to read any of this thread at all?

    Just stating Nalanda and Takshashila weren’t universities and dismissing them as Buddhist centres of learning doesn’t really do well for British self confidence
    Dismissing the legacy of those universities only exposes your ignorance

    What legacy? Name three books published at that Buddhist site. Actually I don’t need to do any more. Read the Wikipedia page that TFH has provided. Although Indian nationalists are clearly trying to salve some national pride, it makes it clear it was not a university. I really don’t need to do any more than that.

    It is actually the British who get butt hurt when Indians claim that India was an advanced civilization before the British came along.

    I do not know anyone who denies it. So what?

    Whether Labour or Conservatives were in power didn’t make much difference to prospects of Indian independence before 1945, so please don’t try and feed that bull to us

    I agree. They were long committed to Indian independence. Churchill tried to reverse that but even his own party would not back him. What relevance it has I do now know, but as you are clearly just acting out, please don’t let me stop you.

    OK you Brits have a hard on for Churchill which I get. Lets forget about famines which occurred under his watch (which you bizarrely ascribe to Indian speculators even though the British had the authority to end such speculation but never mind)

    In the end the British did stop them. The problem is that the Provinces had been granted a lot of powers and were abusing them. This was an entirely Indian famine.

    Lets talk about the famines in the late 1700 which were caused by the East India company forcing farmers to grow opium and other cash crops.

    So you have to go back 300 years to find something to complain about ? You’re not a teenage girl by any chance?

    Milllions died. And even in aftermath of the “mutiny” of 1857, tens of millions died in famines in atleast partially engineered famines.

    Bollocks. There is no limit to the nonsense the butthurt will believe is there?

    The rehabilitation camps were little better than concentration camps of Nazi Germany.

    So you’re claiming they turned Indians into bars of soap?

    Isnt it odd that India never had famines of such magnitude after independence?

    India inherited the full range of famine laws and procedures that Britain created. Plus they had a lot of US aid. But India had as many famines in the 50 years since 1943 as the British had in the 50 years before it. Not counting 43 itself. So thanks to the West, India could do pretty much what Britain managed to do but with a lot of Western aid.

    The British Raj was an evil exploitative monstrosity and their apologists such as yourself are morally bankrupt. As the moral case for the Raj collapses, so will Britain as a political entity and nothing would make me happier

    Good for you. But the British Empire was the best thing to happen to the world. And it provided enormous benefits to everyone. Especially Indians. In fact Indians have not been able to do much on their own ever since. The British created India’s steel industry for instance. And its High Tech aircraft manufactures. Even its car industry. All created under the protection and with the aid and encouragement of the Raj.

    You should be thankful.

  156. Brad,

    Okay this was an excellent response. Unlike your previous comments, you took the time to think and ask intelligent questions. I thank you for that. Now I will address them.

    IBB,

    Romney was just one wing of the bi-factional ruling party. He would have been, at best, just like GWB who was a disaster. You should really study a bit and you can see that the US President has very little ability to drastically change things. That is why Obama’s foreign policy was largely so much like Bush’s foreign policy and on back the chain. Little tweaks here and there, but not significant changes in direction. The direction is still headed for the wall.

    So much to say here. First of all Brad, GWB dramatically changed GOP policy (specifically GOP foreign policy.) He went in a dramatically different direction for one reason, and one reason only:

    September 11th, 2001

    That event was a game changer, a deal breaker for the GOP and the deal they had with the American people. Not one aspect of the 2000 election between GWB and Vice President Gore addressed Fundamental Islam, not one. Neither man could have ever in their wildest imaginations, ever even thought of turning airliners into WMDs or legitimized the concept of Islamic Terrorism changing our foreign policy so drastically, but it did. September 11th, 2001 convinced a significant portion of the GOP (and quite possibly a large number of liberal Democrats who in-turn became “neo-cons”) that the whole world was changing whether we liked it or not. GWB “drastically” changed things (either for the better or for the worse) but he changed them, thus invalidating your comment that Presidents have any power to change things.

    President Obama’s foreign policy has been very similar to GWB’s policy for the one reason that liberal Democrats refuse to legitimize: we have no real alternative. The enemy is Fundamental Islam. Forget everything that Senator Obama said about GWB and his foreign policy when running against Senator McCain. That was all just rhetoric that he had to repeat (the Democratic party line) all the while, towing the line for the new GOP that is anti-Fundamental-Islam first and foremost.

    GWB may very well have been a disaster (particularly in the way he handled Fundamental Islam and the Middle East) but we were talking about Mitt Romney vs President Obama, not GWB vs anyone.

    Romney went on the record to not only say what he would do but WHY! He said we need to DOUBLE Gitmo (not shut it down, double it) because the “unlawful combatants” (and that is what they are) are being kept there because we can keep them there forever. They get no legal protections NOR are we Constitutionally bound to give them trials or tribunals. President Obama figured this out (after he was elected) which is exactly why he has not done as he said and shut it down. Romney said we need to give Green Cards to all foreigners who earn PhDs in CompSci at our universities because we want them working here paying into our government coffers big tax dollars, kind of like a Darwinistic immigration policy (only the smartest and most educated are welcome.) Romney said we need a 20 foot wall the whole 2000+ miles along the Mexican border and explained why self-deportation works. None of these were GWB or Obama policies. But they ARE policies that are sensitive to the changing world we live in and what we must do as a nation to not only survice, but also thrive.

    Though Romney got what he deserved with the way he treated Ron Paul supporters. It looks like the 2016 nominee may have trouble getting sufficient delegates due to the rules changes meant to keep Paul supporters out. Rigged games have a way of coming back to bite you.

    GOP candidates that simply refuse to acknowledge the danger that is Fundamental Islam, are not only not allowed to be elected President, they are probably not even allowed to run for President on the GOP ticket. I like Dr Ron Paul. I agree with everything he has to say on domestic policies. But his foreign policy instantly disqualifies him. Not only does he refuse to act from a foreign policy standpoint on the religion of piss, he out and out simply refuses to even acknowledge its existance! It is almost as if 9-11 never happened for Ron Paul (and his supporters.) Please don’t tell me you support him as President.

    The Republicans get by with less from the press, but are not all that different in practice. “We are all big government conservatives now” is a thought most of them share and is the root of countless problems.

    8 Years of GWB didn’t help, how would 4 or 8 years of Romney?

    When Romney says “…before I sign any budget that has even one penny of deficit spending on it, I will be sure that every single penny we borrow from China is a penny for a program we simply have to have…” that is honest if not, policial suicide. But I like it. And you should like it. ROmney was going to give every single person in the United States a Presidential-Pardon/Waver to Obamacare on January 20th, 2013. Romney wants disband PBS. Romney wants to disband the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, all of them. I don’t know if he could have ever gotten congress to eliminate everything they worked so hard to build and spend money on, but he gets it. And now, we’ll never know how good we could have had it. Instead we have Obamacare.

  157. So Much For Subtlety says:

    TFH says:

    You asserted that ‘India did not have Universities until the British started them in 1813′, which I have heavily proven to be false. Nalanda, Puspagiri, and Taxila were among the greatest centers of learning in the world at the time (3rd to 5th centuries AD) and people from all the civilized parts of Eurasia traveled to go learn there. The civilized parts of Eurasia at the time included Rome and Greece, but not the Northwestern islands of Europe..

    No you have no proven them false. You have just made a series of dishonest and untrue claims about what were Temple sites for the study of Buddhist scripture. As Wikipedia makes clear.

    If any Greeks or Romans went there then you can name three.

    I also provided proof of Winston Churchill’s relatively untroubled decision to take food away from India and let 3 Million people starve.

    No you have not. Not one little piece of evidence says this. You have cited Wikipedia that points out that Indian politicians refused to allow food to move from their provinces to Bengal. Thus causing the famine. And which also points out there was nothing Churchill could have done. But that eventually the British threatened the Indians and made them feed the starving.

    Changing the subject by widening the goalposts twentyfold (or, in cricket terms, bowling from 3 feet in front of the batsman), is lame.

    And yet you keep doing it.

    TFH says:

    It took them over two centuries to colonize India. 350 years if you could the Portugeuse landing in 1498 until British control of most of India by 1848 or so….

    Well if you insist on all of India, you could put off that date even further. But you are artificially extending the period. Suppose we take the period of British control from Plassey to Sind? How many years is that?

    In the process of colonization, Britain lost several wars (three against Mysore, and three against the Marathas). It also took the British two wars to subdue the tiny Sikh community

    It is a strange loss that gives Britain more control over India, but if you need to believe so, please feel free to believe so.

    Also, Mysore assisted George Washington in the US revolutionary war (since both were fighting the British at the same time), due to Mysore rocket technology being the most advanced in the world at the time (a technology Britain in turn learned from Mysore, and used to defeat Napoleon).

    Assisted how precisely? You mean by giving the British rockets to kill Americans with?

    Get a clue. Or fifty.

    Pot meet kettle.

    TFH says:

    Yes. Because Indian empires had a lot of infighting. Sort of the same reason that small German states and Italian principalities could not unite into a single country for centuries upon centuries.

    And because Indians hated each other more than they hated the British. Which is why so many Indians were willing to fight for the British Army.

    No, because the Mughals already did this. Queen Elizabeth wrote letters of admiration to Emperor Akbar about how much he accomplished, over such a huge empire (larger than all of Europe at the time). In fact, Britain dis-united India by encouraging the partition of India.

    No they did not. The Mughals tried – Aurangzeb spent much of his life campaigning in the South. But India is a creation of the British – from the name down to the post codes.

    Also, the British stripmined India of resources, as explained above, with sources.

    No they did not. British India’s economy grew consistently through the 19th century. India was better off at the end of the Raj than at the start.

    Railroads are given as an example of what the British ‘built’, but this implies that countries not colonized by Britain would not have railroads of their own.

    Which is pretty much true actually. You only have to compare India with China to see that without the British, India would have lacked railways.

  158. Opus says:

    I am just back from the pub (so I told my Swiss German friend about this thread). His attitude was: Live in the present. I replied: they won’t. Everyone, I explained, whether Indian, American or even American of recent Indian decent hates the English (but only because they are secretly envious). He says Merkel runs Europe and Cameron is her stooge. I laughed. He insists England is a polyglot nation but even if it were (which it isn’t, I explained) no one refers to himself as a something Briton. I want to see an American American, but is it even possible?

  159. CCG says:

    Yes, the British were the best possibility among other Europeans seeking to colonize India. The Portuguese, French, Dutch, and Danish all were vying for control of India.

    I don’t believe that statement about the British being the best option. Goa, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, and Pondicherry are at present flooded by hundreds of thousands of Indians from other states who have ZERO intention of ever returning to their places of origin. (Meanwhile the natives of these former non-British colonies are fleeing westwards to escape the criminal, vulgar Indian hordes. It’s the reason the native Catholic population of Goa has crashed from 85% to 26%.) The British ruled India mostly by proxy (i.e. via various Maharajahs, Nizams, etc.), they didn’t really bother to improve Indian society because they were only interested in grabbing resources (e.g. Widow-burning was outlawed in British India more than 300 years after it was outlawed in Portuguese India, and in British India the laws was never really enforced – refer to the Roop Kanwar case of the 1980s. Also, the British were completely useless at spreading Christianity in the subcontinent unlike the other European colonizers – hence Christians in India are less than 3% of the total population.). The British also left their part of India in the hands of Champagne Marxists like Nehru who aimed to enrich themselves at all costs while ensuring that only those Indians who paid bribes would be allowed by the Marxist system to get ahead in India.

  160. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    I want to see an American American, but is it even possible?

    Maybe in a museum. But maybe not…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

  161. ysv rao says:

    I am just back from the pub ”

    And that explains this nonsensical post.Was subtlety there with you?

    (so I told my Swiss German friend about this thread). His attitude was: Live in the present. I replied: they won’t.

    That’s rich coming from an Englishman! Need I remind you have a monarchy but we do not. Most of ours were abolished shortly after independence and their palaces turned into hotels.
    It is you who live in the past crowing about the British Raj. And when we respond to the bizarre revisionist history, you wail about us living about us living in the past!

    And is a Swiss German really in a moral position to lecture others on how to live their lives. They barely get along with other Italian and French cantons and treat them with contempt. And we all know what their “neutrality” really meant during WWII

    Everyone, I explained, whether Indian, American or even American of recent Indian decent hates the English (but only because they are secretly envious). ”

    Envious of what exactly- a near bankrupt economy, a joke of a military which is barely a shadow of its glory days(see the comical performance in Libya) or a rapidly collapsing social structure with its yobbos, high divorce rate ,trash culture
    Granted despite all that, it for now has better lifestyle conditions and strong technological and financial sectors which attract immigrants but the point is as far as Indians are concerned the bloom is off the rose

    He says Merkel runs Europe and Cameron is her stooge. I laughed. He insists England is a polyglot nation but even if it were (which it isn’t, I explained) no one refers to himself as a something Briton. ”

    It is a matter of semantics. – American caught on but -Briton didn’t. It doesn’t mean there aren’t Britons who don’t honor their mother country heritage. A good chunk of Italians and Greeks still do.

    I want to see an American American, but is it even possible”

  162. Cicero says:

    @ Darkheart

    “And you think arguments are won on technicalities such as this? States matter a great deal less than the people who create and maintain them. This is a lesson all Westerners need to learn, and quickly.”

    You call the mere technicalities. You are the one that claimed that Britain left it South Africa in a better state. What these technicalities show is that the republics were formed in 1852 and 1854 so they were still building their countries from scratch. And by that I mean from nothing. No buildings no supplies no infrastructure what so ever. By the time the Brits invaded these 2 Republics have already achieved the same if not more to what their western brethren could have done over the same time period. So the Brits came burn most of it down to the ground start to rebuild and claim a great leap forward. You are delusional if you think that the Brits improved upon what was already being done.

    LOL, call whatever you like, kiddo. The Brits also brought along the Irish on their many foreign adventures, yet you’d be hard-pressed to call Ireland a pro-British state or the Irish a pro-British people. The British Army in South Africa (oop, I mean the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, since that’s hugely important) also employed a good number of local white scouts against the Boers, so by your logic that must mean that all the whites in the region were pro-British, perhaps even the Boers themselves.

    The devil is in the detail Souttie (oops, I forgot only the detail you are interested in should matter). You are trying to change the issue with a bait and switch in order to cover for the fact that your claims of poetic justice was a made up story. The Boere fought against people from Aus, NZ Afrikaners, and Joiners ( Boere who sided with the Brits so their families wouldn’t be put in concentration camps and their farms not burnt to the ground). The Boere also fought along side a number of Irish, Germans, Russians, men from the US and other countries against the Brits. So your “pro-Britsh” claim is nothing more than a red herring.

  163. ysv rao says:

    Sorry but have you bothered to read any of this thread at all?”

    Im beginning to wonder if you if even know how to read.

    What legacy? Name three books published at that Buddhist site.

    Arya Bhatiya, a treatise on trigonometry.,cosmpology and which includes work on arithmetic and geometric progression as well as quadratic equations. Arya Siddhanta on astronomy and Bramasphutasiddhanta which deals with algebra, geometry and quadratic equations

    All you had to was search but apparently that is too much effort

    “Actually I don’t need to do any more. ”

    Actually you cant do any more as you keep proving that you are an idiot anda troll with about zero knowledge of Indian and very limited comprehension skills. I am spot a dunce who thinks he can fool others by rapidly spewing whatever incoherent babble via google search, a mile away.
    Sadly most Englishmen such as yourself fall in this category.
    You need a comprehensive education to make up for your comprehensive education

    “Read the Wikipedia page that TFH has provided. Although Indian nationalists are clearly trying to salve some national pride, it makes it clear it was not a university. I really don’t need to do any more than that.”

    Correction: You CANT do any more than that.

    It is actually the British who get butt hurt when Indians claim that India was an advanced civilization before the British came along.

    “I do not know anyone who denies it. So what?”

    Err actually you did. The gist of your entire posts is exactly that

    Whether Labour or Conservatives were in power didn’t make much difference to prospects of Indian independence before 1945, so please don’t try and feed that bull to us

    I agree. They were long committed to Indian independence. ”

    LOLLLL. Are you for real. Your knowledge of history is just comical. Are you serious or just trolling for our amusement?

    Churchill tried to reverse that but even his own party would not back him. ”

    Not out of the goodness of their hearts – the jig was up post 1945- American pressure, British bankruptcy and the loyalty of the Indian army very much in question. The real reason India got its independence was due to the “moral” dimension of the British empire and Gandhi and all that claptrap but the Mutiny of the Indian Navy in 1946

    What relevance it has I do now know, but as you are clearly just acting out, please don’t let me stop you.”

    You seem to be an idiot. How old are you really?

    OK you Brits have a hard on for Churchill which I get. Lets forget about famines which occurred under his watch (which you bizarrely ascribe to Indian speculators even though the British had the authority to end such speculation but never mind)

    “In the end the British did stop them. The problem is that the Provinces had been granted a lot of powers and were abusing them. This was an entirely Indian famine.”

    More bizarre assertions without an iota of proof. Did you even graduate high school? Good lord man , THIS is your level of debating skills?

    Lets talk about the famines in the late 1700 which were caused by the East India company forcing farmers to grow opium and other cash crops.

    “So you have to go back 300 years to find something to complain about ? You’re not a teenage girl by any chance?”

    Perhaps I am a teenage girl but you are a eunuch. What else explains the fact that Pakis are ravaging your daughters under your very roof and you refuse to do anything about it?
    What difference 300 years, 1000 years or 70 years? The issue is the so called enlightened nature of British rule and if they weren’t so enlightened 300 years ago, I will bring it up. Are you really this stupid?

    Milllions died. And even in aftermath of the “mutiny” of 1857, tens of millions died in famines in atleast partially engineered famines.

    Bollocks. There is no limit to the nonsense the butthurt will believe is there?”

    For gods sake you lazy shit. Google it, Im not doing all the work for you. If you get all your info from braindead apologists and you process that info poorly ,that’s not my problem!

    The rehabilitation camps were little better than concentration camps of Nazi Germany.

    So you’re claiming they turned Indians into bars of soap?”

    How amusing. What else can one expect from a civilization which grew crops which ended up killing millions just so an entire country could get addicted to opium and indeed fight wars so that they keep being addicted in order for them to make a profit. Piracy, slavery, engineered famines, plundering, pimping and drug pushing. This is how your Enlightened civilization got its start. You must be so proud.

    Isnt it odd that India never had famines of such magnitude after independence?

    India inherited the full range of famine laws and procedures that Britain created. Plus they had a lot of US aid. But India had as many famines in the 50 years since 1943 as the British had in the 50 years before it. Not counting 43 itself. So thanks to the West, India could do pretty much what Britain managed to do but with a lot of Western aid.”

    Codswallop. What laws and procedures were in place when the famines were taking place right underneath their noses?
    And how many millions died in famines since 1947, I await your wisdom but I don’t think it will be forthcoming.
    And western aid only ended up in the pockets of corrupt politicians.
    India acquired agricultural self sufficiency via the green and white revolutions.

    The British Raj was an evil exploitative monstrosity and their apologists such as yourself are morally bankrupt. As the moral case for the Raj collapses, so will Britain as a political entity and nothing would make me happier

    “Good for you. But the British Empire was the best thing to happen to the world. And it provided enormous benefits to everyone. Especially Indians. In fact Indians have not been able to do much on their own ever since. The British created India’s steel industry for instance. And its High Tech aircraft manufactures. Even its car industry. All created under the protection and with the aid and encouragement of the Raj.”

    Yes because obviously such institutions could never have created with the help of other nations who were dying to trade with India but couldn’t because of guess who?

    “Lalalala. I cant hear you” is the extant of your debating skills. “No its not true, its false, its lies , nonsense. its not true. The British empire was wonderful. you suck”
    Oxford Union Debating Alumni you clearly aint.

    Repeat after me impromptu google search knowledge

    You should be thankful.”

    I am very thankful for you to provide todays quota of entertainment. If this is the level of debating ability that English propagandists can push then Indian nationalists can sleep very soundly at night

  164. ysv rao says:

    TFH,

    Don’t be so naïve. Opus and Subtlety are both two faces of the same monster.

    Please note that Opus has absolutely no problem with this troll subtlety and his absolutely nonsensical and abusive posts filled with vague generalizations, dubious fact free assertions and knee jerk denial of any our assertions with corroboration evidence of his own. It is evident that subtlety is just an illiterate apologist for the Empire who is way out of his league. His knowledge of Indian as well as English history is just pathetic if not comical.
    Not that Opus is any better – same evading tactics and ignorance of Indian history. Atl east unlike subtlety he admits he has no clue about Indian history thereby throwing in the towel

    Again he has no problem with Subtlety’s trolling but only with my “vitriol” which I admitted was a but a response to Subtlety as people like him only behave when they are abused as they are barbarians.

    Opus is just playing good cop to subtlety’s bad cop. Same old East India company dirty tricks . The English were always more Odysseus than Achilles, honor and integrity are foreign words for them. They prefer to rely on their usual bag of tricks which would make even whores blush!

  165. TFH says:

    vsv rao,

    I stopped reading ‘Subtlety’ after the first two comments. He provides no links, but ignores mine. Treating him like a respectable party is totally beneath us.

    Opus and I have commented on the same boards for some time, and he is my friend on all subjects other than this one. But it is sad that he has such an unfounded delusion about the greatness of the British Empire, and ignores sources I provide that refute his blind beliefs. It is even more surprising that he clumsily changes the subject to ‘all of Western Civ’, which is a total capitulation from his original position.

    Remember that Opus is a lawyer who argues cases in front of the court, so for us amateurs to out-debate him is a feat to be proud of.

    Opus said :

    His attitude was: Live in the present. I replied: they won’t.

    This from the person who is obsessed with insisting that the entire world (including America) is envious of Britain..

    Envious of what, exactly? That English women are unattractive compared to the rest of Europe? The old saying goes : “Wogs and Pretty Girls being at Calais”.

    I have a saying that Opus is familiar with : When anyone makes a vastly off-base accusation, it is projection on the part of the accuser. The accuser is so troubled by his own shortcoming that this angst can only be released by accusing someone else of what the accuser is himself doing.

    Hilarious. I didn’t think Opus, a person who argues cases in the serious venue of a courtroom, could capitulate so easily, and ignore hard evidence presented to him, so blithely.

    CCG said,

    they didn’t really bother to improve Indian society because they were only interested in grabbing resources

    Try telling that to Opus. He thinks Britain is the only thing that pulled India out of the stone age. He really believes that too, and is afraid to see facts that prove otherwise.

  166. TFH says:

    “Wogs and Pretty Girls begin at Calais”.

  167. Pingback: Where have all the good earners gone? | Truth a...

  168. So Much For Subtlety says:

    ysv rao says:

    Arya Bhatiya, a treatise on trigonometry.,cosmpology and which includes work on arithmetic and geometric progression as well as quadratic equations. Arya Siddhanta on astronomy and Bramasphutasiddhanta which deals with algebra, geometry and quadratic equations

    So you too are going for the bare-faced lie approach? Interesting. There is nothing to connect Aryabhata and his two books with Nadala. He was simply born in the same region. The Bramasphutasiddhanta was produced by someone who lived in Rajastan and there is no reason to think he came close to Nadala.

    But nice try.

    All you had to was search but apparently that is too much effort

    Search? That is the problem with relying in Indian nationalists on the internet. They are not reliable.

    Actually you cant do any more as you keep proving that you are an idiot anda troll with about zero knowledge of Indian and very limited comprehension skills. I am spot a dunce who thinks he can fool others by rapidly spewing whatever incoherent babble via google search, a mile away.

    Good for you. It does not make you right. Not even close.

    Sadly most Englishmen such as yourself fall in this category.

    Not English.

    It is actually the British who get butt hurt when Indians claim that India was an advanced civilization before the British came along.

    Which British person denies it? The only people who riot when other people write books about them are slightly darker in skin tone compared to British people. Indians for instance. Who, ever since Katherine Mayo’s Mother India have not displayed much subtlety when it comes to their own society.

    Err actually you did. The gist of your entire posts is exactly that

    No I didn’t. And “gist” is not going to cut it when you think it means whatever you want it to.

    LOLLLL. Are you for real. Your knowledge of history is just comical. Are you serious or just trolling for our amusement?

    Britain had put India on the path to independence in the 1920s. That is why the Indian National Congress was able to starve all those Bengalis to death – they have elected Provincial Assemblies as stepping stones to independence. You can whine all you like, but the commitment to Indian independence was entirely mainstream by the 1930s. Churchill complained about it.

    OK you Brits have a hard on for Churchill which I get. Lets forget about famines which occurred under his watch (which you bizarrely ascribe to Indian speculators even though the British had the authority to end such speculation but never mind)

    Not British. I don’t think we should forget the famine – singular. I do not ascribe it. Wikipedia does. Hardly a neo-Imperialist institution. The British did not have the authority, although they did end it in the end. After Indians had killed millions of their own countrymen through their general indifference and incompetence.

    More bizarre assertions without an iota of proof. Did you even graduate high school? Good lord man , THIS is your level of debating skills?

    I did not first bring Wikipedia in to this discussion. Your little desi mate did. And that is what it says. I have shown my evidence. No one has been able to show a single piece of evidence connecting Churchill to the famine. All the evidence points to Indians.

    Perhaps I am a teenage girl but you are a eunuch. What else explains the fact that Pakis are ravaging your daughters under your very roof and you refuse to do anything about it?

    Definitely a teenage girl.

    How amusing. What else can one expect from a civilization which grew crops which ended up killing millions just so an entire country could get addicted to opium and indeed fight wars so that they keep being addicted in order for them to make a profit. Piracy, slavery, engineered famines, plundering, pimping and drug pushing. This is how your Enlightened civilization got its start. You must be so proud.

    So …. you made a stupid claim and instead of walking back from it, you are going to double down on your childish stupidity and throw every single claim you can think of in the hope some will stick? Well done. Impressive.

    Codswallop. What laws and procedures were in place when the famines were taking place right underneath their noses?
    And how many millions died in famines since 1947, I await your wisdom but I don’t think it will be forthcoming.
    And western aid only ended up in the pockets of corrupt politicians.
    India acquired agricultural self sufficiency via the green and white revolutions.

    I am not sure how many died. Thanks to American aid and American crops, the Indian government is about as good as the British at dealing with famine. Although they are not much better at lifting the poor out of poverty and preventing the real killer – the day-to-day poverty and hunger that does not rise to famine. But competent, Indian politicians are not. But it is nice of the West to invent new crops and new science that means the Indian kleptocrats can keep their poor on the edge of famine without raising their living standards much.

    Yes because obviously such institutions could never have created with the help of other nations who were dying to trade with India but couldn’t because of guess who?

    Britain was a liberal Empire. Anyone could trade with India. And did. Although institutions like Tata Steel got their start because the British Indian administration created protective tariffs specifically to protect them – from American and British competition.

    And yes, Indians have shown that they cannot do it on their own and so presumably could not have done it on their own.

  169. So Much For Subtlety says:

    TFH says:

    I have a saying that Opus is familiar with : When anyone makes a vastly off-base accusation, it is projection on the part of the accuser. The accuser is so troubled by his own shortcoming that this angst can only be released by accusing someone else of what the accuser is himself doing.

    The first, indeed the main, off base accusation here was your claim that Churchill knowingly presided over the deaths of millions of Indians. What precisely is it you are projecting?

    Try telling that to Opus. He thinks Britain is the only thing that pulled India out of the stone age. He really believes that too, and is afraid to see facts that prove otherwise.

    Well that is not fair. The Iron age perhaps.

  170. Michael says:

    I’m a higher income earner. Although I don’t make as much as I’d like to. Yet I attract lots of spinsters. Isn’t that amazing?

    30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38+

    Right around that age they can see right though me into my online back account without ever logging in. How do they do that? Strangely enough this seemed to occur right after my earnings significantly increased.

    Is that why they call it female intuition? It’s quite amazing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s