Will more sex save Spain?

News.com.au posted an article last week about Spain’s insane laws on parental obligations, titled Country where unemployed 30-year-olds are suing their parents for financial support:

Under Spanish law, parents are required to support their children until they reach financial independence, with no age limit, and a string of cases in recent years has cemented the rule.

This is nuts.  It isn’t just the open ended financial obligation, but the family strife that this kind of policy all but guarantees.  It is one thing as a parent to voluntarily decide to help an adult child get on their feet, but something else entirely to have the state force you to pay your adult children a kind of alimony.  In the former, you can set expectations of your child and discontinue help if those expectations aren’t being met.  In the latter, the child can do as they like and you have to pay up…  or else.

This law changes the nature of the parent child relationship even in cases where the child has not (yet) sued for support, as all Spanish parents are now bargaining in the shadow of the law.  Who will want to sign up to have children knowing that once they grow up they turn into spoiled ex wives?

This is where it becomes farcical, because Spain is in the grips of severe population decline.  Earlier this year Spain appointed a “commissioner for the demographic challenge”, which the international media dubbed Spain’s “Sex Tsar” or “Minister of Sex”.  Fox’s article on the subject is typical:  Spain appoints ‘minister for sex’ to reverse nation’s plummeting birth rate.

Spain has appointed its first Minister of Sex whose job will be to get people busy between the sheets.

The government hopes to boost Spain’s falling birth rate, which is one of the lowest in the developed world.

As nearly all of the articles on the topic explain, the problem is that Spaniards are simply too busy to have sex (emphasis mine):

The country is faced with a population crisis, with fewer births than deaths recorded for the first time last year.

Experts say long working hours and a culture of eating late at night and going to bed after midnight are partly to blame for the nation’s sex famine.

Rafael Puyol, of the IE Business School in Madrid, said: “They do not help with making a family. Then when a child arrives it is even worse.”

The denial here is astounding.  Spaniards are having plenty of sex.  What they aren’t doing (at least enough) is having children.  Part of the problem is a vicious cycle.  Population decline and less marriage weakens the economy, and a weak economy in turn leads to population decline and even lower marriage rates.  But some of the solutions are painfully obvious.  The most obvious is the insane rule that adult children can sue their parents for alimony.  Repealing that nonsense would be an easy win, and help reverse the current message that people who have children are chumps, too stupid to use birth control.

Other solutions are nearly as obvious, but would likely be much more difficult politically.  Just like the adult child alimony requirement teaches Spaniards that parents* are chumps, Spain has sent a clear message that fathers are chumps.  Following a change in divorce law in 2005**, Spain’s divorce rate doubled. While the new law is “empowering” for women, it is devastating to men.  As the New York Times explained in In Europe, Divorce and Separation Become a Burden for Struggling Fathers:

The pain of Europe’s economic crisis is being felt sharply by a new class of people: separated and divorced men who end up impoverished or on the streets as they struggle to maintain themselves while keeping up child support and alimony payments.

…In Spain, court filings against fathers who have not paid child support have risen sharply since the start of the economic crisis.

Not surprisingly, the marriage rate began falling dramatically following Spain’s 2005 legal encouragement to wives to kick the father out of the house (emphasis mine):

The incidence of marriage in the Spanish population has been reduced over the past 30 years, from 5.3 marriages for every 1 000 inhabitants in 1981 to 3.3 in 2013 (2 marriages fewer for every 1 000 inhabitants). The reduction in marriage rates has been intensified since 2006.

Certainly not all of the decline in births is due to policies designed to teach Spaniards that parents in general, and fathers in specific, are chumps.  Much of this is driven by women prioritizing sexual freedom and education/career in their most fertile and marriageable years.  But all of the real root causes share two common traits:

  1. They have nothing to do with a lack of sex.
  2. Feminist politics and attitudes.

What is obvious in this fiasco is that our elites would far rather play make-believe than deal with the fact that feminism is profoundly destructive, even in a time of crisis.  Rolling back feminism, even on the margins, is quite literally unthinkable, so the press and other leaders go into fantasy land mode, just like conservative Christians.  Some day the pain of the decline might be great enough that the elites decide to roll back the worst excesses of feminism, but clearly that day hasn’t yet come. The problem for all of us is that the longer we wait, the harder it will be to turn the problem around.  We are squandering an enormous amount of goodwill from men, and the same inertia that is propping up the system today will be working against us once we decide to once again encourage marriage and fatherhood.

Update:  Welcome Instapundit readers.

Related:

  1. How the destruction of marriage is strangling the feminist welfare state.
  2. Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable.
  3. More ominous than a strike.

*In theory the law applies to both mothers and fathers, but in reality since fathers are overwhelmingly the breadwinners the law is primarily aimed at fathers.  However, since a married mother would have to divorce her husband to formally get off the hook, mothers are at least theoretically the target as well.

**There was also a change in Spanish domestic violence law in 2004 which is claimed to automatically jail men accused of domestic violence based solely on the accusation of a woman.  If this is true, it reinforces the message that husbands/fathers are despicable and would be another obvious explanation for why marriage rates suddenly started declining around 2006.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child Support, Denial, Disrespecting Respectability, Divorce, Fatherhood, Feminists, Marriage, Motherhood, Patriarchal Dividend. Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to Will more sex save Spain?

  1. Otto Lamp says:

    How many of these are children of divorce? I would guess that 80% of the suits are aimed at divorced fathers.

    The reality is, what we’re looking at here probably is permanent paternal (father only) child support.

  2. Pingback: Will more sex save Spain? | @the_arv

  3. Jason says:

    When I worked at summer camp long ago…we had a Spaniard on the camp staff. This guy proceeded to hook up with everyone with a toe separator at the camp, which was about 50% of the staff that summer. In San Francisco in the early 2000’s met a few Spaniards while out on the town one night. These guys had the solution to every problem in the world (like all Europeans who come to the USA, trash the USA to every person they talk to). The USA was ‘evil’ and not enlightened like Spain.

    As for children taking their parents to court? Yeah, the Spaniards I met would def do something like this, and support it. This policy won’t be blamed for the declining birthrate, nor will the change in divorce laws. They will blame the men for not “manning up”

  4. bob k. mando says:

    if you observe the implementation of Spanish law as an intentional plan to destroy the society, it makes perfect sense.

  5. Splashman says:

    @Dalrock,

    . . . the same inertia that is propping up the system today will be working against us once we decide to once again encourage marriage and fatherhood.

    My current thinking is that, at least in the U.S., “we” (as a society) will never make that decision. Why? Because it has never happened in any society in history. Something will have to dramatically change (i.e., SHTF), and it will be a different society that makes that decision.

    Honestly, I hate expressing that opinion, because it reeks of defeatism. And I’m certainly open to hearing someone describe a different path out of this moral morass. But at the moment, my imagination fails me.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Going by the article links the Spanish have taken the American “child support” model of a family and gone even further. It is a rather grotesque inversion of the standard Spanish paternalism of previous generations. It is almost a “tragedy of the commons” with men as the overgrazed pasture.
    It is also leading to an even more female-centered society than the US, if that is possible.

  7. Anon says:

    This is what happens when a less mature country copied American/British laws blindly..

    Spain did not become a democracy until 1981 or so, so female suffrage itself is not to blame here. Rather, they are fast tracking the disaster.

    It is good to see Spanish men reacting by avoiding marriage. In America, the laws are apparently not enough of a deterrent, for these naive schlubs…

  8. feeriker says:

    Some day the pain of the decline might be great enough that the elites decide to roll back the worst excesses of feminism, but clearly that day hasn’t yet come.

    No, No, NO.

    The Global Elites want to see the traditional family utterly destroyed all across the western world (for starters, after which they’ll throw all their efforts into obliterating non-western families and societies).

    Not only are the One Percent NOT going to do anything to reverse feminists excesses, they’re going to double, triple, quadruple down on the insanity until all is a smoking ruin. They’re just getting warmed up with this latest piece of nonsense (and what a vile travesty that so many “churches” are their eager allies in the endeavor).

    My pastor is fond of repeating “Come, Lord Jesus, Come.” Let us hope and pray that He does so, and very soon. For anyone with any morals whatsoever, the future is going to be intolerable.

  9. Opus says:

    My girlfriend (though that is surely the wrong term) is Spanish. She lives and works on one of Spain’s islands. She lives with and cares for her aging parents as well as holding down a full time job in academia. Her mother had five children; none have reproduced.

    This is what she tells me: that Catalunya will remain part of Spain; that there is no Spanish equivalent of UKIP and everyone loves being a member of The EU; that a majority of Englishmen and women voting for Brexit should not be sufficient to leave the EU; that England is wrong to abandon its partners in Europe; that by leaving the EU, England is projecting its own failures as a nation on to Europe; that men in Spain kill their partners at the rate of about one a week; her only remark involving a reference to Mr Trump has been derogatory and she thinks that open borders are a good idea.

    I first visited Spain during Franco’s time. By the 80s there were where I live many Spanish au-pair’s. They were not merely usually better looking than the native population but all and always a pleasure to talk to entirely at ease with themselves and four of my friendly acquaintances married Spanish au-pairs. I put their character down to the wise leadership of the late General Franco.

    What happened?

  10. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    Perhaps they can implement an Obamacare style “penalty” for anyone not reproducing at or above the replacement rate? It’s one wonders in ensure Americans are insured!

    Of course, we all know what the real play will: moar “poor refugees”! The Ponzi must be maintained!

    Any realist, however, would note that constant, exponential population growth is neither natural nor sustainable, and a decline in population is only a catastrophe in a debt-based economic system that needs new suckers today to cover what was spent yesterday.

  11. The Question says:

    “Some day the pain of the decline might be great enough that the elites decide to roll back the worst excesses of feminism, but clearly that day hasn’t yet come.”

    I don’t think they will ever admit, acknowledge, or concede that their policies have been an abject disaster. They will have to be coerced into changing. They must be brought to their knees forcibly by economic reality the same way a person attempting to stay awake by consuming caffeine will be brought to sleep through sheer exhaustion.

  12. Otto Lamp says:

    Haven’t there been some lawsuits in the USA about forcing divorced dads to pay for their children’s college?

  13. Otto Lamp says:

    http://www.thestate.com/latest-news/article14400152.html

    Divorced SC parents may have to pay ‘college support’ (+ survey)

    A single mother running a day care and raising two sons won a South Carolina Supreme Court case Wednesday that could require divorced parents who pay child support to also pay for their children to go to college.

    Kristi McLeod said she had to stop by her lawyer’s office Wednesday to make sure she heard correctly that justices voted 3-2 in her favor. They ruled that a college education is critical to success in today’s world and that the state has an interest in alleviating the disadvantages facing children of divorce.

    “This is such a big deal not just for her, but for every child of divorce in this state,” said attorney Jean Derrick, who celebrated the victory in the five-year-old case with hugs and tears with her client.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    Haven’t there been some lawsuits in the USA about forcing divorced dads to pay for their children’s college?

    Otto —

    This is pretty standard in divorce settlements in many parts of the US. It’s also become standard for child support itself to continue until 21-23, and continue to be paid *to the mother* during that time, regardless of whether the child lives with mom any longer, and in addition to college related payments. It’s all a part of the creeping extension of adolescence to the mid-20s and beyond, and as we permit young people of these ages to be less responsible than in the past, that responsibility is being placed on the parents during that time, increasingly. Expect to see more of this.

    —-

    On the OP, do they seriously think that Spaniards aren’t having sex because they eat late?? I mean, that isn’t new, and it didn’t stop Spaniards from pro-creating well enough throughout their history. What an odd take on things.

  15. Original Laura says:

    At least a third of states have statutes forcing one or both divorced parents to contribute to putting Little Johnny through college. When I was in high school, parents often threatened to cut off college funding if one’s grade point average dipped below a certain level, or if the student was engaged in immorality/illegality. And many parents made it clear that they would only contribute if the child was majoring in a subject that would lead to some sort of career. (So, majoring in Italian because the Italian professor was so dreamy was NOT possible for many of my contemporaries.) If Johnny KNOWS that he is entitled to the money no matter what, that is a major mistake in my eyes. It’s not as bad as having the kid know that there is a trust fund in his future, but it still blurs the demarcation between childhood and adulthood.

    The Spanish law of requiring indefinite support is insane. To know that you might have to fully support a child into his 40s or 50s or beyond is the same sort of disincentive to parenthood that carriers of defective genes have. If there is a one out of four chance that your child will be disabled, you will either have no children, or perhaps have one. If the possibility exists that all three of your kids might prefer to live off of you indefinitely rather than get a job, the interest in childrearing is going to crater. There isn’t a great deal of interest anymore even without the disincentives.

  16. Dry Holes says:

    Women and children are net consumers. Men (have been historically) net super-producers. Such men were incented under Marriage 1.0 to overproduce for the benefit of their wives and children (receiving sex, respect & dominion). Thus was civilization built.

    Today the left has largely negated these incentives (they are largely illegal today, as Dal has shown) – so only coercion remains for the state to keep the womenzs and chillens fed.

  17. Pingback: Will more sex save Spain? | Reaction Times

  18. feeriker says:

    Given Europe’s descent into full-scale, self-destructive madness (with the USSA not far behind), expect this Spanish stupidity to be replicated everywhere else in Western Europe in the very near future, even as the Eurowelfare state goes into freefall. In fact, I’m really surprised that the Scandiknuckleheads didn’t think of and implement this first.

  19. Andy G says:

    This is like a drug addict thinking his problem is gambling: it won’t get him anywhere until he admits what the real problem is.

  20. Gunner Q says:

    Sounds like Alinskyite “crash the system” tactics. Why oppress people yourself when you can incentivize them to turn on each other? Listen up, kids, I have only one ice cream cone. I’ve giving it to Johnnie. If you want one then you can take it from Johnnie by force while I watch and laugh and eat the rest of the ice cream.

  21. Anon says:

    Otto Lamp,

    A single mother running a day care and raising two sons won a South Carolina Supreme Court case Wednesday that could require divorced parents who pay child support to also pay for their children to go to college.

    Ironically, ‘red’ places are where one sees the most enthusiastic cuckservative misandry.

    The bluest places, on the other hand, went through that phase 20 years ago, and have now gone so far left that it is full circle. I anecdotally have heard of a couple of cases where judges in Marin County and SF have actually been fair to the man and slapped alimony onto the woman.

    This is anecdotal, but I have heard of it a couple of times. And by man I mean a real XY man married to an XX woman in a heterosexual marriage.

  22. Dave says:

    if you observe the implementation of Spanish law as an intentional plan to destroy the society, it makes perfect sense.

    I’ve been thinking along the same line. But a more important question I’m seeking an answer to is “Why? What is the motive behind the elite’s obsession to water down and destroy society?”

    I just got a copy of the book, “Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements” by James Defronzo. I haven’t yet started reading, but I suspect that the goal of the elites might be to prevent a revolution from taking place.

    Could it be that revolutions require a homogenous people, and that is why the elites want a multicultural society? Or that a revolution requires a certain population density, and that is why the elites are obsessed with population control? Has it been studied that strong families, when pushed far enough, fight back in form of revolutions, and that explains why the general policies of these folks are directed against the nuclear families? Could it be that women played major roles in the past revolutions, and that is why the elites do everything possible to drive a wedge between men and women in society?

    So many questions to seek answers to. But I am beginning to suspect that there is a unifying purpose behind all these destructive policies.

  23. Anon says:

    Dave,

    “Why? What is the motive behind the elite’s obsession to water down and destroy society?”

    I have long wondered this. I mean, the elites want to stay on top, fine, I get it. But it is better to stay on top of a taller pyramid, or at least ANY pyramid, than to stay on top of smoldering rubble….

    Inequality used to be much higher in the past. Europe is dotted with magnficent palaces where the royals lived, while 17th and 18th century peasants had the same poverty levels as the most destitute parts of Africa today. In Berlin, the Charlottensberg Palace and TierGarten are a testament to this inequality; the same goes for the Brussels palace, the various English palaces, Versailles, etc. Maybe they want THAT level of inequality again..

  24. Pariah says:

    It’s depressing to see the whole world coalescing together into the NWO. It makes perfect sense when you accept that there are only two kingdoms: the kingdom of God (which Jesus said is within us who are saved), and the kingdom of the devil. A house divided against itself will not stand: the enemy’s kingdom simply has innumerable fronts and organisations working in tandem to bring about their evil plan. Feminism is simply one major piece in the destruction.

  25. imnobody00 says:

    I am a Spaniard and have been a commenter of Dalrock’s blog for years. Things are very bad. After a history of Catholicism, Spaniards have embraced the progressive faith (which includes feminism) with the bigotry of the converted. If you want to know something about the situation in Spain, you can ask me.

  26. imnobody00 says:

    @Opus.

    What happened?

    Very simple. General Franco died. The transition of democracy was designed by the powers-that-be (Rockefeller, for example). Then, the regime of Franco was demonized by the new masters. Everything that Franco did was wrong. Everything that Franco fought was right. For example, Franco tried to make an unified country. So Spanish nationalism is seen as wrong while Catalonian nationalism (which was repressed under Franco) is seen as progressive. Franco encouraged good manners. So Spaniards love to curse and are proud of their cursing language.

    (I am not trying to say that Franco did everything right. But, even the things Franco did right are considered wrong)

    Catholicism as the official ideology died with Franco. Democracy came and with it, liberalism as the official ideology. Even then, Spanish people were very Catholic. But liberalism was adopted in TV, in politics, in the media, in songs, by intellectuals. Only one message. It was a decades-long blitz. So it took some decades, but Spaniards ended up fanatics of the new liberal religion.

    You have to take into account that Spaniard people are very gregarious. Nobody want to be different from other people. They have always been this way (maybe because inbreeding, maybe because there was a monolithic country for longtime). It’s a herd. When people saw that the herd was Catholic, everybody was Catholic. When people see in the media that the herd is left-wing, everybody is left-wing. Being Catholic (such as myself) is low status and everybody want to be high status, like the people on TV bragging about being agnostic.

  27. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anon
    Alot of them are psychopaths. And psychopaths never stop manipulating and destroying. Like George Soros if you are aware was a Nazi collaborator that helped them confiscate jewish property in his youth and now continually sows chaos and progressive ideology.

  28. Novaseeker says:

    I have long wondered this. I mean, the elites want to stay on top, fine, I get it. But it is better to stay on top of a taller pyramid, or at least ANY pyramid, than to stay on top of smoldering rubble….

    Too many mouths. They are convinced that they can “win” and do well with far fewer plebs than we have now — there are simply too many plebs, too many mouths. And too many mouths can get angry and revolt. So the endgame is fewer and fewer plebs. The bots will do the jobs they used to do, they are not needed in the same numbers. Endgame is a society comprised mostly of cosmopolitan educated effete elites supported mostly by bots with some (but far fewer) plebs. This is the endgame. I mean, look at how the “compassionate”, “enlightened” elites laugh with glee on Twitter about the fact that lower class whites are dying off in middle age. They WANT this. They want to reduce the herd of plebs, thin it out, reduce its numbers — not cull it entirely, mind you, but reduce it to usher in a techno-future for elites and their offspring, supported by bots, and very few pleb humans.

  29. Anon says:

    I mean, look at how the “compassionate”, “enlightened” elites laugh with glee on Twitter about the fact that lower class whites are dying off in middle age. They WANT this.

    But then they should be even more interested in curbing black, Hispanic, and Muslim birthrates, all of which are higher than whites…

    Sure, they want Dem votes, but since they have already won in this regard (the GOPe simply preserves Dem gains, making GOP control of Congress largely irrelevant), why not get to work on culling black/Hispanic/Muslim birth rates too?

  30. Novaseeker says:

    But then they should be even more interested in curbing black, Hispanic, and Muslim birthrates, all of which are higher than whites…

    Sure, they want Dem votes, but since they have already won in this regard (the GOPe simply preserves Dem gains, making GOP control of Congress largely irrelevant), why not get to work on culling black/Hispanic/Muslim birth rates too?

    Their main “other” is lower class whites, not non-whites. To the extent that non-whites can be used to demonize and reduce the “lower class white other” problem, they will be, and are being so used. Once the lower class white problem is done with (which, again, they see as the main problem), they will turn on the others as well.

  31. Lost Patrol says:

    Spain appointed a “commissioner for the demographic challenge”

    Where’s the commissioner for the changing values challenge?

    Five years ago in Forbes (and five years after the change in Spanish divorce laws):
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/30/whats-really-behind-europes-decline-its-the-birth-rates-stupid/#625766f7267c

    “A generation ago Spain was just coming out of its Francoist era, a strongly Catholic country with among the highest birth rates in Europe, with the average woman producing almost four children in 1960 and nearly three as late as 1975-1976. There was, he notes, “no divorce, no contraception allowed.”

    “Yet modernization exacted its social cost. The institution of the family, once dominant in Spain, lost its primacy. “Priorities for most young and middle-aged women (and men) are career, building wealth, buying a house, having fun, travelling, not incurring in the burden of many children,”

    A lot of that really sounds familiar.

  32. imnobody00 says:

    There was a third factor that I forgot. Throughout their history, Spanish people have had a MAJOR inferiority complex with respect to (the rest of) Europe. After all, we are poorer than France or Germany.

    Spanish people want to be like French people or German people. They want to be considered an “important and advanced” country. After Franco, this meant rejecting Catholicism and embracing leftism. Today it is embracing political correctness.

    When several politicians argue on Spanish TV, there is a silver bullet. If a politician says “this is the way it is done in Europe”, the conversation stops. It is the unanswerable argument . Nobody ever imagines that Europe can do things wrong.

  33. Anon says:

    Spanish people want to be like French people or German people. They want to be considered an “important and advanced” country. After Franco, this meant rejecting Catholicism and embracing leftism. Today it is embracing political correctness.

    This is a HUGE mistake that second-tier countries are making. The UN often lures them into this trap, in a ‘you have a patriarchal culture, so you better mend your villanous ways with a fast track to feminism!’. I see tons of countries going from Step 1 directly to Step 7 in their haste to fast track the feminism process of death…

  34. Casey says:

    I wish I could see a way out of this mess that rolls back this farce mascarading as law. The unfortunate truth is that no concessions will be made by feminists. There will be no willing roll back of this egregious horse shit. Feminism ends when civilization ends…..and there are no other alternatives.

  35. Disillusioned says:

    Around 1984 I had the fortune of meeting an attractive young Spanish woman. She was married to an American diplomat. She complained to me that the American women were neurotics. She thought that all this stuff about feminism and equality was insane and that American women wanted to be men. Now I wonder what has happened in Spain since then! What a real pity.

  36. Anon says:

    The OP says,

    We are squandering an enormous amount of goodwill from men, and the same inertia that is propping up the system today will be working against us once we decide to once again encourage marriage and fatherhood.

    One can hope. Sadly, from what I have seen from most men, there is no amount of abuse that can sway them, and they will become obedient tools again as soon as they are required to.

  37. MarcusD says:

    An interesting book (though slightly biased towards praising the presumed intent of the Left):

  38. patriarchal landmine says:

    spain is utterly misandric. the rape laws there are about the craziest.

    any country that focuses on the issue of low birth rates with “just have more kids” is ignoring the cause, because to name it would be to invite disapproval from the majority of the voter base.

  39. Dave says:

    But then they should be even more interested in curbing black, Hispanic, and Muslim birthrates, all of which are higher than whites…

    Not necessarily. I think these groups of people are serving a purpose. Maybe they are to destabilize the middle class, or replace it to a great extent, before they are dealt with, and their birth rates severely curbed. It’s like driving. Sometimes you have to put your car in reverse, especially to get out of a tight parking spot, though your intent is to drive forward.

    But come to think of it: it is easier to control the poor and the dependent than the well educated who might be asking too many questions.

  40. Opus says:

    @imnobodyoo

    That makes a lot of sense. No wonder my girlfriend sees England as – not leaving a sinking ship, but – abandoning Span to its fate and yet thanks to EU money it is Spain not England which has endless state of the art but largely unused Airports new Railway lines for really fast trains and the most extraordinary arts centres in places like Seville. Nothing like that in England.

    It occurred to me overnight that one reason that Spain may have imposed the law that Dalrock mentions is because as my girlfriend says Spain has and has always had a high unemployment rate – 25% – which disproportionately affects the young. Such a law would thus relieve the burden on the State even though it is leading to demographic winter. Unlike the English who leave their childhood home as soon as possible the Spanish appear to reside with their parents throughout their twenties and beyond and seem quite happy to do so. Quite why Spain should feel inferior to France (cheese eating surrender monkeys) or the Germans (total losers) is lost on me. Let us not forget that Spain beat the British Navy (something America then could not do) under Admiral Horatio Nelson in 1797 and then invited him for dinner (on Tenerife) – perhaps that has something to do with it. Spain it will be recalled missed out on both WW1 and WW2, but civil war – I recall the bullet holes in the walls of the narrow streets in one Spanish city – is probably even worse and will excuse their non-attendance.

  41. i lived in Spain for 3 years. Spanish women are annoyingly noisy. They cant talk in a normal voice. Lots of feminism too.

  42. Oscar says:

    I am Spanish and this piece really hits the nail on its head. I particularly liked the references to the divorce reform and new domestic violence law of the 2000s. Good research, Dalrock.

    I am 27 and I live with my parents, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I am a bit nerdy and bookish, but all my friends of the same age -who are not like that- also live with their parents, often moving back in after finishing college. We have a sizeable NEET population as well.

    I chuckle whenever I see those alarmed articles in the US media about how an increasing number of young Americans are still living with mom and dad. Well, get used to it. Such thing has been our new normal for twenty or thirty years now.

    Unemployment has been very high for decades now. Back in the mid 1990s it hit around 25%, like America during the Great Depression. For young people, it has been around 50% many times in recent years. Our best number was 8% during the apex of the real estate bubble in 2008, and from there it quickly escalated back to almost 26% in 2013. And that is a national average: some areas of Andalusia have known worst rates than the Gaza Strip itself, and right now they still have a regional average of ~25-27%

    Spain is a very interesting case of ultra-fast transition to modernity and its ills. I encourage all the people from the Alt-Right/NRx/paleoconservative spheres (and of course the manosphere) to read more about its history and recent evolution: I guarantee that you will find a lot of food for thought. Historically many English-speaking authors have written about Spain, but few of them went beyond a midly patronizing tone and achieved a real understanding of the country. To this day, the real Spain remains little known and current developments such as the Catalan drive for independence are not properly understood.

    I will happily answer any questions you might have about Spain, since doing a detailed explanation of our predicament would result in a massive rant 🙂

    [D: Welcome.]

  43. Tarl says:

    “Why? What is the motive behind the elite’s obsession to water down and destroy society?”

    They are evil. They enjoy chaos, death, and destruction for its own sake.

  44. Novaseeker says:

    That makes a lot of sense. No wonder my girlfriend sees England as – not leaving a sinking ship, but – abandoning Span to its fate and yet thanks to EU money it is Spain not England which has endless state of the art but largely unused Airports new Railway lines for really fast trains and the most extraordinary arts centres in places like Seville. Nothing like that in England.

    Lol, I have noticed the same thing when traveling in Spain on business. It’s like — um, why is THIS here? And then I remember …. Oh, it’s Brussels money.

  45. Cremuzio Cordo says:

    I’m Italian, it’s the same here. Most of the similar cases I can remember (i.e. suing parents for support) involve divorced couples and the one being actually sued is the father. In some recent case the court rejected the son/daughter request, but mostly they win the support.
    It may sound strange for Americans, but here the prevailing cultural norm is that you leave your parent’s home only when you marry. My father thought it was strange of me to leave the house to live alone, and my mother predicted I won’t last long, “loneliness is harsh” she said.
    I’ve been reading this blog and MGTOW forums for some time, this is my first comment in the manosphere. To me, it’s a window to our (bleak) future.

    [D: Welcome.]

  46. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    and yet thanks to EU money it is Spain not England which has endless state of the art but largely unused Airports new Railway lines for really fast trains and the most extraordinary arts centres in places like Seville. Nothing like that in England.

    I traveled one summer around Europe on a Eurail pass in the late 80s, and when we crossed over into Spain I remember feeling like the train wasn’t moving at all they were so slow*. Then the conductor came by collecting extra money because– the train was an “express”!

    *I also seem to recall the train having to stop on the border between France and Spain to reconfigure the trucks for a different gauge. Hopefully with the EU money this is no longer the case.

  47. Opus says:

    One might then think that before Spain threw in its lot with the Germans that it was some third-world hell-hole but that was not the case; its old buildings are nothing if not to die for. I visited a Spanish girlfriend (a different one – oh dear, there have been a few) in her home town and asked her to show me the local court house. It was a beautiful and spacious building probably from the Nineteenth century and not at all like the noisy packed-in-like-sardines zoos where I was then in the habit of plying my trade. When however one reads John Adams who with John Quincy landed in north west Spain en route to Paris he reflected on the poverty – even though he refers to a local Opera House – and the lack of a decent road. General John Moore some few years later in 1809 (traveling in the other direction to escape the French) had the same problem. I am hoping imnobodyoo can help me out on the apparent contradictions.

  48. Oscar says:

    @ Oscar

    Mister, there ain’t room in this here town fer two of us.

    That’s a joke. Bienvenido!

  49. Werkof Rodann says:

    The Spanish law isn’t so bad when you think about it…if they weren’t mooching off their parents, they would be on public assistance mooching off of everybody (even those without kids). However, there should be a limit to the amount of support , i.e. they should have to live under your roof so you don’t have to pay for another home/apt. If they decide to move out it’s on them.

    Agreed feminism is the evil driving this. I don’t think divorce law/child support laws are the main drivers of population decline, as most younger people are a bit too starry-eyed to think it will happen to them. Women are unwilling to have children until they have fewer fertile years and no time to raise them due to some power position as a corporate wage whore.

  50. Pingback: Do Christian pastors think that premarital sex is morally wrong? | WINTERY KNIGHT

  51. Tim says:

    Hillaryous. The whole point of mass immigration was to hide the incalculable failures of feminism, mass import a slave labor pool and to offshore manufacturing to slave labor markets. It had zero to do with open hearts or empathy. This will NEVER be admitted and the damage is already far too great to reverse. Dystopia. Gotta love it. Can’t wait till they start going after the heads of state – but those folks will of course just hop on their private jets to their private islands all the while protected by private security forces.

    No. You just can’t make this stuff up. Castro is looking down and smiling.

  52. Otto Lamp says:

    “What is the motive behind the elite’s obsession to water down and destroy society?”

    The push to centralize and concentrate power internationally into a handful of power centers only makes sense in light of biblical prophecy.

    The modern examples of centralized power (China, Soviet Union) resulted in both the rich and elite being stripped of their money and position. They should be horrified at the idea of centralized government, but instead they seem to think this time the scorpion won’t sting them.

  53. Jason says:

    Oscar:

    Yes, many American writers have written about Spain, Hemingway in particular, and not condescending either. He was brilliant…..anyway

    I have a question. Were you alive during the transition after Franco’s death (1975 I believe). What is the average Spaniard’s view of him today? Hero? Despot? Or is it a “he did what he had to do” attitude.

    Just curious that’s all, and thanks for your post and joining in this very interesting conversation

  54. Anon says:

    Femtwat invents a form of ‘feminist quantum physics’ ;

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/266174/

    It takes effort to be this stupid.

  55. Oscar says:

    Thanks Oscar! hehe

  56. Tim says:

    “What is obvious in this fiasco is that our elites would far rather play make-believe than deal with the fact that feminism is profoundly destructive, even in a time of crisis.”

    Oh…it goes far, far deeper than that. Men built all of civilization. All the roads, bridges, buildings, infrastructure, institutions of higher learning (lol), houses, etc. Men were trafficked, used, manipulated, conditioned, exploited and disposed of in war for the advancement of women and the state. When most work was back breaking, extremely laborious, life threatening, life shortening and low pay, women didn’t really want to be in ‘the workforce’. Now, women demand quotas only for the most prestigious, most powerful, most lucrative positions. Blacks and browns were mass imported to displace the white male worker at a lower rate. Manufacturing jobs were offshored to slave labor markets first in Asia and now in India. These are well known facts, but are being completely ignored and kept hidden in the MSM (corporate controlled media). Schools are now pre/re/post education camps that teach ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘white male privilege’, yet blacks and browns migrate to white dominated countries and not vice versa. Countless millions of men’s lives were destroyed through no-fault divorce. Trillions in wealth and power have been forcefully transferred, via state power, from men to women and minorities, through no-fault divorce, alimony, asset division, child support, Title IX, Affirmative Action and now with Affirmative Consent, whose goal is to strip men of presumption of innocence and due process, allowing women to destroy men’s lives on mere accusations.

    It’s all a long con! You were sold down the river long, long ago! All hail gynocentrism and Murika! You go, girl! Female empowerment, baby! White male privilege!

    Hitler: “We need a final solution for the Jews and their Jew supporters.”
    Democrats: “We need a final solution for while males and those Trump supporters.”

    It’s all a con! All of it! If you’re not foaming at the mouth, there’s something deeply wrong with you!

  57. rocko says:

    You know something is wrong when formerly traditional conservative Spain has gone this route. Say what you will about Franco, his regime may have been repressive at first, but at least there was a sense of family and unity, at least among those of Castilian descent.

  58. Cremuzio Cordo says:

    Recently, in Italy the Healthcare minister tried a short-lived and ill-managed campaign to promote fertility and rang the bell about demography. The campaign was soon rebuked by feminists/SJW (“my fertility, my choice”). The way it was conceived shows that one cannot expect a feminist roll back. The elites are unable to connect the obvious dots, because they live in a bubble and are too dumb and ignorant to even imagine that there is a different world outside their bubble.
    It’s not limited to demographics, it involves every policy on every subject.

  59. Oscar says:

    Thanks Jason.

    No, I was not alive during our transition to democracy; I was born in the late eighties.

    The shadow of Francoism looms large in Spain. Recently a motion was proposed in our Parliament to remove Franco’s remains from the ‘Valle de los Caidos’ (“Valley of the fallen ones”) mausoleum near Madrid, a gigantic monument he ordered to build in the post-war period. A few years ago a Law of Historical Memory was passed aimed at removing street names honoring heroes of his regime, and it was fairly controversial.

    Funnily enough, Spain is quite singular among Western European countries in the sense that we do not have any right-wing or far-right populist party doing well. The Financial Times run a piece about it at the beginning of this year which I think is quite correct:

    https://www.ft.com/content/414246f6-dbe4-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6

    For some older Spaniards Franco is still a model, particularly ‘law-and-order’ types. For the left it has always been a hated figure, somebody to blame for all ills. Basques and Catalans use his figure hypocritically, attempting to shame the rest of the country and selling foreigners this idea that we are still an ‘incomplete’ democracy (both regions de facto supported the regime, particularly their bourgeoisies). If you were to ask on the street at random, you would receive midly critical takes for the most part (default PC position), with some starry-eyed admirers and fiery haters.

    Francoism, in a way, died of success. To draw a paralell, it was the opposite of the Castro regime: it started with a very negative reputation and a devastated country, shunned internationally; and it ended with a fully industrialized land, with a certain degree of openness to the world (Castro started with great hopes and he, even if successful in preventing American control of Cuba, died a failure). But the fabulous economic growth of the 60s also meant for Spain the end of traditional society and culture, and all the social pathologies Western countries have experienced hit us harder and much faster. In 1975 Spain was still the leading European country in terms of fertility, now it is at the rear end.

    Finally, I was a bit unfair about the writers. When I wrote I had more the British ones in mind (Richard Ford, Gerald Brennan, Orwell, etc). They probably meant well, but implicitly they considered themselves members of a superior culture trusted with the task of civilizing the world, therefore projecting that mindset unto their writings. Americans, on the other hand, have been less fond of romanticizing Spanish culture, which also implied the acceptance of its Westernness, something which is not always a given in Anglo-French observations (‘Africa begins at the Pyrenees’ and so on).

  60. Oscar says:

    Indeed, there has been a great improvement in Spain’s infrastructure in the last decades, which is one of the reasons our Boomers (born late fifties-early seventies) are often pro-EU.

    Regarding railways, the different gauge was originally due to the fact that Spain is quite mountainous (2nd after Switzerland in the continent), and also apparently to pre-empt a new French invasion.

  61. Neguy says:

    With limited exceptions, Spain plays very little role in the American consciousness. Even among the intellectual classes, few people know anything about Spain between 1492 and the Spanish Civil War.

  62. Boxer says:

    The Spanish law of requiring indefinite support is insane. To know that you might have to fully support a child into his 40s or 50s or beyond is the same sort of disincentive to parenthood that carriers of defective genes have.

    It actually makes far more practical sense than, say, lifetime alimony for a cheating spouse, or paying child support for kids that aren’t biologically yours, on threat of going to prison. Both of these travesties are not uncommon in the lunatic asylum which is the USA.

    I could theoretically justify supporting adult kids, but only in circumstances which make such support non-threatening to the parent, and only in temporary or marginal cases (like a crippling disability).

  63. Pingback: Intersectional Quantum Physics – v5k2c2

  64. Boxer says:

    Anon:

    Femtwat invents a form of ‘feminist quantum physics’

    Have you read the paper? Link over at my blog. It’s predictably hilarious.

  65. Anon says:

    Femtwat invents a form of ‘feminist quantum physics’

    Have you read the paper? Link over at my blog. It’s predictably hilarious.

    ‘Feminism’, far from helping women, has instead exposed the full extent of female inferiority (in every possible metric) far more visibly than was ever possible before ‘feminism’.

  66. Opus says:

    Both Franco and Castro were from Galicia that is to say North West Spain; Franco as I seem to recall from El Ferrol and I suppose Franco from A Coruna, though I am not certain.

  67. Boxer says:

    ‘Feminism’, far from helping women, has instead exposed the full extent of female inferiority (in every possible metric) far more visibly than was ever possible before ‘feminism’.

    To be fair, she’s not trying to invent feminist quantum physics. She’s cherrypicking bits and pieces from the Copenhagen interpretation in a lame attempt to bolster her feminist/racial theories of “social justice”. In that regard, she’s not even original. All manner of hucksters (Gary Zukav, Deepak Chopra, etc.) have done that for decades.

  68. Oscar says:

    @ Anon says:
    May 29, 2017 at 4:26 pm

    “Dave,

    ‘Why? What is the motive behind the elite’s obsession to water down and destroy society?’

    I have long wondered this. I mean, the elites want to stay on top, fine, I get it. But it is better to stay on top of a taller pyramid, or at least ANY pyramid, than to stay on top of smoldering rubble….”

    There’s no point in trying to make sense of this, because it doesn’t make sense. The reason it doesn’t make sense is that those who wish to destroy the family didn’t arrive at that conclusion through logic, though they think they did.

    The root cause is ultimately spiritual.

    The family – with the father as the head – is God’s plan for the world, because it’s an earthly picture of the relationship He wants with us. That’s why the elites hate it and want to destroy it. They’re on the opposing team. For the most part, they don’t realize any of this, because they don’t even acknowledge the spiritual. We, however, can’t afford to ignore the spiritual as they do.

  69. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Oscar

    I have to ask about this bit from Dalrock’s post:

    Spaniards are having plenty of sex. What they aren’t doing (at least enough) is having children.

    The second part of that statement is self-evidently true. But what about the first? Given how bad the birth rates are, I’m starting to wonder if at some point we can say that there’s probably not a lot of sex happening anymore either. Whatever Bill Nye wants to tell you, the two are connected. My own Millennial generation is a great example of this: More contraceptive and abortifacient options available to them than ever before, and in an era where sexual permissiveness has gone so far that even the church now gives it their tacit assent. But the result of that hasn’t just been fewer marriages and fewer babies. According to some recent polling, young millennials are apparently now having less sex than their parents or even their grandparents did.
    Link here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/there-isnt-really-anything-magical-about-it-why-more-millennials-are-putting-off-sex/2016/08/02/e7b73d6e-37f4-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.6cc0c3de7798

    The whole mess makes me think of something I once heard a friend say: “When I meet a Christian married couple and a Mormon married couple, I suppose I could assume that both of them are having a decent amount of sex. But the Mormon couple is usually the one that will have some actual proof that they are.”

  70. Very interesting post and article links.

    The average age that Spanish sons and daughters leave their parents abode is 26.
    That is ON AVERAGE.
    In other words, HALF are first leaving the nest older than 26 years of age.
    https://blogs.psychcentral.com/single-at-heart/2012/06/leaving-home-in-15-countries-how-old-are-the-grown-children-when-they-leave-and-how-far-do-they-go/

    It’s worth noting that of these “children” under 25 (between age of majority 18 and 25) unemployment is 42%.

    Spain’s is a hopelessly dysfunctional economy, and has been circling the drain for several years following Euro implementation, the real estate boom and crash, the bank solvency crisis and now the Spanish debt crisis. The GDP per capita in Spain is the same $26K today as it was 12 years ago (2005). They are only now observing some anemic growth this year.

    Right now 20%, or 1 out of every 5 Spaniards over the age of 25, is unemployed.
    16% of men (2017) and 20% of women (2017).

    So the key ingredients for financial independence, long-term stable employment and family formation are just not there anymore.

    However, convenient substitutes via immigration do exist.

    As for Sex, yes, Spaniards are some of the most satisfied people on the face of the planet when it comes to sexual intimacy (90% of men and women in one poll of almost 10,000 participants), including frequency and quality. Spain is outdone only by the Swiss. Note too that Italy is right behind Spain regarding sex. Italians have similar long haul child nesting behavior.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/02/19/the_12_most_sexually_satisfied_countries_in_the_world_partner/

  71. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ May 29, 2017 at 4:22 pm:
    “I’ve been thinking along the same line. But a more important question I’m seeking an answer to is “Why? What is the motive behind the elite’s obsession to water down and destroy society?””

    Several reasons. Note, Elites are not exclusively wealthy people.

    1. Pride, as in arrogance. A greedy man wants more. A proud man wants more than his neighbor, however little that might be. A glutton wants to eat a lot of food. A proud man wants to eat in front of the starving.

    2. Women. The backroom Elites, the ones who create and implement gov’t policies, are often unsexy and frequently outright Gammas. Hypergamy means there are are two ways an unsexy man can become sexy: work very hard and improve himself relative to other men, or destroy the other men. If she won’t sleep with you until you’re the last man on Earth… and you’re holding the nuclear football….

    3. Atheism. God wired humans to believe in Him. If a man rejects God then Government makes a very appealing alternative deity. Partly because it’s a god he can see (science!), partly because it’s a god that, with some effort, he can take partial control of. They’re constantly surprised that their beautiful government is a monster but they’d rather keep ‘improving’ it than accept the evidence that humans have an incurable moral corruption.

    4. Evolution. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Why should we care about rats? And if victory is defined exclusively by breeding then, well, stopping everybody else from breeding means you win.

    5. Ignorance. The Elites are typically well-sheltered from the consequences of their actions. Unless they listen to many of their enemies, so far as they’re concerned this is all just a grand game.

    So, ignorant sociopaths playing God to impress the girls. Let me guess, Spain’s “Sex Minister” has Gamma tells… *looks*… a FEMALE?! Edelmira Barreira, can’t find an English biography of her. Oh no, a feminist’s idea of more sex is importing Muslims to rape-rape her into ecstasy.

    Yeah, she’s gonna screw Spain but not in the good way. Meanwhile, I’ll claim my theory is validated because only Elite Gammas could believe that a woman was the right choice for sexual leadership.

  72. Oscar says:

    Yes, I see that you know your history. Fidel Castro still has relatives in the Galicia region to this day.

    It is interesting to see how dictators that end up being major historical figures in their countries come from fringe regions: Napoleon from Corsica (actually he was initially named “Napoleone di Buonaparte”), Stalin from Georgia, HItler from Austria, Franco from Galicia.

  73. Gunner Q says:

    Neguy @ 11:11 am:
    “With limited exceptions, Spain plays very little role in the American consciousness. Even among the intellectual classes, few people know anything about Spain between 1492 and the Spanish Civil War.”

    California has a long Spanish history. The Spanish Missions are a famous tourist attraction; men like Junipero Serra are still relatively famous. Most of Southern California property was originally Spanish land grants, which Mexico respected and then America respected after the Mexican-American War. Spanish architecture is huge in Southern California.

    Farther north, you get Chinese and Russian influences. California was multicultural going back to the early 1600s, when Russian sailors/furriers traveled the coast and Chinese provided labor in fishing and farming. There are still Portuguese enclaves around and even a surviving Dutch colony. (They got tired of cold winters. Seriously.) Anglo-Saxons weren’t significant until the famous gold rush of 1849.

    God only knows if the public schools still teach any of this but the history is there for anybody caring to look. (The Manosphere is equally annoying, equating all of California with Oakland and the state legislature.) Just as an example, look at the history of the city/county/island Alameda on infogalactic.

    Any Spaniards wishing to quit Spain in the coming years could do much worse than moving to California. Yes, the headlines look bad but government is bad everywhere today.

  74. Oscar says:

    @Darwinian

    I can’t help you because I have had very little sex myself despite being nearly 30. Spanish millennials seem to be having a lot of it, but who really knows? People lie a lot in those surveys, both men and women.

    I always thought of my failure with women as a personal thing. I read mostly foreign websites and blogs online, so I finally came across the manosphere and started seeing things differently. “Sexual Utopia in Power” from Roger Devlin literally blew my mind.

    I think the dynamics described in the essay are happening in Spain as well. Recently I was introduced to some fat girl who, as I later learnt, had slept with half a soccer fan group or something. She had huge natural breasts but that was it; she was clearly obese. There is some serious male desperation around when girls like that are so popular. This is of course anecdotal but revealing.

  75. Dave says:

    @Gunner,

    That makes more sense. One would have thought that anyone who manages to rise to the top in a society would be content, and not want to destroy that society. But no…

  76. David says:

    and even a surviving Dutch colony.

    I think you mean the Danish village, Solvang.

    It is good. It is like Denmark but still 65 degrees in winter. Over there, one sees *white* people with outright translucent skin and chalk-yellow hair. We don’t see that all that much in the rest of America (where ‘white’ is generic brown haired and not really translucent)…

  77. David says:

    Any Spaniards wishing to quit Spain in the coming years could do much worse than moving to California.

    This would confuse the fuck out of white nationalists too, since they equate the Spanish Language with brown Mexicans, and can’t really separate the two.. Seeing white people who speak Spanish would not really compute for them.

  78. Oscar says:

    @ David says:
    May 30, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    “Seeing white people who speak Spanish would not really compute for them.”

    Have you met many Argentinians?

  79. David says:

    Oscar,

    I know that. Even some Mexicans are completely white.

    I am talking about ‘white nationalists’ in the US who equate Spanish language with ‘brown people’, and find secondary use of Spanish to be an unacceptable foreign invasion of the US (even though Florida and the US SouthWest were controlled by Spanish speakers for centuries before becoming part of the US.

    These ‘white nationalists’ are not very knowledgeable.

  80. imnobody00 says:

    @Anon May 29, 8:47

    The UN often lures them into this trap, in a ‘you have a patriarchal culture, so you better mend your villanous ways with a fast track to feminism!’. I see tons of countries going from Step 1 directly to Step 7 in their haste to fast track the feminism process of death…

    Completely agree. After having lived this in my homeland (Spain), now I am living the same process in Latin America, where I live. Here people admire USA so they reject Catholicism and local traditions to adopt political correcteness and being a bad copy of USA.

    @Opus May 20, 4:54

    Quite why Spain should feel inferior to France (cheese eating surrender monkeys) or the Germans (total losers) is lost on me. Let us not forget that Spain beat the British Navy (something America then could not do) under Admiral Horatio Nelson in 1797 and then invited him for dinner (on Tenerife)

    It has to do with the loss of Empire. Most of Spanish Empire was lost about 1812 (when most Latin American countries got their independence) and the rest (Cuba, Puerto Rico and Philippines) was lost in 1898 (I guess American people like you know the Spanish-American war when you kicked our ass – but no hard feelings). This wound has never healed. After losing the Empire, Spaniards considered all their history as a mistake and the intellectuals rejected Catholicism and embraced liberalism with a vengeance (it is the same as Britain after losing the Empire after World War II, “stiff upper lip” traditions were rejected and leftism was adopted). This trickled down until ordinary people who became very negative about their history and Spain, in general. Joaquin Bartrina wrote this poem about 1870:

    Oyendo hablar un hombre, fácil es
    saber dónde vio la luz del sol
    Si alaba Inglaterra, será inglés
    Si reniega de Prusia, es un francés
    y si habla mal de España… es español.

    If you hear a man, it is easy
    to know where he was born
    If he praises England, he will be English.
    If he complains about Prussia, he is a Frenchman
    and if he speaks badly about Spain…he is a Spaniard.

    This was worsened by the liberalism and political correctness adopted after Franco’s death. Spanish people see their history as a history of oppression of native people, obscurantism and backwardness. The glories of the Spanish Empire are not celebrated but rejected and Spanish past is seen with the darkest colors.

  81. imnobody00 says:

    @Opus May 30, 2017

    One might then think that before Spain threw in its lot with the Germans that it was some third-world hell-hole but that was not the case; its old buildings are nothing if not to die for. ohn Adams who with John Quincy landed in north west Spain en route to Paris he reflected on the poverty.

    To be fair, the traditional Spain had impressive buildings and lots of poverty, but it was the same in all European countries in the XIX century (although Spain has always been poorer). When the cathedral of Burgos was built (13th – 16th centuries), the city of Burgos had only 5000 people. Look it up “catedral de Burgos” in Google Images to see its magnificence.

    Today, it will be impossible to build the cathedral of Burgos even when we are filthy rich when comparing to the Middle Ages. What is the difference? To build an impressive building you don’t need massive wealth. You need:

    a) Lots of time (and ancient Spanish people had this with abundance: some cathedrals took centuries to be built).
    b) Will and perserverance to make something worthwhile. This people built so their best buildings were beautiful and lasted centuries (while today our buildings only last decades)
    c) A sense of purpose. Spanish people built these beautiful buildings because they believed in God. They appreciated beauty because beauty comes from God. They built for centuries because God is eternal.

    Today the worldview is “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die…” So you have functional architecture and beauty is mostly gone.

  82. imnobody00 says:

    @Oscar. Bienvenido. Es bueno encontrarse con un paisano.

    It’s nothing of that. At your age, I was virgin. Now my number is about 50. You are very young, that’s it. The thirties is the golden decade for Spanish men as the twenties is the golden decade for women.

  83. imnobody00 says:

    @Darwinian

    The second part of that statement is self-evidently true. But what about the first? Given how bad the birth rates are, I’m starting to wonder if at some point we can say that there’s probably not a lot of sex happening anymore either.

    As I see in the generation that now is thirty-something (but the plural of anecdote is not data). There is not a lot of sex due to hypergamy Many Spanish women go to University and spend their twenties chasing alphas or waiting for an alpha. Men wait without sex while women do that (but it is not as wild as in USA). Then, when 35 is near, they marry the beta they can. After that, they have one or two kids because the times is short.

    Most Spanish men are irremediably beta. Hopelessly. Blue pill family men that love to do whatever their woman want them to do.

    I know that the plural of anecdote is not data but some stories are enlightening:

    – My elder sister (a bitch, but I love her) tried to snag an alpha but she couldn’t. She married a younger beta man that was way beneath her professional level (she is the main provider). She had one daughter and now she regrets not having another child

    – My younger sister is the most traditional. He only had a man. A younger doctor. He married and has a son (plans to have another child).

    – The friend #1 of my sister is not very attractive but she wanted an alpha since she watched “Dirty dancing” when she was a little girl. She had no boyfriend until she got an “alpha man” with mental issues. He does not want to have kids. He says: “Kids are death”.

    – The friend #2 of my sister fucked all kind of alphas after being girlfriend of a drug addict. Now she is alone and was diagnosed fertility problems. She is having fertility treatment. These days is the second attempt.

    – The friend #3 of my sister dated men way over her level. Fatty and with a shit job, she was dating chief of a production plant. When she neared 35, she became desperate and found a good guy on Badoo! (an online date site) They married and have a baby.

    We live in a small city. Big cities are more promiscuous, more USA-style. My family and the family of the friends of my sister are the most conservative families in this small city. So I think it must be worse in other places.

  84. Oscar says:

    @imnobody00

    Saludos y gracias.

    I am glad that it turned out well for you.

  85. Jason says:

    Osacr!

    Thank you for a very concise and detailed reply. I consider myself a student of history, and when I saw your original post…..I suddenly was a bit “lost” for what I did know about Spain. Sure, I knew about the Civil War…..Franco, and I have read extensively about the antics / intrigue of the ‘Royal Court’ in the province / prefectory of Mexico back in the 1500’s / 1600’s and Spain’s history in my native California!

    Ah yes, how arrogant and “American” of me. Forgive me. yes, of course Orwell, and (smacks head) Richard Ford!

    I was born in 1970, and I remember in high school there was a Spanish exchange-student in my high school. Her name was Henar…..and well, she was a knockout beauty……and like so many Europeans at that age. She behaved like she was much older!

    Thanks again, my friend and your comments here have really filled this thread out nicely!

  86. Jason says:

    @David

    True dat! Here in California (I live in Fresno but spent twelve years in San Francisco). Most Californians think “Cinco De Mayo” is “Mexican Independence Day” (even Mexicans who are 3rd / 4th generation). Most…….no, just about all white-liberals in San Francisco think Spanish comes from Mexico, not Spain. Some are so “shocked” when they see a white person speaking Spanish, and I have mentioned, “He / she is probably from Spain.” Which, for some reason they cannot comprehend because only brown people speak Spanish, and that language is the language of revolution, overcoming racism, hatred, and segregation (according to them).

  87. Anon says:

    Jason,

    Most…….no, just about all white-liberals in San Francisco think Spanish comes from Mexico, not Spain. Some are so “shocked” when they see a white person speaking Spanish, and I have mentioned, “He / she is probably from Spain.” Which, for some reason they cannot comprehend because only brown people speak Spanish, and that language is the language of revolution, overcoming racism, hatred, and segregation (according to them).

    White-lefty faggots AND White Nationalists both (since WNs are also left-wing based on their leftist economic views : see the Portland stabber). Few things anger a White Nationalist more than hearing Spanish spoken in the US, even though it is a language of Western Europe.

    The ignorance of both of these dumbshit sister ideologies is astounding. I mean, illegal immigration should be halted, but there is nothing bad about the Spanish language in the US SouthWest…

  88. Oscar says:

    This whole Oscar & Oscar thing is getting confusing, especially since we’re both native Spanish speakers.

  89. Lost Patrol says:

    “Oscar & Oscar”

    If you’re confused imagine what it’s like for everyone else. One of you is going to have to go with the correct Spanish pronunciation of the name so we can differentiate.

  90. MarcusD says:

    “This whole Oscar & Oscar thing is getting confusing, especially since we’re both native Spanish speakers.”

    Perhaps “Oscar the Elder” and “Oscar the Younger”?

  91. Oscar says:

    Well, I’m definitely the elder. Maybe I should go by “Oscar, Father of Nine”!

  92. They Call Me Tom says:

    Spanish history sounds a bit like Pre-revolution Russia.

    France has been in decline since Napolean… and even before that since the Crusades. Yet it’s the gold standard somehow for culture in Europe. Apparently bluffing can take you a long way. Spain in contrast, was where Hannibal acquired the troops that nearly eliminated Rome’s military. Spain was where the Hapsbugh empire started. Spain spread it’s culture further than Alexander or Rome. Only England spread further influence. But, somehow, they need to look to France and Germany for guidance… go figure.

  93. CSI says:

    I quickly googled some population figures for Spain. 1600 it was about 8 million. I suppose it was about this number for several centuries earlier, with a slow increase. At 1800 it was about 10M. 1900 19M – almost doubling. 2000 40M – doubling again. Quadrupling over the span of 2 centuries. Such a growth rate is unsustainable long term. Is the concern though that decline in fertility is too fast? Personally I think the world’s population must stabilize soon, and if this could be accomplished through low fertility, this is the best way.

  94. Elephant Hunter says:

    Hilarious. The politicians bribing their way to government by welfare ruin the country so that there´s no work for the young. Then they say it´s the parents who should pay and the brats have the guts to sue? Well, be careful what you teach your children.

    The sex stuff is pure nonsense of course. There is a red elephant with a yellow hammer and sickle on its ears in the Spanish room.
    Spain had swelled a housing bubble and when it burst and the economic crisis hit hard: who had earned 1000€ per month, was mocked, now he is envied. I´ve heard that the Spanish banks owned most of spanish houses at one time. There are villages in Spain where most of the houses are for sale.
    Youth unemployment is rampant and Spain had spoiled its people by lavish welfare, so they often preferred to not work, because the salaries had plummeted while the government didn´t dare to cut the welfare. It would seem the money´s running dry so the state just pinned it on the parents.

    The family is very strong in Spain thanks to a deeply rooted catholicism, so the parents, who are normally much richer (got rich before the state wasted both its own and EU funds) than their children, mostly help their children financially even without the courts and it would be seen badly if you didn´t help your kids in trouble.
    But from there to suing your parents, the step is murderous.

  95. Pingback: Will more sex save Spain? - Top

  96. Oscar says:

    @Jason

    You are welcome!

    If you are interested in the colonial history and myth-debunking I recommend you this book:

    https://www.amazon.com/Tree-Hate-Fred-Wilbur-Powell/dp/0465087507/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496215769&sr=8-1&keywords=Tree+of+Hate

  97. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    CSI, Personally I think the world’s population must stabilize soon, and if this could be accomplished through low fertility, this is the best way.

    Personally, I think the world needs more people of European heritage. Our fertility rates are too low.

    Let those with sky-high fertility rates do their “fair share” to fight over-population, by bringing their rates down

  98. CSI says:

    “Let those with sky-high fertility rates do their “fair share” to fight over-population, by bringing their rates down”

    Spain is in no danger of disappearing due to low fertility. But yes the danger is I recognize that Spain and other low fertility nations will face all sorts of dangers from higher fertility nations. It is depressing. But I also think fertility is primarily an economic decision by individual young people. If people feel the cost of living is low and children are affordable, they will have more. It is very hard, perhaps impossible, for governments to significantly encourage higher fertility.

  99. Opus says:

    @imnobodyoo

    It is perhaps understandable that you should mistake me for an American but given that I am not such you will understand that where I do come from we date the decline of the Spanish Empire not to 1898 but to 1588 – at least you have no troubled us since then. 🙂

  100. Dave says:

    But I also think fertility is primarily an economic decision by individual young people. If people feel the cost of living is low and children are affordable, they will have more.

    I wish this were true. But it’s quite the opposite.
    The wealthiest folks in society tend to have the fewest number of kids, and the poorest ones tend to breed like rabbits. It’s not only true in the third world, it’s true in America, where the Bill Gates, the Oprahs, the Obamas, the Clintons, etc have 0-2 kids each, and the thugs have an average of 8-15 with several baby mamas.

    Reduced fertility in the west has very little to do with economics, but a result of relentless anti-family and anti-fertility policies of the ruling class. Why else do they promote abortion on demand? Homosexuality? Easy divorce? Promiscuity? Free contraception (to put that in perspective, you can’t get free medical checkups, but you can get free condoms!)? Etc.

  101. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    More proof that women will take any abuse from an Alpha Rock Star…

    Former Beatle Ringo Starr and Barbara Bach have been married for 36 years. This despite a drug and alcohol fueled Starr beating up Bach during the 1980s: http://ultimateclassicrock.com/ringo-starr-barbara-bach/

    Finally, in 1988, they agreed to enter rehab at a clinic in Tuscon, Ariz., but only after a truly frightening moment. “I came to one Friday afternoon,” Starr told The Independent, “and was told by the staff that I had trashed the house so badly they thought there had been burglars, and I’d trashed Barbara so badly they thought she was dead.

    Yet by all accounts I’ve read, Bach remained madly in love with Starr throughout their marriage.

    On the other hand, many pedestalizing Beta husbands are regarded as “abusers” simply for, well, simply for existing.

  102. craig says:

    CSI says: “Spain is in no danger of disappearing due to low fertility.”

    According to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html, Spain is ranked #199 out of 224, with a fertility rate of 1.49. Given that a high percentage of these children being born are named Mohammed, then Spaniards are indeed disappearing and Spain with them. Al-Andalus, on the other hand…

    Fertility is *not* an economic decision by individual young people. The poorest nations on earth are at the top of the fertility ranking: Niger, Burundi, Mali, Somalia. Europeans don’t reproduce because they have no hope and no faith.

  103. Kevin says:

    @CSI

    You are in luck! The world population will stabilize around 2050. Demography is a science with nearly 100% success in predictions because we already know who willl be around in the future because…they have already been born. All the 19 year olds Spainish have already been born – it’s easy to predict their numbers in the future.

    Second- you listed that Spain had exponential growth. Population grow exponentially, they also decline exponentially. Growth is probably easier for humans to deal with. Exponential declines have very very serious negatives for modern socialist states. So is Spain in danger of disappearing? No- not for hundreds of years. However, if they are reduced in 2-3 generations to 10 million people they may lose the ability to determine their own future as others decide to fill their lands.

  104. Lost Patrol says:

    THE SEX IN SPAIN IS MAINLY ON THE . . . Will more sex save Spain?

    Dalrock on a roll, featured at Instapundit again. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

    [D: Thanks for the heads up!]

  105. Cremuzio Cordo says:

    @Dave and craig
    Actually it is an economy driven decision, but it is trickier than simply comparing wealth and poverty levels. In the countries at the top of the fertility list a son/daughter will begin to work for the family at the tender age of 10, or even earlier. It is an investment that will repay itself in less than a decade. In more developed countries you can’t put child at work, nor you expect to receive money from your sons, even when they are adults.
    For example, my paternal grandfather had 8 sons (5 males, 3 females). He put the male ones at work at 10, and I mean real work like shepherding alone, working in the fields. My father had 3 sons and we started working at mid-20, so we were a net economic burden on him.
    In the US and other countries with generous welfare for single moms a son means a steady income for the mom with almost zero investment, for the thugs knocking them it is not a cost because they’re not going to give any real child support. Most of these guys are petty criminals, possibly on welfare and/or working in the criminal underworld.
    On the other hand, for an average guy with a legal job knocking a girl means 18-26+ years (depends on country) on the hook for child support. Hence for such guys (like me for example) it doesn’t make economic sense to have a child.

  106. infowarrior1 says:

    Misandry destroyed Spain. Anti-Patriarchy destroyed Spain.

  107. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Did you know that the Marine Corps has a “toxic masculinity” problem? From Vox (no, not THAT Vox):

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/30/vox-com-blasts-marines-toxic-masculinity-on-memorial-day/

    “There’s a ‘toxic masculinity culture’ in the Marine Corps, James Joyner, a professor at the Marine Command and Staff College, told me.

    That may be what is at the core of the women-in-infantry debate among Marine ranks: the identity crisis of a historically macho club now being forced to let in women.”

    Tom Knighton of PJ Media disagrees, of course.

    “However, those same Marines recognize that the vast majority of fit women are still weaker and slower than the average man — let alone a Marine. Since male Marines may pay the price of this social experiment with their lives, it’s understandable that they have concerns.

    Not that Vox worries about that.”

    Here, I disagree with Mr. Knighton. I also used to think that Leftists don’t care that their social engineering policies weaken the American military and result in more dead servicemen. I now believe that is false. I think Leftists know that their social engineering policies weaken the American military, AND THAT’S THE POINT. It’s intentional. It’s deliberate. They want to weaken the American military, so they devise policies to accomplish that goal by demoralizing the men who make up its core.

  108. Gunner Q says:

    “They want to weaken the American military, so they devise policies to accomplish that goal by demoralizing the men who make up its core.”

    It’s part of the one-world gov’t agenda. They obviously can’t sell the idea that nations should completely and unilaterally disarm so instead, they work to turn national militaries into paper tigers. That’s why the Left has so loved NATO over the decades, because all the nations under USA’s umbrella could scale back their own defenses while trusting Big Brother to look out for them. An attitude that seems very infectious.

    Now that USA is also going “paper tiger”, every NATO country should be quietly panicking over national defense. But they should have been there already because of Islamic invasion.

    It’s frightening how so many Western governments clearly hate their own people.

  109. Frank K says:

    There is a name for the post Franco transformation of Spain into the liberal cesspool it is today. They called it “El Destape”, the uncovering. I recall the big deal when pop singer Rocio Durcal posed nude way back then.

  110. TBlakely says:

    Pretty much every western democracy birthrate is below replacement needs. And as a general rule the more liberal the country the lower the birthrate. I’m not aware of any other culture that destroyed itself by failing to reproduce.

    “The future belongs to those who show up for it.”

  111. Oscar says:

    @ Frank K says:
    May 31, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    “They called it ‘El Destape’, the uncovering.”

    “El Destape” also has the connotation of opening a jar, so think of it like opening a vessel that was under pressure, and the name makes even more sense.

  112. CSI says:

    “Actually it is an economy driven decision, but it is trickier than simply comparing wealth and poverty levels.”

    It is complicated. It is related to cost of living and expectations of future economic growth. In developed countries, the cost of living has become high and economic growth has slowed, considerably, so people feel they cannot afford very many children.

    “In the countries at the top of the fertility list a son/daughter will begin to work for the family at the tender age of 10, or even earlier. It is an investment that will repay itself in less than a decade….
    For example, my paternal grandfather had 8 sons (5 males, 3 females).”

    Yet throughout most of history such large families would have been rare. Perhaps such a large family would have generated prosperity for that generation. But what would their children, and their children’s children etc. done? If they all aimed to have such large families, within a few generations all arable land would have been gone. Throughout most of history we would see replacement level fertility, an average of 5-6 children per women with 3-4 surviving to adulthood. A lot, but less than the maximum possible.

  113. Cremuzio Cordo says:

    @CSI
    Throughout most of history sure, it was rare, because most people died before reaching adulthood. But after the improvements in general living conditions mortality decreased, and for a while, due to cultural inertia, people went on with large families. I think this is what is going on in most overpopulated third world countries. Even the very basic facilities and norms imported from the West ensure a much lower mortality rate, but people still reproduce as in older times.

  114. Oscar C. says:

    @CSI
    Yes, the economic angle is key. Contrary to what many people in the manosphere believe, feminism is not the real cause of low birthrates. People in the West don’t have children because they don’t need them: they don’t work the fields anymore and you have pensions in your old age. In the Third World such needs are not yet covered and children are an actual asset. The welfare state is not the culprit either, because a fully privatized retirement system would yield the same results.
    In the US or Europe a child is an expensive pet, conceived for affection and self-realization and nothing else, It also makes sense to have few, because they will require an ever more expensive education to get ahead in life. In poor countries such requirements are simply not there. It is r/K once again, Third World and First World respectively.

  115. Pingback: The System Defines Their Reality | Spawny's Space

  116. Kevin says:

    @Oscar C

    Of course things can have more than one cause. I agree with you in part – there is a clear relationship between children and the wife’s economic opportunity cost. There is also a clear relationship between religiosity and children, between tons of things and children. Feminism and attitudes looking down on motherhood play a part as well. Weighing out the relative contributions of all of these is not easy.

  117. TBlakely says:

    Not everyone reaching their dotage has a pension. Plus in most countries pension plans are horribly underfunded. It’s going to be ugly when the money runs out and the majority of the population is past retirement age.

    And then there is the issue of the barbarians. Their population is surging while ‘civilized’ populations are dropping. Add in that most of the barbarian population are in the 20s-30s while most ‘civilized’ populations are 60+. It ain’t going to be pretty.

  118. Mr Curious says:

    Spain has gone downhill rapidly since Franco.

  119. Spike says:

    Strange, isn’t it? When the Catholic Church was firmly in charge, patriarchy was the law of the land, and Spain extended from Madrid to Buenos Aries. A billion people speak Spanish today because of it.
    A Spanish woman who works with me just had her first child out of wedlock. Personally, I think the man involved is being smart: he’s had the child in another country, so if in future this rule of mandatory upkeep is foisted on him, he can simply walk away. Not so trashy single mum.
    Spain is just a microcosm of the general malaise of Western civilisation. Sure, property prices are high, but it has never been easier to feed, clothe, and maintain the health of children. Dalrymple is right: we do not have an economic problem. We have a moral and responsibility problem.

  120. Luke says:

    Tim says:
    May 30, 2017 at 9:15 am

    ” Castro is looking down and smiling.”

    If Castro is looking in our direction, I guarantee he has to look UP.

  121. Frank K says:

    Dalrymple is indeed right. We aren’t far off from the day when only a small minority of children live with both of their married parents. People like Mark Zuckerman think that robots and AIs will be able to provide for the ever growing “free stuff army”.

  122. feministhater says:

    Yes, the economic angle is key. Contrary to what many people in the manosphere believe, feminism is not the real cause of low birthrates. People in the West don’t have children because they don’t need them..

    I don’t believe this is an either or problem. It’s a mixture of both in the sense that whilst Western countries don’t need 5 or more children per family but we are only have 1 or 2, not enough to keep going. We do need children, to both carry on our civilisation and to take care of us in old age. However, women have been having fewer and fewer children and having them later in life due to feminism, no denying it and that is a real cause for low birthrates.

    There have been plenty of people in the past who never wanted or needed to have children, the rest of the population who did want and need children had more than enough to counteract that issue, now… not so much. That is the dilemma.

    The welfare state is not the culprit either, because a fully privatized retirement system would yield the same results.

    It is part of the problem. It forces assets away from those who create wealth and give it to those who don’t. Thus further eroding the ability of parents to have children, especially those who want to teach their children personal responsibility. Your statements are obtuse because obviously feminism and the welfare state aren’t the only reason for low birthrates but to say they are not real culprits is an outright cop out and disingenuous. I mean, who is going to pay for the pension funds in future, who is going to pay for the welfare, just who is going to do all that when no children are born?

  123. Emperor Constantine says:

    @ feministhater said:
    “However, women have been having fewer and fewer children and having them later in life due to feminism, no denying it and that is a real cause for low birthrates.”

    In my small world, small families were ALL due to the women’s insistence to NOT have more children. Children are hard work and require years of thankless sacrifice and commitment, and women are now taught that families should be secondary to their careers or living off some beta provider with minimal effort on their part. My first and second wives were militant about birth control after 2 and 3 kids. I’d be curious if any male commenters think differently or personally wanted small families.

    I wanted a big family, with at least 4 to 5 children, but feminism made sure that didn’t happen. Feminism in a sense murdered the children I should have had. I was so ignorant about the pervasiveness of feminism that I didn’t understand that the world I had grown up in (all families were large, at least 4 kids, but averaging 6 and 8+ was common) had died overnight and the new family model was low-birthrate, fractured (by ongoing female rebellion), dysfunctional matriarchy, i.e., Dalrock’s Marriage 2.0 formula. And that is the BEST case today: the norm is baby mommas and trashy single moms struggling to keep their shit together, while keeping the children away from their father as much as possible.

    We need to teach men that this status quo is beneath them and that they must not accept it.

  124. Jim says:

    WHY does one have to go from rejecting catholicism right to liberalism and feminism?
    Why do so many people act like robots?

  125. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Jim said:
    “WHY does one have to go from rejecting catholicism right to liberalism and feminism?”

    Easy, feminism is a form of satanism, i.e., it is in complete opposition to the Catholic Church. If you leave the Catholic Church, you are effectively rejecting it and then need to find reasons to justify that you left. Feminism is perfect for that, as it is widely accepted both within and outside the Church, justifies your sin and selfish choices, while stoking a sense of injustice that provides fuel for the naturally self-righteous among us.

    Ultimately, Christianity *is* patriarchy, i.e., the male God created the universe and men first, then created women (from men) to be a helpmate. The Christian family is a microcosm of our spiritual family with the father in the place of God as the leader of the family, just as God/Christ (both male) are the leaders of His heavenly Church. Feminism provides the perfect excuse for SJWs (i.e., really just the modern version of that ancient sect, the self-righteous Pharisees) among us to leave that awful, patriarchal Church and oppressive family structure it promotes to embrace sexual freedom and the rest of the material world. The consequences remind me of Churchill’s view of the Bolshevism, which applies to feminism as well: it [Bolshevism] is a ghoul descending from a pile of skulls. For feminism, the skulls are aborted babies, the devastated lives of children of divorce, cuckolded husbands, frivorced ex-husbands, and on and on. It’s an enormous pile.

    Satan is using feminism to destroy the Catholic Church, just as he used it to convert Protestantism to Churchianity. I doubt in his wildest dreams Satan thought his plan would succeed as completely as it has.

  126. Frank K says:

    Jim: Keep in mind that prior to the Spanish Civil War Spain was about half atheist and communist. Franco pushed them back, but once he was gone the floodgates opened and El Destape began.

  127. Cremuzio Cordo says:

    @Jim
    You ask
    “WHY does one have to go from rejecting catholicism right to liberalism and feminism?”
    No one needs to reject Catholicism in order to become liberal and feminist. The Pope, along with the vast majority of priests and followers, went SJW without renouncing anything. Only a minority seems uncomfortable with the new fashion, and they mostly murmum without taking any action.
    On the other hand, being atheist does not mean that you go the SJW route. I know, I’m an atheist myself and have been for a long time.
    @Emperor Constantine
    How do you explain that the Christian West produced feminism and SJW while the former communist Christian East is still rejecting them?

  128. Oscar C. says:

    @feministhater

    I have always liked the Marxist approach of looking for the material roots of social upheaval. It might not be perfect, but it is the most objective.

    All the current dysfunction in the family has its roots in the economic system. Careerist and childless women do not exist because a bunch of academic feminists decided so, but due to the very logic of a highly advanced capitalist society. Capitalists don’t want large families who make do and mend because they lack large incomes. They want DINKs who can splurge all the time. And since they are not producing any more workers, well, open the borders and problem solved.

    Sorry if this comes across as condescending, but right-wing Americans (most people in the manosphere) tend to be politically naive. The GOP has been conning you for decades selling this idea that America is under siege by a mighty cabal of university professors and bureaucrats hell-bent on destroying traditional society. In fact, it is the very corporate America which funds the GOP who has been doing that. Did Reagan roll back anything? Did Bush? Of course not.

    Children are not an asset in the West, they are a hindrance. And the more intelligent the individual, the less children he will likely have. Why? Because in order for them to compete accordingly, you have to spend a lot of money in their education. Here they explain it quite well:

    https://qz.com/231313/children-arent-worth-very-much-thats-why-we-no-longer-make-many/

  129. Oscar says:

    Yeah. It’s all Capitalism’s fault. Sure it is.

  130. Oscar C. says:

    @Oscar

    The fact communism produced similar results does not invalidate my analysis.

    The Soviets were particularly inept at developing enough housing, hence the typical kommunalka crowded apartments, not very convenient for family formation. Lack of cheap access to housing is also a major problem in Spain, with similar results.

    Once a country becomes industrialized and richer, people will stop having so many children. They are no longer a rational investment. The USSR is consistent with this, by the way. After the furious gender egalitarianism of the early days, Stalin de facto reverted it. In 1980 the Soviet Union was far more traditional than the West feminism-wise. It did not prevent the failing birthrate, a phenomenon which is also observed in the Muslim world among its most advanced countries like Turkey or Iran.

    Social norms crumble in the face of massive economic transformations.

  131. Gunner Q says:

    Oscar C. @ 11:55 am:
    “Capitalists don’t want large families who make do and mend because they lack large incomes. They want DINKs who can splurge all the time.”

    I haven’t noticed people refusing to have kids in order to live fat and free. The bachelors I’ve known over the years frequently can’t get away for even a weekend camping trip and think high living is a Suzuki. DINK worked only when it was the exception, not the norm.

    From the materialist point of view, children are better consumers than women. They’re literally new customers! A greedy capitalist wants high native birth rates, not the implosion of existing markets to be replaced by peoples who don’t even purchase soap & trash bags.

    “And since they are not producing any more workers, well, open the borders and problem solved.”

    Except the immigrants would also have to be trained into workers. Jose Honduras isn’t going to do the CGI for “Wonder Woman 2: Lynda Carter’s Chest” without more job training than an American high school graduate would need.

  132. Oscar C. says:

    @GunnerQ

    Good points. But note that the massive incorporation of women to the job market also depresses wages. Those uneducated foreigners also make unions less likely to happen, because the working class solidarity of old homogeneous countries no longer exists. As the H1b visas prove, you can also find high IQ people in the Third World.

    What I describe is not so much a process that is guided in top-down fashion, but rather the result of individual corporate strategies. Of course if they all sat down and thought well about it they would see the mess they are creating, but such thing never happens.

    It is like prisoner’s dilemma: short-sighted interests end up being more decisive.

    My theory is a very superficially sketched proposition. I just wanted to emphasize how in my opinion society is downstream from economics.

    I tend to agree with the view advanced by the French thinker Alain Soral, who was a PUA before the term even existed and later turned into an amateur sociologist and philosopher. In 1999 he published a book called “Towards the feminisation” in which he argues some of these points:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vers_la_f%C3%A9minisation%3F

  133. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar C.

    I have always liked the Marxist approach of looking for the material roots of social upheaval. It might not be perfect, but it is the most objective. […] Social norms crumble in the face of massive economic transformations.

    And people only get fat because when food tastes too good; not because they are gluttons, or otherwise made choices.

    Sorry if this comes across as condescending, but right-wing Americans (most people in the manosphere) tend to be politically naive. The GOP has been conning you for decades selling this idea that America is under siege by a mighty cabal of university professors and bureaucrats hell-bent on destroying traditional society. In fact, it is the very corporate America which funds the GOP who has been doing that. Did Reagan roll back anything? Did Bush? Of course not.

    It’s not condescending; it’s simply wrong on every point…except perhaps about Bush.

    -University professors actually are a cabal; generally speaking. They make great effort to hire and retain only those who they trust not to break their taboos. They only promote those who actively forward the cabal’s agenda. They do this because it gives they understand that universities exercise enormous influence over every sector and discipline of American/Western life. It is the modern world’s version of the medieval church.
    -Bureaucrats are not except that they are–as a group–prone to make-work and other justifications for cushy employment.
    -Few-to-no people have any idea or agreement on what traditional society should look like in America
    -Corporate America funds the Democrats more than the GOP because they get more bang for their buck from Dems. The bigger the corporation, the more true that is. As well: The revolving door between Big Corp and Big Gov’t passes more Dems than GOPers.
    -The problem with the GOP isn’t so much that they’re duplicitous as it is that they lack courage and decisiveness.
    -Reagan played a major role (though not alone) in helping to thoroughly discredit Communism. That (the discrediting of Commies) in itself was a major blow to whole notion of micro-managing large economies.

  134. Oscar says:

    @ Oscar C.

    Cuba’s birth rate (1.6 children/woman) is even lower than that of the US (1.9). Mexico’s birth rate is barely at replacement level (2.2). Iran’s birth rate is also lower than that of the US (1.7).

    https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:CUB:MEX:USA&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CUB:MEX:USA:IRN&ifdim=region&tstart=-302382000000&tend=1401685200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

    Those countries can’t all be suffering from the same cultural malady because their cultures are too different from each other, and only the US can be called wealthy or Capitalistic (although it’s far less Capitalistic than it used to be).

    However, in the US, the birth rate plummeted in the 1960s & 1970s, after the “baby boom” of the 1950s. Keep in mind that the US was already very wealthy in the 1950s.

    Gosh… I wonder what suddenly gained popularity in the US during the 1960s and 1970s….

  135. Oscar C. says:

    @Cane Caldo

    I thoroughly disagree with you, but thanks for your well-put answer. I will just insist on one thing: this whole myth of Reagan being a major reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union is just that, a myth.

    It is a cherished trope among conservatives, together with “we’re a republic, not a democracy” and the like.

    If the USSR had not reformed, or done less radical reforms, they could have resisted. It might have meant cutting some military expenses and foreign client states such as Cuba, but given their enormous natural ressources it was possible to hold (Russia’s much vaunted return was due to high oil and gas prices after all). The break-up was due to not only the economy but also the re-emergence of national and ethnic strife. Gorbachev is the man to thank, because ultimately it was him who started the process, refused to use force to put the uprisings down, and who agreed to the end of the Brezhnev doctrine in Eastern Europe.

    Back to Reagan, when you cut through his catchphrases and one-liners, you are left with nothing. The national debt ballooned under his watch, and he pioneered very deleterious trends already in his California days, such as the introduction of no-fault divorce. For me, Trump risks ending exactly like Reagan: somebody remembered by his speeches and poses rather than anything else.

  136. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas, please see below…

    Gunner:

    A greedy capitalist wants high native birth rates, not the implosion of existing markets to be replaced by peoples who don’t even purchase soap & trash bags.

    The opposite is in fact the case. A greedy capitalist wants people who will buy his products and services. If the consumer is in China, outside the bounds of warranty and trade laws, so much the better.

    The Reagan era is likely the beginning of neoliberalism and globalization (at least that’s when it really took off). The eradication of trade boundaries and the “reforms” needed to deracinate and depopulate the American working class (it was just too expensive, fam) included legislative incentives for flexible labor markets, privatization, etc.

    Cane Caldo:

    And people only get fat because when food tastes too good; not because they are gluttons, or otherwise made choices.

    The term he used, “material” has a definition, and you clearly don’t understand it. Not that explaining it would do any good, as your mind is already made up.

    Oscar:

    Those countries can’t all be suffering from the same cultural malady because their cultures are too different from each other, and only the US can be called wealthy or Capitalistic (although it’s far less Capitalistic than it used to be).

    Marcuse explains the similarities in One Dimensional Man. Communist and Capitalist systems have always been mere window dressing, disguising similar apparati under the surface. He called this Advanced Industrial Society and predicted many of the social problems we see today.

    I don’t know what the solution is, and neither did he. He was Heidegger’s pupil, and seemed to suggest a sort of saving power embedded in technology itself (as his old professor used to claim). I’m more skeptical.

    https://www.stereolux.org/sites/default/files/fichiers/marcuse_h_-_one-dimensional_man_2nd_edn._routledge_2002.compressed.pdf

    Best,

    Boxer

  137. Cremuzio Cordo says:

    @Oscar C.
    The Marxist analysis is a useful tool, but it’s not the only tool and it can’t explain everything. You have to also consider the cultural influences to get a somewhat coherent picture. For example, there is nothing in capitalism that implies welfare for single moms, quite the opposite. At most, one can argue that a successful capitalist economy produces enough for such welfare. Then you need a cultural drive to actually institute the welfare.
    In the “marriage premium” post Dalrock has argued (IMHO effectively) that feminism is actually an hindrance to the economy. Having a family is a big motivator to work for men. Take it away and men will do the bare minimum to live, while women will ask for more welfare.
    One cultural factor is the “courtly love” concept embraced in the West, another is the “victim mentality”.
    @GunnerQ
    “Except the immigrants would also have to be trained into workers.”
    They’re currently trained to leech off welfare, and they’re very good at it. Jokes aside, today emigration is very different from those that took place decades ago, when people emigrated from poor countries to other countries that needed a large workforce for their burgeoning industry.
    With automation and de-industrialization a large workforce isn’t needed, as is proved by the unemployment levels.

  138. Oscar C. says:

    @Cremuzio

    I agree, cultural factors matter. Economics would be the primary element, and culture would come later. I also agree with this idea of men doing the bare minimum if they don’t have families: I am 27 and single and I don’t really want to buy a house or do much in that regard.

  139. Pingback: The Roots of Feminism – v5k2c2

  140. Oscar C. says:

    @Oscar

    We both can be right at the same time. What I defend is that feminism is not the root cause, but it does have an influence for sure.

    Ask yourself this: if we removed feminism from the picture, would fertility rates magically rebound? I don’t think so. It’s more complex than that.

  141. Boxer says:

    Oscar C:

    We both can be right at the same time. What I defend is that feminism is not the root cause, but it does have an influence for sure.

    I think you might be right. Despite the immense amount of fun to be had in laughing at their insanity, feminists aren’t nearly the bogeyman we usually make them out to be.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/the-roots-of-feminism/

    I’d love to have your thoughts on this little thesis. I don’t want to go too off-topic here, though.

    Best,

    Boxer

  142. craig says:

    Jim says: “WHY does one have to go from rejecting catholicism right to liberalism and feminism?”

    In physics, one speaks of “stable”, “unstable”, and “meta-stable” potential energy levels. Things naturally seek to reduce their potential energy; this is why rocks want to fall and static electricity wants to discharge to ground. An energy level is stable when it is difficult to convert a thing’s potential energy into motion/heat/current: like a large boulder lying flat on a mountaintop. Unstable energy is like the same boulder on its edge with a high center of mass: similar overall potential, but very easy to convert to kinetic energy. Meta-stable energy is like the boulder resting in a crater somewhere up the mountain; added energy is required to get it out of the crater before its potential energy can be released by rolling downhill.

    Catholic doctrine, regardless of whether you believe it, is a philosophically stable state. It has a few a priori premises which, once accepted, make the whole very logically coherent and internally consistent. But once enough energy has been applied to dislodge a boulder from that stable state, it rolls downhill until it finds another meta-stable state (and some of these are shallower than others).

  143. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar C.

    Back to Reagan, when you cut through his catchphrases and one-liners, you are left with nothing.

    I agree that Reagan’s power was in catchphrases and one-liners. You undervalue the power of speech.

    The USSR failed because it sucked at production and distribution. What Reagan and others did was point it out in a way people could understand. Otherwise, normal people were confused that the USSR was successful and a menace because they had nukes and other–usually militaristic–high end technology…and winning olympians. Well, sure: When you direct the whole empire towards war and the olympics you can get some winning results. But, as it turns out, you can’t successfully distribute toilet paper because toilet paper doesn’t excite the politburo.

    What Reagan did was make that clear.

    You might check out Garry Kasparov’s criticism of the Soviet Union.

  144. Oscar C. says:

    @Boxer

    Thanks for the link. I am leaving home now, but will check it out later. I will comment in the blog you link to.

  145. Oscar C. says:

    @Cane

    I see. Will check Kasparov, I have a piece in Spanish pending about him.

  146. BillyS says:

    Oscar C,

    You are fairly ignorant of things if you hold political blame as you do. I would agree Reagan did not accomplish as much as it seemed at the time and as much as the supporters of “Saint Reagan” may think, but that was largely because of a very corrupt system and societal trends that are impossible for a single man to change.

    Worshiping the president, whoever he is, is a stupid idea. Even a Trump can only do so much, however strong his personality.

    You have also either not worked in academia or you are willfully ignorant. The cabal is very present there.

  147. feministhater says:

    Ask yourself this: if we removed feminism from the picture, would fertility rates magically rebound? I don’t think so. It’s more complex than that.

    No, it would be a start on the course of reversing the damage already done though. Nothing works in a vacuum. I will agree that it isn’t only feminism or only academics in their halls or only the welfare state or only liberalism but all of those combined did much of the damage. Feminism planted a seed back before women even had the vote which has grown to what we have now.

    We both can be right at the same time. What I defend is that feminism is not the root cause, but it does have an influence for sure.

    Well at least you acknowledge that. It isn’t the root cause, that is greed and rebelliousness. Both which are fed abundantly by feminism and the welfare state. Without the selfishness humans suffer from, most of the forces seen in our world would be decimated, from Capitalism to Communism. Feminism gives women an outlet for their rebellion, it gives them power, allowing Eve to rebel against God again.

    While they are not root causes, they are the offshoots of the root itself. Hardly trivial.

    Children have never been a productive asset, not to the extent that they pay for themselves and them some. Thus even in the dark ages, children were of some help at the very least but they were still mostly a hindrance. It was the promise of their future that gave parents a reason to have them.

    In the end, it’s the same today. We need children not because children work hard or are productive but because they will be the future. We may of forgotten that for now..

  148. Gunner Q says:

    Oscar C. @ 1:50 pm:
    “What I describe is not so much a process that is guided in top-down fashion, but rather the result of individual corporate strategies.”

    In America, it’s a top-down fashion. It’s written government policy that businesses should hire female/nonwhite workers in preference to white male workers and many legal precedents have been set for punishing the non-compliant. Meanwhile, immigration and antislavery laws are officially unenforced, which defies the very concept of rule of law.

    This is anarcho-tyranny, not capitalism. Our government has criminalized the employment of the native population. Either native employers betray their own and are rewarded, or they hide in cracks and shadows to avoid punishment for loyalty.

    Boxer @ 2:41 pm:
    “The opposite is in fact the case. A greedy capitalist wants people who will buy his products and services. If the consumer is in China, outside the bounds of warranty and trade laws, so much the better.”

    The correct term for a businessman who loots one market of wealth in order to undercut the next market is locust, not capitalist.

  149. Oscar says:

    @ Oscar C. says:
    June 2, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    “Ask yourself this: if we removed feminism from the picture, would fertility rates magically rebound? I don’t think so. It’s more complex than that.”

    “Magically”? No. But, would birth rates rebound in the US if feminism disappeared? Yes, they would. Think about it.

    Is the sexual revolution a part of feminism? According to feminists, it is.
    Are birth control and abortion part of feminism? According to feminists, they are.
    Is no-fault divorce a part of feminism? Feminists take credit for it.
    Are the rise of women in the workplace and the commensurate rise of make-work jobs for women part of feminism? Feminists take credit for that too.
    Is mother-default-child-custody part of feminism? It was one of the earliest feminist causes.
    Are government-enforced father-default-child-support part of feminism? Feminists say it is.
    Is government welfare for single mothers part of feminism? Feminists claim that one also.

    Now, suppose that we somehow rolled all of that back. What do you think women would do? I think they would do what they used to do before all of that became the norm. They’d marry young, have 3 or 4 kids and stay married.

  150. Oscar C. says:

    Sure, if you take that all-encompassing view of feminism, there would be a change. I think it depends on your perspective.

    For me, the sexual revolution was not ushered by academic feminists; it was the availability of contraception which made it possible.

    That is, the moment a new technology becomes avalaible, people will dramatically change their behavior and, later on, the intellectual rationalization (feminism in this case) will kick in. Let’s imagine that somehow a feminist movement had developed, but we did not have safe contraception yet. Would women sleep around that much, despite being told that is totally ok? I don’t think so, because there would be still serious consequences for that behavior.

    Regarding feminist activism in the fields of law and politics in general, I think this has to do with the way the left has been co-opted in the West. The traditional left-wing parties worried mostly about economic issues, but gradually they were subverted into caring mostly for cultural issues, which are not really threatening to corporations. “Social justice” used to mean more economic equality, not fringe activism. It no longer does because the left has been subverted. In America you have had traditionally a weak labor left, so for you leftism has been typically linked with social activism, but that was not the case in Europe.

    Check this series of tweets, where this phenomenon is well explained:

  151. CSI says:

    And before contraception came the advances in medicine and sanitation which reduced the childhood mortality rate from its historical 30%-50% down to practically zero. Perhaps this in turn made contraception necessary, or at least desirable.

  152. Oscar C. says:

    Yes, CSI, very true. I think global overpopulation is a serious problem right now. I know technology can help absorbe more people, but it does such at a price. Contemporary food is often tasteless and full of chemicals (not just processed foods, but fruits and vegetables), to name just one example.

  153. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar C.

    I think this has to do with the way the left has been co-opted in the West. The traditional left-wing parties worried mostly about economic issues, but gradually they were subverted into caring mostly for cultural issues, which are not really threatening to corporations. “Social justice” used to mean more economic equality, not fringe activism. It no longer does because the left has been subverted.

    Economic leftism wasn’t subverted. It was discredited by its practice. That’s what I was saying upthread. The failure of the USSR (and China, and Vietnam, and North Korea, and Cuba, and Venezuela, and EVERYWHERE Communism has been tried) is self-evident now. The speech of people like Reagan and Thatcher made it so plain that everyone had to accept it; even their enemies on the Left.

    For The Left to remain cohesive–to remain anything at all–it had to abandon an explicitly economic platform and take up activist causes to make its cases for economic redistribution. The Left could not sell the idea that that communism/Marxism would properly (or more fairly) distribute production and wealth, but they could sell the argument that American blacks should be transferred wealth because their ancestors were slaves. And they could sell the argument that women should be transferred wealth because it’s not their fault that human gestation only takes place in women and that for nine months. And they could sell the argument that schools in poor neighborhoods should be transferred wealth because rich schools in rich neighborhoods churn out high acheivers. Etc.

  154. Boxer says:

    Dear Oscar C.:

    That is, the moment a new technology becomes avalaible, people will dramatically change their behavior and, later on, the intellectual rationalization (feminism in this case) will kick in. Let’s imagine that somehow a feminist movement had developed, but we did not have safe contraception yet. Would women sleep around that much, despite being told that is totally ok? I don’t think so, because there would be still serious consequences for that behavior.

    Women sleep around because they’re seeking the security that was once provided by a large extended family, and by hours of work. It’s the same basic phenomenon Marx talks about in his (in)famous bourgeois marriage snippet — only technology and cheap energy has reduced us all to de facto membership in the bourgeoisie. Sexual degeneracy and immorality is the result of living a decadent life, trying to find meaning and fit purpose into long days when none of us really lives as the homo faber we were created/evolved to be.

    I don’t know that the underlying tenets of feminism are anything new. Christians talk about Eve and the apple, and Freud tells the same story about penis envy. I think you’re right about the malevolent incarnation of feminism that erupted in this century, though.

    Best,

    Boxer

  155. Oscar C. says:

    @Cane

    That’s a way of looking at it for sure, but I did not have the communist world in mind when talking about this. I meant Western European socialdemocracy, which was hostile to Moscow and used to offer a working alternative. In America such alternative was also present, although without the “socialist” label, via the prosperity of the post-war era and New Deal institutions. Nowadays that compromise is gone, and leftism becomes a coalition of the fringe sectors of society.

    The way you put it, it is as if former hardcore Marxists sat down to think about their theoretical defeat and came up with SJWdom as a replacement. I am skeptical about that. Those old-school Marxists are still around. But the leading figures in academia are not them, but intellectual lightweights which get a lot of promotion. For a corporation it is wonderful to proudly announce that they have a lesbian CEO and score MSM popularity points, even if they still exploit cheap labor. The lesbian CEO part will be featured at the NYT, while the actual exploitation practices will only be covered in small and genuinely left-wing outlets such as Counterpunch, to name just one.

    Another factor is one that is implicitly present in Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart”: the well-educated sectors of the population have no interest in actually enacting policies that benefit the nation as whole, because they made it already. They look down on flyover country and say “let them eat political correctness”. Naturally, red staters get angry at this and vote GOP. Republicans are very skilled at channelling that anger, projecting it into the most banal things: Hillary’s pantsuits, buying at Whole Foods, French wine, Prius cars, etc. Thomas Frank analyses this in detail in his great “What’s the matter with Kansas” from 2004. Of course, there is an obvious catch: coast liberals might be unsufferably arrogant sometimes, but folks in the heartland are not really struggling because of them. They are struggling due to the corporate-friendly policies Reagan & co. enacted and which ushered in a vicious circle of outsourcing and destruction of communities. Trump seemed opposed to the Reaganite agenda; but ever since his plutocrat-ridden cabinet was announced I feel he will end up as the new Reagan, updated for our times but equally devastating. It is too soon to know for sure, though.

    I recommend you this post from a blog that aims to recover the socialdemocracy of old, and which is highly critical of the contemporary left:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.es/2017/05/the-highest-stage-of-neoliberal.html

  156. Oscar C. says:

    @Boxer
    Quite probable. As the saying goes, the devil finds work for iddle hands.

  157. Jason says:

    Everything changed in the USA after that first oil-shock in 1973 / 1974. Combined with the “exiting” of the gold standard……and Nixon gets blamed for this……..but it had been the ultimate drive of The Federal Reserve for a long time. Silver removed from coinage in the 1960’s…silver certificates becoming void in the 1950’s…..

    In 1973, my father who had no college education was a union carpenter. He could afford a NEW house, some property, had a two week vacation a year, a new car and truck every five to seven years, weekends off, and health care. My mother did not have to work for the first eight years of their marriage…..with two children (myself and my older brother)

    After the dust settled from the 1974 recession…..my mother went back to college nights / weekends to get re-certified for her nursing license. Dad after a short stint of being unemployed (the first time he was since he was a teenager in the 1950’s) went back to work with a pay increase but a vastly decreased buying power of the dollar. More cost for his co-pay healthcare. His Union kow-towed to only “voting Democrat” instead of real issues of safety / training and maintaining real work standards and quality that was expected with Union work and membership. Dues went up too! A lot.

    By the time I was a full teenager in the 1980’s…..my parents were working full time and still were falling behind…..I was a ‘latchkey’ kid / teenager.

    I cannot remember ‘who” said it, but some banker once said “I care not of a country’s laws, it’s form of government, or if it is humane, or if it is a brutal dictatorship…..give us the control of it’s money supply and we rule the nation by proxy!”

  158. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar C.

    I should say here that my observations are of American history. European movements may vary.

    You want to make a distinction between Western social democracy and communism (and there is one), but communism is the “pure” form of production and income redistribution. When communism was discredited as grossly inefficient and also murderous, the whole concept of managed redistribution took a massive hit.

    The way you put it, it is as if former hardcore Marxists sat down to think about their theoretical defeat and came up with SJWdom as a replacement.

    Sort of. SJWism came out of the cabal of university professors[1]. However; it wasn’t as if they picked SJW activism from a selection of optimal choices. Rather, they exploited existing fractures in American society precisely because they could no longer credibly argue for the income redistribution as a societal good in and of itself, nor could they make the case that it would benefit everyone equally. SJWism is a way to convince smaller chunks of society that–while overall income redistribution is bad–wealth transfer to redress grievances is simply justice; whether those grievances are present or past, real or imagined. Social Justice is a segregated version of Marxism.[2], and it is dependent upon these fractures. That’s why the Left needs to import and retain foreigners. If the populations of Western countries were, for example, 90% native and in relative solidarity, then there wouldn’t be enough fractures to be effectively exploited. Unrestricted immigration creates the the cracks where SJWism can grow and gain strength. It’s a kind of Five Year Plan to bring about the necessary conditions for the always-approaching (but never realized) “worker’s revolution”.

    You can think of it like this: Reagan convinced people of the flaws of Marxism with catchphrases . He didn’t materially cause communism to fail. It was effective rhetoric that changed people’s minds. Likewise, SJWism is a rhetorical counter-action of speech. It’s goal is still Marxist.

    [1] SJWism, basically, is a secularized version of various Liberation Theologies which came out of the Roman Catholic Church; particularly in South America. Of course, Liberation Theology itself is a Marxist (and wrong) interpretation of Christian writings, traditions, and history.

    [2]Which makes sense because Marxism is congregated envy that is weaponized by the proud.

  159. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar C.

    I recommend you this post from a blog that aims to recover the socialdemocracy of old, and which is highly critical of the contemporary left:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com.es/2017/05/the-highest-stage-of-neoliberal.html

    After posting my last comment I read your recommended post. We are not so far apart. Ha! From the link:

    The Left has simply been taken over by the quasi-religious obsession with multiculturalism, Third Worldism, quasi-Marxist internationalism, and what can only be described as a toxic racial hatred of European people and the very idea that European people should have majority homelands in which they survive as a majority to preserve themselves and their culture.

    That would be the Liberation Theology I mentioned. The difference I have with that author is that he thinks leadership of the Left was co-opted by others, and I believe the Left elites simply pivoted.

  160. Oscar C. says:

    @Cane

    I am glad that you found something of interest in the link, I suspected you would. In my opinion it is an excellent blog.

    You exposed your position in very clear and structured terms. I sort of agree, although in my opinion the SJWs in academia would work as the proverbial “useful idiots” of corporate America, genuinely believing their subversion of the US is revolutionary while actually doing others’ bidding.

    About Liberation Theology I don’t doubt it is a distorted view of Christianity, although given the appalling living conditions throughout Latin America I am not surprised it became so popular at the time.

  161. feeriker says:

    I cannot remember ‘who” said it, but some banker once said “I care not of a country’s laws, it’s form of government, or if it is humane, or if it is a brutal dictatorship…..give us the control of it’s money supply and we rule the nation by proxy!”

    That was none other than Mayer (((Rothschild))) (Rothchild), Satan’s governor general on Earth and the progenitor of the global disaster that is the modern world economy.

  162. Oscar says:

    @ Oscar C. says:
    June 3, 2017 at 4:38 am

    “Sure, if you take that all-encompassing view of feminism, there would be a change. I think it depends on your perspective.”

    As I already explained, that’s the view that feminists take of feminism.

    “For me, the sexual revolution was not ushered by academic feminists…”

    And you’re wrong, because…

    “… it was the availability of contraception which made it possible.”

    Contraception was – and still is – a feminist cause. If you don’t believe me, tell a feminist that the government shouldn’t pay for contraception, or abortion, or Planned Parenthood, and that businesses have the right to opt out of funding contraception for their employees’ medical insurance.

  163. Oscar C. says:

    @Oscar

    Yes, you are right, but I meant the “discovery” (if we can call it that) of contraception as such, as a purely scientific development.

  164. Oscar says:

    @ Oscar C.

    The invention of contraception isn’t the issue. The implementation is the issue, and that’s been driven by feminist philosophy.

    For example, abortion procedures and abortifacient drugs have been well known since ancient times. But they only became common in the US when the Supreme Court made them legal in 1973. And why did the Supreme Court legalize them? Feminism.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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