You will not get any more Eisenhowers, because post-Eisenhower events built durable common knowledge among Red Tribe that Eisenhower was, in fact, a chump [when he complied with Supreme Court rulings that he disagreed with]. None of this is new; we've been debating this for about a decade at this point, and the point of view you're arguing against is supported by quite a bit of solid evidence.
I’m fully in board with [tax benefits and such for parents], but I think going back to keeping married women out of high powered positions. This would reduce women going to college and therefore increase the likelihood that they end up marrying early and having more kids. Heck, as much as I as a woman enjoyed college, I think keeping women out would help here.
"Love your neighbor" does not extend to "normalize your neighbor's erotic proclivities at the cost of broader society" or "you must erase the distinction between things."
Christians have traditionally believed that marriage is permanent bond between a man and woman for the purpose of forming a household and raising children*, where the duties of the man and woman are asymmetrical. For a man to “marry” another man is a contradiction in terms, the same as when your boss tells you, “I want you to think of me as your friend, not your boss.” The male-female relationship has elements that are inherently asymmetrical, and inherently different than male-male relationships, and different things deserve different words. Furthermore, the male-female union is a core building block of civilization and therefore deserves special recognition by the state and by the church. It deserves to be considered normative. One of the things that has especially turned me against gay marriage is seeing how so many institutions (eg public schools) no longer feel empowered to teach the male-female marriage as being the default or the normative institution. Legalizing gay marriage was not just “allow different people to do their own thing” it was, “change the basic way every child is taught about the basic institutions and building blocks of life.”
Now part of the problem for modern Christians is that many already have given up on the idea of marriage being permanent or that the husband and wife have different roles and obligations. Once those distinctions have been erased, resistance to gay marriage then looks very unprincipled. But for traditional Christians the argument is very straightforward and consistent.
I haven't egged, paintballed, or beaten any homeless and don't intend to start, but I firmly believe that any city will be worse off if a "compassionate" genie magically conjured up 100 homeless people to live its streets; no comment on whether I think a city should welcome a "cruel" genie who's able and willing to magically poof away the same. I also understand second order effects and believe people respond to incentives. It seems to me, then, that every compassionate Times reader equals something like 0.0001 compassionate genies, and every cruel Kalispell resident 0.01 cruel genies. Mechanics and process aside, the end result is a San Fran full of growing compassion and ever more unhoused, and a Kalispell with a cruel lid on the homeless, and maybe even a reduction down the line.
The part I struggle with is, how does a society argue against compassion? Even if the rational counterarguments are themselves obvious, it seems like a fundamentally losing messaging game. We raise our children to be compassionate and we look for spouses who are compassionate. Trying to shout from the rooftops that compassion is actually bad when it comes to the homeless feels akin to telling the world that generosity is bad when it comes to tipping. Which is why I'm resigned that no matter how many articles are written about the tipping culture being out of control, it will creep up to more industries and circumstances and higher preset amounts. Similarly, I'm resigned that more tax and charity dollars will go to the homeless and the homeless industrial complex ad infinitum, because you can't argue against compassion, at least not outside of the ratsphere and among the voting masses.
[submitter note: on the topic of the death penalty]
Yes, but not unlike the problem of schools (nobody cared when dumb kids were dumb when everyone was white, but thanks to Multiculturalism if too many dumb kids are non-white you need to stop teaching algebra or calculus to anyone, and abolish standardized testing, and remove all discipline) we now have a problem with the death penalty, or even imprisoning anyone. When the country was majority white, I'm not sure anyone really cared if people who obviously murdered someone were put to death. I'm not sure anyone cared if a bunch of poor whites from the same zipcode were always getting thrown in jail. Add a dash of Multiculturalism however, and suddenly we aren't allowed to have a functional civilization anymore. To many non-whites end up in jail or get the death penalty? Time to start depolicing and just letting people go. Sure they might murder someone you love a week later, but at least we won't be racist.
Of all the boxes, the [ammo box] still hasn't been tried.
What the right should take from analyzing this rationally is that no amount of legal or illegal remedy will ever be enough, submit to the reality that good government requires at minimum a coup, and start plotting effectively.
If the punishment for dissent is the same as insurrection, there is no downside to the latter. And the powers that be know this which is why they immediately started purging the military.
No wistful demonstrations, no standing back and standing by. If any goals are ever to be met, then clearly one needs to start stockpiling weapons, making close connections, weeding out informants, subverting the military and planning for a violent confrontation.
It's either that or run your community away to another country that will protect you.
Jim Crow worked and lasted for a long time. So did slavery. Those are sane, stable solutions to the problem of having a racial underclass that is much less intelligent, much more impulsive, and much more violent than average.
HBD [submitter’s note: HBD = Human BioDiversity] is downstream of culture, in a way that feeble, equitable, painless interventions and charitable self-sacrifice by the stronger party cannot negate. The less virtuous cannot rule and become more virtuous in the process. You will have to have a culture where virtue is rewarded, even if that puts some strongly self-identifying, cohesive group in a bad spot. And to have that culture, you have to have at least a seed of people who maintain it effortlessly among themselves. This can be done, for a time, in virtually any society. But let us say that is it not easy to pull oneself by the hair out of the bog. Society is not just upstream of individual biology – it is less mutable than that.
Yes, and the answer that Children of Men offers is the same weak cuckservatism that was crushed in the eyes of the public by the Trump campaign. "The ending of your bloodline and people is not something that can be stopped. The Key to Tomorrow is refugees and immigrants, and you should give up your life to make sure they continue to have kids in the hope that they remember and carry forward your ideology." The wages of this view is death - what more can be said? If you're a believer in HBD [submitter’s note: “Human BioDiversity”] then the utter futility and fecklessness of this view is made even clearer by an understanding of the genetic foundations that underpin political beliefs and positions. Oh, look, the name of his dead child gets reused for the one he saved - what a perfect summation of the cuckservative position! Sure, none of your children will be around in the future, but you get to make sure that the people who dispossess yours keep using some of the names you used, and they aren't on the side of your opponents in the culture war. That is the end that those conservative principles were headed towards, and I think it is a wondrous blessing for the world (and, to say the least, the conservative base) that such a suicidal ideology has been demolished and a Trump tower built on the ashes.
Who gives a shit what color Tolkien's world was or wasn't.
Me. I do. This is a conscious effort to erase me and people who look like me. This is a conscious effort to dispossess us of our heritage, to plant a flag in our birthright and say "this isn't yours anymore." This doesn't end at fiction, we've seen history blackwashed (black English queens on Netflix and black Romans on the BBC) into propaganda, with the explicit aim of erasing the historical truth that England was once a much whiter (and much nicer) country.