What a mistake for Clinton to assume Trump could ever be embarrassed in any way by anything he has said or done. Her latest October surprise only served to infuriate him coming into the debate where he then took his anger out on her in classic form. Another dire consequence for her is that by playing the abuser card she has handed Trump license to continually raise the issue of her enabling of Bill Clinton’s sexual abuse and harassment until election day.
Trump’s superior megalomania moves the race back to a 50-50 contest.
What else? My sidebar image of Lincoln has strong objections to Hillary’s description of Lincoln’s honesty. But the integrity of Lincoln was avenged nicely by Trump. I have nothing else to complain about except to regret Trump didn’t perform like this in the first debate.
And if it is should secular conservatives accept that the vast majority of Westerners are better off under governments that actively encourage religiosity?
Jefferson remarked as follows on a post about Rushton’s theory of r/K selection:
TFR correlates almost perfectly with religion. Chassidim in upstate NY have 12 kids on zero income, SWPLs with 7 figure incomes maybe adopt an African kid in their 40s.
To which I responded:
Well, not perfectly, but very, very strongly.
Stalin eased up on restrictions against Orthodox Christianity after Hitler invaded, both to motivate soldiers and increase the birth rate. It seems soldiers were not ready to die for the philosophical intricacies of dialectical materialism and women were not willing to replace the losses of the Red Army only for the sake of the mighty dictatorship of the proletariat.
So are we secular conservatives left with having no hope of raising Western birth rates short of sponsoring Christianity – with the exception of Israel which sponsors Judaism and has the only elevated birth rate among its desirable populations in the West?
But since when has the VP debate ever mattered?
Surely, his victory doesn’t hurt Trump. But I’d be more enthusiastic about it if there were a record of VP debates ever turning the tide.
Rushton’s theory has to explain away too many historical examples where intelligent human populations that normally invest significantly in their offspring also had high fertility for his take on the idea to be salvaged.
Examples that immediately come to mind are:
- Puritan New England had a birth rate in excess of 8, and it remains one of the highest ever for which there are good records to base estimates upon
- The birth rate of 19th century Britain was more than 4
- Early 20th century Russian women had more than 5 children (this high fertility rate was one of the strategic factors which motivated Wilhelmine Germany, which had a fertility rate of ~3, to start WWI: The German military command wanted to achieve dominance before Imperial Russia was in a position to demographically threaten Germany as the preeminent state of Continental Europe)
- Pre-WWII Japan averaged over 4 children per woman
- The average in Communist China before the one child policy was greater than 5
There are also intra-racial variances in births for which the theory has little or no explanation.
Black Americans have much lower fertility than black Africans; the birth rate of France after the Napoleonic Wars and throughout the 19th century was stagnant compared to either Britain or Germany; Scandinavian nations, even after immigrants are factored out, have higher birth rates than Germans.
The historical trend prior to the 20th century has been for European fertility to be comparable to low-IQ races. It is only by focusing on recent decades that Rushton’s theory superficially appears somewhat applicable. But because this time range is too narrow for fixed evolutionary factors to be a tenable explanation and because it ignores too many counter-examples outside of that time range, his r/K selection theory should be discarded.
Here is how we see the state breakdown:
Trump, who had reached his peak just before the debate, has lost ground in state polls. But not by a significant amount considering he had a bad week due to his pointless focus on a former Mrs. Universe, and less so due to the debate which seems to have been a wash in terms of his standing.
This dent in his trajectory is not fatal because he still remains in striking distance of taking the lead back if he can find another catalyst to ride momentum on.
In an age when a concept as obvious as gender has somehow become a bizarre focal point of confusion (for the rather large number of you who were unaware of this, we remind you all of the scientific fact that there are only two genders), no one should be surprised to see that most confused of currencies, the euro, edge towards disintegration.
While ostensibly the euro project was undertaken by the Delors Commission for reasons of commerce, the true, barely concealed aim of the currency which emerged from that Commission was the destruction of the concept of the European nation state and, along with it, the European peoples.
The real need of all currencies to be in harmony with a viable nation and the crackpot, anti-nationalistic fanaticism of the European Union which compelled it to launch the only anti-nationalist currency in history have finally led to these two fundamentally conflicting ideas, fraudulently combined in the single form of the euro, to approach a boil.
It took three, grueling, decades to reach this sad point in history but the European Union is, before it is anything else, a technocratic dictatorship of the bureaucrats; therefore the speed of its collapse was destined to be bounded to the glacial velocity of bureaucracies.
Be that as it may, the long-awaited critical mass has arrived. The catalyst for the reaction that will end the euro, the currency of roughly 20% of world GDP, and spark either a deep global recession or a depression, is Deutsche Bank.
The accelerating crisis facing this bank leaves Chancellor Merkel well and truly behind the eightball – All choices on the decision tree ultimately branch off into the failure of European Monetary Union.
Continue reading “Too Failed to Save – Deutsche Bank Heralds a Global Crash”
Trump won because Hillary pretended the election is being held in 1996 and her job is to make the DLC great again.
Clinton had no defense against attacks about her positions on substantive issues such as trade, the economy, manufacturing, and foreign policy. The only points she scored were on schoolmarm gotcha’s about his past personal statements or his business activities. For his part, Trump was thrown off course when the topic moved to his taxes, but he evened things up with her emails. When the debate revolves around scandals, Hillary can never do better than fight Trump to a draw.
The electorate will remember what Trump said because the subjects of his attacks all centered on leading issues. Hillary on the other hand pretended the past 8 years of her career never happened and the condition of the country is excellent.
The delivery of Trump’s attacks were given in a clearer way than they were against his primary opponents, though he did not go on the attack as often as he should have. If he had turned the subject back to her failings more frequently he would have won by a greater margin.
In terms of temperament, Trump had the advantage. He didn’t come across as insane, but he managed to sound real and passionate while Clinton was slippery, over-scripted, and her script was limited to Dick Morris-style triangulations about micro-policies. A Dick Morris approach is the wrong one when the world is convulsed by macro-disasters.
The pundits will probably wrongly count the debate as a Clinton win on grounds of tone. They will be wrong because a darker tone better reflects the dark mood of the electorate.