The Vox Day thread

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
That's why it's hard for me to take vox and his criticisms of others seriously as it's always malicious and not rooted from a point to help people. Your comment reads that way also.
I don't agree that what Vox says has malice behind it. I know Vox's type, they are usually very intelligent people who are quick to learn from the example of others so that they don't have to hit the wall themselves. They usually have very little patience for slow learners, because slow learners have trouble learning what people like Vox are capable of grasping almost instantaneously by observation. Yes, there's a bit of arrogance behind that, but I think everybody, including the slow learners themselves, have also experienced this impatience themselves when dealing with people or animals of a far enough lower intellectual capacity.

For someone who functions at Vox's level, witnessing people is sometimes like witnessing a hamster that's too dumb to figure out something very simple and so keeps trying to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result. You quickly lose patience with people at that level. If you're not one of those people or if you haven't had a lifetime's experience of being around people like that, I don't think you can quite understand just how alien the working of their mind is to you.

I'm at a certain IQ level where I'm not quite at Vox's level, but I can relate to the way he feels about people with average IQ, because I've gone through the same experience of pulling teeth trying to walk people through things I could intuit in an instant. But punching a little below Vox's weight class also gives me a better ability to be humble and more patient with people because I've been the punching bag for people in Vox's weight class before.

So I don't think there's malice, just an arrogant sense of superiority. He wants to help people, but he's doing it without tact. I think overall, Vox does more good than bad, and I'd rather we had real talk than the SJW crap where you keep it all bottled up because you don't want to hurt fee-fees. I consider lack of tact a way smaller fish to fry compared to the bigger fish we have to worry about these days.
 

Carolus

Sparrow
Protestant
to educate people
That's why it's hard for me to take vox and his criticisms of others seriously as it's always malicious and not rooted from a point to help people. Your comment reads that way also.
Yes, the solution to modernity is more education and being nicer to each other. Vox is a meanie. Honk. Honk.

The removal of shame has been one of the primary focuses of the left in the culture war. It started with removing shame from divorce and premarital sex. Then they removed shame from homosexuality. Now their campaign has advanced to the point where they have removed shame from crossdressing in public and divorce, promiscuity, and homosexuality are celebrated. Pedophilla is the next front in their campaign and they've already established a beachhead and are advancing rapidly.

Shame and the loss of social standing that comes with it is necessary for a virtuous culture. If divorce destroyed a woman's reputation and meant she had poor prospects, far fewer women would do it. If being an ethot destroyed a woman's reputation, far fewer women would become ethots. If being a looser simp destroyed a man's reputation, far few men would be looser simps. This would, in turn, mean fewer thots.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Yes, the solution to modernity is more education and being nicer to each other. Vox is a meanie. Honk. Honk.

The removal of shame has been one of the primary focuses of the left in the culture war. It started with removing shame from divorce and premarital sex. Then they removed shame from homosexuality. Now their campaign has advanced to the point where they have removed shame from crossdressing in public and divorce, promiscuity, and homosexuality are celebrated. Pedophilla is the next front in their campaign and they've already established a beachhead and are advancing rapidly.

Shame and the loss of social standing that comes with it is necessary for a virtuous culture. If divorce destroyed a woman's reputation and meant she had poor prospects, far fewer women would do it. If being an ethot destroyed a woman's reputation, far fewer women would become ethots. If being a looser simp destroyed a man's reputation, far few men would be looser simps. This would, in turn, mean fewer thots.
That's all well and good but it doesn't serve to convince anyone. I never said be nicer or any of the vector you're ascribing, though you're painting my point like I'm making a feel good snowflake mentality...

I don t see how it serves the effect to convince people one way or the other. People just assume you're compensating for some other inadequacy/guilt by attacking others to deflect from your own issues.

In the case of this incident, publicly shaming a dude for marrying a gold digger isn't going to prevent him or other people from having to learn that lesson the hard way.

Experience keeps an expensive school, but a fool will learn no other way.

Having been divorced, i agree that if it were more ruinous to the woman and less socially acceptable, it wouldnt be so prevalent in society. But that wouldn't have changed me from marrying my ex wife at the time i did because i selected off of the wrong qualities. I knew there were red flags, but overlooked them. Lesson learned the hard way.

People who are going to make stupid decisions to marry a sugar momma have to learn that lesson on their own. Believe me I know.

Education doesn't just mean text book or statistics, it can also mean religious education and by example. If a man is selecting a woman based off of a Christian education and values... He's not going to be winding up, most likely, in the divorce column.

Putting them through ringing the bell of shame is going to drive people away from that message and that messenger. Im assuming the audience then isn't the person you're shaming, but other people. Again you're only going to make people defensive or wonder why you're the one casting Stones.

I understand the point you are making, and dont disagree that societal structures should exist to keep abhorrent behavior in line...but the notion of shame has to come from inculcated values that one fosters in the Church and from within.
 

Thomas More

Crow
Protestant
Yes, the solution to modernity is more education and being nicer to each other. Vox is a meanie. Honk. Honk.

The removal of shame has been one of the primary focuses of the left in the culture war. It started with removing shame from divorce and premarital sex. Then they removed shame from homosexuality. Now their campaign has advanced to the point where they have removed shame from crossdressing in public and divorce, promiscuity, and homosexuality are celebrated. Pedophilla is the next front in their campaign and they've already established a beachhead and are advancing rapidly.

Shame and the loss of social standing that comes with it is necessary for a virtuous culture. If divorce destroyed a woman's reputation and meant she had poor prospects, far fewer women would do it. If being an ethot destroyed a woman's reputation, far fewer women would become ethots. If being a looser simp destroyed a man's reputation, far few men would be looser simps. This would, in turn, mean fewer thots.
I lean towards the idea that being nasty to other people is bad.

Sometimes I think some people just need to be dragged off and shot. Sometimes I think certain faces are punchable. Sometimes I think ethnic cleansing is needed, with the genocide and the death marches. I really do think some behaviors that are "celebrated" by modern society should result in burning at the stake.

However, when I really think about it, I think this is my lower nature in action. I don't think it's God's will for us to bully, ostracize, torment, and kill those we think are falling short of the mark as we see it at that time.

I know this is problematic. I don't want government or society to promote or subsidize bad behaviors, and I think people who violate standards of proper, Godly behavior should have some social stigma, but I'm against forcing them to wear a scarlet letter. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:

Carolus

Sparrow
Protestant
though you're painting my point like I'm making a feel good snowflake mentality...
It is not snowflake mentality. It is what leads to permissiveness and then, eventually, snowflake mentality.

It's none of your business to mock another man's decisions in their personal life.
My memory is good enough to recall nearly this exact sentence being used over and over to excuse Bill Clinton's behavior. Just replace 'mock' with 'judge'. The personal lives of public persons are very much on the table. Especially if they hawk their self-help books at every turn.

In the case of this incident, publicly shaming a dude for marrying a gold digger isn't going to prevent him or other people from having to learn that lesson the hard way
If it was shameful to marry an ethot with 2 kids from another man, not as many man would do it. You can try to argue the other side of this if you want, I suppose.

Experience keeps an expensive school, but a fool will learn no other way.
All people learn from observation to a greater or lesser degree. Obviously, not everyone can be helped.

But that wouldn't have changed me from marrying my ex wife at the time i did because i selected off of the wrong qualities. I knew there were red flags, but overlooked them. Lesson learned the hard way.
Why were you selecting off the wrong qualities? Could it be because the culture at large doesn't call attention to the right and wrong qualities? Did people in the agrigate use to make better selections? Why is that?

Putting them through ringing the bell of shame is going to drive people away from that message and that messenger. Im assuming the audience then isn't the person you're shaming, but other people. Again you're only going to make people defensive or wonder why you're the one casting Stones.
If being a bad person doesn't result in shame and loss of social standing, how do you propose we have a virtuous culture?

I understand the point you are making, and dont disagree that societal structures should exist to keep abhorrent behavior in line...but the notion of shame has to come from inculcated values that one fosters in the Church and from within.
Well, bad news, but very few people are going to do that. They need externally imposed structure in order to lead good lives.

Here's the bottom line: Scott Adams poses as a public intellectual and has made millions of dollars giving life advice and his opinions. Yet, just like Jordan Peterson, he is clearly in no position to give anyone advice on how to lead a good life. The guy has two failed marriages, no children of his own, one dead step-kid from a drug overdose, married an ethot single mom, and is currently letting her kids live in his house after she moved out and posted an open hookup invitation on twitter.

Should anyone pretend to respect this man? No. He is not respectable. People who behave badly need to be held accountable. The lack of will to do this is a significant component of why things are the way they are now.

The reason why prostitutes were not treated well (mostly through exclusion from respectable society, not through active abuse) in the past is not because people wanted to be mean to prostitutes. It was so that normal young women would not become prostitutes. We've seen the results of removing shame of prostitution on fast foreword with Onlyfans culture. It is no different with simps.

The main reason why people are so opposed to a return to the past on this issue is because they themselves provide cover for the bad behavior of others so that when it's their turn, they can receive the same treatment.
 
Last edited:

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
It is not snowflake mentality. It is what leads to permissiveness and then, eventually, snowflake mentality.


My memory is good enough to recall nearly this exact sentence being used over and over to excuse Bill Clinton's behavior. Just replace 'mock' with 'judge'. The personal lives of public persons are very much on the table. Especially if they hawk their self-help books at every turn.


If it was shameful to marry an ethot with 2 kids from another man, not as many man would do it. You can try to argue the other side of this if you want, I suppose.


All people learn from observation to a greater or lesser degree. Obviously, not everyone can be helped.


Why were you selecting off the wrong qualities? Could it be because the culture at large doesn't call attention to the right and wrong qualities? Did people in the agrigate use to make better selections? Why is that?


If being a bad person doesn't result in shame and loss of social standing, how do you propose we have a virtuous culture?


Well, bad news, but very few people are going to do that. They need externally imposed structure in order to lead good lives.

Here's the bottom line: Scott Adams poses as a public intellectual and has made millions of dollars giving life advice and his opinions. Yet, just like Jordan Peterson, he is clearly in no position to give anyone advice on how to lead a good life. The guy has two failed marriages, no children of his own, one dead step-kid from a drug overdose, married an ethot single mom, and is currently letting her kids live in his house after she moved out and posted an open hookup invitation on twitter.

Should anyone pretend to respect this man? No. He is not respectable. People who behave badly need to be held accountable. The lack of will to do this is a significant component of why things are the way they are now.

The reason why prostitutes were not treated well (mostly through exclusion from respectable society, not through active abuse) in the past is not because people wanted to be mean to prostitutes. It was so that normal young women would not become prostitutes. We've seen the results of removing shame of prostitution on fast foreword with Onlyfans culture. It is no different with simps.

The main reason why people are so opposed to a return to the past on this issue is because they themselves provide cover for the bad behavior of others so that when it's their turn, they can receive the same treatment.
Nothing you've said is individually point by point wrong. I dont really disagree.

BUT......

Scott Adams is an idiot though... he's a self admitted lefty.... why care?

Conceptually I am on your side of the incorrectness ect... I'm just saying taking the point of putting the world to rights is not going to convince people in the middle to come to our side.

I have no knowledge of his personal life, his wife(ex wife ect....) but why do you care? I mean do you have kids from an ex wife living in your house? what do you gain by pointing out his weakness personally? He's obviously a man in a messed up situation, of his own doing. What's the point?

Scott Adams occupies ZERO time in my mind. I don't care. Im too busy raising my own kids, dealing with my own family ect.... ANYONE with a brain wrote him off once he started shilling for the vaccine. Why shame him... no one takes him seriously anyway. I am simply curious why its such a big deal to point out his failures and weakness? You sure seem to know alot about this "loser".... most of us dont. I know about Dilbert... thats it.

I mean after a certain point I have to ask the messenger about their own history ect... before I want to hear the message.

As to Vox. I think he's mediocre. He supposedly has some Grand IQ by his own admission... but he got wrapped up in Q so.... he's not special. He's a man. Like everyone else. Yes he can read. So can I. Don't ascribe him to a genius. ( @Elipe EDITED.... youre probably right... he's just autistic in regards to people's ability to understand his verbal point... which is why I really really really like his written works but think hes very inept at verbal communication...) He's basically an American who's aware of the NWO and living in another country. His own delusions of grandeur have hurt his credibility.... the Q shilling destroyed his credibility. NOW its just where he can occasionally be right to get back to not being a "trust the plan" guy.....

Vox touts being super high IQ. Maybe so. HE could be a genius. I've dealt with genius IQ people in the .mil and in college... frankly unimpressed. Doesnt change the fundamental fact that even high IQ people are not susceptible to their arguments.

I've never taken an IQ test. I dont need an IQ test to validate how smart I am, and Im sure I'm well above 125, but unlike VOX I dont have to gloat about it. At a certain point... you have to give up on just being really smart and accept that you also have to deal with humans....
 

Carolus

Sparrow
Protestant
Nothing you've said is individually point by point wrong. I dont really disagree.

BUT......

Scott Adams is an idiot though... he's a self admitted lefty.... why care?

Conceptually I am on your side of the incorrectness ect... I'm just saying taking the point of putting the world to rights is not going to convince people in the middle to come to our side.

I have no knowledge of his personal life, his wife(ex wife ect....) but why do you care? I mean do you have kids from an ex wife living in your house? what do you gain by pointing out his weakness personally? He's obviously a man in a messed up situation, of his own doing. What's the point?

Scott Adams occupies ZERO time in my mind. I don't care. Im too busy raising my own kids, dealing with my own family ect.... ANYONE with a brain wrote him off once he started shilling for the vaccine. Why shame him... no one takes him seriously anyway. I am simply curious why its such a big deal to point out his failures and weakness? You sure seem to know alot about this "loser".... most of us dont. I know about Dilbert... thats it.
Why do I care? I care that there is almost no virtue on display anywhere in public life in this country and that people who should know better vomit out platitudes that boil down to "don't be judgemental." Vox is right to point out that these people lack virtue and shouldn't be followed. I don't see any difference between him making fun of Scott Adams in a blog post and Jordanetics other than the difference in scope between the projects. Both have value.

The 'lot' I know about Scott Adams is the result of listening to his podcast occasionally pre-covid and skimming his wiki page once.

"No one takes him seriously." Yes, someone does. He is a bestselling author of self help books.

You always bring up yourself and talk about your life and experiences but foul will be cried if there's a response to it. It'll be a 'personal attack'.

I'm glad we don't really disagree.
 
If mockery and shaming is the only consequence of weakness then the weak are getting off easy. Nature is much crueler to the weak. They should be thankful that civilization handles them with kid gloves.

There's nothing cruel with what Vox did to Adams. It's civilized. No physical harm was done nor an insult was hurled.

Besides, the cover song he did is hilarious for those who know the story between Shelly and Adams. I also agree that Vox is actually a decent singer. I wish he finds the time to teach how to sing.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Why do I care? I care that there is almost no virtue on display anywhere in public life in this country and that people who should know better vomit out platitudes that boil down to "don't be judgemental." Vox is right to point out that these people lack virtue and shouldn't be followed. I don't see any difference between him making fun of Scott Adams in a blog post and Jordanetics other than the difference in scope between the projects. Both have value.

The 'lot' I know about Scott Adams is the result of listening to his podcast occasionally pre-covid and skimming his wiki page once.

"No one takes him seriously." Yes, someone does. He is a bestselling author of self help books.

You always bring up yourself and talk about your life and experiences but foul will be cried if there's a response to it. It'll be a 'personal attack'.

I'm glad we don't really disagree.
I don't disagree with Vox (or whatever his Christian name really is) Day's intellect. He's a brilliant writer. I love his books. Own them all and have all the audiotapes. Its just the guy gets on the warpath in his streams to destroy someone else who is also someone he views in the same "IQ" level and has to destroy them and feels threatened otherwise he'd just dismiss them.

Vox also acts like he's Clausewitz, Basil Lindell Hart, and Rommel all in one person. He went on a diatribe about how he could beat up Joe Rogan then spent multiple weeks trying explain that since he was in some sort of "fight club" and then broke down Joe Rogan videos that he was some sort of war fighter. Its kind of laughable... Then he went on to admit he never served... had several excuses about his shoulder or whatever and talked about how LT COL XYZ thought he was a hard body...ect... I think this was 2019. Thats where earth met reality for me and I started dismissing him.

I mean... dude I've been around... I was a history major in college, focus on "Modern Military Thought" and then deployed starting as an Arty Officer and later as a Light Armored Recon Platoon Commander and filled billets after that so I've been around... Vox (frankly I dont know his Christian name so calling him Vox is like calling a tranny by their preferred pronouns in my book) is a bright dude... he's an expat, he plays the race card where he can in his books "Im an American Indian/Mexican/ect..(Cuckservative first 3 pages)... so no big deal. He's a bright guy. He's not a vet. He's got ZERO combat experience, so when he talks tough about combat/fighting/getting hit in the face... those are lies or at best voyeuristic comments as far as I know.

Maybe your own desire to call him out is a reflection on your own belief in him and thinking his way of life will get you ahead. I dont Know. I dont really care. No one is saying you shouldn't have opinions. You're the one advocating for public shaming. That's not going to help the cause of convincing people to change their behavior. Nor is it going to convince people to walk towards Christ.

We are all sinners (You. Me. Roosh. EVERYONE on this forum)

You're welcome to criticize me. I'm happy to throw it all out there simply to say the point that I've got no moral imperative to suppose that I am better than anyone. I've been very open over my 2500+ posts. But go ahead and attack me on a "personal attack" level if that is where you feel you need to go. Frankly I'm not interested in that, and I don't think it serves the forum well... but I've put a lot out there.... If you're in Houston and want to talk I'd have a beer with you if you've got balls (or fisticuffs...all the same to me) ... but my bet is you'll stay anonymous and reveal nothing, and go back through all my posts to try and prove some point and make negative comments... that not withstanding .... go ahead.

Frankly you scream like the guy who has to put the world to rights with nothing to offer about why we should listen to you. Again, you're not wrong about the moral decay of our nation.... but ZERO percent of the nation wants to hear your proposal because you come off like a jabronie.

Not sure about your second to last sentence....Youre welcome to criticize me for being incredibly open over my 2500 + posts on this forum (many of which share personal details that an anonymous person would not) I''m happy for you to criticize me if you feel so inclined. Hope you'll be as forthright with honesty as I have been and contribute in the same way. Frankly... this forum could go away tomorrow and my life loses nothing... I have a Church, my family, and I am only here to hopefully offer help, and intelligent discussion.
 

Carolus

Sparrow
Protestant
Vox (frankly I dont know his Christian name so calling him Vox is like calling a tranny by their preferred pronouns in my book)
It's just a pen name...

You're the one advocating for public shaming. That's not going to help the cause of convincing people to change their behavior. Nor is it going to convince people to walk towards Christ.
But being permissive and tolerant will?

Shaming has worked in the west for thousands of years to help create the most impressive civilizations in history from Greece to Christendom but clearly it can't work now because reasons :rolleyes:

Frankly you scream like the guy who has to put the world to rights with nothing to offer about why we should listen to you.
Does it matter who I am? I don't need to establish credibility because you don't even disagree, you just don't like the conclusion.

Again, you're not wrong about the moral decay of our nation.... but ZERO percent of the nation wants to hear your proposal because you come off like a jabronie.
I don't have a 'proposal.' I think that if people ridicule bad behavior there will be less of it. I wish the social consequences enforced from the left towards people who don't conform to their values were mirrored on the right towards people who don't conform to ours. But no, that might offend someone in the 'middle.'

I think men should be encouraged to stop simping. This isn't a particularly controversial opinion as anti-simp rhetoric has become mainstream. Even many normies notice the problem.

Youre welcome to criticize me
No, I'm not. Personal attacks on members are against the rules, iirc. And I don't want to anyway.
 

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
I don't think this is about "putting the world to rights" but establishing a baseline for socially acceptable behavior to prevent society from destroying itself. I don't think Carolus is suggesting that we expect perfection from everybody, but about trying to eliminate socially destructive behavior, because that's what ethottery is, both from the male approach (simping) and the female approach (being an ethot). One of the things being discussed here is people's incapability to simply just grasp what is right. It's awful to think, but so much human behavior really is driven by social interactive mechanisms like shaming and praising. Why do you think "gay pride" is so important to the sodomites? Why do you think they're going after children? They understand this. They understand that if they can change the shaming/praising mechanism, they can create momentum for sexually degenerate behavior.

If you think that is "putting the world to rights", then you really need to start lecturing the sodomites about that instead of us here because they are the ones that think they are "putting the world to rights" with targeting children with sodomite propaganda to alter their shaming/praising parameters. Most of us on this forum come from more libertarian backgrounds until we came to realize that minding your own to the exclusion of your neighbors was leading to a lot of... well... this.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
I think I've adequately made my point.

I had a much longer response typed but i realize we are all on the same side and want the same goal in the end, just differ on how we get there....My apologies to @Carolus if is latched on to something you said and distorted it as I'm we all agree on the end state.

I always consider the source when looking at the author so i have a lot to get through with Vox...but that could be my own internal biases combined with his presentation speaking.

That notwithstanding I will say some of his informative podcasts and media is really next level great. He informed me about many topics after my divorce when i was trying to make sense of the world when it was just him on the YouTube's before the beartopia thing....so I do like Vox. He did help me get off the Jordan Peterson train when that started showing up.... All I'm saying is that his best work is to focus on big ideas and novel concepts and not attacking personal figures. (Something I should probably work on too)

Vox is absolutely worth keeping in the gambit of commentators especially when he is topic and not personnel driven.

With that I'll bow out.
 

muscacav

Robin
Other Christian
Good news! Hungarians are marrying more and fertility is increasing.

 

midwest_struttin

Robin
Protestant
VD is intelligent but I remember when he was calling Trump God Emperor as well as cheering for Q Anon.


Donald Trump’s failure to cross the Rubicon is explained by his reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Former President Donald Trump admitted he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin was only trying to ‘negotiate’ when he sent troops to the Ukraine border and was ‘surprised’ when the Kremlin leader actually invaded the country.
‘I’m surprised — I’m surprised. I thought he was negotiating when he sent his troops to the border. I thought he was negotiating,’ Trump told the Washington Examiner during a Tuesday evening phone interview from his Mar-a-Lago estate. ‘I thought it was a tough way to negotiate but a smart way to negotiate.’
Trump, who seemingly developed a close working relationship with Moscow during his presidency, said Putin has ‘very much changed’ since the pair last worked together.
‘I figured he was going to make a good deal like everybody else does with the United States and the other people they tend to deal with — you know, like every trade deal. We’ve never made a good trade deal until I came along,’ Trump said. ‘And then he went in — and I think he’s changed. I think he’s changed. It’s a very sad thing for the world. He’s very much changed.’
I’ve mentioned this observation before, but Trump’s character has never been demonstrated more clearly than by this comment about Vladimir Putin. Trump’s strength is that he is a legitimately great negotiator. However, as with all successful men, his weaknesses are related to his strengths. Trump is a talker, not a doer. He is a negotiator, not a warrior. He conflates speech with action. He’s not a fighter, and never having been punched in the face or thrown down another man in the judo ring, he doesn’t understand men who are.

Of course he thought Putin was negotiating by mobilizing the Russian Army, threatening an invasion, and issuing an ultimatum, because he thinks everything is a negotiation. Hence his failure to take action after the fraudulent election of 2020; there probably wasn’t any chance of him actually doing so even if the US military could have been relied upon to obey its Commander-in-Chief – something we can’t know either way despite what various people claim – because for him even an approach to the Rubicon would have been a negotiating point rather than the beginning of a military action.

Remember, the Senate was massively surprised when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome, because despite his military successes on the Mediterranean and in Gaul, they knew him to be a skilled politician and negotiator. And negotiators always prefer jaw-jaw to war-war.

So Trump is a negotiator and Putin is a fighter. What, one wonders, is Xi Xinping?
 

Hermetic Seal

Pelican
Orthodox
Gold Member
Good news! Hungarians are marrying more and fertility is increasing.


If it was really as easy as better government policies, then Japan's birthrates should be a lot better than they are since the government has been trying like crazy for years to incentivize family formation.
 

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
If it was really as easy as better government policies, then Japan's birthrates should be a lot better than they are since the government has been trying like crazy for years to incentivize family formation.
I don't think money drives family formation, it has to be something more spiritual. Japan is a demoralized country where the people don't really see much reason to have children because it's basically just a labor sentence for them. There's something about preserving the future, but what does that really mean for a people like the Japanese? They may have a more or less intact national identity, but you need more than that, you need national esprit de corps. A national will. European nations used to have this with manifest destiny.

Christianity is also an excellent framework for giving people that sense of destiny and purpose that drives them to build a future.
 

BasedBaker

Robin
Trad Catholic
If it was really as easy as better government policies, then Japan's birthrates should be a lot better than they are since the government has been trying like crazy for years to incentivize family formation.
There is an absence of Logos in Japan but it is very present in Hungary.

But back to the topic of Vox, he certainly put out great content on the war here recently. Needs to stop mixing comic book nonsense with reality, which was his issue with Q and Trump.
 
If it was really as easy as better government policies, then Japan's birthrates should be a lot better than they are since the government has been trying like crazy for years to incentivize family formation.
exactly, the answer for more families isn't more welfare and thats not going to increase the fertility rate above replacement level.
 
I don't think money drives family formation, it has to be something more spiritual. Japan is a demoralized country where the people don't really see much reason to have children because it's basically just a labor sentence for them. There's something about preserving the future, but what does that really mean for a people like the Japanese? They may have a more or less intact national identity, but you need more than that, you need national esprit de corps. A national will. European nations used to have this with manifest destiny.

Christianity is also an excellent framework for giving people that sense of destiny and purpose that drives them to build a future.
Christianity as a personal belief in a secular society isn't enough to save marriages/families, there needs to be a theocratic patriarchy put in place as God commanded. The Japanese are losing because they were forced by America after WW2 to allow their women to work and pursue education.
 
Top