November 8th, 2012

Some practical suggestions…

from Bookworm.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s another.]

36 Responses to “Some practical suggestions…”

  1. Artfldgr Says:

    I wonder if these people will listen

    Obama supporters celebrate no more Israel

  2. Occam's Beard Says:

    Bookworm has some great ideas!

  3. LisaM Says:

    Great ideas!

  4. ziontruth Says:

    Thanks, Artfl, I just saw that. But, strange as it may seem—all the more so because I’m an Israeli Jew—I just have one request:

    Enough about Israel.

    Yes, you read that right: Enough about Israel. Enough about Iran. Enough about the Middle East, enough about the problem of Islamic colonialism everywhere except your own nation-state (for example, if you’re American then Dearborn).

    Enough, because Bush the Younger’s sending of troops into years of guerrilla warfare in two Muslim countries was one of the things that got us (the free world) into this mess. If there was even any point in “nation-building” (I’ve never believed there was), it was wasted on the Muslims, who habitually use democracy to elect jihadist theocrats just as surely as a Leftist-majority country uses it to get its freebies (phonem et circenses, hint, hint). Blood and treasury were wasted on a non-solution to a problem that, following 9/11, should have been solved at home, because it can only be solved at home, anywhere in the world (America, Europe, Israel, India, you name it), by mass deportation and not by futile efforts to bring the fruits of Western freedom when even the once-thoroughly secularized Turks have rejected them.

    For better or worse, isolationism is the order of the day. It cannot be otherwise, because the only alternative is the worse one of appeasement—interventionism of the kind that feeds the crocodile, like the way a filmmaker was just sentenced to one year in the slammer (remember, there’s no future for those who blaspheme the founder of Islam). Isolationism as a doctrine of taking care of your nation’s problems at home and only at home is a necessity, because nothing else has a hope of working, and following the debacle of these elections, nothing else can practically be tried. Don’t take my word for it, ask the Europeans if they think the Afghanistan and Iraq misadventures have been of any help to them in countering the colonial invasion they are confronted with in London and Paris and elsewhere.

    Yes, Obama will probably be an appeaser, given his sympathies, but there’s nothing much to do except weather this storm. Yes, Israel faces four difficult years, but that’s our affair to manage, while you true Americans will have to think of your own survival these four difficult years. Localize your thinking. Take care of your own. Hold your family dearest. Leave the Big Picture to God to take care of. The times call for this change of attitude.

    I cry for America’s predicament because of the affinity of values between America and Israel, and I’m sure your concern for Israel stems from the same reason, and I really appreciate it. However, beyond feelings, and prayers sent, there’s nothing more to be done. My stuck-on-liberal brothers and sisters in America don’t seem to care enough about Israel although they’re the ones who actually should; non-Jewish Americans shouldn’t worry so much, especially not when hardship is threatening to arrive at home.

    Godspeed, friends. May HaShem give us the strength to withstand all adversity; may He save us all from the plans of the evildoers. “And all the evil entirely will cease like unto smoke, for Thou wilt remove the rule of evil from the land.” (From the Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur prayers)

  5. ziontruth Says:

    Sorry for going long-OT like this, I just had to say it and Artfldgr’s link provided me with the best opportunity.

    Steering back to the topic, when I used to post on the site CiFWatch, which is there for countering the British rag The Guardian’s anti-Israel propaganda, I often referred to Israel’s inability to get its message across the Marxist-owned, Muslim-sympathizing worldwide media outlets as a media blockade. That’s the term I used. I used to emphasize on CiFWatch that having the proper message is only half the equation, and not the hardest part; the other, no less necessary task, is to break the media blockade.

    Arriving back on topic, it looks to me as if the conservative side in America is confronted with the same problem by the American Marxist-owned (except for Fox) MSM. So, while brainstorming about how the message of conservatism to the public could be improved is a good activity, an equally important thing is to think up how conservatives in America are going to break the media blockade. The best message in the world is no good if there are gatekeepers preventing it from getting across.

    America bless God,
    Israel God,
    Then may He save us all, amen.

  6. ziontruth Says:

    Israel *bless* God.

    That leaving of the verb out, above, borders on blasphemy! And in Hebrew it actually would, because you can do without the “is.”

  7. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    Hello, to my neo-neocon friends. I’ve been away. After voting absentee and finalizing our political contributions, my wife and I escaped the madness of all the campaign commercials (What a bonanza for the TV networks!) by going far away. We returned the day after the election to find the unthinkable had happened. My first thought was, “Yes, this country (51% of it anyway) has certainly developed a taste for big government and a President who is intent on bringing down the well to do while claiming to share the wealth with the less well off.”

    A quick analysis of the results seems to show that two things happened to give Obama his victory.
    1. Conservatives did not turn out in the necessary numbers. (A repeat of the McCain story.)
    2. Hispanic and women voters went for Obama in large numbers.

    How does the Repubican candidate overcome that? I don’t know. Being a more committed conservative than Romney might solve the low conservative turnout, but such a candidate would probably receive fewer Hispanic and women’s votes than Romney did.

    It’s distressing and I appreciate those who believe we need to be persistent and try to infiltrate the media and academia with conservative ideas. Such an effort would take a long time and I don’t think we have that kind of time.

    As some here will recall, I have been an optimist about the prospects for the future. We here in the U.S. have so many things going for us and great wealth producing potential. However, with Obama’s election I am no longer an optimist. I see four more years of decline and more movement toward the left. I recently passed through the Los Angeles airport. Standing in the interminable TSA lines, I watched my fellow passengers with interest. It was clear to me that in that airport, I was a minority. A rough guess would be that 60% of both the passengers and employees were Hispanic. Spanish was being spoken as often as English. There were Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern, and Black people in liberal numbers as well. Few of the TSA or airline employees I encountered spoke unaccented English. After looking at the election results, I realized that those people and a majority of women voters were the ones who elected Obama.

    As a template for our future, I think Argentina might be a possible model. I spent some of my time away in Australia and New Zealand. Those are also possible models. Both places are pleasant and interesting to visit. Neither one, with their taxes and high cost of living, is a place I would want to live.

    I’m feeling quite low and it is with great sadness that I recognize the probable future path for the U.S. My plan for survival is to use gold, silver, Swiss Francs, and any other investment that can retain its value as the dollar shrinks. May God have mercy on us all!

  8. Charles Says:

    J.J. formerly Jimmy J. – “My plan for survival is to use gold, silver, Swiss Francs, and any other investment that can retain its value as the dollar shrinks.”

    My advice – forget the Swiss Francs – stick with the silver and gold.

  9. texexec Says:

    “I’m feeling quite low and it is with great sadness that I recognize the probable future path for the U.S. My plan for survival is to use gold, silver, Swiss Francs, and any other investment that can retain its value as the dollar shrinks. May God have mercy on us all!”

    I agree with Charles…don’t buy Swiss Francs right now and maybe never. A few months back, the Swiss Franc was tied directly to the Euro because Swiss exports to the Eurozone were getting killed.
    To watch things like gold, silver, the Euro, Swiss Franc and oil, go to and look at these ticker symbols:

    Gold – GLD
    Silver – SLV
    Euro – FXE
    Swiss Franc – FXF
    Oil – OIL

  10. texexec Says:

    “A rough guess would be that 60% of both the passengers and employees were Hispanic. Spanish was being spoken as often as English. There were Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern, and Black people in liberal numbers as well. Few of the TSA or airline employees I encountered spoke unaccented English. After looking at the election results, I realized that those people and a majority of women voters were the ones who elected Obama.”

    Plus a fair number of white useful idiots.

  11. texexec Says:

    OT but perhaps useful to those of you interested in moving to a redder area, look at this map:

    My county is the very red one just northeast of the very blue one in central Texas which is Travis county (Austin). In Texas of course.

  12. texexec Says:

    oops – sorry – northWEST of Travis county.

  13. Charles Says:

    texexec: ” . . . Plus a fair number of white useful idiots.”

    Shouldn’t that read useLESS white idiots?

  14. texexec Says:

    Charles Says:
    November 9th, 2012 at 7:29 am

    texexec: ” . . . Plus a fair number of white useful idiots.”

    Shouldn’t that read useLESS white idiots?

    Sorry, I should have said “useful” to the lefties.

  15. stan Says:

    The best part of Bookworm’s advice is that it shifts the focus away from holding the candidate responsible for educating the public for 2 months every 4 years and recognizes that the dominant culture is virulently anti-Republican all the time. Anyone who thinks that a GOP ticket can single-handedly defeat the lies, slanders, false assumptions, raw cultural sewage, and overt leftist propaganda in the news over the space of a few weeks deserves to lose.

    That said, I have my doubts about the integrity of the election Tuesday evening. There is something very strange about the numbers. I would love to know what Michael Barone thinks. A lot of people noted that all the dynamics of the race pointed to Romney. Winners don’t struggle to get a crowd the way Obama and Biden did. None of the pollsters got the GOP turnout correct. I just wonder if the votes were there, but they didn’t get counted as cast. This is not crazy conspiracy. We have a long tradition in this country of stolen elections.

    Remember — in 1946, GIs returning from their fight to preserve liberty came back to a whole lot of places where corrupt machines had stolen democracy. In Athens Tenn some of them decided to take on the corrupt boss who routinely had the thugs he used as sheriff’s deputies simply take control of all ballot boxes and count the votes as instructed. They ran a GI ticket whose slogan was simple — “Your ballot will be counted as cast!” Think about that for a moment. When the sheriff/boss brought in an extra 150 armed thugs to intimidate voters and the GIs, the GIs refused to back down. After the gunfire ended in the Battle of Athens, the GIs conducted an honest, open ballot count as they had promised. And the machine was done in McMinn County.

    It is time to make sure that ballots are counted as cast.

  16. davisbr Says:

    Jay Cost: Shake it off, Conservatives

    Read it.

    …you’re welcome.

  17. cornflour Says:

    Caroline Glick has an excellent column in the Jerusalem Post, in which she emphasizes that coming events will drive the decisions of both American and Israeli governments. Much of the post-election analysis has focused on issues that will soon be overwhelmed by these events.

    Many here thought that this was a critical election, because we believed that the consequences would be critical. While I sympathize with the cultural analysis and the attention to demographics, I think that Republican leadership needs to focus on two issues: 1) a rapid economic decline driven by deficits and debt and 2) widespread jihadism — and possibly a regional war in the Mideast. If I thought isolationism were an option, I’d happily consider it, but it’s no more realistic than appeasement. Both Iran and soon-to-be Islamist Pakistan will likely use nuclear terrorism. If Republicans can develop credible responses to the debt-driven disaster, and to a far more heavily weaponized jihadism, then even hostile voting groups will start listening.

    At any rate, Caroline Glick says all this much better than I could. Here’s a sample:

    “But all the dependency champions who celebrated on Tuesday night cannot stop the coming storm. The greatest advantage Obama had going into the election was not demography but the fact that the full consequences of his statist economic policies and his pro-jihadist foreign policy have not yet been felt.”

    Please read the whole thing.

  18. physicsguy Says:

    Jay Cost: nice pep talk, but little more than that. He conveniently ignores the shift in the MSM into full Pravda mode for the Dems. That one fact alone invalidates much of his thesis which is based upon cases that occurred when the MSM wasn’t a propaganda establishment.

    There can’t be any effects of external circumstances, if the public is ignorant of such. Case in point: Benghazi.

  19. davisbr Says:

    Here. Read this one too.

    …that one will make you less happy. But after reading about the ORCA GOTV disaster, it gets you wondering. And maybe, just maybe, where we should look for the reason for “why Mitt was shell-shocked” at his loss (which is being reported this morning).

    About “blame”. I’m not ordinarily a blame-y sort of guy. I do tech support, and a great deal of that is focused on solving problems.

    My job is a LOT easier, if I can know what happened around the time leading up to some problem that is being reported to me by an end-user.

    So I go to great length to reassure those users that I don’t give a crap about “playing the blame game”.

    Because: I don’t. Care about assigning blame, I mean.

    But …that’s not quite true. I do, actually care. But only inasmuch as it aids me in understanding the problem, so I can find a solution. So I don’t “use” blame (if you will), as a psychological bludgeon, or threat.

    “You catch more flies with honey”. (I sincerely live that as truism to the degree I find possible.)

    As a result …well, it works. I reassure my peeps that sometimes “stuff happens” and NO ONE is going to get in trouble over it …and I reap the reward of their honest and full cooperation. Win-win.

    (And yes, of course I cover for them with management as needs be, too …because, again, I believe what I say: “It’s not helpful to place blame. I just need to fix this, and I can do that better and faster with cooperation.” and I’m not going to leave someone who just helped me fix a problem – i.e., the user – hanging in the wind. There are to be no recriminations. Ever.)

    That said, we come to what just happened politically.

    I want it fixed. I don’t want to see someone castigated.

    But I want this fixed.

    Two things stand out to me.

    The Romney campaign of the primaries was brutal …though they may have been the ones who created the conditions for what in retrospect was a pyrrhic victory (i.e., if millions of voters simply stayed home).

    The Romney campaign in the general was milquetoast. What the hell were they thinking? – Obama wasn’t the fricking president. He was the enemy. The enemy of America and all that is good about America. Campaign wise (said tongue-firmly-in-cheek).

    Why didn’t we see Patton vs. Rommel here? Why was this decision made?

    Where was the Romney campaign of the primaries? What happened to that crew?

    As Glen Reynolds might add: inquiring minds want to know.

    Last. These two observations are from the standpoint of a rather adamant ABR GOP primary voter that actually came to sincerely admire Romney. I was on the losing side (several times, actually: starting with Palin’s not running). But I came to see Romney as the right man for the job; I was not merely an ABO voter.

    I want it fixed. (I don’t want “a reckoning” per se. Not helpful. Wouldn’t be prudent.)

  20. DNW Says:

    From your NRO link:

    “The temptation, for some of us, is to retreat from politics. To give up, essentially. To cede the field to the Left. I mean, just give it to them: socialism, abortion on demand, the whole nine yards. It’s their world. They own it. The rest of us live in a kind of dhimmitude. We should just tend to our families, our churches, our friends — cling to our guns and religion …”.

    Of course, he means that you shouldn’t because ghettoizing yourself would leave you stymied.

    But it’s worse than that. You wouldn’t be left alone even then. Cling to your guns? How, once the laws are changed? Retreat to your house? What makes it yours, apart from the law and your will to fight?

    “The Joneses will be living with you now. Their need is so great”

    Your family? “Your” family, the private patriarchal family, is as Neo and everyone else who is even moderately informed knows, the ultimate target [apart from perhaps the very notion of an individual] for dissolution by the left.

    And your present religion? That allegiance to something believed to be objectively righteous beyond and above the state or ” the people” is just as much a target as all the rest.

    “one God only, Le Peuple.”

    You can’t run away. Because they will follow you. And they will follow you because they can’t long exist without you.

    Communism had half the world under its sway, and couldn’t make a go of it. They blamed those who held out and were uncooperative.

    What’s the first principle they taught us in Econ. 110? “Demand is unlimited.” The left’s demand for what you can potentially offer them is unlimited in fact, and unchecked by moral principle. And they justify it all by figuring that you are not really and individual or even a self, anyway; and that they are building a wonderful new world in which all distinctions will be abolished and all [all what exactly, I don’t know] will float in a social cloud of affirming trans-humanist bliss.

    You have no choice but to resist and fight if you now wish to do more than while away the hours in a hideaway before getting on the train to nowhere.

    Conservatives have to rebuild their own culture, and numbers, by taking their values seriously and actually practicing them; if, they are really serious about preserving a “way of life” and a kind of humanity.

    As for me? Well, I’d actually prefer to move around in a world where rights were protected and morals were good and families were virtuous and wholesome, but where penance and girls were both easy and I didn’t have to get up very early in the morning. Or in a world where where I could focus on my yard or boat or on minding my business and growing my fortune, and call it good citizenship; and where I could trust my kids to the public schools.

    I’d prefer then to live in a world where I didn’t have to calculate whether I was actually subverting my own interests in the long run by making easy or pleasing choices now. Who wants to be a drudge or a killjoy even if you are a conservative or libertarian?

    I of course recognize that millions of families do live daily according to the principles they espouse, and to great sacrifice and cost sometimes in social status or personal advancement. [Which is why it makes sense to associate with those who appreciate your choices]

    But there are probably plenty of people like me as well.

  21. davisbr Says:


  22. Artfldgr Says:

    Rice: GOP has to address changing demographics of US

    as long as women cancel out their mates votes, and leave the choices to the smaller set, this is the outcome.

    so i am sure the Volk will figure out what to do with the lone scapegoat once both parties abandon them…

    at that point…
    you can see most of the class of those men sitting home on welfare, playing Nintendo… while the single women have the high paying jobs, pay 90% taxes to fund other women, and the men who don’t work sitting home…

    brilliant… no?
    then in about 15 years, even they wont have any standing… however, given the change in state, the state can order them to work to pay for the rest.. no?

    so the half that split majority power ends up with nothing rather than everything, because they opposed the members of their own family in favor of the View.

    if someone can give a better extrapolation based on facts, not wishes and ideas based on msm revisions, i am open to it.

  23. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: actually, it isn’t women in general who voted for Obama, it’s the specific subset of unmarried women. Married women chose Romney, unmarried chose Obama almost 2 to 1.

  24. Artfldgr Says:

    i will say that experience, not desire, informs the reality of it. there has never been an exception to whats happening now, ever. the reason is that you cant stop them…

    go ahead. you tell a woman that her birth control, her abortions, her affirmative action, her free meds, her daycare, her tax breaks, her mentorships and her lower loans, grants, scholarships, and more…

    have to end for us to be free
    and see where that gets you.

    last i checked the woman that was spending her family into ruin, never stops to please the oppressor. she just keeps going and then bails on the family… (85% of divorces started by the one that claims to be victim, and they get children 95% of the time, claiming the other doesn’t want the kids, etc)

    women will not stop..
    from the personal is public, there is no reason to stop as the problem is not hers. after all, since 1970, women have accepted the position that they are not to blame themselves for anything (and not to accept blame from anyone).

    until that doctrine is overturned, why would they stop?

    given the way this went, why would the other stay alone and lose, and be beaten up for it? just switch sides. same outcome, but you dont get the social ill for it.

    anyway, better to survive in a gulag and slave society than be exterminated, no? which is why they will now switch.

    older people wont, but then again, the law says we can withdraw care along class lines, so you can be sure that this change will accelerate as they are already setting up the palliative care and picking patients in england, so you know its gonna be here too.

    the republic is over

    there is no way back…

    and i will point out that the way people are discussing things here… they did not realize that this was the last of it. the losers think they have a few more chances, and they have ZERO chances left… as they cant extrapolate what unchallenged anti constitional EO orders will do in 4 years to any chances they have.

    and how many of their voting block will die while the opposition lives longer… and how the 11 million that obama will give amnisty to will change it.

    heck… even the anti communist Cubans in Florida thanked Obama for their being able to go back and visit loved ones. (ie. if we can see our family, we will accept slavery)

    the republic is gone
    there is no way to get back, or move backwards.

    the ONLY group that cared can never win
    women outlive them, and will need what they prevented getting all their lives, and so will vote against the rest. the older men dont have the mass to change it, and the younger men will vote with the women or not have a future posterity… ie. to not do that is to self exterminate, and while women find that just fine, the men dont.

    you guys better start extrapolaing based on the new world, not based on the old world were you think you have forever to keep trying.

    game over, no restart, no replay.

  25. Artfldgr Says:

    NEO: Artfldgr: actually, it is not women in general who voted for Obama, it’s the specific subset of unmarried women. Married women chose Romney, unmarried chose Obama almost 2 to 1.

    Actually.. your just telling me what the reporters you say don’t report honestly are telling you.
    Did you work out the numbers yourself?
    Do me favor… do the MATH…

    It IS women in general. Women in general is the only voting block large enough to negate their mates vote. With the young women dragging with them horny young men who don’t want to be exterminated for making a stand for freedom. (you forget how it was easy to get laid if you were communist)

    But its sure hard to negate the feminist programming
    In EVERY CASE you have attempted to run interference to protect womens reputation
    Your perfectly happy if I say a woman did something good

    But the minute that I say the opposite, you apply the doctrine of the personal is political and that women refuse to accept blame (and so someone else has to be blamed!!!!)

    I even showed you the document

    Now before I show you the numbers.. you let me know if the people who are responsible for something are not allowed to get the blame for it, will they stop? Will people who are being held responsible but are not, join the other side?

    i would put the math here, but you would delete it to win the argument as you did when i put up the references to germany 1933 against your references that halted in 1929. [in other words, you did not give me neutral references, you turned to leftist analysis to prove me wrong, and ignored that their analysis stopped in 1929, not in 1933 which was the critical year, as this year was the critical year!!! ]

    As of October 1, 2012 the United States had a total resident population of 314,737,000

    White or European American 72.4 % – 223,553,265

    Now… please explain to me how 91,183,735 can beat 223,553,265 when not all the first votes and the other votes in higher numbers. [yes I know that they are not all voting age, but it really doesn’t matter for the short analysis… and you will censor the long one.. so I wont even try – see? I am now trained to give up rather than try… futility does that… ]

    If you switched this to voting age. (and now I am on a second typed page and near being cut down by Procrustes, who could assert in less than 30 words what I cant refute in 30), you would actually find it worse, as then you can apply the idea that whither young women go, young men go. (ergo ladies night)

    In case you didn’t notice, 223,553,265 is more than twice 91,183,735
    [and as of this year, that 91,183,735 had more children than the 223,553,265. So my analysis will stand over time, and actually slide even more towards what I am saying]

    This is why youc ant get a clear break down. They play games…

    As of this election 53% of women voted for Obama

    Since women outnumber men, the 6% difference is what wins after the others cancel out

  26. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: You are wrong again. I couldn’t care less about protecting women. You continue to imagine that I’m some sort of doctrinaire feminist who has some veneration for women and their goodness. I have never said or indicated anything of the sort.

    I am interested only in accuracy, because I think it’s more instructive to learn which women are going for Obama and which women for Romney, rather than lumping all women together. There were major and startling differences in the subgroups of women, and those facts could teach us something.

    According to exit polls (which are the only information I have, and which don’t seem mathematically contradictory to me, and even seem intuitively to make sense) married women were for Romney (although not as strongly as men were), and unmarried women very strongly against him. I think that’s an important thing to know, and it’s not a defense of women. It’s a more specific understanding of subgroups of women that had different reactions to the candidates.

    Unmarried women are now an enormous group, 23% of all voters. That’s huge. Married women is a large group also, but only slightly larger: 31%. So if unmarried women were for Obama 67 to 31, as reported, and married women were for Romney 53 to 46, as reported, you can see why women as a whole would have gone for Obama (55 to 44, as reported). And by the way, women are now reported to be 53% of voters.

    Also, white women went for Romney in large numbers: 56 to 42.

    It all makes sense to me. It’s why Obama targeted unmarried women with the “Julia” ads and also the stuff about contraception and the like. He knows his constituencies. It also underlines some of the things you yourself have written about, the campaign by the left and feminists to undermine marriage and the family. It makes perfect sense, because unmarried women (including unmarried mothers) are particularly likely to be susceptible to wanting government to take care of them.

    I also think it would be instructive to see the racial breakdowns of these groups, although I haven’t seem much about it. For example, what percentage of the unmarried women are black, versus the percentage of black married women? Perhaps there’s a significantly higher percentage of black women in the “unmarried” group, and this could account for some of the difference, since black people voted for Obama something like 95%.

  27. Artfldgr Says:

    now switching to 2012 voting demographics

    voting population break down:
    white men 34%
    white women 38%
    black men 5%
    black women 8%
    latino men 5%
    latino women 5%
    all others 5%

    now, tell me how 28% can beat either 38% of white women or 34% of white men

    28% can never beat 72%

    The ONLY way was to polarize that big group to work against each other…

    and its overwhelming that the majority of Caucasian men, wanted freedom, and so on.
    because in redistributive state, the Volk will bleed the white men dry till they die.

    the Caucasian women have some bizarro fantasy that if they oppose the white men, and win, and the white men die out in poverty, they will have wealth and all that…

    hows that going to work? their behavior is akin to sawing the branch that your sitting on to have fire wood.

    the one thing you wont see is age, race, gender in one graph…

    because that tells the story that even you are hinting at… ie. older women stood by their mates, younger women hated them. and younger women also have younger men in their coalition…

    so all you did was confirm that feminism which is stronger in its hate and entitlement in young women than older women (some who remember relationships and dating in the past). but the older women mix up their voting like the men. so older wome cancel themselves out while the younger women and young men cancel the older white male freedom vote.

    this is as it was in Germany as the older males had been neutralized by the war, not circumstances.

    and you forget (i think) that i work in a reserch library with access to the papers, reports, and things that the general public cant afford to and generally dont have access to, and rely on dishonest journlists to tell them.

    the way it breaks down mathematically is that a majority of women of any age voted against freedom…

    and for entitlements which are justified to be received as they are not to blame for anything, and only one group is to blame

    even here, on your blog, they are not responsible for their votes in germany, and they are not responsible for their votes in the US

    if that is so.. why does the lefts political games dominate that one category?

    lets play a game… (not global nuclear war)

    are you ready?

    i will put up 5 women only perks from feds or state, or 501c, or other related programs for women (and minorities) only
    and you will put up 1 agencies for men only

    and we will see who wins…
    1) White House Council on Women and Girls
    2) Women’s Bureau (Labor Department)
    3) Women in Development USAID
    4) Women, Infants and Children Program
    5) The Office of Women’s Health (OWH), U.S.Food and Drug Administration

    1) Office of Research on Women’s Health, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    2) The Office on Women’s Health, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary
    3) Office on Violence Against Women
    4) Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force (TPWETF)
    5) Office of Women’s Business Ownership Entrepreneurial Development

    and just to get the ball rolling, here is the second 10… this means you only have to find two agencies for men only (and not just brown men or immigrant men)…

    1) National Women’s Business Council
    federal advisory council created to serve as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President, Congress and the U.S. Small Business Administration on economic issues of importance to women business owners.

    2) Make Mine a Million – Gives access to creative women who are dedicated to helping other women succeed in business.

    3) Women Impacting Public Policy – Provides information on Women Impacting Public Policy, a national nonpartisan public policy organization that advocates for and on the behalf of women and minorities in business

    4) Association of Women’s Business Centers
    5) National Association of Women Business Owners

    this is how they bribe them and why so many will not stop and as the older women die out, it will be more and more and more the other way. no way to stop it. by the time they realize their populatin will be in such decline they cant do anything (As the only ones that can help them out of it are financially dead due to all the burdens that their mates put on them as a class)

  28. M of Hollywood Says:

    Artfldgr. we got it, we got it: it’s over. ok.
    But we still have to live.
    Tonight I go to the theater with a leftie. I pray it does not come up, but it will as in “didn’t you just love the present Santa brought us.” This person will assume I voted the way he voted. So I plan my civilized reply. It goes like this:
    “Let’s remember before we celebrate too much: they are all policians. I pray for three things: 1.) that the world market does not crash and take the US with it 2.) that we do not discover in the Benghazi hearings that Russia and Obama are using Syria as the petrie dish for WWIII and 3.) that Ackmadinajhaad (sp?) is more sane than Israel has reason to believe he is.”
    If I can get through that answer as a response to “aren’t you happy …” then I accomplish three things: 1. I remind him that like all humans he cares about his own well being first. 2. I prime him to be open to the Benghazi hearings if only so that he can be on top of protecting his side as the facts emerge, and 3. If I say it this way, he won’t think I just like rich Jews who build civilized apartment complexes in the desert because they are mean.
    PS: ziontruth – wow. matzoh for thought! thanks.

  29. davisbr Says:

    Art? – I s’pose I could see this as a war of the sexes …or an us v. them via the Mars/Venus portal …if I squinted hard enough.

    After all, I read – and long mused on – that particular genre of sci-fi dystopia extrapolation growing up, too.

    And being one of – and having recognized the fact since the mid-1970’s – the single most discriminated AGAINST subgroup in America …i.e., the white male …I am inherently predisposed towards the point you’re making.

    (I’m not kidding; it was the mid-1970’s or so when I recognized that discrimination against white males was becoming rationalized, and would inevitably be institionalized. I knew I was screwed around age 24 or so, opportunity wise. Whatever happened with my life, was going to come from me.

    (Oh, I didn’t complain. What was the point? I’ve never been a whiner. For a long period, maybe around 1988 or so, I “dropped out”, as it were. And I can tell you, it was a lot of fun out on the periphery. But …winter was coming. After awhile doing something economically viable was no longer avoidable. Had to find some way to survive in old age, beyond cat food. Still looking, lol.

    (All said to cement the factoid that I’m your target support group, artfldgr old man. And I know it.)

    My problem is the one-way street thing. And the numbers …you might have to simply trust (or excuse! …forgive me ladies) my pseudo-misogynistic black heart (all puns intended) on this, but most wives (outside the NY-DC corridor) vote with their husbands. As truism. (As proof: the numbers.) So “our side” (if you will) has actually twice as many votes as you’re allowing for in the current political impact of the Mars v. Venus thing.

    To put it plainly: we didn’t lose that battle on the right because of the wimmens (the same is possibly not true on the Left).

    So. While I generally agree with most (almost all) of what you informatively post as background info (I’m as now-rabidly anti-communist as any post-Useful-Idiot male growing up the Cold War era can possibly be after his eye-opening enlightenment of being manipulated directly by Kremlin operatives …seriously, that is not as paranoid NOR as reductionist as it sounds, people: Art’s right about the utterly brilliant disinformation campaign of the 1960’s KGB that is still bearing fruit decades after the fall of the USSR), this particular route of historical, oh, what’s the terminology (hate getting old: memory sucks)? – hmm, Hegelianism? …no, somewhat relevant, but not the right word …dialectic? …no, pulled that one out of my ass lol …ah, yes, it’s the Hegelian dialectic …thesis-antithesis-synthesis …so I was indeed close the first time: maybe my memory still has a few synaptic junctions left after all) …seems fruitless to me.

    From what I’m understanding in this line of reasoning, your first leg rests upon a patriarchial absolutism, your second upon a rise in matriarchial absolutism …but that’s it. Your conclusion jumps straight to We’re Doomed.

    If what you ulimately posit (infer?) is correct, that would be the end of sexual selection re: Darwin “fitness”, re: the Republic.


    I don’t think so.

    Not just for the reasons you state (even while ignoring the twist to “the numbers” I suggest are important), but because, philosophically Hegelian-dialectic-wise, I suspect you’re not taking into account the potential synthesis of the equation here.

    Or have simply ignored the historical import of the actual synthesis

    It was, after all, Rosie the Riveter who won WWII (as much as GI Joe). Israel recognizes this (let’s call it “usefulness”), in their armed forces (which our military has not, not noticed). Indeed, the Soviets weren’t all that unaware of 50% of their population either than, were they?

    A civilization ignores half it’s population …half it’s potential …only if it’s suicidal.

    So. Simply not buying it. Well, in it’s present form.

    Because if you keep going along those lines, you merely end up with Elizabeth the First. That’s not a bad thing.

    (I said 8 years ago if it came down to the pre-Palin McCain and Hillary, I was voting Hillary: I despised McCain …and still think we’d have been better off. The problem in hindsight for Clinton was the Arkansas machine wasn’t as ruthless as the Chicago Model.)

    I don’t think despair is very useful.

    Humans will trudge on.

    And American humans will sort out the idiocy and ignorance that has become pandemic amongst both the literati AND the illiterati (they, at least, have an excuse).

    We will teach those simpletons simple math.

    Later than sooner, apparently. And sadly.

    …granted that I was so wrong this past electoral cycle that even I see no need to trust what I’m saying. (I was at least as shocked as Mitt …though somewhat earlier in the evening, since by around 05:30P PST ??? I was pretty sure this was going to be a disaster of epic proportions.)

  30. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: one more thing—Romney won men in general by 7%, but he won married men by 22%. Therefore I would conclude that he lost among unmarried men, just as he did with unmarried women, although not by as much.

    Men definitely preferred Romney more than women did. But among both men and women, the unmarried preferred Obama. I would like to see what percentage of each unmarried group (men and women) was under 30, because Obama performed very strongly among voters under 30, and this was actually responsible for his win overall, because Romney won among voters over 30. The breakdown would tell us whether it’s age that makes of the difference, or whether it’s marriage. My guess is that both factor in.

    Some more detailed stats are here: Obama won among unmarried men 56-40 (compare to unmarried women, who went for Obama 67-31). Romney won among married men 60-38 (compare to married women 53-46). So you can see that there are indeed gender differences, with women in all groups having more preference for Obama than men in all groups do. But a very important difference is between the married and unmarried, with both unmarried men and women preferring Obama by a very significant margin, and both married men and women preferring Romney by a very significant margin.

  31. neo-neocon Says:

    davisbr: take a look at the statistics I posted here in several comments, and you’ll see that married men and women both went for Romney, although married men went more strongly for him. And unmarried men and women both went for Obama, both very strongly, but women stronger than men.

    And I at least have some clout :-), because I was NOT surprised by Obama’s victory. I had expected it for weeks, although I deeply hoped I was wrong.

  32. davisbr Says:

    …way more clout than my political-prediction-fiasco lol.

    And yeah, I’ve been closely following those numbers. I do regard them as useful.

    But I’m coming to understand that the real failure may have been a structural one in the Romney campaign.

    I trusted that the campaign would be as brilliant in the general as the primary. My bad: I was wrong.

    I trusted Romney himself to be on top of his campaign.

    I liked the guy. (Still do. And I agree with Dennis Miller’s evaluation of Romney.)

    Personally, I’m leaning towards him being too damn busy by “events” to have time for the nitty gritty details. The stuff that I’m absolutely sure he would have per-force paid attention to during his younger, “hungry” days.

    Another way of saying: he trusted the wrong people.

    They ran a McCain campaign after all (I don’t merely despise McCain for historico-political reasons, but for apparently “wasting” the talents of the brilliant Sarah Palin …she’s one of those “comes along once-in-a-generation leadership types” whose successful vilification is a tremendous loss to the Republic). I wasn’t expecting that (i.e., a rehash of the McCain campaign) after the primaries.

    …which threw my extrapolations into the toilet too (there: my excuse lol).

    One thing I’ve read today, that I fervently hope is true: maybe this disaster will finally end the influence of the old Bush campaign team. Two disastrous losses.


  33. Artfldgr Says:

    half of married women voted for obama, and half voted for obama. with a bit more for obama..

    so married women negated themselves cancelign out and leaving a few points for obama

    Nearly 40% of women have never been married, and fewer are in a first marriage. and your numbers do not show that… do they? where is the number and why do you throw the incomplete numbers at me from leftist press as any form of proof without actually DOING THE MATH

    60% of women are not married
    and 70% of them voted for Obama

    40% of women are married
    and near half of them voted for Obama

    however, the married breaks down by race, and you end up with even more skew

    and note. separating married as different leaves out nancy pelosi, and all the other LEADERS of the movement who are all married and wealthy and have lots of kids (nancy had 5).

    if you do the math your going to find that the women voted him in. thats why i can get you nearly 100 articles that say the same thing, however their numbers are not the numbers to indicate it clearly.

    basically what i am trying to show you is what MONEYBALL is all about. and you know what? the guys doing that were surrounded by others who didnt do the math, didnt understand the math, didnt want to break from what they were told, and so didnt get how moneyball works

    ie. this is moneyball applied to politics

    Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
    Moneyball has made such an impact in professional baseball that the term itself has entered the lexicon of baseball. Teams which appear to value the concepts of sabermetrics are often said to be playing “Moneyball.” Baseball traditionalists, in particular some scouts and media members, decry the sabermetric revolution and have disparaged Moneyball for emphasizing concepts of sabermetrics over more traditional methods of player evaluation.

    the papers and such are not giving you the numbers to follow it. and your not doing the math. yet telling me i am wrong.

    do the math… or give me the space to put all the math and details in.

    you would need the population numbers to change percents into numbers that mean something

    after all, when you say married women, you realize its not 1970 when the rate was double what it was. now its less than half.. so the percentage of what married women did, is meaningless other than if you look, its near half and so you can completely cancel married women out for neutralizing themselves.

    that only left single women, brown people as the election called them, against just the white men republicans.

    and this number is higher…
    so guess who had the real choice
    and guess who spent hundreds of millions in election funds and billions in bribery over the years because of that truth?

    ie. they won knowing what i am telling you
    and their winning is my proof of the numbers and why they did what they did.

    and the distinction made protects the women like pelosi who lead and are married, and oprah who lead and are married. from the barren harridens who do the work and dont have kids and will die as these married leftists wealthy families continue dynasty.

    do all the math please
    dont negate what i am saying by repeating percentages with no back numbers and not broken down to get the answer you need

  34. davisbr Says:


    …that’s not the point Art’.

  35. Artfldgr Says:

    I am interested only in accuracy, because I think it’s more instructive to learn which women are going for Obama and which women for Romney, rather than lumping all women together. There were major and startling differences in the subgroups of women, and those facts could teach us something.

    so you broke out the numbers to derive the number i am talking about and dont have the space to put and discuss?

    no. you did NOTHING of the sort

    what percentave of women are married?
    where is that number since your talking married? how can you be accurate if half the numbers you need to actually know the point your saying are not there, not published and hasv to be derived by doing the math?

    but you sure did negate any investigation into the nubmers did you?

    and that helps the left doesn’t it? it may not be your intent, but then again, the whole concept of being a useful idiot is not knowing your the useful idiots, and not knowing how the result helps so that you have no choice in that. no?

    so, you defended them. it may not be your intent. it may not be at all what you think your doing. but if the actions add up to help them, and you did them, then you helped them. your personal idea of it does not absolve you of that.

    you should know better being a lawyer and a psychologist, as you just negated the concept of guilt in involuntary manslaughter..

    if i am not aware of how i help (or kill) then i am not responsible for it. right? not at all. the court doesn’t look at your intent, it looks at your actions.

    guess what i am looking at and since you can lie as to intent, which do you think i look at more and believe more?

    the key here is analysing your actions and then realizing how you helped so that next time you dont do it again without realizing it.

    thanks for killing any and all analysis into how the left plays moneyball with gender,race, and COALITION MAJORITY.

    ie. i was showing the math of coalition majority and how an election was lost.

    what were you doing? and answer from looking at your actions, not your intents.

    defending married women? like nancy pelosi, clinton, ethel rosenberg, hanoi jane, etc?

    ya got to love someone who claims accuracy afer being asked to do the math, and the math isnt done, and they claim your wrong.

    so who OTHER THAN ME has done the actual gritty math?

  36. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: we are talking about voters, and I said that 23% of female voters are married, and 31% of female voters are unmarried, and also that 53% of all voters are female. That gives you the relative amounts of each among voters this year.

    I don’t have several hours to spend on refuting every point you make, but what I tried to do was to explain the points I had been trying to make, and where I thought you were failing to understand and/or twisting what I was saying. So I focused on that.

    I cannot make head or tail of your numbers or your argument, although I read your comment twice in an effort to understand your point. White people don’t vote in a bloc, nor do women or men, (although black people pretty much do), so what’s your point about the 72% versus the 28%? And I have agreed that the left has fostered the breakdown of the family and marriage in order to get more votes for themselves. Why do you continually find disagreements even where they don’t exist (and insult me as well)?

    I have been very patient because I think (as I’ve said many times) you have an interesting perspective and lots of facts and history that others are unaware of, and I think there’s value in hearing it. But I have no idea why you’re insulting me right now, and I have no idea why you continue to think I’m some sort of brainwashed feminist and/or dupe who has a pro-woman agenda. I don’t see anything I’ve said as a defense of women or an attack on men. Young and unmarried women and men voted predominantly for Obama. Older and married women and men voted predominantly for Romney. But in each grouping, the men voted more for Romney than the women did, and the women voted more for Obama than the men did. That’s my point.

    Here, by the way, are the states on single women in the population as a whole:

    In 2011, 48% of adult women were not married, up from 45% in 2005. Included in this count are single women (who have never married), women who are separated or divorced and widows. Almost all of the growth, however, is from the single, never married set. In fact, while the percentage of women who are separated, divorced or widowed has remained flat in recent years, the share that has never married increased a relative 15% since 2005. Today, 24% of adult women (12% of all adults) have never made a trip down the aisle, up from 21% in 2005.

    So, if there were 119 million votes cast (so far, that is; a few more will come straggling in), and women are 53% of that total, we have about 63 million. If 23% of them were unmarried, we have about 14 1/2 million of those. If 31% were married, we have about 19 1/2 million of those. Since the ratio of married to unmarried women is higher than in the general population, my conclusion is that married women vote in higher rates than unmarried ones (which actually makes sense to me in terms of age, and voting patterns in general).

    You ask whether I’m trying to defend married women. Let me repeat: I couldn’t care less about defending married women. What I’m trying to do is present some facts for discussion, to see whether there’s anything to learn from them. Period. I don’t see the point of generalizing about what all women do, think, say (or, for that matter, what all men do, think, and say) without understand that subgroups can be very different from the whole, and it can be instructive to look at subgroups.

    For example, the “married/unmarried” distinction seems to be important for both sexes. And so is the gender distinction, as well as many other distinctions.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge