Talk-Polywell.org

Rod Dreher

As a social conservative, I am as pessimistic as I’ve ever been about the future of social conservatism in US politics. It’s not because of the maladroit campaigning of people like Mourdock and Akin. It’s because of the demographic changes that this year’s election appears to lock in. Social conservatism is concentrated among older voters, who are dying off, and being replaced by younger voters, who simply aren’t socially conservative, and aren’t likely to become socially conservative (at least not as socially conservative as older, expiring Americans are). I know liberals and media figures love to say that social conservatism is a loser’s game. I don’t think that’s quite true, at least not in the way that they mean. But I think it is true that going forward, it will be very hard for a presidential candidate to win nationally if he or she is heavily identified as a social conservative. We social conservatives are going to have to figure out how to deal with that. They’re not going to be able to tell us to go away, but we are in a weak position.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... what-next/

According to the new UJA-Federation of New York survey, “Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011,” Orthodox Jews, because of their high birthrate, now make up nearly one-third of the Jewish community of the five boroughs, Long Island and Westchester and a whopping 64 percent of its children. That growth helped to increase the Jewish population here by 9 percent over the last decade, to 1.54 million.

As a proportion of the community, the Orthodox population more than doubles when you compare the demographic slice of middle-aged Jews with that of Jewish children based on the new data, according to Cohen. “Every year, the Orthodox population has been adding 5,000 Jews,” Cohen said. “The non-Orthodox population has been losing 10,000 Jews.”

Diogenes wrote:Orthodox births fuel population jump as numbers of poor rise; Reform, Conservative decrease.

According to the new UJA-Federation of New York survey, “Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011,” Orthodox Jews, because of their high birthrate, now make up nearly one-third of the Jewish community of the five boroughs, Long Island and Westchester and a whopping 64 percent of its children. That growth helped to increase the Jewish population here by 9 percent over the last decade, to 1.54 million.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/sweeping-changes-jewry-seen-ny-population-survey





From Israpundit.

As a proportion of the community, the Orthodox population more than doubles when you compare the demographic slice of middle-aged Jews with that of Jewish children based on the new data, according to Cohen. “Every year, the Orthodox population has been adding 5,000 Jews,” Cohen said. “The non-Orthodox population has been losing 10,000 Jews.”

Image from:
http://www.vosizneias.com/107806/2012/06/12/new-york-nyt-aided-by-orthodox-citys-jewish-population-is-growing-again/

Richard Feldman of the Independent Firearm Owners Association has an oped in USA Today.

…we must focus on the fact that authorities say 30% to 45% of all gun crime is attributable to the illegal drug trade. History proved that taking profit out of trade in “demon rum” dramatically eliminated related violence. Why wouldn’t that work again?

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/04/it-worked-once/

It only took me a week to convince him that marijuana prohibition is a bad idea. Very bright guy.

ladajo wrote:Typical propaganda slight of hand.

It only took me a week to convince him that marijuana prohibition is a bad idea. Very bright guy.

Implied to the non-critical thinker that her is bright because he agrees, and only bright people can understand the truth.

Personally, I think he was stupid if he did what you claim. Not bright at all.

williatw wrote:
An example of natural selection working on the level of human cultures.

williatw wrote: Liberal progressives vs. traditionalists. Men like that would also probably be allot better at protecting their families and communities when push comes to shove if things begin to seriously go into the shitter in the years to come. Being brought up with a strong belief in your duties to family, community, faith seems to bear up allot better when things start going south than mere muddle-headed good intentions do. Men like that be they Christian, Jewish, Moslem have been raising families successfully for many centuries without a social welfare state.

williatw wrote: We are the richest society in human history by any measurable parameter and yet somehow we are rapidly going bankrupt; look at agnostic socialist Europe, they have only a fraction of our defense burden yet they are beating us to bankruptcy.

Diogenes wrote: Simon understands leading/lagging phase relationships with current and voltage, but he seemingly has no conception of the exact same phenomena in terms of social and fiscal.


Libertarians don't want there to be a connection, and so they are blinded by their own confirmation bias.

Diogenes wrote:Social Conservatism always wins the long game, because it is an evolutionarily derived system of societal structure. It's based on long experience with what works.

ladajo wrote:Typical propaganda slight of hand.

It only took me a week to convince him that marijuana prohibition is a bad idea. Very bright guy.

Implied to the non-critical thinker that her is bright because he agrees, and only bright people can understand the truth.

Personally, I think he was stupid if he did what you claim. Not bright at all.

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Social Conservatism always wins the long game, because it is an evolutionarily derived system of societal structure. It's based on long experience with what works.

The one thing that survives in the long run is adaptability to a changing environment.

Diogenes wrote:

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Social Conservatism always wins the long game, because it is an evolutionarily derived system of societal structure. It's based on long experience with what works.

The one thing that survives in the long run is adaptability to a changing environment.

Human nature changes at the speed of biological evolution. I think we're good for a few thousand years or so.

Teahive wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Teahive wrote: The one thing that survives in the long run is adaptability to a changing environment.

Human nature changes at the speed of biological evolution. I think we're good for a few thousand years or so.

I wrote changing environment. Put genetically identical humans in different environments and they will behave differently. Adaptability isn't just an emergent property of the process of biological evolution, it's part of the development process of individual brains.

We don't live in the same environment people lived a few thousand years ago. It's silly to pretend otherwise.

About 58% of Americans want to see the end of cannabis prohibition