Thursday, March 01, 2018

Moral Mormons

Indulge me as I reclinate back to the blog's mission statement--validating stereotypes--by way of an enormous Reuters-Ipsos poll (N = 149,591) asking respondents what they perceive to be the most important problem facing the US, from a list of thirteen possible answers. The following graph shows the percentages, by religious affiliation, who identify morality as the big one:


Though he is actually cast as a mainline Protestant of some sort, Ned Flanders is my Mormon mental archetype. How long will they hold onto the fifties? Probably not much longer.

Jews, unsurprisingly, express the least concern.

Catholic, atheist--what's the difference anymore?

At least exploding Muhammads will be allies in the Culture War. They will be, right? Hello?

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is the "irreligious" here basically disproving their incapacity of having morals, or it actually shows how low mainstream religious people descended into godless hedonism?

Anonymous said...

Hostility towards monogamy always reflects elite control (the top 1% of men breed the top 4% of women) and the cuckery of the middle class by the rich as well as the underclass Casanovas of the world. It is the genetic degradation of a civilization, obviously because the underclass is worse than the elites are "better" than the bourgeois.

On top of that, queers are the biggest consumers of opioid drugs for the aid of their preferred method of "intercourse", and wherever there is a drug market there is CIA influence and control of the population. That's why the establishment loves its queers. Again, elite dominance of the peasants and the expected genetic degradation of a civilization continues as drug culture influences the sexual choices of the population.

Genetic degradation doesn't last forever because it can't. The theology nerds know better than to speak in materialistic, Darwinian terms because any technological "solution" in this situation would only succeed in kicking the can down the alley. Axiomatic errors of morality require a correction in first principles, not evolutionary psychology which is only a privilege of thought for those who see God first in the first place.

I'm starting to suspect polls are fake news, almost as bad as elections. They are like articles without comments sections.

Sid said...

"How long will they hold onto the fifties?"

J. Reuben Clark on Twitter had an excellent thread where he stated he felt America turned its back on its distinctive character in the 2012 election. In his view, Trump is a fine leader in the post-American landscape, but it's still not the old America.

Apparently there are some Mormons who think Trump is God's punishment for not voting Romney. As for Romney himself, I think he has internalized the blows he took in 2012 and gone full cuck, deeply resenting Republicans of all people for how viciously the Democrats treated him.

Where Mormons go from here remains to be seen.

Catholics and atheists are similar in that there are a few of them who make a big deal about how seriously they take moral and ethical concerns. The great mass of them, however, don't give morality all that much thought. That's even more so with Jews - a few of them are immersed in their religion's moral teachings but most aren't.

Protestants are a mixed bag, and that makes sense given how many major sects there are in America. I bet liberal churches would look more like atheists/Catholics/Jews (a few sanctimonious people in a sea of apathetic ones), whereas the conservative branches are still concerned about the moral fiber of the country.

The Islamic approach to morality is radically different from the American (Judeo) Christian one. Christians, especially the nice Ned Flanders types, operate on a guilt-based system, in which they avoid immoral deeds because those acts make them feel bad.

I lived in an Islamic country for awhile and you almost never see that in Muslims. Frankly, Muslims will be good to you if they like you, but what they're mostly trying to avoid is shame - external sanctions for having done wrong.

In our neck of the woods, it's common to assume that Muslim populations have inherently lower levels of affective empathy than Christian populations. There's a lot of truth to that, but I would still argue that you could get people of the same race, and the Christian ones would largely be more empathetic than the Islamic ones. Steve Sailer just posted an article that there is a positive relationship between human rights and Christianity, and a negative one between said rights and Islam. Many different races adhere to Islam, so I'm skeptical that they all lack the nice genes.

When the Muslims conquered Zoroastrian Iran, one thing the victors did to the conquered was to torment dogs in public. The Zoroastrian religion preached kindness to animals and the Zoroastrians recoiled from the cruelty. The Muslims were happy to be cruel to the dogs and vicariously inflict pain on the Zoroastrians. Both groups were well outside the Hajnal Line, but one religion nurtured compassion in its followers and the other largely didn't.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Mormons are NOT CHRISTIAN. Some say they are a Cult. They are WORSE than that. THEY ARE ZIONISTS. NO REALLY. In that time, there were neo-Zionist Movements.
Mormons were one. The others are the Quakers and the Shakers. They saw America as "The Promised Land". The Quakers are those weirdos who wear black and ride around in horse drawn buggies. The buggy whip is still sold there, or passed around. I hear their daughters get passed around too. Lots of nasty in-breeding in that small insular cult.
The Shakers are "egalitarians". They are fanatical about it. They have a feminist view of equality. They are dying out since they DO NOT BREED AT ALL.

Those who do not believe in God, will believe just about anything.
The Devil Loves a Vacuum. He's not the competitive type.

Mormons get a lot of inroads with the enemy. Christians don't.
They make a lot of money. They keep it in the family. Only others of the Melchizedek can play at their Country Club. Melchizedek is their replacement for Yeshua of Nazarene. He looks a lot like Him.

Do not be fooled. The Devil says he is the Godhead. He's the Biggest Liar in the Entire Universe. Come out boy. Come out and play...

Jig Bohnson said...

I have two things to say here:

1) Sid is absolutely correct about the distinction between the guilt-based morality of Christianity and Judaism and the shame-based morality of Islamic cultures. For that reason, survey questions like this one may not translate well across cultures.

2) If Mormons are concerned about morals, they could start with some cleaning in their own backyard of the massive child grooming syndicates lead by Warren Jeffs et al.

AB.Prosper said...

1st, Joshua, L.D.S. theology is whack but as the Bible says "By their fruits ye shall know them." and I've spent a lot of time with the L.D.S. and in Utah. Its a highly fertile, moral , trusting and generally ethically Christian place. The White fertility rate is higher there than in any other state in fact.

And while yes L.D.S. people kind of our Jew like, so what? Compared to most of Christendom,in the US they are doing it right

Sectarian jealousy doesn't change the fact that the Mormons out-Christian many of the the property gospel Pharisees, the Not of the World crowd and ever single mainline Protestant denomination


Jig:

The LDS are no more responsible for the FLDS a groups who practices are illegal and whose members are excommunicate than Evangelicals are for people like David Koresh . Utah has strict laws on polygamy that are enforced

Joshua Sinistar said...

The LDS are rather insular. An outsider is not privy to their ways. They may appear Christian, but they have had quite a few run ins with the law in which they have begun to keep secrets amongst themselves and adopted an outward appearance that seems Christian to the outsiders like yourself. Its the function of cults to keep secrets and mask their appearance to the outside world.
They have an inner circle which seems similar to a Sanhedrin, where "Elders" keep themselves cloistered and give out dictates to the rest of the Melchizedek flock. The Golden Disks story is hardly Christian. Supposedly an Angel named Moroni gave these to Joseph Smith. This clown was wanted for many cases of underaged girls and other seedy activities. His sudden urge to go West was actually fleeing outstanding warrants for his arrest. Brigham Young was a gunman he hired to "protect" him.
You might say they "cleaned up their act", but as an outsider you wouldn't really know. Its an insular society and only those who have Melchizedek certificates or papers are allowed into their circle where the real activities are done. I'm not saying it is actually a dangerous conspiracy, but certainly not Christian. The Holy Bible warns of Secret Societies and Secrecy in General. The fact they keep outsiders in the dark should warn you of this.
Polygamy still goes on. Supposedly its no longer acceptable, but their canon I doubt has changed. Its a legal issue. Utah was only allowed full statehood if polygamy was outlawed. it was not something they decided to do themselves. Its still illegal so they cannot be open about this.
Look at Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck. Another one opposed Trump just to be a spoiler. You can say these are outliers if you want to, but you're reaching there. They keep their finances together and keep outsiders out also. Justify that one as Christian.

Feryl said...

Josh is right.

The Mormons are a goofy cult that other Christian sects detest, and not without reason.

And I stand by my conviction (backed up by many measures) that HR declines in America as you go further South and West. Minnesotans (the white ones) are a pillar of many laudable qualities, with the other Northern Plains states being pretty good. Yet as you get to Oklahoma/Texas in the South and especially the Mountain states in the West, it's like flipping a switch. People are more temperamental, less trusting, and score worse on measures of responsibility (like credit scores and criminal records). Self-reported mental illness and unhappiness peaks in the Mountain states, with the Pacific states being marginally better. The Southern states also have a lot of these problems, but to a lower degree due to residents being more established in the region (nearness to family/family in are for many generations=greater peace of mind).

It's common for Sunbelt whites to cheapshot Northern whites as cowards and hypocrites, but really, the tendency for Celts to be drawn to the South (whether they admit it or not) comes about because they like fighting and bickering. You chose to be among Indians and blacks (and Out West, Mexicans and Chinamen too) because you'd rather be keeping them in line than having to deal with Northern whites of non-Celtic and esp. Puritan ancestry. Said people can engage in occasional (and admittedly sanctimonious and embarrassing) preaching about race relations. But that BS is strongest among Puritans (and Northeastern Ellis Island peoples, who still feel hurt by the nativist trends of the early 1900's), and less pronounced among white Midwesterners many of whom have Brit Midland and Germanic ancestry which instills a lack of pretension and boasting.

And many of the Northern states are becoming less dominant white, with the earliest victims being Northeastern states full of white Ellis Islanders (NY, NJ, Rhode Island, etc.) who are (slightly) more accepting of the vibrant hordes than Anglo-Teutons are. On a personal basis, Ellis Islanders may in fact have fairly race realist views and be acutely concerned about the long-term impact of diversity on their families and neighborhoods. But on the level of collective team-work, and political principles, and public sentiment, Jews and Irish-Catholics are more often than not as likely to side with New Americans as they are with with the Anglo-Teutons (and Scots-Irish) who made jokes about Kikes, Wops, and Paddies. Italians are more pragmatic, so they aren't quite as annoying (or politically active) as Jews and Irish Catholics are. And I say "Anglo-Teutonic" because German-Americans have fully assimilated a generic white-American identity.

Heartiste posted about a GIF showing immigration waves, and he believes the 1-2-3 punch of blacks, Jews, and Irish-Catholics in the later 1800's were a country breaking development. Keep in mind that America from it's colonial beginnings already had rivalries between Puritans, Midlanders, and Scots-Irish. I guess that wasn't enough diversity......

Feryl said...

"When the Muslims conquered Zoroastrian Iran, one thing the victors did to the conquered was to torment dogs in public. The Zoroastrian religion preached kindness to animals and the Zoroastrians recoiled from the cruelty. The Muslims were happy to be cruel to the dogs and vicariously inflict pain on the Zoroastrians. Both groups were well outside the Hajnal Line, but one religion nurtured compassion in its followers and the other largely didn't."

Cats were first domesticated in the MENA. Prejudice towards cats is much more common among Euros and Sub-Saharan Africans than it is among MENAs. Use of dogs as guard animals is popular among Euros and blacks (man's best friend), and that kinship seems to have become encoded in our blood. Cats pose no serious dangers to humans, other than certain pathogens being passed along, whereas dogs habitually maul people, especially children. Dogs also drool, whine, smell horrible, and they don't bury their feces. Keeping a dog for reasons of ostensible security and companionship, esp. if they are a bigger and more aggressive breed, is really a practice that can be very annoying to those who don't like dogs and is also quite dangerous. From an animal rights perspective, the Mengele style experiments we've done with most dog breeds is horrifying.

I personally like nature as God intended, and am also fairly moody. I don't care to have Neoteonous dog barking and whining and slobbering, as I'm trying to think, or read, or write, or watch a movie.

Feryl said...

Ellis Island peoples and New Americans (but I repeat myself) associate "public morality" with the traditional values of the earliest Americans who were Anglo-Scots Protestants. We've seen, time and time again, how "ethnic" Americans often wage a culture war against Mayflower Americans. This "culture" war is an ethnic war by proxy.

Concern for "morality" (or values) is synonymous with concern for the original colonialists.

If we have manifestly failed to assimilate Irish/Italian-Catholics and Jews, to align them with a generic white American identity as opposed them remaining crybabies who can't get over their grandpa not getting into the country club, who adamantly insist that their ethnic groups were never disproportionately involved with crime or treason (against evidence to the contrary), then what hope do we have with blacks and Muslims?

Sid said...

Feryl,

It's no issue to me if you don't care for dogs. (Cats are definitely cleaner, but dogs are far more loving, intelligent, and useful as far as I'm concerned.) But the way Muslim men gleefully torture dogs is utterly despicable.

It says a lot about how corrosive Islam is to one's sense of compassion that dogs used to be a sacred animal in Zoroastrian Iran, but today they put street dogs to death with an acidic poison that burns their guts out from within. You don't have to like dogs to recognize that's just sick.

Feryl said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Schaaf#ICE_alert

So, lessee what's up.....

- Born in Nov 1965 (just barely a Gen-Xer, and by Democrat standards positively nubile, the Dem elite utterly scorns those who can't remember JFK being shot)

- Jewish

- Mayor of the most far Left city in America, Oakland

It's worth noting that the greatest hostility in the currently hysterical climate, among those who ought to theoretically know better, seems to emanate from Boomers and early X-ers, with blacks and Jews in particular being excitable. These are the partisan generations, who were not taught discipline or even basic manners, or rather, they were taught these things by diffident adults who didn't enforce the rules very much. They're hyper-competitive and stubborn, too. Boomer and early X-er people chose to buy into countless Leftist sob stories in the 60's and 70's; they're the ones who wrote PoMo horseshit and and began, in the 1980's, to ruin people's careers for telling uncomfortable truths.....These witch hunters often rationalized their bullying by saying that we couldn't hurt "historically disadvantaged" people's feelings. It's ok to ruin a white guy's life if he dares say that blacks or women aren't as able, or even willing, to pursue and earn eminence.

The older Right has it's own sacred cows that can't be tipped (like Reagan and union busting), but WRT to Schaffe let's look at the older Left's hang-ups. I'm convinced that liberals born before 1970 simply cannot process the current and future ethnic make-up (and thus, ethnic conflicts) of America. Older white liberals primarily despise, and see themselves at war with, conservative and older whites who are presumed to be on the way out. As conservative whites fade out, the cool and woke white liberals will finally take their rightful place as the dominant and perpetually unopposed force in politics and culture. South Africa, and periodic revolts in Latin America, suggest otherwise. White elites, whatever their ideology, must be cautious in increasingly diverse societies. Boomer driven rhetoric about racial liberation is not going to resonate among future generations that are less than 60% white, who'll come of age fearing racial warfare, not welcoming it as middle-upper class young white liberals did in the 60's-2000's.

Meanwhile, older black liberals will always itch to have another 1960's...But the 1960's were only possible in an America that was 85% white and 10% black. Asians and Mestizos are distinct from the interests and culture of whites and blacks. Blacks don't march in pro-immigration parades, and Asians and Mestizos since the late 80's have shown much less sympathy for blacks than legacy Americans have. Non-blacks endlessly repeating Leftist kumbaya crap is one thing, but the actual behavior of Latino gangs and Asian shopkeepers tells you all you need to know.

People's brains and interests are always a reflection of what was going on when they were in high school. If you went to high school before the early 90's, you simply can't envision what's happened demographically since the Clinton era. Literally speaking, our brains start freezing when we're in our early-mid 20's.

Later X-ers and Millennials won't necessarily understand everything either, but at least they can remember suburbs with majority black populations, and having at least a couple Asian boat persons or Mohammeden "refugees" in their grade when they went to middle or high school. But imagine being a white person going to middle or high school pre-1990.....We're talking attendance at public schools (even big city suburban ones, not just small town ones) that could be literally 100% white. What did these older white cohorts ever have to afraid of? What's wrong with giving a little more action, a little more representation, to about 1/10 of the population almost all of whom were packed into the cities and the Deep South?

Feryl said...

America doesn’t have a gun control problem, we have a white-people problem,” declares Damon Young in The Root.

Let's not forget that most blacks weren't this uppity in the 60's; how could they be, when whites were almost 90% of the population back then? It would be suicidal to declare war when you are so heavily outnumbered.

The rhetoric of the 60's was actually quite idealistic; the fringier black activists were generally ignored while those who spoke in lofty humanitarian terms (even if their behavior didn't always live up to it) were front and center. Besides, how could you get older generations and moderates on your side amid such divisive and hateful rhetoric that radicals preached?

Being that the utopia envisioned by the 60's never materialized, increasingly bitter (and younger) racial activists are being drawn to separatism and/or thinly veiled demands to be given more.....Or else. It may be hard for our generation to believe, but liberals in the 60's and 70's were't so openly cynical about this kind of extortion. In effect it may have quickly turned into extortion, but at least they did a decent job of pretending and believing otherwise for a while..

Whites of mostly white generations in the West still aren't quite as scared as they should be of this rhetoric. What will befall lighter skinned people as the dark races grow in number? Will they ever be satisfied, or will they demand more and more?

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Good question.

Anon,

Since same-sex marriage received the Cathedral's blessing, I've suspected open marriages will be the next marital change that will be pushed as a way of both justifying their own degenerate behaviors and prodding the bottom to give into their worst instincts with the intention of it eventually rising up from the bottom to the middle to cause destruction and family dysfunction there.

Sid,

Great observations regarding Protestants. Episcopalians come in at 6.5%, while "other"--which includes the most evangelical denominations--comes in at 17.3%.

South Asia is of course way outside the Hajnal line yet there's a concept of non-violence towards any living thing, ahimsa, that runs through major religious traditions there like Buddhism and Hinduism.

Jig,

True. The inclusion of "other"--which is an especially popular response among those on the left because it presumably is where SJW concerns end up--also skews the results some.

AB Prosper/Joshua,

Indeed. Back in 2008 I participated in a mock presidential debate put on by Jack Cashill. I played Ron Paul and Cashill played Mitt Romney. His argument was, essentially, that "we have lots of kids, our families are in tact, we vote Republican in numbers greater than anyone else, and we oppose the left on every cultural issue. What's not to love?"

Feryl,

Mormons are ancestrally English. Are they just a couple of generations behind Northeastern non-ethnic whites (i.e. 1950s WASPs existing in 2018), or are they going to remain qualitatively different indefinitely?

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Cats don't have the negative costs of dogs, but that's because they don't have much in the way of costs--or benefits--at all. A dog is a much bigger pet investment in every way. Dogs require (and reciprocate) attention, affection, exercise, training, etc. Cats don't require anything more than putting out food and water and scooping out the litter box if they are inside cats, and nothing at all if they live outside.

Cats are alphas to their beta owners. Dogs are betas to their alpha owners.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Ha, FBI statistics make it blatantly obvious that the US does not have a gun--nor a crime--problem, it has a black problem. Remove blacks and crime, in absolute numbers, gets cut in half. They are 13% of the population and more than 50% of the crime.

Anonymous said...

The LDS are guilt tripped into assimilation, where once upon we had to threaten them with the Army.

Few cultures can survive the corrosion of modernity. Fewer still (Haredim?) can thrive under it.