Divorce and the bending of stats

Now I’m not going to lie to you on this – I went into google on divorce, expecting two things – it would be dominated by America and the stats would show that left-liberal states would divorce more. It was quite a shock to find that Massachusetts had the lowest and it became even lower after gay “marriage” [that oxymoron].

Naturally, because the liberal media floods google and the MSM any time stats like this come up, the first twenty pages are full of sites trumpeting these stats as “proving” gay “marriage” is good for heteros as well as homos and that it’s best to be left-liberal to stay married.

Equally naturally, I didn’t like the look of this and smelt a rat. Or as Boyle Roche is supposed to have said sometime between 1743 and 1807:

I smell a rat; I see him forming in the air and darkening the sky; but I will nip him in the bud.

Yet here were the stats:

# In 2004, the state with the highest reported divorce rate was Nevada, at 6.4 (per 1,000)
# The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1000 population

Let’s even concede to the liberals that that went down to 2.0. Needless to say, they were all trumpeting that it was the Red states which divorced and not the Blue [strange how Americans can get their colours a**e end round].

However, I kept going back through google and found:

According to the Barna Group, which conducts and analyzes social research, more than 75 percent of American adults have been married at least once. Approximately a third of those have been divorced. In some demographics, however, that figure is even higher.

Protestants divorce more than Catholics, which the Barna Group found to be the least likely faith to divorce.

The Barna Group found that those who consider themselves liberal have higher divorce rates than conservatives. Among liberals, the divorce rate is 37 percent. Among conservatives, it is only 28 percent.

So we have a direct contradiction here. Not only that but we’re talking around 40% and some sites had the U.S. divorce rate slightly below 50% overall. Now this is not 0.2% in the least – nothing like it. There’s a clear methodology problem here – someone is using a completely different measuring instrument.

Turns out it meant the rate in the current year, whereas the other statistics show overall divorce rates of those who’ve married, which seems more sensible. It also struck me that in liberal states, less people would have been married anyway – smaller pool for the stats – but let’s leave that and move on.

I looked at the worst state – Nevada – and came up with this:

Experts point to alcohol, gambling and the overall 24-hour environment filled with dancers, showgirls and brothels as likely contributors to the high rate across the state, including Reno — once known as the “Divorce Capital of the World.”

Slightly alters the picture, doesn’t it? Not really to do with Christian conservatives at all although I did find some “Christian” stats not put out by liberals/atheists/humanists and they weren’t good – the Baptists were the worst. The more orthodox, e.g. the Catholics, i.e. those closer to the faith, were far less on the yearly figure and vastly less on the overall.

I also noticed a wide range of sources used, which militates against effective comparison:

Part of the reason there is no hard and fast agreement on the overall divorce rate may be due to the fact that there has been no exact data to study. The U.S. National Center for Health Statistics has not collected any divorce data since 1996. Since then, most divorce statistics have been based on different data collection systems like surveys, and those methods can vary widely from state to state.

Some states don’t gather divorce statistics at all and leave the task up to their internal county governments. If you are searching for statistics on the divorce rates in California, Indiana and Louisiana, you will probably have a difficult time finding any current information because those states stopped counting divorces back in the 80’s.

So what to make of Divorces Figures for California:

Year, CA Div., L.A. Div., CA Mar., Divorce %
1996 169,416 38,026 219,039 77.35%
1997 165,547 37,501 237,669 69.65%
1998 161,905 35,706 194,108 83.41%
2000 156,078 36,551 196,896 79.27%
2001 154,672 38,850 224,241 68.98%
2002 160,854 40,468 217,880 73.83%
2003 148,511 38,811 194,914 76.19%

Average Divorce Rate: 75.54%**

**Reference: Court Statistics Reports for 1996-2004.

Corroboration of sorts came from USAALS:

In Southern California the divorce rate is believed to be even higher, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-75%.

Further analysis brought up that the women filing for divorce are 200% that of men. Sources:

“Who Divorced Whom: Methodological and Theoretical Issues” [Sanford L. Braver, Marnie Whitley and Christine Ng. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage Vol. 20(1/2) 1993, p.1.] and the May 21, 1991 National Center for Health Statistics, Monthly Vital Statistics Report [Vol. 38, No. 12 (S) 2].

“These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Wives File for Divorce” (Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen, 2000, The American Law and Economics Association)

So much for women holding the family together these days and not walking out on it. Not only that, if they’re promiscuous young, it’s worse:

IOWA CITY, June 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A University of Iowa study has found that women who first engage in sex as young teens are more likely to divorce.

Published in the April issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, the analysis found that 31 percent of women who had sex for the first time as teens divorced within five years of getting married, and 47 percent divorced within 10 years. The divorce rate for women who delayed sex until adulthood was far lower: 15 percent at five years, and 27 percent at 10 years.

I see nothing in any of that to alter what common sense would tell us – that when we deviate from the norm, in behaviour, respect, living patterns etc., trouble is sure to follow somewhere down the line.

14 comments for “Divorce and the bending of stats

  1. Voice of Reason
    August 19, 2011 at 4:24 am

    James – I thought that this blog was devoted to personal liberty. Why would that not extend to gay unions, or divorce?

    • August 19, 2011 at 7:15 am

      It’s almost as if I’d primed you to ask that question, VoR because it’s precisely what is being addressed at my place at this moment, over seven days. I’ll do a post here later, summarizing it.

      In short, where is the freedom to choose one’s lifestyle – to be a homemaker, to want no sex before marriage, to avoid the homosexual message being rammed home to little children in schools? A young lady asks these questions in a series of vids and details the incredible peer pressure to kowtow to the current fashion in broken and one-parent families.

      Where is that freedom? To quote her:

      Feminism attacks women who want to make a choice of career. When I was 18 and new to Facebook, [working] in Civil Air Patrol, an acquaintance of mine posted my comments on feminism on the wall of a mutual acquaintance and commented:

      “Can you believe this? How f***ing pathetic. Can you believe there are still women out there who think like this?”

      Over and over again, she said it was pathetic and sad and she was really angry. Now I’ve often wondered what ticked her off so much. Feminists hate it and take it personally when other women have views other than their own.

      … and:

      I got absolutely pummelled from all sides. There were very few who supported me – a few guys saw what I was saying but didn’t really speak up.

      She speaks of the peer pressure, the way the system is stacked against any who take a traditional view, the language is rigged and mocking – racist, sexist, homophobic, while their language is fairness, equality etc.

      She shows one key instance where it was rigged to promote favoured sectors in society and not to be one meant you were discriminated against. With key positions in society occupied by placepeople, only people of a certain thinking are allowed jobs and eventually get to influence others.

      She asks where the freedom is in that? Her beef is feminism but it’s the same as the other arms of the agenda – socialist Statism is what it’s about and a Marcusian dystopia which found its expression in the recent riots. She asks where is the freedom to choose for people such as her?

      It ain’t there. The only freedom is to express the populist views and if it ain’t populist, it ain’t allowed. By “allowed”, I mean that a process of ostracism goes on, of cold-shouldering and it certainly happens with me.

      If I weren’t so bloody-minded, I’d buckle under the loss of esteem I’m held in by my peers [fellow bloggers]. Now, if I feel that pressure and I am determined to get the message out about our loss of freedoms, then how would a young student react? Peer pressure, the media, the courts and what they’re lenient on, what they’re not, what gets onto the Beeb, what doesn’t etc. – all of this affects freedom.

      You thought this blog was devoted to personal liberty? I thought so too but look at the peer pressure through comments alone – the populist message gets inundated and the unpopular is met by deathly silence. One of the key issues is that many of those honestly believing they’re into “freedom” and are freedom fighters are really only freedom fighters for certain things – e.g. the right to smoke and have a drink [which I’m fully behind too].

      Extend it to the freedoms this girl speaks of and it’s suddenly not free any more. You mention gay unions [and I’m glad you said that because it sure ain’t marriage]. The reality is that to hold any view other than the orthodox one gets you labelled, always labelled, in this case as homophobic, when it might not be the case at all.

      And how about Islamophobic?

      This is the way freedom is snuffed out – the social pressure of the majority allowing the State to do as it wishes, the tyranny of it, is applied. It’s just as legitimate cry for freedom as the orthodox modern one. Traditionalists are yet another oppressed, unrecognized minority, mocked and marginalized but there’s no one to speak up for us, no one to rally round and defend us.

      Just on this blog – its brief was totally free posting and discussion on all matters pertaining to centre-right and/or libertarian thought. It was set up to provide a separate voice to Liberal Conspiracy and Conservative Home and unlike them, not to be controlled by the admins. The only constraints are our one rule and the scheduling – sometimes posts need to wait, sometimes not.

      The very fact that I can write this response without “we don’t want that sort of thing here”, is a measure of how the blog is dedicated to freedom.

      You ask, VoR, why it wouldn’t extend to divorce? It does and the pressure to divorce has a universal forum at this time in all media, liberal, conservative, otherwise. It is the view de rigeur of the age.

      Better to ask – why wouldn’t that freedom be extended to trying to keep marriages intact and resist the onslaught of the socialists/feminists? As I’ve mentioned above – this blog does extend that freedom but precious few others in the sphere are that free – truly free.

      If you feel your view is not being represented, VoR, then write a post and we’ll put it up. Alternatively, comment whenever you wish. Your voice is always welcome here, no matter what we like or don’t like.

      • gladiolys
        August 19, 2011 at 9:18 am

        “Pressure to divorce”? Call me old fashioned, but I believe a lot of people go through deep emotional stress trying to make their marriage work. Divorce is a last resort, especially if you are poor/middle income. It becomes de rigeur when you are rich and famous because you can afford it and it generates press coverage.

        There will always be legitimate minorities and society protects their right to be who they want to be/believe they are, what they want to do and to say what they want to say, which is surely right. It just happens that we are living through a period when the majority view is switching from one paradigm to another, especially with regard to sexuality, sexual freedom and religious views. As long as those new minorities are equally protected, where’s the beef?

        • August 19, 2011 at 9:49 am

          They do go through such stress – I went though it three times – twice as marriages and the last one even more permanent than that. We were seen as a unit, the two of us. It was so traumatic that I’m still not over it.

          So I’m speaking as one who’s been there.

          The question is not the legal minorities. I’ve said many times that the 6% of gays are fine, as long as they’re taking 6% of the media space and not getting into schools. Freedom to do what they do – fine.

          The issue is not that at all. The issue is the social pressure, from films, media, school teachers, university, the courts – all assaulting marriage in its traditional form. It’s a whole new generation now – the remnants of Gen X and now Gen Y – who know no other way than the dislocated “my rights are not being protected” society. No marriage can survive if one of the partners or both is taking this attitude.

          Have you heard of Victimhood Poker or self-entitlement?

          The notion of cooperation, working FOR the other person, rather than fighting the other person so that my own rights are protected – that notion is very rare. Even those who go into marriage and end up saying the other person just did not put in the commitment – that has to be looked at. Why didn’t he? Or she?

          The answer is the socialization which has gone on since the 60s and the thought leaders at that time were Adorno, Marcuse, Leary, Spock and the beat poets. They obliterated all opposition, under the guise of being the oppressed and their aim was clearly stated. You can read Marcuse and others yourself.

          You say we are living through a phase and we’ll swing back. Obviously I’d hope so but I’m more cynical than that. It could take two generations form now and meanwhile, look at the sort of children we’re producing. They were on the streets in the riots.

          • gladiolys
            August 19, 2011 at 10:19 am

            Gays not getting into schools? What, a gay man can’t be a positive role model to children, a good teacher?

            And what is this allocation of media space? If for instance, women are committing 100 per cent of the crime, they will get 100 per cent of that coverage? If moslems are doing 100 per cent of the charity work, that too would be similarly represented, surely? If gay people are happy to be more theatrical and more entertaining, surely more media space will result? Isn’t the media just another market place in this respect?

            I agree with you about co-operation – but can you really work for the interests of another person when it becomes detrimental to do so? Surely, at heart we will do all that we can for our neighbour (in an ideal world), but you can’t look after them until you have looked after “Number One”?

          • August 20, 2011 at 6:21 pm

            Gays not getting into schools? What, a gay man can’t be a positive role model to children, a good teacher?

            I feel you’re deliberately missing the point of the post and trying to drag me into saying gays should not be in schools. I didn’t say that at all. I said the gay mafia shouldn’t be.

            Just as I was a Christian when I sacked a teacher for trying to indoctrinate 4 year olds in Christianity, so I would sack a teacher who tried to turn 5 year olds gay – it is so outrageous to anyone in the field of child development that it hardly needs any words from me.

            That’s what the issue is.

          • gladiolys
            August 21, 2011 at 9:53 am

            “I’ve said many times that the 6% of gays are fine, as long as they’re taking 6% of the media space and not getting into schools.”

            ..is what you said, which I did not understand. That is why I questioned it, not deliberately missing the point at all. Maybe you should be clearer when making your points.

            No one gets turned gay – and if you believe they do, ask yourself what it would take to turn you gay? You either are, or are not, and the issue is about being taught that self-acceptance probably leads to greater self-fulfillment. I don’t believe anyone wants to “turn” five year olds but start to teach, as they do in Holland, that sexuality exists in different forms.

          • james Higham
            August 21, 2011 at 11:02 am

            No one gets turned gay – and if you believe they do, ask yourself what it would take to turn you gay?

            Oh there’s considerable evidence that that is precisely what happens. A child grows a certain way and if left alone and not forcefed questions about his/her sexuality, develops along normal lines. It’s when it is forced on a child well before he’s ready to face things himself that the damage is done.

            It’s exactly the same as girls who are sexualized early, i.e. have sexual experience too early. There is considerable evidence that it damages her outlook later. Hence the situation we see today.

            I’m well aware of the gay mafia assertion about born/not born gay and they have zero proof of that assertion. It’s far more likely to have elements of both. That is, all humans have elements of both – the male and female side to them, as well as the capacity to have sexual experience with one or the other and that is particularly so in the mid teen years.

            Most boys go through that phase and come out of it. When someone interferes to prevent that, that’s when the problems begin.

            And for every “study” by an eminent psychologist saying your thing, I can provide one saying the opposite. Check my post at my old site on the gay mafia. Just as the airwaves were flooded by the global warming “science”, so the airwaves were flooded with this pseudo-science about born gay.

      • Voice of Reason
        August 19, 2011 at 11:01 pm

        James – assuming that you aren’t trolling, and based on your other posts, it appears that you started with the premise that ‘conservative = good, liberal=bad’, ascribed those to the US, and then found that the facts didn’t agree with you. Rather than modify your opinion, you are trying to dispute reality. That is the state here in the US, where fact-based arguments are now decried as ‘liberal’.

        The actuality is that the red (Republican) states here are primarily the Western libertarian states (Montana, Texas, New Mexico,, Wyoming, etc) and the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, etc). The latter turned from Democrat to Republican after the Civil Rights Act and de-segregation. The blue (Democrat) states are the Northeast (Maine, Vermont, etc) and the Pacific states (California, Oregon and Washington). The Midwest states are purple (swing), including Ohio and Indiana. The former has the mostly Democrat industrialized North, and mostly republican Bible Belt South.

        The chief distinguishing feature is that the active Democrats want you to behave (stop smoking, reduce obesity…) ‘for your own good’. The active Republicans pass laws to ‘make people behave’, because they are sure that they are correct.

        In terms of the present discussion, the red states are more religious, less educated and more rural than the blue states. They also have higher rates of violent crime, divorce, abortion, drug and alcohol addiction, sexual crimes and domestic abuse. The purple states are in the middle.

        Part of the reason is that ‘being religious’ here is a matter of proselytizing actively, with little tolerance for others. There is also the odious Baptist principle of ‘once saved, always saved’, which means that any and all actions are forgiven, if you ‘just accept Jesus’.

  2. August 19, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Why are you focussing on gays? I’m referring to the gay mafia here, not the average gay. I’ve done that one before with a long post. They are just one minority of many and as such, should get the smae rough proportion of attention. Married couples are the majority and with a 50-75% failure rate in America, it’s a pretty significant issue to focus on.

    That’s the problem with the current agenda – it takes a minority, sometimes a small one and gives it attention out of all proportion to its numbers, e.g. the radical Muslims. The only reason they get that is their tactics and because they’re currently fashionable, something you alluded to. In the case of the disabled, well they do have an immediate problem which needs attention. It’s getting it. You don’t start refusing jobs to able-bodied and competent people then, just because the disabled are the fashion of the day.

    It’s not being sorry for or watching to see we don’t trample on minorities which is the issue – we should all be careful about that but when a small minority whose radical element seems to have the power to overturn the traditional society becomes a threat to the whole, then that needs attention.

    As for in schools – no, they should not be in there telling children it’s an equal and opposite “choice” because it’s not. If, when children reach and age, say, 16-18, where they can start thinking of such things, then fine – that’s the time. You don’t start telling lies to five year olds though.

    [Have to head up town now so won’t be able to reply to any new comment until later.]

  3. Sackerson
    August 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    The position of Nevada in the divorce rate league may be because many people go there to get quickie divorces.

  4. August 20, 2011 at 6:24 am

    In terms of the present discussion, the red states are more religious, less educated and more rural than the blue states. They also have higher rates of violent crime, divorce, abortion, drug and alcohol addiction, sexual crimes and domestic abuse. The purple states are in the middle.

    Part of the reason is that ‘being religious’ here is a matter of proselytizing actively, with little tolerance for others. There is also the odious Baptist principle of ‘once saved, always saved’, which means that any and all actions are forgiven, if you ‘just accept Jesus’.

    You did well down to these paragraphs, VoR and then your bias and detestation showed through, which rather renders your argument invalid, particularly in terms of the stats I put up. Stats are stats and they are twisted. Far more twisted are the interpretations put on them. From one set of stats, it’s clear that the godless mob have leapt on the yearly increase or decrease because it confirms that their beloved blue states seem to be the Voice of Reason and all good things.

    Christians, on the other hand, point to the overall divorce stats and in blue states, they’re not good. They’re also not good in states with evangelicals and even a cursory analysis, which of course you’re not prepared to do because it doesn’t support your side of the argument, it’s the “soft” Christianity among the protestant churches, inc. the ordination of women and other heresies, such as interfaith – these people are equally soft on the sanctity of marriage. These have the highest rate of divorce.

    Another group are the hardliners and those hardliners contain the opposition, the non-Christina leadership masquerading as Christianity. These include the Southern Baptists. You are confusing the thing I’ve written on many times. Getting religious for a moment, Jesus said something about not all who say/call Lord will make it to heaven or similar words.

    Exactly. The so-called church “leadership” contain many from the other side. You’ve heard of wolf in shepp’s clothing, of course. You also know of “you’ll know them by their fruits” and “false prophets”. It’s very big in the gospels.

    The aim? To confuse not only “the flock” but to give ammunition to such as yourself who have grown up seeing the excesses of these people and not the daily goodness of true Christians. And I include happy clapping and hot gospellers in the doubtful list. That is getting into the euphoria, on television and not concentrating on the word.

    You mention “troll”, VoR and of course, you’re doing a very good job for the anti-Christian side. Your opening paragraph, with its inaccurate charge of “troll” is a good effort, I take my hat off to you. Actually, I was presenting two sides to a case but my bias is already known.

    Off to work now – more this evening. No hard feelings – it’s just a discussion.

    • Voice of Reason
      August 20, 2011 at 9:30 pm

      James – I am not trying for validation from you, or anyone else. I find it interesting that you consider Southern Baptists not to be ‘True Christians’, as they say the same about Catholics. It’s a cute argument, which allows the group to not accept any of the blame for actions within it.

      This issue, in one form or another, has been raised again and again on Usenet, especially by creationists arguing against evolution as science. The argument boils down to ‘religion makes people better, and stops them from doing bad things’. The data given is long-term trends in socially-undesirable traits, such as educational attainment, poverty, violent crime, sexual predation and the like, most of which I mentioned above. All of this data shows that those trends in the US do not correlate to the benefit of the most religious states.

      The one I did not include is another interesting statistic, in light of current budget discussions: If one ranks the states by federal money returned per dollar sent to Washington, the winners are Republican states, and the losers are Democratic states, with the swing states being around the even-money level.

      The fundamental problem is the same as throughout human history – when a group gets the Ultimate Answer (pick your favourite religion or philosophy), and the power to back it up, that group has always made a mess of things. In particular, when faced with facts that conflict their dogma, they go through the stages of grief, which begin with anger and denial. This never goes well. It’s why I believe in small individual changes, as there is less danger of massive conflict.

      For all of the comments that ‘the world is going to hell’ because of (pick your favourite social movement), the average comfort of people in the whole world has been getting better for two centuries, including health and freedom.

  5. August 21, 2011 at 4:45 am

    There are just too many assumptions here to tackle in one comment answer. The very language “creationists” is a dead giveaway and speaks of the people I feel are doing it wrongly. I’m no creationist and it takes a line which won’t stand, any more than natural selection which has so many holes in it you could drive a bus through it. I ran a post on it some time back and the science was not questioned, just explained away.

    As you rightly say, once a mass movement takes over – PCism, humanism, atheism, it chokes the life out of a society and what’s worse, it provides no answers. On the other hand, real Christianity always has provided solutions because it’s a micro-thing. All the protestations and detestations come to naught in the face of that.

    This is the greatest joke of history – the elite which coopted Christianity as a good way to oppress the people and keep them under, happy with their lot, did not understand and could not understand what Christianity actually was and how subversive it actually is. I mentioned Southern Baptists, yes and it’s the old story even told by JC in the gospels – about the wheat and the tares and the tares growing up amid the wheat.

    Someone even used the word “troll” and that’s what these people are. We’ve seen it in every other sphere of politics so why not here? They give a sort of version of Christianity, quoting from the bible – hell, even the serpent did that or rather misquoted, took out of context and was most selective in the quoting. The golden rule is that wherever there are thought leaders who sway people – MSM, Dawkins, the Southern Baptists, the Pope, there you are going to find corruption and in the key positions.

    This is aped by Common Purpose who are trying to do the same. You can’t be blamed for having a jaundiced view of Christianity because that’s the view you’ve been allowed to have. You’ve only been allowed to see the excesses – the strident anti-abortionists, the “Christians” refusing a gay couple in their B&B etc. It’s like someone who paints this country always as a polystyrene rubbished cesspit with riots and demoralization without saying one good word.

    And yet we know there is much good in this country, some beautiful parts to it. That’s exactly the same thing. Christianity is simply a source of comfort which is why many turn to it in times of trouble. They don’t turn to humanism or atheism when the times get tough. You don’t see atheist soup kitchens out there, offering sustenance. It always ends up being the vilified Christian spirit of charity which comes to the party in history.

    Of course there are many charitable people who are not Christian but that’s not what I was saying – I was saying that the single grouping associated with charity down through history has been Christianity. In the middle-ages, where did people go for medical help or when they were down and out? And the weight of history is reduced to nothing, just because some people tried a misguided thing called “creationism”? That’s the state we’ve reached.

    And what is the legacy of throwing off the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Ignorance – effing ignorance, dumbing down, the Rise of the Chav, doctored A level results and you still say we are better off? Even medically that’s a moot point. There are better medicines. Many of those have side-effects. I appreciate anaesthetic at the dentist – yes. True.

    People are turning in droves from the exploded ideology of socialism, even as they succumb to it and where are they turning? Who is offering the only real alternative, while people like Rowan Williams has crippled the church here by his utter inaction and moral relativism? It’s the muslims who are converting people each day to their throat-slitting dystopia of Sharia. Christianity is known by everyone and known by almost nobody in reality.

    You showed that just now in your comments. To “know” is far more than cognition – hell I “know” Marxism that way but have little sympathy for it. Therefore I don’t really know it any more, as a devotee would know it. To me, you sound, VoR, as an educated person and for a start, I like that and feel we can do business.

    Now, the only thing which divides us here is that we have come from two different directions and yet, the fact that we’re both here at OoL shows that we both value freedom [leaving trolling aside and I’m assuming that neither one of us is that].

    It dismays me when things are misrepresented and going through OoL posts and posts on these people’s sites shows a constant exposing of misrepresentation right across the board. Christianity is no different – it’s had the worst possible press which focuses on anything but its great success in offering succour when the state turns oppressor. That is not to be lightly dismissed or scoffed at.

    By all means let’s have our intellectual discussions about whther G-d exists, whether Cameron is an EU shill or whether Red Ed would complete the job Blair began but we do that still with full bellies, as you mentioned about our better lot and with roofs over our head … and an internet connection.

    Take those away and throw us on the street and there the sharks are circling – the socialists, the Muslims, all ready to co-opt you and offer you “a way”, always presented enticingly, even offering revenge for how you’ve been wronged.

    The one source which really would have offered this, on an individual basis, has now been all but snuffed out. I am no evangelist, my site doesn’t go on about this – it goes on about feminists and socialists and PCism. I’m a political, not a religious person. But when BS is spoken about something, it needs to be addressed, right? When someone says the NIST report was essentially correct, when actually it was a pack of lies covering something up – it needs to be mentioned, right?

    When Cameron continues exactly what Labour did to us and yet goes all conservative on reducing us to penury over a fictional and artificial debt, he does exactly what has been done with Christianity. He picks out the worst aspects of Conservatism and presents those, enforces them, without any of the good aspects of conservatism – freedom of choice, a manufacturing industry encouraged, work offered.

    The word “perversion” is not too strong a word here. You wrote:

    The fundamental problem is the same as throughout human history – when a group gets the Ultimate Answer (pick your favourite religion or philosophy), and the power to back it up, that group has always made a mess of things.

    That is so. Any man-made Ultimate Answer has always failed. The only answer which has never failed is the one staring us right in the face and that’s as far as it goes or should go. You have a right to know that but what you do is your own choice and so it should be. You make your own decisions and are free to do so, should be free to do so and the central thing we all have to get behind now, if we’re to survive, is to concentrate on that loss of freedom we’re seeing in so many micromanaged ways.

    Many of us believe we’re in desperate trouble right now.

    Example of perpetuation of a myth:


Comments are closed.