Lebanese/Gaza marriage markets in everything

Political parties sponsor weddings for young members to reinforce their loyalty, and gratitude. Religious and ethnic minorities — which means everyone in splintered Lebanon — consider marriage and procreation essential to their long-term survival. And armed groups encourage their fighters to marry so that their children can become the fighters of the future.

A few weeks before the Maronite nuptials, Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group and political party, oversaw a similar enormous wedding for 31 couples. That was tiny compared with a mass wedding in Lebanon earlier this year that brought together 196 couples and was sponsored by the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.

But the nearby Gaza Strip — where an Egyptian-Israeli blockade keeps people poor and locked in — beats them all, often because of competition between foreign sponsors eager to win friends by expediting marriages.

In 2015, the United Arab Emirates sponsored a mass wedding there for 200 couples. Two months later, Turkey seriously upped the ante, bankrolling a ceremony for 2,000 couples that was attended by officials from Hamas, the militant group that rules the territory…

Fadi Gerges, an official with the league, said it was natural for minorities to encourage their youths to procreate in a country where demographics affect power.

Here is the rest of the Ben Hubbard NYT story, via the excellent Kevin Lewis.


Procreating for political power. That's why I married my wife and help raise the kids. So we can outvote leftists, Muslims, and Mexicans.

What will you do if your children grow up to be Americans?

We are defined by our race and gender(s), and by the hardships faced by our ancestors. Defining oneself by national idenity is Nationalist, and Nationalism is racism. Haven't you heard?

Do you know any Americans that are not bed-wetting, thumb-sucking cretins still crying over November 2016?

What is an "American?"

Are you kidding? Love it or leave it, liberal scum


So you don't know either.

On the contrary, I'm a proud American, as are my family and friends. You clearly are not.

So what's the definition you so proudly fit?

Born and raised in the USA, and I love my country. You libs might be born here, but you don't love the country. You can GTFO now.

This would be great if you were actually funny. Seriously, how do you define "American" and what is "your country?" Can I own my AR-15 and decline to bake cakes in it? Is it a "nation of immigrants?" Does it ever become a "nation of natives?"

I think the existential, ontological issues of "who we are" are getting kind of urgent.

Are you stupid? Oh wait, never mind you're a liberal.

My country is the United States, and I was born here so that's what makes me American. I also love this country and the Constitution. We are a freedom loving people who broke away from old Europe. It's a nation of immigrants for sure, and all who are willing to come here LEGALLY are welcome.

So that's how I define my terms. As I said, if you don't like it you can GTFO.

Interestingly enough, I just read a blog post where the author suggested the best way to solve the ‘Iranian Problem’ was to offer US citizenship to all unmarried Iranian women under the age of 35! Brilliant.

Or worsen the problem when the only people remaining in the country will be fanatics raising kids by the worst mothers, all of that sustained by oil money.

Demographics is destiny. The birth rate in Iran is already low and falling. Removing half or more potential mothers would cause the country to collapse. Women in Iran can vote so it is almost certain these young women (and their mothers) would vote to block any attempt to prevent emigration. At the very least it would create tremendous confusion in the country. Who cares what the rest think about it.

I don't see the economic or political mechanism by which a mass emigration of political opponents can cause a collapse in a petrodictatorship.

Nor would I see the government of Iran allowing a significant amount of women to emigrate in any case.

You are assuming that young women in Iran support the current regime. I doubt it and suspect a sizeable proportion would leave given the chance. They are also highly educated. They have the internet - they know what is going on. They also vote, so how is the government going to stop them from leaving - they can already travel and do so in large numbers so what is to stop them from just not coming back? At the very least it would create havoc in Iran, plus no one gets killed.

"Demographics is destiny"
The reason China is what it is, instead of being the vintage Switzerland of Asia, which it should be, is because people believed that.

To be clear - think of it this way: the Chinese, God bless their hearts, have had the benefit of several millennia of civilized life, and their cities are polluted and their citizens are dissatisfied because over all those millennia the rich Chinese have allowed their fellow Chinese to be mistreated, so that only a small percentage of them were able to spend more than a small percentage of their waking hours - and to spend such hours on the civilizational project of bettering - the good parts of their civilization.

The greatest work of literature that has never been written is the book of the dreams of all those people who were born to a world where people thought "demographics is destiny" instead of a world where people thought "God loves each of us and when we disrespect that in ANY WAY we are not supporting our own civilization".

Ask a Chinese person if, in the USA pre-1976 or so, there had been more hours spent as free people by the citizens in those short 200 years in the USA - including, in the latter years, lots of people of Chinese descent - or if the total of hours spent as free people was greater in the Imperial and post-Imperial China in the previous 2000 years.

History is simple.

If that was TLDR ....

here is my short explanation of what I know about China and most people do not know ....

"the greatest work of literature that has never been written would contain good descriptions of the dreams (literally the dreams) of as many characters as it takes to populate a decent-length Chinese novel, and a short matching narrative about the best waking hours of each and every one of those characters (those hours on earth that even the saddest of us enjoy, which sometimes resemble Heaven ... (for the lucky among us) ... or remind us of Heaven ... (for everyone else)) .... --- in a world that is either a little better than the world we live in today or a little worse, depending on the predilections of the writer."

Write that book and I promise you a 5 star Amazon review that will rejoice your heart. And I may or may not quote Proverbs 8 but if you write that book you will not care.

That was a Coleridge pastiche in case you are keeping track ....

....Until the Iranian Foreign ministry gives Free Iranian Citizenship to every sub-Saharan African and South American who wants it...

It would be interesting if the Iranian Foreign Ministry lobbied to give American citizenship to every sub-Saharan African and South American who wants it.

As Ahmadinejad once wrote: “In other words, the contemporary U.S. belongs to all nations, including the natives of the land. No one may consider themselves the owner and view others as guests or immigrants”.

That's one way of undermining the enemy.

It just shows that the only way for your hateful ideas to perpetuate is by brainwashing toddlers and young children.

the islamic world particularly middle east and far east regions is characterized by allegiance to clans and tribes...national borders mean nothing...afghanistan is exhibit A...when america is gone the clans tribes revenge killings sectarian hatred will go on as they have for thousands of years...thinking otherwise is a delusion

That's not true. Plenty of grown ass men under the Orange spell.

Me, for example.

Kids are so dumb. They'll believe anything.

Of course, fundamentalist Christians are expected to marry fundamentalist Christians, Mormons are expected to marry Mormons, and so on. While we expect Muslims to be highly sectarian, the same can be said for Christians. Indeed, Christianity has always been highly sectarian. Read the Gospel of John and the three Letters of John: in the latter, the term "brothers" isn't referring to all Christians, but only Christians with like beliefs. Martyrs and martyrdom were the models for good Christians, the more gruesome the death, the more worthy of martyrdom and its rewards (which include a direct flight to Heaven - no waiting around for the resurrection of the body).

Today, the independent evangelical Christian (Protestant) churches, which are the fastest growing churches, are highly sectarian: they are for the most part self-contained, with their own set of doctrines and practices, answering to no one except the charismatic pastor. One is either part of the church, or one is not really a Christian. Indeed, these churches are often called "community" churches. They may not be the "Benedict Option" encouraged by Rod Dreher, but they come close to it. The difference between today's sectarian Christians and sectarian Christians of the early Christian faith is that today's heretics aren't literally burned at the stake, only figuratively so. Sectarian Muslims, sad to say, continue to practice what was common among Christians in the ancient world, heretics punished with death.

Sectarianism is a natural and logical response to diversity. This is the future you chose.

Jesus was adopted by God at his birth, no, at his baptism, no, at his crucifixion, no, at his resurrection, no, Jesus always was. For hundreds of years fellow Christians fought over this, wrong thinkers often burned at the stake for their heresy. Then came Martin Luther, and Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopaleans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, et al., wrong thinkers often burned at the stake. That's the past. What's the "future you chose"?

Ethnic bloc voting. Republicans are already the "white" party, just like Democrats are the party of blacks, Jews, homosexuals and Jewish homosexuals.

Which of those categories is Joe Biden? How about Elizabeth Warren? Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? Beto? Slick Willie?

Geriatric whites and one pandering wannabe.

I read a statistic somewhere that only 1:4 Hillary voters was a white male. Dems are the POC/sexual deviant party.

If we're using broad brushes like that then Reps are the racist/old/uneducated party.

Like I said, ethnic bloc voting. And it makes perfect sense that whites do it too.

Since 1:2 voters are male, having 1:4 Hillary voters be white males isn't that interesting . Since plenty of whites (both men and women) vote for and hold office in both parties, and plenty of non-whites vote Republican, your ethnic bloc comment is as dumb as your comments usually are.

American blacks vote near 95% Democrat. Jews, Latinos, and various Asian ethnics vote 60 - 70% Democrat. If only white males and white married females voted, the US national government would be Republican into perpetuity.

Unsurprisingly, America splits politically along ethno-cultural lines, like everywhere else.

40% of non black POC vote Rep. Most blacks vote Dem because most racists vote Rep. Whites dominate both parties. Sorry, your racist worldview doesn't convince.

It's math. Republicans are Team White; Democrats are Team Brown.

Except for the fact that Team Brown is 60% white. But sure, you keep doing you.

Team Brown has 60 - 90% of the non-white vote and, as I pointed out, Team White has the white male and married female majorities. That is ethnic bloc voting with some cultural markers. As the white share of the electorate shrinks, your Democratic goodwhites will become a minority in the party quicker than they'll become a minority in the electorate. It's the future you chose.

I bring data, you bring tired catchphrases. Whatever dude.

Diversity is a natural and logical response to how genetics, evolution, and the environment all works in tandem. You don't choose diversity.

Dominicans are different from Haitians, and Dominicans seem determined to keep it that way. Same with Israelis and their neighbors, and the numerous distinct nationalities in that enormous land mass known as Asia. Really, any sufficiently potent creed becomes an ethnicity over time.

‘But the nearby Gaza Strip — where an Egyptian-Israeli blockade keeps people poor and locked in ‘

Their poverty has nothing to do with the single-minded hatred of Jews that has been drummed into the “Palestinians” for 70 years.

The fact that they are governed by a terrorist group with 7th century attitudes is likewise meaningless.

A terrorist group that spends much money and resources in building tunnels to try to kill Jews.

OK but anything happen 70 years ago that might have made Palestinians a little ticked off at Jews? Aren't they just trying to Make Palestine Great Again?

You know how a big part of Trump's nationalist appeal is about characterizing Hispanic immigration as an 'invasion' that threatens to overwhelm white America? Well, that's kind of what happened to the Palestinians...wouldn't you be pissed off too?

The reason Palestinians and Muslims in general hate Jews is because the Quran says to hate Jews and Mohammad said to hate Jews. Most Muslims who actually practice their religion hate Jews, however some are very polite and would never say it out loud. They just know they need to be polite in society. Just like most people who hate any ethnic group realize you can't just say it out loud.


Also if you want to know what's actually in the Quran (not just the white-washed, nice, polite version presented to the West), go to the source: actual Muslims who read the Quran


Martin Luther said to hate Jews too. I suspect the Palestinians are more angry about being displaced, but sure plenty of tribal hate all over the world.

"OK but anything happen 70 years ago that might have made Palestinians a little ticked off at Jews? "

The Jews defeated an invasion and prevented a pogrom. Is that what you mean?

You have to also not be an idiot.

This would be an interesting story, if true. Does anyone know if this story has been reported by any reputable news sources?

Same story reported 4 years ago:


ethnic minorities — which means everyone in splintered Lebanon — consider marriage and procreation essential to their long-term survival.

Why should individuals be concerned with what happens after they are dead? They not only can't predict the future, they won't ever know the future's actual results.

This is the salient issue with climate change hysteria as well and is akin to the human concern with immortality that, along with the regulation of sex, is the foundation of sophisticated religious thought.

Culture and society follow paths but the desire of the existing majority to insure the continuity of their own preferences destroys the opportunities of coming generations, locking them into behavior and belief patterns that may not be ideal in new circumstances. The future should belong to its inhabitants, not their deceased ancestors.

So, does it work?

Elsewhere on this blog we're regaled by tales of child-bearing incentives gone awry. Are they any more effective here? Is there something different about having a sectarian motivation?

And this is just a microcosm of the level of complexity inherit in a small subset of Middle Eastern societies intermingled with Islam intermingled with local politics and militias.

The simplistic, heavy handed, externally forced approach that Neocons aspire to as such as 'Democracy good, therefore they want Democracy, let's give to em' will cause more problems then solve especially when it is executed by racist idiots.

As was explained to me on a recent trip, the Lebanese Christians, Lebanese Muslim Shia, Lebanese Muslim Sunni, and Lebanese Druze split at least two ways intra-creed much less inter-creed. Consequently, there is zero consensus on how to administer the public realm, so the commons are absolute crap.

Comments for this post are closed