The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Immigration Begets Immigration
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

When it comes to chain migration, the sentiment precedes the behavior. The door is open and our newest neighbors are clamoring for it to be opened wider and wider:

GSS variables used: LETIN1A(1-2)(3)(4-5), BORN

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: GSS, Immigration 
Hide 110 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “Quell surprise!”, as the immigrant French would say, if we had any.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone, Talha
  2. BTW, A.E., that last comment of mine was not meant to say that this graph is useless. It’s one of your better and clearest chunks of interesting information. I’m no tweeter, but this should be one big tweet tweeted far and wide.

  3. A person has the right to invite or not invite guests to stay in their home.
    Even given the precedent of having invited a guest to stay, that person still retains the rights to a) not invite further guests into their home and b) ask current guests to leave, especially given attitudes and behavior not in the interest of the homeowner.

    Guests should never have the right to invite other guests to stay.

    Send them back. All of them.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Send them back. All of them.
     
    I'm just curious here. Whom exactly do you mean by "them" - are you talking about illegal immigrants, or those with legal permanent resident status, or foreign-born citizens?

    What about someone like John Derbyshire? Does he have to go back?
  4. The pattern holds for children of foreign born (PARBORN) and they vote at higher rates.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I wasn't aware of that variable, thanks.
  5. OR: The GSS asks about skin tone (RATETONE) lighter skinned blacks and Hispanics have higher Wordsum scores, so do lighter skinned Italians, among English, Irish and Germans the draker skinned have slightly higher WORDSUM.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I'm extremely dubious about skin tone self-ID among Northern Europeans. It's quite possible that the "darker-skinned" Northern Euro people are yuppies with permanent deep tans from all the vacations they get to go on. Whereas white proles in places like Buffalo NY are going to be quite pale.
  6. “Hard Working Immigrants” are a hard working military force working under cover of fraud.

    Their morale is high because victory is nigh.

    And their victory will be their defeat. The only question is whether it comes mercifully quick, at the hands of the “conquered” before the “conquered” are physically eliminated — or whether it will be a long slow torturous slide into eternal Hell, after the “conquered” are physically eliminated.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I think there is an answer in South Africa. Out with a whimper. We won't even reproduce and we're killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer's observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians--because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been--was the biggest black pill I've ever swallowed.
  7. Hmmm … so there are Americans with some vestige of survival instinct?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Around here they're called white nationalists or other such similar slurs.
  8. @The Alarmist
    Hmmm ... so there are Americans with some vestige of survival instinct?

    Around here they’re called white nationalists or other such similar slurs.

    • Agree: kikz
    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    If you want to retain a white majority nation, does that not inherently mean that you are a white nationalist?
  9. does this graph show our newest neighbors are clamoring to open the door wider and wider? that describes the green bar only (increase) and while native born is low at 13% foreign born is hardly off the charts at 28%. a lot more foreign born favor the status quo (52%), and the combined status quo + fewer = 72%.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, resistance to restriction is probably more descriptive than clamoring for the door to be opened wider.
  10. Actually I was kind of surprised that only 28% of foreign born were for the Democrats policy, would have thought it was higher. So the average white liberal might be more pro immigration than even the foreign born.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    That's because the foreign born may miss their families, be ungrateful as all get-out, and not care about assimilating, but the average liberal is hell bent on destroying America completely.
    , @dfordoom

    Actually I was kind of surprised that only 28% of foreign born were for the Democrats policy, would have thought it was higher. So the average white liberal might be more pro immigration than even the foreign born.
     
    That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

    I would imagine that virtually all whites who qualify as being part of the big business sector would be in favour of increased immigration. I suspect that a very significant majority of white small business owners would also be in favour of increased immigration. I suspect that it's not just whites in academia and the media who want lots more immigrants.

    It would be fascinating to see a breakdown of views on immigration among whites broken down by socioeconomic class.
  11. anon[866] • Disclaimer says:

    Once a certain tipping point is reached in the population, immigration cannot be shut off. The United States is finding that out currently. People were much more sensible in the past when the country was more European.

    “New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration.”

    President Calvin Coolidge, 1923 State of the Union

    “While not enough time has elapsed to afford a conclusive demonstration, such results as have been secured indicate that our immigration law [restriction] is on the whole beneficial. It is undoubtedly a protection to the wage earners of this country.”

    President Calvin Coolidge, 1924 State of the Union

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude

    President Calvin Coolidge
     
    Look at what else he had to say

    he stated that although the diversity of peoples was a detrimental source of conflict and tension in Europe, it was peculiar for the United States that it was a "harmonious" benefit for the country.
     
    So he was a "diversity is good" kind of guy.

    Also..

    In a speech in October 1924, Coolidge stressed tolerance of differences as an American value and thanked immigrants for their contributions to U.S. society, saying that they have "contributed much to making our country what it is."
     
    Here's his biography online. It's all legal ---https://archive.org/stream/foundationsofrep00unit#page/158/mode/2up


    Look at page 159....

    It is a truism, of course, but it is nonetheless a fact which we must never forget, that this continent and this American community have been unparalled capacity for assimilating peoples of varying races and nations
     
    He was indeed a great man. A racial egalitarian even.
    , @jester
    You got to love BengaleCanadianDude.

    He is a symptom of immigration flaw on this continent. He does not represent himself as Bengali or strictly Canadian (the country that gave him refuge from his shit hole native Bengal) BUT he is Bengali + Canadian + Dude.

    God help us if he finds that his house cleaner grand mother used to give it up to some British overseer during the colonial period. Then he would be.........tah dah ..............

    British plus Bengali plus Canadian plus a Dude who know that Calvin was diversity friendly.

    Mr. MultiRacial Immigrant Dude. If you really knew the mentality of the whites back then you would know they had no love for people like you especially ones confused about their heritage.

    If Bengal is so great what are you doing in Canada...oh I forgot..you fled multi ethnic and unfriendly Bengal to go to a white man's country that is diversity friendly.

    Sorry Bro, I mean Dude, but you will find white Canadians even more subtle than Americans. While they smile at you and with you with those frightfully frozen grins because their politicians say they must, deep inside they despise you. Think about that when you next wax philosophical about multicultural friendly diversity.
  12. It’s increasing returns in action…returns to scale….a nonlinear amplification process….

    Moral of the story:Stop the invasion on the beach-head…before the invaders establish a beach-head and go over the WALL….As the Hindu “Americans” did LEGALLY…And then the Hindu “Americans went on to buy 90 percent of the US CONGRESS=THE INDIA POLICY GROUP…..

  13. @James Bowery
    "Hard Working Immigrants" are a hard working military force working under cover of fraud.

    Their morale is high because victory is nigh.

    And their victory will be their defeat. The only question is whether it comes mercifully quick, at the hands of the "conquered" before the "conquered" are physically eliminated -- or whether it will be a long slow torturous slide into eternal Hell, after the "conquered" are physically eliminated.

    I think there is an answer in South Africa. Out with a whimper. We won’t even reproduce and we’re killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer’s observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been–was the biggest black pill I’ve ever swallowed.

    • Agree: 216, Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @216
    Its not an accident that both LGBT and MGTOW are culturally overrepresented. It took time for the impacts of no-fault divorce and contraception to be fully understood. I suspect the same for smartphones and Tinder.

    I feel conquered too, and I'm not even in that overrun part of the country.

    Exile is my wish fulfilment.
    , @dfordoom

    We won’t even reproduce and we’re killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer’s observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been–was the biggest black pill I’ve ever swallowed.
     
    So how do you explain the fact that East Asians in East Asian countries are failing to reproduce at even more alarming levels than white Americans? Are the conquered peoples?

    Actually I'd argue that they are. They've been conquered by American popular culture and by neoliberalism.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people

     

    American Indian analagy would be more correct if we were invaded by aliens. We would be complaining while living on our reservations with our $500,000 year welfare checks while sipping on coffee we got out of the replicator. Instead of internet, we would be conferencing in our town's community holodeck. We would join a union get the minimum wage of human starship pilots raised to $500 hour. Members The Antares First Party would look at us as crime ridden, felicium addicted layabouts who spend all day in their free holodecks instead of studying 7th dimensional space warp physics so they can become gainfully employed in a modern Antimatter Age society.
    , @Feryl
    Ya know, the "conservative" notion that we should accept certain economic and cultural concessions to "minorities" for the sake of social peace and maintenance of market capitalism didn't exactly turn out to be such a hot idea, did it?

    Said it before, say it again: the "anti-market" trends of the 1930's-1960's did much to safe-guard cultural tradition and trad. demographics. Whereas the explosion in "libertarian" ideology since the 70's coincides exactly with a vast rise in cultural liberalism and the dissolution of trad. demographics.
  14. 216 says:
    @Audacious Epigone
    I think there is an answer in South Africa. Out with a whimper. We won't even reproduce and we're killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer's observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians--because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been--was the biggest black pill I've ever swallowed.

    Its not an accident that both LGBT and MGTOW are culturally overrepresented. It took time for the impacts of no-fault divorce and contraception to be fully understood. I suspect the same for smartphones and Tinder.

    I feel conquered too, and I’m not even in that overrun part of the country.

    Exile is my wish fulfilment.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Exile is my wish fulfilment.
     
    Visegrad Group?

    It’s always good to have an exit strategy; in fact I was recently speaking with my parents about Turkey. My brother mentioned that they have a deal for fast track citizenship for anyone who seriously invests into the country. A $250K property is a start:
    “A €219,000 house could buy you citizenship in Turkey”
    https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/07/a-219-000-house-could-buy-you-citizenship-in-turkey

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVNHzeYW4AEgJRG.jpg

    Peace.
  15. @216
    Its not an accident that both LGBT and MGTOW are culturally overrepresented. It took time for the impacts of no-fault divorce and contraception to be fully understood. I suspect the same for smartphones and Tinder.

    I feel conquered too, and I'm not even in that overrun part of the country.

    Exile is my wish fulfilment.

    Exile is my wish fulfilment.

    Visegrad Group?

    It’s always good to have an exit strategy; in fact I was recently speaking with my parents about Turkey. My brother mentioned that they have a deal for fast track citizenship for anyone who seriously invests into the country. A $250K property is a start:
    “A €219,000 house could buy you citizenship in Turkey”
    https://www.euronews.com/2018/12/07/a-219-000-house-could-buy-you-citizenship-in-turkey

    Peace.

  16. Immigration is like the old Pringles commercial:

    “Once you pop, the fun won’t stop”

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    Huh...sounds more like an ad for narcotic pills....
  17. @gman
    Immigration is like the old Pringles commercial:

    "Once you pop, the fun won't stop"

    Huh…sounds more like an ad for narcotic pills….

  18. @anon
    Once a certain tipping point is reached in the population, immigration cannot be shut off. The United States is finding that out currently. People were much more sensible in the past when the country was more European.

    "New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration."

    President Calvin Coolidge, 1923 State of the Union

    "While not enough time has elapsed to afford a conclusive demonstration, such results as have been secured indicate that our immigration law [restriction] is on the whole beneficial. It is undoubtedly a protection to the wage earners of this country."

    President Calvin Coolidge, 1924 State of the Union

    President Calvin Coolidge

    Look at what else he had to say

    he stated that although the diversity of peoples was a detrimental source of conflict and tension in Europe, it was peculiar for the United States that it was a “harmonious” benefit for the country.

    So he was a “diversity is good” kind of guy.

    Also..

    In a speech in October 1924, Coolidge stressed tolerance of differences as an American value and thanked immigrants for their contributions to U.S. society, saying that they have “contributed much to making our country what it is.”

    Here’s his biography online. It’s all legal —https://archive.org/stream/foundationsofrep00unit#page/158/mode/2up

    Look at page 159….

    It is a truism, of course, but it is nonetheless a fact which we must never forget, that this continent and this American community have been unparalled capacity for assimilating peoples of varying races and nations

    He was indeed a great man. A racial egalitarian even.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Whatever quotes you have here, BCD, President Calvin Coolidge signed the 1924 immigration bill that cut immigration to a virtual trickle for just over 40 years. (It had been greatly slowed by 1921, even before the passage of that bill).

    Not just due to his great job there, but moreso his attitude that the President, and the US Feral Gov't in general, should just stand the fuck down (not his wording) unless a war is going on, Silent Cal is Peak Stupidity's favorite president since the first half of the 19th Century.
  19. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Around here they're called white nationalists or other such similar slurs.

    If you want to retain a white majority nation, does that not inherently mean that you are a white nationalist?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, because majority is not always 100%

    If you want your country to be 100% white, then yes.

    If you want your country to just be 51-99% white, then no.

    And there's a mountain of SWPLs who just want America to be 70-80% white.
  20. 13 and 28 is a very negligible difference, and the 52 percent in keeping things the way they are doesn’t mean much, it just means they favour the current status quo,and they have no qualms in relation to it. So keep it the way it is.

    It also does not seperate the native born numbers by race, so for the most part this graph is pretty useless

  21. @truthman
    Actually I was kind of surprised that only 28% of foreign born were for the Democrats policy, would have thought it was higher. So the average white liberal might be more pro immigration than even the foreign born.

    That’s because the foreign born may miss their families, be ungrateful as all get-out, and not care about assimilating, but the average liberal is hell bent on destroying America completely.

  22. @BengaliCanadianDude

    President Calvin Coolidge
     
    Look at what else he had to say

    he stated that although the diversity of peoples was a detrimental source of conflict and tension in Europe, it was peculiar for the United States that it was a "harmonious" benefit for the country.
     
    So he was a "diversity is good" kind of guy.

    Also..

    In a speech in October 1924, Coolidge stressed tolerance of differences as an American value and thanked immigrants for their contributions to U.S. society, saying that they have "contributed much to making our country what it is."
     
    Here's his biography online. It's all legal ---https://archive.org/stream/foundationsofrep00unit#page/158/mode/2up


    Look at page 159....

    It is a truism, of course, but it is nonetheless a fact which we must never forget, that this continent and this American community have been unparalled capacity for assimilating peoples of varying races and nations
     
    He was indeed a great man. A racial egalitarian even.

    Whatever quotes you have here, BCD, President Calvin Coolidge signed the 1924 immigration bill that cut immigration to a virtual trickle for just over 40 years. (It had been greatly slowed by 1921, even before the passage of that bill).

    Not just due to his great job there, but moreso his attitude that the President, and the US Feral Gov’t in general, should just stand the fuck down (not his wording) unless a war is going on, Silent Cal is Peak Stupidity’s favorite president since the first half of the 19th Century.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    Its not like I disagree much anyways. I am of the persuasion that controlled immigration in small numbers does lead to perfect assimilation, and that it has in fact been proven. Hell, many people on UNZ agree with that statement too, I've seen it with my own two eyes. In all honesty, immigration should be brought down to suitable numbers, extremely smaller than the numbers we all have now. Canada takes 340000 yearly, and that's about 0.7 or something along those lines. I think it should be decreased, and we should impose a total shutdown of all refugee and asylum proceedings effective immediately. A legal loophole allows many illegals to traverse through the US-Canada border to gain a safe foothold on Canadian soil by claiming that they are fleeing persecution. From the US. Whatever that means. The US needs to immediately be referred to as a Safe Country which would annul this little issue, and the 340000 number needs to brought back down to something reasonable like 50000-100000. Mad Max Bernier has the right idea, and he plans to cap it at 150K.

    We've also done immigration rather well for the most part, and I've seen even people like FrancoOntarian concede that it has been fairly harmonious, until recently, when we've been starting to take in more problematic Arabs and Negroids. -https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canada-does-immigration-well-but-heres-an-easy-way-to-do-a-lot-better---

    Canada averaged a higher percentage of immigrants with post-secondary degrees (excluding doctoral degrees) than the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States
     
    Interestingly the Green party favours cutting immigration levels,with 57 percent agreeing, second only to the conservatives
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5397306/canada-immigration-poll/
    , @Feryl
    Regardless of actual written law, or precedent, the ruling class of a country is always knowingly letting in a certain number of people annually. So when the ruling class began to respect common opinion, they restricted immigration in the early 1920's. Then elites, in their mores, began to heavily diverge from the masses around circa 1970*, so we've been taking in more and more immigrants ever since, even as it's plainly destabilized America.

    *Civil Right time line:
    1960's: Black Americans, American Indians
    1970's: Women
    1980's: Immigrants
    1990's: Homosexuals
    Post-2000: Trans people

    So as you see, with each passing decade they've (meaning the Upper MC) found increasingly controversial groups of people to champion. Most Americans felt comfortable giving more latitude to blacks and Indians. But telling men to step aside for women was a tougher sell. Telling the native born that Asian and Latin American "refugees" deserved their shot at the American dream was even tougher, and with subsequent decades we've been asked to accept more and more "dreamers". As we get to the 90's, that's when all the sexual weirdness begins to be promoted by elites, something which has driven a lot of angst in the West, because why should a minority of gay or trans people be so highly elevated?
  23. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whatever quotes you have here, BCD, President Calvin Coolidge signed the 1924 immigration bill that cut immigration to a virtual trickle for just over 40 years. (It had been greatly slowed by 1921, even before the passage of that bill).

    Not just due to his great job there, but moreso his attitude that the President, and the US Feral Gov't in general, should just stand the fuck down (not his wording) unless a war is going on, Silent Cal is Peak Stupidity's favorite president since the first half of the 19th Century.

    Its not like I disagree much anyways. I am of the persuasion that controlled immigration in small numbers does lead to perfect assimilation, and that it has in fact been proven. Hell, many people on UNZ agree with that statement too, I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. In all honesty, immigration should be brought down to suitable numbers, extremely smaller than the numbers we all have now. Canada takes 340000 yearly, and that’s about 0.7 or something along those lines. I think it should be decreased, and we should impose a total shutdown of all refugee and asylum proceedings effective immediately. A legal loophole allows many illegals to traverse through the US-Canada border to gain a safe foothold on Canadian soil by claiming that they are fleeing persecution. From the US. Whatever that means. The US needs to immediately be referred to as a Safe Country which would annul this little issue, and the 340000 number needs to brought back down to something reasonable like 50000-100000. Mad Max Bernier has the right idea, and he plans to cap it at 150K.

    We’ve also done immigration rather well for the most part, and I’ve seen even people like FrancoOntarian concede that it has been fairly harmonious, until recently, when we’ve been starting to take in more problematic Arabs and Negroids. -https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canada-does-immigration-well-but-heres-an-easy-way-to-do-a-lot-better—

    Canada averaged a higher percentage of immigrants with post-secondary degrees (excluding doctoral degrees) than the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States

    Interestingly the Green party favours cutting immigration levels,with 57 percent agreeing, second only to the conservatives
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5397306/canada-immigration-poll/

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The party agrees or its self-identified voters do? If it's the former, that's very encouraging. Let's work out a grand deal with a dual mandate to stop both climate and demographic change!
    , @Denis
    Even if immigration does not lead to the extreme racial agitation that has been exhibited in the US and Europe, that does not necessarily mean that it is a good thing. Foreign speculators can drive up property prices massively due to loose immigration and property ownership laws, and immigration always increases property prices dramatically on its own. There is really no reason to take in immigrants other than to give an artificial boost to the economy, which is largely captured by wealthy property owners, financial institutions, and investors, domestic and foreign.
  24. @BlackC
    A person has the right to invite or not invite guests to stay in their home.
    Even given the precedent of having invited a guest to stay, that person still retains the rights to a) not invite further guests into their home and b) ask current guests to leave, especially given attitudes and behavior not in the interest of the homeowner.

    Guests should never have the right to invite other guests to stay.

    Send them back. All of them.

    Send them back. All of them.

    I’m just curious here. Whom exactly do you mean by “them” – are you talking about illegal immigrants, or those with legal permanent resident status, or foreign-born citizens?

    What about someone like John Derbyshire? Does he have to go back?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What about someone like John Derbyshire? Does he have to go back?
     
    Your concern for human rights is most touching, Doom.
    , @iffen
    I've wondered why we need to import obnoxious racists from the former Empire when we have enough native ones of our own. It's not like we don't have natural born Americans that will do the job.
  25. @truthman
    Actually I was kind of surprised that only 28% of foreign born were for the Democrats policy, would have thought it was higher. So the average white liberal might be more pro immigration than even the foreign born.

    Actually I was kind of surprised that only 28% of foreign born were for the Democrats policy, would have thought it was higher. So the average white liberal might be more pro immigration than even the foreign born.

    That wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

    I would imagine that virtually all whites who qualify as being part of the big business sector would be in favour of increased immigration. I suspect that a very significant majority of white small business owners would also be in favour of increased immigration. I suspect that it’s not just whites in academia and the media who want lots more immigrants.

    It would be fascinating to see a breakdown of views on immigration among whites broken down by socioeconomic class.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Greedy cuck business owners in conservative aligned industries generally prefer to stay quiet as they line the pockets of politicans and "think tanks" who then engineer our policies to stab average Americans in the back.

    But naive Republicans assume that the reason our borders are wide open is because loud-mouth liberals in the media and academia won't shut up about "racism". But these liberals don't do the hiring in agriculture and construction, do they?
  26. @Audacious Epigone
    I think there is an answer in South Africa. Out with a whimper. We won't even reproduce and we're killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer's observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians--because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been--was the biggest black pill I've ever swallowed.

    We won’t even reproduce and we’re killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer’s observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been–was the biggest black pill I’ve ever swallowed.

    So how do you explain the fact that East Asians in East Asian countries are failing to reproduce at even more alarming levels than white Americans? Are the conquered peoples?

    Actually I’d argue that they are. They’ve been conquered by American popular culture and by neoliberalism.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    East Asian countries are failing to reproduce

     

    Train Stuffing in Japan

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XfVl6_R7_k
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The short answer is yes, save for possibly China, which is in a transition where it is unclear exactly how the country will look in a generation.
    , @216
    Considerably higher population densities

    Japan's TFR of 1.4 is not much different than the US YT figure of 1.6

    Korea and Taiwan are around 1 TFR, truly abysmal, along with Hong Kong.

    Japan could pave over much more of the country, but prefers agricultural protectionism.

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.

    ---

    There may be parallels to my prediction of the "Neo-Victorian Consensus" that might emerge in the 2020s.

    We haven't spilled much empirical ink on the "rise of cat ladies", but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.
  27. @dfordoom

    Send them back. All of them.
     
    I'm just curious here. Whom exactly do you mean by "them" - are you talking about illegal immigrants, or those with legal permanent resident status, or foreign-born citizens?

    What about someone like John Derbyshire? Does he have to go back?

    What about someone like John Derbyshire? Does he have to go back?

    Your concern for human rights is most touching, Doom.

  28. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @BengaliCanadianDude
    If you want to retain a white majority nation, does that not inherently mean that you are a white nationalist?

    No, because majority is not always 100%

    If you want your country to be 100% white, then yes.

    If you want your country to just be 51-99% white, then no.

    And there’s a mountain of SWPLs who just want America to be 70-80% white.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    No, because majority is not always 100%

    If you want your country to be 100% white, then yes.

    If you want your country to just be 51-99% white, then no.

    And there’s a mountain of SWPLs who just want America to be 70-80% white.
     
    BCD is actually right. The old definition of White nationalism was some crazy lunatic who wanted to run every last non-White person out of the country at gunpoint, but they've now changed the meaning to include anyone who wants to maintain a White majority. The shame was so deep that nobody resisted this.
  29. @dfordoom

    Send them back. All of them.
     
    I'm just curious here. Whom exactly do you mean by "them" - are you talking about illegal immigrants, or those with legal permanent resident status, or foreign-born citizens?

    What about someone like John Derbyshire? Does he have to go back?

    I’ve wondered why we need to import obnoxious racists from the former Empire when we have enough native ones of our own. It’s not like we don’t have natural born Americans that will do the job.

    • Agree: BengaliCanadianDude
  30. @Audacious Epigone
    I think there is an answer in South Africa. Out with a whimper. We won't even reproduce and we're killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer's observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians--because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been--was the biggest black pill I've ever swallowed.

    whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people

    American Indian analagy would be more correct if we were invaded by aliens. We would be complaining while living on our reservations with our $500,000 year welfare checks while sipping on coffee we got out of the replicator. Instead of internet, we would be conferencing in our town’s community holodeck. We would join a union get the minimum wage of human starship pilots raised to $500 hour. Members The Antares First Party would look at us as crime ridden, felicium addicted layabouts who spend all day in their free holodecks instead of studying 7th dimensional space warp physics so they can become gainfully employed in a modern Antimatter Age society.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Disagree was supposed to be an LOL.
  31. @dfordoom

    We won’t even reproduce and we’re killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer’s observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been–was the biggest black pill I’ve ever swallowed.
     
    So how do you explain the fact that East Asians in East Asian countries are failing to reproduce at even more alarming levels than white Americans? Are the conquered peoples?

    Actually I'd argue that they are. They've been conquered by American popular culture and by neoliberalism.

    East Asian countries are failing to reproduce

    Audacious Epigone

  • @Hippopotamusdrome


    whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people

     

    American Indian analagy would be more correct if we were invaded by aliens. We would be complaining while living on our reservations with our $500,000 year welfare checks while sipping on coffee we got out of the replicator. Instead of internet, we would be conferencing in our town's community holodeck. We would join a union get the minimum wage of human starship pilots raised to $500 hour. Members The Antares First Party would look at us as crime ridden, felicium addicted layabouts who spend all day in their free holodecks instead of studying 7th dimensional space warp physics so they can become gainfully employed in a modern Antimatter Age society.

    Disagree was supposed to be an LOL.

  • On Camp Pendleton in Ca. 16 marines were arrested as suspects in a smuggling ring in which the smugglers were paid $8000.00 a person. A shock the two primaries were hispanic.

    If in fact family over country is correct, it would seem obvious why the country should avoid employing those with connections out of the county.

    ——————————————————–

    And I was stunned to read that the US military has farmed out work outside the country for the F-22 or F-35 strike aircraft. That is just nuts to farm out any portion of the nation’s security apparatus to anyone outside the US—

    Nuts!

    • Replies: @Feryl
    But all the Republicans tell me that it's the fault of FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama that we no longer have much national security or sovereignty anymore.
  • I think I neglected to mention that on immigration we are in a low level war

  • @t
    The pattern holds for children of foreign born (PARBORN) and they vote at higher rates.

    I wasn’t aware of that variable, thanks.

  • @fenster
    does this graph show our newest neighbors are clamoring to open the door wider and wider? that describes the green bar only (increase) and while native born is low at 13% foreign born is hardly off the charts at 28%. a lot more foreign born favor the status quo (52%), and the combined status quo + fewer = 72%.

    Yeah, resistance to restriction is probably more descriptive than clamoring for the door to be opened wider.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yeah, resistance to restriction is probably more descriptive than clamoring for the door to be opened wider.
     
    It hardly matters though, does it? At the end of the day, these newcomers have no intention of tolerating the perpetual existence of a white majority or any policies conducive to same, and it is a very ugly, vicious hatred.
  • @BengaliCanadianDude
    Its not like I disagree much anyways. I am of the persuasion that controlled immigration in small numbers does lead to perfect assimilation, and that it has in fact been proven. Hell, many people on UNZ agree with that statement too, I've seen it with my own two eyes. In all honesty, immigration should be brought down to suitable numbers, extremely smaller than the numbers we all have now. Canada takes 340000 yearly, and that's about 0.7 or something along those lines. I think it should be decreased, and we should impose a total shutdown of all refugee and asylum proceedings effective immediately. A legal loophole allows many illegals to traverse through the US-Canada border to gain a safe foothold on Canadian soil by claiming that they are fleeing persecution. From the US. Whatever that means. The US needs to immediately be referred to as a Safe Country which would annul this little issue, and the 340000 number needs to brought back down to something reasonable like 50000-100000. Mad Max Bernier has the right idea, and he plans to cap it at 150K.

    We've also done immigration rather well for the most part, and I've seen even people like FrancoOntarian concede that it has been fairly harmonious, until recently, when we've been starting to take in more problematic Arabs and Negroids. -https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canada-does-immigration-well-but-heres-an-easy-way-to-do-a-lot-better---

    Canada averaged a higher percentage of immigrants with post-secondary degrees (excluding doctoral degrees) than the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States
     
    Interestingly the Green party favours cutting immigration levels,with 57 percent agreeing, second only to the conservatives
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5397306/canada-immigration-poll/

    The party agrees or its self-identified voters do? If it’s the former, that’s very encouraging. Let’s work out a grand deal with a dual mandate to stop both climate and demographic change!

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    Self identifoed voters said that. I don't remember immigration reform being a major part of the Green Party's platform.
  • @dfordoom

    We won’t even reproduce and we’re killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer’s observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been–was the biggest black pill I’ve ever swallowed.
     
    So how do you explain the fact that East Asians in East Asian countries are failing to reproduce at even more alarming levels than white Americans? Are the conquered peoples?

    Actually I'd argue that they are. They've been conquered by American popular culture and by neoliberalism.

    The short answer is yes, save for possibly China, which is in a transition where it is unclear exactly how the country will look in a generation.

    • Replies: @216
    Mongolia or Bust

    TFR of 3.0
  • @Anonymous
    No, because majority is not always 100%

    If you want your country to be 100% white, then yes.

    If you want your country to just be 51-99% white, then no.

    And there's a mountain of SWPLs who just want America to be 70-80% white.

    No, because majority is not always 100%

    If you want your country to be 100% white, then yes.

    If you want your country to just be 51-99% white, then no.

    And there’s a mountain of SWPLs who just want America to be 70-80% white.

    BCD is actually right. The old definition of White nationalism was some crazy lunatic who wanted to run every last non-White person out of the country at gunpoint, but they’ve now changed the meaning to include anyone who wants to maintain a White majority. The shame was so deep that nobody resisted this.

  • @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, resistance to restriction is probably more descriptive than clamoring for the door to be opened wider.

    Yeah, resistance to restriction is probably more descriptive than clamoring for the door to be opened wider.

    It hardly matters though, does it? At the end of the day, these newcomers have no intention of tolerating the perpetual existence of a white majority or any policies conducive to same, and it is a very ugly, vicious hatred.

  • @Audacious Epigone
    The party agrees or its self-identified voters do? If it's the former, that's very encouraging. Let's work out a grand deal with a dual mandate to stop both climate and demographic change!

    Self identifoed voters said that. I don’t remember immigration reform being a major part of the Green Party’s platform.

  • I had not idea that with roughly 325 million souls, we have a shortage of people in this country. What benefit is it to us to allow in millions of uneducated people who have no useful skills, cannot speak English, and in many cases cannot read or write in any language?

    I realize Democrats hate the traditional Americans and want to bring in reinforcements to outvote them, but other than that…

  • @Audacious Epigone
    The short answer is yes, save for possibly China, which is in a transition where it is unclear exactly how the country will look in a generation.

    Mongolia or Bust

    TFR of 3.0

  • @dfordoom

    We won’t even reproduce and we’re killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer’s observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians–because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been–was the biggest black pill I’ve ever swallowed.
     
    So how do you explain the fact that East Asians in East Asian countries are failing to reproduce at even more alarming levels than white Americans? Are the conquered peoples?

    Actually I'd argue that they are. They've been conquered by American popular culture and by neoliberalism.

    Considerably higher population densities

    Japan’s TFR of 1.4 is not much different than the US YT figure of 1.6

    Korea and Taiwan are around 1 TFR, truly abysmal, along with Hong Kong.

    Japan could pave over much more of the country, but prefers agricultural protectionism.

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.

    There may be parallels to my prediction of the “Neo-Victorian Consensus” that might emerge in the 2020s.

    We haven’t spilled much empirical ink on the “rise of cat ladies”, but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.

    • Replies: @216
    In related news, National Review is now pro-slut


    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/metoo-killed-the-office-romance/
    , @Rosie

    We haven’t spilled much empirical ink on the “rise of cat ladies”, but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.
     
    Let's hope so...

    https://i2.wp.com/www.occidentaldissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/WN-Survey.png?w=640


    A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.
     
    What are the three deadliest words in the world?

    It's a girl.

    https://youtu.be/qeSYN2c8f_A

    , @dfordoom

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.
     
    Yes, feminism is one of the forces destroying East Asia. No doubt about that. Feminism exported by the West.
  • @BengaliCanadianDude
    Its not like I disagree much anyways. I am of the persuasion that controlled immigration in small numbers does lead to perfect assimilation, and that it has in fact been proven. Hell, many people on UNZ agree with that statement too, I've seen it with my own two eyes. In all honesty, immigration should be brought down to suitable numbers, extremely smaller than the numbers we all have now. Canada takes 340000 yearly, and that's about 0.7 or something along those lines. I think it should be decreased, and we should impose a total shutdown of all refugee and asylum proceedings effective immediately. A legal loophole allows many illegals to traverse through the US-Canada border to gain a safe foothold on Canadian soil by claiming that they are fleeing persecution. From the US. Whatever that means. The US needs to immediately be referred to as a Safe Country which would annul this little issue, and the 340000 number needs to brought back down to something reasonable like 50000-100000. Mad Max Bernier has the right idea, and he plans to cap it at 150K.

    We've also done immigration rather well for the most part, and I've seen even people like FrancoOntarian concede that it has been fairly harmonious, until recently, when we've been starting to take in more problematic Arabs and Negroids. -https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canada-does-immigration-well-but-heres-an-easy-way-to-do-a-lot-better---

    Canada averaged a higher percentage of immigrants with post-secondary degrees (excluding doctoral degrees) than the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States
     
    Interestingly the Green party favours cutting immigration levels,with 57 percent agreeing, second only to the conservatives
    https://globalnews.ca/news/5397306/canada-immigration-poll/

    Even if immigration does not lead to the extreme racial agitation that has been exhibited in the US and Europe, that does not necessarily mean that it is a good thing. Foreign speculators can drive up property prices massively due to loose immigration and property ownership laws, and immigration always increases property prices dramatically on its own. There is really no reason to take in immigrants other than to give an artificial boost to the economy, which is largely captured by wealthy property owners, financial institutions, and investors, domestic and foreign.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Yup.

    Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, the investors therein, are the beneficiaries of high immigration. But at least 3/4 of the population (and essentially the entire underclass and working class) don't benefit hardly at all.

    The corrupters of the common good (the neo-libs) always claim that a country needs stupendous birth rates or high immigration rates to prevent a "disastrous" situation where the elderly and middle aged out-number youngsters. Yet in practice, adoption of neo-liberalism leads to high levels of pop. growth which strains the carrying capacity of a nation (we can never develop housing fast enough, or create jobs fast enough, to match the rapid population growth).

    Furthermore, high native birth rates are a more desirable way to maintain pop. equilibrium than high immigration rates are for a variety of reasons:

    1)The maintenance of cultural continuity, since natives and their off-spring will be more acquainted with native culture than foreigners are.

    2) Children and teenagers live with their parents and generally don't work very much, whereas importing foreign adults leads to direct demand for housing and work. Had America's immigration remained at early 1970's levels, then the burst in competition caused by the entry of Boomers into the housing and job market in the 70's and 80's would've eventually diminished since native born X-ers were a small generation. But the entry of foreign born Boomers and X-ers into the market, which soared in the 80's and subsequent decades, has ensured that finding affordable housing and good work have both gotten more and more difficult for the past 45 years.

    3) High immigration rates are a self-fulfilling prophecy; native birth rates will collapse by default because foreign born competition has so raised the cost of living and depressed wages that many people can no longer afford to have kids. Note also that parents these days typically fall into two categories: the Upper Middle Class and the elites, who need no gov. assistance and typically avoid seeking it (who by default only comprise about 20-25% of the population), and then there is everyone else. To the extent that many people in the lower class have kids, they frequently get support from the government, since parents of children can get support much more easily than other demographics. Per Charles Murray, most whites since circa 2000 have adopted much of the culture that we associated with blacks in the 1960's and 70's; low marriage rates, lots of out of wedlock births, and much reliance on welfare. During the Great Compression (1930-1980), whites increasingly stigmatized those who went on the dole, because the cost of living was so low back then and most jobs paid well. But blacks historically are a demographic with few "options", due to their spotty character and lack of skill. Whereas the shredding of the white community over the past 40 years is due almost entirely to political and economic policy that's resulted in massive transfers of resources and social esteem to the top 1/5 of the population, even as the upper class proves to be incapable of strong leadership.
  • @216
    Considerably higher population densities

    Japan's TFR of 1.4 is not much different than the US YT figure of 1.6

    Korea and Taiwan are around 1 TFR, truly abysmal, along with Hong Kong.

    Japan could pave over much more of the country, but prefers agricultural protectionism.

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.

    ---

    There may be parallels to my prediction of the "Neo-Victorian Consensus" that might emerge in the 2020s.

    We haven't spilled much empirical ink on the "rise of cat ladies", but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.

    In related news, National Review is now pro-slut

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/metoo-killed-the-office-romance/

    • Replies: @Feryl
    What passes for "conservative" among the UMC is pretty astonishing. We're down to, what, Zionism and crony capitalism*?

    Gay Marriage, the trans movement, the internet red light district, ever more legalized gambling, legal preferences for non-whites and women over white men, the list of things that the Cuck Right now accepts is endless.

    A New Deal liberal's head would be spinning over all of the things that the Economic Right (and Pentagon establishment) failed to halt.

    *The Reaganites were miserable failures at economic and government reform, since their attempts at "making the government smaller" just created horrible deficits, while their attempts to make the market "freer" just led to far worse cronyism and monopolies than what we had during the Great Compression (the 1930's-1970's).
  • Liberal Supremacy in Miniature

    Passive Aggression is not an attack

  • Apparently SimpleJack is letting this trend again

    Also, we are never allowed anything.

  • @216
    Considerably higher population densities

    Japan's TFR of 1.4 is not much different than the US YT figure of 1.6

    Korea and Taiwan are around 1 TFR, truly abysmal, along with Hong Kong.

    Japan could pave over much more of the country, but prefers agricultural protectionism.

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.

    ---

    There may be parallels to my prediction of the "Neo-Victorian Consensus" that might emerge in the 2020s.

    We haven't spilled much empirical ink on the "rise of cat ladies", but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.

    We haven’t spilled much empirical ink on the “rise of cat ladies”, but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.

    Let’s hope so…

    A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.

    What are the three deadliest words in the world?

    It’s a girl.

    • Replies: @216
    That we correlate so strongly with lower-income and divorced is doing our movements no favors.

    Most people are strivers by nature.

    ---

    That women show higher rates of solidarity is one of your favorite counterpoints, but might it be explained by women living longer than men, and thus overrepresented in the 65+ bracket that shows the most solidarity?

    ---

    What is your solution to the Cat Lady question?

    Am I wrong to fear "conservative feminism" becoming a thing?
  • 216 says:
    @Rosie

    We haven’t spilled much empirical ink on the “rise of cat ladies”, but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.
     
    Let's hope so...

    https://i2.wp.com/www.occidentaldissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/WN-Survey.png?w=640


    A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.
     
    What are the three deadliest words in the world?

    It's a girl.

    https://youtu.be/qeSYN2c8f_A

    That we correlate so strongly with lower-income and divorced is doing our movements no favors.

    Most people are strivers by nature.

    That women show higher rates of solidarity is one of your favorite counterpoints, but might it be explained by women living longer than men, and thus overrepresented in the 65+ bracket that shows the most solidarity?

    What is your solution to the Cat Lady question?

    Am I wrong to fear “conservative feminism” becoming a thing?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    and thus overrepresented in the 65+ bracket that shows the most solidarity?
     
    I don't know. Why don't you do the math and find out? Your argument, your burden.

    Either way, at the very least, men don't have higher rates of solidarity than women, as would be expected on various misogynist theories about "women's nature" current in the manosphere.

    Am I wrong to fear “conservative feminism” becoming a thing?
     
    I'm so tired of this stale and fruitless debate about "feminism" which everyone hates but noone will define. If you have any particular concerns that can be articulated in words with clear meaning, I might be able to answer your question.
  • @216
    Considerably higher population densities

    Japan's TFR of 1.4 is not much different than the US YT figure of 1.6

    Korea and Taiwan are around 1 TFR, truly abysmal, along with Hong Kong.

    Japan could pave over much more of the country, but prefers agricultural protectionism.

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.

    ---

    There may be parallels to my prediction of the "Neo-Victorian Consensus" that might emerge in the 2020s.

    We haven't spilled much empirical ink on the "rise of cat ladies", but this will be one of the dominant forces shaping Western politics.

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.

    Yes, feminism is one of the forces destroying East Asia. No doubt about that. Feminism exported by the West.

    • Replies: @216
    Japan is usually quite low on "gender equality" rankings compared to the rest of the G20.

    On the balance, East Asian feminists are not the same as Western feminists, because they typically aren't trying to subvert or destroy the Christian tradition. (ROK, with the largest Christian minority, is an exception, with their feminists particularly brutal)

    So while it may be a "Western export", I'd be hesitant to deny them agency and ownership. That's akin to calling MGTOW a "Japanese export to the West".
  • 216 says:
    @dfordoom

    More than any of this, their economies are drunk on feminism. A society that rolls back, or even better abolishes it; will see its fertility problems solved.
     
    Yes, feminism is one of the forces destroying East Asia. No doubt about that. Feminism exported by the West.

    Japan is usually quite low on “gender equality” rankings compared to the rest of the G20.

    On the balance, East Asian feminists are not the same as Western feminists, because they typically aren’t trying to subvert or destroy the Christian tradition. (ROK, with the largest Christian minority, is an exception, with their feminists particularly brutal)

    So while it may be a “Western export”, I’d be hesitant to deny them agency and ownership. That’s akin to calling MGTOW a “Japanese export to the West”.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    (ROK, with the largest Christian minority, is an exception, with their feminists particularly brutal)
     
    Christianity is a positive force in "developing" (backward) cultures, but a cancer on advanced ones; the drive to "do good" is corrupted into multi-culturalism, man-hating, and PC. Virtually every negative trend in Western culture has eventually been co-opted by The Church. Today's "traditional" religious community is more modern than yesterday's modern religious community.

    In the 1960's, the mainstream Christian community caved to racial multi-culturalism. In the 1970's, they caved to Feminism. In the 1980's, they caved to Zionism. In the 1990's, they caved to Capitalism ("gospel of prosperity"). By this point, even out-right homosexuals no longer get the censure they once would gotten.
  • @216
    That we correlate so strongly with lower-income and divorced is doing our movements no favors.

    Most people are strivers by nature.

    ---

    That women show higher rates of solidarity is one of your favorite counterpoints, but might it be explained by women living longer than men, and thus overrepresented in the 65+ bracket that shows the most solidarity?

    ---

    What is your solution to the Cat Lady question?

    Am I wrong to fear "conservative feminism" becoming a thing?

    and thus overrepresented in the 65+ bracket that shows the most solidarity?

    I don’t know. Why don’t you do the math and find out? Your argument, your burden.

    Either way, at the very least, men don’t have higher rates of solidarity than women, as would be expected on various misogynist theories about “women’s nature” current in the manosphere.

    Am I wrong to fear “conservative feminism” becoming a thing?

    I’m so tired of this stale and fruitless debate about “feminism” which everyone hates but noone will define. If you have any particular concerns that can be articulated in words with clear meaning, I might be able to answer your question.

    • Replies: @216

    I’m so tired of this stale and fruitless debate about “feminism” which everyone hates but noone will define. If you have any particular concerns that can be articulated in words with clear meaning, I might be able to answer your question.
     
    My prediction regards a potential shift in female voters in the next decade. Certain (white) women will be the losers in the leftist spoils system, and as a result might shift towards the right. But at the same time I don't predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.

    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.

  • @Denis
    Even if immigration does not lead to the extreme racial agitation that has been exhibited in the US and Europe, that does not necessarily mean that it is a good thing. Foreign speculators can drive up property prices massively due to loose immigration and property ownership laws, and immigration always increases property prices dramatically on its own. There is really no reason to take in immigrants other than to give an artificial boost to the economy, which is largely captured by wealthy property owners, financial institutions, and investors, domestic and foreign.

    Yup.

    Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, the investors therein, are the beneficiaries of high immigration. But at least 3/4 of the population (and essentially the entire underclass and working class) don’t benefit hardly at all.

    The corrupters of the common good (the neo-libs) always claim that a country needs stupendous birth rates or high immigration rates to prevent a “disastrous” situation where the elderly and middle aged out-number youngsters. Yet in practice, adoption of neo-liberalism leads to high levels of pop. growth which strains the carrying capacity of a nation (we can never develop housing fast enough, or create jobs fast enough, to match the rapid population growth).

    Furthermore, high native birth rates are a more desirable way to maintain pop. equilibrium than high immigration rates are for a variety of reasons:

    1)The maintenance of cultural continuity, since natives and their off-spring will be more acquainted with native culture than foreigners are.

    2) Children and teenagers live with their parents and generally don’t work very much, whereas importing foreign adults leads to direct demand for housing and work. Had America’s immigration remained at early 1970’s levels, then the burst in competition caused by the entry of Boomers into the housing and job market in the 70’s and 80’s would’ve eventually diminished since native born X-ers were a small generation. But the entry of foreign born Boomers and X-ers into the market, which soared in the 80’s and subsequent decades, has ensured that finding affordable housing and good work have both gotten more and more difficult for the past 45 years.

    3) High immigration rates are a self-fulfilling prophecy; native birth rates will collapse by default because foreign born competition has so raised the cost of living and depressed wages that many people can no longer afford to have kids. Note also that parents these days typically fall into two categories: the Upper Middle Class and the elites, who need no gov. assistance and typically avoid seeking it (who by default only comprise about 20-25% of the population), and then there is everyone else. To the extent that many people in the lower class have kids, they frequently get support from the government, since parents of children can get support much more easily than other demographics. Per Charles Murray, most whites since circa 2000 have adopted much of the culture that we associated with blacks in the 1960’s and 70’s; low marriage rates, lots of out of wedlock births, and much reliance on welfare. During the Great Compression (1930-1980), whites increasingly stigmatized those who went on the dole, because the cost of living was so low back then and most jobs paid well. But blacks historically are a demographic with few “options”, due to their spotty character and lack of skill. Whereas the shredding of the white community over the past 40 years is due almost entirely to political and economic policy that’s resulted in massive transfers of resources and social esteem to the top 1/5 of the population, even as the upper class proves to be incapable of strong leadership.

  • @216
    Japan is usually quite low on "gender equality" rankings compared to the rest of the G20.

    On the balance, East Asian feminists are not the same as Western feminists, because they typically aren't trying to subvert or destroy the Christian tradition. (ROK, with the largest Christian minority, is an exception, with their feminists particularly brutal)

    So while it may be a "Western export", I'd be hesitant to deny them agency and ownership. That's akin to calling MGTOW a "Japanese export to the West".

    (ROK, with the largest Christian minority, is an exception, with their feminists particularly brutal)

    Christianity is a positive force in “developing” (backward) cultures, but a cancer on advanced ones; the drive to “do good” is corrupted into multi-culturalism, man-hating, and PC. Virtually every negative trend in Western culture has eventually been co-opted by The Church. Today’s “traditional” religious community is more modern than yesterday’s modern religious community.

    In the 1960’s, the mainstream Christian community caved to racial multi-culturalism. In the 1970’s, they caved to Feminism. In the 1980’s, they caved to Zionism. In the 1990’s, they caved to Capitalism (“gospel of prosperity”). By this point, even out-right homosexuals no longer get the censure they once would gotten.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In the 1960’s, the mainstream Christian community caved to racial multi-culturalism. In the 1970’s, they caved to Feminism. In the 1980’s, they caved to Zionism. In the 1990’s, they caved to Capitalism (“gospel of prosperity”). By this point, even out-right homosexuals no longer get the censure they once would gotten.
     
    That's all pretty much true I'm afraid.
  • @216
    In related news, National Review is now pro-slut


    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/metoo-killed-the-office-romance/

    What passes for “conservative” among the UMC is pretty astonishing. We’re down to, what, Zionism and crony capitalism*?

    Gay Marriage, the trans movement, the internet red light district, ever more legalized gambling, legal preferences for non-whites and women over white men, the list of things that the Cuck Right now accepts is endless.

    A New Deal liberal’s head would be spinning over all of the things that the Economic Right (and Pentagon establishment) failed to halt.

    *The Reaganites were miserable failures at economic and government reform, since their attempts at “making the government smaller” just created horrible deficits, while their attempts to make the market “freer” just led to far worse cronyism and monopolies than what we had during the Great Compression (the 1930’s-1970’s).

  • @EliteCommInc.
    On Camp Pendleton in Ca. 16 marines were arrested as suspects in a smuggling ring in which the smugglers were paid $8000.00 a person. A shock the two primaries were hispanic.


    If in fact family over country is correct, it would seem obvious why the country should avoid employing those with connections out of the county.


    --------------------------------------------------------

    And I was stunned to read that the US military has farmed out work outside the country for the F-22 or F-35 strike aircraft. That is just nuts to farm out any portion of the nation's security apparatus to anyone outside the US---

    Nuts!

    But all the Republicans tell me that it’s the fault of FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama that we no longer have much national security or sovereignty anymore.

  • @dfordoom

    Actually I was kind of surprised that only 28% of foreign born were for the Democrats policy, would have thought it was higher. So the average white liberal might be more pro immigration than even the foreign born.
     
    That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

    I would imagine that virtually all whites who qualify as being part of the big business sector would be in favour of increased immigration. I suspect that a very significant majority of white small business owners would also be in favour of increased immigration. I suspect that it's not just whites in academia and the media who want lots more immigrants.

    It would be fascinating to see a breakdown of views on immigration among whites broken down by socioeconomic class.

    Greedy cuck business owners in conservative aligned industries generally prefer to stay quiet as they line the pockets of politicans and “think tanks” who then engineer our policies to stab average Americans in the back.

    But naive Republicans assume that the reason our borders are wide open is because loud-mouth liberals in the media and academia won’t shut up about “racism”. But these liberals don’t do the hiring in agriculture and construction, do they?

    • Agree: dfordoom
  • @Achmed E. Newman
    Whatever quotes you have here, BCD, President Calvin Coolidge signed the 1924 immigration bill that cut immigration to a virtual trickle for just over 40 years. (It had been greatly slowed by 1921, even before the passage of that bill).

    Not just due to his great job there, but moreso his attitude that the President, and the US Feral Gov't in general, should just stand the fuck down (not his wording) unless a war is going on, Silent Cal is Peak Stupidity's favorite president since the first half of the 19th Century.

    Regardless of actual written law, or precedent, the ruling class of a country is always knowingly letting in a certain number of people annually. So when the ruling class began to respect common opinion, they restricted immigration in the early 1920’s. Then elites, in their mores, began to heavily diverge from the masses around circa 1970*, so we’ve been taking in more and more immigrants ever since, even as it’s plainly destabilized America.

    *Civil Right time line:
    1960’s: Black Americans, American Indians
    1970’s: Women
    1980’s: Immigrants
    1990’s: Homosexuals
    Post-2000: Trans people

    So as you see, with each passing decade they’ve (meaning the Upper MC) found increasingly controversial groups of people to champion. Most Americans felt comfortable giving more latitude to blacks and Indians. But telling men to step aside for women was a tougher sell. Telling the native born that Asian and Latin American “refugees” deserved their shot at the American dream was even tougher, and with subsequent decades we’ve been asked to accept more and more “dreamers”. As we get to the 90’s, that’s when all the sexual weirdness begins to be promoted by elites, something which has driven a lot of angst in the West, because why should a minority of gay or trans people be so highly elevated?

  • @Audacious Epigone
    I think there is an answer in South Africa. Out with a whimper. We won't even reproduce and we're killing ourselves at staggering rates.

    Steve Sailer's observation that contemporary whites in the US are increasingly behaving like American Indians--because the former are becoming a conquered people like the latter long since have been--was the biggest black pill I've ever swallowed.

    Ya know, the “conservative” notion that we should accept certain economic and cultural concessions to “minorities” for the sake of social peace and maintenance of market capitalism didn’t exactly turn out to be such a hot idea, did it?

    Said it before, say it again: the “anti-market” trends of the 1930’s-1960’s did much to safe-guard cultural tradition and trad. demographics. Whereas the explosion in “libertarian” ideology since the 70’s coincides exactly with a vast rise in cultural liberalism and the dissolution of trad. demographics.

  • @t
    OR: The GSS asks about skin tone (RATETONE) lighter skinned blacks and Hispanics have higher Wordsum scores, so do lighter skinned Italians, among English, Irish and Germans the draker skinned have slightly higher WORDSUM.

    I’m extremely dubious about skin tone self-ID among Northern Europeans. It’s quite possible that the “darker-skinned” Northern Euro people are yuppies with permanent deep tans from all the vacations they get to go on. Whereas white proles in places like Buffalo NY are going to be quite pale.

  • @Feryl

    (ROK, with the largest Christian minority, is an exception, with their feminists particularly brutal)
     
    Christianity is a positive force in "developing" (backward) cultures, but a cancer on advanced ones; the drive to "do good" is corrupted into multi-culturalism, man-hating, and PC. Virtually every negative trend in Western culture has eventually been co-opted by The Church. Today's "traditional" religious community is more modern than yesterday's modern religious community.

    In the 1960's, the mainstream Christian community caved to racial multi-culturalism. In the 1970's, they caved to Feminism. In the 1980's, they caved to Zionism. In the 1990's, they caved to Capitalism ("gospel of prosperity"). By this point, even out-right homosexuals no longer get the censure they once would gotten.

    In the 1960’s, the mainstream Christian community caved to racial multi-culturalism. In the 1970’s, they caved to Feminism. In the 1980’s, they caved to Zionism. In the 1990’s, they caved to Capitalism (“gospel of prosperity”). By this point, even out-right homosexuals no longer get the censure they once would gotten.

    That’s all pretty much true I’m afraid.

  • @Rosie

    and thus overrepresented in the 65+ bracket that shows the most solidarity?
     
    I don't know. Why don't you do the math and find out? Your argument, your burden.

    Either way, at the very least, men don't have higher rates of solidarity than women, as would be expected on various misogynist theories about "women's nature" current in the manosphere.

    Am I wrong to fear “conservative feminism” becoming a thing?
     
    I'm so tired of this stale and fruitless debate about "feminism" which everyone hates but noone will define. If you have any particular concerns that can be articulated in words with clear meaning, I might be able to answer your question.

    I’m so tired of this stale and fruitless debate about “feminism” which everyone hates but noone will define. If you have any particular concerns that can be articulated in words with clear meaning, I might be able to answer your question.

    My prediction regards a potential shift in female voters in the next decade. Certain (white) women will be the losers in the leftist spoils system, and as a result might shift towards the right. But at the same time I don’t predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.

    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    But at the same time I don’t predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.
     
    What "socially liberal views"? As far as I can tell, the only social issues on which women are more liberal than men are gay marriage and women's sexuality. In regards to gay marriage, they tend to believe that gay couples are more similar to heterosexual couples than they really are, so even that reflects conservative instincts of a sort. In the latter case, they're not really more liberal, they just rightly reject double standards where promiscuity is good for the gender but not for the goose.

    Women are more conservative on prostitution than men.

    There may be other differences, but I haven't seen any evidence of any.


    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.
     
    I don't know about that. What I do know is that it's obnoxious to assume without evidence that it's primarily women's fault.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.
     

    And that would be a problem because...
    , @Audacious Epigone
    You think they'll magnanimously say "don't turn out like me?" instead of relentlessly working to justify the life choices that led them into social invisibility in their early forties?
  • @anon
    Once a certain tipping point is reached in the population, immigration cannot be shut off. The United States is finding that out currently. People were much more sensible in the past when the country was more European.

    "New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration."

    President Calvin Coolidge, 1923 State of the Union

    "While not enough time has elapsed to afford a conclusive demonstration, such results as have been secured indicate that our immigration law [restriction] is on the whole beneficial. It is undoubtedly a protection to the wage earners of this country."

    President Calvin Coolidge, 1924 State of the Union

    You got to love BengaleCanadianDude.

    He is a symptom of immigration flaw on this continent. He does not represent himself as Bengali or strictly Canadian (the country that gave him refuge from his shit hole native Bengal) BUT he is Bengali + Canadian + Dude.

    God help us if he finds that his house cleaner grand mother used to give it up to some British overseer during the colonial period. Then he would be………tah dah …………..

    British plus Bengali plus Canadian plus a Dude who know that Calvin was diversity friendly.

    Mr. MultiRacial Immigrant Dude. If you really knew the mentality of the whites back then you would know they had no love for people like you especially ones confused about their heritage.

    If Bengal is so great what are you doing in Canada…oh I forgot..you fled multi ethnic and unfriendly Bengal to go to a white man’s country that is diversity friendly.

    Sorry Bro, I mean Dude, but you will find white Canadians even more subtle than Americans. While they smile at you and with you with those frightfully frozen grins because their politicians say they must, deep inside they despise you. Think about that when you next wax philosophical about multicultural friendly diversity.

    • Replies: @BengaliCanadianDude
    They love me and they hate subhuman dumpster trash like yourself, and they consider you vermin. It's why you're trying to play off that little bump as "secret hatred" lol. Even the ones in Alberta. We all laugh at you trailer trash, and everytime they see you doing your subhuman shenanigans, they immediately call you white trash and disassociate themselves from your room temperature IQ selves. Even before immigrants got here, they took pride in not being American. All of us hate you hicks, it's why we always make fun of you when we see you. LOL you have below average, possibly negroid IQ. When did I say was British? And I do say I'm Canada. bengali is just one part of my ethnicity. You're just another unintelligent lowlife hick, with the intelligence of a negroid. Your people are hated, so go back to that trailer park in the middle of the boonies that are btw always denigrated by any sensible soul in Canada. Who do you think censors you lowlifes? WHo do you think condemns you and calls you degenerates? Other whites. You take pride in this because you're a vapid degenerate who hasn't achieved jack in his life, so you look for something to take pride in.
  • @216

    I’m so tired of this stale and fruitless debate about “feminism” which everyone hates but noone will define. If you have any particular concerns that can be articulated in words with clear meaning, I might be able to answer your question.
     
    My prediction regards a potential shift in female voters in the next decade. Certain (white) women will be the losers in the leftist spoils system, and as a result might shift towards the right. But at the same time I don't predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.

    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.

    But at the same time I don’t predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.

    What “socially liberal views”? As far as I can tell, the only social issues on which women are more liberal than men are gay marriage and women’s sexuality. In regards to gay marriage, they tend to believe that gay couples are more similar to heterosexual couples than they really are, so even that reflects conservative instincts of a sort. In the latter case, they’re not really more liberal, they just rightly reject double standards where promiscuity is good for the gender but not for the goose.

    Women are more conservative on prostitution than men.

    There may be other differences, but I haven’t seen any evidence of any.

    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.

    I don’t know about that. What I do know is that it’s obnoxious to assume without evidence that it’s primarily women’s fault.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.

    And that would be a problem because…

    • Replies: @Rosie
    After I wrote this response it occurred to me that you might not have been referring to women in general, but rather women who previously aligned with the left.

    If that is so, then one might say that White women being pushed out of the democratic party will result in a more "socially liberal" right. That may be, but I would not characterize that as "conservative feminism." It almost sounds like you are equating social liberalism with feminism as if the two were one and the same. They are certainly not the same.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    They consistently show greater opposition to immigration restriction than men do.
  • @Rosie

    But at the same time I don’t predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.
     
    What "socially liberal views"? As far as I can tell, the only social issues on which women are more liberal than men are gay marriage and women's sexuality. In regards to gay marriage, they tend to believe that gay couples are more similar to heterosexual couples than they really are, so even that reflects conservative instincts of a sort. In the latter case, they're not really more liberal, they just rightly reject double standards where promiscuity is good for the gender but not for the goose.

    Women are more conservative on prostitution than men.

    There may be other differences, but I haven't seen any evidence of any.


    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.
     
    I don't know about that. What I do know is that it's obnoxious to assume without evidence that it's primarily women's fault.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.
     

    And that would be a problem because...

    After I wrote this response it occurred to me that you might not have been referring to women in general, but rather women who previously aligned with the left.

    If that is so, then one might say that White women being pushed out of the democratic party will result in a more “socially liberal” right. That may be, but I would not characterize that as “conservative feminism.” It almost sounds like you are equating social liberalism with feminism as if the two were one and the same. They are certainly not the same.

    • Replies: @216

    And that would be a problem because…
     
    I predict men will get the blame

    If that is so, then one might say that White women being pushed out of the democratic party will result in a more “socially liberal” right. That may be, but I would not characterize that as “conservative feminism.” It almost sounds like you are equating social liberalism with feminism as if the two were one and the same. They are certainly not the same.
     
    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.

    The idea of the "Neo-Victorian Consensus" is that center-right parties will develop a politics that accomodates the current fourth wave of feminism, but also appropriates pro-marriage traditionalism and pins the blame on "weak men". The main attraction will be to white women that dislike their loss of intersectional status when the left believes they aren't necessary.

    In microcosm the "sexbot" issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don't want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women's collective interest.

    A society wide political version of Rollo's "Epiphany Phase" if you will.
  • 216 says:
    @Rosie
    After I wrote this response it occurred to me that you might not have been referring to women in general, but rather women who previously aligned with the left.

    If that is so, then one might say that White women being pushed out of the democratic party will result in a more "socially liberal" right. That may be, but I would not characterize that as "conservative feminism." It almost sounds like you are equating social liberalism with feminism as if the two were one and the same. They are certainly not the same.

    And that would be a problem because…

    I predict men will get the blame

    If that is so, then one might say that White women being pushed out of the democratic party will result in a more “socially liberal” right. That may be, but I would not characterize that as “conservative feminism.” It almost sounds like you are equating social liberalism with feminism as if the two were one and the same. They are certainly not the same.

    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.

    The idea of the “Neo-Victorian Consensus” is that center-right parties will develop a politics that accomodates the current fourth wave of feminism, but also appropriates pro-marriage traditionalism and pins the blame on “weak men”. The main attraction will be to white women that dislike their loss of intersectional status when the left believes they aren’t necessary.

    In microcosm the “sexbot” issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.

    A society wide political version of Rollo’s “Epiphany Phase” if you will.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I predict men will get the blame
     
    For what? And with what concrete policy consequences?

    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.
     
    I suppose that's true, but when you mean "social liberalism," you should say "social liberalism." When you mean "feminism," you should say "feminism." Otherwise, it becomes exceedingly difficult to have a conversation that makes any sense.


    In microcosm the “sexbot” issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.
     
    I really don't understand this argument. Sometimes I'm told women don't really want a husband because they can get a job or go on welfare. Then I'm told they really do want a husband and are going to throw a fit about sexbots. I'm told men are natural, prosocial traditionalists who would want children if only women were willing to have them. Then I'm told they would be content with sterile sexbots. When you get really enmeshed in a subculture, it's easy to believe that its articles of faith are logical and self-evident, when in fact they are incoherent nonsense.

    Look, I'm not really that worried about sexbots. They're gross, and frankly, anyone who wants one is a psychopathic defective who probably shouldn't reproduce. Seriously, some serial killers kill just because they want a warm body to satisfy their sexual urges. They are total solipsists who see others not as ends-in-themselves, but rather as means to their own ends.
    That is demonic. They are sick in the head, and probably wouldn't be decent husbands anyway.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.

    Perspicacious. I've heard the claim that it objectifies women, but they're robots. That 'argument' assumes that female simulacrums deserve the same considerations that actual women do. Don't think that one is going to go very far. It didn't work for porn--which involves real women--it's not going to work for sexbots.
  • @216

    And that would be a problem because…
     
    I predict men will get the blame

    If that is so, then one might say that White women being pushed out of the democratic party will result in a more “socially liberal” right. That may be, but I would not characterize that as “conservative feminism.” It almost sounds like you are equating social liberalism with feminism as if the two were one and the same. They are certainly not the same.
     
    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.

    The idea of the "Neo-Victorian Consensus" is that center-right parties will develop a politics that accomodates the current fourth wave of feminism, but also appropriates pro-marriage traditionalism and pins the blame on "weak men". The main attraction will be to white women that dislike their loss of intersectional status when the left believes they aren't necessary.

    In microcosm the "sexbot" issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don't want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women's collective interest.

    A society wide political version of Rollo's "Epiphany Phase" if you will.

    I predict men will get the blame

    For what? And with what concrete policy consequences?

    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.

    I suppose that’s true, but when you mean “social liberalism,” you should say “social liberalism.” When you mean “feminism,” you should say “feminism.” Otherwise, it becomes exceedingly difficult to have a conversation that makes any sense.

    In microcosm the “sexbot” issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.

    I really don’t understand this argument. Sometimes I’m told women don’t really want a husband because they can get a job or go on welfare. Then I’m told they really do want a husband and are going to throw a fit about sexbots. I’m told men are natural, prosocial traditionalists who would want children if only women were willing to have them. Then I’m told they would be content with sterile sexbots. When you get really enmeshed in a subculture, it’s easy to believe that its articles of faith are logical and self-evident, when in fact they are incoherent nonsense.

    Look, I’m not really that worried about sexbots. They’re gross, and frankly, anyone who wants one is a psychopathic defective who probably shouldn’t reproduce. Seriously, some serial killers kill just because they want a warm body to satisfy their sexual urges. They are total solipsists who see others not as ends-in-themselves, but rather as means to their own ends.
    That is demonic. They are sick in the head, and probably wouldn’t be decent husbands anyway.

    • Replies: @216

    For what? And with what concrete policy consequences?
     
    Policy not so much. I foresee the main changes occuring in universities and business.

    Culturally, I foresee the normalization of single mothers in the middle class, and intense steering/shaming of men to pair off with them.

    I really don’t understand this argument. Sometimes I’m told women don’t really want a husband because they can get a job or go on welfare. Then I’m told they really do want a husband and are going to throw a fit about sexbots. I’m told men are natural, prosocial traditionalists who would want children if only women were willing to have them. Then I’m told they would be content with sterile sexbots. When you get really enmeshed in a subculture, it’s easy to believe that its articles of faith are logical and self-evident, when in fact they are incoherent nonsense.
     
    This is either a cornfield of strawmen, or a failure on my part to communicate accurately.

    -Women are content to be single, or worse a single mother; but generally think a husband is preferable though not always up to standards.

    -Most men are not pro-social traditionalists, though some evidence indicates that single fathers are better outcomes than single mothers. Might be selection bias.

    -This community is overrepresented with traditionalists, as is most of the Right. That makes it fertile ground for "tradthots" to be grifters in this sausage fest. But the Unz site has a virtual absence of younger women, so this grifiting problem doesn't exist here.

    -I don't know how popular sexbots would be. It's just an archtypeal example that I thought fit well to the narrative of "Neo Victorian Consensus"

    If you would like a better explanation of manosphere concepts, read The Rational Male - Rollo Tomassi.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect many husbands will get them as side pieces, and their wives will see this as an acceptable compromise to get rid of the risk of husbands stepping out and also to avoid getting frisky as often as their husbands would like to.
  • 216 says:
    @Rosie

    I predict men will get the blame
     
    For what? And with what concrete policy consequences?

    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.
     
    I suppose that's true, but when you mean "social liberalism," you should say "social liberalism." When you mean "feminism," you should say "feminism." Otherwise, it becomes exceedingly difficult to have a conversation that makes any sense.


    In microcosm the “sexbot” issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.
     
    I really don't understand this argument. Sometimes I'm told women don't really want a husband because they can get a job or go on welfare. Then I'm told they really do want a husband and are going to throw a fit about sexbots. I'm told men are natural, prosocial traditionalists who would want children if only women were willing to have them. Then I'm told they would be content with sterile sexbots. When you get really enmeshed in a subculture, it's easy to believe that its articles of faith are logical and self-evident, when in fact they are incoherent nonsense.

    Look, I'm not really that worried about sexbots. They're gross, and frankly, anyone who wants one is a psychopathic defective who probably shouldn't reproduce. Seriously, some serial killers kill just because they want a warm body to satisfy their sexual urges. They are total solipsists who see others not as ends-in-themselves, but rather as means to their own ends.
    That is demonic. They are sick in the head, and probably wouldn't be decent husbands anyway.

    For what? And with what concrete policy consequences?

    Policy not so much. I foresee the main changes occuring in universities and business.

    Culturally, I foresee the normalization of single mothers in the middle class, and intense steering/shaming of men to pair off with them.

    I really don’t understand this argument. Sometimes I’m told women don’t really want a husband because they can get a job or go on welfare. Then I’m told they really do want a husband and are going to throw a fit about sexbots. I’m told men are natural, prosocial traditionalists who would want children if only women were willing to have them. Then I’m told they would be content with sterile sexbots. When you get really enmeshed in a subculture, it’s easy to believe that its articles of faith are logical and self-evident, when in fact they are incoherent nonsense.

    This is either a cornfield of strawmen, or a failure on my part to communicate accurately.

    -Women are content to be single, or worse a single mother; but generally think a husband is preferable though not always up to standards.

    -Most men are not pro-social traditionalists, though some evidence indicates that single fathers are better outcomes than single mothers. Might be selection bias.

    -This community is overrepresented with traditionalists, as is most of the Right. That makes it fertile ground for “tradthots” to be grifters in this sausage fest. But the Unz site has a virtual absence of younger women, so this grifiting problem doesn’t exist here.

    -I don’t know how popular sexbots would be. It’s just an archtypeal example that I thought fit well to the narrative of “Neo Victorian Consensus”

    If you would like a better explanation of manosphere concepts, read The Rational Male – Rollo Tomassi.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If you would like a better explanation of manosphere concepts, read The Rational Male – Rollo Tomassi.
     
    No thanks. I've seen enough.

    -This community is overrepresented with traditionalists, as is most of the Right. That makes it fertile ground for “tradthots” to be grifters in this sausage fest. But the Unz site has a virtual absence of younger women, so this grifiting problem doesn’t exist here.
     
    Yes, women in the dissident right are always insincere "grifters."

    Culturally, I foresee the normalization of single mothers in the middle class, and intense steering/shaming of men to pair off with them.
     
    There's a very easy fix for that: shame the father of the child himself into marrying the mother.

    I asked you why you are so terrified women coming over to the dissident right. You have given me nothing, and in fact have revealed a great deal about yourself. You don't want women in the dissident right. You want if to remain one of the following:

    1. A subcultural ghetto for antisocial malcontents to talk about how much they hate women, or
    more charitably,

    2. a vehicle for men's advocacy.

    The dissident right can't be both a men's advocacy and a White advocacy thing at the same time. You cannot serve two masters. I curse the day Richard Spencer started buddying up with reactionary misogynists.

    I also note that it reflects very poorly on men that it is assumed they will only join the fight for White survival if they are promised 88 virgins in the ethno state.
  • • Replies: @Rosie

    French journalists calculate that women on Tinder (heterosexual) have a 50% success rate, versus 2% for men.

     

    The rational Male isn't so rational, is he?

    This is a perfect example of the manosphere jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on meaningless data.

    If 50% of women on Tinder are "successful," that raises the question of what exactly they are successful at? Finding a relationship, or a pump and dump?

    Moreover, if the success rate was higher, no doubt that would be seen as proof that women are indiscriminate whores who are giving away the milk for free, if (as I understand it to be the case) Tinder is a cheap hookup site.

  • @216

    For what? And with what concrete policy consequences?
     
    Policy not so much. I foresee the main changes occuring in universities and business.

    Culturally, I foresee the normalization of single mothers in the middle class, and intense steering/shaming of men to pair off with them.

    I really don’t understand this argument. Sometimes I’m told women don’t really want a husband because they can get a job or go on welfare. Then I’m told they really do want a husband and are going to throw a fit about sexbots. I’m told men are natural, prosocial traditionalists who would want children if only women were willing to have them. Then I’m told they would be content with sterile sexbots. When you get really enmeshed in a subculture, it’s easy to believe that its articles of faith are logical and self-evident, when in fact they are incoherent nonsense.
     
    This is either a cornfield of strawmen, or a failure on my part to communicate accurately.

    -Women are content to be single, or worse a single mother; but generally think a husband is preferable though not always up to standards.

    -Most men are not pro-social traditionalists, though some evidence indicates that single fathers are better outcomes than single mothers. Might be selection bias.

    -This community is overrepresented with traditionalists, as is most of the Right. That makes it fertile ground for "tradthots" to be grifters in this sausage fest. But the Unz site has a virtual absence of younger women, so this grifiting problem doesn't exist here.

    -I don't know how popular sexbots would be. It's just an archtypeal example that I thought fit well to the narrative of "Neo Victorian Consensus"

    If you would like a better explanation of manosphere concepts, read The Rational Male - Rollo Tomassi.

    If you would like a better explanation of manosphere concepts, read The Rational Male – Rollo Tomassi.

    No thanks. I’ve seen enough.

    -This community is overrepresented with traditionalists, as is most of the Right. That makes it fertile ground for “tradthots” to be grifters in this sausage fest. But the Unz site has a virtual absence of younger women, so this grifiting problem doesn’t exist here.

    Yes, women in the dissident right are always insincere “grifters.”

    Culturally, I foresee the normalization of single mothers in the middle class, and intense steering/shaming of men to pair off with them.

    There’s a very easy fix for that: shame the father of the child himself into marrying the mother.

    I asked you why you are so terrified women coming over to the dissident right. You have given me nothing, and in fact have revealed a great deal about yourself. You don’t want women in the dissident right. You want if to remain one of the following:

    1. A subcultural ghetto for antisocial malcontents to talk about how much they hate women, or
    more charitably,

    2. a vehicle for men’s advocacy.

    The dissident right can’t be both a men’s advocacy and a White advocacy thing at the same time. You cannot serve two masters. I curse the day Richard Spencer started buddying up with reactionary misogynists.

    I also note that it reflects very poorly on men that it is assumed they will only join the fight for White survival if they are promised 88 virgins in the ethno state.

  • @216
    https://twitter.com/RationalMale/status/1155492830736834560

    French journalists calculate that women on Tinder (heterosexual) have a 50% success rate, versus 2% for men.

    The rational Male isn’t so rational, is he?

    This is a perfect example of the manosphere jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on meaningless data.

    If 50% of women on Tinder are “successful,” that raises the question of what exactly they are successful at? Finding a relationship, or a pump and dump?

    Moreover, if the success rate was higher, no doubt that would be seen as proof that women are indiscriminate whores who are giving away the milk for free, if (as I understand it to be the case) Tinder is a cheap hookup site.

    • Replies: @216

    If 50% of women on Tinder are “successful,” that raises the question of what exactly they are successful at? Finding a relationship, or a pump and dump?
     
    Don't be obtuse

    2. a vehicle for men’s advocacy.
     
    Patriarchy is civilization

    Yes, women in the dissident right are always insincere “grifters.”
     
    If you paid attention to nuance, you'd see that I frequently fault men for being thirsty and being tricked by e-girls.

    I don't encourage the policing of female behavior by men, but I do encourage men to police themselves and their peer group.
  • 216 says:
    @Rosie

    French journalists calculate that women on Tinder (heterosexual) have a 50% success rate, versus 2% for men.

     

    The rational Male isn't so rational, is he?

    This is a perfect example of the manosphere jumping to unwarranted conclusions based on meaningless data.

    If 50% of women on Tinder are "successful," that raises the question of what exactly they are successful at? Finding a relationship, or a pump and dump?

    Moreover, if the success rate was higher, no doubt that would be seen as proof that women are indiscriminate whores who are giving away the milk for free, if (as I understand it to be the case) Tinder is a cheap hookup site.

    If 50% of women on Tinder are “successful,” that raises the question of what exactly they are successful at? Finding a relationship, or a pump and dump?

    Don’t be obtuse

    2. a vehicle for men’s advocacy.

    Patriarchy is civilization

    Yes, women in the dissident right are always insincere “grifters.”

    If you paid attention to nuance, you’d see that I frequently fault men for being thirsty and being tricked by e-girls.

    I don’t encourage the policing of female behavior by men, but I do encourage men to police themselves and their peer group.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Don’t be obtuse
     
    I'm not being obtuse. Whether an endeavour is "successful" depends very much on how success is defined.


    Patriarchy is civilization
     
    So you say. Well then I guess rural Indians must be the most "civilized" of all.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/


    I don’t encourage the policing of female behavior by men, but I do encourage men to police themselves and their peer group.
     
    Right, and by "policing" Male behavior, I suspect you mean doing anything that could be construed as "cucking.," such as (but not limited to) marrying a single mother because you fell in love with her and the kid is adorable. (Yes, believe it or not, this happens.)

    Amirite?
  • @216

    If 50% of women on Tinder are “successful,” that raises the question of what exactly they are successful at? Finding a relationship, or a pump and dump?
     
    Don't be obtuse

    2. a vehicle for men’s advocacy.
     
    Patriarchy is civilization

    Yes, women in the dissident right are always insincere “grifters.”
     
    If you paid attention to nuance, you'd see that I frequently fault men for being thirsty and being tricked by e-girls.

    I don't encourage the policing of female behavior by men, but I do encourage men to police themselves and their peer group.

    Don’t be obtuse

    I’m not being obtuse. Whether an endeavour is “successful” depends very much on how success is defined.

    Patriarchy is civilization

    So you say. Well then I guess rural Indians must be the most “civilized” of all.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/

    I don’t encourage the policing of female behavior by men, but I do encourage men to police themselves and their peer group.

    Right, and by “policing” Male behavior, I suspect you mean doing anything that could be construed as “cucking.,” such as (but not limited to) marrying a single mother because you fell in love with her and the kid is adorable. (Yes, believe it or not, this happens.)

    Amirite?

    • Replies: @216

    I suspect you mean doing anything that could be construed as “cucking.,” such as (but not limited to) marrying a single mother because you fell in love with her and the kid is adorable. (Yes, believe it or not, this happens.)
     
    For the vast majority of men, that's a bad idea.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/
    , @Mr. Rational

    Well then I guess rural Indians must be the most “civilized” of all.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/

     
    India may be patriarchal, but it is not a Western civilization, never has been, and never can be.  It is hyper-reactionary and cannot escape its own past.

    Contributing the concept of zero does not make it a part of the west.  "What have you done for us lately?  Caste society?  Sorry, we got rid of that in the 19th century; this is the 21st.  Pls try again after evolving.  Call us up in a century."
  • 216 says:
    @Rosie

    Don’t be obtuse
     
    I'm not being obtuse. Whether an endeavour is "successful" depends very much on how success is defined.


    Patriarchy is civilization
     
    So you say. Well then I guess rural Indians must be the most "civilized" of all.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/


    I don’t encourage the policing of female behavior by men, but I do encourage men to police themselves and their peer group.
     
    Right, and by "policing" Male behavior, I suspect you mean doing anything that could be construed as "cucking.," such as (but not limited to) marrying a single mother because you fell in love with her and the kid is adorable. (Yes, believe it or not, this happens.)

    Amirite?

    I suspect you mean doing anything that could be construed as “cucking.,” such as (but not limited to) marrying a single mother because you fell in love with her and the kid is adorable. (Yes, believe it or not, this happens.)

    For the vast majority of men, that’s a bad idea.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/

    • Replies: @Rosie

    For the vast majority of men, that’s a bad idea.
     
    It's nt any of your damned business in any case.

    Men shouldn't marry single mothers.
    Single mothers shouldn't get welfare.

    It always comes down to forced prostitution with you people.

    https://altdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/rhymes4.jpg
  • @Rosie

    Don’t be obtuse
     
    I'm not being obtuse. Whether an endeavour is "successful" depends very much on how success is defined.


    Patriarchy is civilization
     
    So you say. Well then I guess rural Indians must be the most "civilized" of all.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/


    I don’t encourage the policing of female behavior by men, but I do encourage men to police themselves and their peer group.
     
    Right, and by "policing" Male behavior, I suspect you mean doing anything that could be construed as "cucking.," such as (but not limited to) marrying a single mother because you fell in love with her and the kid is adorable. (Yes, believe it or not, this happens.)

    Amirite?

    Well then I guess rural Indians must be the most “civilized” of all.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/

    India may be patriarchal, but it is not a Western civilization, never has been, and never can be.  It is hyper-reactionary and cannot escape its own past.

    Contributing the concept of zero does not make it a part of the west.  “What have you done for us lately?  Caste society?  Sorry, we got rid of that in the 19th century; this is the 21st.  Pls try again after evolving.  Call us up in a century.”

    • Replies: @Rosie

    India may be patriarchal, but it is not a Western civilization, never has been, and never can be.
     
    That's really besides the point.

    The fact is that when you start oppressing women, you have to keep tightening the screws to maintain control.

    Virginity a must for marriage? Then you'll have to arrange a marriage for her at 13 so she doesn't get "damaged" going to school. Whom should she marry? Well you're going to need at least one adult in the "family" so she'll have to marry someone twice her age who will never respect her as anything remotely resembling an equal partner. She hates him? Well, you can't let her leave the house or she'll find a lover she doesn't hate and run away with him, or worse yet, "cuck" you. You want her to do the grocery shopping? Put her in a burqa so nobody can see her. And what's the best way to prevent yourself getting "cucked"? Why, get her pregnant yourself of course! Then you can treat her like total shit, because where is she gonna go, right? No man will want to raise "another man's spawn"! Your mother certainly doesn't want you back at the house. She needs to save for retirement, or feed her sons, who might actually earn money and be some use to her in her old age.

    And on and on it goes, till the next thing you know you've killed eight of your daughters for one reason or another. Reactionaries are every bit as short-sighted and reckless as revolutionaries concocting utopias in their heads that never were and never can be. The result is a veritable dystopian hellscape of human misery.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-childmarriage-fistula/teenage-brides-suffer-pain-and-shame-of-fistula-idUSTRE7731E520110804

  • @216

    I suspect you mean doing anything that could be construed as “cucking.,” such as (but not limited to) marrying a single mother because you fell in love with her and the kid is adorable. (Yes, believe it or not, this happens.)
     
    For the vast majority of men, that's a bad idea.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen/

    For the vast majority of men, that’s a bad idea.

    It’s nt any of your damned business in any case.

    Men shouldn’t marry single mothers.
    Single mothers shouldn’t get welfare.

    It always comes down to forced prostitution with you people.

  • @Mr. Rational

    Well then I guess rural Indians must be the most “civilized” of all.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/trash-bin-babies-indias-female-infanticide-crisis/257672/

     
    India may be patriarchal, but it is not a Western civilization, never has been, and never can be.  It is hyper-reactionary and cannot escape its own past.

    Contributing the concept of zero does not make it a part of the west.  "What have you done for us lately?  Caste society?  Sorry, we got rid of that in the 19th century; this is the 21st.  Pls try again after evolving.  Call us up in a century."

    India may be patriarchal, but it is not a Western civilization, never has been, and never can be.

    That’s really besides the point.

    The fact is that when you start oppressing women, you have to keep tightening the screws to maintain control.

    Virginity a must for marriage? Then you’ll have to arrange a marriage for her at 13 so she doesn’t get “damaged” going to school. Whom should she marry? Well you’re going to need at least one adult in the “family” so she’ll have to marry someone twice her age who will never respect her as anything remotely resembling an equal partner. She hates him? Well, you can’t let her leave the house or she’ll find a lover she doesn’t hate and run away with him, or worse yet, “cuck” you. You want her to do the grocery shopping? Put her in a burqa so nobody can see her. And what’s the best way to prevent yourself getting “cucked”? Why, get her pregnant yourself of course! Then you can treat her like total shit, because where is she gonna go, right? No man will want to raise “another man’s spawn”! Your mother certainly doesn’t want you back at the house. She needs to save for retirement, or feed her sons, who might actually earn money and be some use to her in her old age.

    And on and on it goes, till the next thing you know you’ve killed eight of your daughters for one reason or another. Reactionaries are every bit as short-sighted and reckless as revolutionaries concocting utopias in their heads that never were and never can be. The result is a veritable dystopian hellscape of human misery.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-childmarriage-fistula/teenage-brides-suffer-pain-and-shame-of-fistula-idUSTRE7731E520110804

  • @216

    I’m so tired of this stale and fruitless debate about “feminism” which everyone hates but noone will define. If you have any particular concerns that can be articulated in words with clear meaning, I might be able to answer your question.
     
    My prediction regards a potential shift in female voters in the next decade. Certain (white) women will be the losers in the leftist spoils system, and as a result might shift towards the right. But at the same time I don't predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.

    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.

    You think they’ll magnanimously say “don’t turn out like me?” instead of relentlessly working to justify the life choices that led them into social invisibility in their early forties?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You think they’ll magnanimously say “don’t turn out like me?” instead of relentlessly working to justify the life choices that led them into social invisibility in their early forties?
     
    Yes, older people sometimes make it a point to instruct young people not to make the same mistakes they did. You have a very cynical view of human nature. I can only speculate that you know a lot of shitty people.
    , @216
    One thing we can certainly expect is excess amounts of mad science to squeeze out a biological child in their 40s. Possible increase in adoptions.

    I regrettably can't find any data on "regret" in earlier cohorts, so I will post these instead

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/09/silent-apartment.html

    https://therationalmale.com/2012/12/19/the-epiphany-phase/

    https://blacklabellogic.com/2018/11/09/the-male-epiphany-phase/

    ---

    I think it goes without saying that older women have a certain "scold" role in society, that affects a policing of younger women. Dress codes are an example, to limit the power of younger women to exploit their sexuality.

    So one leading indicator to confirm the "Neo Victorian Consensus" hypothesis will be in fashion trends.

    Reproduction is such a primal biological factor that I cannot imagine that political self-justification will override it. Cat ladies are the new neoconservatives.
  • @Rosie

    But at the same time I don’t predict that these women will alter their otherwise social liberal views.
     
    What "socially liberal views"? As far as I can tell, the only social issues on which women are more liberal than men are gay marriage and women's sexuality. In regards to gay marriage, they tend to believe that gay couples are more similar to heterosexual couples than they really are, so even that reflects conservative instincts of a sort. In the latter case, they're not really more liberal, they just rightly reject double standards where promiscuity is good for the gender but not for the goose.

    Women are more conservative on prostitution than men.

    There may be other differences, but I haven't seen any evidence of any.


    Your view, IIRC, is that the rise of unmarried women is primarily the fault of men unwilling to propose.
     
    I don't know about that. What I do know is that it's obnoxious to assume without evidence that it's primarily women's fault.

    My thinking is that post-40 Millennial women will adopt a pro-marriage posture for younger women after being unable to get it themselves.
     

    And that would be a problem because...

    They consistently show greater opposition to immigration restriction than men do.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    They consistently show greater opposition to immigration restriction than men do.
     
    OK. Let's review:

    http://www.jordanpfowler.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Should_I_Say_This.jpg

    I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's true that women are more opposed to immigration restriction than men. (I am not at all certain of that BTW.)

    We move on to our other questions. Is it beneficial (kind, inspiring, or helpful)?

    Kind? No.
    Inspiring? No.
    Helppful?

    It is no help at all for you to bang on about this, AE. First of all, just how much more opposed are women to immigration restriction.

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that men favor a border wall by 80%, and women only by 70%. Is it true that women are "more opposed" to immigration restriction than men? Yes, but then it is also true that:

    1. Women support immigration restriction.
    2. The chief obstacle to immigration restriction is not women but (male) demand for cheap labor.

    Now, suppose women are less supportive of immigration enforcement than that. Then the question becomes why that is. It's not our that the (((certain people))) control the media and make us feel guilty about taking our own side. You can't disenfranchise women (which is the point of all this, I'm sure, though you don't come right out and say so) until you get rid of the hostile elite. Once you've gotten rid of the hostile elite, you won't need to disenfranchise us. Moreover, if you go on bloviating about how we need to be disenfranchised, you're unlikely to ever get rid of (((them))).

    You're attacking women for no reason, AE, and you're smart enough to know it.
  • @216

    And that would be a problem because…
     
    I predict men will get the blame

    If that is so, then one might say that White women being pushed out of the democratic party will result in a more “socially liberal” right. That may be, but I would not characterize that as “conservative feminism.” It almost sounds like you are equating social liberalism with feminism as if the two were one and the same. They are certainly not the same.
     
    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.

    The idea of the "Neo-Victorian Consensus" is that center-right parties will develop a politics that accomodates the current fourth wave of feminism, but also appropriates pro-marriage traditionalism and pins the blame on "weak men". The main attraction will be to white women that dislike their loss of intersectional status when the left believes they aren't necessary.

    In microcosm the "sexbot" issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don't want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women's collective interest.

    A society wide political version of Rollo's "Epiphany Phase" if you will.

    Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.

    Perspicacious. I’ve heard the claim that it objectifies women, but they’re robots. That ‘argument’ assumes that female simulacrums deserve the same considerations that actual women do. Don’t think that one is going to go very far. It didn’t work for porn–which involves real women–it’s not going to work for sexbots.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It didn’t work for porn–which involves real women–it’s not going to work for sexbots.
     
    The problem with sexbots is not that they objectify women. It's that they are perverted. Sex outside the context of a real human connection (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act) is filthy, degrading, gross, and dehumanizing. It is not dehumanizing to women, though. It's dehumanizing to the men who would use them. I'm told that you don't need to be religious to have sound moral instincts. I'd like to believe that's true, but conversations like this really make me wonder.
  • @Rosie

    I predict men will get the blame
     
    For what? And with what concrete policy consequences?

    They do overlap, its highly unusual to see a Roissy that likes social liberalism but dislikes feminism.
     
    I suppose that's true, but when you mean "social liberalism," you should say "social liberalism." When you mean "feminism," you should say "feminism." Otherwise, it becomes exceedingly difficult to have a conversation that makes any sense.


    In microcosm the “sexbot” issue might be an archetype. Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.
     
    I really don't understand this argument. Sometimes I'm told women don't really want a husband because they can get a job or go on welfare. Then I'm told they really do want a husband and are going to throw a fit about sexbots. I'm told men are natural, prosocial traditionalists who would want children if only women were willing to have them. Then I'm told they would be content with sterile sexbots. When you get really enmeshed in a subculture, it's easy to believe that its articles of faith are logical and self-evident, when in fact they are incoherent nonsense.

    Look, I'm not really that worried about sexbots. They're gross, and frankly, anyone who wants one is a psychopathic defective who probably shouldn't reproduce. Seriously, some serial killers kill just because they want a warm body to satisfy their sexual urges. They are total solipsists who see others not as ends-in-themselves, but rather as means to their own ends.
    That is demonic. They are sick in the head, and probably wouldn't be decent husbands anyway.

    I suspect many husbands will get them as side pieces, and their wives will see this as an acceptable compromise to get rid of the risk of husbands stepping out and also to avoid getting frisky as often as their husbands would like to.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I suspect many husbands will get them as side pieces, and their wives will see this as an acceptable compromise to get rid of the risk of husbands stepping out and also to avoid getting frisky as often as their husbands would like to.
     
    I doubt that. It will either be me or the sexbot, most wives will say. In any case, a man shouldn't a sexbot to stay out of trouble. If he does, he has too much time (ahem) on his hands.
  • @Audacious Epigone
    You think they'll magnanimously say "don't turn out like me?" instead of relentlessly working to justify the life choices that led them into social invisibility in their early forties?

    You think they’ll magnanimously say “don’t turn out like me?” instead of relentlessly working to justify the life choices that led them into social invisibility in their early forties?

    Yes, older people sometimes make it a point to instruct young people not to make the same mistakes they did. You have a very cynical view of human nature. I can only speculate that you know a lot of shitty people.

  • @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect many husbands will get them as side pieces, and their wives will see this as an acceptable compromise to get rid of the risk of husbands stepping out and also to avoid getting frisky as often as their husbands would like to.

    I suspect many husbands will get them as side pieces, and their wives will see this as an acceptable compromise to get rid of the risk of husbands stepping out and also to avoid getting frisky as often as their husbands would like to.

    I doubt that. It will either be me or the sexbot, most wives will say. In any case, a man shouldn’t a sexbot to stay out of trouble. If he does, he has too much time (ahem) on his hands.

  • @Audacious Epigone
    They consistently show greater opposition to immigration restriction than men do.

    They consistently show greater opposition to immigration restriction than men do.

    OK. Let’s review:

    I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it’s true that women are more opposed to immigration restriction than men. (I am not at all certain of that BTW.)

    We move on to our other questions. Is it beneficial (kind, inspiring, or helpful)?

    Kind? No.
    Inspiring? No.
    Helppful?

    It is no help at all for you to bang on about this, AE. First of all, just how much more opposed are women to immigration restriction.

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that men favor a border wall by 80%, and women only by 70%. Is it true that women are “more opposed” to immigration restriction than men? Yes, but then it is also true that:

    1. Women support immigration restriction.
    2. The chief obstacle to immigration restriction is not women but (male) demand for cheap labor.

    Now, suppose women are less supportive of immigration enforcement than that. Then the question becomes why that is. It’s not our that the (((certain people))) control the media and make us feel guilty about taking our own side. You can’t disenfranchise women (which is the point of all this, I’m sure, though you don’t come right out and say so) until you get rid of the hostile elite. Once you’ve gotten rid of the hostile elite, you won’t need to disenfranchise us. Moreover, if you go on bloviating about how we need to be disenfranchised, you’re unlikely to ever get rid of (((them))).

    You’re attacking women for no reason, AE, and you’re smart enough to know it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Shorter Rosie:  "Shut up," she explained.
  • @Audacious Epigone
    Liberals have literally no arguments against their existence that are grounded in liberalism. So feminists, who don’t want competition, will have to use conservative arguments that they are bad for stability, family formation and bad for women’s collective interest.

    Perspicacious. I've heard the claim that it objectifies women, but they're robots. That 'argument' assumes that female simulacrums deserve the same considerations that actual women do. Don't think that one is going to go very far. It didn't work for porn--which involves real women--it's not going to work for sexbots.

    It didn’t work for porn–which involves real women–it’s not going to work for sexbots.

    The problem with sexbots is not that they objectify women. It’s that they are perverted. Sex outside the context of a real human connection (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act) is filthy, degrading, gross, and dehumanizing. It is not dehumanizing to women, though. It’s dehumanizing to the men who would use them. I’m told that you don’t need to be religious to have sound moral instincts. I’d like to believe that’s true, but conversations like this really make me wonder.

    • Replies: @iffen
    procreation, the only thing that redeems the act)

    Wow!

    No, Double Wow!
    , @216
    This is not a bad argument.

    But there's a problem.

    Feminists cannot be logically consistent, because they've cheered on birth control and "marital aids".

    Now, maybe they are so powerful that they can get an Auster "unprincipled exception", but I've got my doubts about that.

    ---

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators "dehumanizing" to women.
  • @Rosie

    They consistently show greater opposition to immigration restriction than men do.
     
    OK. Let's review:

    http://www.jordanpfowler.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Should_I_Say_This.jpg

    I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's true that women are more opposed to immigration restriction than men. (I am not at all certain of that BTW.)

    We move on to our other questions. Is it beneficial (kind, inspiring, or helpful)?

    Kind? No.
    Inspiring? No.
    Helppful?

    It is no help at all for you to bang on about this, AE. First of all, just how much more opposed are women to immigration restriction.

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that men favor a border wall by 80%, and women only by 70%. Is it true that women are "more opposed" to immigration restriction than men? Yes, but then it is also true that:

    1. Women support immigration restriction.
    2. The chief obstacle to immigration restriction is not women but (male) demand for cheap labor.

    Now, suppose women are less supportive of immigration enforcement than that. Then the question becomes why that is. It's not our that the (((certain people))) control the media and make us feel guilty about taking our own side. You can't disenfranchise women (which is the point of all this, I'm sure, though you don't come right out and say so) until you get rid of the hostile elite. Once you've gotten rid of the hostile elite, you won't need to disenfranchise us. Moreover, if you go on bloviating about how we need to be disenfranchised, you're unlikely to ever get rid of (((them))).

    You're attacking women for no reason, AE, and you're smart enough to know it.

    Shorter Rosie:  “Shut up,” she explained.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Shorter Rosie: “Shut up,” she explained.
     
    Indeed.

    Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

    For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

  • @Mr. Rational
    Shorter Rosie:  "Shut up," she explained.

    Shorter Rosie: “Shut up,” she explained.

    Indeed.

    Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

    For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

  • @Rosie

    It didn’t work for porn–which involves real women–it’s not going to work for sexbots.
     
    The problem with sexbots is not that they objectify women. It's that they are perverted. Sex outside the context of a real human connection (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act) is filthy, degrading, gross, and dehumanizing. It is not dehumanizing to women, though. It's dehumanizing to the men who would use them. I'm told that you don't need to be religious to have sound moral instincts. I'd like to believe that's true, but conversations like this really make me wonder.

    procreation, the only thing that redeems the act)

    Wow!

    No, Double Wow!

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Wow!
     
    Don't you "wow just wow" me, iffen.

    You know fapping to porn makes you feel dirty, so don't play dumb. Everyone is aware of the degrading nature of sex-for-pleasure-only, people just pretend otherwise.

  • @iffen
    procreation, the only thing that redeems the act)

    Wow!

    No, Double Wow!

    Wow!

    Don’t you “wow just wow” me, iffen.

    You know fapping to porn makes you feel dirty, so don’t play dumb. Everyone is aware of the degrading nature of sex-for-pleasure-only, people just pretend otherwise.

  • Everyone is aware of the degrading nature of sex-for-pleasure-only, people just pretend otherwise.

    Well ,you have found one who is unaware. And I only pretend when it is absolutely essential, and this ain’t one of those times.

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.

    It’s basic kindergarten stuff, Rosie. Don’t you remember learning that if you really, really, really like someone, you will let them play with your toys?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.
     
    Of course it is!

    Sex is both unitive and procreative. I'm not saying married couples shouldn't have sex for pleasure.

    But robot sex, and fapping to porn, is neither.

    I'm not saying you're going to burn in hellfire for the occasional fap. I'm just saying that it's degrading, and certainly an abuse of sexuality insofar as you are not using it for God's intended purposes.
    , @dfordoom

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.
     
    But what if you're using it as a bonding mechanism between yourself and your sexbot? Doesn't that make it a beautiful thing?

    OK, I apologise, I'm being silly.

    Mind you, I think it is possible that people actually will develop emotional attachments to their sexbots. It would of course require the sexbots to be considerably more advanced than anything possible at the moment. And Im not saying it would be a good thing. I'm just saying it's likely to happen.

    Check out the movie Cherry 2000 for a glimpse of what might happen.
  • @iffen
    Everyone is aware of the degrading nature of sex-for-pleasure-only, people just pretend otherwise.

    Well ,you have found one who is unaware. And I only pretend when it is absolutely essential, and this ain't one of those times.

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.

    It's basic kindergarten stuff, Rosie. Don't you remember learning that if you really, really, really like someone, you will let them play with your toys?

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.

    Of course it is!

    Sex is both unitive and procreative. I’m not saying married couples shouldn’t have sex for pleasure.

    But robot sex, and fapping to porn, is neither.

    I’m not saying you’re going to burn in hellfire for the occasional fap. I’m just saying that it’s degrading, and certainly an abuse of sexuality insofar as you are not using it for God’s intended purposes.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I’m not saying married couples shouldn’t have sex for pleasure.

    But you did, Rosie.

    (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act

    I suppose you could mean something by only that I don't understand.

  • @jester
    You got to love BengaleCanadianDude.

    He is a symptom of immigration flaw on this continent. He does not represent himself as Bengali or strictly Canadian (the country that gave him refuge from his shit hole native Bengal) BUT he is Bengali + Canadian + Dude.

    God help us if he finds that his house cleaner grand mother used to give it up to some British overseer during the colonial period. Then he would be.........tah dah ..............

    British plus Bengali plus Canadian plus a Dude who know that Calvin was diversity friendly.

    Mr. MultiRacial Immigrant Dude. If you really knew the mentality of the whites back then you would know they had no love for people like you especially ones confused about their heritage.

    If Bengal is so great what are you doing in Canada...oh I forgot..you fled multi ethnic and unfriendly Bengal to go to a white man's country that is diversity friendly.

    Sorry Bro, I mean Dude, but you will find white Canadians even more subtle than Americans. While they smile at you and with you with those frightfully frozen grins because their politicians say they must, deep inside they despise you. Think about that when you next wax philosophical about multicultural friendly diversity.

    They love me and they hate subhuman dumpster trash like yourself, and they consider you vermin. It’s why you’re trying to play off that little bump as “secret hatred” lol. Even the ones in Alberta. We all laugh at you trailer trash, and everytime they see you doing your subhuman shenanigans, they immediately call you white trash and disassociate themselves from your room temperature IQ selves. Even before immigrants got here, they took pride in not being American. All of us hate you hicks, it’s why we always make fun of you when we see you. LOL you have below average, possibly negroid IQ. When did I say was British? And I do say I’m Canada. bengali is just one part of my ethnicity. You’re just another unintelligent lowlife hick, with the intelligence of a negroid. Your people are hated, so go back to that trailer park in the middle of the boonies that are btw always denigrated by any sensible soul in Canada. Who do you think censors you lowlifes? WHo do you think condemns you and calls you degenerates? Other whites. You take pride in this because you’re a vapid degenerate who hasn’t achieved jack in his life, so you look for something to take pride in.

  • @Rosie

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.
     
    Of course it is!

    Sex is both unitive and procreative. I'm not saying married couples shouldn't have sex for pleasure.

    But robot sex, and fapping to porn, is neither.

    I'm not saying you're going to burn in hellfire for the occasional fap. I'm just saying that it's degrading, and certainly an abuse of sexuality insofar as you are not using it for God's intended purposes.

    I’m not saying married couples shouldn’t have sex for pleasure.

    But you did, Rosie.

    (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act

    I suppose you could mean something by only that I don’t understand.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I suppose you could mean something by only that I don’t understand.
     
    Sex outside the context of a real human connection (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act)

    I was assuming H and W have a real human connection.

  • @iffen
    I’m not saying married couples shouldn’t have sex for pleasure.

    But you did, Rosie.

    (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act

    I suppose you could mean something by only that I don't understand.

    I suppose you could mean something by only that I don’t understand.

    Sex outside the context of a real human connection (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act)

    I was assuming H and W have a real human connection.

  • @Rosie

    It didn’t work for porn–which involves real women–it’s not going to work for sexbots.
     
    The problem with sexbots is not that they objectify women. It's that they are perverted. Sex outside the context of a real human connection (along with procreation, the only thing that redeems the act) is filthy, degrading, gross, and dehumanizing. It is not dehumanizing to women, though. It's dehumanizing to the men who would use them. I'm told that you don't need to be religious to have sound moral instincts. I'd like to believe that's true, but conversations like this really make me wonder.

    This is not a bad argument.

    But there’s a problem.

    Feminists cannot be logically consistent, because they’ve cheered on birth control and “marital aids”.

    Now, maybe they are so powerful that they can get an Auster “unprincipled exception”, but I’ve got my doubts about that.

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators “dehumanizing” to women.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators “dehumanizing” to women.
     
    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women's sexuality doesn't mean the reverse holds true. Really, you're projecting here.

    On the question of whether vibrators are dehumanizing to women, yes they are insofar as all masturbation is dehumanizing, but only to that extent.

    The more thought and meticulous planning that goes into masturbation, the more all-consuming, and thus dehumanizing, it becomes. All addictions are dehumanizing, especially drug addictions, but sex addiction can also get out of control. Someone who would spend thousands of dollars on a sexbot has serious issues as far as I'm concerned.

    And then there's the fact that some people kill themselves jerking off. Seriously, how pathetic can you get?

    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51776
  • @Audacious Epigone
    You think they'll magnanimously say "don't turn out like me?" instead of relentlessly working to justify the life choices that led them into social invisibility in their early forties?

    One thing we can certainly expect is excess amounts of mad science to squeeze out a biological child in their 40s. Possible increase in adoptions.

    I regrettably can’t find any data on “regret” in earlier cohorts, so I will post these instead

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2006/09/silent-apartment.html

    https://therationalmale.com/2012/12/19/the-epiphany-phase/

    https://blacklabellogic.com/2018/11/09/the-male-epiphany-phase/

    I think it goes without saying that older women have a certain “scold” role in society, that affects a policing of younger women. Dress codes are an example, to limit the power of younger women to exploit their sexuality.

    So one leading indicator to confirm the “Neo Victorian Consensus” hypothesis will be in fashion trends.

    Reproduction is such a primal biological factor that I cannot imagine that political self-justification will override it. Cat ladies are the new neoconservatives.

  • @216
    This is not a bad argument.

    But there's a problem.

    Feminists cannot be logically consistent, because they've cheered on birth control and "marital aids".

    Now, maybe they are so powerful that they can get an Auster "unprincipled exception", but I've got my doubts about that.

    ---

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators "dehumanizing" to women.

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators “dehumanizing” to women.

    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality doesn’t mean the reverse holds true. Really, you’re projecting here.

    On the question of whether vibrators are dehumanizing to women, yes they are insofar as all masturbation is dehumanizing, but only to that extent.

    The more thought and meticulous planning that goes into masturbation, the more all-consuming, and thus dehumanizing, it becomes. All addictions are dehumanizing, especially drug addictions, but sex addiction can also get out of control. Someone who would spend thousands of dollars on a sexbot has serious issues as far as I’m concerned.

    And then there’s the fact that some people kill themselves jerking off. Seriously, how pathetic can you get?

    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51776

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Just for gits and shiggles: the most expensive vibrator in the world apparently belongs to one Gwynneth Paltrow and is worth about a million bucks.

    https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fsusannahbreslin%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F10%2Fmost-expensive-sex-toy.jpg

    , @Rosie

    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality doesn’t mean the reverse holds true. Really, you’re projecting here.
     
    The data on public opinion about prostitution do not support the notion that women oppose it out of a desire to "control beta Male sexuality." While women are much more likely to believe it should be illegal, the overwhelming majority of both men and women reject harsh punitive measures (prison) against either buyers or sellers. In either case, it's around 20%, give or take a point or two. The majority would support a small fine or community service.

    There's a link to the poll here. See items 5 and 6.

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/10/prostitution

    , @Mr. Rational

    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality
     
    "Mama's baby, daddy's maybe."  If there's insufficient certainty of paternity, men will not invest.

    If you want civilization, control of women's sexuality is essential.
  • @Rosie

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators “dehumanizing” to women.
     
    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women's sexuality doesn't mean the reverse holds true. Really, you're projecting here.

    On the question of whether vibrators are dehumanizing to women, yes they are insofar as all masturbation is dehumanizing, but only to that extent.

    The more thought and meticulous planning that goes into masturbation, the more all-consuming, and thus dehumanizing, it becomes. All addictions are dehumanizing, especially drug addictions, but sex addiction can also get out of control. Someone who would spend thousands of dollars on a sexbot has serious issues as far as I'm concerned.

    And then there's the fact that some people kill themselves jerking off. Seriously, how pathetic can you get?

    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51776

    Just for gits and shiggles: the most expensive vibrator in the world apparently belongs to one Gwynneth Paltrow and is worth about a million bucks.

    • Replies: @216
    Does schoolmarm approve?
  • @Rosie
    Just for gits and shiggles: the most expensive vibrator in the world apparently belongs to one Gwynneth Paltrow and is worth about a million bucks.

    https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fsusannahbreslin%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F10%2Fmost-expensive-sex-toy.jpg

    Does schoolmarm approve?

  • @Rosie

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators “dehumanizing” to women.
     
    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women's sexuality doesn't mean the reverse holds true. Really, you're projecting here.

    On the question of whether vibrators are dehumanizing to women, yes they are insofar as all masturbation is dehumanizing, but only to that extent.

    The more thought and meticulous planning that goes into masturbation, the more all-consuming, and thus dehumanizing, it becomes. All addictions are dehumanizing, especially drug addictions, but sex addiction can also get out of control. Someone who would spend thousands of dollars on a sexbot has serious issues as far as I'm concerned.

    And then there's the fact that some people kill themselves jerking off. Seriously, how pathetic can you get?

    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51776

    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality doesn’t mean the reverse holds true. Really, you’re projecting here.

    The data on public opinion about prostitution do not support the notion that women oppose it out of a desire to “control beta Male sexuality.” While women are much more likely to believe it should be illegal, the overwhelming majority of both men and women reject harsh punitive measures (prison) against either buyers or sellers. In either case, it’s around 20%, give or take a point or two. The majority would support a small fine or community service.

    There’s a link to the poll here. See items 5 and 6.

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/03/10/prostitution

  • @iffen
    Everyone is aware of the degrading nature of sex-for-pleasure-only, people just pretend otherwise.

    Well ,you have found one who is unaware. And I only pretend when it is absolutely essential, and this ain't one of those times.

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.

    It's basic kindergarten stuff, Rosie. Don't you remember learning that if you really, really, really like someone, you will let them play with your toys?

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.

    But what if you’re using it as a bonding mechanism between yourself and your sexbot? Doesn’t that make it a beautiful thing?

    OK, I apologise, I’m being silly.

    Mind you, I think it is possible that people actually will develop emotional attachments to their sexbots. It would of course require the sexbots to be considerably more advanced than anything possible at the moment. And Im not saying it would be a good thing. I’m just saying it’s likely to happen.

    Check out the movie Cherry 2000 for a glimpse of what might happen.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I think it is possible that people actually will develop emotional attachments to their sexbots.

    Likely, considering the attachments people develop to their pets.

    It might be fun, especially if you could order a left wing or right wing model that "learns."

    In all seriousness, I think the difficulties and tribulations of bonding with others is one of the most pressing and important issues.

  • @dfordoom

    Sex is a powerful bonding mechanism (can be, supposed to be) between a man and a woman.
     
    But what if you're using it as a bonding mechanism between yourself and your sexbot? Doesn't that make it a beautiful thing?

    OK, I apologise, I'm being silly.

    Mind you, I think it is possible that people actually will develop emotional attachments to their sexbots. It would of course require the sexbots to be considerably more advanced than anything possible at the moment. And Im not saying it would be a good thing. I'm just saying it's likely to happen.

    Check out the movie Cherry 2000 for a glimpse of what might happen.

    I think it is possible that people actually will develop emotional attachments to their sexbots.

    Likely, considering the attachments people develop to their pets.

    It might be fun, especially if you could order a left wing or right wing model that “learns.”

    In all seriousness, I think the difficulties and tribulations of bonding with others is one of the most pressing and important issues.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It might be fun, especially if you could order a left wing or right wing model that “learns.”
     
    And imagine having a robot girlfriend that likes the same movies that you like, that loves watching football and laughs at all your jokes.

    In all seriousness, I think the difficulties and tribulations of bonding with others is one of the most pressing and important issues.
     
    And it is getting more difficult to get that bonding with other humans. For a variety of reasons - feminism, consumerism, the decay of social institutions like churches, the erosion of trust, the increasing litigiousness of society, punitive divorce settlements, increasingly intrusive regulation of social interactions and general nihilism.

    No-one is going to argue that a relationship with a robot is going to be as emotionally satisfying as a good relationship with another human, but to a lot of people it might seem preferable to a bad relationship with another human.
  • @iffen
    I think it is possible that people actually will develop emotional attachments to their sexbots.

    Likely, considering the attachments people develop to their pets.

    It might be fun, especially if you could order a left wing or right wing model that "learns."

    In all seriousness, I think the difficulties and tribulations of bonding with others is one of the most pressing and important issues.

    It might be fun, especially if you could order a left wing or right wing model that “learns.”

    And imagine having a robot girlfriend that likes the same movies that you like, that loves watching football and laughs at all your jokes.

    In all seriousness, I think the difficulties and tribulations of bonding with others is one of the most pressing and important issues.

    And it is getting more difficult to get that bonding with other humans. For a variety of reasons – feminism, consumerism, the decay of social institutions like churches, the erosion of trust, the increasing litigiousness of society, punitive divorce settlements, increasingly intrusive regulation of social interactions and general nihilism.

    No-one is going to argue that a relationship with a robot is going to be as emotionally satisfying as a good relationship with another human, but to a lot of people it might seem preferable to a bad relationship with another human.

    • Replies: @iffen
    And imagine having a robot girlfriend that likes the same movies that you like, that loves watching football and laughs at all your jokes.

    This is what the afterlife is for; it'll have to wait for now. :)

    We need a remake of Stepford Wives. Oops! I just searched and I see that I missed the remake.

    , @Rosie

    punitive divorce settlements,
     
    Divorce settlements should be punitive.
  • @dfordoom

    It might be fun, especially if you could order a left wing or right wing model that “learns.”
     
    And imagine having a robot girlfriend that likes the same movies that you like, that loves watching football and laughs at all your jokes.

    In all seriousness, I think the difficulties and tribulations of bonding with others is one of the most pressing and important issues.
     
    And it is getting more difficult to get that bonding with other humans. For a variety of reasons - feminism, consumerism, the decay of social institutions like churches, the erosion of trust, the increasing litigiousness of society, punitive divorce settlements, increasingly intrusive regulation of social interactions and general nihilism.

    No-one is going to argue that a relationship with a robot is going to be as emotionally satisfying as a good relationship with another human, but to a lot of people it might seem preferable to a bad relationship with another human.

    And imagine having a robot girlfriend that likes the same movies that you like, that loves watching football and laughs at all your jokes.

    This is what the afterlife is for; it’ll have to wait for now. 🙂

    We need a remake of Stepford Wives. Oops! I just searched and I see that I missed the remake.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    We need a remake of Stepford Wives.
     
    A movie that was, amusingly, savaged by feminists who completely missed the point of it.
  • @Rosie

    The unspoken premise is that women desire control of (beta) male sexuality. No one ever called vibrators “dehumanizing” to women.
     
    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women's sexuality doesn't mean the reverse holds true. Really, you're projecting here.

    On the question of whether vibrators are dehumanizing to women, yes they are insofar as all masturbation is dehumanizing, but only to that extent.

    The more thought and meticulous planning that goes into masturbation, the more all-consuming, and thus dehumanizing, it becomes. All addictions are dehumanizing, especially drug addictions, but sex addiction can also get out of control. Someone who would spend thousands of dollars on a sexbot has serious issues as far as I'm concerned.

    And then there's the fact that some people kill themselves jerking off. Seriously, how pathetic can you get?

    https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51776

    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality

    “Mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.”  If there’s insufficient certainty of paternity, men will not invest.

    If you want civilization, control of women’s sexuality is essential.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    “Mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.” If there’s insufficient certainty of paternity, men will not invest.

    If you want civilization, control of women’s sexuality is essential.
     

    Blah, blah, blah. I don't buy this argument. How much control do you need? This argument can be used to justify all sorts of abuses, up to and including imprisoning women in their own homes. At a certain point, your anxieties are your problem.

    You people seriously need to get out of the habit of speaking in vague terms that don't actually say anything substantive. Seriously, what sort of "control" do you have in mind? Details please.

    , @Rosie

    control of women’s sexuality is essential.

     

    When your husband has a baby with another woman:

    https://www.babycenter.com/400_how-do-you-cope-with-your-husband-having-a-baby-with-another_14555308_654.bc?page=1

    Your life is ruined. Does that give you the right to be a psycho possessive wife who wants control over everything he does, even if he's never given you reason to suspect?
  • @iffen
    And imagine having a robot girlfriend that likes the same movies that you like, that loves watching football and laughs at all your jokes.

    This is what the afterlife is for; it'll have to wait for now. :)

    We need a remake of Stepford Wives. Oops! I just searched and I see that I missed the remake.

    We need a remake of Stepford Wives.

    A movie that was, amusingly, savaged by feminists who completely missed the point of it.

  • @Mr. Rational

    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality
     
    "Mama's baby, daddy's maybe."  If there's insufficient certainty of paternity, men will not invest.

    If you want civilization, control of women's sexuality is essential.

    “Mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.” If there’s insufficient certainty of paternity, men will not invest.

    If you want civilization, control of women’s sexuality is essential.

    Blah, blah, blah. I don’t buy this argument. How much control do you need? This argument can be used to justify all sorts of abuses, up to and including imprisoning women in their own homes. At a certain point, your anxieties are your problem.

    You people seriously need to get out of the habit of speaking in vague terms that don’t actually say anything substantive. Seriously, what sort of “control” do you have in mind? Details please.

  • @dfordoom

    It might be fun, especially if you could order a left wing or right wing model that “learns.”
     
    And imagine having a robot girlfriend that likes the same movies that you like, that loves watching football and laughs at all your jokes.

    In all seriousness, I think the difficulties and tribulations of bonding with others is one of the most pressing and important issues.
     
    And it is getting more difficult to get that bonding with other humans. For a variety of reasons - feminism, consumerism, the decay of social institutions like churches, the erosion of trust, the increasing litigiousness of society, punitive divorce settlements, increasingly intrusive regulation of social interactions and general nihilism.

    No-one is going to argue that a relationship with a robot is going to be as emotionally satisfying as a good relationship with another human, but to a lot of people it might seem preferable to a bad relationship with another human.

    punitive divorce settlements,

    Divorce settlements should be punitive.

  • @Mr. Rational

    Just because men are obsessed with controlling women’s sexuality
     
    "Mama's baby, daddy's maybe."  If there's insufficient certainty of paternity, men will not invest.

    If you want civilization, control of women's sexuality is essential.

    control of women’s sexuality is essential.

    When your husband has a baby with another woman:

    https://www.babycenter.com/400_how-do-you-cope-with-your-husband-having-a-baby-with-another_14555308_654.bc?page=1

    Your life is ruined. Does that give you the right to be a psycho possessive wife who wants control over everything he does, even if he’s never given you reason to suspect?

  • Comments are closed.

    Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS