The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Have You Ever Noticed ...

Back in 2013 I asked:

Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days — feminism, diversity, etc. — turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and charismatic politicians to get even more money and power?

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Er, turns out life is a way for………..

    • Replies: @Kevin in Ohio
    Steve,

    Didn't you just say in Taki's that social science has simply become a sub-field of marketing? By forcing new demographic categories upon the public you create another group of people to peddle your worthless crap! The script writes itself.

    And we all know how Senior Slim made his billions - more illegal immigrants means more phone calls to mother Mexico. That means more wire transfers - American dollars flowing into Mexico without the pesky need to worry about foreing direct investment or incurring debt. Just swarm the place with your people, have them take jobs and then send the proceeds back home.

    Debt in Africa? Send your people to Europe and you won't have to worry about another IMF loan again!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/have-you-ever-noticed/#comment-967034
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband. If women were legally able to vote, get equal consideration when applying for jobs, keep their own earned money, and own property, then women who were unable to get a husband or mentally unsuitable for marriage could survive.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Feminism may not have been created for allowing hot babes more power, but that's what has happened.
    , @Truth

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.
     
    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.
    , @Anonymous
    "Lesbians, ugly women and neuroatypical". And what group has bred for traits other than looks, thus producing a huge number of these types of women?
  3. “Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days — feminism, diversity, etc. — turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and charismatic politicians to get even more money and power?”

    Most chicks in the feminist movement are not hot babes. I am talking about the true believers of the cause who will ride or die for the feminist movement. Not the “feminists” in name only who only say they are out of peer pressure to sound cool and fit in with their liberal college female friends. Those types tend to grow out of that phase once they graduate from college.

  4. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.

    Feminism was promoted to attach women more to corporations than their husbands.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Feminism was promoted to attach women more to corporations than their husbands.
     
    Or to government.
  5. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I have noticed that a lot of very attractive women seem to quite successful professionally. I don’t think this has always been the case. I think there are probably quite a few reasons for this, but my sense is that with our relaxed sexual mores, male employers give preference to hot women because they think they might have a chance of having some sort of relationship with them. In turn, fairly hot women can leapfrog from one man to the next in their careers, and move up pretty quickly. In the past, such behavior would have sullied a woman’s reputation and future prospects, but it seems to have little negative effect on them now.

    Maybe it’s always been like this, but I get the sense that women use sex more brazenly than they used to in order to succeed at work, and suffer little downside to their behavior.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I have noticed that a lot of very attractive women seem to quite successful professionally.
     
    I am sure there are other factors, but two come to mind immediately. First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes). Second, people in general overestimate the competence of others they like and underestimate the competence of others they dislike. And men like attractive women.

    Maybe it’s always been like this, but I get the sense that women use sex more brazenly than they used to in order to succeed at work, and suffer little downside to their behavior.
     
    I don't know about that. Even now, women, especially young women, who "use sex more brazenly" tend to receive social opprobrium. People might bite their tongues and hold back public criticism while the said hussy rides high, but will pounce when she falters ("See, she just slept her way to the management position, and now everyone can see she's totally incompetent").
    , @Peter Meyer

    male employers give preference to hot women because they think they might have a chance of having some sort of relationship with them.
     
    John Derbyshire wrote once that in his youth (1950s England) the fact that American men were dogs to their women was practically a truism, universally understood and accepted. It never ceases to amaze he how so many middle-aged men in this country--successful and "savvy" business types mind you--can be played so ruthlessly by pretty girls. A trim blonde bats her eyelashes and they hear birds singing. It's sad really.
  6. Which billionaire is going to financially profit off of Caitlyn Jenner?

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Which billionaire is going to financially profit off of Caitlyn Jenner?".
    He'll always be Bruce to me.
    , @Rob McX
    The way things are looking right now, it could be Caitlyn Jenner.
    , @DCThrowback
    The media-pundit infotainment complex has been provided enough content for almost 72 hours of continuous churn. So there's a big winner.

    The Duggar abuser, that guy's got to be thanking his lucky stars.

    It's all fun and games until the next newsworthy event takes place, then the sharks move on the next piece of chum.
  7. @Anonymous
    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband. If women were legally able to vote, get equal consideration when applying for jobs, keep their own earned money, and own property, then women who were unable to get a husband or mentally unsuitable for marriage could survive.

    Feminism may not have been created for allowing hot babes more power, but that’s what has happened.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Feminism may not have been created for allowing hot babes more power, but that’s what has happened.
     
    I don't know about that. What is clear, though, is that there is a lot of unhappy men *and* women.

    Women who are convinced by feminism that "they can have it all" sooner or later run into reality and find that they can't.
  8. @Jefferson
    Which billionaire is going to financially profit off of Caitlyn Jenner?

    “Which billionaire is going to financially profit off of Caitlyn Jenner?”.
    He’ll always be Bruce to me.

  9. @Jefferson
    Which billionaire is going to financially profit off of Caitlyn Jenner?

    The way things are looking right now, it could be Caitlyn Jenner.

  10. @soren

    Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.
     
    Feminism was promoted to attach women more to corporations than their husbands.

    Feminism was promoted to attach women more to corporations than their husbands.

    Or to government.

  11. @Anonymous
    I have noticed that a lot of very attractive women seem to quite successful professionally. I don't think this has always been the case. I think there are probably quite a few reasons for this, but my sense is that with our relaxed sexual mores, male employers give preference to hot women because they think they might have a chance of having some sort of relationship with them. In turn, fairly hot women can leapfrog from one man to the next in their careers, and move up pretty quickly. In the past, such behavior would have sullied a woman's reputation and future prospects, but it seems to have little negative effect on them now.

    Maybe it's always been like this, but I get the sense that women use sex more brazenly than they used to in order to succeed at work, and suffer little downside to their behavior.

    I have noticed that a lot of very attractive women seem to quite successful professionally.

    I am sure there are other factors, but two come to mind immediately. First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes). Second, people in general overestimate the competence of others they like and underestimate the competence of others they dislike. And men like attractive women.

    Maybe it’s always been like this, but I get the sense that women use sex more brazenly than they used to in order to succeed at work, and suffer little downside to their behavior.

    I don’t know about that. Even now, women, especially young women, who “use sex more brazenly” tend to receive social opprobrium. People might bite their tongues and hold back public criticism while the said hussy rides high, but will pounce when she falters (“See, she just slept her way to the management position, and now everyone can see she’s totally incompetent”).

    • Replies: @Scotty G. Vito

    First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes)
     
    Now this is why I frequent iSteve: sciencey rigor in authoritative comments which furthermore match up with common real-life observations. Yeah, just raining manna here!
  12. @Maj. Kong
    Feminism may not have been created for allowing hot babes more power, but that's what has happened.

    Feminism may not have been created for allowing hot babes more power, but that’s what has happened.

    I don’t know about that. What is clear, though, is that there is a lot of unhappy men *and* women.

    Women who are convinced by feminism that “they can have it all” sooner or later run into reality and find that they can’t.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    The Cult of Sandberg doesn't go bust until you're 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.
  13. Umm, sort of. What you describe is what con-artists(sophisticated criminals) and cult leaders routinely do.

    Most of the stuff aimed at the lumpen pro are essentially a combination of emotional hot button and distraction tactics designed to divert them from the pain of getting bent over economically and politically and reducing them to little more than mice in a Stimulus-Response situation.

    Once what passes for their critical capabilities are side lined by their emotional response, they’ll vote for any sociopathic POS who looks telegenic and entertaining enough. Or give their money to that nice, smooth talking investment banker that makes them feel so smart.

    Now MSM plays a big role in all of this, in fact it wouldn’t be possible in many cases for the swindlers, manipulators and greasy politicos to pull off their scams without the MSM helping out. They often supply what amounts to a platform for them along with a army of sycophantic “experts” to give them a aura of respectability and legitimacy. Not to mention putting a torrent triviality to the public and calling it news, while real, important stories never see air time. Notice how little airtime is devoted to the border, TPP, what’s really happened to our jobs base or how many are really unemployed?

    Then add in professional sports like Basketball and Football for further distraction and to take away their pain of the lower classes from feeling so helpless and screwed. That’s Rome’s contribution to modern society.

    And it’s not by accident that public schools don’t teach critical thinking or how propaganda works.

    In certain respects we live in a society saturated by bullshit to steal a term from George Carlin. It’s not accidental, it’s on purpose as Sailer points out. It’s made certain groups wealthy and powerful.

  14. Peter Meyer [AKA "Peter Fagan"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    I have noticed that a lot of very attractive women seem to quite successful professionally. I don't think this has always been the case. I think there are probably quite a few reasons for this, but my sense is that with our relaxed sexual mores, male employers give preference to hot women because they think they might have a chance of having some sort of relationship with them. In turn, fairly hot women can leapfrog from one man to the next in their careers, and move up pretty quickly. In the past, such behavior would have sullied a woman's reputation and future prospects, but it seems to have little negative effect on them now.

    Maybe it's always been like this, but I get the sense that women use sex more brazenly than they used to in order to succeed at work, and suffer little downside to their behavior.

    male employers give preference to hot women because they think they might have a chance of having some sort of relationship with them.

    John Derbyshire wrote once that in his youth (1950s England) the fact that American men were dogs to their women was practically a truism, universally understood and accepted. It never ceases to amaze he how so many middle-aged men in this country–successful and “savvy” business types mind you–can be played so ruthlessly by pretty girls. A trim blonde bats her eyelashes and they hear birds singing. It’s sad really.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    the fact that American men were dogs to their women was practically a truism, universally understood and accepted
     
    On the other hand, the tit cult that Benny Hill, Monty Python, and others mocked seems to be even stronger in England than here. But that may stem from Depression-and-war deprivation.

    I like knockers as much as the next guy, but an MG looks a lot more fun to drive than an Escalade.
  15. @Twinkie

    Feminism may not have been created for allowing hot babes more power, but that’s what has happened.
     
    I don't know about that. What is clear, though, is that there is a lot of unhappy men *and* women.

    Women who are convinced by feminism that "they can have it all" sooner or later run into reality and find that they can't.

    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    The Cult of Sandberg doesn’t go bust until you’re 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.
     
    Palin was spectacularly not ready for national politics, but she was a reasonably good regional politician. She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development. And it wasn't just based on looks. Until national leftists pounced on her, she had a very good anti-establishment cred in her state and was a pretty popular governor.

    And let's not forget that conservative women, in general, get it pretty rough from the Sisterhood and its allies in the media.


    The Cult of Sandberg doesn’t go bust until you’re 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.
     
    Getting pregnant is the easy part. Raising a colicky baby who is up every night at 3 AM at age 45 is just not realistic for most women especially if they have demanding jobs. And Sandberg made it very clear that, in order for a woman to have it all, she had to have a very self-sacrificial man with her. That's actually not having it all, because there is a set of costs (personal and social) associated with that sacrifice, and not just on the part of the man.
    , @TangoMan
    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    Only if you discount her challenge to the Republican power structure in Alaska, charging the head of the State Republican Party and fellow member of the Oil & Gas Commission with corruption, quitting the position in response to a cover-up, taking the issue public, resulting in him resigning and being fined. Then she trained her anti-corruption radar on the State's Attorney General and exposed his conflict of interest in a coal-deal he was negotiating, also getting him to resign.

    Then of course she ran against Murkowski in the primary, winning against the incumbent to take the Republican nomination, and then went head to head against a former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles, who outspent her, but she still won by 8 percentage points.

    Then of course there were her accomplishments while in office.

    But other than that, yeah, she rose to influence based on her looks.

    For the political stats nerds out there, how common is it to unseat a sitting governor and then go on to win an election?
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Thank you for demonstrating why the brave souls that do not genuflect before the Leftists have such an uphill battle. Your "critique" may be uninformed or born of malice, but its congruence with the standard establishment narrative is absolutely perfect.

    I think you may be on our side. Others that I know on our side parrot your ill-advised comment. But your post matches up well with the idiotic remarks of Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker, much less the fevered frothing’s of a Katha Pollitt or a Katrina vanden Heuvel.

    Palin would not have wasted the hard-won gains (however mistaken the war's motivation) that our warfighters earned with their sweat, blood, limbs and lives. She would not have allowed Nuland's meddling, condoned the Egyptian debacle, endorsed the demise of the Duck nor the misguided attempts to dislodge the vicious Syrian placed there by the death of the sociopath that sired him. She is not beholden to the moneyed interests busy destroying the middle class, and her common sense would end the open-borders madness afflicting our self-serving elites.

    Repent of your defective position, and grab the rope and start pulling. The abyss is between us and them, and they are gaining.
  16. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Well, it’s just a general point, but whenever you see any policy or political position being pushed and pursued with the utmost vigor, you always must ask yourself the question ‘just why is this policy being pushed?’, ‘who’s behind it? ‘, ‘what are they getting as a payback from all their efforts and propagandizing?’.

  17. @Maj. Kong
    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    The Cult of Sandberg doesn't go bust until you're 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.

    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    Palin was spectacularly not ready for national politics, but she was a reasonably good regional politician. She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development. And it wasn’t just based on looks. Until national leftists pounced on her, she had a very good anti-establishment cred in her state and was a pretty popular governor.

    And let’s not forget that conservative women, in general, get it pretty rough from the Sisterhood and its allies in the media.

    The Cult of Sandberg doesn’t go bust until you’re 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.

    Getting pregnant is the easy part. Raising a colicky baby who is up every night at 3 AM at age 45 is just not realistic for most women especially if they have demanding jobs. And Sandberg made it very clear that, in order for a woman to have it all, she had to have a very self-sacrificial man with her. That’s actually not having it all, because there is a set of costs (personal and social) associated with that sacrifice, and not just on the part of the man.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What's she up to?... Did they ever determine what happened to her husband?

    The story was so odd, then it disappeared.
    , @Maj. Kong
    Palin governed a petro-state in a time of high oil prices, prior to that she governed a small city of several thousand people. And to top it off, she raised taxes on the oil industry rather than cut spending. Meanwhile her family was a trainwreck.

    The Cult of Sandberg implies flex-time or paid maternity leave, which would kill our GDP growth. But we'd get to be like the "happy" Danes on the path to suicide.
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development.

    The American electorate hasn't reached that level of stupidity yet. Please flush her with Newt Gingrich and the other confused narcissists.
  18. Hot chicks lose under feminism. Their men cheat even more and dump for newer models or they trade down. Less hot chicks win because they get occasional Alpha sex but not commitment. For many that is enough. Beta males lose and ugly women lose as pr0n is substituted for them. Alphas win.

    Feminism is the Alha male, plain women sexual socialism

  19. @Maj. Kong
    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    The Cult of Sandberg doesn't go bust until you're 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.

    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    Only if you discount her challenge to the Republican power structure in Alaska, charging the head of the State Republican Party and fellow member of the Oil & Gas Commission with corruption, quitting the position in response to a cover-up, taking the issue public, resulting in him resigning and being fined. Then she trained her anti-corruption radar on the State’s Attorney General and exposed his conflict of interest in a coal-deal he was negotiating, also getting him to resign.

    Then of course she ran against Murkowski in the primary, winning against the incumbent to take the Republican nomination, and then went head to head against a former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles, who outspent her, but she still won by 8 percentage points.

    Then of course there were her accomplishments while in office.

    But other than that, yeah, she rose to influence based on her looks.

    For the political stats nerds out there, how common is it to unseat a sitting governor and then go on to win an election?

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong

    Then of course there were her accomplishments while in office.
     
    Like quitting, and ruining any chance of regaining political capital. Palin pulled a typical Conservatism Inc stunt, to make millions through TV and book deals. She was more interested in becoming Oprah than President.

    Conservatism should not be about defending intellectual lightweights, even if they attract the right enemies.
  20. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Twinkie

    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.
     
    Palin was spectacularly not ready for national politics, but she was a reasonably good regional politician. She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development. And it wasn't just based on looks. Until national leftists pounced on her, she had a very good anti-establishment cred in her state and was a pretty popular governor.

    And let's not forget that conservative women, in general, get it pretty rough from the Sisterhood and its allies in the media.


    The Cult of Sandberg doesn’t go bust until you’re 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.
     
    Getting pregnant is the easy part. Raising a colicky baby who is up every night at 3 AM at age 45 is just not realistic for most women especially if they have demanding jobs. And Sandberg made it very clear that, in order for a woman to have it all, she had to have a very self-sacrificial man with her. That's actually not having it all, because there is a set of costs (personal and social) associated with that sacrifice, and not just on the part of the man.

    What’s she up to?… Did they ever determine what happened to her husband?

    The story was so odd, then it disappeared.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Either some drug deal went bad down there (and he wasn't necessarily involved...poor guy could've just gotten caught in the crossfire) or Lady Macbeth decided her husband wasn't needed anymore.

    The media will never cover the second possibility, of course.

    , @Casey
    The story was buried less than two weeks after he died of a blow to the back of the head. I followed it until then and it does look like murder, and that there was a cover-up involving family. The control over the MSM was disturbing in this case. I wonder how it will be handled if she ever does run for office?

    After the first story they fed to the media - somehow hit the back of his head falling off the treadmill and bled to death alone for hours - caused so much disbelief, they planted a story about heart arythmia turning up in a "new report" from the Mexican autopsy (he was buried by this point and there was no US autopsy). Then a few days later an unnamed "Silicon Valley source" told People mag that he died of a "heart condition" and that story was picked up by other MSM and then buried under stories about "Sheryl's going back to work"

    Problems:
    You CANNOT see heart arythmia evidence in an autopsy
    You CAN see evidence of a heart attack in an autopsy

    Why didn't they lie and use the more feasible heart attack from the beginning if you can just pay off Mexican authorities?
    Well, apparently they will only lie in plausible ways. Since they were sending the body back they admitted the cause was the 2cm head wound, though it likely happened instantly, not taking hours, but they lied about the circumstances.
    They said from the beginning he didn't have a heart attack.
  21. @Twinkie

    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.
     
    Palin was spectacularly not ready for national politics, but she was a reasonably good regional politician. She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development. And it wasn't just based on looks. Until national leftists pounced on her, she had a very good anti-establishment cred in her state and was a pretty popular governor.

    And let's not forget that conservative women, in general, get it pretty rough from the Sisterhood and its allies in the media.


    The Cult of Sandberg doesn’t go bust until you’re 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.
     
    Getting pregnant is the easy part. Raising a colicky baby who is up every night at 3 AM at age 45 is just not realistic for most women especially if they have demanding jobs. And Sandberg made it very clear that, in order for a woman to have it all, she had to have a very self-sacrificial man with her. That's actually not having it all, because there is a set of costs (personal and social) associated with that sacrifice, and not just on the part of the man.

    Palin governed a petro-state in a time of high oil prices, prior to that she governed a small city of several thousand people. And to top it off, she raised taxes on the oil industry rather than cut spending. Meanwhile her family was a trainwreck.

    The Cult of Sandberg implies flex-time or paid maternity leave, which would kill our GDP growth. But we’d get to be like the “happy” Danes on the path to suicide.

    • Replies: @TheJester
    What the MSM intentionally overlooks in narratives about "uber" successful female executives such as Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer are the nannys, maids, personal assistants, corporate largess, and househusbands that make their privileged worlds possible. The pity is that they propagandize their lifestyles to women at large as examples for emulation. In reality, their worlds are possible for perhaps 0.05% of women ... and these worlds have always been possible to the "uber" wealthy. Working women who fall for their narratives all too often end up as single mothers in near hopeless personal and financial situations. Rather than independence and self-realization, wide-spread depression -- disappointment at discovering they cannot have it all -- seems to be the universal patina that plagues women in contemporary Western culture.
    , @27 year old
    " flex-time or paid maternity leave, which would kill our GDP growth."



    Oh no! The GDP growth! Cry me a river for the GDP growth
    , @Scotty G. Vito
    And to top it off, she raised taxes on the oil industry rather than cut spending.

    Not going to quarrel with your complaint against her pedigree/smoothness/fit-and-finish as a politician or halfway-respectable granny, but it seems you don't know anything about Alaska's established oil regulations which are of a nature that would've given Huey Long wood. Universal socialized dividends are written into their state constitution. As a result of this among other fun details Alaska never matches the percentage share of annual crude production of supposedly green-minded California (which both don't add up to the Gulf of Mexico output)
  22. @TangoMan
    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    Only if you discount her challenge to the Republican power structure in Alaska, charging the head of the State Republican Party and fellow member of the Oil & Gas Commission with corruption, quitting the position in response to a cover-up, taking the issue public, resulting in him resigning and being fined. Then she trained her anti-corruption radar on the State's Attorney General and exposed his conflict of interest in a coal-deal he was negotiating, also getting him to resign.

    Then of course she ran against Murkowski in the primary, winning against the incumbent to take the Republican nomination, and then went head to head against a former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles, who outspent her, but she still won by 8 percentage points.

    Then of course there were her accomplishments while in office.

    But other than that, yeah, she rose to influence based on her looks.

    For the political stats nerds out there, how common is it to unseat a sitting governor and then go on to win an election?

    Then of course there were her accomplishments while in office.

    Like quitting, and ruining any chance of regaining political capital. Palin pulled a typical Conservatism Inc stunt, to make millions through TV and book deals. She was more interested in becoming Oprah than President.

    Conservatism should not be about defending intellectual lightweights, even if they attract the right enemies.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    She was more interested in becoming Oprah than President.
     
    So is the President.

    Oprah, or Jack Nicklaus.
  23. @Anonymous
    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband. If women were legally able to vote, get equal consideration when applying for jobs, keep their own earned money, and own property, then women who were unable to get a husband or mentally unsuitable for marriage could survive.

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.

    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.

    • Replies: @Another Canadian

    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.
     
    Yes, and to convert the housework they were already doing into taxable events, e.g. daycare, cooking, cleaning, tutoring and takeout/restaurant meals.
    , @anonymous
    Gloria Steinem supposedly was employed by the CIA in her early days to be a delegate representing the US at an international congress. There's been claims about the start-up money funding her later magazine which probably can't be ascertained. Betty Friedan was given a great deal of fawning publicity which always conveniently left out her early communist past. They can always skip over things that otherwise might be embarrassing if the needs of the moment are such. As a result of all this everyone in a family has to work to get by. Next they'll be sending the kids out to work also-for their own good of course.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Actually, the only major interest group that supported keeping women in the workforce after V-J Day was the National Association of Manufacturers.
    , @Anonymous
    Twinkie, that's actually an interesting thought.
    , @Jeff W.
    The timing of it makes me think that the needs of the money printers (who are right at the top of the status hierarchy) were more important than the needs of the manufacturers or the government interests who wanted more tax money.

    It was the 1970's when it became imperative for mom to be liberated and get herself a job.

    What was going on in the 1970's? In 1971 the dollar was no longer redeemable in gold. That led to inflation as people usually like to dump inherently-worthless fiat to buy something that might hold its value. By 1975 Gerald Ford was sporting a WIN (Whip Inflation Now) button.

    The central bankers were scared of inflation, and in fact they got a heavy dose of it in the late 1970's. One important way for them to stop inflation was to repress wage increases, and an important way to do that was to get all the women working.

    So I see it as primarily a wage-repression measure for money-printing purposes, much the same as offshoring of manufacturing and open-borders immigration.

  24. @Anonymous
    What's she up to?... Did they ever determine what happened to her husband?

    The story was so odd, then it disappeared.

    Either some drug deal went bad down there (and he wasn’t necessarily involved…poor guy could’ve just gotten caught in the crossfire) or Lady Macbeth decided her husband wasn’t needed anymore.

    The media will never cover the second possibility, of course.

  25. Feminism is collective bargaining on the basis of sexual capital. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Therefore, it stands to reason that hot babes get more out of it. It’s the same reason outstanding ball players benefit more from players’ unions.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    It’s the same reason outstanding ball players benefit more from players’ unions.
     
    And taxpayers lose.
  26. @Truth

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.
     
    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.

    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.

    Yes, and to convert the housework they were already doing into taxable events, e.g. daycare, cooking, cleaning, tutoring and takeout/restaurant meals.

  27. @Maj. Kong
    Palin governed a petro-state in a time of high oil prices, prior to that she governed a small city of several thousand people. And to top it off, she raised taxes on the oil industry rather than cut spending. Meanwhile her family was a trainwreck.

    The Cult of Sandberg implies flex-time or paid maternity leave, which would kill our GDP growth. But we'd get to be like the "happy" Danes on the path to suicide.

    What the MSM intentionally overlooks in narratives about “uber” successful female executives such as Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer are the nannys, maids, personal assistants, corporate largess, and househusbands that make their privileged worlds possible. The pity is that they propagandize their lifestyles to women at large as examples for emulation. In reality, their worlds are possible for perhaps 0.05% of women … and these worlds have always been possible to the “uber” wealthy. Working women who fall for their narratives all too often end up as single mothers in near hopeless personal and financial situations. Rather than independence and self-realization, wide-spread depression — disappointment at discovering they cannot have it all — seems to be the universal patina that plagues women in contemporary Western culture.

    • Replies: @Casey
    I don't have the stats handy but it's been shown repeatedly that housewives tend to depression more than working women. It's also been shown that children are not damaged by going to day care.
  28. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    If you’re clever, you can re-brand anything into profitability.

    Christianity became Christmas and consumerism.

    Mao is now like a fat buddha of good fortune.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2322075/Mao-Zedongs-granddaughter-Kong-Dongmei-242-Chinese-rich-list-525m-fortune.html

  29. @Another Canadian

    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.
     
    Yes, and to convert the housework they were already doing into taxable events, e.g. daycare, cooking, cleaning, tutoring and takeout/restaurant meals.

    YezsurEEE Bob.

  30. “In certain respects we live in a society saturated by bullshit to steal a term from George Carlin. It’s not accidental, it’s on purpose as Sailer points out. It’s made certain groups wealthy and powerful.”

    And is there anything inherently wrong with gaming the capitalist system to make some coin by using whatever means necessary within the bounds of the law? Sounds like the American Dream to me. Moreover, it’s what that wealth and power is used for after it is procured.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "And is there anything inherently wrong with gaming the capitalist system to make some coin by using whatever means necessary within the bounds of the law? Sounds like the American Dream to me. Moreover, it’s what that wealth and power is used for after it is procured."

    Yes, it's deeply wrong. Gaming the system basically means corrupting the system, and corrupt system's do not work as well as non-corrupt ones (I wish I had a quote or study handy to back this up.) Also, corrupt systems demoralize those with very high ethics and allow those with the worst ethics to rise - not exactly the kind of world that I want to live in.

  31. @Maj. Kong
    Palin governed a petro-state in a time of high oil prices, prior to that she governed a small city of several thousand people. And to top it off, she raised taxes on the oil industry rather than cut spending. Meanwhile her family was a trainwreck.

    The Cult of Sandberg implies flex-time or paid maternity leave, which would kill our GDP growth. But we'd get to be like the "happy" Danes on the path to suicide.

    ” flex-time or paid maternity leave, which would kill our GDP growth.”

    Oh no! The GDP growth! Cry me a river for the GDP growth

  32. @Twinkie

    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.
     
    Palin was spectacularly not ready for national politics, but she was a reasonably good regional politician. She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development. And it wasn't just based on looks. Until national leftists pounced on her, she had a very good anti-establishment cred in her state and was a pretty popular governor.

    And let's not forget that conservative women, in general, get it pretty rough from the Sisterhood and its allies in the media.


    The Cult of Sandberg doesn’t go bust until you’re 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.
     
    Getting pregnant is the easy part. Raising a colicky baby who is up every night at 3 AM at age 45 is just not realistic for most women especially if they have demanding jobs. And Sandberg made it very clear that, in order for a woman to have it all, she had to have a very self-sacrificial man with her. That's actually not having it all, because there is a set of costs (personal and social) associated with that sacrifice, and not just on the part of the man.

    She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development.

    The American electorate hasn’t reached that level of stupidity yet. Please flush her with Newt Gingrich and the other confused narcissists.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The American electorate hasn’t reached that level of stupidity yet. Please flush her with Newt Gingrich and the other confused narcissists.
     
    Most politicians are narcissistic and power-hungry. That's why they are in politics, the show business for ugly people.

    In terms of long term national political success and viability, being picked by McCain as the VP candidate so early in her national career was just about the worst thing that could have happened (and did happen) to Palin. Sudden fame and adulation can get to anyone.

    Had she not been seduced by the easy game and instead picked the long game... (successful completion of governorship, running for the Senate, becoming an "expert" on some domestic agenda and/or foreign policy issue, building a national profile/advocacy and becoming a known and respected quantity *deliberately* rather than becoming famous first and then learning on the job would have done wonders for her).

    Before it all exploded, she demonstrated that she had a very good anti-establishment/anti-corruption credentials and that she was very telegenic. She played very well to the populist crowd, given her non-elite upbringing and "grittiness" and she polled extremely well with independent women. ALL qualities that would be dynamite in 2016 or 2020.

    Her seduction by quick fame, the subsequent and extremely intense national leftist-driven humiliate-Palin campaign, her near-inevitable implosion given the circumstances, and the eventual "cashing out" on fame/infamy ranks as one of greatest of political lost opportunities and might-have-beens in recent years. She was so naturally talented in politics. It's really too bad. Given the right development path, I think she'd been the first female president in U.S. history, and quite a good, generally conservative president.
  33. What’s interesting is that Bruce Jenner will probably get a hotter, younger girlfriend out of this. When compared to Kris Jenner at least. His new reality show will line the pockets of TV execs and really open up his dating world.

  34. @Jefferson
    Which billionaire is going to financially profit off of Caitlyn Jenner?

    The media-pundit infotainment complex has been provided enough content for almost 72 hours of continuous churn. So there’s a big winner.

    The Duggar abuser, that guy’s got to be thanking his lucky stars.

    It’s all fun and games until the next newsworthy event takes place, then the sharks move on the next piece of chum.

  35. In the corporate world, the biggest beneficiaries of diversity are the upper class white men who run the business. Diversity is yet another variation of rent-seeking. In this case, it is eliminating competition from middle and lower class white males (or other males in general).

    I work in a Fortune 100 company. At least a quarter of our salaried employees are H1-B’s from India. All of IT. Half of engineering. Ten to twenty percent of the rest. The H1-B’s are willing to work like slaves, and in fact need to in order to keep their Visas. After taking away jobs that natives could fill, they also substantially increase the stress and workload of the remaining salaried employees who fear for their jobs. They don’t complain about their work. Don’t complain about their hours. Don’t threaten to leave for another company. It’s perfect.

    Or look at Human Resources. In my division, every single member is a woman. Do you think they exist to serve the needs of middle class white men, individual contributors or first-level managers? No. They exist to serve the needs of their patrons, the upper class white men who run the business (which are to keep the peons in check through ritualized harassment) and guarantee them promotions, mentoring, relationships, whatever.

    The next obvious example are hispanics in (mostly) construction or (sometimes) manufacturing.

    The reason this works is that upper class white men understand that they will never face real competition from most minorities or from women. Sure, ones with genuine IQ will rise up (often supported by their male benefactors). But they will never face substantial competition in the way that entrepreneurial white men might provide.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "The reason this works is that upper class white men understand that they will never face real competition from most minorities or from women. Sure, ones with genuine IQ will rise up (often supported by their male benefactors). But they will never face substantial competition in the way that entrepreneurial white men might provide."

    Assuming this is true, don't the upper class white men (what do you mean by white men?) understand they're kind of flushing the baby down with the bath water, by creating a system where they are protected but the rest of the country, which allows them to be so successful, is pretty much wrecked? This seems pretty short-sighted.

  36. Should be a way to include this in U.S. GDP just as England and Italy include drugs and prostitution in their GDP.

  37. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Truth

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.
     
    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.

    Gloria Steinem supposedly was employed by the CIA in her early days to be a delegate representing the US at an international congress. There’s been claims about the start-up money funding her later magazine which probably can’t be ascertained. Betty Friedan was given a great deal of fawning publicity which always conveniently left out her early communist past. They can always skip over things that otherwise might be embarrassing if the needs of the moment are such. As a result of all this everyone in a family has to work to get by. Next they’ll be sending the kids out to work also-for their own good of course.

    • Replies: @TSTCLRFRTTD

    Next they’ll be sending the kids out to work also-for their own good of course.
     
    If the kids could get age- and experience-appropriate, honest work, I am not at all sure this would be a bad thing.
  38. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband. If women were legally able to vote, get equal consideration when applying for jobs, keep their own earned money, and own property, then women who were unable to get a husband or mentally unsuitable for marriage could survive.

    “Lesbians, ugly women and neuroatypical”. And what group has bred for traits other than looks, thus producing a huge number of these types of women?

  39. In this case, it’s a 65 year old man whose cause for real celebrity was back in 1976 realizing that he just can’t make it as a man anymore, therefore, he wants to try being a woman because he can, like “Martine” Rothblatt, be a pretty good woman when compared to other women. Would the 100 IQ student want to be the dumbest Harvard student or the smartest kid on the short bus?

  40. At risk of sounding like a paid PR commenter from the basement of the Kremlin I think you fairly had their number on that back in ’13. What this is all about — *whatever* this is about — is not some guy’s idiosyncratically mixed-up psyche as to the basic boy/girl parts manual. Collectively let’s get the laughter out of our system from that red herring, and start calling this by its proper name: will to power, MSM edition.

    Ross Douthat has said that nowadays liberalism seems more handy as a social weapon than for any other objective; so the name of the game is elite mover-shakers with some mixture of earned/inherited advantages stocking up EVEN MORE advantages, the only way of accomplishing such, of course, being frantically inventing new categories of oppressed Uebermenschen. Jenner has shown the way now, put on the master class– all behold the true athlete of Otherness!

  41. @Twinkie

    I have noticed that a lot of very attractive women seem to quite successful professionally.
     
    I am sure there are other factors, but two come to mind immediately. First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes). Second, people in general overestimate the competence of others they like and underestimate the competence of others they dislike. And men like attractive women.

    Maybe it’s always been like this, but I get the sense that women use sex more brazenly than they used to in order to succeed at work, and suffer little downside to their behavior.
     
    I don't know about that. Even now, women, especially young women, who "use sex more brazenly" tend to receive social opprobrium. People might bite their tongues and hold back public criticism while the said hussy rides high, but will pounce when she falters ("See, she just slept her way to the management position, and now everyone can see she's totally incompetent").

    First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes)

    Now this is why I frequent iSteve: sciencey rigor in authoritative comments which furthermore match up with common real-life observations. Yeah, just raining manna here!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Now this is why I frequent iSteve: sciencey rigor in authoritative comments which furthermore match up with common real-life observations. Yeah, just raining manna here!
     
    Ask and ye shall receive: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i

    And: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent
  42. @Maj. Kong
    Palin governed a petro-state in a time of high oil prices, prior to that she governed a small city of several thousand people. And to top it off, she raised taxes on the oil industry rather than cut spending. Meanwhile her family was a trainwreck.

    The Cult of Sandberg implies flex-time or paid maternity leave, which would kill our GDP growth. But we'd get to be like the "happy" Danes on the path to suicide.

    And to top it off, she raised taxes on the oil industry rather than cut spending.

    Not going to quarrel with your complaint against her pedigree/smoothness/fit-and-finish as a politician or halfway-respectable granny, but it seems you don’t know anything about Alaska’s established oil regulations which are of a nature that would’ve given Huey Long wood. Universal socialized dividends are written into their state constitution. As a result of this among other fun details Alaska never matches the percentage share of annual crude production of supposedly green-minded California (which both don’t add up to the Gulf of Mexico output)

  43. @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Which billionaire is going to financially profit off of Caitlyn Jenner?".
    He'll always be Bruce to me.

    If you hurry maybe you can bid on them.

  44. @anony-mouse
    Er, turns out life is a way for...........

    Steve,

    Didn’t you just say in Taki’s that social science has simply become a sub-field of marketing? By forcing new demographic categories upon the public you create another group of people to peddle your worthless crap! The script writes itself.

    And we all know how Senior Slim made his billions – more illegal immigrants means more phone calls to mother Mexico. That means more wire transfers – American dollars flowing into Mexico without the pesky need to worry about foreing direct investment or incurring debt. Just swarm the place with your people, have them take jobs and then send the proceeds back home.

    Debt in Africa? Send your people to Europe and you won’t have to worry about another IMF loan again!

  45. @Truth

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.
     
    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.

    Actually, the only major interest group that supported keeping women in the workforce after V-J Day was the National Association of Manufacturers.

    • Replies: @Truth

    Actually, the only major interest group that supported keeping women in the workforce after V-J Day was the National Association of Manufacturers.
     
    Then why are they still there?
  46. @Bill P
    Feminism is collective bargaining on the basis of sexual capital. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Therefore, it stands to reason that hot babes get more out of it. It's the same reason outstanding ball players benefit more from players' unions.

    It’s the same reason outstanding ball players benefit more from players’ unions.

    And taxpayers lose.

  47. @Maj. Kong

    Then of course there were her accomplishments while in office.
     
    Like quitting, and ruining any chance of regaining political capital. Palin pulled a typical Conservatism Inc stunt, to make millions through TV and book deals. She was more interested in becoming Oprah than President.

    Conservatism should not be about defending intellectual lightweights, even if they attract the right enemies.

    She was more interested in becoming Oprah than President.

    So is the President.

    Oprah, or Jack Nicklaus.

  48. @Peter Meyer

    male employers give preference to hot women because they think they might have a chance of having some sort of relationship with them.
     
    John Derbyshire wrote once that in his youth (1950s England) the fact that American men were dogs to their women was practically a truism, universally understood and accepted. It never ceases to amaze he how so many middle-aged men in this country--successful and "savvy" business types mind you--can be played so ruthlessly by pretty girls. A trim blonde bats her eyelashes and they hear birds singing. It's sad really.

    the fact that American men were dogs to their women was practically a truism, universally understood and accepted

    On the other hand, the tit cult that Benny Hill, Monty Python, and others mocked seems to be even stronger in England than here. But that may stem from Depression-and-war deprivation.

    I like knockers as much as the next guy, but an MG looks a lot more fun to drive than an Escalade.

  49. @Reg Cæsar
    Actually, the only major interest group that supported keeping women in the workforce after V-J Day was the National Association of Manufacturers.

    Actually, the only major interest group that supported keeping women in the workforce after V-J Day was the National Association of Manufacturers.

    Then why are they still there?

  50. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Truth

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.
     
    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.

    Twinkie, that’s actually an interesting thought.

  51. @Scotty G. Vito

    First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes)
     
    Now this is why I frequent iSteve: sciencey rigor in authoritative comments which furthermore match up with common real-life observations. Yeah, just raining manna here!

    Now this is why I frequent iSteve: sciencey rigor in authoritative comments which furthermore match up with common real-life observations. Yeah, just raining manna here!

    Ask and ye shall receive: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i

    And: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't think the study found that the most beautiful were the most intelligent. It only says that those deemed attractive, on average, had higher IQs than those deemed unattractive.
  52. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Corvinus
    "In certain respects we live in a society saturated by bullshit to steal a term from George Carlin. It’s not accidental, it’s on purpose as Sailer points out. It’s made certain groups wealthy and powerful."

    And is there anything inherently wrong with gaming the capitalist system to make some coin by using whatever means necessary within the bounds of the law? Sounds like the American Dream to me. Moreover, it's what that wealth and power is used for after it is procured.

    “And is there anything inherently wrong with gaming the capitalist system to make some coin by using whatever means necessary within the bounds of the law? Sounds like the American Dream to me. Moreover, it’s what that wealth and power is used for after it is procured.”

    Yes, it’s deeply wrong. Gaming the system basically means corrupting the system, and corrupt system’s do not work as well as non-corrupt ones (I wish I had a quote or study handy to back this up.) Also, corrupt systems demoralize those with very high ethics and allow those with the worst ethics to rise – not exactly the kind of world that I want to live in.

  53. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Twinkie

    Now this is why I frequent iSteve: sciencey rigor in authoritative comments which furthermore match up with common real-life observations. Yeah, just raining manna here!
     
    Ask and ye shall receive: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200903/beautiful-people-are-more-intelligent-i

    And: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

    I don’t think the study found that the most beautiful were the most intelligent. It only says that those deemed attractive, on average, had higher IQs than those deemed unattractive.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I don’t think the study found that the most beautiful were the most intelligent.
     
    Who said that?

    Here is what I *actually* wrote earlier:

    I am sure there are other factors, but two come to mind immediately. First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes). Second, people in general overestimate the competence of others they like and underestimate the competence of others they dislike. And men like attractive women.
     
  54. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Bleuteaux
    In the corporate world, the biggest beneficiaries of diversity are the upper class white men who run the business. Diversity is yet another variation of rent-seeking. In this case, it is eliminating competition from middle and lower class white males (or other males in general).

    I work in a Fortune 100 company. At least a quarter of our salaried employees are H1-B's from India. All of IT. Half of engineering. Ten to twenty percent of the rest. The H1-B's are willing to work like slaves, and in fact need to in order to keep their Visas. After taking away jobs that natives could fill, they also substantially increase the stress and workload of the remaining salaried employees who fear for their jobs. They don't complain about their work. Don't complain about their hours. Don't threaten to leave for another company. It's perfect.

    Or look at Human Resources. In my division, every single member is a woman. Do you think they exist to serve the needs of middle class white men, individual contributors or first-level managers? No. They exist to serve the needs of their patrons, the upper class white men who run the business (which are to keep the peons in check through ritualized harassment) and guarantee them promotions, mentoring, relationships, whatever.

    The next obvious example are hispanics in (mostly) construction or (sometimes) manufacturing.

    The reason this works is that upper class white men understand that they will never face real competition from most minorities or from women. Sure, ones with genuine IQ will rise up (often supported by their male benefactors). But they will never face substantial competition in the way that entrepreneurial white men might provide.

    “The reason this works is that upper class white men understand that they will never face real competition from most minorities or from women. Sure, ones with genuine IQ will rise up (often supported by their male benefactors). But they will never face substantial competition in the way that entrepreneurial white men might provide.”

    Assuming this is true, don’t the upper class white men (what do you mean by white men?) understand they’re kind of flushing the baby down with the bath water, by creating a system where they are protected but the rest of the country, which allows them to be so successful, is pretty much wrecked? This seems pretty short-sighted.

    • Replies: @Bleuteaux
    I think the answer is, "Yes, they do." Businesses have a long history of privatizing profits and socializing costs. This is in line with that.

    Kind of amazing to witness. We have about 25 summer interns starting in our building this week. No more than 2-3 of them could have an open seat available to them by time they graduate. We could flush out the 50-75 HI-B's (out of roughly 400 salaried employees, including production) to make room for them, but when you can get labor so cheap, why bother with the native college graduates who can't find work?

  55. @yaqub the mad scientist
    She could have gone very far, had she been brought up less rapidly in national candidate development.

    The American electorate hasn't reached that level of stupidity yet. Please flush her with Newt Gingrich and the other confused narcissists.

    The American electorate hasn’t reached that level of stupidity yet. Please flush her with Newt Gingrich and the other confused narcissists.

    Most politicians are narcissistic and power-hungry. That’s why they are in politics, the show business for ugly people.

    In terms of long term national political success and viability, being picked by McCain as the VP candidate so early in her national career was just about the worst thing that could have happened (and did happen) to Palin. Sudden fame and adulation can get to anyone.

    Had she not been seduced by the easy game and instead picked the long game… (successful completion of governorship, running for the Senate, becoming an “expert” on some domestic agenda and/or foreign policy issue, building a national profile/advocacy and becoming a known and respected quantity *deliberately* rather than becoming famous first and then learning on the job would have done wonders for her).

    Before it all exploded, she demonstrated that she had a very good anti-establishment/anti-corruption credentials and that she was very telegenic. She played very well to the populist crowd, given her non-elite upbringing and “grittiness” and she polled extremely well with independent women. ALL qualities that would be dynamite in 2016 or 2020.

    Her seduction by quick fame, the subsequent and extremely intense national leftist-driven humiliate-Palin campaign, her near-inevitable implosion given the circumstances, and the eventual “cashing out” on fame/infamy ranks as one of greatest of political lost opportunities and might-have-beens in recent years. She was so naturally talented in politics. It’s really too bad. Given the right development path, I think she’d been the first female president in U.S. history, and quite a good, generally conservative president.

    • Replies: @Scotty G. Vito
    You seem determined to miss the point every time someone here explains the Palin/U.S. electorate mismatch. She was closer to a mainstream GOP in certain departments (remember the Libya "no-fly-zone") than was Ross Perot whose two expensive fruitless campaigns, you will note, had no impact on the domestic party duopoly except for solidifying the meme that all Clintons are "ingenious political operators." You keep pretending that her automatic-50% negatives had to do with her record in Alaska instead of the more important constraints on elected leadership in this country, i.e. how you look; how you sound; who your friends are. There was no way to finesse her out-of-step religiosity and establishment-facilitated antipathy to the grad-student lumpens who infest D.C./Manhattan media-land and suck the oxygen out of the choosing process. Of course, NAMs would have no use for her, esp. as a woman leader (actually, throw in the AMs on that count too). She brought nothing to the table that Huckabee didn't have. In fact, owing to very obvious reasons -- meow -- she catalyzed a fierce intifada by the Emily's List and NOW types of the sort that Huckabee or Scott Walker or Rubio can afford to ignore. The prospective daily barrage of harpies w/ megaphones shrieking their personal resentment at her (looks, husband, power, etc.) was thoroughly unworkable and commemorated through Lorne Michaels's unfunny sketch comedy tidbits.

    Whatever the merits of her Alaska record -- her administration's early success was certainly unexpected -- at the end of the day it's not an important state, and the officeholder's meager political assets would normally only qualify her to be Lt. Gov. or Sec. of State or something similar in a red-leaning Whitopia like Kansas or Montana or maybe post-recall Wisconsin (or a Bizarro Whitopia like Alaska). Perhaps most irritatingly you neglect the key detail that **Palin already knew this herself in 2009** (if not earlier). This unkillable alt-history fantasy of Xena Warrior Princess arising from the sort-of heartland to save the republic is completely inapposite for someone who realized she wasn't ready for primetime at the very beginning. It's also an excuse to think unrealistically about the structure of the U.S. bureaucracy, elected & otherwise
  56. @Anonymous
    "Lesbians, ugly women and neuroatypical". And what group has bred for traits other than looks, thus producing a huge number of these types of women?

    Scots-Irish?

  57. @Anonymous
    "The reason this works is that upper class white men understand that they will never face real competition from most minorities or from women. Sure, ones with genuine IQ will rise up (often supported by their male benefactors). But they will never face substantial competition in the way that entrepreneurial white men might provide."

    Assuming this is true, don't the upper class white men (what do you mean by white men?) understand they're kind of flushing the baby down with the bath water, by creating a system where they are protected but the rest of the country, which allows them to be so successful, is pretty much wrecked? This seems pretty short-sighted.

    I think the answer is, “Yes, they do.” Businesses have a long history of privatizing profits and socializing costs. This is in line with that.

    Kind of amazing to witness. We have about 25 summer interns starting in our building this week. No more than 2-3 of them could have an open seat available to them by time they graduate. We could flush out the 50-75 HI-B’s (out of roughly 400 salaried employees, including production) to make room for them, but when you can get labor so cheap, why bother with the native college graduates who can’t find work?

  58. @Anonymous
    What's she up to?... Did they ever determine what happened to her husband?

    The story was so odd, then it disappeared.

    The story was buried less than two weeks after he died of a blow to the back of the head. I followed it until then and it does look like murder, and that there was a cover-up involving family. The control over the MSM was disturbing in this case. I wonder how it will be handled if she ever does run for office?

    After the first story they fed to the media – somehow hit the back of his head falling off the treadmill and bled to death alone for hours – caused so much disbelief, they planted a story about heart arythmia turning up in a “new report” from the Mexican autopsy (he was buried by this point and there was no US autopsy). Then a few days later an unnamed “Silicon Valley source” told People mag that he died of a “heart condition” and that story was picked up by other MSM and then buried under stories about “Sheryl’s going back to work”

    Problems:
    You CANNOT see heart arythmia evidence in an autopsy
    You CAN see evidence of a heart attack in an autopsy

    Why didn’t they lie and use the more feasible heart attack from the beginning if you can just pay off Mexican authorities?
    Well, apparently they will only lie in plausible ways. Since they were sending the body back they admitted the cause was the 2cm head wound, though it likely happened instantly, not taking hours, but they lied about the circumstances.
    They said from the beginning he didn’t have a heart attack.

  59. @TheJester
    What the MSM intentionally overlooks in narratives about "uber" successful female executives such as Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer are the nannys, maids, personal assistants, corporate largess, and househusbands that make their privileged worlds possible. The pity is that they propagandize their lifestyles to women at large as examples for emulation. In reality, their worlds are possible for perhaps 0.05% of women ... and these worlds have always been possible to the "uber" wealthy. Working women who fall for their narratives all too often end up as single mothers in near hopeless personal and financial situations. Rather than independence and self-realization, wide-spread depression -- disappointment at discovering they cannot have it all -- seems to be the universal patina that plagues women in contemporary Western culture.

    I don’t have the stats handy but it’s been shown repeatedly that housewives tend to depression more than working women. It’s also been shown that children are not damaged by going to day care.

    • Replies: @Sheryl S.
    Presumably a huge component of housewives' tendency to depression is that there is little in popular culture that doesn't denigrate women who don't work and glorify women who do, and housewives fall for that shit; not to mention the fact that the working women they encounter constantly puff their chests about all the important work they are doing. Have you ever looked at a Cosmopolitan or anything like that? Despite the fact that a huge proportion of women are still housewives in the US, you wouldn't know it by reading most women's magazines.
  60. I thought Steve meant that hot babes get more power and success out of feminism because their competition is thinned out by all the frumps who are more focused on their make-work careers than on acquiring men. It’s ridiculously easy for a reasonably smart hot babe nowadays to get a man far above her station if she’s even slightly above average in femininity.

    Given how difficult it is for babes, hot or not, to achieve any level of real success (due mostly to psychological determinants, e.g. lower levels of testosterone, etc., I would guess), I don’t think the kind of success Steve was talking about was their own. Maybe I’m wrong.

  61. @Truth

    Feminism was not created for hot babes to get even more money and power. Feminism originally started as a way for lesbians, ugly women, and neuroatypical women to be able to survive without a husband.
     
    No, feminism was started as a way for the elites to get the other 50% of the population paying taxes.

    The timing of it makes me think that the needs of the money printers (who are right at the top of the status hierarchy) were more important than the needs of the manufacturers or the government interests who wanted more tax money.

    It was the 1970′s when it became imperative for mom to be liberated and get herself a job.

    What was going on in the 1970′s? In 1971 the dollar was no longer redeemable in gold. That led to inflation as people usually like to dump inherently-worthless fiat to buy something that might hold its value. By 1975 Gerald Ford was sporting a WIN (Whip Inflation Now) button.

    The central bankers were scared of inflation, and in fact they got a heavy dose of it in the late 1970′s. One important way for them to stop inflation was to repress wage increases, and an important way to do that was to get all the women working.

    So I see it as primarily a wage-repression measure for money-printing purposes, much the same as offshoring of manufacturing and open-borders immigration.

  62. @Casey
    I don't have the stats handy but it's been shown repeatedly that housewives tend to depression more than working women. It's also been shown that children are not damaged by going to day care.

    Presumably a huge component of housewives’ tendency to depression is that there is little in popular culture that doesn’t denigrate women who don’t work and glorify women who do, and housewives fall for that shit; not to mention the fact that the working women they encounter constantly puff their chests about all the important work they are doing. Have you ever looked at a Cosmopolitan or anything like that? Despite the fact that a huge proportion of women are still housewives in the US, you wouldn’t know it by reading most women’s magazines.

  63. @Anonymous
    I don't think the study found that the most beautiful were the most intelligent. It only says that those deemed attractive, on average, had higher IQs than those deemed unattractive.

    I don’t think the study found that the most beautiful were the most intelligent.

    Who said that?

    Here is what I *actually* wrote earlier:

    I am sure there are other factors, but two come to mind immediately. First, there is pretty decent positive correlations between attractiveness and IQ (both signify healthy genes). Second, people in general overestimate the competence of others they like and underestimate the competence of others they dislike. And men like attractive women.

  64. @Twinkie

    The American electorate hasn’t reached that level of stupidity yet. Please flush her with Newt Gingrich and the other confused narcissists.
     
    Most politicians are narcissistic and power-hungry. That's why they are in politics, the show business for ugly people.

    In terms of long term national political success and viability, being picked by McCain as the VP candidate so early in her national career was just about the worst thing that could have happened (and did happen) to Palin. Sudden fame and adulation can get to anyone.

    Had she not been seduced by the easy game and instead picked the long game... (successful completion of governorship, running for the Senate, becoming an "expert" on some domestic agenda and/or foreign policy issue, building a national profile/advocacy and becoming a known and respected quantity *deliberately* rather than becoming famous first and then learning on the job would have done wonders for her).

    Before it all exploded, she demonstrated that she had a very good anti-establishment/anti-corruption credentials and that she was very telegenic. She played very well to the populist crowd, given her non-elite upbringing and "grittiness" and she polled extremely well with independent women. ALL qualities that would be dynamite in 2016 or 2020.

    Her seduction by quick fame, the subsequent and extremely intense national leftist-driven humiliate-Palin campaign, her near-inevitable implosion given the circumstances, and the eventual "cashing out" on fame/infamy ranks as one of greatest of political lost opportunities and might-have-beens in recent years. She was so naturally talented in politics. It's really too bad. Given the right development path, I think she'd been the first female president in U.S. history, and quite a good, generally conservative president.

    You seem determined to miss the point every time someone here explains the Palin/U.S. electorate mismatch. She was closer to a mainstream GOP in certain departments (remember the Libya “no-fly-zone”) than was Ross Perot whose two expensive fruitless campaigns, you will note, had no impact on the domestic party duopoly except for solidifying the meme that all Clintons are “ingenious political operators.” You keep pretending that her automatic-50% negatives had to do with her record in Alaska instead of the more important constraints on elected leadership in this country, i.e. how you look; how you sound; who your friends are. There was no way to finesse her out-of-step religiosity and establishment-facilitated antipathy to the grad-student lumpens who infest D.C./Manhattan media-land and suck the oxygen out of the choosing process. Of course, NAMs would have no use for her, esp. as a woman leader (actually, throw in the AMs on that count too). She brought nothing to the table that Huckabee didn’t have. In fact, owing to very obvious reasons — meow — she catalyzed a fierce intifada by the Emily’s List and NOW types of the sort that Huckabee or Scott Walker or Rubio can afford to ignore. The prospective daily barrage of harpies w/ megaphones shrieking their personal resentment at her (looks, husband, power, etc.) was thoroughly unworkable and commemorated through Lorne Michaels’s unfunny sketch comedy tidbits.

    Whatever the merits of her Alaska record — her administration’s early success was certainly unexpected — at the end of the day it’s not an important state, and the officeholder’s meager political assets would normally only qualify her to be Lt. Gov. or Sec. of State or something similar in a red-leaning Whitopia like Kansas or Montana or maybe post-recall Wisconsin (or a Bizarro Whitopia like Alaska). Perhaps most irritatingly you neglect the key detail that **Palin already knew this herself in 2009** (if not earlier). This unkillable alt-history fantasy of Xena Warrior Princess arising from the sort-of heartland to save the republic is completely inapposite for someone who realized she wasn’t ready for primetime at the very beginning. It’s also an excuse to think unrealistically about the structure of the U.S. bureaucracy, elected & otherwise

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    She brought nothing to the table that Huckabee didn’t have.
     
    I am assuming this is pre-Fox Huckabee in the comparison.

    Did Palin raise taxes numerous times as a governor? Did she grant clemency to murderers and drunk drivers who went on to re-offend?

    I went to both Palin and Huckabee rallies, and saw the respective enthusiasm levels they generated. You have NO clue what you are talking about here. They both have their sets of strengths and weaknesses in their raw political talents, and those sets are different. And I write that as someone who vehemently criticized the McCain campaign for picking Palin and subsequently raised money for and supported Huckabee for the 2008 race.

    That doesn't change the fact that Palin showed good promise and political talents in the "regional circuit" and could have been developed further as a national candidate far better than she actually was. You rush somebody who is not ready into a championship bout and she's going to be squashed. Candidate development matters (see Perry, Rick; Jindal, Bobby; and Rubio, Marco).

  65. Hey, my genes are so healthy, baby. I can’t wait ta git nex’ ta yooo

  66. @anonymous
    Gloria Steinem supposedly was employed by the CIA in her early days to be a delegate representing the US at an international congress. There's been claims about the start-up money funding her later magazine which probably can't be ascertained. Betty Friedan was given a great deal of fawning publicity which always conveniently left out her early communist past. They can always skip over things that otherwise might be embarrassing if the needs of the moment are such. As a result of all this everyone in a family has to work to get by. Next they'll be sending the kids out to work also-for their own good of course.

    Next they’ll be sending the kids out to work also-for their own good of course.

    If the kids could get age- and experience-appropriate, honest work, I am not at all sure this would be a bad thing.

  67. @Maj. Kong
    Sarah Palin rose to influence and office almost entirely based on her looks.

    The Cult of Sandberg doesn't go bust until you're 40s, and our technological wizardry at artificially induced fertility increases year by year.

    Thank you for demonstrating why the brave souls that do not genuflect before the Leftists have such an uphill battle. Your “critique” may be uninformed or born of malice, but its congruence with the standard establishment narrative is absolutely perfect.

    I think you may be on our side. Others that I know on our side parrot your ill-advised comment. But your post matches up well with the idiotic remarks of Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker, much less the fevered frothing’s of a Katha Pollitt or a Katrina vanden Heuvel.

    Palin would not have wasted the hard-won gains (however mistaken the war’s motivation) that our warfighters earned with their sweat, blood, limbs and lives. She would not have allowed Nuland’s meddling, condoned the Egyptian debacle, endorsed the demise of the Duck nor the misguided attempts to dislodge the vicious Syrian placed there by the death of the sociopath that sired him. She is not beholden to the moneyed interests busy destroying the middle class, and her common sense would end the open-borders madness afflicting our self-serving elites.

    Repent of your defective position, and grab the rope and start pulling. The abyss is between us and them, and they are gaining.

  68. @Scotty G. Vito
    You seem determined to miss the point every time someone here explains the Palin/U.S. electorate mismatch. She was closer to a mainstream GOP in certain departments (remember the Libya "no-fly-zone") than was Ross Perot whose two expensive fruitless campaigns, you will note, had no impact on the domestic party duopoly except for solidifying the meme that all Clintons are "ingenious political operators." You keep pretending that her automatic-50% negatives had to do with her record in Alaska instead of the more important constraints on elected leadership in this country, i.e. how you look; how you sound; who your friends are. There was no way to finesse her out-of-step religiosity and establishment-facilitated antipathy to the grad-student lumpens who infest D.C./Manhattan media-land and suck the oxygen out of the choosing process. Of course, NAMs would have no use for her, esp. as a woman leader (actually, throw in the AMs on that count too). She brought nothing to the table that Huckabee didn't have. In fact, owing to very obvious reasons -- meow -- she catalyzed a fierce intifada by the Emily's List and NOW types of the sort that Huckabee or Scott Walker or Rubio can afford to ignore. The prospective daily barrage of harpies w/ megaphones shrieking their personal resentment at her (looks, husband, power, etc.) was thoroughly unworkable and commemorated through Lorne Michaels's unfunny sketch comedy tidbits.

    Whatever the merits of her Alaska record -- her administration's early success was certainly unexpected -- at the end of the day it's not an important state, and the officeholder's meager political assets would normally only qualify her to be Lt. Gov. or Sec. of State or something similar in a red-leaning Whitopia like Kansas or Montana or maybe post-recall Wisconsin (or a Bizarro Whitopia like Alaska). Perhaps most irritatingly you neglect the key detail that **Palin already knew this herself in 2009** (if not earlier). This unkillable alt-history fantasy of Xena Warrior Princess arising from the sort-of heartland to save the republic is completely inapposite for someone who realized she wasn't ready for primetime at the very beginning. It's also an excuse to think unrealistically about the structure of the U.S. bureaucracy, elected & otherwise

    She brought nothing to the table that Huckabee didn’t have.

    I am assuming this is pre-Fox Huckabee in the comparison.

    Did Palin raise taxes numerous times as a governor? Did she grant clemency to murderers and drunk drivers who went on to re-offend?

    I went to both Palin and Huckabee rallies, and saw the respective enthusiasm levels they generated. You have NO clue what you are talking about here. They both have their sets of strengths and weaknesses in their raw political talents, and those sets are different. And I write that as someone who vehemently criticized the McCain campaign for picking Palin and subsequently raised money for and supported Huckabee for the 2008 race.

    That doesn’t change the fact that Palin showed good promise and political talents in the “regional circuit” and could have been developed further as a national candidate far better than she actually was. You rush somebody who is not ready into a championship bout and she’s going to be squashed. Candidate development matters (see Perry, Rick; Jindal, Bobby; and Rubio, Marco).

  69. “Gaming the system basically means corrupting the system…”

    I stated clearly WITHIN the bounds of the law. What is inherently wrong about a high IQ person in business who generates wealth in this fashion? Do you realize capitalism rests on this principle?

Comments are closed.

PastClassics
The unprecedented racial transformation of California and its political consequences.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.