The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
It Only Took Until 2018 ...
🔊 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

From the Daily Mail:

Mother who tricked her 17-year-old daughter into going to Pakistan and forced her to marry a male relative 16 years older than her is found guilty in UK legal first

Woman has been found guilty for forcing daughter, 17, to marry male relative, 33

Disturbing evidence heard how parent tricked her child into flying to Pakistan

By Katie French For Mailonline

PUBLISHED: 10:26 EDT, 22 May 2018 | UPDATED: 13:29 EDT, 22 May 2018

A mother has been convicted of duping her teenage daughter to go to Pakistan and forcing her to marry, in the first successful prosecution of its type.

The woman was found guilty following a trial at Birmingham Crown Court, where a jury heard how the victim had sobbed as she was married to a male relative 16 years her senior.

Years earlier, the man had taken the girl’s virginity after a marriage contract was entered into against the girl’s will.

The then 13-year-old had to undergo an abortion on returning to the UK, with her GP reporting his concerns to social services. …

Judge Patrick Thomas QC told the jury the adjournment was appropriate as the case was ‘entirely novel’, with no other relevant case law to rely upon.

After all, there were practically no Pakistanis in England practicing enforced cousin marriage for immigration fraud purposes until, what, a mere 55 years ago? So how was anybody supposed to know this kind of thing was going on? These days, British broadsheets and the BBC mostly seem to cover immigration issues in terms of the docking of the Windrush in 1948, so they can hardly be expected to have noticed anything happening post-Clement Attlee.

 
Hide 108 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. there’s often a lot of money in it too – the family in India/Pakistan pay the UK based family thousands as it gets them a UK/EU passport followed by chain migration for the entire clan.

  2. I thought they usually married their father’s brother’s son? Or was that indeed the relative since her mother and father were probably related?

  3. Britain was much too staid and stodgy. The land of Shakespeare and Chaucer and Cook and Nelson needed and still needs the vibrancy of inbred, low IQ Pakis for renewal , revitalization and colonization.

  4. But isn’t it the white American husbands women have to worry about? Isn’t it the American wives who need to have personal bug-out kits ready for all the terrible things their man might do?

    • Replies: @Anon
    Another 90 year old male virgin blaming feminazis for his virgin status.

    Get away from your your porn sites. Practice talking to women and see what happens
  5. OT Trump going after the Democrat-FusionGPS-Awan mess, NY congressman Lee Zeldin announces it in a press conference last night, it hits the news cycle today, aaaaaand no one could have foreseen bomb threats at a school. Local rumors are that material was found and more than one school was closed, multiple national news sites say that no material was found.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2018-05-23/the-latest-no-bomb-found-at-school-after-evacuation

  6. Where would Britain be today without hordes of Paki Muslims practicing forced inbreeding?

  7. Of course not every man in Pakistan dreams of marrying his cousin

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/lucrative-sham-marriage-scam-brought-to-an-end-at-dublin-cricket-match-1.3504893

    Well at least not for the first wedding

    • Replies: @NickG
    Of UK Muslims who marry, more than 50% marry first cousins.

    Daily Mail article
  8. I’m still not sure what law the mom broke exactly.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    I’m still not sure what law the mom broke exactly.
     
    Forcing a person to marry has been a crime in the UK since 2007. The law was needed to counter the tendency of some British Pakistanis to force their children (usually daughters) to marry someone of the parents' choice. A forced marriage often involves a trip to Pakistan to marry a first or second cousin.
    , @Anon
    It’s violations of sections 63D thru 63L of the 2014 and 2007 anti social behavior acts.


    The unspeakably obscene British will prosecute forced marriages of Paki girls but aid and abet a million gang rapes and forced prostitution of White British girls over the last 40 years.

    The UK police traveled to Pakistan to gather evidence. When White British parents reported gang rapes of their 12 year old daughters the police threatened to arrest the parents for racism and wasting police time.

    F’ em
  9. The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani girls in Britain who don’t protest at all to being expected to marry their cousins.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    >>The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani girls in Britain who don’t protest at all to being expected to marry their cousins.

    And who are they going to protest to? Their mothers, aunts? Their mothers and aunts are almost always in on the fix. If the girls mouth off to much in protest they are likely to be murdered, if not in Britain, then back in Pakistan.
    , @Anonym

    The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani (girls) in Britain
     
    FTFY. They can have their culture, but in Pakistan.
    , @Lurker
    I'm not sad about it all. It's not the job of our society to somehow fix the flaws in theirs. Especially not through insipid liberal measures which will take many generations to work, if at all.

    I don't want them here and it's one cultural difference that helps keep them at arm's length.
  10. It’s not just Pakistan.

    Here’s an article posted yesterday about a girl born in New York who doesn’t really want to marry her cousin in Pakistan.

    Not because she has a problem with cousin marriage, but because she just doesn’t love him.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/adaughter/parents-arranged-marriage-i-dont-want

    • Replies: @wren
    It's not just Britain, I meant.

    Buzzfeed seems to see nothing wrong with the fact that the American girl's Pakistani parents are essentially forcing her to marry her Pakistani cousin and get the green card.

    She doesn't seem to see anything wrong with that either.

    She's just mad because she wanted to fall in love with someone, like her American friends.
  11. What is unstated in all articles like this is that it may well be in the mother’s genetic interests to help force her daughters into such arranges marriages.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What is unstated in all articles like this is that it may well be in the mother’s genetic interests to help force her daughters into such arranges marriages.
     
    Why is that?
  12. It only took until 2018, but plenty of whites got the message. From a Spanish anon who invites all British emigrants to bring their money to his lovely peninsula:

    So many whites fled the UK in one year that despite massive [offensive word] influx, the net migration became negative. UK Companies in su[i]cide watch cannot bribe whites enough to stay.

    Previous thread:
    >>172646968 → #

    >summary from several sources:
    Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 174,600 Europeans left the UK in the year to March, with the unprecedented exodus driving a drop in net migration. “I don’t feel welcome here anymore,” says Lukasz, a Polish man who has lived in the UK since he was eight years old. Business groups have raised mounting concerns over “brain drain” from vital industries. A survey of the UK’s manufacturing industry, including food and drink businesses, found that 13% of manufacturers reported an increase in EU workers leaving their businesses. The number of applications by European citizens for manufacturing jobs in the UK has dropped 17% since last year, leaving 50% of firms concerned about their ability to access skills post-Brexit. The EEF also found that 16% of manufacturers had introduced schemes and policies to try to stem the haemorrhaging of EU talent from their businesses. Higher awards are being targeted at retaining staff with “key skills”, which reflects the concerns over availability of migrant workers.

    https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2018/05/21/Manufacturers-report-rising-loss-of-EU-workers

    https://themalaysianreserve.com/2018/05/17/eu-workers-stay-away-from-uk-on-brexit/

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-migration-uk-brexit-referendum-latest-net-fall-figures-why-racism-hate-crime-brexodus-government-a7911196.html

    Media in full damage control mode, tries to pin this to Brexit instead of Sharia government. The tag in twitter is #Brexodus.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Follow-up to this: companies in the US are hiking trucker wages after years of suppressing them or letting them stagnate. Companies are having trouble finding new truckers after years of telling people that automated trucking is a month away and trucking as a career will no longer exist.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/america-doesn%E2%80%99t-have-enough-truckers-and-it%E2%80%99s-starting-to-cause-prices-of-about-everything-to-rise/ar-AAxAyYC?li=BBnbfcN&srcref=rss
    , @Tyrion 2
    Net migration isn't negative. It is still huge (244,000). It is even still huge if you count only EU citizens (90,000). Everyone wants a bite of the carcass.

    The only reliable source for British immigration analysis is below.

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics
  13. That’s how (at least some) Paki women feel about and treat ‘their own’, even ‘their own’ daughters — now imagine how Paki men feel about yob English girls — oh wait, you don’t have to imagine.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm looking around for feminists, and I'm hearing crickets.
    , @eah
    https://twitter.com/BreitbartLondon/status/977205832038404096
    , @Reg Cæsar
    We have no right to tell these people how to run their lives.

    Thus, we have every right-- and duty-- to tell them to go home.

    Done right, multiculturalism works for our side!
  14. @wren
    It's not just Pakistan.

    Here's an article posted yesterday about a girl born in New York who doesn't really want to marry her cousin in Pakistan.

    Not because she has a problem with cousin marriage, but because she just doesn't love him.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/adaughter/parents-arranged-marriage-i-dont-want

    It’s not just Britain, I meant.

    Buzzfeed seems to see nothing wrong with the fact that the American girl’s Pakistani parents are essentially forcing her to marry her Pakistani cousin and get the green card.

    She doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with that either.

    She’s just mad because she wanted to fall in love with someone, like her American friends.

    • Replies: @wren
    I wonder why I wrote Pakistan when I meant Britain.

    Anyway:

    One day, my mom told me that a family member had asked for my hand in marriage for their son — my cousin. She told me she and my dad had agreed and they just needed my permission to finalize it. I remember looking at her hopeful face. She was tearing up from happiness. And then, I told her no.

    I watched her smile turn to confusion. I don’t want to marry him, I told her. She asked why and I answered: Because he’s my cousin!

    While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with marrying your cousin — there are married cousins in my family — I just never wanted it to be me. But I never thought I would have to. I am American. I live in America. He lives in Pakistan. He has a totally different outlook on life. He grew up never being expected to cook or clean or have to one day change a child’s diaper. I don’t remember having one conversation with him, except the usual assalam alaikum. He’s never made me laugh. I’d have to move to Pakistan, a place that is not my home, after marriage because it takes time to sponsor your husband. I didn’t want any of that.
     
    America, May 22, 2018
  15. @wren
    It's not just Britain, I meant.

    Buzzfeed seems to see nothing wrong with the fact that the American girl's Pakistani parents are essentially forcing her to marry her Pakistani cousin and get the green card.

    She doesn't seem to see anything wrong with that either.

    She's just mad because she wanted to fall in love with someone, like her American friends.

    I wonder why I wrote Pakistan when I meant Britain.

    Anyway:

    One day, my mom told me that a family member had asked for my hand in marriage for their son — my cousin. She told me she and my dad had agreed and they just needed my permission to finalize it. I remember looking at her hopeful face. She was tearing up from happiness. And then, I told her no.

    I watched her smile turn to confusion. I don’t want to marry him, I told her. She asked why and I answered: Because he’s my cousin!

    While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with marrying your cousin — there are married cousins in my family — I just never wanted it to be me. But I never thought I would have to. I am American. I live in America. He lives in Pakistan. He has a totally different outlook on life. He grew up never being expected to cook or clean or have to one day change a child’s diaper. I don’t remember having one conversation with him, except the usual assalam alaikum. He’s never made me laugh. I’d have to move to Pakistan, a place that is not my home, after marriage because it takes time to sponsor your husband. I didn’t want any of that.

    America, May 22, 2018

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I knew an Old World Muslim in a more or less arranged marriage with a (younger) New World Muslima, though a) they weren't cousins, and b) the groom was likely more cosmopolitan and affluent than the above Pakistani cousin was. I wondered if the Old World/New World gap might be too much for them to bridge, but they did pretty well at that from what I could see. Still, it didn't last in the long run. I wasn't privy to the specific reasons, but I think it may have had to do with her failure to conceive, which as you probably know is the sine qua non for marriage in a many more traditional cultures. Anyway, he later remarried a lady from his homeland, so he wasn't trolling for green cards.

    Anyhow, I agree with the concern in your comment. It just reminded me of this story.

  16. @eah
    That's how (at least some) Paki women feel about and treat 'their own', even 'their own' daughters -- now imagine how Paki men feel about yob English girls -- oh wait, you don't have to imagine.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd1RCcyUQAA06rO.jpg

    I’m looking around for feminists, and I’m hearing crickets.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’m looking around for feminists, and I’m hearing crickets.
     
    Nobody cares what feminists have to say. White women are at the bottom of the PC totem pole.
    , @Mishra
    It's like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a 'Daily Struggle' meme for them. Google only presents this so far:

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/215/006/de3.png

    We probably need a tranny one, which could work for everyone. Right?
  17. @eah
    That's how (at least some) Paki women feel about and treat 'their own', even 'their own' daughters -- now imagine how Paki men feel about yob English girls -- oh wait, you don't have to imagine.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd1RCcyUQAA06rO.jpg

  18. @wren
    I wonder why I wrote Pakistan when I meant Britain.

    Anyway:

    One day, my mom told me that a family member had asked for my hand in marriage for their son — my cousin. She told me she and my dad had agreed and they just needed my permission to finalize it. I remember looking at her hopeful face. She was tearing up from happiness. And then, I told her no.

    I watched her smile turn to confusion. I don’t want to marry him, I told her. She asked why and I answered: Because he’s my cousin!

    While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with marrying your cousin — there are married cousins in my family — I just never wanted it to be me. But I never thought I would have to. I am American. I live in America. He lives in Pakistan. He has a totally different outlook on life. He grew up never being expected to cook or clean or have to one day change a child’s diaper. I don’t remember having one conversation with him, except the usual assalam alaikum. He’s never made me laugh. I’d have to move to Pakistan, a place that is not my home, after marriage because it takes time to sponsor your husband. I didn’t want any of that.
     
    America, May 22, 2018

    I knew an Old World Muslim in a more or less arranged marriage with a (younger) New World Muslima, though a) they weren’t cousins, and b) the groom was likely more cosmopolitan and affluent than the above Pakistani cousin was. I wondered if the Old World/New World gap might be too much for them to bridge, but they did pretty well at that from what I could see. Still, it didn’t last in the long run. I wasn’t privy to the specific reasons, but I think it may have had to do with her failure to conceive, which as you probably know is the sine qua non for marriage in a many more traditional cultures. Anyway, he later remarried a lady from his homeland, so he wasn’t trolling for green cards.

    Anyhow, I agree with the concern in your comment. It just reminded me of this story.

  19. Actually white southerners are more likely to marry and sex up minor children

    Just look at Roy Moore the pedophile

    The truth is that white Christian’s males are sexual predators and commit a disproportionate amount of crime and violence throughout history

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I only wish that I could have been a sexual predator, TD.
  20. @Wilkey
    The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani girls in Britain who don't protest at all to being expected to marry their cousins.

    >>The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani girls in Britain who don’t protest at all to being expected to marry their cousins.

    And who are they going to protest to? Their mothers, aunts? Their mothers and aunts are almost always in on the fix. If the girls mouth off to much in protest they are likely to be murdered, if not in Britain, then back in Pakistan.

  21. J.Ross says: • Website
    @J.Ross
    It only took until 2018, but plenty of whites got the message. From a Spanish anon who invites all British emigrants to bring their money to his lovely peninsula:

    So many whites fled the UK in one year that despite massive [offensive word] influx, the net migration became negative. UK Companies in su[i]cide watch cannot bribe whites enough to stay.

    Previous thread:
    >>172646968 → #

    >summary from several sources:
    Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 174,600 Europeans left the UK in the year to March, with the unprecedented exodus driving a drop in net migration. “I don’t feel welcome here anymore,” says Lukasz, a Polish man who has lived in the UK since he was eight years old. Business groups have raised mounting concerns over “brain drain” from vital industries. A survey of the UK’s manufacturing industry, including food and drink businesses, found that 13% of manufacturers reported an increase in EU workers leaving their businesses. The number of applications by European citizens for manufacturing jobs in the UK has dropped 17% since last year, leaving 50% of firms concerned about their ability to access skills post-Brexit. The EEF also found that 16% of manufacturers had introduced schemes and policies to try to stem the haemorrhaging of EU talent from their businesses. Higher awards are being targeted at retaining staff with “key skills”, which reflects the concerns over availability of migrant workers.
    https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2018/05/21/Manufacturers-report-rising-loss-of-EU-workers
    https://themalaysianreserve.com/2018/05/17/eu-workers-stay-away-from-uk-on-brexit/
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-migration-uk-brexit-referendum-latest-net-fall-figures-why-racism-hate-crime-brexodus-government-a7911196.html

    Media in full damage control mode, tries to pin this to Brexit instead of Sharia government. The tag in twitter is #Brexodus.

    Follow-up to this: companies in the US are hiking trucker wages after years of suppressing them or letting them stagnate. Companies are having trouble finding new truckers after years of telling people that automated trucking is a month away and trucking as a career will no longer exist.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/america-doesn%E2%80%99t-have-enough-truckers-and-it%E2%80%99s-starting-to-cause-prices-of-about-everything-to-rise/ar-AAxAyYC?li=BBnbfcN&srcref=rss

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Follow-up to this: companies in the US are hiking trucker wages after years of suppressing them or letting them stagnate. Companies are having trouble finding new truckers after years of telling people that automated trucking is a month away and trucking as a career will no longer exist.
     
    YellowRoadway doesn't have a problem finding drivers, neither do most of the other LTL companies.
    Because the pay is commensurate with the lifestyle.

    https://vimeo.com/98764665

    Schneider? Swift? CR Englsnd? The hungrier they get the better. No sympathy for these schmucks.
  22. @eah
    That's how (at least some) Paki women feel about and treat 'their own', even 'their own' daughters -- now imagine how Paki men feel about yob English girls -- oh wait, you don't have to imagine.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd1RCcyUQAA06rO.jpg

    We have no right to tell these people how to run their lives.

    Thus, we have every right– and duty– to tell them to go home.

    Done right, multiculturalism works for our side!

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    We have no right to tell these people how to run their lives.

    Thus, we have every right– and duty– to tell them to go home.

    Done right, multiculturalism works for our side!
     
    Doing it "right"would be wrong for the people in power.
    QED.
  23. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm looking around for feminists, and I'm hearing crickets.

    I’m looking around for feminists, and I’m hearing crickets.

    Nobody cares what feminists have to say. White women are at the bottom of the PC totem pole.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    Nobody cares what feminists have to say.
     
    As if this ever stopped them telling us anyway! You know, #metoo, Morgan Freeman, the pay gap, patriarchy ...

    When feminists encounter evils such as forced marriage, mass gang rape of underage girls, and polygamy, they look the other way. Why do you think that is?

    White women are at the bottom of the PC totem pole.
     
    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men. That is, if they are cis-gendered, heterosexual, non-Hispanic, gentile, and voted for Trump.
  24. After all, there were practically no Pakistanis in England practicing enforced cousin marriage for immigration fraud purposes until, what, a mere 55 years ago? So how was anybody supposed to know this kind of thing was going on?

    Because It’s The Current Year.

    That’s how.

  25. @Peripatetic commenter
    What is unstated in all articles like this is that it may well be in the mother's genetic interests to help force her daughters into such arranges marriages.

    What is unstated in all articles like this is that it may well be in the mother’s genetic interests to help force her daughters into such arranges marriages.

    Why is that?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    It increases the likelihood of her own genetics being propagated on her decisions and the environment. Simple math. Assume that if through her intervention, her daughter is assured to have one child, then her genetic contribution to the population is 0.5x + 0.25x = 0.75x where x is her genetic identity(since half of it will be her husband's and half of that again will be her son in law's).

    Assuming lack of influence will see that her daughter have, say, 50% chance of not conceiving even one child, then her genetic contribution(estimated) will be 0.5x + 0.5(0.25x) = 0.625x. It also decreases her influence over the provider for her daughter, potentially reducing the survival of her grandchild and various considerations on her genetic contribution from there.

    This isn't merely theory; a feminist researcher by the name of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy calculated similar numbers and found that women roughly do seem to be unconsciously aware of such stakes, and participate in polygamy, for example, when it maximizes the resources to themselves and their children.

    The interesting complexity in such was often that the "first wife" or the woman most in favor would benefit, but the others would not(or much less so); nonetheless women often took the gamble to join such arrangements over monogamous ones. This might partly due to the usual Dunning-Kruger error of overestimating one's value, etc.

  26. To Whom it May Concern (Steve):

    OT: I commented the other day that mothers feel secure knowing their children have each other to rely on. I was curious, so I looked around to see if I could find anything on “sibship size” and life outcomes. It turns out that each additional sibling reduces divorce risk by 3% according to this paper.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X14560641?journalCode=jfia

    Moreover, each sibling appears to increase the likelihood of marriage, possibly because of transferable negotiation skills learned in childhood sibling relationships. Traditional values seem only to be part of the answer.

    I didn’t find any data on the effect of opposite sex siblings. I would assume that opposite sex siblings increase the likelihood of a successful marriage. First of all, girls with brothers may enjoy a certain protection from predation by virtue of having a brother, which in turn would reduce their likelihood of developing a negative attitude toward all men based on misconduct by a few. By the same token, boys with sisters might find women less alien and incomprehensible. This al-Jazeera article quotes a former pimp who implies he deliberately targeted girls without brothers. I don’t know that it’s reliable, but it raises an interesting question.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/07/magazine-netherlands-stories-sex-trade-150713094241725.html

    There may actually be rather less fraternization with the enemy than in times past, contributing to flare-ups in the battle of the sexes. Small family size may actually be a cause as well as an effect of cultural and demographic decline.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Also, individuals with opposite sex children are likely to have a better informed, more open-minded view of the differences between the sexes. While people with just children of the same sex as themselves are more likely to fall for unrealistic ideas like the feminist worldview. So smaller families make one less likely to have opposite sex children.
    , @Anonymous
    Singletons are weird. I wonder if this is the reason for all the 'autism'?
  27. anonymous[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    What is unstated in all articles like this is that it may well be in the mother’s genetic interests to help force her daughters into such arranges marriages.
     
    Why is that?

    It increases the likelihood of her own genetics being propagated on her decisions and the environment. Simple math. Assume that if through her intervention, her daughter is assured to have one child, then her genetic contribution to the population is 0.5x + 0.25x = 0.75x where x is her genetic identity(since half of it will be her husband’s and half of that again will be her son in law’s).

    Assuming lack of influence will see that her daughter have, say, 50% chance of not conceiving even one child, then her genetic contribution(estimated) will be 0.5x + 0.5(0.25x) = 0.625x. It also decreases her influence over the provider for her daughter, potentially reducing the survival of her grandchild and various considerations on her genetic contribution from there.

    This isn’t merely theory; a feminist researcher by the name of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy calculated similar numbers and found that women roughly do seem to be unconsciously aware of such stakes, and participate in polygamy, for example, when it maximizes the resources to themselves and their children.

    The interesting complexity in such was often that the “first wife” or the woman most in favor would benefit, but the others would not(or much less so); nonetheless women often took the gamble to join such arrangements over monogamous ones. This might partly due to the usual Dunning-Kruger error of overestimating one’s value, etc.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It also decreases her influence over the provider for her daughter, potentially reducing the survival of her grandchild and various considerations on her genetic contribution from there.
     
    I understand this well enough. All else equal, I would of course prefer a match for my kids where their spouse would be under social pressure not to abandon them. If that's what you're getting at?

    BTW, I think family connections may play some role in the phenomenon I noted above. I think men from larger families have an edge in the marriage market and are protected from abandonment to some extent by their siblings. I would imagine that the custom of patrilocality helped facilitate the bride's enmeshment in her groom's family. You may be willing to give your husband a fourth or fifth chance if he is also your best friend's brother. I can't say I like the custom, but I understand it.
  28. @Wilkey
    The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani girls in Britain who don't protest at all to being expected to marry their cousins.

    The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani (girls) in Britain

    FTFY. They can have their culture, but in Pakistan.

  29. @Buzz Mohawk
    I'm looking around for feminists, and I'm hearing crickets.

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:

    We probably need a tranny one, which could work for everyone. Right?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:
     
    Suppose woke feminists started by rushing isteve and other dissident right forums after realizing that we need to get Western Civilization on a more sustainable path. Would you welcome them? How about you, Buzz? Or whoever else wants to answer.

    My impression is that women are criticized for not seeing that the Right represents their true best interests. Then, women who actually acknowledge that the Right represents our true best interests are accused of feminist entryism and subversion!?!
  30. Hey, wait a second, I thought they couldn’t do this. The Brits, I mean. Aren’t there 100 or so Sharia Courts in England, in accordance with the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution? How did this wind up in a British court?

    Maybe that’s why it’s “‘entirely novel’, with no relevant case law”.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    The nations that have colonized the west (Muslim, Jewish, etc.) came equipped with comprehensive law and court systems. They work together to establish their law and courts as legally acceptable alternative venues where disputes must be settled.

    There is nothing surprising about this. The 17th century settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts, for example, created their own courts for their own people and did not (for example) petition the Grand Sachem of the Wampanoags to settle their commercial, criminal and family disputes in a Grand Pow-Wow around a Council Fire.

    In my view, this is a fundamental difference between "immigrants" and "colonists". Colonists establish their own courts/laws for their own people to firm up their own borders and bind their own people more closely together. Immigrants submit to the courts/laws of the countries they immigrate to and ultimately assimilate.

    More recently, Western states have assisted this creeping substitution by passing laws that accept (even require) other courts, laws, and legal systems under the rubric of "alternative dispute resolution" or ADR. A century ago, this replacement of American court jurisdiction would have been anathema. Nowadays, it is commonplace. Read the terms and conditions of your last clickwrap agreement. Typically, you surrender your right to sue in an American court for wrongs done to you and agree to be heard and judged by special commercial tribunals instead.

    Now that American courts have been devoured by SJWs (particularly family courts) we should copy the American colonists, the Jews and the Muslims by establishing our own alternative courts.

    Imagine, for example, a marriage contract that says "any disputes arising under this agreement shall be resolved by the Court of American Christian Patriarchy."

    Don't laugh. This is, in effect, how marital law works in Israel ... and Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc.
    , @James N. Kennett
    The Sharia courts cannot prosecute criminal cases. They can arbitrate commercial cases where the parties have agreed to be bound by Sharia Law (though there is the right of appeal to the High Court). They also rule on matters where the civil law does not apply, such as religious divorces.

    The reason there is no case law might be that this is the first case to be prosecuted: the law on forced marriage was enacted only in 2007.

  31. Living on a thin line indeed

  32. @Wilkey
    The sadder fact is that there are so many young Pakistani girls in Britain who don't protest at all to being expected to marry their cousins.

    I’m not sad about it all. It’s not the job of our society to somehow fix the flaws in theirs. Especially not through insipid liberal measures which will take many generations to work, if at all.

    I don’t want them here and it’s one cultural difference that helps keep them at arm’s length.

  33. Steve, I only started thinking numerately somewhat recently. So, now, articles like this one stick out:

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/may/23/ian-mckellen-half-of-hollywood-is-gay-fantastic-beasts

    GLAAD, whatever that is, in conjunction with Sir Gandalf McKellen won’t rest until gays (2% of population) increase representation from 12% to 50% in big movies.

    Also, the hyperlink says all you need to know about Hollywood.

    Should be “are” though.

  34. @Rosie
    To Whom it May Concern (Steve):

    OT: I commented the other day that mothers feel secure knowing their children have each other to rely on. I was curious, so I looked around to see if I could find anything on "sibship size" and life outcomes. It turns out that each additional sibling reduces divorce risk by 3% according to this paper.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X14560641?journalCode=jfia

    Moreover, each sibling appears to increase the likelihood of marriage, possibly because of transferable negotiation skills learned in childhood sibling relationships. Traditional values seem only to be part of the answer.

    I didn't find any data on the effect of opposite sex siblings. I would assume that opposite sex siblings increase the likelihood of a successful marriage. First of all, girls with brothers may enjoy a certain protection from predation by virtue of having a brother, which in turn would reduce their likelihood of developing a negative attitude toward all men based on misconduct by a few. By the same token, boys with sisters might find women less alien and incomprehensible. This al-Jazeera article quotes a former pimp who implies he deliberately targeted girls without brothers. I don't know that it's reliable, but it raises an interesting question.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/07/magazine-netherlands-stories-sex-trade-150713094241725.html

    There may actually be rather less fraternization with the enemy than in times past, contributing to flare-ups in the battle of the sexes. Small family size may actually be a cause as well as an effect of cultural and demographic decline.

    Also, individuals with opposite sex children are likely to have a better informed, more open-minded view of the differences between the sexes. While people with just children of the same sex as themselves are more likely to fall for unrealistic ideas like the feminist worldview. So smaller families make one less likely to have opposite sex children.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    One hesitates to think of what that says about Cher.
    , @Gordo
    Never thought of that but looks likely to be another negative factor in the way we live today.

    On the main heads of your article, as a UK resident, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
  35. Over 1,000 underage girls forced into sex slavery by migrant traffickers – Dutch report

    The traffickers, who can earn up to €800 per day from prostituting minors, are mostly Moroccans, Turks, Antilleans and Roma and usually have on thing in common, according to Carolien van den Honert, policy officer at the human rights charity Humanitas: “They are real criminals who act in people. In many cases they are part of a larger network that also engages in weapons or drug trafficking.”

  36. Anonymous[385] • Disclaimer says:
    @J.Ross
    Follow-up to this: companies in the US are hiking trucker wages after years of suppressing them or letting them stagnate. Companies are having trouble finding new truckers after years of telling people that automated trucking is a month away and trucking as a career will no longer exist.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/america-doesn%E2%80%99t-have-enough-truckers-and-it%E2%80%99s-starting-to-cause-prices-of-about-everything-to-rise/ar-AAxAyYC?li=BBnbfcN&srcref=rss

    Follow-up to this: companies in the US are hiking trucker wages after years of suppressing them or letting them stagnate. Companies are having trouble finding new truckers after years of telling people that automated trucking is a month away and trucking as a career will no longer exist.

    YellowRoadway doesn’t have a problem finding drivers, neither do most of the other LTL companies.
    Because the pay is commensurate with the lifestyle.

    Schneider? Swift? CR Englsnd? The hungrier they get the better. No sympathy for these schmucks.

  37. Anonymous[385] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    We have no right to tell these people how to run their lives.

    Thus, we have every right-- and duty-- to tell them to go home.

    Done right, multiculturalism works for our side!

    We have no right to tell these people how to run their lives.

    Thus, we have every right– and duty– to tell them to go home.

    Done right, multiculturalism works for our side!

    Doing it “right”would be wrong for the people in power.
    QED.

  38. Anonymous[385] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Also, individuals with opposite sex children are likely to have a better informed, more open-minded view of the differences between the sexes. While people with just children of the same sex as themselves are more likely to fall for unrealistic ideas like the feminist worldview. So smaller families make one less likely to have opposite sex children.

    One hesitates to think of what that says about Cher.

  39. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, this particular species of immigration fraud has been going on for at least half a century in Britain. Basically, it’s the reason why subcontinental immigration to Britain has never abated and has only ever exponentially increased, in comparison, other ‘Commonwealth’ immigration largely dried up, due to increasingly restrictive Acts, eg, Jamaican virtually stoppedafter 1971.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    New Labour got rid of the Primary Purpose Rule, brought in by Maggie Thatcher, which did stymie the subcontinental tidal wave somewhat.
  40. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:

    Ironically, the SS. Empire Windrush was a ‘war prize’ summarily seized from the Germans at the close of WW2 as a ‘reparation’. What the might of the German war machine failed to do, the ‘war prize’ succeeded – whilst in the ‘victor’s’ hands.

    Contrary to popular myth, the passengers of the Windrush, were never ever ‘invited’ by the British government or any British employer to come to Britain. They were chancers, opportunists, just like those invader currently plaguing Italy.
    Their arrival caused considerable disquiet. A senior Labour minister said ‘Don’t worry, they won’t last a single English winter’.

    Just how wrong a man could be.

  41. “British broadsheets and the BBC mostly seem to cover immigration issues in terms of the docking of the Windrush in 1948″

    From the Guardian’s coverage, the Empire Windrush must have had at least 20,000 people on board.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    From the Guardian’s coverage, the Empire Windrush must have had at least 20,000 people on board.
     
    The term "Windrush' is used to cover all the people who moved from the West Indies to Britain between 1948 and 1972.

    The UK government is behaving rather badly, because it is picking on mostly uneducated and barely literate people who have lived and worked in the UK for decades, and in many cases believed (correctly) that they were born British citizens and did not know that they needed to update their status or else face deportation.

    Many of them have spouses and children who are British citizens and have no ongoing connection with Jamaica or wherever they were born. In most cases these are not people who have filing cabinets full of documents detailing everything they have ever done in the UK.

    Imagine, for example, the furore if the US started to deport Puerto Rican retirees living in Florida for not applying for residency permits on the mainland.
  42. @J.Ross
    It only took until 2018, but plenty of whites got the message. From a Spanish anon who invites all British emigrants to bring their money to his lovely peninsula:

    So many whites fled the UK in one year that despite massive [offensive word] influx, the net migration became negative. UK Companies in su[i]cide watch cannot bribe whites enough to stay.

    Previous thread:
    >>172646968 → #

    >summary from several sources:
    Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 174,600 Europeans left the UK in the year to March, with the unprecedented exodus driving a drop in net migration. “I don’t feel welcome here anymore,” says Lukasz, a Polish man who has lived in the UK since he was eight years old. Business groups have raised mounting concerns over “brain drain” from vital industries. A survey of the UK’s manufacturing industry, including food and drink businesses, found that 13% of manufacturers reported an increase in EU workers leaving their businesses. The number of applications by European citizens for manufacturing jobs in the UK has dropped 17% since last year, leaving 50% of firms concerned about their ability to access skills post-Brexit. The EEF also found that 16% of manufacturers had introduced schemes and policies to try to stem the haemorrhaging of EU talent from their businesses. Higher awards are being targeted at retaining staff with “key skills”, which reflects the concerns over availability of migrant workers.
    https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2018/05/21/Manufacturers-report-rising-loss-of-EU-workers
    https://themalaysianreserve.com/2018/05/17/eu-workers-stay-away-from-uk-on-brexit/
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-migration-uk-brexit-referendum-latest-net-fall-figures-why-racism-hate-crime-brexodus-government-a7911196.html

    Media in full damage control mode, tries to pin this to Brexit instead of Sharia government. The tag in twitter is #Brexodus.

    Net migration isn’t negative. It is still huge (244,000). It is even still huge if you count only EU citizens (90,000). Everyone wants a bite of the carcass.

    The only reliable source for British immigration analysis is below.

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Good post, depressing information.
  43. @Steve Sailer
    Also, individuals with opposite sex children are likely to have a better informed, more open-minded view of the differences between the sexes. While people with just children of the same sex as themselves are more likely to fall for unrealistic ideas like the feminist worldview. So smaller families make one less likely to have opposite sex children.

    Never thought of that but looks likely to be another negative factor in the way we live today.

    On the main heads of your article, as a UK resident, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

  44. @(((They))) Live
    Of course not every man in Pakistan dreams of marrying his cousin

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/lucrative-sham-marriage-scam-brought-to-an-end-at-dublin-cricket-match-1.3504893

    Well at least not for the first wedding

    Of UK Muslims who marry, more than 50% marry first cousins.

    Daily Mail article

  45. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    To Whom it May Concern (Steve):

    OT: I commented the other day that mothers feel secure knowing their children have each other to rely on. I was curious, so I looked around to see if I could find anything on "sibship size" and life outcomes. It turns out that each additional sibling reduces divorce risk by 3% according to this paper.

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X14560641?journalCode=jfia

    Moreover, each sibling appears to increase the likelihood of marriage, possibly because of transferable negotiation skills learned in childhood sibling relationships. Traditional values seem only to be part of the answer.

    I didn't find any data on the effect of opposite sex siblings. I would assume that opposite sex siblings increase the likelihood of a successful marriage. First of all, girls with brothers may enjoy a certain protection from predation by virtue of having a brother, which in turn would reduce their likelihood of developing a negative attitude toward all men based on misconduct by a few. By the same token, boys with sisters might find women less alien and incomprehensible. This al-Jazeera article quotes a former pimp who implies he deliberately targeted girls without brothers. I don't know that it's reliable, but it raises an interesting question.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/07/magazine-netherlands-stories-sex-trade-150713094241725.html

    There may actually be rather less fraternization with the enemy than in times past, contributing to flare-ups in the battle of the sexes. Small family size may actually be a cause as well as an effect of cultural and demographic decline.

    Singletons are weird. I wonder if this is the reason for all the ‘autism’?

  46. Disturbing evidence heard how parent tricked her child into flying to Pakistan

    This recent hi-tech app will undoubtedly solve the problem.

  47. @Anon7
    Hey, wait a second, I thought they couldn't do this. The Brits, I mean. Aren't there 100 or so Sharia Courts in England, in accordance with the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution? How did this wind up in a British court?

    Maybe that's why it's "'entirely novel', with no relevant case law".

    The nations that have colonized the west (Muslim, Jewish, etc.) came equipped with comprehensive law and court systems. They work together to establish their law and courts as legally acceptable alternative venues where disputes must be settled.

    There is nothing surprising about this. The 17th century settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts, for example, created their own courts for their own people and did not (for example) petition the Grand Sachem of the Wampanoags to settle their commercial, criminal and family disputes in a Grand Pow-Wow around a Council Fire.

    In my view, this is a fundamental difference between “immigrants” and “colonists”. Colonists establish their own courts/laws for their own people to firm up their own borders and bind their own people more closely together. Immigrants submit to the courts/laws of the countries they immigrate to and ultimately assimilate.

    More recently, Western states have assisted this creeping substitution by passing laws that accept (even require) other courts, laws, and legal systems under the rubric of “alternative dispute resolution” or ADR. A century ago, this replacement of American court jurisdiction would have been anathema. Nowadays, it is commonplace. Read the terms and conditions of your last clickwrap agreement. Typically, you surrender your right to sue in an American court for wrongs done to you and agree to be heard and judged by special commercial tribunals instead.

    Now that American courts have been devoured by SJWs (particularly family courts) we should copy the American colonists, the Jews and the Muslims by establishing our own alternative courts.

    Imagine, for example, a marriage contract that says “any disputes arising under this agreement shall be resolved by the Court of American Christian Patriarchy.”

    Don’t laugh. This is, in effect, how marital law works in Israel … and Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    You wrote:

    In my view, this is a fundamental difference between “immigrants” and “colonists”. Colonists establish their own courts/laws for their own people to firm up their own borders and bind their own people more closely together. Immigrants submit to the courts/laws of the countries they immigrate to and ultimately assimilate.
     
    I think that’s a great point; sorry it took me so long to respond.
  48. @YetAnotherAnon
    "British broadsheets and the BBC mostly seem to cover immigration issues in terms of the docking of the Windrush in 1948"

    From the Guardian's coverage, the Empire Windrush must have had at least 20,000 people on board.

    From the Guardian’s coverage, the Empire Windrush must have had at least 20,000 people on board.

    The term “Windrush’ is used to cover all the people who moved from the West Indies to Britain between 1948 and 1972.

    The UK government is behaving rather badly, because it is picking on mostly uneducated and barely literate people who have lived and worked in the UK for decades, and in many cases believed (correctly) that they were born British citizens and did not know that they needed to update their status or else face deportation.

    Many of them have spouses and children who are British citizens and have no ongoing connection with Jamaica or wherever they were born. In most cases these are not people who have filing cabinets full of documents detailing everything they have ever done in the UK.

    Imagine, for example, the furore if the US started to deport Puerto Rican retirees living in Florida for not applying for residency permits on the mainland.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So you shouldn't deport illegals because that might hurt their feelings? This kind of soft-headed thinking is the reason immigration has turned into such a huge problem for western countries.
    , @Anonymous
    On the other hand, the Jamaican diaspora are perhaps the most troublesome and objectionable immigrant sub population in the UK.

    The London murder wave is largely their doing. As were the riots in 1981, 1986 and 2012.

    All this combines to engender a certain lack of sympathy for them amongst certain. quarters.
    , @William Badwhite

    Imagine, for example, the furore if the US started to deport Puerto Rican retirees living in Florida for not applying for residency permits on the mainland.
     
    The only furor from me would be furious applause
  49. a jury heard how the victim had sobbed as she was married to a male relative 16 years her senior.

    All over the world, forced marriages between teen girls and old men are imposed by/for White Catholics.

    …at least according to this national campaign clip (with then French President Hollande’s girlfriend playing the mother).

  50. Anonymous[185] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    From the Guardian’s coverage, the Empire Windrush must have had at least 20,000 people on board.
     
    The term "Windrush' is used to cover all the people who moved from the West Indies to Britain between 1948 and 1972.

    The UK government is behaving rather badly, because it is picking on mostly uneducated and barely literate people who have lived and worked in the UK for decades, and in many cases believed (correctly) that they were born British citizens and did not know that they needed to update their status or else face deportation.

    Many of them have spouses and children who are British citizens and have no ongoing connection with Jamaica or wherever they were born. In most cases these are not people who have filing cabinets full of documents detailing everything they have ever done in the UK.

    Imagine, for example, the furore if the US started to deport Puerto Rican retirees living in Florida for not applying for residency permits on the mainland.

    So you shouldn’t deport illegals because that might hurt their feelings? This kind of soft-headed thinking is the reason immigration has turned into such a huge problem for western countries.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    So you shouldn’t deport illegals because that might hurt their feelings? This kind of soft-headed thinking is the reason immigration has turned into such a huge problem for western countries.
     
    The point about the recent deportations of the Windrush generation is that they were not illegals, but they had no documentation to verify their status. The government shredded the documents that they held on many of these legal immigrants, and they did this not in the distant past but in 2010.

    In the meantime, I doubt they have deported many "real" illegals - people who smuggled themselves into the country in the back of a truck - to places like Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on.
  51. Anonymous[254] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    From the Guardian’s coverage, the Empire Windrush must have had at least 20,000 people on board.
     
    The term "Windrush' is used to cover all the people who moved from the West Indies to Britain between 1948 and 1972.

    The UK government is behaving rather badly, because it is picking on mostly uneducated and barely literate people who have lived and worked in the UK for decades, and in many cases believed (correctly) that they were born British citizens and did not know that they needed to update their status or else face deportation.

    Many of them have spouses and children who are British citizens and have no ongoing connection with Jamaica or wherever they were born. In most cases these are not people who have filing cabinets full of documents detailing everything they have ever done in the UK.

    Imagine, for example, the furore if the US started to deport Puerto Rican retirees living in Florida for not applying for residency permits on the mainland.

    On the other hand, the Jamaican diaspora are perhaps the most troublesome and objectionable immigrant sub population in the UK.

    The London murder wave is largely their doing. As were the riots in 1981, 1986 and 2012.

    All this combines to engender a certain lack of sympathy for them amongst certain. quarters.

  52. Everyone wants a bite of the carcass.

    Perfect turn of phrase, T2.

  53. @Mishra
    It's like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a 'Daily Struggle' meme for them. Google only presents this so far:

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/215/006/de3.png

    We probably need a tranny one, which could work for everyone. Right?

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:

    Suppose woke feminists started by rushing isteve and other dissident right forums after realizing that we need to get Western Civilization on a more sustainable path. Would you welcome them? How about you, Buzz? Or whoever else wants to answer.

    My impression is that women are criticized for not seeing that the Right represents their true best interests. Then, women who actually acknowledge that the Right represents our true best interests are accused of feminist entryism and subversion!?!

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    How about you, Buzz?
     
    Oh bless your heart for referencing me. My male ego is nearby massaged. I am thus trolled.

    There are millions of women -- who would not call themselves feminists -- who have already long seen whatever light bulb just went on over your head. They are part of whatever you want to call this. This is not a male thing, but you are spring-loaded to see it as such.

    You come across like a girl who just graduated a small liberal arts college with a degree in women's studies.

    Perhaps you haven't been here long enough to have read my arguments in favor of abortion and women's choice. That makes me, maybe, a minority, but other men here have agreed with me. The truth is, some of these issues are just not the main point. They become red herrings and straw men for our enemies to use against us.

    If you persist with an obsession on what you think are exclusively women's issues and to treat women as a bloc, and to posit yourself as a self-appointed savior of us (as you yourself indicated earlier by saying something like, "I am here to save this movement") you will be sewing dissent and become suspect. I personally don't suspect you of anything but being just another commenter on the right of the IQ curve like everyone else here. It's nice to have you.

    , @Anonymous
    The fact that you boil down everything to "what represents my interests" rather than any transcendent value illustrates the fundamental issue with women since prehistory. There's basically no loyalty to anything beyond the self, and its quite appropriate thus to exclude women from any serious decisionmaking.

    Obviously this leads to cascading effect where women are never selected for decisionmaking, and thus continue to be poor at it, but now is not the time to start experimenting when behind.
    , @Anon
    Here is my impression of the right

    An incoherent useless mish mosh of

    anti abortion,

    pro dog eat dog capitalist starvation wage advocates,

    pro Israel,

    absolutely asine patriotism,

    ignorant constituonalism by people who never read a constitutional law book,

    Christianity,

    idiots who believe that endless discussion of race, IQ and HBD will end race discrimination against Whites,

    advocates for skilled non White immigration to steal good jobs from Whites

    naive fools

    and the only successful part of the right, the NRA
    , @Mishra
    Well, I know many smart women but what you call "the Right" isn't my bailiwick, so I guess my opinion isn't what you're seeking just now. And this is fine by me. The main thing I like about the "Alt-Right" is the "Alt" part.

    We're allowed to have differing opinions here. It would be very boring if we weren't. We're not remotely monolithic here--on this site, on this blog, and even among the "Alt-Right". We contain multitudes. Or, at least, we're working on it ;)

    , @MBlanc46
    Rosie, if supposedly anti-feminist women such as yourself didn’t come in here spouting the feminist party line, perhaps we would be more welcoming.
  54. @anonymous
    It increases the likelihood of her own genetics being propagated on her decisions and the environment. Simple math. Assume that if through her intervention, her daughter is assured to have one child, then her genetic contribution to the population is 0.5x + 0.25x = 0.75x where x is her genetic identity(since half of it will be her husband's and half of that again will be her son in law's).

    Assuming lack of influence will see that her daughter have, say, 50% chance of not conceiving even one child, then her genetic contribution(estimated) will be 0.5x + 0.5(0.25x) = 0.625x. It also decreases her influence over the provider for her daughter, potentially reducing the survival of her grandchild and various considerations on her genetic contribution from there.

    This isn't merely theory; a feminist researcher by the name of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy calculated similar numbers and found that women roughly do seem to be unconsciously aware of such stakes, and participate in polygamy, for example, when it maximizes the resources to themselves and their children.

    The interesting complexity in such was often that the "first wife" or the woman most in favor would benefit, but the others would not(or much less so); nonetheless women often took the gamble to join such arrangements over monogamous ones. This might partly due to the usual Dunning-Kruger error of overestimating one's value, etc.

    It also decreases her influence over the provider for her daughter, potentially reducing the survival of her grandchild and various considerations on her genetic contribution from there.

    I understand this well enough. All else equal, I would of course prefer a match for my kids where their spouse would be under social pressure not to abandon them. If that’s what you’re getting at?

    BTW, I think family connections may play some role in the phenomenon I noted above. I think men from larger families have an edge in the marriage market and are protected from abandonment to some extent by their siblings. I would imagine that the custom of patrilocality helped facilitate the bride’s enmeshment in her groom’s family. You may be willing to give your husband a fourth or fifth chance if he is also your best friend’s brother. I can’t say I like the custom, but I understand it.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I understand this well enough. All else equal, I would of course prefer a match for my kids where their spouse would be under social pressure not to abandon them. If that’s what you’re getting at?
     
    Mother's intuition (or whatever you want to call it) confirmed. It's called the "overlapping network effect." Couples whose socials networks are completely independent are a whopping 6 times more likely to divorce than couples with 100% shared (overlapping) networks.

    https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1449%26context%3Djpl&ved=2ahUKEwj9vdW8r5_bAhUc24MKHV0-AroQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0fgo54p9BRG42cjF3sMxkJ

    It seems urbanization and anonymization (stranger marriage?) may be major culprits in the divorce problem?
  55. @Jonathan Mason

    From the Guardian’s coverage, the Empire Windrush must have had at least 20,000 people on board.
     
    The term "Windrush' is used to cover all the people who moved from the West Indies to Britain between 1948 and 1972.

    The UK government is behaving rather badly, because it is picking on mostly uneducated and barely literate people who have lived and worked in the UK for decades, and in many cases believed (correctly) that they were born British citizens and did not know that they needed to update their status or else face deportation.

    Many of them have spouses and children who are British citizens and have no ongoing connection with Jamaica or wherever they were born. In most cases these are not people who have filing cabinets full of documents detailing everything they have ever done in the UK.

    Imagine, for example, the furore if the US started to deport Puerto Rican retirees living in Florida for not applying for residency permits on the mainland.

    Imagine, for example, the furore if the US started to deport Puerto Rican retirees living in Florida for not applying for residency permits on the mainland.

    The only furor from me would be furious applause

  56. @Rosie

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:
     
    Suppose woke feminists started by rushing isteve and other dissident right forums after realizing that we need to get Western Civilization on a more sustainable path. Would you welcome them? How about you, Buzz? Or whoever else wants to answer.

    My impression is that women are criticized for not seeing that the Right represents their true best interests. Then, women who actually acknowledge that the Right represents our true best interests are accused of feminist entryism and subversion!?!

    How about you, Buzz?

    Oh bless your heart for referencing me. My male ego is nearby massaged. I am thus trolled.

    There are millions of women — who would not call themselves feminists — who have already long seen whatever light bulb just went on over your head. They are part of whatever you want to call this. This is not a male thing, but you are spring-loaded to see it as such.

    You come across like a girl who just graduated a small liberal arts college with a degree in women’s studies.

    Perhaps you haven’t been here long enough to have read my arguments in favor of abortion and women’s choice. That makes me, maybe, a minority, but other men here have agreed with me. The truth is, some of these issues are just not the main point. They become red herrings and straw men for our enemies to use against us.

    If you persist with an obsession on what you think are exclusively women’s issues and to treat women as a bloc, and to posit yourself as a self-appointed savior of us (as you yourself indicated earlier by saying something like, “I am here to save this movement”) you will be sewing dissent and become suspect. I personally don’t suspect you of anything but being just another commenter on the right of the IQ curve like everyone else here. It’s nice to have you.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    It’s nice to have you.
     
    Thank you. That was very kind. The thing is, you didn't answer my question. In fact, I don't think you understood my question. Let me see if I can explain.

    If it seems that I'm obsessed with women's issues, that's only because that is the one issue that I think the isteve commentariat gets wrong, profoundly wrong. I don't think of women as a block at all. I don't think women have interests distinct or separate from White men, at least (and this is important), not in the long term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the men here who think so.

    IMHO, I would rather see the alt-Right ignore women completely. Unfortunately, that is impossible, because many dissident White men are convinced that we are their enemies. They are entitled to their say, and so am I, at the hosts' pleasure.
  57. Anonymous[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:
     
    Suppose woke feminists started by rushing isteve and other dissident right forums after realizing that we need to get Western Civilization on a more sustainable path. Would you welcome them? How about you, Buzz? Or whoever else wants to answer.

    My impression is that women are criticized for not seeing that the Right represents their true best interests. Then, women who actually acknowledge that the Right represents our true best interests are accused of feminist entryism and subversion!?!

    The fact that you boil down everything to “what represents my interests” rather than any transcendent value illustrates the fundamental issue with women since prehistory. There’s basically no loyalty to anything beyond the self, and its quite appropriate thus to exclude women from any serious decisionmaking.

    Obviously this leads to cascading effect where women are never selected for decisionmaking, and thus continue to be poor at it, but now is not the time to start experimenting when behind.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The fact that you boil down everything to “what represents my interests” rather than any transcendent value illustrates the fundamental issue with women since prehistory.
     
    Blah, blah, blah... How about you learn how to listen? I started my journey to the Right many years ago. Concerns about women's rights was only one of a number of issues that got me thinking about larger issues of culture and identity.

    Right now, there are probably White women beginning to have serious doubts about multiculturalism. Answer my question: Are you going to embrace them or not?
  58. @Anonymous
    The fact that you boil down everything to "what represents my interests" rather than any transcendent value illustrates the fundamental issue with women since prehistory. There's basically no loyalty to anything beyond the self, and its quite appropriate thus to exclude women from any serious decisionmaking.

    Obviously this leads to cascading effect where women are never selected for decisionmaking, and thus continue to be poor at it, but now is not the time to start experimenting when behind.

    The fact that you boil down everything to “what represents my interests” rather than any transcendent value illustrates the fundamental issue with women since prehistory.

    Blah, blah, blah… How about you learn how to listen? I started my journey to the Right many years ago. Concerns about women’s rights was only one of a number of issues that got me thinking about larger issues of culture and identity.

    Right now, there are probably White women beginning to have serious doubts about multiculturalism. Answer my question: Are you going to embrace them or not?

  59. @Buzz Mohawk

    How about you, Buzz?
     
    Oh bless your heart for referencing me. My male ego is nearby massaged. I am thus trolled.

    There are millions of women -- who would not call themselves feminists -- who have already long seen whatever light bulb just went on over your head. They are part of whatever you want to call this. This is not a male thing, but you are spring-loaded to see it as such.

    You come across like a girl who just graduated a small liberal arts college with a degree in women's studies.

    Perhaps you haven't been here long enough to have read my arguments in favor of abortion and women's choice. That makes me, maybe, a minority, but other men here have agreed with me. The truth is, some of these issues are just not the main point. They become red herrings and straw men for our enemies to use against us.

    If you persist with an obsession on what you think are exclusively women's issues and to treat women as a bloc, and to posit yourself as a self-appointed savior of us (as you yourself indicated earlier by saying something like, "I am here to save this movement") you will be sewing dissent and become suspect. I personally don't suspect you of anything but being just another commenter on the right of the IQ curve like everyone else here. It's nice to have you.

    It’s nice to have you.

    Thank you. That was very kind. The thing is, you didn’t answer my question. In fact, I don’t think you understood my question. Let me see if I can explain.

    If it seems that I’m obsessed with women’s issues, that’s only because that is the one issue that I think the isteve commentariat gets wrong, profoundly wrong. I don’t think of women as a block at all. I don’t think women have interests distinct or separate from White men, at least (and this is important), not in the long term. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is the men here who think so.

    IMHO, I would rather see the alt-Right ignore women completely. Unfortunately, that is impossible, because many dissident White men are convinced that we are their enemies. They are entitled to their say, and so am I, at the hosts’ pleasure.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    And by the way, the lightbulb went off in my head years ago. I have watched with horror as the alt-Right has descended into madness. I have even been reading isteve for years. I thought this WQ purity spiral would run its course and go away. It never did, obviously. It has just gotten worse and worse, even after 2016.
    , @Anon
    I’m a White woman and my only political position is White nationalism and the eradication of affirmative action.

    But these 90 year old male virgins who think sex assault in the workplace is perfectly all right annoy me, especially as Black men are absolutely the worst offenders both at work and in public

    The White men who defend sex assault defend the black and Hispanic men who commit the majority of sex assaults

    In most state criminal codes touching in the breast’s buttocks abs thighs is a criminal sex assault and battery offense.

    So a slap on the butt is a criminal sex assault and battery. Do men actually slap women on the behind in the workplace or out in public?????

    It’s something I’ve seen in old 1930s movies. Never anywhere else. Even black men don’t do that in the work place.


    I think the men on Unz are really too elderly and retired too long ago to be aware of what’s going on today.

    For instance most have no idea what criminal sex assault means.

    Others think that if a 13 year old girl is at least 5 “ 100 pounds and has a waist hips and bust it’s not a crime to have sex with her because she’s full grown.

    Was it really acceptable to grab women co workers on buttocks and crotch back in 1955 when you guys started work?

    Would you guys put up with gay men grabbing and pawing and asking for sex at work?

    Do you guys realize that all the accused men have been the sex sex sex perversion preversion perversion entertainment and TV industry?

    You guys rail against the immoral lecherous crude entertainment industry. But when the men who make the filth are exposed for the disgusting lechers they are; you defend them.

    , @Buzz Mohawk


    It’s nice to have you.
     
    Thank you. That was very kind. The thing is, you didn’t answer my question. In fact, I don’t think you understood my question.
     
    Twice I've answered your question, and twice you didn't realize it. Twice I've told you that it is good to have you here. Once right above you there, and once in an earlier comment.

    When someone snaps you with a towel in the locker room, it doesn't mean you are not welcome to be on the team. It means you are on the team.

    You are here participating, and you will continue to do so. What more proof do you need?

    We can discuss details like divorce settlements at some points, and we can address the varying views of different "alt-right" men toward women at other points, but I won't be drawn into a war between the sexes. Many men in this crowd, and I, do not share such antique opinions like repealing suffrage and eliminating choice that some others seem to have, so don't let those things distract you. I don't want to insult anybody, but not everyone here is a Catholic from the 1800s. (However, there are old things lost that need to be looked at, and there are many knowledgeable people here who share them.)

    The important issues do overlap and may indeed partly involve that whole muddy field you're walking through, so over time maybe some consensus will emerge on points you want to address. Mr. Unz facilitates the dialectic, and Mr. Sailer allows even fools like me to sit here with you and not even buy coffee, almost like Starbucks now.

    Perhaps we can work on that list of priorities you suggested, in order of importance, when we have the time.

  60. @Anonymous
    Yes, this particular species of immigration fraud has been going on for at least half a century in Britain. Basically, it's the reason why subcontinental immigration to Britain has never abated and has only ever exponentially increased, in comparison, other 'Commonwealth' immigration largely dried up, due to increasingly restrictive Acts, eg, Jamaican virtually stoppedafter 1971.

    New Labour got rid of the Primary Purpose Rule, brought in by Maggie Thatcher, which did stymie the subcontinental tidal wave somewhat.

  61. @Rosie

    It’s nice to have you.
     
    Thank you. That was very kind. The thing is, you didn't answer my question. In fact, I don't think you understood my question. Let me see if I can explain.

    If it seems that I'm obsessed with women's issues, that's only because that is the one issue that I think the isteve commentariat gets wrong, profoundly wrong. I don't think of women as a block at all. I don't think women have interests distinct or separate from White men, at least (and this is important), not in the long term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the men here who think so.

    IMHO, I would rather see the alt-Right ignore women completely. Unfortunately, that is impossible, because many dissident White men are convinced that we are their enemies. They are entitled to their say, and so am I, at the hosts' pleasure.

    And by the way, the lightbulb went off in my head years ago. I have watched with horror as the alt-Right has descended into madness. I have even been reading isteve for years. I thought this WQ purity spiral would run its course and go away. It never did, obviously. It has just gotten worse and worse, even after 2016.

  62. @Tyrion 2
    Net migration isn't negative. It is still huge (244,000). It is even still huge if you count only EU citizens (90,000). Everyone wants a bite of the carcass.

    The only reliable source for British immigration analysis is below.

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    Good post, depressing information.

  63. Something that has baffled me about my fellow liberals for decades:

    Many liberals think the best way to fight racism is to bring in immigrants who are racist.
    Many liberals think the best way to fight sexism is to bring in misogynistic immigrants.
    Many liberals think the best way to fight suburban sprawl is to bring in massive numbers of immigrants.
    Many liberals think the best way to fight global warming is to bring in massive numbers of people from countries with a low carbon footprint into the US, which as a much higher carbon footprint.

    … and so on.

    We could use a man like Gaylord Nelson again.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I too have noticed that.

    They are hysterical about auto emissions. But they advocate bringing in millions of immigrants a year who will not only drive cars and take public transit but consume millions of items a year delivered by trucks driving all over the country.

    Liberals are against rape, sex harassment and groping. But they absolutely worship the blacks and Hispanics who commit most of the sex offenses

    The only thing they are consistent about is being pro cheap immigrant labor and being anti the White male living wage labor unions.
  64. @Buzz Mohawk
    But isn't it the white American husbands women have to worry about? Isn't it the American wives who need to have personal bug-out kits ready for all the terrible things their man might do?

    Another 90 year old male virgin blaming feminazis for his virgin status.

    Get away from your your porn sites. Practice talking to women and see what happens

  65. @Rosie

    It also decreases her influence over the provider for her daughter, potentially reducing the survival of her grandchild and various considerations on her genetic contribution from there.
     
    I understand this well enough. All else equal, I would of course prefer a match for my kids where their spouse would be under social pressure not to abandon them. If that's what you're getting at?

    BTW, I think family connections may play some role in the phenomenon I noted above. I think men from larger families have an edge in the marriage market and are protected from abandonment to some extent by their siblings. I would imagine that the custom of patrilocality helped facilitate the bride's enmeshment in her groom's family. You may be willing to give your husband a fourth or fifth chance if he is also your best friend's brother. I can't say I like the custom, but I understand it.

    I understand this well enough. All else equal, I would of course prefer a match for my kids where their spouse would be under social pressure not to abandon them. If that’s what you’re getting at?

    Mother’s intuition (or whatever you want to call it) confirmed. It’s called the “overlapping network effect.” Couples whose socials networks are completely independent are a whopping 6 times more likely to divorce than couples with 100% shared (overlapping) networks.

    https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1449%26context%3Djpl&ved=2ahUKEwj9vdW8r5_bAhUc24MKHV0-AroQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0fgo54p9BRG42cjF3sMxkJ

    It seems urbanization and anonymization (stranger marriage?) may be major culprits in the divorce problem?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Oops my link doesn't work. Here's a link to an abstract with the full text in PDF.

    https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/36903

    Title: The impact of social capital on marital stability

  66. @Rosie

    I understand this well enough. All else equal, I would of course prefer a match for my kids where their spouse would be under social pressure not to abandon them. If that’s what you’re getting at?
     
    Mother's intuition (or whatever you want to call it) confirmed. It's called the "overlapping network effect." Couples whose socials networks are completely independent are a whopping 6 times more likely to divorce than couples with 100% shared (overlapping) networks.

    https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1449%26context%3Djpl&ved=2ahUKEwj9vdW8r5_bAhUc24MKHV0-AroQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0fgo54p9BRG42cjF3sMxkJ

    It seems urbanization and anonymization (stranger marriage?) may be major culprits in the divorce problem?

    Oops my link doesn’t work. Here’s a link to an abstract with the full text in PDF.

    https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/36903

    Title: The impact of social capital on marital stability

  67. @ScarletNumber
    I'm still not sure what law the mom broke exactly.

    I’m still not sure what law the mom broke exactly.

    Forcing a person to marry has been a crime in the UK since 2007. The law was needed to counter the tendency of some British Pakistanis to force their children (usually daughters) to marry someone of the parents’ choice. A forced marriage often involves a trip to Pakistan to marry a first or second cousin.

  68. @Rosie

    I’m looking around for feminists, and I’m hearing crickets.
     
    Nobody cares what feminists have to say. White women are at the bottom of the PC totem pole.

    Nobody cares what feminists have to say.

    As if this ever stopped them telling us anyway! You know, #metoo, Morgan Freeman, the pay gap, patriarchy …

    When feminists encounter evils such as forced marriage, mass gang rape of underage girls, and polygamy, they look the other way. Why do you think that is?

    White women are at the bottom of the PC totem pole.

    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men. That is, if they are cis-gendered, heterosexual, non-Hispanic, gentile, and voted for Trump.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Why do you think that is?
     
    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump's women's rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don't want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.

    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied. The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.

    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men.
     
    Lol. I was operating on the assumption that you guys weren't on the pole at all.
    , @Anon
    Why in the world do Christian men who would never think of grabbing a co worker object to the outing of mostly Jewish entertainment industry lechers?

    Ever watch Travis Smiley and Charlie Rose in late night TV with their pompous anti White punditry? You guys should be glad the scum is being outed
  69. @Anon7
    Hey, wait a second, I thought they couldn't do this. The Brits, I mean. Aren't there 100 or so Sharia Courts in England, in accordance with the British Arbitration Act and the system of Alternative Dispute Resolution? How did this wind up in a British court?

    Maybe that's why it's "'entirely novel', with no relevant case law".

    The Sharia courts cannot prosecute criminal cases. They can arbitrate commercial cases where the parties have agreed to be bound by Sharia Law (though there is the right of appeal to the High Court). They also rule on matters where the civil law does not apply, such as religious divorces.

    The reason there is no case law might be that this is the first case to be prosecuted: the law on forced marriage was enacted only in 2007.

  70. @Anonymous
    So you shouldn't deport illegals because that might hurt their feelings? This kind of soft-headed thinking is the reason immigration has turned into such a huge problem for western countries.

    So you shouldn’t deport illegals because that might hurt their feelings? This kind of soft-headed thinking is the reason immigration has turned into such a huge problem for western countries.

    The point about the recent deportations of the Windrush generation is that they were not illegals, but they had no documentation to verify their status. The government shredded the documents that they held on many of these legal immigrants, and they did this not in the distant past but in 2010.

    In the meantime, I doubt they have deported many “real” illegals – people who smuggled themselves into the country in the back of a truck – to places like Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Do you know why they deported those Windrush generation immigrants?
    , @Anonymous
    That's nice. Now every West Indian over 40 can claim to be a British citizen without having to prove it. This country is a joke.
  71. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @ScarletNumber
    I'm still not sure what law the mom broke exactly.

    It’s violations of sections 63D thru 63L of the 2014 and 2007 anti social behavior acts.

    The unspeakably obscene British will prosecute forced marriages of Paki girls but aid and abet a million gang rapes and forced prostitution of White British girls over the last 40 years.

    The UK police traveled to Pakistan to gather evidence. When White British parents reported gang rapes of their 12 year old daughters the police threatened to arrest the parents for racism and wasting police time.

    F’ em

  72. @James N. Kennett

    So you shouldn’t deport illegals because that might hurt their feelings? This kind of soft-headed thinking is the reason immigration has turned into such a huge problem for western countries.
     
    The point about the recent deportations of the Windrush generation is that they were not illegals, but they had no documentation to verify their status. The government shredded the documents that they held on many of these legal immigrants, and they did this not in the distant past but in 2010.

    In the meantime, I doubt they have deported many "real" illegals - people who smuggled themselves into the country in the back of a truck - to places like Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on.

    Do you know why they deported those Windrush generation immigrants?

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    I haven't followed the story closely, but it seems they brought in stricter regulations for dealing with illegal immigrants, but didn't think too carefully about who else might be affected by the new rules. Then they gave officials targets for numbers of deportations. It would not surprise me if those officials met their targets by picking on the Windrush generation, because their countries of origin are considered safe. It is practically impossible to deport someone to Somalia, for example, even if he is a convicted murderer or rapist.
  73. The then 13-year-old had to undergo an abortion on returning to the UK, with her GP reporting his concerns to social services. …

    … who believed the mother’s story and did nothing. No surprise there.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Drs are obligated to report the pregnancy of girls under a certain age because if the girl is pregnant she is a victim of statutory rape or forced rape.

    The dr reported it as was his her duty.
    If the police and social services did nothing with the report that’s their dereliction of duty, not the drs

    Thousands of White British girls and their parents reported rapes by Muslim immigrants starting in 1990 but nothing was done but accuse the girls and parents of hate crime and racism.
  74. @James N. Kennett

    Nobody cares what feminists have to say.
     
    As if this ever stopped them telling us anyway! You know, #metoo, Morgan Freeman, the pay gap, patriarchy ...

    When feminists encounter evils such as forced marriage, mass gang rape of underage girls, and polygamy, they look the other way. Why do you think that is?

    White women are at the bottom of the PC totem pole.
     
    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men. That is, if they are cis-gendered, heterosexual, non-Hispanic, gentile, and voted for Trump.

    Why do you think that is?

    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump’s women’s rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don’t want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.

    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied. The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.

    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men.

    Lol. I was operating on the assumption that you guys weren’t on the pole at all.

    • Replies: @Anon
    White men are untouchables. We have the affirmative action preferences but there is no place for white men.

    India has the caste system. Untouchables aren’t the lowest caste they are so low they’re outside the caste system
    , @James N. Kennett

    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump’s women’s rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don’t want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.
     
    There is indeed a tendency not to criticize non-whites, because they have more Pokemon victim points than white women (or men).

    However, I think the main phenomenon is something else. Middle-class white feminists will yell about the patriarchal vices of white men of their own class or above, because they envy their wealth, their jobs, and their status. They cannot be bothered with the far more grave patriarchal vices of black and brown men, because the latter have nothing that the feminists want to take. Middle-class white feminists literally do not care if 1,600 girls from the white underclass are treated as sex slaves, in one town alone. I conclude that, sadly, their feminism itself is a sham.


    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied.
     
    Perhaps we are on the same page about this?

    The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.
     
    I don't leap to that conclusion, but for example I found some of the coverage of the centenary of the suffragettes mendacious in the extreme. The Pankhursts are treated in Britain as secular saints. It is seldom mentioned that Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst were active supporters of the White Feather movement, whose purpose was to shame men into volunteering as cannon fodder in the First World War. Emmeline Pankhurst declared "The least that men can do is that every man of fighting age should prepare himself to redeem his word to women, and to make ready to do his best, to save the mothers, the wives and daughters of Great Britain from outrage too horrible even to think of."
    , @Anon
    Your "greviances" are the start of this shit-hill. Everything before women's lib was at the very least, significantly less accelerated. But you'll use every hedge you can to deny that.
    , @MBlanc46
    Most of us sex realists realize that women have interests different to and even conflicting with those of men. Those differences are the result of hundreds of thousands or millions of years of primate evolution. No amount of social engineering is going to make them go away. Punishing men for the existence of those differences will only force men to withdraw from society.
  75. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    Something that has baffled me about my fellow liberals for decades:

    Many liberals think the best way to fight racism is to bring in immigrants who are racist.
    Many liberals think the best way to fight sexism is to bring in misogynistic immigrants.
    Many liberals think the best way to fight suburban sprawl is to bring in massive numbers of immigrants.
    Many liberals think the best way to fight global warming is to bring in massive numbers of people from countries with a low carbon footprint into the US, which as a much higher carbon footprint.

    ... and so on.

    We could use a man like Gaylord Nelson again.

    I too have noticed that.

    They are hysterical about auto emissions. But they advocate bringing in millions of immigrants a year who will not only drive cars and take public transit but consume millions of items a year delivered by trucks driving all over the country.

    Liberals are against rape, sex harassment and groping. But they absolutely worship the blacks and Hispanics who commit most of the sex offenses

    The only thing they are consistent about is being pro cheap immigrant labor and being anti the White male living wage labor unions.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Actually, in general liberals are a lot more pro-union that conservatives, sad to say.

    There are of course, exceptions. My wife's family is very conservative Republican and very pro-union, and there are a lot of the limousine liberals who hate unions.

    In my adopted state of Wisconsin, the GOP has been extremely anti-union since Scott Walker came to power 7 1/2 years ago. When they had a recall petition, my pro-union Republican wife was one of the first to sign the petition. She has refused to vote for any Republican since. She makes sure to go to the polls every year to vote Democratic. So do I, and so do our adult children. We refuse to support the corporate conservative party of Scott Walker and Paul Ryan. Easier for me, since my family has been Democratic since the days of Andrew Jackson.

    As far as cheap labor goes, there are quite a few remaining Democrats who are against mass imports of cheap labor. Trouble is, the politicians of both parties follow the money. The big money in both parties wants cheap labor.
    , @Rosie

    They are hysterical about auto emissions. But they advocate bringing in millions of immigrants a year . . . Liberals are against rape, sex harassment and groping. But they absolutely worship the blacks and Hispanics who commit most of the sex offenses
     
    Like I was telling Mr. Kennet above, the women's movement, like the environmentalist movement, has been Gelbaumed.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.unz.com/isteve/is-david-gelbaum-broke/&ved=2ahUKEwij0PK94J_bAhUB6YMKHU1hDQoQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2SBQCYfT5A-_kzaHAX7mJ0

  76. @Rosie

    Why do you think that is?
     
    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump's women's rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don't want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.

    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied. The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.

    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men.
     
    Lol. I was operating on the assumption that you guys weren't on the pole at all.

    White men are untouchables. We have the affirmative action preferences but there is no place for white men.

    India has the caste system. Untouchables aren’t the lowest caste they are so low they’re outside the caste system

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    I remember looking at the selling points for affirmative action when it was first being proposed.

    The idea was for affirmative action to be for minorities and for blue-collar whites.

    To be fair, there are a FEW programs for blue-collar whites, for example one of my kids has a scholarship for kids who are minorities and/or first-generation college students. Not that she knows any white kids with that scholarship. She is less than half white, and has a parent who never graduated from college. It doesn't matter that my wife almost finished college and I have a Ph.D. My kid has a parent who is not a college graduate, so that puts my daughter in that affirmative action category as well.

    I will say that there are a lot of adopted kids in that program -- such as Asian or Hispanic kids from other countries adopted by white parents.

    I often think that immigration will destroy affirmative action, but I may be wrong. Look at Malaysia, where affirmative action is for all the Malays, who are about 70% of the population. Considering that some affirmative action programs are for women, we are already past that point.
    , @Rosie

    White men are untouchables.
     
    That's precisely what I was getting at. Thank you.
  77. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Nobody cares what feminists have to say.
     
    As if this ever stopped them telling us anyway! You know, #metoo, Morgan Freeman, the pay gap, patriarchy ...

    When feminists encounter evils such as forced marriage, mass gang rape of underage girls, and polygamy, they look the other way. Why do you think that is?

    White women are at the bottom of the PC totem pole.
     
    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men. That is, if they are cis-gendered, heterosexual, non-Hispanic, gentile, and voted for Trump.

    Why in the world do Christian men who would never think of grabbing a co worker object to the outing of mostly Jewish entertainment industry lechers?

    Ever watch Travis Smiley and Charlie Rose in late night TV with their pompous anti White punditry? You guys should be glad the scum is being outed

  78. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It’s nice to have you.
     
    Thank you. That was very kind. The thing is, you didn't answer my question. In fact, I don't think you understood my question. Let me see if I can explain.

    If it seems that I'm obsessed with women's issues, that's only because that is the one issue that I think the isteve commentariat gets wrong, profoundly wrong. I don't think of women as a block at all. I don't think women have interests distinct or separate from White men, at least (and this is important), not in the long term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the men here who think so.

    IMHO, I would rather see the alt-Right ignore women completely. Unfortunately, that is impossible, because many dissident White men are convinced that we are their enemies. They are entitled to their say, and so am I, at the hosts' pleasure.

    I’m a White woman and my only political position is White nationalism and the eradication of affirmative action.

    But these 90 year old male virgins who think sex assault in the workplace is perfectly all right annoy me, especially as Black men are absolutely the worst offenders both at work and in public

    The White men who defend sex assault defend the black and Hispanic men who commit the majority of sex assaults

    In most state criminal codes touching in the breast’s buttocks abs thighs is a criminal sex assault and battery offense.

    So a slap on the butt is a criminal sex assault and battery. Do men actually slap women on the behind in the workplace or out in public?????

    It’s something I’ve seen in old 1930s movies. Never anywhere else. Even black men don’t do that in the work place.

    I think the men on Unz are really too elderly and retired too long ago to be aware of what’s going on today.

    For instance most have no idea what criminal sex assault means.

    Others think that if a 13 year old girl is at least 5 “ 100 pounds and has a waist hips and bust it’s not a crime to have sex with her because she’s full grown.

    Was it really acceptable to grab women co workers on buttocks and crotch back in 1955 when you guys started work?

    Would you guys put up with gay men grabbing and pawing and asking for sex at work?

    Do you guys realize that all the accused men have been the sex sex sex perversion preversion perversion entertainment and TV industry?

    You guys rail against the immoral lecherous crude entertainment industry. But when the men who make the filth are exposed for the disgusting lechers they are; you defend them.

  79. @Anon
    Do you know why they deported those Windrush generation immigrants?

    I haven’t followed the story closely, but it seems they brought in stricter regulations for dealing with illegal immigrants, but didn’t think too carefully about who else might be affected by the new rules. Then they gave officials targets for numbers of deportations. It would not surprise me if those officials met their targets by picking on the Windrush generation, because their countries of origin are considered safe. It is practically impossible to deport someone to Somalia, for example, even if he is a convicted murderer or rapist.

  80. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett

    The then 13-year-old had to undergo an abortion on returning to the UK, with her GP reporting his concerns to social services. …
     
    ... who believed the mother's story and did nothing. No surprise there.

    Drs are obligated to report the pregnancy of girls under a certain age because if the girl is pregnant she is a victim of statutory rape or forced rape.

    The dr reported it as was his her duty.
    If the police and social services did nothing with the report that’s their dereliction of duty, not the drs

    Thousands of White British girls and their parents reported rapes by Muslim immigrants starting in 1990 but nothing was done but accuse the girls and parents of hate crime and racism.

  81. @Anon
    I too have noticed that.

    They are hysterical about auto emissions. But they advocate bringing in millions of immigrants a year who will not only drive cars and take public transit but consume millions of items a year delivered by trucks driving all over the country.

    Liberals are against rape, sex harassment and groping. But they absolutely worship the blacks and Hispanics who commit most of the sex offenses

    The only thing they are consistent about is being pro cheap immigrant labor and being anti the White male living wage labor unions.

    Actually, in general liberals are a lot more pro-union that conservatives, sad to say.

    There are of course, exceptions. My wife’s family is very conservative Republican and very pro-union, and there are a lot of the limousine liberals who hate unions.

    In my adopted state of Wisconsin, the GOP has been extremely anti-union since Scott Walker came to power 7 1/2 years ago. When they had a recall petition, my pro-union Republican wife was one of the first to sign the petition. She has refused to vote for any Republican since. She makes sure to go to the polls every year to vote Democratic. So do I, and so do our adult children. We refuse to support the corporate conservative party of Scott Walker and Paul Ryan. Easier for me, since my family has been Democratic since the days of Andrew Jackson.

    As far as cheap labor goes, there are quite a few remaining Democrats who are against mass imports of cheap labor. Trouble is, the politicians of both parties follow the money. The big money in both parties wants cheap labor.

    • Replies: @Anon
    That’s the remnants of Scandinavian German socialism and the old farmer labor party.

    In most states the liberals only like public employee unions because due to affirmative action public employees are not White.

    Walker was against the teachers union and public employees unions wasn’t he?

    Teachers unions are just ignorant tools of the education department and viciously anti White. White teachers hate Whites and teach hatred of Whites

    The public employees unions are just affirmative action dreck. They wouldn’t have those jobs were it not for affirmative action

    Governor Walker was against the anti White public employee unions. Good for him.

    I am against all the anti White organizations which included all those White teachers.



    A union of highly skilled White men?

    Liberals abolished them because they discriminated against morons who can’t learn A squared plus B squared equals C squared and can’t read the building code of their own trade.

    Whites who favor the non White and anti White public employees unions are anti White.
    , @William Badwhite

    the GOP has been extremely anti-union since Scott Walker came to power 7 1/2 years ago
     
    It has been my understanding that Walker has focused entirely on public sector unions. There is no good case that can be made in favor of public sector unions - they are nothing but public "servants" ganging up to loot the citizenry.

    Private sector unions are a different story and while they've often abused their positions, in many cases they've proven themselves necessary (full disclosure: my father was a union member).
  82. @Anon
    White men are untouchables. We have the affirmative action preferences but there is no place for white men.

    India has the caste system. Untouchables aren’t the lowest caste they are so low they’re outside the caste system

    I remember looking at the selling points for affirmative action when it was first being proposed.

    The idea was for affirmative action to be for minorities and for blue-collar whites.

    To be fair, there are a FEW programs for blue-collar whites, for example one of my kids has a scholarship for kids who are minorities and/or first-generation college students. Not that she knows any white kids with that scholarship. She is less than half white, and has a parent who never graduated from college. It doesn’t matter that my wife almost finished college and I have a Ph.D. My kid has a parent who is not a college graduate, so that puts my daughter in that affirmative action category as well.

    I will say that there are a lot of adopted kids in that program — such as Asian or Hispanic kids from other countries adopted by white parents.

    I often think that immigration will destroy affirmative action, but I may be wrong. Look at Malaysia, where affirmative action is for all the Malays, who are about 70% of the population. Considering that some affirmative action programs are for women, we are already past that point.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I’m extremely familiar with affirmative action. There is nothing for Whites unless they are gay or on parole. And even then they are below non Whites.

    College admission is a little different from jobs SBA loans and government contracts because the poor poor pitiful me essay is the most important criteria.
    , @Anon
    Read the 1968!affirnatuve action act and the decisions in Griggs vs Duke Power and Kaiser vs Weber. Just those 2 decisions set in stone forever that White blue collar men SHALL be discriminated against for ever and ever amen.

    There is absolutely nothing helpful for blue collar Whites in either the act or the court decisions

    The Philadelphia plan came out of the affirmative action act and its purpose was to discriminate against White men who wanted to join construction unions.

    The decisions in Griggs and Kaiser created the judicial law that the most unqualified black SHALL be hired instead of the most qualified White blue collar worker.

    Women, Hispanics and Asians were not mentioned in the 1968 affirmative action act.
    They were added later by the black robed representatives of Satan through judicial law, the same who ruled on Griggs and Kaiser.

    It was the Ford Foundation and its creation LA RAZA that filed the lawsuit that made Hispanics FOB eligible for affirmative action

    Richard Nixon signed an executive order creating the Hispanic race just in time for the 1970 census. The court ruling granting affirmative action for Hispanics followed shortly after.

    The Ford Foundation funded that one.
    , @Anon
    Your daughter got that because she isn’t White not because she has a parent who didn’t finish college .
  83. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:
     
    Suppose woke feminists started by rushing isteve and other dissident right forums after realizing that we need to get Western Civilization on a more sustainable path. Would you welcome them? How about you, Buzz? Or whoever else wants to answer.

    My impression is that women are criticized for not seeing that the Right represents their true best interests. Then, women who actually acknowledge that the Right represents our true best interests are accused of feminist entryism and subversion!?!

    Here is my impression of the right

    An incoherent useless mish mosh of

    anti abortion,

    pro dog eat dog capitalist starvation wage advocates,

    pro Israel,

    absolutely asine patriotism,

    ignorant constituonalism by people who never read a constitutional law book,

    Christianity,

    idiots who believe that endless discussion of race, IQ and HBD will end race discrimination against Whites,

    advocates for skilled non White immigration to steal good jobs from Whites

    naive fools

    and the only successful part of the right, the NRA

  84. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    I remember looking at the selling points for affirmative action when it was first being proposed.

    The idea was for affirmative action to be for minorities and for blue-collar whites.

    To be fair, there are a FEW programs for blue-collar whites, for example one of my kids has a scholarship for kids who are minorities and/or first-generation college students. Not that she knows any white kids with that scholarship. She is less than half white, and has a parent who never graduated from college. It doesn't matter that my wife almost finished college and I have a Ph.D. My kid has a parent who is not a college graduate, so that puts my daughter in that affirmative action category as well.

    I will say that there are a lot of adopted kids in that program -- such as Asian or Hispanic kids from other countries adopted by white parents.

    I often think that immigration will destroy affirmative action, but I may be wrong. Look at Malaysia, where affirmative action is for all the Malays, who are about 70% of the population. Considering that some affirmative action programs are for women, we are already past that point.

    I’m extremely familiar with affirmative action. There is nothing for Whites unless they are gay or on parole. And even then they are below non Whites.

    College admission is a little different from jobs SBA loans and government contracts because the poor poor pitiful me essay is the most important criteria.

  85. @Rosie

    Why do you think that is?
     
    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump's women's rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don't want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.

    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied. The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.

    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men.
     
    Lol. I was operating on the assumption that you guys weren't on the pole at all.

    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump’s women’s rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don’t want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.

    There is indeed a tendency not to criticize non-whites, because they have more Pokemon victim points than white women (or men).

    However, I think the main phenomenon is something else. Middle-class white feminists will yell about the patriarchal vices of white men of their own class or above, because they envy their wealth, their jobs, and their status. They cannot be bothered with the far more grave patriarchal vices of black and brown men, because the latter have nothing that the feminists want to take. Middle-class white feminists literally do not care if 1,600 girls from the white underclass are treated as sex slaves, in one town alone. I conclude that, sadly, their feminism itself is a sham.

    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied.

    Perhaps we are on the same page about this?

    The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.

    I don’t leap to that conclusion, but for example I found some of the coverage of the centenary of the suffragettes mendacious in the extreme. The Pankhursts are treated in Britain as secular saints. It is seldom mentioned that Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst were active supporters of the White Feather movement, whose purpose was to shame men into volunteering as cannon fodder in the First World War. Emmeline Pankhurst declared “The least that men can do is that every man of fighting age should prepare himself to redeem his word to women, and to make ready to do his best, to save the mothers, the wives and daughters of Great Britain from outrage too horrible even to think of.”

    • Replies: @Rosie

    alone. I conclude that, sadly, their feminism itself is a sham.
     
    Suppose that were true. What difference would it make? I think the men's movement is driven, at least in part, by all sorts of unsavory motives. That doesn't mean that none of their grievances have any merit?

    Does the existence of Andrew Anglin negate. the value of reasonable men's advocates, like James Damore or even our own illustrious host (though I'm not sure he would call himself that)?

    The answer is obviously no. You are committing here what is commonly known as the genetic fallacy.
  86. @Anon
    White men are untouchables. We have the affirmative action preferences but there is no place for white men.

    India has the caste system. Untouchables aren’t the lowest caste they are so low they’re outside the caste system

    White men are untouchables.

    That’s precisely what I was getting at. Thank you.

  87. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    Actually, in general liberals are a lot more pro-union that conservatives, sad to say.

    There are of course, exceptions. My wife's family is very conservative Republican and very pro-union, and there are a lot of the limousine liberals who hate unions.

    In my adopted state of Wisconsin, the GOP has been extremely anti-union since Scott Walker came to power 7 1/2 years ago. When they had a recall petition, my pro-union Republican wife was one of the first to sign the petition. She has refused to vote for any Republican since. She makes sure to go to the polls every year to vote Democratic. So do I, and so do our adult children. We refuse to support the corporate conservative party of Scott Walker and Paul Ryan. Easier for me, since my family has been Democratic since the days of Andrew Jackson.

    As far as cheap labor goes, there are quite a few remaining Democrats who are against mass imports of cheap labor. Trouble is, the politicians of both parties follow the money. The big money in both parties wants cheap labor.

    That’s the remnants of Scandinavian German socialism and the old farmer labor party.

    In most states the liberals only like public employee unions because due to affirmative action public employees are not White.

    Walker was against the teachers union and public employees unions wasn’t he?

    Teachers unions are just ignorant tools of the education department and viciously anti White. White teachers hate Whites and teach hatred of Whites

    The public employees unions are just affirmative action dreck. They wouldn’t have those jobs were it not for affirmative action

    Governor Walker was against the anti White public employee unions. Good for him.

    I am against all the anti White organizations which included all those White teachers.

    A union of highly skilled White men?

    Liberals abolished them because they discriminated against morons who can’t learn A squared plus B squared equals C squared and can’t read the building code of their own trade.

    Whites who favor the non White and anti White public employees unions are anti White.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Ah, so you are hooked on identity politics.

    Believe it or not, in Wisconsin the VAST majority of public employees are white. I guess the Germans and Scandinavians aren't white enough for you. I can think of no other way to make sense of what you said.

    Actually, there IS not way to make any sense of what you said. You seem to be memorizing some demented talking points from Stormfront or something.

    What I do know, since Walker busted the unions, most of the better workers, almost all of them white, who had a union job and could get out of there, such as taking early retirement, leaving the state, or going to the private sector, did so. The new crop coming in is far inferior. Speaking as a parent of kids in both the public schools and the U of Wisconsin, it is painful to see the best teachers and professors leave, to be replaced by far less qualified teachers who know the latest theory from Ed school but don't have the teaching experience.

    To say that supporting the white public employees is anti-white means you are either completely ignorant, deranged, or both. Probably both.

    Walker has screwed over the white people of Wisconsin. And the non-whites as well. Whatever the Koch brothers want, Walker delivers.
  88. @Anon
    I too have noticed that.

    They are hysterical about auto emissions. But they advocate bringing in millions of immigrants a year who will not only drive cars and take public transit but consume millions of items a year delivered by trucks driving all over the country.

    Liberals are against rape, sex harassment and groping. But they absolutely worship the blacks and Hispanics who commit most of the sex offenses

    The only thing they are consistent about is being pro cheap immigrant labor and being anti the White male living wage labor unions.

    They are hysterical about auto emissions. But they advocate bringing in millions of immigrants a year . . . Liberals are against rape, sex harassment and groping. But they absolutely worship the blacks and Hispanics who commit most of the sex offenses

    Like I was telling Mr. Kennet above, the women’s movement, like the environmentalist movement, has been Gelbaumed.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.unz.com/isteve/is-david-gelbaum-broke/&ved=2ahUKEwij0PK94J_bAhUB6YMKHU1hDQoQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2SBQCYfT5A-_kzaHAX7mJ0

  89. @Rosie

    Why do you think that is?
     
    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump's women's rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don't want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.

    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied. The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.

    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men.
     
    Lol. I was operating on the assumption that you guys weren't on the pole at all.

    Your “greviances” are the start of this shit-hill. Everything before women’s lib was at the very least, significantly less accelerated. But you’ll use every hedge you can to deny that.

    • Replies: @Anon
    FYI, the women’s movement didn’t come along till almost 20 years after school desegregation and about 12 years after the civil rights movements for blacks.
    And affirmative action for women means affirmative action for non White women.

    Except for a very select group of mostly Jewish very very leftist White women who get fast tracked into law school then the judiciary or mostly federal jobs.
    They are hired or admitted to law school on “ revelant experience” which means joining some radical group as soon as they start college.
  90. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo Liberal
    I remember looking at the selling points for affirmative action when it was first being proposed.

    The idea was for affirmative action to be for minorities and for blue-collar whites.

    To be fair, there are a FEW programs for blue-collar whites, for example one of my kids has a scholarship for kids who are minorities and/or first-generation college students. Not that she knows any white kids with that scholarship. She is less than half white, and has a parent who never graduated from college. It doesn't matter that my wife almost finished college and I have a Ph.D. My kid has a parent who is not a college graduate, so that puts my daughter in that affirmative action category as well.

    I will say that there are a lot of adopted kids in that program -- such as Asian or Hispanic kids from other countries adopted by white parents.

    I often think that immigration will destroy affirmative action, but I may be wrong. Look at Malaysia, where affirmative action is for all the Malays, who are about 70% of the population. Considering that some affirmative action programs are for women, we are already past that point.

    Read the 1968!affirnatuve action act and the decisions in Griggs vs Duke Power and Kaiser vs Weber. Just those 2 decisions set in stone forever that White blue collar men SHALL be discriminated against for ever and ever amen.

    There is absolutely nothing helpful for blue collar Whites in either the act or the court decisions

    The Philadelphia plan came out of the affirmative action act and its purpose was to discriminate against White men who wanted to join construction unions.

    The decisions in Griggs and Kaiser created the judicial law that the most unqualified black SHALL be hired instead of the most qualified White blue collar worker.

    Women, Hispanics and Asians were not mentioned in the 1968 affirmative action act.
    They were added later by the black robed representatives of Satan through judicial law, the same who ruled on Griggs and Kaiser.

    It was the Ford Foundation and its creation LA RAZA that filed the lawsuit that made Hispanics FOB eligible for affirmative action

    Richard Nixon signed an executive order creating the Hispanic race just in time for the 1970 census. The court ruling granting affirmative action for Hispanics followed shortly after.

    The Ford Foundation funded that one.

  91. @Paleo Liberal
    I remember looking at the selling points for affirmative action when it was first being proposed.

    The idea was for affirmative action to be for minorities and for blue-collar whites.

    To be fair, there are a FEW programs for blue-collar whites, for example one of my kids has a scholarship for kids who are minorities and/or first-generation college students. Not that she knows any white kids with that scholarship. She is less than half white, and has a parent who never graduated from college. It doesn't matter that my wife almost finished college and I have a Ph.D. My kid has a parent who is not a college graduate, so that puts my daughter in that affirmative action category as well.

    I will say that there are a lot of adopted kids in that program -- such as Asian or Hispanic kids from other countries adopted by white parents.

    I often think that immigration will destroy affirmative action, but I may be wrong. Look at Malaysia, where affirmative action is for all the Malays, who are about 70% of the population. Considering that some affirmative action programs are for women, we are already past that point.

    Your daughter got that because she isn’t White not because she has a parent who didn’t finish college .

  92. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Your "greviances" are the start of this shit-hill. Everything before women's lib was at the very least, significantly less accelerated. But you'll use every hedge you can to deny that.

    FYI, the women’s movement didn’t come along till almost 20 years after school desegregation and about 12 years after the civil rights movements for blacks.
    And affirmative action for women means affirmative action for non White women.

    Except for a very select group of mostly Jewish very very leftist White women who get fast tracked into law school then the judiciary or mostly federal jobs.
    They are hired or admitted to law school on “ revelant experience” which means joining some radical group as soon as they start college.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Not true.

    NOW was formed in 1966, which was 12 years, not 20 after school desegregation. One of the founders, Muriel Fox, was a close family friend. She and my father were close friends from college until my father's death. I had to be the one to break the news to her about my father's death, which upset her greatly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Fox

    My mother was involved in founding another women's organization, WOW in DC, around the same time. Wider Opportunities for Women.

    As for affirmative action mostly helping non-white women: studies have shown that the biggest benefits of affirmative action have been to middle to upper class white women.
  93. Anonymous[735] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett

    So you shouldn’t deport illegals because that might hurt their feelings? This kind of soft-headed thinking is the reason immigration has turned into such a huge problem for western countries.
     
    The point about the recent deportations of the Windrush generation is that they were not illegals, but they had no documentation to verify their status. The government shredded the documents that they held on many of these legal immigrants, and they did this not in the distant past but in 2010.

    In the meantime, I doubt they have deported many "real" illegals - people who smuggled themselves into the country in the back of a truck - to places like Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan and so on.

    That’s nice. Now every West Indian over 40 can claim to be a British citizen without having to prove it. This country is a joke.

  94. @Rosie

    It’s nice to have you.
     
    Thank you. That was very kind. The thing is, you didn't answer my question. In fact, I don't think you understood my question. Let me see if I can explain.

    If it seems that I'm obsessed with women's issues, that's only because that is the one issue that I think the isteve commentariat gets wrong, profoundly wrong. I don't think of women as a block at all. I don't think women have interests distinct or separate from White men, at least (and this is important), not in the long term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is the men here who think so.

    IMHO, I would rather see the alt-Right ignore women completely. Unfortunately, that is impossible, because many dissident White men are convinced that we are their enemies. They are entitled to their say, and so am I, at the hosts' pleasure.

    It’s nice to have you.

    Thank you. That was very kind. The thing is, you didn’t answer my question. In fact, I don’t think you understood my question.

    Twice I’ve answered your question, and twice you didn’t realize it. Twice I’ve told you that it is good to have you here. Once right above you there, and once in an earlier comment.

    When someone snaps you with a towel in the locker room, it doesn’t mean you are not welcome to be on the team. It means you are on the team.

    You are here participating, and you will continue to do so. What more proof do you need?

    We can discuss details like divorce settlements at some points, and we can address the varying views of different “alt-right” men toward women at other points, but I won’t be drawn into a war between the sexes. Many men in this crowd, and I, do not share such antique opinions like repealing suffrage and eliminating choice that some others seem to have, so don’t let those things distract you. I don’t want to insult anybody, but not everyone here is a Catholic from the 1800s. (However, there are old things lost that need to be looked at, and there are many knowledgeable people here who share them.)

    The important issues do overlap and may indeed partly involve that whole muddy field you’re walking through, so over time maybe some consensus will emerge on points you want to address. Mr. Unz facilitates the dialectic, and Mr. Sailer allows even fools like me to sit here with you and not even buy coffee, almost like Starbucks now.

    Perhaps we can work on that list of priorities you suggested, in order of importance, when we have the time.

  95. @Rosie

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:
     
    Suppose woke feminists started by rushing isteve and other dissident right forums after realizing that we need to get Western Civilization on a more sustainable path. Would you welcome them? How about you, Buzz? Or whoever else wants to answer.

    My impression is that women are criticized for not seeing that the Right represents their true best interests. Then, women who actually acknowledge that the Right represents our true best interests are accused of feminist entryism and subversion!?!

    Well, I know many smart women but what you call “the Right” isn’t my bailiwick, so I guess my opinion isn’t what you’re seeking just now. And this is fine by me. The main thing I like about the “Alt-Right” is the “Alt” part.

    We’re allowed to have differing opinions here. It would be very boring if we weren’t. We’re not remotely monolithic here–on this site, on this blog, and even among the “Alt-Right”. We contain multitudes. Or, at least, we’re working on it ;)

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The main thing I like about the “Alt-Right” is the “Alt” part.
     
    Me too.
  96. @Mishra
    Well, I know many smart women but what you call "the Right" isn't my bailiwick, so I guess my opinion isn't what you're seeking just now. And this is fine by me. The main thing I like about the "Alt-Right" is the "Alt" part.

    We're allowed to have differing opinions here. It would be very boring if we weren't. We're not remotely monolithic here--on this site, on this blog, and even among the "Alt-Right". We contain multitudes. Or, at least, we're working on it ;)

    The main thing I like about the “Alt-Right” is the “Alt” part.

    Me too.

  97. @Paleo Liberal
    Actually, in general liberals are a lot more pro-union that conservatives, sad to say.

    There are of course, exceptions. My wife's family is very conservative Republican and very pro-union, and there are a lot of the limousine liberals who hate unions.

    In my adopted state of Wisconsin, the GOP has been extremely anti-union since Scott Walker came to power 7 1/2 years ago. When they had a recall petition, my pro-union Republican wife was one of the first to sign the petition. She has refused to vote for any Republican since. She makes sure to go to the polls every year to vote Democratic. So do I, and so do our adult children. We refuse to support the corporate conservative party of Scott Walker and Paul Ryan. Easier for me, since my family has been Democratic since the days of Andrew Jackson.

    As far as cheap labor goes, there are quite a few remaining Democrats who are against mass imports of cheap labor. Trouble is, the politicians of both parties follow the money. The big money in both parties wants cheap labor.

    the GOP has been extremely anti-union since Scott Walker came to power 7 1/2 years ago

    It has been my understanding that Walker has focused entirely on public sector unions. There is no good case that can be made in favor of public sector unions – they are nothing but public “servants” ganging up to loot the citizenry.

    Private sector unions are a different story and while they’ve often abused their positions, in many cases they’ve proven themselves necessary (full disclosure: my father was a union member).

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    It has been my understanding that Walker has focused entirely on public sector unions.
     
    Not true. As soon as his second term started, he went after the private unions.

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-signs-bill-makes-wisconsin-th-right-to-work/article_9022e13e-ffb8-5011-b97c-ab88b191e784.html

    I have to disagree with you about the public service unions. Getting rid of the unions has made life far worse for the workers -- they have no recourse when the boss is abusive. My wife was in a public service union, which used to protect her from abusive bosses. Not anymore.

    His anti-union gigs were a classic bait and switch. He made getting rid of public service unions the #1 task of his first term, even though he did not mention that at all in the campaign.
    When he got rid of the public service unions, he said he would protect the private sector unions.

    He lied.
  98. @William Badwhite

    the GOP has been extremely anti-union since Scott Walker came to power 7 1/2 years ago
     
    It has been my understanding that Walker has focused entirely on public sector unions. There is no good case that can be made in favor of public sector unions - they are nothing but public "servants" ganging up to loot the citizenry.

    Private sector unions are a different story and while they've often abused their positions, in many cases they've proven themselves necessary (full disclosure: my father was a union member).

    It has been my understanding that Walker has focused entirely on public sector unions.

    Not true. As soon as his second term started, he went after the private unions.

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-signs-bill-makes-wisconsin-th-right-to-work/article_9022e13e-ffb8-5011-b97c-ab88b191e784.html

    I have to disagree with you about the public service unions. Getting rid of the unions has made life far worse for the workers — they have no recourse when the boss is abusive. My wife was in a public service union, which used to protect her from abusive bosses. Not anymore.

    His anti-union gigs were a classic bait and switch. He made getting rid of public service unions the #1 task of his first term, even though he did not mention that at all in the campaign.
    When he got rid of the public service unions, he said he would protect the private sector unions.

    He lied.

  99. @Anon
    FYI, the women’s movement didn’t come along till almost 20 years after school desegregation and about 12 years after the civil rights movements for blacks.
    And affirmative action for women means affirmative action for non White women.

    Except for a very select group of mostly Jewish very very leftist White women who get fast tracked into law school then the judiciary or mostly federal jobs.
    They are hired or admitted to law school on “ revelant experience” which means joining some radical group as soon as they start college.

    Not true.

    NOW was formed in 1966, which was 12 years, not 20 after school desegregation. One of the founders, Muriel Fox, was a close family friend. She and my father were close friends from college until my father’s death. I had to be the one to break the news to her about my father’s death, which upset her greatly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Fox

    My mother was involved in founding another women’s organization, WOW in DC, around the same time. Wider Opportunities for Women.

    As for affirmative action mostly helping non-white women: studies have shown that the biggest benefits of affirmative action have been to middle to upper class white women.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    As for affirmative action mostly helping non-white women: studies have shown that the biggest benefits of affirmative action have been to middle to upper class white women.
     
    I have a very hard time believing this. Can you direct me to the best of those studies?

    Of course, I don't have any knowledge of this, so it is possible you are correct. I'm skeptical, because White women tend to congregate in certain fields where they are already either dominant or at least well-represented. Being a woman lawyer is no particular advantage, except perhaps in BIGLAW, but women don't really want those jobs anyway.

    I suspect affirmative action helps White women in the same way that immigration helps White men. A few cash in and make bank, but on the whole it's a bad deal.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    I love it. Here is a clip that your reply to the commenter just reminded me of. If life could only be like this (more often):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSmbMm7MDg
  100. @James N. Kennett

    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump’s women’s rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don’t want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.
     
    There is indeed a tendency not to criticize non-whites, because they have more Pokemon victim points than white women (or men).

    However, I think the main phenomenon is something else. Middle-class white feminists will yell about the patriarchal vices of white men of their own class or above, because they envy their wealth, their jobs, and their status. They cannot be bothered with the far more grave patriarchal vices of black and brown men, because the latter have nothing that the feminists want to take. Middle-class white feminists literally do not care if 1,600 girls from the white underclass are treated as sex slaves, in one town alone. I conclude that, sadly, their feminism itself is a sham.


    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied.
     
    Perhaps we are on the same page about this?

    The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.
     
    I don't leap to that conclusion, but for example I found some of the coverage of the centenary of the suffragettes mendacious in the extreme. The Pankhursts are treated in Britain as secular saints. It is seldom mentioned that Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst were active supporters of the White Feather movement, whose purpose was to shame men into volunteering as cannon fodder in the First World War. Emmeline Pankhurst declared "The least that men can do is that every man of fighting age should prepare himself to redeem his word to women, and to make ready to do his best, to save the mothers, the wives and daughters of Great Britain from outrage too horrible even to think of."

    alone. I conclude that, sadly, their feminism itself is a sham.

    Suppose that were true. What difference would it make? I think the men’s movement is driven, at least in part, by all sorts of unsavory motives. That doesn’t mean that none of their grievances have any merit?

    Does the existence of Andrew Anglin negate. the value of reasonable men’s advocates, like James Damore or even our own illustrious host (though I’m not sure he would call himself that)?

    The answer is obviously no. You are committing here what is commonly known as the genetic fallacy.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    You are committing here what is commonly known as the genetic fallacy.
     
    This may be true. However, we do not assess political arguments by parsing them in a Turing machine. We will not listen to a man wearing a Nazi armband, even if he is talking good sense.

    When a feminist says "We need to have a conversation about manspreading", it is reasonable to answer "You actively avoided talking about the gang rape of thousands of girls. As a feminist, do you consider that less important than manspreading?"

    Feminism is still treated as a badge of honour: see, for example, the T-shirt proclaiming "This is what a feminist looks like". More insidiously, self-identified feminists are seen as being on the "right side of history", a Whig history in which we are all striving to become more like Betty Friedan.

    It is obvious that some "feminists" simply hate men, while others such as the late Andrea Dworkin have deep-seated psychiatric problems. Most people have no trouble identifying such women (or, indeed, their equivalent among men's advocates). What we seem to lack is the concept of the "gender hustler", the analogue of the familiar "race hustler", and more insidious than the obvious madwomen.

    A feminist would defend the rights of women and girls when they are mistreated by men or by society at large; but somehow this does not always happen. On the back of the feminist T-shirt you might as well have the slogan "and I don't care how many kuffar girls you turn into whores".


    Does the existence of Andrew Anglin negate. the value of reasonable men’s advocates, like James Damore or even our own illustrious host (though I’m not sure he would call himself that)?
     
    To be honest I am only faintly aware of Andrew Anglin, because I try not to waste time reading obvious rubbish. Isn't he a neo-Nazi rather than a men's advocate?

    In any case, I do not think your analogy with Anglin is appropriate. You appear to be saying that when a cause has a crazy advocate such as Anglin, this does not invalidate the arguments of the sensible advocates. In the case of the sexual abuse of English girls by Muslim men, no one is comparing good advocates with bad: all feminists remained silent, and they did so for more than ten years - or, as the original comment by Buzz Mohawk put it:


    I’m looking around for feminists, and I’m hearing crickets.
     
    The wider issue is that the prevailing culture of feminism and anti-racism in the British public sector has not even begun a process of self-examination. They would rather talk about microaggressions. In Sweden, mainstream politicians are seriously talking about introducing martial law to Malmo - until recently one of the safest cities in the world - and while this is going on, Swedish feminists have set up a 24/7 helpline for victims of "mansplaining".

    Comparisons with Hitler are commonplace. However, the West today can be compared with Weimar Germany, and that comparison is far more troubling. Western liberalism is rotten from within, and it is unwilling to think about the consequences of its own actions. That failure can be summed up in a single word: decadence.

  101. @Paleo Liberal
    Not true.

    NOW was formed in 1966, which was 12 years, not 20 after school desegregation. One of the founders, Muriel Fox, was a close family friend. She and my father were close friends from college until my father's death. I had to be the one to break the news to her about my father's death, which upset her greatly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Fox

    My mother was involved in founding another women's organization, WOW in DC, around the same time. Wider Opportunities for Women.

    As for affirmative action mostly helping non-white women: studies have shown that the biggest benefits of affirmative action have been to middle to upper class white women.

    As for affirmative action mostly helping non-white women: studies have shown that the biggest benefits of affirmative action have been to middle to upper class white women.

    I have a very hard time believing this. Can you direct me to the best of those studies?

    Of course, I don’t have any knowledge of this, so it is possible you are correct. I’m skeptical, because White women tend to congregate in certain fields where they are already either dominant or at least well-represented. Being a woman lawyer is no particular advantage, except perhaps in BIGLAW, but women don’t really want those jobs anyway.

    I suspect affirmative action helps White women in the same way that immigration helps White men. A few cash in and make bank, but on the whole it’s a bad deal.

  102. @Paleo Liberal
    Not true.

    NOW was formed in 1966, which was 12 years, not 20 after school desegregation. One of the founders, Muriel Fox, was a close family friend. She and my father were close friends from college until my father's death. I had to be the one to break the news to her about my father's death, which upset her greatly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muriel_Fox

    My mother was involved in founding another women's organization, WOW in DC, around the same time. Wider Opportunities for Women.

    As for affirmative action mostly helping non-white women: studies have shown that the biggest benefits of affirmative action have been to middle to upper class white women.

    I love it. Here is a clip that your reply to the commenter just reminded me of. If life could only be like this (more often):

  103. @Rosie

    alone. I conclude that, sadly, their feminism itself is a sham.
     
    Suppose that were true. What difference would it make? I think the men's movement is driven, at least in part, by all sorts of unsavory motives. That doesn't mean that none of their grievances have any merit?

    Does the existence of Andrew Anglin negate. the value of reasonable men's advocates, like James Damore or even our own illustrious host (though I'm not sure he would call himself that)?

    The answer is obviously no. You are committing here what is commonly known as the genetic fallacy.

    You are committing here what is commonly known as the genetic fallacy.

    This may be true. However, we do not assess political arguments by parsing them in a Turing machine. We will not listen to a man wearing a Nazi armband, even if he is talking good sense.

    When a feminist says “We need to have a conversation about manspreading”, it is reasonable to answer “You actively avoided talking about the gang rape of thousands of girls. As a feminist, do you consider that less important than manspreading?”

    Feminism is still treated as a badge of honour: see, for example, the T-shirt proclaiming “This is what a feminist looks like”. More insidiously, self-identified feminists are seen as being on the “right side of history”, a Whig history in which we are all striving to become more like Betty Friedan.

    It is obvious that some “feminists” simply hate men, while others such as the late Andrea Dworkin have deep-seated psychiatric problems. Most people have no trouble identifying such women (or, indeed, their equivalent among men’s advocates). What we seem to lack is the concept of the “gender hustler”, the analogue of the familiar “race hustler”, and more insidious than the obvious madwomen.

    A feminist would defend the rights of women and girls when they are mistreated by men or by society at large; but somehow this does not always happen. On the back of the feminist T-shirt you might as well have the slogan “and I don’t care how many kuffar girls you turn into whores”.

    Does the existence of Andrew Anglin negate. the value of reasonable men’s advocates, like James Damore or even our own illustrious host (though I’m not sure he would call himself that)?

    To be honest I am only faintly aware of Andrew Anglin, because I try not to waste time reading obvious rubbish. Isn’t he a neo-Nazi rather than a men’s advocate?

    In any case, I do not think your analogy with Anglin is appropriate. You appear to be saying that when a cause has a crazy advocate such as Anglin, this does not invalidate the arguments of the sensible advocates. In the case of the sexual abuse of English girls by Muslim men, no one is comparing good advocates with bad: all feminists remained silent, and they did so for more than ten years – or, as the original comment by Buzz Mohawk put it:

    I’m looking around for feminists, and I’m hearing crickets.

    The wider issue is that the prevailing culture of feminism and anti-racism in the British public sector has not even begun a process of self-examination. They would rather talk about microaggressions. In Sweden, mainstream politicians are seriously talking about introducing martial law to Malmo – until recently one of the safest cities in the world – and while this is going on, Swedish feminists have set up a 24/7 helpline for victims of “mansplaining”.

    Comparisons with Hitler are commonplace. However, the West today can be compared with Weimar Germany, and that comparison is far more troubling. Western liberalism is rotten from within, and it is unwilling to think about the consequences of its own actions. That failure can be summed up in a single word: decadence.

  104. @Tiny Duck
    Actually white southerners are more likely to marry and sex up minor children

    Just look at Roy Moore the pedophile

    The truth is that white Christian's males are sexual predators and commit a disproportionate amount of crime and violence throughout history

    I only wish that I could have been a sexual predator, TD.

  105. @Rosie

    It’s like woke feminists confronted with the rape stats for black males. We need a ‘Daily Struggle’ meme for them. Google only presents this so far:
     
    Suppose woke feminists started by rushing isteve and other dissident right forums after realizing that we need to get Western Civilization on a more sustainable path. Would you welcome them? How about you, Buzz? Or whoever else wants to answer.

    My impression is that women are criticized for not seeing that the Right represents their true best interests. Then, women who actually acknowledge that the Right represents our true best interests are accused of feminist entryism and subversion!?!

    Rosie, if supposedly anti-feminist women such as yourself didn’t come in here spouting the feminist party line, perhaps we would be more welcoming.

  106. @Rosie

    Why do you think that is?
     
    Because (((he))) who pays the Piper calls the tune. Multiculturalism Trump's women's rights, by which I mean basic human rights, like not being forced into a marriage we don't want. There are certain injustices against women we are allowed to notice, and other injustices we are not allowed to notice.

    Feminism is chiefly used as a weapon against White men. This I have never denied. The trouble is some commenters leap to the conclusion that feminist grievances never had any merit, or that feminists were never sincere.

    Look down. The bottom of the PC totem pole is occupied by white men.
     
    Lol. I was operating on the assumption that you guys weren't on the pole at all.

    Most of us sex realists realize that women have interests different to and even conflicting with those of men. Those differences are the result of hundreds of thousands or millions of years of primate evolution. No amount of social engineering is going to make them go away. Punishing men for the existence of those differences will only force men to withdraw from society.

  107. @Anon
    That’s the remnants of Scandinavian German socialism and the old farmer labor party.

    In most states the liberals only like public employee unions because due to affirmative action public employees are not White.

    Walker was against the teachers union and public employees unions wasn’t he?

    Teachers unions are just ignorant tools of the education department and viciously anti White. White teachers hate Whites and teach hatred of Whites

    The public employees unions are just affirmative action dreck. They wouldn’t have those jobs were it not for affirmative action

    Governor Walker was against the anti White public employee unions. Good for him.

    I am against all the anti White organizations which included all those White teachers.



    A union of highly skilled White men?

    Liberals abolished them because they discriminated against morons who can’t learn A squared plus B squared equals C squared and can’t read the building code of their own trade.

    Whites who favor the non White and anti White public employees unions are anti White.

    Ah, so you are hooked on identity politics.

    Believe it or not, in Wisconsin the VAST majority of public employees are white. I guess the Germans and Scandinavians aren’t white enough for you. I can think of no other way to make sense of what you said.

    Actually, there IS not way to make any sense of what you said. You seem to be memorizing some demented talking points from Stormfront or something.

    What I do know, since Walker busted the unions, most of the better workers, almost all of them white, who had a union job and could get out of there, such as taking early retirement, leaving the state, or going to the private sector, did so. The new crop coming in is far inferior. Speaking as a parent of kids in both the public schools and the U of Wisconsin, it is painful to see the best teachers and professors leave, to be replaced by far less qualified teachers who know the latest theory from Ed school but don’t have the teaching experience.

    To say that supporting the white public employees is anti-white means you are either completely ignorant, deranged, or both. Probably both.

    Walker has screwed over the white people of Wisconsin. And the non-whites as well. Whatever the Koch brothers want, Walker delivers.

  108. @Big Bill
    The nations that have colonized the west (Muslim, Jewish, etc.) came equipped with comprehensive law and court systems. They work together to establish their law and courts as legally acceptable alternative venues where disputes must be settled.

    There is nothing surprising about this. The 17th century settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts, for example, created their own courts for their own people and did not (for example) petition the Grand Sachem of the Wampanoags to settle their commercial, criminal and family disputes in a Grand Pow-Wow around a Council Fire.

    In my view, this is a fundamental difference between "immigrants" and "colonists". Colonists establish their own courts/laws for their own people to firm up their own borders and bind their own people more closely together. Immigrants submit to the courts/laws of the countries they immigrate to and ultimately assimilate.

    More recently, Western states have assisted this creeping substitution by passing laws that accept (even require) other courts, laws, and legal systems under the rubric of "alternative dispute resolution" or ADR. A century ago, this replacement of American court jurisdiction would have been anathema. Nowadays, it is commonplace. Read the terms and conditions of your last clickwrap agreement. Typically, you surrender your right to sue in an American court for wrongs done to you and agree to be heard and judged by special commercial tribunals instead.

    Now that American courts have been devoured by SJWs (particularly family courts) we should copy the American colonists, the Jews and the Muslims by establishing our own alternative courts.

    Imagine, for example, a marriage contract that says "any disputes arising under this agreement shall be resolved by the Court of American Christian Patriarchy."

    Don't laugh. This is, in effect, how marital law works in Israel ... and Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc.

    You wrote:

    In my view, this is a fundamental difference between “immigrants” and “colonists”. Colonists establish their own courts/laws for their own people to firm up their own borders and bind their own people more closely together. Immigrants submit to the courts/laws of the countries they immigrate to and ultimately assimilate.

    I think that’s a great point; sorry it took me so long to respond.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.