The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Somebody Has a Crush on Stephen Miller
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From the NYT op-ed page, a fifth-grade-style essay on why that awful Stephen Miller boy has cooties and how Maeve Higgins can’t stop thinking about him:

Stephen Miller Is the Enemy of My Dreams
By MAEVE HIGGINS SEPT. 2, 2017

… What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy.

… Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it. Out of this checklist, a phantasm emerged, and as it took shape I saw it was none other than Stephen Miller, waving at me cheerfully as he stepped into view. It’s funny, isn’t it? Sometimes what you’re looking for has been right there all along, shouting over women on cable news shows.

… He wears skinny ties. He has a loud voice and quiet eyes. His obsession is immigration and how scary immigrants are. He blames us for everything. …

This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools. He skips over the fact that migration is strictly controlled, technology has taken jobs away from Americans far more than immigrants have, overcrowding in schools is caused by a plethora of factors, and crime rates are lower among immigrants than among people born here. …

I think he’s The One. Mr. Miller and I both spend our time thinking and learning about immigration. I am an immigrant and make a podcast about immigration, but he goes many steps further. He helps create our nation’s immigration policy. He was a big proponent of the first travel ban. You know, the grotesque one that tried to block Syrian refugees forever. I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

I do not know him personally and he doesn’t have a clue who I am. Perhaps it’s self-aggrandizing of me to choose him, but a real enemy should be a stretch. He is clever and works very hard. He has immense privilege. I watch him closely. I wonder how healthy it is, this new fixation on my enemy. Then I recall hearing animal experts say that getting a second cat, even one that your first cat despises, is a good idea. …

Mr. Miller seems to enjoy animosity, so perhaps I shouldn’t give him what he craves. I remind myself that he was once a chubby little baby, with balled-up fists, looking out from his stroller at lights and shadows. Even today, he’s really just a guy in a little suit he has chosen so carefully that it breaks my heart. …

“Miller would really hate this,” I think.

… Well, he will have to face me.

Maeve Higgins is the author of “Off You Go: Away From Home and Loving It. Sort Of” and the host of the podcast “Maeve in America.”

Commenter Tim Howells points out this Univision video about Miller that ends with a girl saying, “I find his actions appalling and infuriating! … But I’d really like to actually get to know him better.”

Commenter Tyrion writes:

The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics.

I’m reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, “On the Road.” A man confesses at length to a young woman how he ruined his late wife’s life through his ridiculous bouts of political extremism, and she immediately falls in love with him.

Of course, in Miller’s case, it’s his moderate sensible politics that these days make him an alluring Bad Boy.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Kylie says:

    Not hot. And unfortunately, not late.

    Pitifully lame hit piece. Maeve throws like a girl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Yes. Not hot. Her photo and writing style speak volumes. I think we all know this kind of girl. Steve's got a little wrong--it's not Stephen Miller she can't stop thinking about, but herself.
    , @Lurker
    She looks OK in a few pics but in many others it's a grim story. Sorry Maeve.
    , @Nico
    Actually, I find liberal women cute when they have these SJW hissy fits. And true to Steve's quips, they do often seem to get turned on by a [conservative] man whose reaction to their monomaniacal seizures is one of irreverent nonchalance.
    , @Olorin
    More like Maeve wants to fall backwards like a girl and cannot believe that it's a conservative Republican boy triggering her reproduction-driving emotions by standing for the opposite of everything she has been trained to pretend to believe.

    Thanks for this piece, host. It's going into my folder of notes for the HBD 101 course I'll never teach.


    :D

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/somebody-has-a-crush-on-stephen-miller/#comment-1993802
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I think you might be projecting a bit here, Steve.

    Read More
  3. @Kylie
    Not hot. And unfortunately, not late.

    Pitifully lame hit piece. Maeve throws like a girl.

    Yes. Not hot. Her photo and writing style speak volumes. I think we all know this kind of girl. Steve’s got a little wrong–it’s not Stephen Miller she can’t stop thinking about, but herself.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @Neoconned
    Hey Chris nobody said that she was hot, just that she likes his jock....
  4. “I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine…”

    No, Maeve. He’s so much stronger than you. His manly arms would crush you, then drag you by the hair to his man-cave.

    (Hilarious piece Steve, thanks!)

    Read More
  5. Steve,

    Here’s an interesting bit of realia from the Department of Homeland Security:

    If you go to the I-94 website, you can look up your travel history based on your passport. Their “Sample Passport” guide is listed on the right side of the page. The example country is “Utopia” and the example passport holder is “Anna Maria Eriksson,” a Swedish soccer player.

    I leave it up to the iSteve commentariat to decide what this means, and to decipher anything else of interest in the example passport…

    Read More
  6. DFH says:

    lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.

    ‘Somehow’ is their go-to word when they want to avoid engaging with opposing arguments

    Read More
  7. I remind myself that he was once a chubby little baby, with balled-up fists, looking out from his stroller at lights and shadows.

    And let us remind ourselves that Maeve was once a six-year-old girl, protected and provided for by adults whose role in her life she understood in only the most limited and child-like ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johan Schmidt
    I see what you did there.
    , @AndrewR

    protected and provided for by adults whose role in her life she understood in only the most limited and child-like ways.
     
    It seems that's still the case for her...
  8. @Dave from Oz

    I remind myself that he was once a chubby little baby, with balled-up fists, looking out from his stroller at lights and shadows.

     

    And let us remind ourselves that Maeve was once a six-year-old girl, protected and provided for by adults whose role in her life she understood in only the most limited and child-like ways.

    I see what you did there.

    Read More
  9. Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I love this man, no homo.
    , @DCThrowback
    oof, she has a face for the times op-ed page alright
    , @Neoconned
    I know what shes thinking.....bit of a receding hairline but HES SO CUTE AND SUCH A BAD BOY I GOTTA FIX HIM AND CHANGE HIM!!!!!
  10. yyrvjh says:

    Ms. Higgins is unimportant, NYT could have asked some staffer’s goldfish to write the piece. They’re simply moving down the enemies list, crossing off names.

    https://www.facebook.com/TheHill/posts/10155210010004087

    Trump may have a soft spot in his heart for Miller, so I wager he’ll be allowed to say he resigned of his own volition (unlike Gorka).

    Read More
  11. It’s happened before. See this hilarious video where excerpts of a funny speech he made in high school are interspersed with asides from friends and outraged chicks. It ends with one saying, “I find him appalling and infuriating! … But I’d really like to get to know him better.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Rosalind Helderman". Sweet baby Jesus. You jews have to stop marrying your cousins.
  12. Luke Lea says:

    “technology has taken jobs away from Americans far more than immigrants have”

    As if that justifies taking some more away with immigration and shipping the ones that remain off to Asia. Adding insult to injury.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    As if that justifies taking some more away
     
    Yeah, Progressives are happy to use this line of thinking: "you suck; you're going down; we're just speeding up the process."
  13. Tyrion says:

    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:

    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy

    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?

    Since ‘enemy’ is a newspeak synonym for ‘man’ and ‘fierce’ is a newspeak synonym for ‘female beauty’ Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.

    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.

    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.

    Maeve, they’re not your ‘pet hates’. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of ‘enemy’ that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.

    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.

    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I’ve fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point’s sake anyway.)

    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I’ve written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man’s dream. Here’s to him!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    I'm reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, "On the Road:

    http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/ontheroad.htm

    A man explains to a woman at length how he ruined his late wife's life through his ridiculous bouts of political extremism, and she immediately falls in love with him.

    Of course, in Miller's case, it's his "moderate sensible politics" that in these days makes him an alluring Bad Boy.

    , @BB753
    Bad alt-right boys make ginas tingle, as Roissy/Heartiste would put it.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    As usual, women try to imitate men with hilarious results.
    , @Logan
    "white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it."

    Comment 1: She defined what constitutes "progress." Opinion Stated As Fact. OSAF.

    Comment 2: I am continually amazed by how many demonize white people for "feeling victimized" while making zero attempt to discover whether they might have some reason for feeling this way.
    , @Stealth

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?
     
    My current girlfriend (not fat, but athletic) thought she was stronger than me when we started dating.
    , @Off The Street
    Steve Miller got nothin' on Andy Kaufman.

    https://mentalfloss.com/article/31079/time-andy-kaufman-wrestled-bunch-women
    , @Laugh Track
    Well done!
    , @AnotherDad
    Excellent Tyrion. Your comment hits all her glaring nonsense and confusion.

    You actually nailed the gist of it right at the start:


    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.
     
    My first thought reading her was "cat lady in the making".

    We're a long, long ... *long* way from sanity now. But if we were to fantasize about a return to civilization, one approach in a restored civilized society might be that all young women were required to lock down a productive man by the time they were say 25, or be exiled to from the nation and the support of productive males, to some dumping ground piece of real estate.

    To be fair, we would have a restriction on men to actually be productive and likewise dump the non-compliant men--criminals, gays, parasites, etc.--in the same dumping ground.

    I think one of the core problems of the democratic West is this idea that everyone is entitled to live in the civilized nation created by productive white men, regardless of whether they contribute or not. This was probably a mistake before, but it is definitely a fatal error once you turn on universal suffrage, female suffrage, feminism and the welfare state.
  14. Anonym says:
    @jesse helms think-alike
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/media.central.ie/media/images/z/zzzMaeveHigginsFeature1_large.jpg?width=648&s=ie-357445


    matchmaker matchmaker make me a match find me a find catch me a catch

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/03/opinion/sunday/03higgins/03higgins-master768.jpg

    I love this man, no homo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perspective
    We can all admit his exchange with CNN's Jim Acosta was epic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYokZyx2rzQ
  15. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Tim Howells
    It's happened before. See this hilarious video where excerpts of a funny speech he made in high school are interspersed with asides from friends and outraged chicks. It ends with one saying, "I find him appalling and infuriating! ... But I'd really like to get to know him better."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni6OpZN6IqU

    “Rosalind Helderman”. Sweet baby Jesus. You jews have to stop marrying your cousins.

    Read More
  16. @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    Thanks.

    I’m reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, “On the Road:

    http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/ontheroad.htm

    A man explains to a woman at length how he ruined his late wife’s life through his ridiculous bouts of political extremism, and she immediately falls in love with him.

    Of course, in Miller’s case, it’s his “moderate sensible politics” that in these days makes him an alluring Bad Boy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. Sailer:
    Have a happy Labor Day !

    I almost can’t believe that you were patient enough to read all that Russian style delirium presented rather artfully by Chekhov.

    Reading it I was instantly attracted to the words

    she took off her “big felt boots”,
     
    in Russian “валенки”: traditional Russian winter foot-ware. I was taught to the following explanation of why the feet in felt boots had comfortable feeling of being warm and dry, even when walking over the cold snow-covered ground. At first glance ice and snow (crystalline form of water) should melt inside warm felt boot. Here is the physical explanation. ”The surface tension” of liquid water, about 1/1000 of a newton per meter (i.e. 1/1000 of a Joule per square meter). Surface tension increases along with the decrease of temperature. This increased surface tension of water “sucks” the moisture towards colder exterior of the felt boot through the woolly material (felt).
    My late mother used this for her study (around 1935) of day/night vertical motion of moisture in the soil. During the night, the surface of the soil was subjected to considerable radiative cooling.
    According to family legends, my mother’s grand-grand-mother was bought out of serfdom by her fiancé (my grand-grand-grand-father-to-be around 1860: around the year of slave emancipation in my new country, the USA, and 1861 of serfs' emancipation by tzar Alexander the 3-rd in Russia.)
  17. BB753 says:
    @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    Bad alt-right boys make ginas tingle, as Roissy/Heartiste would put it.

    Read More
  18. So, Maeve, an immigrant, objects to political figures who want to limit immigration. Perfectly understandable, as were his policies in effect she would not be here. And this is supposed to concern us why? Would anyone here miss her?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    So, Maeve, an immigrant, objects to political figures who want to limit immigration.
     
    This is standard thinking among immigrant boosters, but it seems to have bypassed the usual understanding that such things are valuable in large part from their scarcity. One buys a rare painting; a piece of land; a house, with the understanding that one will have exclusive access even if others argue that their utility would be increased with open access. But immigrants and boosters imagine that citizenship gets better the more it is given away. I guess they see themselves as an army in need of reinforcements to loot the natives.
  19. Brutusale says:

    Ah, the Irish. Speaking of countries not sending us their best…

    Read More
    • Replies: @JamesG
    The best ones came much earlier.
    , @Flip
    I've never been, but I've read people saying that the ones still in Ireland are slower and less on the ball than the descendants of the ones that went to the US, England, Australia, etc.
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Hillarious :-)

    It seems that young women, especially, are often sexually attracted to high-T “bad boys”. But, it’s so irrational … such as women attracted to serial killers as well as the increasing phenomenon of White professional women marrying Black activists who hate White people and White culture.

    But maybe that’s the point: the high that some women get from giving in to an irrational, emotional, hormonal-based existence.

    Read More
  21. @jesse helms think-alike
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/media.central.ie/media/images/z/zzzMaeveHigginsFeature1_large.jpg?width=648&s=ie-357445


    matchmaker matchmaker make me a match find me a find catch me a catch

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/03/opinion/sunday/03higgins/03higgins-master768.jpg

    oof, she has a face for the times op-ed page alright

    Read More
  22. @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    As usual, women try to imitate men with hilarious results.

    Read More
  23. Arclight says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag
    Oops indeed.

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    After resigning and abjectly apologizing, it is not enough. The corpses must be desecrated:

    Nolasco wasn’t persuaded. She said Graber apologized for the students seeing the email, not its content.

    Note that the "victims" are most excited to find something that fits the narrative, and they look forward to more:

    Nolasco said it’s a “waiting game” for the next offensive incident to occur.
    , @res


    Jocelyn Nolasco, a Latina student who received the email, said she was shocked. The 20-year-old thought she was being referred to as the “mediocre one.”
    ...
    Nolasco is president of the Latinx Student Union and holds a leadership position in the campus NAACP chapter.
     
    Conclusion of the article:

    Nolasco said it’s a “waiting game” for the next offensive incident to occur.

    “What happens next?” she asked.
     
    Yes. You can be sure she is waiting for the next incident so she can force more people to resign. I mean if you are mediocre it's necessary to get all the competent people standing in your way to leave to succeed yourself. And nothing is more important than the success of mediocre minorities.

    The most liked comment provides a glimmer of hope (remember, this is the WaPo readership):

    WanderNPonder
    9/2/2017 12:21 AM PDT

    Please, please, please stop confusing valid, contextual assessments for bias or racism. It undermines real issues of inequality and bias and adds support to those who criticize valuable programs such as affirmative action. I am a woman and minority who has understands these challenges but this is not the case. This is a private conversation that was actually trying to provide greater consideration for diversity despite, what seems to be, an honest assessment that for convenience sake, was categorized. Like saying those "short kids aren't really good at basketball but they play hard and should we consider other things as part of eligibility of the fitness program." It is unfortunate that these two were fired instead of the school using this issue as an opportunity for dialogue since this is a real life example of how so much of how we are understood is based on the good intentions we project on the speaker.
     
    The next several most liked comments are in a similar vein and include the tidbit that the reporter is an intern (verified by going to her link in the article).
    , @AnotherDad
    It's crazy what's resign-worthy "offensive" these days. This email didn't even state that Latinos students were mediocre. (Which statistically is certainly true.) Rather his daughter was looking at the three Latino candidates--since the team should have blessed "diversity"--and found them to be mediocre. But she was going to take this professional "activist" busy body anyway:


    “The mediocre one is extremely involved in community activism/organizing (she’s the one I would probably take no matter what, what she lacks in skill she makes up in confidence, although she may be too busy for this commitment).”
     
    The prof should be apologizing for forwarding email that has individual evaluations to a group alias. But that's it. There's nothing even plausibly "racist" here. Rather just the sort sausage making that is an inevitable component of diversity/affirmative-action.

    ~~~
    The other thing that strikes me is that email programs ought to add some sort of additional "you are forwarding this content from someone else, please review and verify". Maybe specific check when forwarding to an alias identified as a group?

    Additional--and fairly straightforward--options would be the "diversity" scan for problem words like "diversity" "black", "African-American", "Hispanic", "Latino", "Mexican", "Jewish", "Asian", "women", "sex", "gender", "orientation", "immigrant", "performance", "mediocre", "smart", etc. etc. etc. and of course the dreaded "IQ".

    Have the triple validation. "Are you sure?", "Are you really sure?", "Do you still want to have your job tomorrow?"
  24. Wonder if Miller is getting angry emails from this chick whenever he argues with some blonde on the Sunday shows?

    “Who is she Steven? Huh huh huh!?”

    But yeah, that’s quite the feather in his cap: a woman shouting to the stars in the NYT about how she wants his babies.

    Read More
  25. “Then I recall hearing animal experts say that getting a second cat, even one that your first cat despises, is a good idea. …”

    Is “two” the betting line on the number of cats in Ms. Higgins’ home?

    If so, I’m betting the “over”.

    Read More
  26. As usual a sane person wonders can this ostensibly intelligent person really be so incredibly stupid that they really think we have insanely tight immigration, that labor supply from impoverished nations does not effect job supply and wages, that non white crime rates are really lower than white crime rates, that importing back our stolen technology manufactured overseas by immigrants we haven’t met yet is really discernibly different from letting asians set up factories here staffed by immigrants?

    But another thing comes to mind, the advantage the JOG directed progressive movement gets by generational progress. This little sophomore has no historical perspective, yes of course that’s partly to do with JOG memory holing western civ in the academy but its more a factor of her age. She seems to genuinely not get why those of us of a certain age “somehow feel victimized by” all this. She simply has no clue whats been lost. She’s living in the eternal progress of the spotless mind. I remember NYC in the 80s 90s and the shanty towns of homeless, the race riots, graffiti etc and how blithely the emerging yuppies accepted it all, defending the filth against reactionary native new yorkers

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    As it's been pointed out many times: white leftists fear and loathe blacks but can't say it so they support displacing blacks with harder-working and more docile mestizos. If it were a one for one trade, it would be a good deal. But it's more akin to taking a dump and then plugging in an "air freshener" to "freshen" the air instead of opening a window. You're not getting rid of the poo gas; you're simply adding a less unpleasant odor to the room.
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’m reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, “On the Road.”

    Steve spending late nights reading classic Russian Christian authors. This has to be a calculated bit to send neurotic, paranoid JPod over the edge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The True and Original David
    The Chekhov story is even better if one reads it while listening to the tone poem Rachmaninoff based on it ("The Rock," op. 7) and sipping a White Russian made with Beluga Noble.

    Especially on a cold winter night.

    Trust me on this.

    , @Kylie
    Not if he's reading them in translation. Even I do that.
  28. What are the odds that our dear female journalist has a break-up with a moderately conservative guy in her (near) past? Close to 100% right? It really does all go back to high school.

    Read More
  29. bomag says:
    @Luke Lea
    "technology has taken jobs away from Americans far more than immigrants have"

    As if that justifies taking some more away with immigration and shipping the ones that remain off to Asia. Adding insult to injury.

    As if that justifies taking some more away

    Yeah, Progressives are happy to use this line of thinking: “you suck; you’re going down; we’re just speeding up the process.”

    Read More
  30. bomag says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    So, Maeve, an immigrant, objects to political figures who want to limit immigration. Perfectly understandable, as were his policies in effect she would not be here. And this is supposed to concern us why? Would anyone here miss her?

    So, Maeve, an immigrant, objects to political figures who want to limit immigration.

    This is standard thinking among immigrant boosters, but it seems to have bypassed the usual understanding that such things are valuable in large part from their scarcity. One buys a rare painting; a piece of land; a house, with the understanding that one will have exclusive access even if others argue that their utility would be increased with open access. But immigrants and boosters imagine that citizenship gets better the more it is given away. I guess they see themselves as an army in need of reinforcements to loot the natives.

    Read More
  31. bomag says:
    @Arclight
    WaPo reporting on the value of our changing demographic : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-md-latino-students-described-as-mediocre-and-pretty-bad/2017/09/01/9876e6f6-8f5e-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?nid&utm_term=.5c46ff0abcff

    Oops.

    Oops indeed.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    After resigning and abjectly apologizing, it is not enough. The corpses must be desecrated:

    Nolasco wasn’t persuaded. She said Graber apologized for the students seeing the email, not its content.

    Note that the “victims” are most excited to find something that fits the narrative, and they look forward to more:

    Nolasco said it’s a “waiting game” for the next offensive incident to occur.

    Read More
  32. The Chekhov story that comes to my mind is “The Nincompoop”. P.S. John Legend doesn’t have a very high opinion of fat people or white people, or, especially, fat white people.

    Read More
  33. Here’s the decryption key for immigration discourse:

    Immigration of fertile childless women who aren’t pregnant is compatible with the 600,000,000 year history of intrasexual selection between males. Civilization contains that intrasexual selection so that some males can accumulate more wealth than they could in the presence of such intrasexual selection. The implicit contract upon which civilization is founded is that those who accumulate said wealth will ensure those that do not are, at least, guaranteed no loss of evolutionary viability.

    Start with that in mind and you can cut through bullshit like young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse — among a vast array of other bullshit.

    What I don’t get is why immigration restrictionists aren’t hammering on an immigration policy that permits unlimited immigration of fertile childless women who aren’t preganant and the exclusion of everyone else. It may not be the ideal immigration policy, but it is one that not only is a damn sight better than the current “policy” — it grabs the public discourse by the limbic system explicitly rather than this implicit bullshit.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon, BB753
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    I'm not sure I follow. You're suggesting that the US should only import young, single women? I don't think that will go down well with the young women who ask for increased immigration today.
    , @prole
    A good place to start is with the H1b visa program...since feminists want more women in tech, they should admit only females via the H1b visa program to get more women tech workers.....also only admit women refugees because they are most "at risk" of rape and abuse and pose little risk of becoming terrorist and rapists.

    thus our refugee policy should be restricted to females only....will the feminists object to such a policy ? Since we currently have set the max at 50,000 it should be easy to ban men and only accept female refugees.
    , @James Bowery
    HBD Chick tweets today:

    Mobile women were key to cultural exchange in Stone Age and Bronze Age Europe

    https://phys.org/news/2017-09-mobile-women-key-cultural-exchange.html
    , @Autochthon
    I can anecdotally attest to your insights. An earlier gentleman's similar exhortation that males vexed by the scam import Colombian wives who look like lingerie models had me grinning despite myself.

    There's more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it's all there to be had in female immigrants.

    American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury's rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives. These American women crave immigration, so young American men should give it to them, good and hard.

    The resorting leads to conservative, white men and women raising large families, and liberal, white harridans as barren sluts for troglodytes (or, at most, pooping out uninteñlihent bastards with no chance against the offspring of the rest of us):

    They wind up extinct, incarcerated, or at McDonald's; we wind up the new Master's of the Universe.

    It's an idea, anyhow....
    , @Anon
    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy's, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It's going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who's barely conversant in English and barely literate. It's going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She's going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it's good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That's what you're going to end up with as offspring.
    , @Opinionator
    I don't see the connection between the intrasexual selection you posit and the phenomenon of "young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse."

    How does the former "cut through the BS of," much less explain, the latter?
  34. Michelle says:

    “Animal Experts”. Oh, the left and their devotion to ,”Experts”. Experts save them from having to actually do any research or think for themselves. Some expert tells me I should get a second cat, even if my first cat hates other cats. What??? This is definitely analogous to illegal immigration. Even though we are not getting along with illegal immigrants, we should get some more, because experts say so and experts know what is good for us!

    Read More
  35. res says:
    @Arclight
    WaPo reporting on the value of our changing demographic : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-md-latino-students-described-as-mediocre-and-pretty-bad/2017/09/01/9876e6f6-8f5e-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?nid&utm_term=.5c46ff0abcff

    Oops.

    Jocelyn Nolasco, a Latina student who received the email, said she was shocked. The 20-year-old thought she was being referred to as the “mediocre one.”

    Nolasco is president of the Latinx Student Union and holds a leadership position in the campus NAACP chapter.

    Conclusion of the article:

    Nolasco said it’s a “waiting game” for the next offensive incident to occur.

    “What happens next?” she asked.

    Yes. You can be sure she is waiting for the next incident so she can force more people to resign. I mean if you are mediocre it’s necessary to get all the competent people standing in your way to leave to succeed yourself. And nothing is more important than the success of mediocre minorities.

    The most liked comment provides a glimmer of hope (remember, this is the WaPo readership):

    WanderNPonder
    9/2/2017 12:21 AM PDT

    Please, please, please stop confusing valid, contextual assessments for bias or racism. It undermines real issues of inequality and bias and adds support to those who criticize valuable programs such as affirmative action. I am a woman and minority who has understands these challenges but this is not the case. This is a private conversation that was actually trying to provide greater consideration for diversity despite, what seems to be, an honest assessment that for convenience sake, was categorized. Like saying those “short kids aren’t really good at basketball but they play hard and should we consider other things as part of eligibility of the fitness program.” It is unfortunate that these two were fired instead of the school using this issue as an opportunity for dialogue since this is a real life example of how so much of how we are understood is based on the good intentions we project on the speaker.

    The next several most liked comments are in a similar vein and include the tidbit that the reporter is an intern (verified by going to her link in the article).

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    Similar PC games are played in corporate America. In my 46-year working life, I have never had a male ask me to "mentor" them. Yes, males find worthy examples to emulate and understudy ... but there is no need for formal relationships.

    On the other hand, I've had a number of females ask me to "mentor" them. Their "mentors" of choice are usually males with status and place in the organization. The game is to make these males responsible for their professional development, pay raises, and promotions. If the women do not get what they want or feel they deserve, guess whose fault it is. There is also the innuendo of sexual discrimination when you do not deliver on their expectations.

    I call these "ersatz marriages". The women are looking for "ersatz husbands" to take care of and protect them within the organization. As in "real marriages", divorces can be nasty.

    How shallow is their typical desire for "mentoring"? A few years ago, careful not to play favorites when a woman asked me to "mentor" her in IT program management, I decided to set up a formal class in IT program management and open it up to anyone who wanted to attend. It became very clear early on that the three women who signed up were not serious about program management; it bored them. Their sole interest appeared to be "relationship" with someone with enough clout to affect their pay raises and promotions.

    As feminists teach, no one gets a good pay raise or promotion without a good "mentor". Right? As the aphorism goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
  36. Logan says:

    “He skips over the fact that migration is strictly controlled”

    Well, she IS “a comedian.”

    “technology has taken jobs away from Americans far more than immigrants have,”

    Probably true, but this is an argument for importing people to take away the few jobs that haven’t yet been lost?

    “overcrowding in schools is caused by a plethora of factors”

    True, no doubt, but again not exactly an argument for importing more kids to crowd them even more.

    “crime rates are lower among immigrants than among people born here.”

    Primarily due to one specific group of people born here. Which she very carefully doesn’t name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Probably true, but this is an argument for importing people to take away the few jobs that haven’t yet been lost?

    MSM today: "Unskilled jobs are disappearing to technology!"

    MSM tomorrow: "Let's import tens of millions more people to take all those unskilled jobs!"

    Chamber of Commerce today: "Wages are falling because there are fewer unskilled jobs!"

    Chamber of Commerce tomorrow: "We need more workers to take all of the unskilled jobs we're creating!"

    Chamber of Commerce today: "We're creating so many jobs there aren't enough Americans to fill them! Send us more immighrants!"

    Chamber of Commerce tomorrow: "Don't raise the minimum wage! We won't be able to creat millions of jobs that there aren't even enough Americans around to take!"
  37. Logan says:
    @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    “white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.”

    Comment 1: She defined what constitutes “progress.” Opinion Stated As Fact. OSAF.

    Comment 2: I am continually amazed by how many demonize white people for “feeling victimized” while making zero attempt to discover whether they might have some reason for feeling this way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Neoleftist dogma on race is predicated entirely on the idea that whites have all the power and privilege and that there are absolutely no structural/systemic forces working against whites. From this premise, the unescapable conclusion is that whites who object to the "progress" that's been made to "end white privilege and white supremacy" are, at best, ignorant people who don't want to give up their "unearned privilege."

    The idea that whites as a group could have legitimate grievances is anathema to the neo-leftist.
  38. Stealth says:
    @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    My current girlfriend (not fat, but athletic) thought she was stronger than me when we started dating.

    Read More
  39. Bugg says:

    This ends with Miller and Higgins tearing each other’s clothes off and making hot passionate love on the kitchen table with salt, pepper and sugar spilling all around them with Peter Gabriel playing in the background, fade to black.

    Ms. Higgins appears to be a LEGAL immigrant. Why she feels compelled to throw her lot in with a bunch of squatters and lowlifes is a mystery. Offends me as grandson of legal immigrants from Leitrim married to the daughter of legal immigrants form Belfast, all of whom followed the rules exactly, were sponsored and in my father-in-law’s case joined the US Army.

    Read More
  40. Neoconned says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Yes. Not hot. Her photo and writing style speak volumes. I think we all know this kind of girl. Steve's got a little wrong--it's not Stephen Miller she can't stop thinking about, but herself.

    Hey Chris nobody said that she was hot, just that she likes his jock….

    Read More
  41. Neoconned says:
    @jesse helms think-alike
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/media.central.ie/media/images/z/zzzMaeveHigginsFeature1_large.jpg?width=648&s=ie-357445


    matchmaker matchmaker make me a match find me a find catch me a catch

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/03/opinion/sunday/03higgins/03higgins-master768.jpg

    I know what shes thinking…..bit of a receding hairline but HES SO CUTE AND SUCH A BAD BOY I GOTTA FIX HIM AND CHANGE HIM!!!!!

    Read More
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This is an example why even white immigration is a problem. Everyone who came here after 1860 has to go back.

    Read More
  43. @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    “I wanted to recapture the old days of the carnivals,” Kaufman said. “Wrestlers used to go from town to town with carnivals, and offer $500 to any man who could last in the ring with them for three minutes. So I figured if I could offer a prize and make it like a contest, it could be very exciting. But I couldn’t very well challenge men in the audience, because I’d get beaten right away. Most men are bigger than me and stronger than me... From 1979-1983, Kaufman wrestled over 400 women (his most publicized match was against Playboy playmate Susan Smith in 1981). He retired undefeated.
     
    !!!
  44. AndrewR says:

    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

    Miller is almost certainly on the left side of the bell curve for physical strength among young men, but what is this obsession that so many Big Strong Women have with talking up how strong and martially able they are compared to men? Denying physical differences seems trendy among a certain class of women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moshe
    Sure, but it's our fault too that women qant to be physically strong. Our society actually encourages women to make themselves more manly which, to every healthy man makes her less romantically and sexually attractive.

    An example.

    Nobody wants to be with a girl taller than him but many women, appealing to the hope that they can score a 6-footer, wear heels even when they are above the AVERAGE height for American women of 5"4.

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.

    She is basically setting herself up for still being single at 30.

    The larger point here is that WE men allow it.

    And worse.

    We ENCOURAGE women to increase their status via having a high powered and highly lucrative career, and to wear heels and to drive SUVs and to take pills like antidepressents and adderall that make her feel less vulnerable and therefore less feminine. Etc, because the examples of this are endless.

    Oh, and we encourage boys to be more feminine.

    To stay in their seats in school for,,, well, for all of their youth. And to take emotionally frustrating jobs and to change diapers and to follow all the rules and to be timid and to know - and be terrified of accidentally violating a brand new decision by some lesbians about what is and "is not okay", etc.

    So long as there isn't war on our soil, the feminizing of men is far less of a problem and also less naturally disgust-ing than the masculizing of women.
  45. Pericles says:

    O/T but at least it’s about migrants: Swedish government age testing of “unaccompanied minors” (migrants less than 18 arriving alone) has now shown that 83% were above the age of 18, i.e., lying. More remain to be tested though. I believe earlier tests with fewer subjects had less liars. 15% of the cases were deemed to be less than 18, the remainder indeterminate.

    Out of the tested cases, less than 4% were females. Young men thus seem to be far more resourceful at seeking asylum in far off countries. Is this a case of sex differences? Let us ask the leadership of Google.

    https://www.rmv.se/aktuellt/medicinska-aldersbedomningar-statistik-till-och-med-31-augusti/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Swedish government age testing of “unaccompanied minors” has now shown that 83% were above the age of 18, i.e., lying"
     

    "less than 4% were females"
     
    If we extrapolate from those facts - and they do seem to apply in general - Maeve Higgins' of this world will be taken care off.
  46. Pericles says:

    A reminder: I’m informed that Mr Miller is a joker, a smoker, a midnight toker, and indeed the gangster of love. His loving is mainly gotten on the run.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    A reminder: I’m informed that Mr Miller is a joker, a smoker, a midnight toker, and indeed the gangster of love. His loving is mainly gotten on the run.
     
    ROTFLMAO!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3p1AzVsb3c
    , @CJ
    He's all that, and he's also the Pompatus of Love.
  47. @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    Well done!

    Read More
  48. MEH 0910 says:

    I am an immigrant and make a podcast about immigration

    That colleen has a face made for audio podcasting.

    Read More
  49. Fredrik says:
    @James Bowery
    Here's the decryption key for immigration discourse:

    Immigration of fertile childless women who aren't pregnant is compatible with the 600,000,000 year history of intrasexual selection between males. Civilization contains that intrasexual selection so that some males can accumulate more wealth than they could in the presence of such intrasexual selection. The implicit contract upon which civilization is founded is that those who accumulate said wealth will ensure those that do not are, at least, guaranteed no loss of evolutionary viability.

    Start with that in mind and you can cut through bullshit like young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse -- among a vast array of other bullshit.

    What I don't get is why immigration restrictionists aren't hammering on an immigration policy that permits unlimited immigration of fertile childless women who aren't preganant and the exclusion of everyone else. It may not be the ideal immigration policy, but it is one that not only is a damn sight better than the current "policy" -- it grabs the public discourse by the limbic system explicitly rather than this implicit bullshit.

    I’m not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that the US should only import young, single women? I don’t think that will go down well with the young women who ask for increased immigration today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I believe that pissing them off is part of his strategy. Its to try to force them to either take a poison pill in order to allow immigrants, or to shut it off entirely.
  50. OMG, it’s my third-grade teacher reincarnate (same look, same outfit). She wanted to be a cool, with-it hippie chick, but she wasn’t. Still hot though ;)

    Read More
  51. Dr. X says:

    “…a phantasm emerged, and as it took shape I saw it was none other than Stephen Miller…”

    That passage reads as if it were straight out of Mein Kampf. Miller’s Jewish, isn’t he? Does this mean that Maeve Higgins is an anti-Semite?

    Quick… somebody call the ADL!!!

    Read More
  52. Wilkey says:
    @Logan
    "He skips over the fact that migration is strictly controlled"

    Well, she IS "a comedian."

    "technology has taken jobs away from Americans far more than immigrants have,"

    Probably true, but this is an argument for importing people to take away the few jobs that haven't yet been lost?

    "overcrowding in schools is caused by a plethora of factors"

    True, no doubt, but again not exactly an argument for importing more kids to crowd them even more.

    "crime rates are lower among immigrants than among people born here."

    Primarily due to one specific group of people born here. Which she very carefully doesn't name.

    Probably true, but this is an argument for importing people to take away the few jobs that haven’t yet been lost?

    MSM today: “Unskilled jobs are disappearing to technology!”

    MSM tomorrow: “Let’s import tens of millions more people to take all those unskilled jobs!”

    Chamber of Commerce today: “Wages are falling because there are fewer unskilled jobs!”

    Chamber of Commerce tomorrow: “We need more workers to take all of the unskilled jobs we’re creating!”

    Chamber of Commerce today: “We’re creating so many jobs there aren’t enough Americans to fill them! Send us more immighrants!”

    Chamber of Commerce tomorrow: “Don’t raise the minimum wage! We won’t be able to creat millions of jobs that there aren’t even enough Americans around to take!”

    Read More
  53. JamesG says:
    @Brutusale
    Ah, the Irish. Speaking of countries not sending us their best...

    The best ones came much earlier.

    Read More
  54. Moshe says:

    Where can I find the unedited version of Miller’s campaign?

    I imagine that his infamous “janitor” line makes more sense in context. Anyone know anything about that?

    Read More
  55. Wilkey says:

    I think he’s The One. Mr. Miller and I both spend our time thinking and learning about immigration. I am an immigrant and make a podcast about immigration…

    Now understand this, you ignorant native-born American know-nothing. Miss Higgins is allowed to be obsessed by immigration but you are not. Miss Higgins, as an immigrant, is allowed to have an opinion about immigration but you (unless you agree with her) are not. And how dare you object to her insistence that now that she’s here she be allowed to tear the door off its hinges?

    Just last week we had a friend stay at our house. When I came home I discovered that my friend had invited five of his friends to stay for the week, too. When I asked him what he was thinking he replied, “Well, you let me in as a guest, so I have no right to tell other people they can’t be guests here, too. That would be ungrateful.”

    “No,” I replied. “Ingratitude is in not understanding that you, as a guest, have no right to invite more guests in. You have no right to even have an opinion on the matter.”

    If we as a society don’t have the g.d. self-respect to tell immigrants where they can stick it when they demand unlimited immigration then we deserve to lose our country.

    Read More
  56. Flip says:
    @Brutusale
    Ah, the Irish. Speaking of countries not sending us their best...

    I’ve never been, but I’ve read people saying that the ones still in Ireland are slower and less on the ball than the descendants of the ones that went to the US, England, Australia, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rapparee
    I have never seen any hard evidence one way or another, but I have a pet hunch that small rural communities in Ireland may have, or may have had until fairly recently in history, a slight problem with inbreeding depression- not nearly as bad as some cousin-marrying hell-hole like Pakistan, but perhaps more akin to remote villages in central Italy or places like that. Rural Irish people of my acquaintance credibly insist their families have been very careful to avoid any direct cousin-marriage since at least end of the Famine, but I'd wager a lot of communities just don't have a very large gene pool to begin with because of small population size. Going to Boston or Wellington and marrying someone from the next county over probably takes care of it.
  57. Wilkey says:

    This country has practically militarized borders

    Haha. Only a person who had never been to the border would say such a thing. I have a neighbor whose kid has done contract work on the border fence and he would laugh in this girl’s fat face if she told him that. People cross the border illegally almost at will, even where fences are being built.

    And even if it were true, why would it matter? Isn’t the first job of our military supposed to be to defend our border? The Department of Defense used to be called the Department of War. The change was a not-so-subtle acknowledgement that while people may flinch at actively attacking another country no sane person has any objection to defending our own.

    If it’s not going to even defend our borders perhaps we should rename it the Department of Surrender, or the Department of Pointlessly Expensive Neocon Adventurism. A new aircraft carrier (we already have 11) costs $8.5 billion to build (and billions more to equip). The F-35 program will cost hundreds of billions of dollars (~$100 million per aircraft, not even counting development costs). But $10 billion on a freakin’ wall that will actually help do what the $600 billion Defense Department is supposed to do but doesn’t? Apparently not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Laughable indeed. In fact, where we really do have "militarized" borders--Ft. Huachuca, AZ, 5 miles from the border and the home of Army Intelligence and training grounds for the Marines' drone operators--the following things happen over arbitrary 4 month periods:

    1) Border Patrol had to bust some illegals on the land navigation course
    2) Border Patrol came out to bust some illegals on the firing range
    3) An instructor got knifed by illegals while he was hiking on the trails on post
    4) The Burger King on post was busted for having illegals on staff

  58. @Fredrik
    I'm not sure I follow. You're suggesting that the US should only import young, single women? I don't think that will go down well with the young women who ask for increased immigration today.

    I believe that pissing them off is part of his strategy. Its to try to force them to either take a poison pill in order to allow immigrants, or to shut it off entirely.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @James Bowery
    Correct. That's the primary part: Girls are now playing "Let's you and him fight." with their condemnation of immigration restrictionists as "racists". This is made nowhere more obvious than in the support of massive Islamist immigration by "feminists".

    The secondary part is that the "wealthy" to which I referred, have breached the implicit contract founding civilization because they can win the "Let's you and him fight." against immigrant males by throwing around the centralized wealth and power made possible by civilization, rather than doing what is required by the contract: Use that centralized wealth and power to protect the natural territorial needs of the founding males. They like having working class white males hog-tied by their implicit contract with civilization, while the girls are screaming -- not with coherent words or thoughts but limbic-driven actions -- at them for not fighting the immigrant males. This is because the "wealthy" and "powerful" are basically beneficiaries of a tax system that pays for the protection of wealth by taxing economic activity -- which corrupts their class. As a corrupt class, they wage intra-racial warfare against their betters, because they fear them, and will continue to do so right up until their betters realize the contract has been breached -- loosening their bonds.

  59. AndrewR says:
    @Dave from Oz

    I remind myself that he was once a chubby little baby, with balled-up fists, looking out from his stroller at lights and shadows.

     

    And let us remind ourselves that Maeve was once a six-year-old girl, protected and provided for by adults whose role in her life she understood in only the most limited and child-like ways.

    protected and provided for by adults whose role in her life she understood in only the most limited and child-like ways.

    It seems that’s still the case for her…

    Read More
  60. “This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools. He skips over the fact that migration is strictly controlled, technology has taken jobs away from Americans far more than immigrants have, overcrowding in schools is caused by a plethora of factors, and crime rates are lower among immigrants than among people born here. …”

    Bullshit, all around total bullshit. This person has never even SEEN the border, let alone been there.

    Migration is not strictly control, then the classic “immigrants commit fewer” lie.

    Read More
  61. @Anonym
    I love this man, no homo.

    We can all admit his exchange with CNN’s Jim Acosta was epic:

    Read More
    • Replies: @NickG
    Yup, it was then I just knew Miller reads iSteve and chortled bigly.
  62. Moshe says:
    @AndrewR

    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.
     
    Miller is almost certainly on the left side of the bell curve for physical strength among young men, but what is this obsession that so many Big Strong Women have with talking up how strong and martially able they are compared to men? Denying physical differences seems trendy among a certain class of women.

    Sure, but it’s our fault too that women qant to be physically strong. Our society actually encourages women to make themselves more manly which, to every healthy man makes her less romantically and sexually attractive.

    An example.

    Nobody wants to be with a girl taller than him but many women, appealing to the hope that they can score a 6-footer, wear heels even when they are above the AVERAGE height for American women of 5″4.

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.

    She is basically setting herself up for still being single at 30.

    The larger point here is that WE men allow it.

    And worse.

    We ENCOURAGE women to increase their status via having a high powered and highly lucrative career, and to wear heels and to drive SUVs and to take pills like antidepressents and adderall that make her feel less vulnerable and therefore less feminine. Etc, because the examples of this are endless.

    Oh, and we encourage boys to be more feminine.

    To stay in their seats in school for,,, well, for all of their youth. And to take emotionally frustrating jobs and to change diapers and to follow all the rules and to be timid and to know – and be terrified of accidentally violating a brand new decision by some lesbians about what is and “is not okay”, etc.

    So long as there isn’t war on our soil, the feminizing of men is far less of a problem and also less naturally disgust-ing than the masculizing of women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    Why do you equate boys sitting in their seats at school with being feminine? Do you think men born in the 20s and 30s and 40s were allowed to run wild around the classroom during instructional time? Do you think kids in China and Eastern Europe get many opportunities for "active, hands-on" instruction?

    Trust me, there are way more brats out of their seats now than in the past. And the same ones who can't sit still cry at the drop of a hat, and have mommy come up to the school and rescue them for the slightest problem.

    The problem with inactivity in schools is more lack of recess/vigorous PE, not the fact that children are (rightly) expected to sit in their desks like civilized people.

    , @Opinionator
    Why do we do these things?
    , @Autochthon

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.
     
    That's the Whole Point, friend. Poke around any number of dating sites: something like eighty per cent of the females, be they even five feet tall themselves, write deluded shit like "Sorry, guys, but I like to wear my heels, so if you are under six feet tall I am not for you."

    They are out to be boned by tall blackguards until they are turned out to hoard cats once their expiration date arrives – and they would not have it any other way.

    Because of serial polygamy and the enabling thereof (shameless promiscuity, daddy gubmint, etc.) each has decided she deserves nothing less than Ryan Gosling – but without realising she is no Emma Stone....

    (See also my earlier analogy to ostentatiously exclusive gyms....)
  63. AndrewR says:
    @Colleen Pater
    As usual a sane person wonders can this ostensibly intelligent person really be so incredibly stupid that they really think we have insanely tight immigration, that labor supply from impoverished nations does not effect job supply and wages, that non white crime rates are really lower than white crime rates, that importing back our stolen technology manufactured overseas by immigrants we haven't met yet is really discernibly different from letting asians set up factories here staffed by immigrants?

    But another thing comes to mind, the advantage the JOG directed progressive movement gets by generational progress. This little sophomore has no historical perspective, yes of course that's partly to do with JOG memory holing western civ in the academy but its more a factor of her age. She seems to genuinely not get why those of us of a certain age "somehow feel victimized by" all this. She simply has no clue whats been lost. She's living in the eternal progress of the spotless mind. I remember NYC in the 80s 90s and the shanty towns of homeless, the race riots, graffiti etc and how blithely the emerging yuppies accepted it all, defending the filth against reactionary native new yorkers

    As it’s been pointed out many times: white leftists fear and loathe blacks but can’t say it so they support displacing blacks with harder-working and more docile mestizos. If it were a one for one trade, it would be a good deal. But it’s more akin to taking a dump and then plugging in an “air freshener” to “freshen” the air instead of opening a window. You’re not getting rid of the poo gas; you’re simply adding a less unpleasant odor to the room.

    Read More
  64. AndrewR says:
    @Logan
    "white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it."

    Comment 1: She defined what constitutes "progress." Opinion Stated As Fact. OSAF.

    Comment 2: I am continually amazed by how many demonize white people for "feeling victimized" while making zero attempt to discover whether they might have some reason for feeling this way.

    Neoleftist dogma on race is predicated entirely on the idea that whites have all the power and privilege and that there are absolutely no structural/systemic forces working against whites. From this premise, the unescapable conclusion is that whites who object to the “progress” that’s been made to “end white privilege and white supremacy” are, at best, ignorant people who don’t want to give up their “unearned privilege.”

    The idea that whites as a group could have legitimate grievances is anathema to the neo-leftist.

    Read More
  65. TheJester says:
    @res


    Jocelyn Nolasco, a Latina student who received the email, said she was shocked. The 20-year-old thought she was being referred to as the “mediocre one.”
    ...
    Nolasco is president of the Latinx Student Union and holds a leadership position in the campus NAACP chapter.
     
    Conclusion of the article:

    Nolasco said it’s a “waiting game” for the next offensive incident to occur.

    “What happens next?” she asked.
     
    Yes. You can be sure she is waiting for the next incident so she can force more people to resign. I mean if you are mediocre it's necessary to get all the competent people standing in your way to leave to succeed yourself. And nothing is more important than the success of mediocre minorities.

    The most liked comment provides a glimmer of hope (remember, this is the WaPo readership):

    WanderNPonder
    9/2/2017 12:21 AM PDT

    Please, please, please stop confusing valid, contextual assessments for bias or racism. It undermines real issues of inequality and bias and adds support to those who criticize valuable programs such as affirmative action. I am a woman and minority who has understands these challenges but this is not the case. This is a private conversation that was actually trying to provide greater consideration for diversity despite, what seems to be, an honest assessment that for convenience sake, was categorized. Like saying those "short kids aren't really good at basketball but they play hard and should we consider other things as part of eligibility of the fitness program." It is unfortunate that these two were fired instead of the school using this issue as an opportunity for dialogue since this is a real life example of how so much of how we are understood is based on the good intentions we project on the speaker.
     
    The next several most liked comments are in a similar vein and include the tidbit that the reporter is an intern (verified by going to her link in the article).

    Similar PC games are played in corporate America. In my 46-year working life, I have never had a male ask me to “mentor” them. Yes, males find worthy examples to emulate and understudy … but there is no need for formal relationships.

    On the other hand, I’ve had a number of females ask me to “mentor” them. Their “mentors” of choice are usually males with status and place in the organization. The game is to make these males responsible for their professional development, pay raises, and promotions. If the women do not get what they want or feel they deserve, guess whose fault it is. There is also the innuendo of sexual discrimination when you do not deliver on their expectations.

    I call these “ersatz marriages”. The women are looking for “ersatz husbands” to take care of and protect them within the organization. As in “real marriages”, divorces can be nasty.

    How shallow is their typical desire for “mentoring”? A few years ago, careful not to play favorites when a woman asked me to “mentor” her in IT program management, I decided to set up a formal class in IT program management and open it up to anyone who wanted to attend. It became very clear early on that the three women who signed up were not serious about program management; it bored them. Their sole interest appeared to be “relationship” with someone with enough clout to affect their pay raises and promotions.

    As feminists teach, no one gets a good pay raise or promotion without a good “mentor”. Right? As the aphorism goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    Read More
  66. JimB says:

    Maeve Higgins and half the people shopping in my local Safeway should have been stopped at the border.

    Read More
  67. prole says:
    @James Bowery
    Here's the decryption key for immigration discourse:

    Immigration of fertile childless women who aren't pregnant is compatible with the 600,000,000 year history of intrasexual selection between males. Civilization contains that intrasexual selection so that some males can accumulate more wealth than they could in the presence of such intrasexual selection. The implicit contract upon which civilization is founded is that those who accumulate said wealth will ensure those that do not are, at least, guaranteed no loss of evolutionary viability.

    Start with that in mind and you can cut through bullshit like young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse -- among a vast array of other bullshit.

    What I don't get is why immigration restrictionists aren't hammering on an immigration policy that permits unlimited immigration of fertile childless women who aren't preganant and the exclusion of everyone else. It may not be the ideal immigration policy, but it is one that not only is a damn sight better than the current "policy" -- it grabs the public discourse by the limbic system explicitly rather than this implicit bullshit.

    A good place to start is with the H1b visa program…since feminists want more women in tech, they should admit only females via the H1b visa program to get more women tech workers…..also only admit women refugees because they are most “at risk” of rape and abuse and pose little risk of becoming terrorist and rapists.

    thus our refugee policy should be restricted to females only….will the feminists object to such a policy ? Since we currently have set the max at 50,000 it should be easy to ban men and only accept female refugees.

    Read More
  68. Beckow says:
    @Pericles
    O/T but at least it's about migrants: Swedish government age testing of "unaccompanied minors" (migrants less than 18 arriving alone) has now shown that 83% were above the age of 18, i.e., lying. More remain to be tested though. I believe earlier tests with fewer subjects had less liars. 15% of the cases were deemed to be less than 18, the remainder indeterminate.

    Out of the tested cases, less than 4% were females. Young men thus seem to be far more resourceful at seeking asylum in far off countries. Is this a case of sex differences? Let us ask the leadership of Google.

    https://www.rmv.se/aktuellt/medicinska-aldersbedomningar-statistik-till-och-med-31-augusti/

    “Swedish government age testing of “unaccompanied minors” has now shown that 83% were above the age of 18, i.e., lying”

    “less than 4% were females”

    If we extrapolate from those facts – and they do seem to apply in general – Maeve Higgins’ of this world will be taken care off.

    Read More
  69. @Anonymous

    I’m reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, “On the Road.”
     
    Steve spending late nights reading classic Russian Christian authors. This has to be a calculated bit to send neurotic, paranoid JPod over the edge.

    The Chekhov story is even better if one reads it while listening to the tone poem Rachmaninoff based on it (“The Rock,” op. 7) and sipping a White Russian made with Beluga Noble.

    Especially on a cold winter night.

    Trust me on this.

    Read More
  70. @Daniel Chieh
    I believe that pissing them off is part of his strategy. Its to try to force them to either take a poison pill in order to allow immigrants, or to shut it off entirely.

    Correct. That’s the primary part: Girls are now playing “Let’s you and him fight.” with their condemnation of immigration restrictionists as “racists”. This is made nowhere more obvious than in the support of massive Islamist immigration by “feminists”.

    The secondary part is that the “wealthy” to which I referred, have breached the implicit contract founding civilization because they can win the “Let’s you and him fight.” against immigrant males by throwing around the centralized wealth and power made possible by civilization, rather than doing what is required by the contract: Use that centralized wealth and power to protect the natural territorial needs of the founding males. They like having working class white males hog-tied by their implicit contract with civilization, while the girls are screaming — not with coherent words or thoughts but limbic-driven actions — at them for not fighting the immigrant males. This is because the “wealthy” and “powerful” are basically beneficiaries of a tax system that pays for the protection of wealth by taxing economic activity — which corrupts their class. As a corrupt class, they wage intra-racial warfare against their betters, because they fear them, and will continue to do so right up until their betters realize the contract has been breached — loosening their bonds.

    Read More
  71. @James Bowery
    Here's the decryption key for immigration discourse:

    Immigration of fertile childless women who aren't pregnant is compatible with the 600,000,000 year history of intrasexual selection between males. Civilization contains that intrasexual selection so that some males can accumulate more wealth than they could in the presence of such intrasexual selection. The implicit contract upon which civilization is founded is that those who accumulate said wealth will ensure those that do not are, at least, guaranteed no loss of evolutionary viability.

    Start with that in mind and you can cut through bullshit like young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse -- among a vast array of other bullshit.

    What I don't get is why immigration restrictionists aren't hammering on an immigration policy that permits unlimited immigration of fertile childless women who aren't preganant and the exclusion of everyone else. It may not be the ideal immigration policy, but it is one that not only is a damn sight better than the current "policy" -- it grabs the public discourse by the limbic system explicitly rather than this implicit bullshit.

    HBD Chick tweets today:

    Mobile women were key to cultural exchange in Stone Age and Bronze Age Europe

    https://phys.org/news/2017-09-mobile-women-key-cultural-exchange.html

    Read More
  72. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    I'm reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, "On the Road:

    http://www.eldritchpress.org/ac/ontheroad.htm

    A man explains to a woman at length how he ruined his late wife's life through his ridiculous bouts of political extremism, and she immediately falls in love with him.

    Of course, in Miller's case, it's his "moderate sensible politics" that in these days makes him an alluring Bad Boy.

    Dear Mr. Sailer:
    Have a happy Labor Day !

    I almost can’t believe that you were patient enough to read all that Russian style delirium presented rather artfully by Chekhov.

    Reading it I was instantly attracted to the words

    she took off her “big felt boots”,

    in Russian “валенки”: traditional Russian winter foot-ware. I was taught to the following explanation of why the feet in felt boots had comfortable feeling of being warm and dry, even when walking over the cold snow-covered ground. At first glance ice and snow (crystalline form of water) should melt inside warm felt boot. Here is the physical explanation. ”The surface tension” of liquid water, about 1/1000 of a newton per meter (i.e. 1/1000 of a Joule per square meter). Surface tension increases along with the decrease of temperature. This increased surface tension of water “sucks” the moisture towards colder exterior of the felt boot through the woolly material (felt).
    My late mother used this for her study (around 1935) of day/night vertical motion of moisture in the soil. During the night, the surface of the soil was subjected to considerable radiative cooling.
    According to family legends, my mother’s grand-grand-mother was bought out of serfdom by her fiancé (my grand-grand-grand-father-to-be around 1860: around the year of slave emancipation in my new country, the USA, and 1861 of serfs’ emancipation by tzar Alexander the 3-rd in Russia.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Correction with apologies:
    serfs’ emancipation by tzar Alexander the 3-rd ---> serfs’ emancipation by tzar Alexander the 2-nd.
  73. @James Bowery
    Here's the decryption key for immigration discourse:

    Immigration of fertile childless women who aren't pregnant is compatible with the 600,000,000 year history of intrasexual selection between males. Civilization contains that intrasexual selection so that some males can accumulate more wealth than they could in the presence of such intrasexual selection. The implicit contract upon which civilization is founded is that those who accumulate said wealth will ensure those that do not are, at least, guaranteed no loss of evolutionary viability.

    Start with that in mind and you can cut through bullshit like young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse -- among a vast array of other bullshit.

    What I don't get is why immigration restrictionists aren't hammering on an immigration policy that permits unlimited immigration of fertile childless women who aren't preganant and the exclusion of everyone else. It may not be the ideal immigration policy, but it is one that not only is a damn sight better than the current "policy" -- it grabs the public discourse by the limbic system explicitly rather than this implicit bullshit.

    I can anecdotally attest to your insights. An earlier gentleman’s similar exhortation that males vexed by the scam import Colombian wives who look like lingerie models had me grinning despite myself.

    There’s more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it’s all there to be had in female immigrants.

    American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury’s rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives. These American women crave immigration, so young American men should give it to them, good and hard.

    The resorting leads to conservative, white men and women raising large families, and liberal, white harridans as barren sluts for troglodytes (or, at most, pooping out uninteñlihent bastards with no chance against the offspring of the rest of us):

    They wind up extinct, incarcerated, or at McDonald’s; we wind up the new Master’s of the Universe.

    It’s an idea, anyhow….

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Bill
    "American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury’s rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives."

    You're thinking of women as your equals. -1
    , @Canadian Observer
    To add to your idea, Chateau Heartiste advocates a sexual alliance between higher-status Western white males and kind, sweet white women who do various forms of pink collar work (ie. secretaries, clerks, etc.). Let the ball-breaking career women go barren and become used-up receptacles in the New World Order while gentler women enjoy the fruits of married life and bearing numerous healthy white children.

    Based purely on anecdotal evidence, pink collar women are cheerier, divorce less, are less likely to read Jezebel and are more prone to actually listen to a man rather than undermine him at the first given opportunity.

    There is also something fundamentally wrong with a woman who yearns to work more than 40 hours per week.
    , @Opinionator
    These American women crave immigration

    But why?
    , @AnotherDad

    There’s more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it’s all there to be had in female immigrants.
     
    I'm totally on board with the belief that the female situation--female suffrage, feminism, female careerism, and the feminine nurturing instinct unloosed upon politics--is one of the main causes of the disaster in the West.

    However, i'm not so convinced that "the vast majority of American females" have actually rejected sexual-dimorphism for smug feminism. As Steve and others have pointed out, one of the things that modern prosperity is allowing is girls to be *more* girly. (No one's asking them to get up in the morning and milk the cows, tend the chickens and get going on cooking breakfast.) Most girls interests are girly, they are very much attracted to men and maleness and very much want to get married. They parrot "smug feminism" because they hear that tripe 24x7x365 from the media and TPTB and women are by nature ... conforming. (And no one is giving them sane "grandmotherly" advice on how to prepare for married life.) They can't all be as smart as Kylie.

    I think there are a lot of potentially fine young American women out there. Who are really .one good strong confident young man laying down the law away from being fine wives and mothers.

    And I don't think a guy has to get them reading iSteve. I think the necessary messaging is pretty short and sweet and takes but a few minutes:

    -- I'm proud of my race and culture--without apology.
    White guys--born of white women--have created pretty much everything worth creating. Without what our ancestors did, you'd be living in the cave and shitting in the woods. Our crazy level of peace and prosperity come from them. I don't tolerate pissing on them.
    (Asian guys, blacks guys, etc. can give different versions but indicate that they are not alienated from their ancestors and from American traditions and Western culture. Or for Asians in the East--Eastern culture.)

    -- Civilization is maintained by the hard work of civilized men.
    By men working, by men protecting and demanding compliance with civilized norms. Not by happy thoughts and feelings. Or the PC whining you see today. Only civilized men and women together--married--can have and raise kids whom are civilized and able to carry on civilization. And that's our job together--building the next generation of our civilization.

    -- I'm happy and proud being a man. You should be happy and proud to be a woman.
    Our different roles aren't "oppression" they are natural and fun. Vive la difference.
    If you want to be a man ... fine. But do it on your own time. I'm not interested.

    -- I'm valuable. My capability, my lifetime stream of earnings, my genes, the fathering i'll do. That's all immensely valuable and i'm not going to settle and give that away to a woman who isn't committed to not just being, but devoting herself to being a great wife and mother.

    If you aren't committed to putting wife and motherhood first ... fine. But do it on your own dime. I'm not interested in spending my life supporting some woman whose interest is herself, rather than being my wife and mother to my children. If that's not you fine ... enjoy your cats!


    I think if a guy delivers those messages--that he's an unashamed proud champion of his race and culture, confident in what he offers and looking only for a young woman committed to being a great wife and mother ... he's going to find a lot of young women, quickly reevaluating their "smug feminism" and readjusting their priorities.

    White men first have to act like *men*, then white women will come around.
    , @NMObserver
    To Autochthon:

    The word is "cojones", NOT "cajones". Cojones are balls, i.e. testicles. Cajones are drawers as in dresser drawers or desk drawers. Your misspelling of the word gives your rant a whole new and hilarious reading.
  74. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    She claims she’s a professional comedian. She’s done a Bridezilla skit on a Candid Camera-type show in which she wore a wedding dress and accosted men on the street. Something tells me she’s a women of very few ideas.

    Read More
  75. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Pericles
    A reminder: I'm informed that Mr Miller is a joker, a smoker, a midnight toker, and indeed the gangster of love. His loving is mainly gotten on the run.

    A reminder: I’m informed that Mr Miller is a joker, a smoker, a midnight toker, and indeed the gangster of love. His loving is mainly gotten on the run.

    ROTFLMAO!

    Read More
  76. @Arclight
    WaPo reporting on the value of our changing demographic : https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-md-latino-students-described-as-mediocre-and-pretty-bad/2017/09/01/9876e6f6-8f5e-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?nid&utm_term=.5c46ff0abcff

    Oops.

    It’s crazy what’s resign-worthy “offensive” these days. This email didn’t even state that Latinos students were mediocre. (Which statistically is certainly true.) Rather his daughter was looking at the three Latino candidates–since the team should have blessed “diversity”–and found them to be mediocre. But she was going to take this professional “activist” busy body anyway:

    “The mediocre one is extremely involved in community activism/organizing (she’s the one I would probably take no matter what, what she lacks in skill she makes up in confidence, although she may be too busy for this commitment).”

    The prof should be apologizing for forwarding email that has individual evaluations to a group alias. But that’s it. There’s nothing even plausibly “racist” here. Rather just the sort sausage making that is an inevitable component of diversity/affirmative-action.

    ~~~
    The other thing that strikes me is that email programs ought to add some sort of additional “you are forwarding this content from someone else, please review and verify”. Maybe specific check when forwarding to an alias identified as a group?

    Additional–and fairly straightforward–options would be the “diversity” scan for problem words like “diversity” “black”, “African-American”, “Hispanic”, “Latino”, “Mexican”, “Jewish”, “Asian”, “women”, “sex”, “gender”, “orientation”, “immigrant”, “performance”, “mediocre”, “smart”, etc. etc. etc. and of course the dreaded “IQ”.

    Have the triple validation. “Are you sure?”, “Are you really sure?”, “Do you still want to have your job tomorrow?”

    Read More
  77. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Mr. Sailer:
    Have a happy Labor Day !

    I almost can’t believe that you were patient enough to read all that Russian style delirium presented rather artfully by Chekhov.

    Reading it I was instantly attracted to the words

    she took off her “big felt boots”,
     
    in Russian “валенки”: traditional Russian winter foot-ware. I was taught to the following explanation of why the feet in felt boots had comfortable feeling of being warm and dry, even when walking over the cold snow-covered ground. At first glance ice and snow (crystalline form of water) should melt inside warm felt boot. Here is the physical explanation. ”The surface tension” of liquid water, about 1/1000 of a newton per meter (i.e. 1/1000 of a Joule per square meter). Surface tension increases along with the decrease of temperature. This increased surface tension of water “sucks” the moisture towards colder exterior of the felt boot through the woolly material (felt).
    My late mother used this for her study (around 1935) of day/night vertical motion of moisture in the soil. During the night, the surface of the soil was subjected to considerable radiative cooling.
    According to family legends, my mother’s grand-grand-mother was bought out of serfdom by her fiancé (my grand-grand-grand-father-to-be around 1860: around the year of slave emancipation in my new country, the USA, and 1861 of serfs' emancipation by tzar Alexander the 3-rd in Russia.)

    Correction with apologies:
    serfs’ emancipation by tzar Alexander the 3-rd —> serfs’ emancipation by tzar Alexander the 2-nd.

    Read More
  78. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @James Bowery
    Here's the decryption key for immigration discourse:

    Immigration of fertile childless women who aren't pregnant is compatible with the 600,000,000 year history of intrasexual selection between males. Civilization contains that intrasexual selection so that some males can accumulate more wealth than they could in the presence of such intrasexual selection. The implicit contract upon which civilization is founded is that those who accumulate said wealth will ensure those that do not are, at least, guaranteed no loss of evolutionary viability.

    Start with that in mind and you can cut through bullshit like young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse -- among a vast array of other bullshit.

    What I don't get is why immigration restrictionists aren't hammering on an immigration policy that permits unlimited immigration of fertile childless women who aren't preganant and the exclusion of everyone else. It may not be the ideal immigration policy, but it is one that not only is a damn sight better than the current "policy" -- it grabs the public discourse by the limbic system explicitly rather than this implicit bullshit.

    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy’s, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It’s going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who’s barely conversant in English and barely literate. It’s going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She’s going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you’re going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it’s good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That’s what you’re going to end up with as offspring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Easy bet that this is a bitter washed up "American" woman.
    , @James Bowery
    Marrying/breeding down and miscegenation are both made less likely/necessary by a higher ratio of fertile-year females to males in the environment.

    In the manosphere it is quite common for people to comment on the esteem, potential mates of European heritage, give to men who they believe to have sexual options. I can speak from first hand experience, this is not a small effect. The society is Africanizing European women's sexual behavior -- so they, naturally, want a man who has a harem. It's a cheap test of fitness if their limbic system is looking for a sperm donor in an increasingly "winner take all" reproductive market -- even if their conscious mind rationalizes it around their lower time preference neocortical goal of a stable relationship.

    , @Anonymous
    If we limited it to women with IQ test scores over 105-110 and who can read, write and speak English at a high school level and who were at least 5'4" tall and had birthworthy hip structures we could still find mates for a million or two men who need them.
    , @Alec Leamas
    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism which often manifests as a general disposition to be needlessly disagreeable. Finding one who isn't, and who is height/weight appropriate and otherwise attractive is a real onerous task. Growing over time to hate your children's mother (even if she contributed superior intelligence genes) isn't doing them any favors either.
    , @Autochthon
    The world is full of bright, caring women who are not Amazonian genuises. The idea that the latter traits are required to prevent imbecile offspring is silly anyhow. Culturally European & American women have (arguably) become dysgenically intelligent (certainly they are lamentably overeducated); one is much better off with a good woman if average intellect.

    Do you think for a moment the wives of Andrew Jackson, Jonas Salk, and the like were their intellectual or physiological equals?

    Remember, above all, that reproduction is like exercise: the most effective is the one you actually do. If the gym with all the ostensibly best equipment won't admit you because it has decided it should only cater to movie stars and millionaires, you are better off doing push-ups and running than pining or conniving to be let in. Mr. Bowery is invoking the decent American men denied matrimony by stuck-up, self-important sluts and harridans; these men are better off reproducing with "merely" good women than pining for (ostensibly) "better" women and dying childless.
    , @BB753
    "Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding."

    Poor Jeb Bush! You don't get to choose who you fall in love with! LOL!


    https://youtu.be/XKS4TGr9ozU
  79. @Tyrion
    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    This article is chock full of classic female delusions. They are:


    I am a peaceable person. By that I mean I avoid conflict and also I’m quite lazy. People generally appeal to me. I can see their good side. I sometimes have fleeting antagonisms: toward a waitress I feel is being too performative in her friendship with a coffee shop regular, or that woman on the subway eating a plum really loudly. But in general, I have a smiley face and at the risk of sounding bonkers, I make friends with almost everyone I come across. What I’m missing, I’ve come to realize after a summer of cookouts and heart-to-hearts and hiking trips, is an enemy
     
    Maeve is happy when she is happy. Other people are good when Maeve is happy.

    Until I secure a worthwhile enemy, I cannot consider myself a successful grown-up. It’s sobering to consider why it hasn’t happened yet. Am I not important enough? Am I not fierce enough?
     
    Since 'enemy' is a newspeak synonym for 'man' and 'fierce' is a newspeak synonym for 'female beauty' Maeve has unknowingly stated her number one worst fear.

    Like most fears, it has some truth to it, but should she dial down the narcissism, lose a little weight and set out with reasonable expectations she will find success.

    This advice may not be the Stephen Miller Hail Mary of her vibrating dreams but I bet her grandmother and mother would agree.


    Every heroine must have an opponent who makes her better, stronger, nimbler than before. Who shall propel me forward on waves of bitter animosity? Crucially, I live in a chaotic time where people like me, people who usually bumble along unbothered, have to step up and stand for something. It’s not a hardening of the heart so much as a sharpening of the spirit.
     
    This is a very seductive narrative for oneself. The reluctant but chosen hero. Jon Snow in Game of Thrones follows this archetype and many people occasionally indulge in this in lieu of accurate self-appraisal. However, it is stridently narcissistic to do this in writing and especially in a forum as public as the New York Times.

    Then I have pet hates — ones that have bloomed so abundant in this country of late, namely racism, the demonizing of immigrants, and white people lashing out at progress because they somehow feel victimized by it.
     
    Maeve, they're not your 'pet hates'. They are the subject of hourly 2 minute hate sessions in the media. They are the least individual-to-you hates you have.

    To have the type of 'enemy' that you want you will need to learn to engage with others better. That is you will need to try harder to understand them as them and not as your own projection, no matter how fun and bouncey the latter allows you to sometimes be. Otherwise your relationships will always follow the path of you beginning to get upset, him getting confused and detaching himself a bit, then you getting more upset and it spiralling into a messy death.


    This country has practically militarized borders, but Mr. Miller insists that “uncontrolled migration” is responsible for plummeting wages and overcrowded schools.
     
    The US has millions of immigrants living within it illegally. The US even picks some immigrants not by their qualities but by an actual lottery. Would you marry someone based on a lottery process? Or hire them? Or really is a lottery ever the way to select anybody for anything that you care about?

    (But now I've fallen into a classic male delusion. That which addresses a clearly personal article as something political. I need to remember that it is only masquerading as political. Objectively the US is at the very tip of the most extreme point of human history on being open to immigration, so decrying it as being extremely closed is not something someone intelligent like you would do, if serious and committed to that point for that point's sake anyway.)


    I understand that he is stronger than I am, not physically, I’d imagine, but politically.

     

    Why do so many chubby women think that they are also physically strong? Even to the point that they consider themselves physically stronger than normal, in-shape men?

    This is way out of whack with testable reality. Go and find the weeniest guy you can and arm wrestle him. You will lose. Badly. Then once reality has forced its way through your delusions, follow it to other less testable notions. Indeed following that you should reflect on what I've written above, it should help you to see it with a more open mind.

    ...

    The rest of your article is so nakedly a broody love letter of baby pining and sex fantasy that I am quite jealous of Mr Miller. Oh to have the infamy that makes women go so goo goo ga ga and to have that infamy for moderate sensible politics. That surely is many a Western, conservative man's dream. Here's to him!

    Excellent Tyrion. Your comment hits all her glaring nonsense and confusion.

    You actually nailed the gist of it right at the start:

    Men and women need each other to stay sane. The delay or avoidance in the forming of genuinely intimate relationships between the sexes explains a lot.

    My first thought reading her was “cat lady in the making”.

    We’re a long, long … *long* way from sanity now. But if we were to fantasize about a return to civilization, one approach in a restored civilized society might be that all young women were required to lock down a productive man by the time they were say 25, or be exiled to from the nation and the support of productive males, to some dumping ground piece of real estate.

    To be fair, we would have a restriction on men to actually be productive and likewise dump the non-compliant men–criminals, gays, parasites, etc.–in the same dumping ground.

    I think one of the core problems of the democratic West is this idea that everyone is entitled to live in the civilized nation created by productive white men, regardless of whether they contribute or not. This was probably a mistake before, but it is definitely a fatal error once you turn on universal suffrage, female suffrage, feminism and the welfare state.

    Read More
  80. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy's, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It's going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who's barely conversant in English and barely literate. It's going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She's going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it's good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That's what you're going to end up with as offspring.

    Easy bet that this is a bitter washed up “American” woman.

    Read More
  81. @Anon
    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy's, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It's going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who's barely conversant in English and barely literate. It's going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She's going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it's good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That's what you're going to end up with as offspring.

    Marrying/breeding down and miscegenation are both made less likely/necessary by a higher ratio of fertile-year females to males in the environment.

    In the manosphere it is quite common for people to comment on the esteem, potential mates of European heritage, give to men who they believe to have sexual options. I can speak from first hand experience, this is not a small effect. The society is Africanizing European women’s sexual behavior — so they, naturally, want a man who has a harem. It’s a cheap test of fitness if their limbic system is looking for a sperm donor in an increasingly “winner take all” reproductive market — even if their conscious mind rationalizes it around their lower time preference neocortical goal of a stable relationship.

    Read More
  82. NickG says:
    @Perspective
    We can all admit his exchange with CNN's Jim Acosta was epic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYokZyx2rzQ

    Yup, it was then I just knew Miller reads iSteve and chortled bigly.

    Read More
  83. I’m an Irishman with dual U.S./Eire citizenship, from (contributing, legal) immigrant parents. I feel compelled to apologise on behalf of this stupid bitch.

    Irish woman journalists often embody the worst of those three categories.

    In Ireland, we have some particularly stupid females writing for our papers, notably The Irish Whines and the Independent.

    We are not all like this. There is a strong tradition of national integralism hiding below the sheen of bourgeois griping (most of which is monkey-see, monkey-do picked up from American media outlets) that rules public discourse in the Republic. Some regular commenters here will know what I mean. And no, I certainly am not referring to Sinn Féin.

    Maybe this isn’t a meaningful contribution to this thread, but as the kids used to say, whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    I don't know about the Irish. They're are pretty degenerate bunch. They voted as a nation for gay marriage. They voted in a gay Indian prime minister. The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has been taken over by gays. They let tons of blacks into the country. It seems that they've gone nuts since they lost the English as their main enemy.

    What are straight, white Christian Irish guys going to do about all of this?

  84. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wilkey
    This country has practically militarized borders

    Haha. Only a person who had never been to the border would say such a thing. I have a neighbor whose kid has done contract work on the border fence and he would laugh in this girl's fat face if she told him that. People cross the border illegally almost at will, even where fences are being built.

    And even if it were true, why would it matter? Isn't the first job of our military supposed to be to defend our border? The Department of Defense used to be called the Department of War. The change was a not-so-subtle acknowledgement that while people may flinch at actively attacking another country no sane person has any objection to defending our own.

    If it's not going to even defend our borders perhaps we should rename it the Department of Surrender, or the Department of Pointlessly Expensive Neocon Adventurism. A new aircraft carrier (we already have 11) costs $8.5 billion to build (and billions more to equip). The F-35 program will cost hundreds of billions of dollars (~$100 million per aircraft, not even counting development costs). But $10 billion on a freakin' wall that will actually help do what the $600 billion Defense Department is supposed to do but doesn't? Apparently not.

    Laughable indeed. In fact, where we really do have “militarized” borders–Ft. Huachuca, AZ, 5 miles from the border and the home of Army Intelligence and training grounds for the Marines’ drone operators–the following things happen over arbitrary 4 month periods:

    1) Border Patrol had to bust some illegals on the land navigation course
    2) Border Patrol came out to bust some illegals on the firing range
    3) An instructor got knifed by illegals while he was hiking on the trails on post
    4) The Burger King on post was busted for having illegals on staff

    Read More
  85. bomag says:
    @Off The Street
    Steve Miller got nothin' on Andy Kaufman.

    https://mentalfloss.com/article/31079/time-andy-kaufman-wrestled-bunch-women

    “I wanted to recapture the old days of the carnivals,” Kaufman said. “Wrestlers used to go from town to town with carnivals, and offer $500 to any man who could last in the ring with them for three minutes. So I figured if I could offer a prize and make it like a contest, it could be very exciting. But I couldn’t very well challenge men in the audience, because I’d get beaten right away. Most men are bigger than me and stronger than me… From 1979-1983, Kaufman wrestled over 400 women (his most publicized match was against Playboy playmate Susan Smith in 1981). He retired undefeated.

    !!!

    Read More
  86. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy's, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It's going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who's barely conversant in English and barely literate. It's going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She's going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it's good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That's what you're going to end up with as offspring.

    If we limited it to women with IQ test scores over 105-110 and who can read, write and speak English at a high school level and who were at least 5’4″ tall and had birthworthy hip structures we could still find mates for a million or two men who need them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    If we limited it to women with IQ test scores over 105-110 and who can read, write and speak English at a high school level and who were at least 5’4″ tall and had birthworthy hip structures we could still find mates for a million or two men who need them.
     
    Chinese women?
  87. Watching Stephen Miller has of late left me with a strange inchoate feeling that he represents something which can be quite simply defined by reference to an existing phenomenon or benchmark – but what? I think I’ve finally nailed it: he’s a young David Brooks. Now I know that Brooks is “enlightened” and Miller is “reactionary” but it struck me in his recent Emma Lazarus press conference that most of Miller’s opinions seem to line up with Brooks’ with the sole exception of his views on the immigration issue. Whereas Miller seems to have views on immigration which fit squarely into the rest of his worldview, Brooks’ opinions on the issue consist of pure Ellis Island schmaltz which fits more into the mold of a cooky-cutter New York Times progressive or leader writer at the Wall Street Journal. What accounts for the difference? In simple terms, I think it’s that Brooks is a Jew who grew up in mid-20th century New York while Miller is a Jew who grew up in late 20th century California. Bluntly, they’re both smart Jewish guys whose worldviews were formed by the (very different) times and places in which they came of age. Consider the following:

    1. Growing up in Manhattan in the 1960s and 70s, Brooks would have been surrounded by Jewish adults with leftist politics who sympathised with blacks and who had a tendency to view white gentiles as stand-ins for the SS and/or the Okhrana. However, he would also have had a ringside seat from which to observe the black crime waves unleashed on NYC by the Warren-era Supreme Court and Mayor Lindsay together with a gathering storm of black welfare addiction in the wake of LBJ’s Great Society reforms. This would, I’m guessing, have left him with a fairly low opinion of blacks – whether he cares to admit it or not.

    2. Brooks would have been in his thirties when a political insurrection led, in no small part, by Archie Bunker-type working class white voters brought the Giuliani/Bratton regime to power, which made New York habitable again (and, ironically, too expensive for Archie Bunker-types to live in anymore). While I don’t doubt that he and other American Jews maintain some vestigial hostility to gentile whites, my suspicion is that a whole generation of Brooks/Kristol/Podhoretz-esque neocon-type Jews were heavily shaken by the fact that: (a) their parents had been so sympathetic towards blacks but blacks had never reciprocated the affection; (b) their parents had pioneered very generous social and criminological programmes for blacks and blacks had disappointed them with their legal indiscipline and economic inertia; and (c) the despised white gentile taxi-driver types had bailed them out politically by demanding law and order and welfare reform policies as a curb on black misbehaviour.

    3. Many commentators on this site focus on Jewish hostility to whites and the manner in which this expresses itself in the form of immigration policy. The focus is legitimate, at least when analysing the left. However, at least as important, I believe, has been the phenomenon of Brooks-type, temperamentally conservative Jews being disappointed and disgusted with: (a) black behaviour in general; and (b) perceived black ingratitude towards Jews, in particular. Of course, an important iSteve theme is the manner in which the prevailing orthodoxies deny urban sophisticates a vocabulary in which to honestly express their hopes, fears, dislikes and disappointments and how this results in dishonest policy prescriptions designed for the pursuit of concealed and collateral political agendas. Stated differently, a great deal of pro-immigration sentiment seems to revolve around a desire (well documented on this blog) to replace blacks with a more impressive (or at least biddable) underclass.

    4. Brooks can’t say what he really thinks, namely that post-Great Society blacks: (a) think they’re too good to clean hotel rooms and wait tables and have been taught by their parents, teachers and community leaders to regard such work as demeaning; (b) aren’t actually too good for those roles (and appear to be temperamentally unsuited to them relative to the immigrant newcomers who are replacing them); (c) aren’t good enough for the type of high-status work they’d like to do instead; and (d) are using public subsidy to take their disappointments out on the rest of society. Of course, if Brooks said this out loud, he’d be banished from respectable New York society. However, there is still a substantial market for “thought leaders” (to use Brooks’ own terminology) who can, by using an acceptable decoy argument, drive public policy in a direction which brings about a result which is designed to mimic, as closely as possible, what Brooks and his ilk would like to achieve if only they could articulate their true feelings honestly.

    5. The decoy argument consists of combining the rhetoric of: (a) hyper-optimistic post-Reagan conservatism and libertarianism; (b) leftist politically correct multiculturalism; and (c) Cold War-era American exceptionalism into a particularly potent political siren call with the ability to beguile intellectuals from the left and right wing extremities of respectable thought together with everything in between. By convincing Americans that mass third world immigration:

    (a) is a social justice imperative for helping the wretched of the earth;

    (b) purges white America of the sins of slavery, Jim Crow and the displacement of the Amerindian “First Nations”;

    (c) instils an economic dynamism which clears out 20th century economic dead wood; and

    (d) proves America’s moral superiority to the old world nations of Europe and Asia,

    the likes of Brooks have been able to use a steady troop of Central Americans, Middle Easterners, West Asians etc. imported pursuant to the latter half of the “Invade the World. Invite the World.” credo to replace and displace the populations of recalcitrant blacks who now regard as humiliating and demeaning the entry level jobs that their grandparents and great grandparents used to flock to prosperous metro areas to do.

    6. My sense is that while the progressive left’s (increasingly thin) veil of condescending pity for working class whites is a cover for an antipathy that it finds increasingly difficult to even try to conceal, right-leaning Jews like Brooks and Kristol are probably more or less sincere when they express the same ostensible sentiment. Indeed, I think that Brooks may even feel some sense of guilt at working class whites being objects of his transferred malice – hence his anguished articles about sandwich elitism. However, 1960s and 70s Jewish neocons like Brooks and Kristol have simply done too well out of their advocacy of third world immigration as a mechanism for sending blacks out to places like Ferguson, Missouri or Stockton, California to climb down now so the result is that the mantle of respectable “reform” conservatism seems to be drifting away from Jewish neocons like Brooks and towards the likes of Reihan Salam (a Muslim) and Ross Douthat (a Catholic).

    7. My sense is that while, as New Yorkers, Jews like Brooks were at Ground-Zero in the 1960s and 70s social engineering experiments with lenient criminal justice policies and welfare programmes, Miller, as a Californian, has grown up at the epicentre of America’s insane immigration experiment. In the 1960s, Jewish intellectuals like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz parlayed stunningly successful careers out of seeing, about 5-10 years before their Jewish peers, that the 1960s CRA/Great Society bubble was destined to burst. It strikes me that Miller is a smart enough man to see that what served his parents’ generation well has almost run its course.

    8. At the heart of the project to replace the black underclass with a more pliant third world one is a numerical Ponzi scheme. Blacks are replaced by new arrivals but only in the large metro areas themselves. For the black populations of New York and San Francisco to fall, they must go up in the likes of Ferguson and Stockton. Sooner or later, you’ll run out of Fergusons and Stocktons in which to put them. Fair enough, that point is probably a fair bit down the tracks but as the pressure to find such places with which to populate section 8 voucher holders grows, another problem is developing in parallel. To wit, the children of the third world immigrants being imported are being socialised into precisely the welfare state culture which caused black behaviour to spin out of control back in the 60s and 70s, meaning that even more immigrants need to be brought in to displace and replace the children of the existing ones. With America fast running out of carpets underneath which to sweep the problems that this growing third-world-isation is causing, it must occur to some aspirant members of the elite who are under 40 like Miller that this sucker’s going down at some point in their productive careers.

    9. Which brings me back to the similarity between Brooks and Miller. It strikes me that of Brooks had been born in 1981 instead of 1961, he might well have figured out what Miller seems to have done, namely that a policy which paid handsome dividends for those born in the right epoch is about to hit the most spectacular skid imaginable. Watch this space, I guess…

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    However, at least as important, I believe, has been the phenomenon of Brooks-type, temperamentally conservative Jews being disappointed and disgusted with: (a) black behaviour in general; and (b) perceived black ingratitude towards Jews, in particular.

    They aren't truly disappointed. They understand on some level that they did it for themselves--not for blacks.
    , @Bugg
    Recall the John Podhertz after 9/11 said he knew no one personally who had been killed in the WTC attack. That was really remarkable for a (nominally?) white New Yorker . No surprise he knew of no outer boro/suburban cops and firemen nor Wall Streeters who were killed. But despite living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan his entire life, he did not know of even one Wall Street go getter . So when he, Kristol and Brooks wax poetic about The Dreamers, remember they don't ever interact with the middle class people who's quality of life is most impacted by illegals. In fact they hold anyone who spends their days getting up early and doing something serious and concrete as beneath their wonderful world of ideas. It's very easy to badmouth those lazy unionized blue collars and their kids trying to get a leg up in financial service jobs when such people are not someone you ever see, talk to nor care about. They share Obama's contempt for working and middle class whites.

    Found myself this morning watching the replay of the 1992 debates of Bush Sr., Clinton and Perot. The giant sucking sound has been a reality thanks to enabling boobs like Brooks, Kristol and Podhertz. Conservatism Inc. painted Perot as the nuttiest of candy bars.Alas, he was far more right than they were. Instructive how the elites of both parties savaged Perot much as they have tried to do with Trump. Perot, as flawed a guy as he was, still would have been better than either.

  88. @Roderick Spode
    I'm an Irishman with dual U.S./Eire citizenship, from (contributing, legal) immigrant parents. I feel compelled to apologise on behalf of this stupid bitch.

    Irish woman journalists often embody the worst of those three categories.

    In Ireland, we have some particularly stupid females writing for our papers, notably The Irish Whines and the Independent.

    We are not all like this. There is a strong tradition of national integralism hiding below the sheen of bourgeois griping (most of which is monkey-see, monkey-do picked up from American media outlets) that rules public discourse in the Republic. Some regular commenters here will know what I mean. And no, I certainly am not referring to Sinn Féin.

    Maybe this isn't a meaningful contribution to this thread, but as the kids used to say, whatever.

    I don’t know about the Irish. They’re are pretty degenerate bunch. They voted as a nation for gay marriage. They voted in a gay Indian prime minister. The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has been taken over by gays. They let tons of blacks into the country. It seems that they’ve gone nuts since they lost the English as their main enemy.

    What are straight, white Christian Irish guys going to do about all of this?

    Read More
  89. @NickG
    Yup, it was then I just knew Miller reads iSteve and chortled bigly.

    He should certainly be enjoying this thread!

    Read More
  90. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    If we limited it to women with IQ test scores over 105-110 and who can read, write and speak English at a high school level and who were at least 5'4" tall and had birthworthy hip structures we could still find mates for a million or two men who need them.

    If we limited it to women with IQ test scores over 105-110 and who can read, write and speak English at a high school level and who were at least 5’4″ tall and had birthworthy hip structures we could still find mates for a million or two men who need them.

    Chinese women?

    Read More
  91. It is always a revelation for a young, American man when he realizes that his youth of practicing to be a nice, understanding man has done him no good in the dating arena. Some of us fortunately experience that epiphany early enough to save our bachelor years.

    Simply put, the best approach boils down to: Respect, yes. Care too much, no.

    Read More
  92. @Anon
    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy's, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It's going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who's barely conversant in English and barely literate. It's going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She's going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it's good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That's what you're going to end up with as offspring.

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism which often manifests as a general disposition to be needlessly disagreeable. Finding one who isn’t, and who is height/weight appropriate and otherwise attractive is a real onerous task. Growing over time to hate your children’s mother (even if she contributed superior intelligence genes) isn’t doing them any favors either.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @anonguy

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism
     
    That is what feminists would have everyone believe, but is there statistical evidence for this?
    , @Desiderius

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism which often manifests as a general disposition to be needlessly disagreeable.
     
    It's the nerd* version of playing hard to get.

    Somewhere along the way, she manages to learn that that's attractive without either figuring out why or getting a feel for the exceptions/best way to express it/limitations where it doesn't apply.

    * - http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
    , @RadicalCenter
    Agreed.
  93. @Anon
    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy's, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It's going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who's barely conversant in English and barely literate. It's going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She's going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it's good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That's what you're going to end up with as offspring.

    The world is full of bright, caring women who are not Amazonian genuises. The idea that the latter traits are required to prevent imbecile offspring is silly anyhow. Culturally European & American women have (arguably) become dysgenically intelligent (certainly they are lamentably overeducated); one is much better off with a good woman if average intellect.

    Do you think for a moment the wives of Andrew Jackson, Jonas Salk, and the like were their intellectual or physiological equals?

    Remember, above all, that reproduction is like exercise: the most effective is the one you actually do. If the gym with all the ostensibly best equipment won’t admit you because it has decided it should only cater to movie stars and millionaires, you are better off doing push-ups and running than pining or conniving to be let in. Mr. Bowery is invoking the decent American men denied matrimony by stuck-up, self-important sluts and harridans; these men are better off reproducing with “merely” good women than pining for (ostensibly) “better” women and dying childless.

    Read More
  94. @Moshe
    Sure, but it's our fault too that women qant to be physically strong. Our society actually encourages women to make themselves more manly which, to every healthy man makes her less romantically and sexually attractive.

    An example.

    Nobody wants to be with a girl taller than him but many women, appealing to the hope that they can score a 6-footer, wear heels even when they are above the AVERAGE height for American women of 5"4.

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.

    She is basically setting herself up for still being single at 30.

    The larger point here is that WE men allow it.

    And worse.

    We ENCOURAGE women to increase their status via having a high powered and highly lucrative career, and to wear heels and to drive SUVs and to take pills like antidepressents and adderall that make her feel less vulnerable and therefore less feminine. Etc, because the examples of this are endless.

    Oh, and we encourage boys to be more feminine.

    To stay in their seats in school for,,, well, for all of their youth. And to take emotionally frustrating jobs and to change diapers and to follow all the rules and to be timid and to know - and be terrified of accidentally violating a brand new decision by some lesbians about what is and "is not okay", etc.

    So long as there isn't war on our soil, the feminizing of men is far less of a problem and also less naturally disgust-ing than the masculizing of women.

    Why do you equate boys sitting in their seats at school with being feminine? Do you think men born in the 20s and 30s and 40s were allowed to run wild around the classroom during instructional time? Do you think kids in China and Eastern Europe get many opportunities for “active, hands-on” instruction?

    Trust me, there are way more brats out of their seats now than in the past. And the same ones who can’t sit still cry at the drop of a hat, and have mommy come up to the school and rescue them for the slightest problem.

    The problem with inactivity in schools is more lack of recess/vigorous PE, not the fact that children are (rightly) expected to sit in their desks like civilized people.

    Read More
  95. Bill says:
    @Autochthon
    I can anecdotally attest to your insights. An earlier gentleman's similar exhortation that males vexed by the scam import Colombian wives who look like lingerie models had me grinning despite myself.

    There's more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it's all there to be had in female immigrants.

    American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury's rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives. These American women crave immigration, so young American men should give it to them, good and hard.

    The resorting leads to conservative, white men and women raising large families, and liberal, white harridans as barren sluts for troglodytes (or, at most, pooping out uninteñlihent bastards with no chance against the offspring of the rest of us):

    They wind up extinct, incarcerated, or at McDonald's; we wind up the new Master's of the Universe.

    It's an idea, anyhow....

    “American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury’s rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives.”

    You’re thinking of women as your equals. -1

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Am I? It's news to me; certainly it is nothing I ever wrote....
  96. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @prole
    A good place to start is with the H1b visa program...since feminists want more women in tech, they should admit only females via the H1b visa program to get more women tech workers.....also only admit women refugees because they are most "at risk" of rape and abuse and pose little risk of becoming terrorist and rapists.

    thus our refugee policy should be restricted to females only....will the feminists object to such a policy ? Since we currently have set the max at 50,000 it should be easy to ban men and only accept female refugees.

    Makes sense.

    Read More
  97. anonguy says:
    @Alec Leamas
    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism which often manifests as a general disposition to be needlessly disagreeable. Finding one who isn't, and who is height/weight appropriate and otherwise attractive is a real onerous task. Growing over time to hate your children's mother (even if she contributed superior intelligence genes) isn't doing them any favors either.

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism

    That is what feminists would have everyone believe, but is there statistical evidence for this?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Discordiax

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism

    That is what feminists would have everyone believe, but is there statistical evidence for this?
     
    Well, high IQ correlates with years of post-secondary schooling
    Years of post-secondary schooling correlates with absorbing the dominant ideas of our universities.

    So there's a strong tendency for high IQ to correlate with the Narrative. Deviations from the NArrative tend to be most common where people have the most direct experience.
    , @Autochthon
    Forty years of anecdotal evidence was sufficient for my purposes; I don't need no stinkin' statistics.
  98. @Alec Leamas
    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism which often manifests as a general disposition to be needlessly disagreeable. Finding one who isn't, and who is height/weight appropriate and otherwise attractive is a real onerous task. Growing over time to hate your children's mother (even if she contributed superior intelligence genes) isn't doing them any favors either.

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism which often manifests as a general disposition to be needlessly disagreeable.

    It’s the nerd* version of playing hard to get.

    Somewhere along the way, she manages to learn that that’s attractive without either figuring out why or getting a feel for the exceptions/best way to express it/limitations where it doesn’t apply.

    * – http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html

    Read More
  99. @Buzz Mohawk
    It is always a revelation for a young, American man when he realizes that his youth of practicing to be a nice, understanding man has done him no good in the dating arena. Some of us fortunately experience that epiphany early enough to save our bachelor years.

    Simply put, the best approach boils down to: Respect, yes. Care too much, no.

    That respect better be earned, as well.

    Read More
  100. Lurker says:
    @Kylie
    Not hot. And unfortunately, not late.

    Pitifully lame hit piece. Maeve throws like a girl.

    She looks OK in a few pics but in many others it’s a grim story. Sorry Maeve.

    Read More
  101. Kylie says:
    @Anonymous

    I’m reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, “On the Road.”
     
    Steve spending late nights reading classic Russian Christian authors. This has to be a calculated bit to send neurotic, paranoid JPod over the edge.

    Not if he’s reading them in translation. Even I do that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Good point. At least he's not reading them in the original Klingon.
  102. @Kylie
    Not if he's reading them in translation. Even I do that.

    Good point. At least he’s not reading them in the original Klingon.

    Read More
  103. @Autochthon
    I can anecdotally attest to your insights. An earlier gentleman's similar exhortation that males vexed by the scam import Colombian wives who look like lingerie models had me grinning despite myself.

    There's more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it's all there to be had in female immigrants.

    American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury's rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives. These American women crave immigration, so young American men should give it to them, good and hard.

    The resorting leads to conservative, white men and women raising large families, and liberal, white harridans as barren sluts for troglodytes (or, at most, pooping out uninteñlihent bastards with no chance against the offspring of the rest of us):

    They wind up extinct, incarcerated, or at McDonald's; we wind up the new Master's of the Universe.

    It's an idea, anyhow....

    To add to your idea, Chateau Heartiste advocates a sexual alliance between higher-status Western white males and kind, sweet white women who do various forms of pink collar work (ie. secretaries, clerks, etc.). Let the ball-breaking career women go barren and become used-up receptacles in the New World Order while gentler women enjoy the fruits of married life and bearing numerous healthy white children.

    Based purely on anecdotal evidence, pink collar women are cheerier, divorce less, are less likely to read Jezebel and are more prone to actually listen to a man rather than undermine him at the first given opportunity.

    There is also something fundamentally wrong with a woman who yearns to work more than 40 hours per week.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy

    There is also something fundamentally wrong with a woman who yearns to work more than 40 hours per week.
     
    Those striving women are convinced that men hid the secrets of success, but no longer. Such women ache with the desire to write their own epitaphs, such as: I wish I had spent more time at the office.

    It is probably a good thing for humanity that such selfish creatures avoid procreation, at least regarding their tacit, if erroneous, life calculus of 110% nature "Gee, ain't I swell to dominate the world if only it would listen", and -10% nurture "Sorry Mom, Dad and forbears, I'm ignoring your influence."
  104. @anonguy

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism
     
    That is what feminists would have everyone believe, but is there statistical evidence for this?

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism

    That is what feminists would have everyone believe, but is there statistical evidence for this?

    Well, high IQ correlates with years of post-secondary schooling
    Years of post-secondary schooling correlates with absorbing the dominant ideas of our universities.

    So there’s a strong tendency for high IQ to correlate with the Narrative. Deviations from the NArrative tend to be most common where people have the most direct experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Indeed. As someone who often works with the educational system, its amazing how much of the methodology is akin to the same brainwashing techniques used by the North Koreans against captured American soldiers. Write essays about feminism! Hear our lectures and testimonies about oppression! Share, personally, how you were oppressed by men and how literature by men oppresses you.

    And don't forget, you will be graded by how well you adhere to the dogma.

    I've seen so many women change from decent, sweet girls into harridans after the program that its hard to imagine how it could be anything else.
  105. “I’m reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, ”

    I wish for once you’d be reminded of something interesting to say, conservadad golf fanatic

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    If you can't get interested in Chekhov, there's not much helping you.

    Maybe try Percy for the American version.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Percy
  106. @Dr. Stephen J. Krune III
    "I’m reminded of a Chekhov short story I read last night, "

    I wish for once you'd be reminded of something interesting to say, conservadad golf fanatic

    If you can’t get interested in Chekhov, there’s not much helping you.

    Maybe try Percy for the American version.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    Agreed. I'd never read anything by Chekhov till last year but finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. A very graceful, insightful writer; well worth reading.

    I still prefer Conrad and James, though.
  107. @Moshe
    Sure, but it's our fault too that women qant to be physically strong. Our society actually encourages women to make themselves more manly which, to every healthy man makes her less romantically and sexually attractive.

    An example.

    Nobody wants to be with a girl taller than him but many women, appealing to the hope that they can score a 6-footer, wear heels even when they are above the AVERAGE height for American women of 5"4.

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.

    She is basically setting herself up for still being single at 30.

    The larger point here is that WE men allow it.

    And worse.

    We ENCOURAGE women to increase their status via having a high powered and highly lucrative career, and to wear heels and to drive SUVs and to take pills like antidepressents and adderall that make her feel less vulnerable and therefore less feminine. Etc, because the examples of this are endless.

    Oh, and we encourage boys to be more feminine.

    To stay in their seats in school for,,, well, for all of their youth. And to take emotionally frustrating jobs and to change diapers and to follow all the rules and to be timid and to know - and be terrified of accidentally violating a brand new decision by some lesbians about what is and "is not okay", etc.

    So long as there isn't war on our soil, the feminizing of men is far less of a problem and also less naturally disgust-ing than the masculizing of women.

    Why do we do these things?

    Read More
  108. @Autochthon
    I can anecdotally attest to your insights. An earlier gentleman's similar exhortation that males vexed by the scam import Colombian wives who look like lingerie models had me grinning despite myself.

    There's more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it's all there to be had in female immigrants.

    American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury's rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives. These American women crave immigration, so young American men should give it to them, good and hard.

    The resorting leads to conservative, white men and women raising large families, and liberal, white harridans as barren sluts for troglodytes (or, at most, pooping out uninteñlihent bastards with no chance against the offspring of the rest of us):

    They wind up extinct, incarcerated, or at McDonald's; we wind up the new Master's of the Universe.

    It's an idea, anyhow....

    These American women crave immigration

    But why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Ctrl + F + "Whiskey"

    Aside from that? Who cares? If your boss is a dick, find another job; don't psychoalanyse him.
  109. @Irish Paleo
    Watching Stephen Miller has of late left me with a strange inchoate feeling that he represents something which can be quite simply defined by reference to an existing phenomenon or benchmark - but what? I think I've finally nailed it: he's a young David Brooks. Now I know that Brooks is "enlightened" and Miller is "reactionary" but it struck me in his recent Emma Lazarus press conference that most of Miller's opinions seem to line up with Brooks' with the sole exception of his views on the immigration issue. Whereas Miller seems to have views on immigration which fit squarely into the rest of his worldview, Brooks' opinions on the issue consist of pure Ellis Island schmaltz which fits more into the mold of a cooky-cutter New York Times progressive or leader writer at the Wall Street Journal. What accounts for the difference? In simple terms, I think it's that Brooks is a Jew who grew up in mid-20th century New York while Miller is a Jew who grew up in late 20th century California. Bluntly, they're both smart Jewish guys whose worldviews were formed by the (very different) times and places in which they came of age. Consider the following:

    1. Growing up in Manhattan in the 1960s and 70s, Brooks would have been surrounded by Jewish adults with leftist politics who sympathised with blacks and who had a tendency to view white gentiles as stand-ins for the SS and/or the Okhrana. However, he would also have had a ringside seat from which to observe the black crime waves unleashed on NYC by the Warren-era Supreme Court and Mayor Lindsay together with a gathering storm of black welfare addiction in the wake of LBJ's Great Society reforms. This would, I'm guessing, have left him with a fairly low opinion of blacks - whether he cares to admit it or not.

    2. Brooks would have been in his thirties when a political insurrection led, in no small part, by Archie Bunker-type working class white voters brought the Giuliani/Bratton regime to power, which made New York habitable again (and, ironically, too expensive for Archie Bunker-types to live in anymore). While I don't doubt that he and other American Jews maintain some vestigial hostility to gentile whites, my suspicion is that a whole generation of Brooks/Kristol/Podhoretz-esque neocon-type Jews were heavily shaken by the fact that: (a) their parents had been so sympathetic towards blacks but blacks had never reciprocated the affection; (b) their parents had pioneered very generous social and criminological programmes for blacks and blacks had disappointed them with their legal indiscipline and economic inertia; and (c) the despised white gentile taxi-driver types had bailed them out politically by demanding law and order and welfare reform policies as a curb on black misbehaviour.

    3. Many commentators on this site focus on Jewish hostility to whites and the manner in which this expresses itself in the form of immigration policy. The focus is legitimate, at least when analysing the left. However, at least as important, I believe, has been the phenomenon of Brooks-type, temperamentally conservative Jews being disappointed and disgusted with: (a) black behaviour in general; and (b) perceived black ingratitude towards Jews, in particular. Of course, an important iSteve theme is the manner in which the prevailing orthodoxies deny urban sophisticates a vocabulary in which to honestly express their hopes, fears, dislikes and disappointments and how this results in dishonest policy prescriptions designed for the pursuit of concealed and collateral political agendas. Stated differently, a great deal of pro-immigration sentiment seems to revolve around a desire (well documented on this blog) to replace blacks with a more impressive (or at least biddable) underclass.

    4. Brooks can't say what he really thinks, namely that post-Great Society blacks: (a) think they're too good to clean hotel rooms and wait tables and have been taught by their parents, teachers and community leaders to regard such work as demeaning; (b) aren't actually too good for those roles (and appear to be temperamentally unsuited to them relative to the immigrant newcomers who are replacing them); (c) aren't good enough for the type of high-status work they'd like to do instead; and (d) are using public subsidy to take their disappointments out on the rest of society. Of course, if Brooks said this out loud, he'd be banished from respectable New York society. However, there is still a substantial market for "thought leaders" (to use Brooks' own terminology) who can, by using an acceptable decoy argument, drive public policy in a direction which brings about a result which is designed to mimic, as closely as possible, what Brooks and his ilk would like to achieve if only they could articulate their true feelings honestly.

    5. The decoy argument consists of combining the rhetoric of: (a) hyper-optimistic post-Reagan conservatism and libertarianism; (b) leftist politically correct multiculturalism; and (c) Cold War-era American exceptionalism into a particularly potent political siren call with the ability to beguile intellectuals from the left and right wing extremities of respectable thought together with everything in between. By convincing Americans that mass third world immigration:

    (a) is a social justice imperative for helping the wretched of the earth;

    (b) purges white America of the sins of slavery, Jim Crow and the displacement of the Amerindian "First Nations";

    (c) instils an economic dynamism which clears out 20th century economic dead wood; and

    (d) proves America's moral superiority to the old world nations of Europe and Asia,

    the likes of Brooks have been able to use a steady troop of Central Americans, Middle Easterners, West Asians etc. imported pursuant to the latter half of the "Invade the World. Invite the World." credo to replace and displace the populations of recalcitrant blacks who now regard as humiliating and demeaning the entry level jobs that their grandparents and great grandparents used to flock to prosperous metro areas to do.

    6. My sense is that while the progressive left's (increasingly thin) veil of condescending pity for working class whites is a cover for an antipathy that it finds increasingly difficult to even try to conceal, right-leaning Jews like Brooks and Kristol are probably more or less sincere when they express the same ostensible sentiment. Indeed, I think that Brooks may even feel some sense of guilt at working class whites being objects of his transferred malice - hence his anguished articles about sandwich elitism. However, 1960s and 70s Jewish neocons like Brooks and Kristol have simply done too well out of their advocacy of third world immigration as a mechanism for sending blacks out to places like Ferguson, Missouri or Stockton, California to climb down now so the result is that the mantle of respectable "reform" conservatism seems to be drifting away from Jewish neocons like Brooks and towards the likes of Reihan Salam (a Muslim) and Ross Douthat (a Catholic).

    7. My sense is that while, as New Yorkers, Jews like Brooks were at Ground-Zero in the 1960s and 70s social engineering experiments with lenient criminal justice policies and welfare programmes, Miller, as a Californian, has grown up at the epicentre of America's insane immigration experiment. In the 1960s, Jewish intellectuals like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz parlayed stunningly successful careers out of seeing, about 5-10 years before their Jewish peers, that the 1960s CRA/Great Society bubble was destined to burst. It strikes me that Miller is a smart enough man to see that what served his parents' generation well has almost run its course.

    8. At the heart of the project to replace the black underclass with a more pliant third world one is a numerical Ponzi scheme. Blacks are replaced by new arrivals but only in the large metro areas themselves. For the black populations of New York and San Francisco to fall, they must go up in the likes of Ferguson and Stockton. Sooner or later, you'll run out of Fergusons and Stocktons in which to put them. Fair enough, that point is probably a fair bit down the tracks but as the pressure to find such places with which to populate section 8 voucher holders grows, another problem is developing in parallel. To wit, the children of the third world immigrants being imported are being socialised into precisely the welfare state culture which caused black behaviour to spin out of control back in the 60s and 70s, meaning that even more immigrants need to be brought in to displace and replace the children of the existing ones. With America fast running out of carpets underneath which to sweep the problems that this growing third-world-isation is causing, it must occur to some aspirant members of the elite who are under 40 like Miller that this sucker's going down at some point in their productive careers.

    9. Which brings me back to the similarity between Brooks and Miller. It strikes me that of Brooks had been born in 1981 instead of 1961, he might well have figured out what Miller seems to have done, namely that a policy which paid handsome dividends for those born in the right epoch is about to hit the most spectacular skid imaginable. Watch this space, I guess...

    However, at least as important, I believe, has been the phenomenon of Brooks-type, temperamentally conservative Jews being disappointed and disgusted with: (a) black behaviour in general; and (b) perceived black ingratitude towards Jews, in particular.

    They aren’t truly disappointed. They understand on some level that they did it for themselves–not for blacks.

    Read More
  110. @James Bowery
    Here's the decryption key for immigration discourse:

    Immigration of fertile childless women who aren't pregnant is compatible with the 600,000,000 year history of intrasexual selection between males. Civilization contains that intrasexual selection so that some males can accumulate more wealth than they could in the presence of such intrasexual selection. The implicit contract upon which civilization is founded is that those who accumulate said wealth will ensure those that do not are, at least, guaranteed no loss of evolutionary viability.

    Start with that in mind and you can cut through bullshit like young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse -- among a vast array of other bullshit.

    What I don't get is why immigration restrictionists aren't hammering on an immigration policy that permits unlimited immigration of fertile childless women who aren't preganant and the exclusion of everyone else. It may not be the ideal immigration policy, but it is one that not only is a damn sight better than the current "policy" -- it grabs the public discourse by the limbic system explicitly rather than this implicit bullshit.

    I don’t see the connection between the intrasexual selection you posit and the phenomenon of “young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse.”

    How does the former “cut through the BS of,” much less explain, the latter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Bowery
    Imagine if humans had a culture -- artificial selection -- in which the appeal of last resort in dispute processing was natural duel -- no gangs or wars allowed.

    Now, imagine the following set of prospective "immigrants":

    A childless, unmarried, non-pregnant young woman.
    A young man.
    A pregnant woman.
    A young woman with her children sired by a man outside the territory.
    A woman married to a man outside of the territory.
    An old woman.
    A prepubescent girl.
    An old man.
    A prepubescent boy.

    Which of these is most likely to walk across "the border" successfully?
  111. BB753 says:
    @Anon
    Depends. Is the ideal mate for the average American white male a woman with an average IQ of 85? You decide if this is good or bad for your children. If their IQ takes after mommy's, you can kiss college and a middle-class job for them goodbye. Do you want to spend the next 50 years of your life stuck having conversactions with a woman of 85 points of IQ? It's going to be like talking to a Mexican hotel maid who's barely conversant in English and barely literate. It's going to get mighty boring and exasperating after a while. She's going to make a lot of stupid decisions during your married life, and you're going to have to spend a lot of time getting her out of trouble of her own making. And if she gets her hands on your money, hoo boy.

    Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding. If you think it's good for you, just look at the quality of the people in her own country. That's what you're going to end up with as offspring.

    “Anyone who choses to marry a poor, dumb women is a guy in love with dysgenetic breeding.”

    Poor Jeb Bush! You don’t get to choose who you fall in love with! LOL!

    https://youtu.be/XKS4TGr9ozU

    Read More
  112. Nico says:
    @Kylie
    Not hot. And unfortunately, not late.

    Pitifully lame hit piece. Maeve throws like a girl.

    Actually, I find liberal women cute when they have these SJW hissy fits. And true to Steve’s quips, they do often seem to get turned on by a [conservative] man whose reaction to their monomaniacal seizures is one of irreverent nonchalance.

    Read More
  113. I didn’t read through all the comments, so I’m not sure if anyone as pointed this out already, but this woman is a putative comic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUwntYVxkWA

    Oh dear. Not a laugh to be found. And unmistakably fifth-grade-style, per iSteve.

    In her routine she quips “I’m barren.” I have no doubt. From fifth grade directly to cat lady…

    Read More
  114. @Bill
    "American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury’s rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives."

    You're thinking of women as your equals. -1

    Am I? It’s news to me; certainly it is nothing I ever wrote….

    Read More
  115. @Opinionator
    These American women crave immigration

    But why?

    Ctrl + F + “Whiskey”

    Aside from that? Who cares? If your boss is a dick, find another job; don’t psychoalanyse him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    The analogy fails. They--and all of us--remain our boss inasmuch as we vote in representatives, make campaign contributioms, exercise influence in media.
  116. @anonguy

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism
     
    That is what feminists would have everyone believe, but is there statistical evidence for this?

    Forty years of anecdotal evidence was sufficient for my purposes; I don’t need no stinkin’ statistics.

    Read More
  117. @Moshe
    Sure, but it's our fault too that women qant to be physically strong. Our society actually encourages women to make themselves more manly which, to every healthy man makes her less romantically and sexually attractive.

    An example.

    Nobody wants to be with a girl taller than him but many women, appealing to the hope that they can score a 6-footer, wear heels even when they are above the AVERAGE height for American women of 5"4.

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.

    She is basically setting herself up for still being single at 30.

    The larger point here is that WE men allow it.

    And worse.

    We ENCOURAGE women to increase their status via having a high powered and highly lucrative career, and to wear heels and to drive SUVs and to take pills like antidepressents and adderall that make her feel less vulnerable and therefore less feminine. Etc, because the examples of this are endless.

    Oh, and we encourage boys to be more feminine.

    To stay in their seats in school for,,, well, for all of their youth. And to take emotionally frustrating jobs and to change diapers and to follow all the rules and to be timid and to know - and be terrified of accidentally violating a brand new decision by some lesbians about what is and "is not okay", etc.

    So long as there isn't war on our soil, the feminizing of men is far less of a problem and also less naturally disgust-ing than the masculizing of women.

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.

    That’s the Whole Point, friend. Poke around any number of dating sites: something like eighty per cent of the females, be they even five feet tall themselves, write deluded shit like “Sorry, guys, but I like to wear my heels, so if you are under six feet tall I am not for you.”

    They are out to be boned by tall blackguards until they are turned out to hoard cats once their expiration date arrives – and they would not have it any other way.

    Because of serial polygamy and the enabling thereof (shameless promiscuity, daddy gubmint, etc.) each has decided she deserves nothing less than Ryan Gosling – but without realising she is no Emma Stone….

    (See also my earlier analogy to ostentatiously exclusive gyms….)

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    And even homely Emma Stone didn't deserve Ryan Goslin. Have you noticed that Hollywood usually pairs up a very good-looking lead actor with a not-so good-looking lead actress. It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere.
  118. @Opinionator
    I don't see the connection between the intrasexual selection you posit and the phenomenon of "young women being paraded around as the poster-children for immigration discourse."

    How does the former "cut through the BS of," much less explain, the latter?

    Imagine if humans had a culture — artificial selection — in which the appeal of last resort in dispute processing was natural duel — no gangs or wars allowed.

    Now, imagine the following set of prospective “immigrants”:

    A childless, unmarried, non-pregnant young woman.
    A young man.
    A pregnant woman.
    A young woman with her children sired by a man outside the territory.
    A woman married to a man outside of the territory.
    An old woman.
    A prepubescent girl.
    An old man.
    A prepubescent boy.

    Which of these is most likely to walk across “the border” successfully?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sammler
    You left out the "pregnant man" category.

    Bigot.
    , @Opinionator
    I am sorry. I appreciate the reply but I cannot make sense of what you are trying to convey.
  119. @Discordiax

    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism

    That is what feminists would have everyone believe, but is there statistical evidence for this?
     
    Well, high IQ correlates with years of post-secondary schooling
    Years of post-secondary schooling correlates with absorbing the dominant ideas of our universities.

    So there's a strong tendency for high IQ to correlate with the Narrative. Deviations from the NArrative tend to be most common where people have the most direct experience.

    Indeed. As someone who often works with the educational system, its amazing how much of the methodology is akin to the same brainwashing techniques used by the North Koreans against captured American soldiers. Write essays about feminism! Hear our lectures and testimonies about oppression! Share, personally, how you were oppressed by men and how literature by men oppresses you.

    And don’t forget, you will be graded by how well you adhere to the dogma.

    I’ve seen so many women change from decent, sweet girls into harridans after the program that its hard to imagine how it could be anything else.

    Read More
  120. Bugg says:
    @Irish Paleo
    Watching Stephen Miller has of late left me with a strange inchoate feeling that he represents something which can be quite simply defined by reference to an existing phenomenon or benchmark - but what? I think I've finally nailed it: he's a young David Brooks. Now I know that Brooks is "enlightened" and Miller is "reactionary" but it struck me in his recent Emma Lazarus press conference that most of Miller's opinions seem to line up with Brooks' with the sole exception of his views on the immigration issue. Whereas Miller seems to have views on immigration which fit squarely into the rest of his worldview, Brooks' opinions on the issue consist of pure Ellis Island schmaltz which fits more into the mold of a cooky-cutter New York Times progressive or leader writer at the Wall Street Journal. What accounts for the difference? In simple terms, I think it's that Brooks is a Jew who grew up in mid-20th century New York while Miller is a Jew who grew up in late 20th century California. Bluntly, they're both smart Jewish guys whose worldviews were formed by the (very different) times and places in which they came of age. Consider the following:

    1. Growing up in Manhattan in the 1960s and 70s, Brooks would have been surrounded by Jewish adults with leftist politics who sympathised with blacks and who had a tendency to view white gentiles as stand-ins for the SS and/or the Okhrana. However, he would also have had a ringside seat from which to observe the black crime waves unleashed on NYC by the Warren-era Supreme Court and Mayor Lindsay together with a gathering storm of black welfare addiction in the wake of LBJ's Great Society reforms. This would, I'm guessing, have left him with a fairly low opinion of blacks - whether he cares to admit it or not.

    2. Brooks would have been in his thirties when a political insurrection led, in no small part, by Archie Bunker-type working class white voters brought the Giuliani/Bratton regime to power, which made New York habitable again (and, ironically, too expensive for Archie Bunker-types to live in anymore). While I don't doubt that he and other American Jews maintain some vestigial hostility to gentile whites, my suspicion is that a whole generation of Brooks/Kristol/Podhoretz-esque neocon-type Jews were heavily shaken by the fact that: (a) their parents had been so sympathetic towards blacks but blacks had never reciprocated the affection; (b) their parents had pioneered very generous social and criminological programmes for blacks and blacks had disappointed them with their legal indiscipline and economic inertia; and (c) the despised white gentile taxi-driver types had bailed them out politically by demanding law and order and welfare reform policies as a curb on black misbehaviour.

    3. Many commentators on this site focus on Jewish hostility to whites and the manner in which this expresses itself in the form of immigration policy. The focus is legitimate, at least when analysing the left. However, at least as important, I believe, has been the phenomenon of Brooks-type, temperamentally conservative Jews being disappointed and disgusted with: (a) black behaviour in general; and (b) perceived black ingratitude towards Jews, in particular. Of course, an important iSteve theme is the manner in which the prevailing orthodoxies deny urban sophisticates a vocabulary in which to honestly express their hopes, fears, dislikes and disappointments and how this results in dishonest policy prescriptions designed for the pursuit of concealed and collateral political agendas. Stated differently, a great deal of pro-immigration sentiment seems to revolve around a desire (well documented on this blog) to replace blacks with a more impressive (or at least biddable) underclass.

    4. Brooks can't say what he really thinks, namely that post-Great Society blacks: (a) think they're too good to clean hotel rooms and wait tables and have been taught by their parents, teachers and community leaders to regard such work as demeaning; (b) aren't actually too good for those roles (and appear to be temperamentally unsuited to them relative to the immigrant newcomers who are replacing them); (c) aren't good enough for the type of high-status work they'd like to do instead; and (d) are using public subsidy to take their disappointments out on the rest of society. Of course, if Brooks said this out loud, he'd be banished from respectable New York society. However, there is still a substantial market for "thought leaders" (to use Brooks' own terminology) who can, by using an acceptable decoy argument, drive public policy in a direction which brings about a result which is designed to mimic, as closely as possible, what Brooks and his ilk would like to achieve if only they could articulate their true feelings honestly.

    5. The decoy argument consists of combining the rhetoric of: (a) hyper-optimistic post-Reagan conservatism and libertarianism; (b) leftist politically correct multiculturalism; and (c) Cold War-era American exceptionalism into a particularly potent political siren call with the ability to beguile intellectuals from the left and right wing extremities of respectable thought together with everything in between. By convincing Americans that mass third world immigration:

    (a) is a social justice imperative for helping the wretched of the earth;

    (b) purges white America of the sins of slavery, Jim Crow and the displacement of the Amerindian "First Nations";

    (c) instils an economic dynamism which clears out 20th century economic dead wood; and

    (d) proves America's moral superiority to the old world nations of Europe and Asia,

    the likes of Brooks have been able to use a steady troop of Central Americans, Middle Easterners, West Asians etc. imported pursuant to the latter half of the "Invade the World. Invite the World." credo to replace and displace the populations of recalcitrant blacks who now regard as humiliating and demeaning the entry level jobs that their grandparents and great grandparents used to flock to prosperous metro areas to do.

    6. My sense is that while the progressive left's (increasingly thin) veil of condescending pity for working class whites is a cover for an antipathy that it finds increasingly difficult to even try to conceal, right-leaning Jews like Brooks and Kristol are probably more or less sincere when they express the same ostensible sentiment. Indeed, I think that Brooks may even feel some sense of guilt at working class whites being objects of his transferred malice - hence his anguished articles about sandwich elitism. However, 1960s and 70s Jewish neocons like Brooks and Kristol have simply done too well out of their advocacy of third world immigration as a mechanism for sending blacks out to places like Ferguson, Missouri or Stockton, California to climb down now so the result is that the mantle of respectable "reform" conservatism seems to be drifting away from Jewish neocons like Brooks and towards the likes of Reihan Salam (a Muslim) and Ross Douthat (a Catholic).

    7. My sense is that while, as New Yorkers, Jews like Brooks were at Ground-Zero in the 1960s and 70s social engineering experiments with lenient criminal justice policies and welfare programmes, Miller, as a Californian, has grown up at the epicentre of America's insane immigration experiment. In the 1960s, Jewish intellectuals like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz parlayed stunningly successful careers out of seeing, about 5-10 years before their Jewish peers, that the 1960s CRA/Great Society bubble was destined to burst. It strikes me that Miller is a smart enough man to see that what served his parents' generation well has almost run its course.

    8. At the heart of the project to replace the black underclass with a more pliant third world one is a numerical Ponzi scheme. Blacks are replaced by new arrivals but only in the large metro areas themselves. For the black populations of New York and San Francisco to fall, they must go up in the likes of Ferguson and Stockton. Sooner or later, you'll run out of Fergusons and Stocktons in which to put them. Fair enough, that point is probably a fair bit down the tracks but as the pressure to find such places with which to populate section 8 voucher holders grows, another problem is developing in parallel. To wit, the children of the third world immigrants being imported are being socialised into precisely the welfare state culture which caused black behaviour to spin out of control back in the 60s and 70s, meaning that even more immigrants need to be brought in to displace and replace the children of the existing ones. With America fast running out of carpets underneath which to sweep the problems that this growing third-world-isation is causing, it must occur to some aspirant members of the elite who are under 40 like Miller that this sucker's going down at some point in their productive careers.

    9. Which brings me back to the similarity between Brooks and Miller. It strikes me that of Brooks had been born in 1981 instead of 1961, he might well have figured out what Miller seems to have done, namely that a policy which paid handsome dividends for those born in the right epoch is about to hit the most spectacular skid imaginable. Watch this space, I guess...

    Recall the John Podhertz after 9/11 said he knew no one personally who had been killed in the WTC attack. That was really remarkable for a (nominally?) white New Yorker . No surprise he knew of no outer boro/suburban cops and firemen nor Wall Streeters who were killed. But despite living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan his entire life, he did not know of even one Wall Street go getter . So when he, Kristol and Brooks wax poetic about The Dreamers, remember they don’t ever interact with the middle class people who’s quality of life is most impacted by illegals. In fact they hold anyone who spends their days getting up early and doing something serious and concrete as beneath their wonderful world of ideas. It’s very easy to badmouth those lazy unionized blue collars and their kids trying to get a leg up in financial service jobs when such people are not someone you ever see, talk to nor care about. They share Obama’s contempt for working and middle class whites.

    Found myself this morning watching the replay of the 1992 debates of Bush Sr., Clinton and Perot. The giant sucking sound has been a reality thanks to enabling boobs like Brooks, Kristol and Podhertz. Conservatism Inc. painted Perot as the nuttiest of candy bars.Alas, he was far more right than they were. Instructive how the elites of both parties savaged Perot much as they have tried to do with Trump. Perot, as flawed a guy as he was, still would have been better than either.

    Read More
  121. Olorin says:
    @Kylie
    Not hot. And unfortunately, not late.

    Pitifully lame hit piece. Maeve throws like a girl.

    More like Maeve wants to fall backwards like a girl and cannot believe that it’s a conservative Republican boy triggering her reproduction-driving emotions by standing for the opposite of everything she has been trained to pretend to believe.

    Thanks for this piece, host. It’s going into my folder of notes for the HBD 101 course I’ll never teach.

    :D

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    Oh yes. She wants him. That's just another reason besides his politics for her to hate him.

    Her puny brain, underdeveloped as it is, can't trundle past his loathsome politics while her raging hormones needfully slither past them like a slug in mating season.

    (Yes, I know that last sentence reads like an entry in The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. But for that very reason, I think I'll leave it as is.)
  122. BB753 says:
    @Autochthon

    Now being Giraffe rather than Girl sized she is making herself way less attractive to any man UNDER 6 feet, which is the majority of American men.
     
    That's the Whole Point, friend. Poke around any number of dating sites: something like eighty per cent of the females, be they even five feet tall themselves, write deluded shit like "Sorry, guys, but I like to wear my heels, so if you are under six feet tall I am not for you."

    They are out to be boned by tall blackguards until they are turned out to hoard cats once their expiration date arrives – and they would not have it any other way.

    Because of serial polygamy and the enabling thereof (shameless promiscuity, daddy gubmint, etc.) each has decided she deserves nothing less than Ryan Gosling – but without realising she is no Emma Stone....

    (See also my earlier analogy to ostentatiously exclusive gyms....)

    And even homely Emma Stone didn’t deserve Ryan Goslin. Have you noticed that Hollywood usually pairs up a very good-looking lead actor with a not-so good-looking lead actress. It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    "And even homely Emma Stone didn’t deserve Ryan Goslin. Have you noticed that Hollywood usually pairs up a very good-looking lead actor with a not-so good-looking lead actress. It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere."

    I have to say I didn't notice that. Did you have a number percentage in mind for "usually pairs"? Is it %50? %60?
    , @cthulhu
    I don't know in what universe Emma Stone is considered homely, but she's damned attractive (physically) in mine. Of course, her politics suck, but she's still easy on the eyes.
  123. Kylie says:
    @Desiderius
    If you can't get interested in Chekhov, there's not much helping you.

    Maybe try Percy for the American version.

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

    Agreed. I’d never read anything by Chekhov till last year but finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. A very graceful, insightful writer; well worth reading.

    I still prefer Conrad and James, though.

    Read More
  124. CJ says:
    @Pericles
    A reminder: I'm informed that Mr Miller is a joker, a smoker, a midnight toker, and indeed the gangster of love. His loving is mainly gotten on the run.

    He’s all that, and he’s also the Pompatus of Love.

    Read More
  125. Kylie says:
    @Olorin
    More like Maeve wants to fall backwards like a girl and cannot believe that it's a conservative Republican boy triggering her reproduction-driving emotions by standing for the opposite of everything she has been trained to pretend to believe.

    Thanks for this piece, host. It's going into my folder of notes for the HBD 101 course I'll never teach.


    :D

    Oh yes. She wants him. That’s just another reason besides his politics for her to hate him.

    Her puny brain, underdeveloped as it is, can’t trundle past his loathsome politics while her raging hormones needfully slither past them like a slug in mating season.

    (Yes, I know that last sentence reads like an entry in The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. But for that very reason, I think I’ll leave it as is.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin

    I know that last sentence reads like an entry in The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.
     
    More like David Attenborough reporting live from our rainforest front porch.

    But--yes. The mating hostility is strong in this one.

    I had a sort of Darwinesque commentary on Miz Higgins's dear diary entry.

    But then I realized that her offering to the NYT op-ed page read to my ear like Jackie Coakley's catfishing e-mails. The tone a mashup of high school confidential and an anti-beauty contest slathered thickly over a gesso of narcissism troweled on a wall of deep feminine dissatisfaction and sense of loss.

    PS--Our banana slugs are far more admirable creatures than this fan of Lena Dunham.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/war-is-hell-but-it-helps-to-have-lena-dunham-on-your-side-1.1980533

    https://www.irishtimes.com/profile/maeve-higgins-7.1593430

    Who FWIW lives in East Harlem--or did last fall.

    This is one of NYC's "up and coming" neighborhoods undergoing rezoning for gentrification.

    https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/east-harlem/scoping-notice.pdf

    Here's the (557-page) FSOW for the rezoning, as of April of this year:

    https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/east-harlem/final-scope-work.pdf

  126. MarcB. says:

    Steve is on to something. Men who are unrepentant about being on the right, particularly on matters related to traditionalism, create a push/pull dynamic with overtly political lefty gals. Telling girls that I did not discuss politics with them because they were too emotional to have a calm disagreements with was my go-to. I also avoided talks with urban hipsters in an effort to preserve group cohesion. But whenever the issue was forced, I clearly stated my opinions from an HBD/determinist perspective not only be true to myself, but to also shit test those who bragged about being open minded. And to be honest, it was fun to occasionally drop one in the punch bowl.

    This never resulted in women being turned off, and only amplified any existing attraction. The first time I took note of it was after seeing the movie Crumb with a typical 90′s alterna-chick I’d been hanging out with. We were out for coffee afterwards, and she blathered on about his misogyny and other BS. But as soon as I gave a male perspective regarding Crumb’s view of women that was dismissive of her own, she flipped out, and moments later was all over me. What I thought might get rid of her turned her into flypaper.

    I noticed the same trend reappear. The further left the gal, the more inclined counter opinions would spark an interest. It didn’t matter if I was among psychology department academics in Fort Collins, underground music scenesters in Austin or Democratic party operatives in DC. Whenever pressed on p0litics, expressing Further Right views broke the ice and built instant rapport. It would have been an easy thing to exploit if I was so inclined.

    By my mid-20′s, I started to weed out women with universalist tendencies. I could look past everything else, but I knew that any woman who saw Benneton catalogs as the ideal and lacked a basic understanding of social cohesion and in-group preferences would present an uphill battle, possibly lasting a lifetime.

    I suspect the spark this creates goes beyond a bad boy contrarian quality. Placing importance on “blood and soil” cuts right through leftist conditioning goes to a woman’s primal core. Perhaps Maeve doth protest…

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy
    Great post.

    It has always been my approach and with similar results.

    Never apologize, never explain.
    , @Opinionator
    By my mid-20′s, I started to weed out women with universalist tendencies. I could look past everything else, but I knew that any woman who saw Benneton catalogs as the ideal and lacked a basic understanding of social cohesion and in-group preferences would present an uphill battle, possibly lasting a lifetime.

    This is a surprising course of action in view of the favorable experiences you described prior.
  127. Sammler says: • Website
    @James Bowery
    Imagine if humans had a culture -- artificial selection -- in which the appeal of last resort in dispute processing was natural duel -- no gangs or wars allowed.

    Now, imagine the following set of prospective "immigrants":

    A childless, unmarried, non-pregnant young woman.
    A young man.
    A pregnant woman.
    A young woman with her children sired by a man outside the territory.
    A woman married to a man outside of the territory.
    An old woman.
    A prepubescent girl.
    An old man.
    A prepubescent boy.

    Which of these is most likely to walk across "the border" successfully?

    You left out the “pregnant man” category.

    Bigot.

    Read More
  128. @BB753
    And even homely Emma Stone didn't deserve Ryan Goslin. Have you noticed that Hollywood usually pairs up a very good-looking lead actor with a not-so good-looking lead actress. It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere.

    “And even homely Emma Stone didn’t deserve Ryan Goslin. Have you noticed that Hollywood usually pairs up a very good-looking lead actor with a not-so good-looking lead actress. It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere.”

    I have to say I didn’t notice that. Did you have a number percentage in mind for “usually pairs”? Is it %50? %60?

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    It might be just me, but of late Hollywood starlets aren't as beautiful as they used to be.
    Except for Scarlett Johansson and she's about to hit the wall.
  129. Ivy says:
    @Canadian Observer
    To add to your idea, Chateau Heartiste advocates a sexual alliance between higher-status Western white males and kind, sweet white women who do various forms of pink collar work (ie. secretaries, clerks, etc.). Let the ball-breaking career women go barren and become used-up receptacles in the New World Order while gentler women enjoy the fruits of married life and bearing numerous healthy white children.

    Based purely on anecdotal evidence, pink collar women are cheerier, divorce less, are less likely to read Jezebel and are more prone to actually listen to a man rather than undermine him at the first given opportunity.

    There is also something fundamentally wrong with a woman who yearns to work more than 40 hours per week.

    There is also something fundamentally wrong with a woman who yearns to work more than 40 hours per week.

    Those striving women are convinced that men hid the secrets of success, but no longer. Such women ache with the desire to write their own epitaphs, such as: I wish I had spent more time at the office.

    It is probably a good thing for humanity that such selfish creatures avoid procreation, at least regarding their tacit, if erroneous, life calculus of 110% nature “Gee, ain’t I swell to dominate the world if only it would listen”, and -10% nurture “Sorry Mom, Dad and forbears, I’m ignoring your influence.”

    Read More
  130. Ivy says:

    Peerage, that must be the Will to Power goal, although without all that Nietzschean baggage.
    Career gals desire recognition, respect, titles, dammit!

    Your Barrenness of Upper Westchester and such

    Lady Felixity of East Hampton

    Principussa Hillaria

    Impress Egotiana

    Countless Maeve, of the Offshore Countlesses

    Read More
  131. @Autochthon
    Ctrl + F + "Whiskey"

    Aside from that? Who cares? If your boss is a dick, find another job; don't psychoalanyse him.

    The analogy fails. They–and all of us–remain our boss inasmuch as we vote in representatives, make campaign contributioms, exercise influence in media.

    Read More
  132. Rapparee says:
    @Flip
    I've never been, but I've read people saying that the ones still in Ireland are slower and less on the ball than the descendants of the ones that went to the US, England, Australia, etc.

    I have never seen any hard evidence one way or another, but I have a pet hunch that small rural communities in Ireland may have, or may have had until fairly recently in history, a slight problem with inbreeding depression- not nearly as bad as some cousin-marrying hell-hole like Pakistan, but perhaps more akin to remote villages in central Italy or places like that. Rural Irish people of my acquaintance credibly insist their families have been very careful to avoid any direct cousin-marriage since at least end of the Famine, but I’d wager a lot of communities just don’t have a very large gene pool to begin with because of small population size. Going to Boston or Wellington and marrying someone from the next county over probably takes care of it.

    Read More
  133. anonguy says:
    @MarcB.
    Steve is on to something. Men who are unrepentant about being on the right, particularly on matters related to traditionalism, create a push/pull dynamic with overtly political lefty gals. Telling girls that I did not discuss politics with them because they were too emotional to have a calm disagreements with was my go-to. I also avoided talks with urban hipsters in an effort to preserve group cohesion. But whenever the issue was forced, I clearly stated my opinions from an HBD/determinist perspective not only be true to myself, but to also shit test those who bragged about being open minded. And to be honest, it was fun to occasionally drop one in the punch bowl.

    This never resulted in women being turned off, and only amplified any existing attraction. The first time I took note of it was after seeing the movie Crumb with a typical 90's alterna-chick I'd been hanging out with. We were out for coffee afterwards, and she blathered on about his misogyny and other BS. But as soon as I gave a male perspective regarding Crumb's view of women that was dismissive of her own, she flipped out, and moments later was all over me. What I thought might get rid of her turned her into flypaper.

    I noticed the same trend reappear. The further left the gal, the more inclined counter opinions would spark an interest. It didn't matter if I was among psychology department academics in Fort Collins, underground music scenesters in Austin or Democratic party operatives in DC. Whenever pressed on p0litics, expressing Further Right views broke the ice and built instant rapport. It would have been an easy thing to exploit if I was so inclined.

    By my mid-20's, I started to weed out women with universalist tendencies. I could look past everything else, but I knew that any woman who saw Benneton catalogs as the ideal and lacked a basic understanding of social cohesion and in-group preferences would present an uphill battle, possibly lasting a lifetime.

    I suspect the spark this creates goes beyond a bad boy contrarian quality. Placing importance on "blood and soil" cuts right through leftist conditioning goes to a woman's primal core. Perhaps Maeve doth protest...

    Great post.

    It has always been my approach and with similar results.

    Never apologize, never explain.

    Read More
  134. cthulhu says:
    @BB753
    And even homely Emma Stone didn't deserve Ryan Goslin. Have you noticed that Hollywood usually pairs up a very good-looking lead actor with a not-so good-looking lead actress. It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere.

    I don’t know in what universe Emma Stone is considered homely, but she’s damned attractive (physically) in mine. Of course, her politics suck, but she’s still easy on the eyes.

    Read More
  135. @Autochthon
    I can anecdotally attest to your insights. An earlier gentleman's similar exhortation that males vexed by the scam import Colombian wives who look like lingerie models had me grinning despite myself.

    There's more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it's all there to be had in female immigrants.

    American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury's rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives. These American women crave immigration, so young American men should give it to them, good and hard.

    The resorting leads to conservative, white men and women raising large families, and liberal, white harridans as barren sluts for troglodytes (or, at most, pooping out uninteñlihent bastards with no chance against the offspring of the rest of us):

    They wind up extinct, incarcerated, or at McDonald's; we wind up the new Master's of the Universe.

    It's an idea, anyhow....

    There’s more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it’s all there to be had in female immigrants.

    I’m totally on board with the belief that the female situation–female suffrage, feminism, female careerism, and the feminine nurturing instinct unloosed upon politics–is one of the main causes of the disaster in the West.

    However, i’m not so convinced that “the vast majority of American females” have actually rejected sexual-dimorphism for smug feminism. As Steve and others have pointed out, one of the things that modern prosperity is allowing is girls to be *more* girly. (No one’s asking them to get up in the morning and milk the cows, tend the chickens and get going on cooking breakfast.) Most girls interests are girly, they are very much attracted to men and maleness and very much want to get married. They parrot “smug feminism” because they hear that tripe 24x7x365 from the media and TPTB and women are by nature … conforming. (And no one is giving them sane “grandmotherly” advice on how to prepare for married life.) They can’t all be as smart as Kylie.

    I think there are a lot of potentially fine young American women out there. Who are really .one good strong confident young man laying down the law away from being fine wives and mothers.

    And I don’t think a guy has to get them reading iSteve. I think the necessary messaging is pretty short and sweet and takes but a few minutes:

    – I’m proud of my race and culture–without apology.
    White guys–born of white women–have created pretty much everything worth creating. Without what our ancestors did, you’d be living in the cave and shitting in the woods. Our crazy level of peace and prosperity come from them. I don’t tolerate pissing on them.
    (Asian guys, blacks guys, etc. can give different versions but indicate that they are not alienated from their ancestors and from American traditions and Western culture. Or for Asians in the East–Eastern culture.)

    – Civilization is maintained by the hard work of civilized men.
    By men working, by men protecting and demanding compliance with civilized norms. Not by happy thoughts and feelings. Or the PC whining you see today. Only civilized men and women together–married–can have and raise kids whom are civilized and able to carry on civilization. And that’s our job together–building the next generation of our civilization.

    – I’m happy and proud being a man. You should be happy and proud to be a woman.
    Our different roles aren’t “oppression” they are natural and fun. Vive la difference.
    If you want to be a man … fine. But do it on your own time. I’m not interested.

    – I’m valuable. My capability, my lifetime stream of earnings, my genes, the fathering i’ll do. That’s all immensely valuable and i’m not going to settle and give that away to a woman who isn’t committed to not just being, but devoting herself to being a great wife and mother.

    If you aren’t committed to putting wife and motherhood first … fine. But do it on your own dime. I’m not interested in spending my life supporting some woman whose interest is herself, rather than being my wife and mother to my children. If that’s not you fine … enjoy your cats!

    I think if a guy delivers those messages–that he’s an unashamed proud champion of his race and culture, confident in what he offers and looking only for a young woman committed to being a great wife and mother … he’s going to find a lot of young women, quickly reevaluating their “smug feminism” and readjusting their priorities.

    White men first have to act like *men*, then white women will come around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I’m not interested in spending my life supporting some woman whose interest is herself, rather than being my wife and mother to my children.

    Problem is, a lot of women don't have a choice in the matter. It isn't easy getting a man to commit in the contemporary United States.

    That’s all immensely valuable and i’m not going to settle and give that away to a woman who isn’t committed to not just being, but devoting herself to being a great wife and mother.

    Do you expect your wife to work outside the home? Not work?
    , @dried peanuts
    Is this really minor comedian irish Maeve Higgins? It seems to be her in the photo. From Cobh I think.
  136. @James Bowery
    Imagine if humans had a culture -- artificial selection -- in which the appeal of last resort in dispute processing was natural duel -- no gangs or wars allowed.

    Now, imagine the following set of prospective "immigrants":

    A childless, unmarried, non-pregnant young woman.
    A young man.
    A pregnant woman.
    A young woman with her children sired by a man outside the territory.
    A woman married to a man outside of the territory.
    An old woman.
    A prepubescent girl.
    An old man.
    A prepubescent boy.

    Which of these is most likely to walk across "the border" successfully?

    I am sorry. I appreciate the reply but I cannot make sense of what you are trying to convey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Bowery
    Intrasexual selection between males exists in a degraded form in humans called "duel". Dueling is a degraded form for humans because it tests a very restricted set of skills -- unlike its likely original form in Europeans: Two males with overlapping hunting grounds come into conflict taking the form of each hunting the other as they would a wild animal in nature. However, if such a male encounters a strange, young unaccompanied woman who has a flat belly, he will have a _very_ different attitude. In other words, he won't "defend the border" against her.

    Now, let's say you're a propagandist intent on destroying European men. Which are you going to parade around as the exemplar of "the immigrant":

    The young, aggressive male, or the young woman with a flat stomach?

  137. @MarcB.
    Steve is on to something. Men who are unrepentant about being on the right, particularly on matters related to traditionalism, create a push/pull dynamic with overtly political lefty gals. Telling girls that I did not discuss politics with them because they were too emotional to have a calm disagreements with was my go-to. I also avoided talks with urban hipsters in an effort to preserve group cohesion. But whenever the issue was forced, I clearly stated my opinions from an HBD/determinist perspective not only be true to myself, but to also shit test those who bragged about being open minded. And to be honest, it was fun to occasionally drop one in the punch bowl.

    This never resulted in women being turned off, and only amplified any existing attraction. The first time I took note of it was after seeing the movie Crumb with a typical 90's alterna-chick I'd been hanging out with. We were out for coffee afterwards, and she blathered on about his misogyny and other BS. But as soon as I gave a male perspective regarding Crumb's view of women that was dismissive of her own, she flipped out, and moments later was all over me. What I thought might get rid of her turned her into flypaper.

    I noticed the same trend reappear. The further left the gal, the more inclined counter opinions would spark an interest. It didn't matter if I was among psychology department academics in Fort Collins, underground music scenesters in Austin or Democratic party operatives in DC. Whenever pressed on p0litics, expressing Further Right views broke the ice and built instant rapport. It would have been an easy thing to exploit if I was so inclined.

    By my mid-20's, I started to weed out women with universalist tendencies. I could look past everything else, but I knew that any woman who saw Benneton catalogs as the ideal and lacked a basic understanding of social cohesion and in-group preferences would present an uphill battle, possibly lasting a lifetime.

    I suspect the spark this creates goes beyond a bad boy contrarian quality. Placing importance on "blood and soil" cuts right through leftist conditioning goes to a woman's primal core. Perhaps Maeve doth protest...

    By my mid-20′s, I started to weed out women with universalist tendencies. I could look past everything else, but I knew that any woman who saw Benneton catalogs as the ideal and lacked a basic understanding of social cohesion and in-group preferences would present an uphill battle, possibly lasting a lifetime.

    This is a surprising course of action in view of the favorable experiences you described prior.

    Read More
  138. @AnotherDad

    There’s more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it’s all there to be had in female immigrants.
     
    I'm totally on board with the belief that the female situation--female suffrage, feminism, female careerism, and the feminine nurturing instinct unloosed upon politics--is one of the main causes of the disaster in the West.

    However, i'm not so convinced that "the vast majority of American females" have actually rejected sexual-dimorphism for smug feminism. As Steve and others have pointed out, one of the things that modern prosperity is allowing is girls to be *more* girly. (No one's asking them to get up in the morning and milk the cows, tend the chickens and get going on cooking breakfast.) Most girls interests are girly, they are very much attracted to men and maleness and very much want to get married. They parrot "smug feminism" because they hear that tripe 24x7x365 from the media and TPTB and women are by nature ... conforming. (And no one is giving them sane "grandmotherly" advice on how to prepare for married life.) They can't all be as smart as Kylie.

    I think there are a lot of potentially fine young American women out there. Who are really .one good strong confident young man laying down the law away from being fine wives and mothers.

    And I don't think a guy has to get them reading iSteve. I think the necessary messaging is pretty short and sweet and takes but a few minutes:

    -- I'm proud of my race and culture--without apology.
    White guys--born of white women--have created pretty much everything worth creating. Without what our ancestors did, you'd be living in the cave and shitting in the woods. Our crazy level of peace and prosperity come from them. I don't tolerate pissing on them.
    (Asian guys, blacks guys, etc. can give different versions but indicate that they are not alienated from their ancestors and from American traditions and Western culture. Or for Asians in the East--Eastern culture.)

    -- Civilization is maintained by the hard work of civilized men.
    By men working, by men protecting and demanding compliance with civilized norms. Not by happy thoughts and feelings. Or the PC whining you see today. Only civilized men and women together--married--can have and raise kids whom are civilized and able to carry on civilization. And that's our job together--building the next generation of our civilization.

    -- I'm happy and proud being a man. You should be happy and proud to be a woman.
    Our different roles aren't "oppression" they are natural and fun. Vive la difference.
    If you want to be a man ... fine. But do it on your own time. I'm not interested.

    -- I'm valuable. My capability, my lifetime stream of earnings, my genes, the fathering i'll do. That's all immensely valuable and i'm not going to settle and give that away to a woman who isn't committed to not just being, but devoting herself to being a great wife and mother.

    If you aren't committed to putting wife and motherhood first ... fine. But do it on your own dime. I'm not interested in spending my life supporting some woman whose interest is herself, rather than being my wife and mother to my children. If that's not you fine ... enjoy your cats!


    I think if a guy delivers those messages--that he's an unashamed proud champion of his race and culture, confident in what he offers and looking only for a young woman committed to being a great wife and mother ... he's going to find a lot of young women, quickly reevaluating their "smug feminism" and readjusting their priorities.

    White men first have to act like *men*, then white women will come around.

    I’m not interested in spending my life supporting some woman whose interest is herself, rather than being my wife and mother to my children.

    Problem is, a lot of women don’t have a choice in the matter. It isn’t easy getting a man to commit in the contemporary United States.

    That’s all immensely valuable and i’m not going to settle and give that away to a woman who isn’t committed to not just being, but devoting herself to being a great wife and mother.

    Do you expect your wife to work outside the home? Not work?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    It isn't easy to get a man to commit since marriage is contingent these days, and the woman can pull the rip cord at any time and ruin his and their children's lives. Unilateral no fault divorce has really changed things.
  139. @AnotherDad

    There’s more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it’s all there to be had in female immigrants.
     
    I'm totally on board with the belief that the female situation--female suffrage, feminism, female careerism, and the feminine nurturing instinct unloosed upon politics--is one of the main causes of the disaster in the West.

    However, i'm not so convinced that "the vast majority of American females" have actually rejected sexual-dimorphism for smug feminism. As Steve and others have pointed out, one of the things that modern prosperity is allowing is girls to be *more* girly. (No one's asking them to get up in the morning and milk the cows, tend the chickens and get going on cooking breakfast.) Most girls interests are girly, they are very much attracted to men and maleness and very much want to get married. They parrot "smug feminism" because they hear that tripe 24x7x365 from the media and TPTB and women are by nature ... conforming. (And no one is giving them sane "grandmotherly" advice on how to prepare for married life.) They can't all be as smart as Kylie.

    I think there are a lot of potentially fine young American women out there. Who are really .one good strong confident young man laying down the law away from being fine wives and mothers.

    And I don't think a guy has to get them reading iSteve. I think the necessary messaging is pretty short and sweet and takes but a few minutes:

    -- I'm proud of my race and culture--without apology.
    White guys--born of white women--have created pretty much everything worth creating. Without what our ancestors did, you'd be living in the cave and shitting in the woods. Our crazy level of peace and prosperity come from them. I don't tolerate pissing on them.
    (Asian guys, blacks guys, etc. can give different versions but indicate that they are not alienated from their ancestors and from American traditions and Western culture. Or for Asians in the East--Eastern culture.)

    -- Civilization is maintained by the hard work of civilized men.
    By men working, by men protecting and demanding compliance with civilized norms. Not by happy thoughts and feelings. Or the PC whining you see today. Only civilized men and women together--married--can have and raise kids whom are civilized and able to carry on civilization. And that's our job together--building the next generation of our civilization.

    -- I'm happy and proud being a man. You should be happy and proud to be a woman.
    Our different roles aren't "oppression" they are natural and fun. Vive la difference.
    If you want to be a man ... fine. But do it on your own time. I'm not interested.

    -- I'm valuable. My capability, my lifetime stream of earnings, my genes, the fathering i'll do. That's all immensely valuable and i'm not going to settle and give that away to a woman who isn't committed to not just being, but devoting herself to being a great wife and mother.

    If you aren't committed to putting wife and motherhood first ... fine. But do it on your own dime. I'm not interested in spending my life supporting some woman whose interest is herself, rather than being my wife and mother to my children. If that's not you fine ... enjoy your cats!


    I think if a guy delivers those messages--that he's an unashamed proud champion of his race and culture, confident in what he offers and looking only for a young woman committed to being a great wife and mother ... he's going to find a lot of young women, quickly reevaluating their "smug feminism" and readjusting their priorities.

    White men first have to act like *men*, then white women will come around.

    Is this really minor comedian irish Maeve Higgins? It seems to be her in the photo. From Cobh I think.

    Read More
  140. BB753 says:
    @kaganovitch
    "And even homely Emma Stone didn’t deserve Ryan Goslin. Have you noticed that Hollywood usually pairs up a very good-looking lead actor with a not-so good-looking lead actress. It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere."

    I have to say I didn't notice that. Did you have a number percentage in mind for "usually pairs"? Is it %50? %60?

    It might be just me, but of late Hollywood starlets aren’t as beautiful as they used to be.
    Except for Scarlett Johansson and she’s about to hit the wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    Surely "It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere." , should be a temporally universal concern, as relevant to the Golden Age of Hollywood as it is to contemporary society?
  141. @Opinionator
    I am sorry. I appreciate the reply but I cannot make sense of what you are trying to convey.

    Intrasexual selection between males exists in a degraded form in humans called “duel”. Dueling is a degraded form for humans because it tests a very restricted set of skills — unlike its likely original form in Europeans: Two males with overlapping hunting grounds come into conflict taking the form of each hunting the other as they would a wild animal in nature. However, if such a male encounters a strange, young unaccompanied woman who has a flat belly, he will have a _very_ different attitude. In other words, he won’t “defend the border” against her.

    Now, let’s say you’re a propagandist intent on destroying European men. Which are you going to parade around as the exemplar of “the immigrant”:

    The young, aggressive male, or the young woman with a flat stomach?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Now, let’s say you’re a propagandist intent on destroying European men. Which are you going to parade around as the exemplar of “the immigrant”:

    Not sure what you mean by destroying European men here. However, if you wanted to avoid triggering hostility to immigration among native men, I suppose you would parade around the young woman rather than the alternative, given the dynamics you have set out here.

    Yet do we see that manifested in the current propaganda?

    If you have another question for me to lead me to further understanding, fire away.
  142. @Autochthon
    I can anecdotally attest to your insights. An earlier gentleman's similar exhortation that males vexed by the scam import Colombian wives who look like lingerie models had me grinning despite myself.

    There's more to it than the basic biology, too: a hot meal ready when one returns from work, enthusiasm for children and families, loyalty, acceptance and indeed celebration of sexual dimorphism and complementary rôles: stuff the vast majority of American females long since rejected for smug feminism – it's all there to be had in female immigrants.

    American men must stop carrying on the fight by Queensury's rules so long after the women began gauging us in the cajones with steak-knives. These American women crave immigration, so young American men should give it to them, good and hard.

    The resorting leads to conservative, white men and women raising large families, and liberal, white harridans as barren sluts for troglodytes (or, at most, pooping out uninteñlihent bastards with no chance against the offspring of the rest of us):

    They wind up extinct, incarcerated, or at McDonald's; we wind up the new Master's of the Universe.

    It's an idea, anyhow....

    To Autochthon:

    The word is “cojones”, NOT “cajones”. Cojones are balls, i.e. testicles. Cajones are drawers as in dresser drawers or desk drawers. Your misspelling of the word gives your rant a whole new and hilarious reading.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Phones are great, huh? You can actually laugh fle hours at images of autocorrect and typographical errors in textual exchanges which lead to such hilarious results.

    Just recently I made a jibe about white musicians and inadvertantly typed "optimotrist" – which may have seemed like an intended joke given the mind-blowing work of Tony Levin and Mike Portnoy vis-a-vis unorthodox time signatures....
  143. @James Bowery
    Intrasexual selection between males exists in a degraded form in humans called "duel". Dueling is a degraded form for humans because it tests a very restricted set of skills -- unlike its likely original form in Europeans: Two males with overlapping hunting grounds come into conflict taking the form of each hunting the other as they would a wild animal in nature. However, if such a male encounters a strange, young unaccompanied woman who has a flat belly, he will have a _very_ different attitude. In other words, he won't "defend the border" against her.

    Now, let's say you're a propagandist intent on destroying European men. Which are you going to parade around as the exemplar of "the immigrant":

    The young, aggressive male, or the young woman with a flat stomach?

    Now, let’s say you’re a propagandist intent on destroying European men. Which are you going to parade around as the exemplar of “the immigrant”:

    Not sure what you mean by destroying European men here. However, if you wanted to avoid triggering hostility to immigration among native men, I suppose you would parade around the young woman rather than the alternative, given the dynamics you have set out here.

    Yet do we see that manifested in the current propaganda?

    If you have another question for me to lead me to further understanding, fire away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Bowery
    "Yet do we see that manifested in the current propaganda?"

    Yes, we do. Although the original post is only an anecdote we have the "somebody has a crush on stephen miller" post here at Unz Review -- the somebody being a young woman who wears her "immigrant" classification as an exemplar of "the immigrant" and is being paraded around by The New York Times on their op-ed page.

    This "mere anecdote" is, however a true exemplar of the propaganda rags like The New York Times.

    As for "destroying European men", let's say that females have an instinctive expectation that men will physically challenge, as individuals, strange males entering their territory. Let's further say that the origin of this expectation is that such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children. This might take a while to evolve, but I think 600,000,000 years is enough.

    So, given this evolutionary psychology, what attitude would women have toward their coethnic men if they did not physically challenge immigrant men?
  144. @Opinionator
    Now, let’s say you’re a propagandist intent on destroying European men. Which are you going to parade around as the exemplar of “the immigrant”:

    Not sure what you mean by destroying European men here. However, if you wanted to avoid triggering hostility to immigration among native men, I suppose you would parade around the young woman rather than the alternative, given the dynamics you have set out here.

    Yet do we see that manifested in the current propaganda?

    If you have another question for me to lead me to further understanding, fire away.

    “Yet do we see that manifested in the current propaganda?”

    Yes, we do. Although the original post is only an anecdote we have the “somebody has a crush on stephen miller” post here at Unz Review — the somebody being a young woman who wears her “immigrant” classification as an exemplar of “the immigrant” and is being paraded around by The New York Times on their op-ed page.

    This “mere anecdote” is, however a true exemplar of the propaganda rags like The New York Times.

    As for “destroying European men”, let’s say that females have an instinctive expectation that men will physically challenge, as individuals, strange males entering their territory. Let’s further say that the origin of this expectation is that such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children. This might take a while to evolve, but I think 600,000,000 years is enough.

    So, given this evolutionary psychology, what attitude would women have toward their coethnic men if they did not physically challenge immigrant men?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    It is possible that article is playing to the psychology you mention. However, the collage of images I have in my mind of immigrants to the United States and Europe has a very large representation of men. At least 50 percent. Why isn't the hostile media working harder to present young women, rather than men?

    So, given this evolutionary psychology, what attitude would women have toward their coethnic men if they did not physically challenge immigrant men?

    I suppose they might view them as less fit, and prefer the foreign men? But okay, would things really have evolved in this way? First, fighting is very costly for men, so they would have an incentive to behave in other ways. Second, wouldn't preference for a mate of similar genetic background tend to counteract, over evolutionary time, a tendency to choose a foreign man? That is, which constellation of genes would be more likely to survive?

    let’s say that females have an instinctive expectation that men will physically challenge, as individuals, strange males entering their territory. Let’s further say that the origin of this expectation is that such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children.

    Are you aware of any empirical literature or published theory that is evidence for the existence of this posited expectation?
  145. @NMObserver
    To Autochthon:

    The word is "cojones", NOT "cajones". Cojones are balls, i.e. testicles. Cajones are drawers as in dresser drawers or desk drawers. Your misspelling of the word gives your rant a whole new and hilarious reading.

    Phones are great, huh? You can actually laugh fle hours at images of autocorrect and typographical errors in textual exchanges which lead to such hilarious results.

    Just recently I made a jibe about white musicians and inadvertantly typed “optimotrist” – which may have seemed like an intended joke given the mind-blowing work of Tony Levin and Mike Portnoy vis-a-vis unorthodox time signatures….

    Read More
  146. @Alec Leamas
    Most particularly bright women are beholden to feminism which often manifests as a general disposition to be needlessly disagreeable. Finding one who isn't, and who is height/weight appropriate and otherwise attractive is a real onerous task. Growing over time to hate your children's mother (even if she contributed superior intelligence genes) isn't doing them any favors either.

    Agreed.

    Read More
  147. Olorin says:
    @Kylie
    Oh yes. She wants him. That's just another reason besides his politics for her to hate him.

    Her puny brain, underdeveloped as it is, can't trundle past his loathsome politics while her raging hormones needfully slither past them like a slug in mating season.

    (Yes, I know that last sentence reads like an entry in The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. But for that very reason, I think I'll leave it as is.)

    I know that last sentence reads like an entry in The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.

    More like David Attenborough reporting live from our rainforest front porch.

    But–yes. The mating hostility is strong in this one.

    I had a sort of Darwinesque commentary on Miz Higgins’s dear diary entry.

    But then I realized that her offering to the NYT op-ed page read to my ear like Jackie Coakley’s catfishing e-mails. The tone a mashup of high school confidential and an anti-beauty contest slathered thickly over a gesso of narcissism troweled on a wall of deep feminine dissatisfaction and sense of loss.

    PS–Our banana slugs are far more admirable creatures than this fan of Lena Dunham.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/war-is-hell-but-it-helps-to-have-lena-dunham-on-your-side-1.1980533

    https://www.irishtimes.com/profile/maeve-higgins-7.1593430

    Who FWIW lives in East Harlem–or did last fall.

    This is one of NYC’s “up and coming” neighborhoods undergoing rezoning for gentrification.

    https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/east-harlem/scoping-notice.pdf

    Here’s the (557-page) FSOW for the rezoning, as of April of this year:

    https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/east-harlem/final-scope-work.pdf

    Read More
  148. @BB753
    It might be just me, but of late Hollywood starlets aren't as beautiful as they used to be.
    Except for Scarlett Johansson and she's about to hit the wall.

    Surely “It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere.” , should be a temporally universal concern, as relevant to the Golden Age of Hollywood as it is to contemporary society?

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Of course, except American women keep getting fatter and uglier. Ordinary women looked better only a generation or two ago. So modern starlets are drawn from a smaller pool.
    Here's a low-hanging fruit for Greg Cochran, a scientific puzzle if you will.
    50 % obesity and myopia among young women. Makes you wonder.
  149. BB753 says:
    @kaganovitch
    Surely "It keeps the fantasy alive for frumpy women everywhere." , should be a temporally universal concern, as relevant to the Golden Age of Hollywood as it is to contemporary society?

    Of course, except American women keep getting fatter and uglier. Ordinary women looked better only a generation or two ago. So modern starlets are drawn from a smaller pool.
    Here’s a low-hanging fruit for Greg Cochran, a scientific puzzle if you will.
    50 % obesity and myopia among young women. Makes you wonder.

    Read More
  150. Flip says:
    @Opinionator
    I’m not interested in spending my life supporting some woman whose interest is herself, rather than being my wife and mother to my children.

    Problem is, a lot of women don't have a choice in the matter. It isn't easy getting a man to commit in the contemporary United States.

    That’s all immensely valuable and i’m not going to settle and give that away to a woman who isn’t committed to not just being, but devoting herself to being a great wife and mother.

    Do you expect your wife to work outside the home? Not work?

    It isn’t easy to get a man to commit since marriage is contingent these days, and the woman can pull the rip cord at any time and ruin his and their children’s lives. Unilateral no fault divorce has really changed things.

    Read More
  151. @James Bowery
    "Yet do we see that manifested in the current propaganda?"

    Yes, we do. Although the original post is only an anecdote we have the "somebody has a crush on stephen miller" post here at Unz Review -- the somebody being a young woman who wears her "immigrant" classification as an exemplar of "the immigrant" and is being paraded around by The New York Times on their op-ed page.

    This "mere anecdote" is, however a true exemplar of the propaganda rags like The New York Times.

    As for "destroying European men", let's say that females have an instinctive expectation that men will physically challenge, as individuals, strange males entering their territory. Let's further say that the origin of this expectation is that such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children. This might take a while to evolve, but I think 600,000,000 years is enough.

    So, given this evolutionary psychology, what attitude would women have toward their coethnic men if they did not physically challenge immigrant men?

    It is possible that article is playing to the psychology you mention. However, the collage of images I have in my mind of immigrants to the United States and Europe has a very large representation of men. At least 50 percent. Why isn’t the hostile media working harder to present young women, rather than men?

    So, given this evolutionary psychology, what attitude would women have toward their coethnic men if they did not physically challenge immigrant men?

    I suppose they might view them as less fit, and prefer the foreign men? But okay, would things really have evolved in this way? First, fighting is very costly for men, so they would have an incentive to behave in other ways. Second, wouldn’t preference for a mate of similar genetic background tend to counteract, over evolutionary time, a tendency to choose a foreign man? That is, which constellation of genes would be more likely to survive?

    let’s say that females have an instinctive expectation that men will physically challenge, as individuals, strange males entering their territory. Let’s further say that the origin of this expectation is that such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children.

    Are you aware of any empirical literature or published theory that is evidence for the existence of this posited expectation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Bowery
    "large representation of men. At least 50 percent. Why isn’t the hostile media working harder to present young women, rather than men?"

    The BloombergView titled "A Fake-News Warning From a Former Propagandist", published yesterday:


    To create the kind of disinformation that changes the world, he told me, you need a story that’s at least 60, 70 or even 80 percent true. Even well-educated people will swallow untruth without too many questions if it’s plausible and it reinforces their existing beliefs.
     
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-27/a-fake-news-warning-from-a-former-propagandist

    So if you have an impression that the percentage of men is 50% and the propagandists are "working harder" on a disinformation campaign to minimize that number, that is "60, 70 or even 80 percent true", what are the plausible real percentages? What do public, but unpublicized measurements say the real percentages are?

    "would things really have evolved in this way? First, fighting is very costly for men, so they would have an incentive to behave in other ways"

    Yes, and it has evolved that way for 600,000,000 years -- ever since sexual organisms developed sophisticated sensory organs. Evolution has done this even though intrasexual selection is costly to males because that cost it serves intersexual selection:

    The "female choice" now rendered, by civilization, a travesty of its natural form.

    From "Introduction to Intrasexual Selection"


    COMPETITION

    There are two main types of competition over females, scramble and contest competition.
    ...
    Contest competition is a more typical form of competition where the male with the best fighting technique, largest body size or the largest weapons will win the female. Although not always guaranteed to win, they have a much higher chance than inferior males. This has however; inevitably led to the production of larger male offspring by reproductive selection -- as the larger males are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes.

     

    and

    "On the other hand, there is intersexual selection. Often known as female choice, it is the process where the female chooses the male based on certain ornaments e.g. a peacock’s tail. The ornament is not usually beneficial to the male (e.g. bright colours make it an attractive target for predators) but the female prefers the larger ornaments as it signals the male’s is able to cope with the hindrance – and therefore a better genetic make-up which will be passed on to her offspring. The reason the females choose is to prevent wasting invested time and energy on offspring which are of poor genetic merit.
     
    http://vetsci.co.uk/2010/05/17/intrasexual-selection/

    "such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children."

    There is a range of costs imposed on males found in nature, including human cultures, but it is the general rule as described in the above introduction to intrasexual selection. Moreover, in pre-civil Germanic peoples, natural duel was the appeal of last resort in dispute processing -- it being so central to their culture (artificial selection), that they held off being civilized for thousands of years despite being in contact with civil cultures. In one of the few historic accounts we have of the actual legal proceeding in which JudeoChristianity was adopted by law, the Icelandic Althing circa 1000AD did two things: 1) Outlaw natural duel ("holmgang") and 2) Adopt JudeoChristianity.

    So, among the nations of the Earth, those constituted of Germanic peoples are least adapted to this particular stricture on male behavior.

    As for human female behavior -- rationalization of deep impulses is what our neocortext tend to do.

  152. @BB753
    Of course, except American women keep getting fatter and uglier. Ordinary women looked better only a generation or two ago. So modern starlets are drawn from a smaller pool.
    Here's a low-hanging fruit for Greg Cochran, a scientific puzzle if you will.
    50 % obesity and myopia among young women. Makes you wonder.

    Like literal myopia? Is that a trend?

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Yes, short-sightedness is pervasive. In the early 70's, only 1 in 10 young Americans needed prescription glasses or contacts. Now it's close to 5 in ten. (I said myopia because it's more frequent than far-sightedness, though it also accounts for the high number of sight defects, together with astigmatism).
  153. BB753 says:
    @Opinionator
    Like literal myopia? Is that a trend?

    Yes, short-sightedness is pervasive. In the early 70′s, only 1 in 10 young Americans needed prescription glasses or contacts. Now it’s close to 5 in ten. (I said myopia because it’s more frequent than far-sightedness, though it also accounts for the high number of sight defects, together with astigmatism).

    Read More
  154. @BB753
    Yes, short-sightedness is pervasive. In the early 70's, only 1 in 10 young Americans needed prescription glasses or contacts. Now it's close to 5 in ten. (I said myopia because it's more frequent than far-sightedness, though it also accounts for the high number of sight defects, together with astigmatism).

    Amazing. I’ve never heard about that before.

    Read More
  155. @Flip
    It isn't easy to get a man to commit since marriage is contingent these days, and the woman can pull the rip cord at any time and ruin his and their children's lives. Unilateral no fault divorce has really changed things.

    There are other factors.

    Read More
  156. @Opinionator
    It is possible that article is playing to the psychology you mention. However, the collage of images I have in my mind of immigrants to the United States and Europe has a very large representation of men. At least 50 percent. Why isn't the hostile media working harder to present young women, rather than men?

    So, given this evolutionary psychology, what attitude would women have toward their coethnic men if they did not physically challenge immigrant men?

    I suppose they might view them as less fit, and prefer the foreign men? But okay, would things really have evolved in this way? First, fighting is very costly for men, so they would have an incentive to behave in other ways. Second, wouldn't preference for a mate of similar genetic background tend to counteract, over evolutionary time, a tendency to choose a foreign man? That is, which constellation of genes would be more likely to survive?

    let’s say that females have an instinctive expectation that men will physically challenge, as individuals, strange males entering their territory. Let’s further say that the origin of this expectation is that such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children.

    Are you aware of any empirical literature or published theory that is evidence for the existence of this posited expectation?

    “large representation of men. At least 50 percent. Why isn’t the hostile media working harder to present young women, rather than men?”

    The BloombergView titled “A Fake-News Warning From a Former Propagandist”, published yesterday:

    To create the kind of disinformation that changes the world, he told me, you need a story that’s at least 60, 70 or even 80 percent true. Even well-educated people will swallow untruth without too many questions if it’s plausible and it reinforces their existing beliefs.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-27/a-fake-news-warning-from-a-former-propagandist

    So if you have an impression that the percentage of men is 50% and the propagandists are “working harder” on a disinformation campaign to minimize that number, that is “60, 70 or even 80 percent true”, what are the plausible real percentages? What do public, but unpublicized measurements say the real percentages are?

    would things really have evolved in this way? First, fighting is very costly for men, so they would have an incentive to behave in other ways”

    Yes, and it has evolved that way for 600,000,000 years — ever since sexual organisms developed sophisticated sensory organs. Evolution has done this even though intrasexual selection is costly to males because that cost it serves intersexual selection:

    The “female choice” now rendered, by civilization, a travesty of its natural form.

    From “Introduction to Intrasexual Selection”

    COMPETITION

    There are two main types of competition over females, scramble and contest competition.

    Contest competition is a more typical form of competition where the male with the best fighting technique, largest body size or the largest weapons will win the female. Although not always guaranteed to win, they have a much higher chance than inferior males. This has however; inevitably led to the production of larger male offspring by reproductive selection — as the larger males are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes.

    and

    “On the other hand, there is intersexual selection. Often known as female choice, it is the process where the female chooses the male based on certain ornaments e.g. a peacock’s tail. The ornament is not usually beneficial to the male (e.g. bright colours make it an attractive target for predators) but the female prefers the larger ornaments as it signals the male’s is able to cope with the hindrance – and therefore a better genetic make-up which will be passed on to her offspring. The reason the females choose is to prevent wasting invested time and energy on offspring which are of poor genetic merit.

    http://vetsci.co.uk/2010/05/17/intrasexual-selection/

    “such mano-a-mano fights are a low cost (to the females) test of genetic fitness for the prospective sires for their children.”

    There is a range of costs imposed on males found in nature, including human cultures, but it is the general rule as described in the above introduction to intrasexual selection. Moreover, in pre-civil Germanic peoples, natural duel was the appeal of last resort in dispute processing — it being so central to their culture (artificial selection), that they held off being civilized for thousands of years despite being in contact with civil cultures. In one of the few historic accounts we have of the actual legal proceeding in which JudeoChristianity was adopted by law, the Icelandic Althing circa 1000AD did two things: 1) Outlaw natural duel (“holmgang”) and 2) Adopt JudeoChristianity.

    So, among the nations of the Earth, those constituted of Germanic peoples are least adapted to this particular stricture on male behavior.

    As for human female behavior — rationalization of deep impulses is what our neocortext tend to do.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored