The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Ain't Nothing But Mammals
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

To the assertion:

When so much of the public discourse is about reducing economic inequality, proposing a change [favoring open relationships] that would increase sexual inequality is out of step with the times.

dfordoom responded:

Is there any actual public discourse about reducing economic inequality? I must have missed the debates about expropriating the wealth of the billionaires. And I must have missed the debates about reducing executive salaries to less obscene levels. And the debates about imposing massive taxes on capital gains.

I was rather under the impression that all public discourse these days was about making sure that nobody mentions or notices actual economic inequality.

It’s a good point, one the blog is fond of making.

The leveling impulse still motivates many contemporary progressives, but it has been coopted and repurposed by the neo-liberal establishment for use in their relentless consolidation of cultural, political, financial, legal, and military power. And in an increasingly atomized world, the impulse isn’t as strong as it used to be. Perhaps that’s part of the explanation for why the stigma around open relationships is fading. That and Tinder, for obvious reasons.

Parenthetically, V. K. Ovelund’s assertion in the same thread provides the hook for an oft-made assumption about Western sexual mores that needs qualification to put it mildly:

The fundamental structure of the family, starting with marriage, is the axle about which a civilization turns. Some other, mostly observably lesser civilizations have come up with their own answers to the question, but west of the Hajnal line, we had a profound answer that was compatible with our own civilization, an answer that harmonized with our people’s instinctive, inherited way of being.

Marriage between one husband and one wife, accompanied by moderate restraints against extended-kin nepotism to make room for broad social trust to flourish, is and always has been the only way for us.

The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.

But in antiquity, grown men could bed young teenage girls–and boys–with far less protest than grown men can now. It’s illegal today; it sealed political alliances then. Cousins married cousins, uncles married nieces. Prostitution was permitted and men stepping out on their wives wasn’t perceived to be particularly scandalous. Compared to the 1950s, the 50s were wildly unrestrained.

We’re catching up fast to the bohemians of old now, though. Same-sex marriage is in. Transgenderism isn’t just something a nut like Nero finds compelling any longer. Today, we must all celebrate it if we know what’s good for us. Incest is on the way back and so are open relationships. The term prostitution is problematic, what with its demeaning and patriarchal connotations, but sex work is A-OK, empowering even. Don’t pause too long for polygamy. With open relationships, we’re already halfway there.

Even tolerance of bestiality is on the horizon. But, but the things mentioned up to this point have all been consensual! A pig can’t consent to sex with a human! Well, the pig doesn’t consent to being turned into bacon either and that happens to pigs all the time. As bad as being buggered by a zoophile must be, being butchered is even worse. If killing animals is okay, why is caressing them not? Religion, philosophy, and time-honored traditions used to provide answers, but they’ve been summarily dismissed. What prevents us from sliding down the slippery slope of sexuality now?

 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.

    In some ways we’re more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real. Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it’s less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism. A man who has consensual sex with a woman can have his life destroyed if the woman changes her mind after the act. If it wasn’t as magical and meaningful as the woman expected it’s rape.

    Surveys suggest that young people are having less sex than previous generations. Which would not be surprising. Engaging in entirely consensual heterosexual sex is now a high-risk activity. Engaging in the normal human activities that have always been part and parcel of courtship is now like wandering through a minefield.

    Read Steve Sailer’s recent post on the professor accused of sexual misbehaviour. The behaviours in which he engaged were so innocuous that twenty years the women involved would simply have laughed the whole thing off.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/i-am-shocked-shocked-to-hear-that-the-u-of-michigans-professor-of-rock-n-roll-made-passes-at-coeds/

    • Replies: @MattinLA
    @dfordoom

    Very true. There is no libertinism. A few alpha males are experiencing sexual nirvana: the vast.majority of single males are left in the cold. Females are having occasional sex with those alphas. The society of the harem is here.

    , @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    This the most sexually conservative Anglosphere society has been in my lifetime, at least in the public sphere.

    Just take a look at this from Australian TV in 1984. This would cause considerable controversy today.

    https://twitter.com/LaurenRosewarne/status/1384815481949802497

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it’s less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism.
     
    This. Normal, healthy sexual relations are increasingly vilified and proscribed, formally and informally. Destructive, perverse sexual relations are increasingly valorized, subsidized and sacrosanct.

    The discussion of whether society is becoming more sexually puritanical or libertine depends entirely on which kind of sex is the subject: good sex or bad sex. If good sex, then puritanical, if bad sex then libertine.

    This is the case in the West, anyhow. China, Islam and the Orthodox world seem to be holding the line at pro-good sex, anti-bad sex, more or less. Heck, even SS African cultures are aspiring to more good and less bad sex (thanks, missionaries!), albeit starting from a dire baseline. Sexual inversion and consequent social collapse is largely a Western problem.

    Perhaps there is a sort of sexual Gresham's Law, but I think it is simpler to observe that both trends correspond to the degenerate spirit or our age and the interests of our elites.
    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    In some ways we’re more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    You and others are mixing your metaphors. The ideal should be that a woman can work without being subjected to sexual pressures, especially from the hierarchy. This does address inequality in that some men in the hierarchy (and men are “over-represented” here) use that position to engage in sexual coercion. Men should use their position in the hierarchy as a “pull” not a “push.” The norms for sexual behavior in the workplace should have their own balance and limitations and not be governed by what is allowed outside of that realm.

    , @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real.
     
    That idea probably comes from the acceptance of homosexuality, as you mention, plus decriminalization of prostitution and easier access to porn because of the internet. A.E. has produced information here previously, though, showing young people are having less actual sex.

    New York City just decided not to arrest prostitutes but to still arrest customers. This is sometimes called the Nordic model. The underlying premise here is that the men are exploiting the women so only the men are doing something wrong. According to this view, women never manipulate or exploit men. Anyone who thinks this is pretty naive about women but this is what modern day feminism wants us to accept.

    The manosphere blogger Roissy once said the actual goal of modern day feminism is to provide maximum sexual freedom for women while restricting it for men. I didn't agree with a lot of what he said but he was probably right here. Women at work can still be sexually aggressive but it has become more dangerous for men to act like that in recent years. Women can sleep around and no male should disapprove but if she gets pregnant from some bad boy loser the males who weren't supposed to disapprove of her promiscuity are then supposed to pay taxes to provide economic support for the child via welfare benefits. Women can be prostitutes and not get arrested but their male customers will still be arrested.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  2. @dfordoom

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    In some ways we're more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real. Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it's less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism. A man who has consensual sex with a woman can have his life destroyed if the woman changes her mind after the act. If it wasn't as magical and meaningful as the woman expected it's rape.

    Surveys suggest that young people are having less sex than previous generations. Which would not be surprising. Engaging in entirely consensual heterosexual sex is now a high-risk activity. Engaging in the normal human activities that have always been part and parcel of courtship is now like wandering through a minefield.

    Read Steve Sailer's recent post on the professor accused of sexual misbehaviour. The behaviours in which he engaged were so innocuous that twenty years the women involved would simply have laughed the whole thing off.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/i-am-shocked-shocked-to-hear-that-the-u-of-michigans-professor-of-rock-n-roll-made-passes-at-coeds/

    Replies: @MattinLA, @Nodwink, @Almost Missouri, @iffen, @Mark G.

    Very true. There is no libertinism. A few alpha males are experiencing sexual nirvana: the vast.majority of single males are left in the cold. Females are having occasional sex with those alphas. The society of the harem is here.

    • Agree: unit472
  3. @dfordoom

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    In some ways we're more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real. Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it's less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism. A man who has consensual sex with a woman can have his life destroyed if the woman changes her mind after the act. If it wasn't as magical and meaningful as the woman expected it's rape.

    Surveys suggest that young people are having less sex than previous generations. Which would not be surprising. Engaging in entirely consensual heterosexual sex is now a high-risk activity. Engaging in the normal human activities that have always been part and parcel of courtship is now like wandering through a minefield.

    Read Steve Sailer's recent post on the professor accused of sexual misbehaviour. The behaviours in which he engaged were so innocuous that twenty years the women involved would simply have laughed the whole thing off.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/i-am-shocked-shocked-to-hear-that-the-u-of-michigans-professor-of-rock-n-roll-made-passes-at-coeds/

    Replies: @MattinLA, @Nodwink, @Almost Missouri, @iffen, @Mark G.

    This the most sexually conservative Anglosphere society has been in my lifetime, at least in the public sphere.

    Just take a look at this from Australian TV in 1984. This would cause considerable controversy today.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Nodwink

    Remarkable. I would have expected Australia to be similar to America in its mores.

    Perhaps, it has something to do with the population of Australia being less spread out. (the rural district being less habitable), so greater urban domination. Or perhaps it is tied to the transportation of criminals, or the fact that there wasn't a big population of blacks.

    It's a similar surprise to consider the lower drinking age.

    German TV was the same last time I saw it, or even worse, after a certain hour.

    American mores regarding television have always struck me as very strange. Sex is absolutely trivialized to the limit of anything that isn't outright porn. It is like they went through every loophole in the process of subversion, they even have pushed at showing more of naked men, but they shy away from showing what the Minoans would have thought normal.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  4. The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.

    Right. In some ways, we haven’t. Each new generation thinks it is doing something nobody did before, when in fact, such things have always gone on.

    I had an open relationship for a couple of years with a girlfriend in the early 1990s. It wasn’t a parade of partners, but it happened a couple of times for each of us, and we stayed together. We openly recounted our adventures for each other. A couple of years later, I, um, participated in one with a rather hot married woman — with the approval of her husband. We all became friends and had dinner together.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Buzz Mohawk

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

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I participated in one without the approval of her husband. I recommend against that. There were no corporeal consequences, but the psychological (and spiritual?) consequences made it not worth it.

    Sex is so messy. Making out with that woman was the most erotic experience I have ever had. The initial attraction was totally magnetic in a way I have never experienced with anyone else, and mutual. In the end, though, it was horrible. Now, would I take it back if I could? I don't know. Sex is so messy.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Buzz Mohawk

    What feelings did you have towards the man, the husband of the rather hot married woman?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  5. @dfordoom

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    In some ways we're more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real. Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it's less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism. A man who has consensual sex with a woman can have his life destroyed if the woman changes her mind after the act. If it wasn't as magical and meaningful as the woman expected it's rape.

    Surveys suggest that young people are having less sex than previous generations. Which would not be surprising. Engaging in entirely consensual heterosexual sex is now a high-risk activity. Engaging in the normal human activities that have always been part and parcel of courtship is now like wandering through a minefield.

    Read Steve Sailer's recent post on the professor accused of sexual misbehaviour. The behaviours in which he engaged were so innocuous that twenty years the women involved would simply have laughed the whole thing off.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/i-am-shocked-shocked-to-hear-that-the-u-of-michigans-professor-of-rock-n-roll-made-passes-at-coeds/

    Replies: @MattinLA, @Nodwink, @Almost Missouri, @iffen, @Mark G.

    Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it’s less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism.

    This. Normal, healthy sexual relations are increasingly vilified and proscribed, formally and informally. Destructive, perverse sexual relations are increasingly valorized, subsidized and sacrosanct.

    The discussion of whether society is becoming more sexually puritanical or libertine depends entirely on which kind of sex is the subject: good sex or bad sex. If good sex, then puritanical, if bad sex then libertine.

    This is the case in the West, anyhow. China, Islam and the Orthodox world seem to be holding the line at pro-good sex, anti-bad sex, more or less. Heck, even SS African cultures are aspiring to more good and less bad sex (thanks, missionaries!), albeit starting from a dire baseline. Sexual inversion and consequent social collapse is largely a Western problem.

    Perhaps there is a sort of sexual Gresham’s Law, but I think it is simpler to observe that both trends correspond to the degenerate spirit or our age and the interests of our elites.

  6. Here, maybe things are mixed.

    There is not much correlation between sexual “freedom” & the type of economy (neo-liberal capitalism, wealthy Scandinavian “socialism”). Uber-capitalist USA is less sexually “liberated” than parts of socialist Scandinavian countries. Of course, there are huge differences in culture.

    Then, there is no much use in invoking sexual mores of the yesteryear, because those were generally traditional societies fighting for mere survival. Now, wealthy secular & mostly hedonistic societies, from North America via Europe to wealthier North Asia, have very different types of socio-sexual behavior.

    Just for illustration, in most of continental Europe the concept of “dating” is weird & silly. Why would anyone do such thing? You meet people from your social circles naturally. You don’t need any dating apps, nor is your social life organized that way. Then, casual sex & hookup culture vary very much. Even neighboring countries like Slovakia and Czechia (Czech Republic) differ enormously- Slovaks looking on Czechs as highly promiscuous to the point of weirdness.

    In such a big country like the US, the situation is certainly very variable from region to region, from class to class. And, I would say that the US is much more influenced by the media & celebrities & fads than most affluent non-Anglo countries, which have retained a significantly higher dose of skepticism toward anything coming from the media.

  7. Norms serve a purpose because they provide the training wheels that normal people require.

    Admitting this is not judging the ordinary. It is noticing a fact.

    If you attack norms because you think the implication of their requirement is demeaning to normal people, then you are the one inputting your own judgement. Know yourself.

    And if you attack those who need not your norms and find them limiting and/or false, then perhaps pause to ask yourself why you individually need them, before attempting to perceive why others may not.

    The egalitarian impulse can hurt twice over. Not only the rush to make us all the same, but, worse, the push to make everyone see themselves as psychologically the same in development.

  8. Actually, both things are the same – they are promoted in talk, but not in reality.

    Is there any real wish for equality, or as they say now, “equity”? If it was real, you’d see white progressive liberals giving their houses and their money to poor black people… But, it’s not what you see… They want OTHER PEOPLE to give their money and their houses to poor black people, not themselves.

    And the sexual stuff is the same, people talk about “sexual freedom”, but as a commenter above mentions we are increasingly puritanical, and in a bad way. You can lose your job or even go to prison just for what was considered flirting before.

    The problem is really this double discourse. Instead of, say, going back to marriages and a more traditional society, no, we maintain sexual chaos and feel awful about it, while pretending that it is fine and we are all “free”.

    And, they keep talking so much about “equity”, but there is never any attempt to change the conditions that make Gates, Bezos, Goldman Sachs and a few winners get more and more money and middle-class people less and less.

  9. Income inequality is directly correlated with sexual inequality. You don’t find attractive females living in a homeless encampment anymore than you find rich men. Maybe Hunter Biden belongs in a tent with Kim Kardashian under a freeway overpass based on their ‘contributions to society’ but that isn’t how the world works.

    Does religion make a difference? It depends. David Koresh and Jim Jones could turn their churches into harems and more than a few Catholic priests had long careers buggering altar boys but, OTOH, Jimmy Swaggart was disgraced for giving a street hooker $15 to take her blouse off. Didn’t even touch her. Just wanted a peep show. Of course today he could have watched much worse on his home computer but no one would know unless Francis his wife had his password. Compare that to another TV evangelist who, around the same time, spent $250,000 of his followers money to try and shut Jessica Hahn up who had served as his concubine as he “Praised the Lord’ on TV.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @unit472

    Misclick. My reply just above was directed to you.

  10. My view of marriage and the family is more aspirational than factual? That seems to be what I am being told, and not only by you but by commenters, too.

    I’ll not concede the point without more evidence—excluding evidence sourced from libertines and from members of a certain Red Sea-traversing, Philistine-slaying ethnic group.

    One does not doubt that the Roman 0050s were frightfully obscene, but that obscenity as far as I know contradicted the pattern of the civilization against which it took place. Such obscenity was hardly aspirational even then. The results that flowed from the obscenity moreover were sufficiently terrible to make prophets of the decent men who, in 0050, must have warned against it.

    But in antiquity, grown men could bed young teenage girls….

    I assume that you mean, outside proper confarreatio, the traditional form of marriage handed down from the early Republic. I do not wish to be understood as promoting the marriage of 14-year-old women in the 21st-century United States, for that is not and probably never has been ideal, and I believe that the marriageable age commonly set at 16 in the 20th-century United States has worked well enough for our people; but one ought to admit that there is nothing immoral in marriage to a 14-year-old per se. Most likely, one of your own ancestors within the past seven or eight generations was happily married from that age.

    Now I have set myself up for simultaneous skewering from left and right (especially since I have just left my Hajnal flank wide open), yet if one will not risk skewering in a blog, of all places, then where can one risk it? I shall stand my ground. The manospherical pick-up artistry (PUA) of the 2010s was, as I insist, both [i] a necessary reaction to unsustainably extreme women’s emancipation and [ii] fundamentally, brutally correct about the eugenics of Chadhood. The problem with PUA however is civilizational: ultimately, PUA overshoots its mark in pursuit of diminishing returns; and PUA is destructive to the Western Christian family.

    As far as women’s emancipation goes, it’s crap perched atop a worthless heap of plausible, lazy assertions. It’s a disgusting way for the neurotic and the dissolute to justify doing whatever they please, and to damn their own children while doing it.

    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.
     
    I would kind of go along with that.

    As long as most people get married and have children it isn't really worth worrying about the minority who don't conform to the rules. They can be safely ignored, and in my view it's best to leave them alone. If you have a society in which the majority of people abandon monogamy then you do definitely have a problem.

    I'm not convinced that we have such a situation. Monogamy seems still to be the norm. Not necessarily marriage but monogamy in some form.

    Our real problem is that so many people are getting married and are remaining monogamous, but they're not having children. That's a problem with multiple causes but I don't think it has anything at all to do with a rising tide of libertinism.

    And as I said in my earlier comment, I don't think there is a rising tide of libertinism. Quite the reverse.

    The trans thing is interesting. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, much of the trans mania actually seems to be driven by avoidance of sex. If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life that doesn't sound like libertinism. That sounds like a twisted form of puritanism. It sounds like a phobia of sex.

    The high tide of modern sexual libertinism was the 1970s. The tide of libertinism has been receding ever since.

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It's a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    I'm not advocating for libertinism (and I'm certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @TomSchmidt, @anon, @winter

  11. There is next to none talk about reducing econimic equality bc the ruling class/US-oligarchy is pushing the woke-cult so hard. The Wall Street looters errr I mean Bankers signal their “we stand with gays, trans and black communitis” to deflect their loot and to pander to the issues white upper middle class women find important.

    They are the biggest group supporting wokeness and it’s not a coincidence mainstream media, hollywood, streaming services and the advertising industry is feeding the AFWLs what they want to see and hear in a feedback loop.

  12. … Jimmy Swaggart was disgraced for giving a street hooker $15 to take her blouse off.

    It’s fascinating how the likes of Swaggart can be disgraced for such a pathetic, tawdry, ultimately trivial act, but a twice-divorced orange billionaire hero, dissolute but not pathetic, can become our moral leader and 45th president of the United States.

    There is no barb in the comment. It’s literally fascinating. Maybe if the woman had been a high-flying fashion model and Swaggart had boldly given a $50,000 diamond instead of $15, Swaggart would be a hero, too.

    • Replies: @Not only wrathful
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Trump did also benefit from his possessing the rare quality of actually liking his followers

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    can become our moral leader

    I think that you may have a problem with deciding on whose guidance you follow on the subject of morality.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Ian Smith
    @V. K. Ovelund

    When you flamboyantly preach sexual purity or eternal damnation while raking in millions, you’re going to be more harshly judged for your sexual life. Everyone loathes hypocrites. So f*** Swaggart, Haggard, Zacharias, and all those other holier than thou shmucks.

    , @Wency
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Swaggart actually got caught twice with a prostitute. He might have been able to recover from the one time. I also think the bit about just asking her her to take her top off sounds like a possibly dubious defense.

    There's something especially low about the act, because he can't claim extraordinary temptation. When you hear about a powerful man (e.g. Tiger Woods) getting busted for one or more affairs, there's often a moment of "But for the grace of God, so go I." Because how many of us really know with certainty that no sexual temptation could be placed before us that would cause us to destroy our families?

    Yet virtually any married man can go pick up a street hooker, and yet few do so. It deserves no leniency in any position for which character is a qualification, because it unambiguously demonstrates poor character.

  13. @unit472
    Income inequality is directly correlated with sexual inequality. You don't find attractive females living in a homeless encampment anymore than you find rich men. Maybe Hunter Biden belongs in a tent with Kim Kardashian under a freeway overpass based on their 'contributions to society' but that isn't how the world works.

    Does religion make a difference? It depends. David Koresh and Jim Jones could turn their churches into harems and more than a few Catholic priests had long careers buggering altar boys but, OTOH, Jimmy Swaggart was disgraced for giving a street hooker $15 to take her blouse off. Didn't even touch her. Just wanted a peep show. Of course today he could have watched much worse on his home computer but no one would know unless Francis his wife had his password. Compare that to another TV evangelist who, around the same time, spent $250,000 of his followers money to try and shut Jessica Hahn up who had served as his concubine as he "Praised the Lord' on TV.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Misclick. My reply just above was directed to you.

  14. @V. K. Ovelund

    ... Jimmy Swaggart was disgraced for giving a street hooker $15 to take her blouse off.
     
    It's fascinating how the likes of Swaggart can be disgraced for such a pathetic, tawdry, ultimately trivial act, but a twice-divorced orange billionaire hero, dissolute but not pathetic, can become our moral leader and 45th president of the United States.

    There is no barb in the comment. It's literally fascinating. Maybe if the woman had been a high-flying fashion model and Swaggart had boldly given a $50,000 diamond instead of $15, Swaggart would be a hero, too.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @iffen, @Ian Smith, @Wency

    Trump did also benefit from his possessing the rare quality of actually liking his followers

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  15. @Buzz Mohawk

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    Right. In some ways, we haven't. Each new generation thinks it is doing something nobody did before, when in fact, such things have always gone on.

    I had an open relationship for a couple of years with a girlfriend in the early 1990s. It wasn't a parade of partners, but it happened a couple of times for each of us, and we stayed together. We openly recounted our adventures for each other. A couple of years later, I, um, participated in one with a rather hot married woman -- with the approval of her husband. We all became friends and had dinner together.

    Replies: @SFG, @Chrisnonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @SFG

    LOL. My wife and I have been faithful to each other since we got married twenty years ago.

    A friend of mine was a justice of the peace, and he performed our marriage on the balcony of his house, overlooking the beach. It was a small ceremony with a few friends.

    The next year, we travelled to her homeland in Transylvania. There, her family's Hungarian priest, named Attila (I kid you not, Attila was his real name) performed a real, serious church wedding for us, in both the English and the Hungarian languages. Lots of friends and family there attended, and we had a big party afterward at a restaurant we rented for the occasion.

    Since all that, I really have felt that I swore an oath to God that I will be faithful to this woman.

    I do not want to piss off God.

    All of this makes me lucky.

    Replies: @SFG

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @SFG

    Thank you for the song, BTW. My wife likes Rod Stewart. She's brought me around. I didn't appreciate him before. He's good.

    Replies: @anon, @SFG

  16. @V. K. Ovelund

    ... Jimmy Swaggart was disgraced for giving a street hooker $15 to take her blouse off.
     
    It's fascinating how the likes of Swaggart can be disgraced for such a pathetic, tawdry, ultimately trivial act, but a twice-divorced orange billionaire hero, dissolute but not pathetic, can become our moral leader and 45th president of the United States.

    There is no barb in the comment. It's literally fascinating. Maybe if the woman had been a high-flying fashion model and Swaggart had boldly given a $50,000 diamond instead of $15, Swaggart would be a hero, too.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @iffen, @Ian Smith, @Wency

    can become our moral leader

    I think that you may have a problem with deciding on whose guidance you follow on the subject of morality.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    I think that you may have a problem with deciding on whose guidance you follow on the subject of morality.

    “Moral” was an unfortunate choice of word on my part. I was thinking moral as in morale, not morality, while what I wrote was unclear. Correction accepted, thanks.

  17. @Buzz Mohawk

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    Right. In some ways, we haven't. Each new generation thinks it is doing something nobody did before, when in fact, such things have always gone on.

    I had an open relationship for a couple of years with a girlfriend in the early 1990s. It wasn't a parade of partners, but it happened a couple of times for each of us, and we stayed together. We openly recounted our adventures for each other. A couple of years later, I, um, participated in one with a rather hot married woman -- with the approval of her husband. We all became friends and had dinner together.

    Replies: @SFG, @Chrisnonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    I participated in one without the approval of her husband. I recommend against that. There were no corporeal consequences, but the psychological (and spiritual?) consequences made it not worth it.

    Sex is so messy. Making out with that woman was the most erotic experience I have ever had. The initial attraction was totally magnetic in a way I have never experienced with anyone else, and mutual. In the end, though, it was horrible. Now, would I take it back if I could? I don’t know. Sex is so messy.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Chrisnonymous


    I participated in one without the approval of her husband.
     
    That was your first mistake.

    Sex is so messy.
     
    Well, yeah, bodily fluids and stuff.

    Oh, and emotions. Unpredictable emotions. I discovered that I would develop attachments without trying, and sometimes I had a harder time moving on than the women. Maybe that is one of the reasons I am happy to be married.

    Screwing around is an emotional roller-coaster, and men have feelings too.

    Replies: @Resartus

  18. dfordoom responded:

    Is there any actual public discourse about reducing economic inequality? I must have missed the debates about expropriating the wealth of the billionaires. And I must have missed the debates about reducing executive salaries to less obscene levels. And the debates about imposing massive taxes on capital gains.

    I don’t know what bubble dfordoom lives in. Apparently he has never heard of US presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, and apparently he has not heard of President Biden’s capital gains tax proposal. It’s like he doesn’t know what’s going on in the US since he lives in Australia or some other backwater of the empire and should stop commenting on politics in the capital.

    Wokeness is not a plot of business tycoons to distract Americans from income redistribution. It is facet of the anti-American and anti-Western ideology of the academic left which includes racial inversions, cultural destruction, and economic leveling. Right now, the left is winning on race and culture, so they are pushing strongest where their advantage is.

    • Replies: @anyone with a brain
    @Chrisnonymous

    Wokeness is the most American ideology to ever exist.

    It is rooting for the underdog to achieve financial success while giving the middle finger to the established elites. When the underdog(the poors and the minorities) fails it must be do to some malevolent anti-american force and it must be destroyed. That is the kernel of wokeness and it originates from the vision of America where the world's marginal losers can immigrate and make big bucks in America while their former superiors rot in the old world.

    wokeness did not originate from Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, not even Judaism, nor did it originate from European thought such as the enlightenment or the classics, and it most certainly did not originate from Marx or other European socialist thinkers.

    The ideology of America is unlimited success despite reality, unassailable optimism that one day you will be successful. It doesn't matter that you have low impulse control and no manners or tact, look at Trump, look at the stereotype of the Texas billionaire. Americans also have the idea that all wealthy people have humble origins.

    In short the ethos of America is that those at the top must have been born humble and certainly worked their way to the top. And that success is consumption of products.

    To the racial aspect of wokeness, if racial minorities underperform it must be due to a wicked system that oppresses them, for the racial minorities are poor and therefore noble creatures. They are underdogs and those who perform better are the old hierarchy, so whites hate themselves for not being underdogs and cheer on the racial underdogs. Everyone wants to be an underdog, Jewish billionaires drone about holocaust survivor ancestors, people claim and extol their humble origins in exchange of social license to be wealthy. I can understand, origins from an elite family in the U.S indicates no nobility.

  19. @V. K. Ovelund
    My view of marriage and the family is more aspirational than factual? That seems to be what I am being told, and not only by you but by commenters, too.

    I'll not concede the point without more evidence—excluding evidence sourced from libertines and from members of a certain Red Sea-traversing, Philistine-slaying ethnic group.

    One does not doubt that the Roman 0050s were frightfully obscene, but that obscenity as far as I know contradicted the pattern of the civilization against which it took place. Such obscenity was hardly aspirational even then. The results that flowed from the obscenity moreover were sufficiently terrible to make prophets of the decent men who, in 0050, must have warned against it.


    But in antiquity, grown men could bed young teenage girls....
     
    I assume that you mean, outside proper confarreatio, the traditional form of marriage handed down from the early Republic. I do not wish to be understood as promoting the marriage of 14-year-old women in the 21st-century United States, for that is not and probably never has been ideal, and I believe that the marriageable age commonly set at 16 in the 20th-century United States has worked well enough for our people; but one ought to admit that there is nothing immoral in marriage to a 14-year-old per se. Most likely, one of your own ancestors within the past seven or eight generations was happily married from that age.

    Now I have set myself up for simultaneous skewering from left and right (especially since I have just left my Hajnal flank wide open), yet if one will not risk skewering in a blog, of all places, then where can one risk it? I shall stand my ground. The manospherical pick-up artistry (PUA) of the 2010s was, as I insist, both [i] a necessary reaction to unsustainably extreme women's emancipation and [ii] fundamentally, brutally correct about the eugenics of Chadhood. The problem with PUA however is civilizational: ultimately, PUA overshoots its mark in pursuit of diminishing returns; and PUA is destructive to the Western Christian family.

    As far as women's emancipation goes, it's crap perched atop a worthless heap of plausible, lazy assertions. It's a disgusting way for the neurotic and the dissolute to justify doing whatever they please, and to damn their own children while doing it.

    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.

    I would kind of go along with that.

    As long as most people get married and have children it isn’t really worth worrying about the minority who don’t conform to the rules. They can be safely ignored, and in my view it’s best to leave them alone. If you have a society in which the majority of people abandon monogamy then you do definitely have a problem.

    I’m not convinced that we have such a situation. Monogamy seems still to be the norm. Not necessarily marriage but monogamy in some form.

    Our real problem is that so many people are getting married and are remaining monogamous, but they’re not having children. That’s a problem with multiple causes but I don’t think it has anything at all to do with a rising tide of libertinism.

    And as I said in my earlier comment, I don’t think there is a rising tide of libertinism. Quite the reverse.

    The trans thing is interesting. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, much of the trans mania actually seems to be driven by avoidance of sex. If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life that doesn’t sound like libertinism. That sounds like a twisted form of puritanism. It sounds like a phobia of sex.

    The high tide of modern sexual libertinism was the 1970s. The tide of libertinism has been receding ever since.

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It’s a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    I’m not advocating for libertinism (and I’m certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It’s a rejection of perfectly normal desires.
     
    This point admittedly has little purchase on my imagination, but it is probably true.

    I’m not advocating for libertinism (and I’m certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.
     
    I don't know quite what to say to this. It's probably another sound point.

    Maybe because I now have two marrying-age children with three more soon to arrive at that stage, I find the whole mess rather disturbing.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom

    Here we stop to recall that classic 80s game "Leisure Suit Larry in the land of the Lounge Lizards." Based, of course, on the 70s libertinism.

    AIDS pretty well put the kibosh on that, if herpes didn't.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy

    , @anon
    @dfordoom

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It’s a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    lol. Which of the many forms of puritanism in human history are you ignorantly referring to?

    , @winter
    @dfordoom


    If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life

     

    it's more complicated than that. nothing about the various surgical and hormonal procedures they do necessarily damages sexual function, apart from raising or lowering libido, unless the doctor is completely incompetent. SRS occasionally does some damage but not normally. anecdotally, from what i've seen of (millennial) american queers, transexuals usually have very, very (one might say obsessively) active sex lives. usually very perverse and unhealthy ones tho

    but there's also that newer cohort of teenage girls who turn FTM from terror of womanhood rather than any kind of dysphoria; in their case you may well be right, i personally haven't known any and don't know.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  20. @dfordoom

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    In some ways we're more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real. Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it's less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism. A man who has consensual sex with a woman can have his life destroyed if the woman changes her mind after the act. If it wasn't as magical and meaningful as the woman expected it's rape.

    Surveys suggest that young people are having less sex than previous generations. Which would not be surprising. Engaging in entirely consensual heterosexual sex is now a high-risk activity. Engaging in the normal human activities that have always been part and parcel of courtship is now like wandering through a minefield.

    Read Steve Sailer's recent post on the professor accused of sexual misbehaviour. The behaviours in which he engaged were so innocuous that twenty years the women involved would simply have laughed the whole thing off.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/i-am-shocked-shocked-to-hear-that-the-u-of-michigans-professor-of-rock-n-roll-made-passes-at-coeds/

    Replies: @MattinLA, @Nodwink, @Almost Missouri, @iffen, @Mark G.

    In some ways we’re more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    You and others are mixing your metaphors. The ideal should be that a woman can work without being subjected to sexual pressures, especially from the hierarchy. This does address inequality in that some men in the hierarchy (and men are “over-represented” here) use that position to engage in sexual coercion. Men should use their position in the hierarchy as a “pull” not a “push.” The norms for sexual behavior in the workplace should have their own balance and limitations and not be governed by what is allowed outside of that realm.

  21. @Chrisnonymous

    dfordoom responded:

    Is there any actual public discourse about reducing economic inequality? I must have missed the debates about expropriating the wealth of the billionaires. And I must have missed the debates about reducing executive salaries to less obscene levels. And the debates about imposing massive taxes on capital gains.
     

     
    I don't know what bubble dfordoom lives in. Apparently he has never heard of US presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, and apparently he has not heard of President Biden's capital gains tax proposal. It's like he doesn't know what's going on in the US since he lives in Australia or some other backwater of the empire and should stop commenting on politics in the capital.

    Wokeness is not a plot of business tycoons to distract Americans from income redistribution. It is facet of the anti-American and anti-Western ideology of the academic left which includes racial inversions, cultural destruction, and economic leveling. Right now, the left is winning on race and culture, so they are pushing strongest where their advantage is.

    Replies: @anyone with a brain

    Wokeness is the most American ideology to ever exist.

    It is rooting for the underdog to achieve financial success while giving the middle finger to the established elites. When the underdog(the poors and the minorities) fails it must be do to some malevolent anti-american force and it must be destroyed. That is the kernel of wokeness and it originates from the vision of America where the world’s marginal losers can immigrate and make big bucks in America while their former superiors rot in the old world.

    wokeness did not originate from Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, not even Judaism, nor did it originate from European thought such as the enlightenment or the classics, and it most certainly did not originate from Marx or other European socialist thinkers.

    The ideology of America is unlimited success despite reality, unassailable optimism that one day you will be successful. It doesn’t matter that you have low impulse control and no manners or tact, look at Trump, look at the stereotype of the Texas billionaire. Americans also have the idea that all wealthy people have humble origins.

    In short the ethos of America is that those at the top must have been born humble and certainly worked their way to the top. And that success is consumption of products.

    To the racial aspect of wokeness, if racial minorities underperform it must be due to a wicked system that oppresses them, for the racial minorities are poor and therefore noble creatures. They are underdogs and those who perform better are the old hierarchy, so whites hate themselves for not being underdogs and cheer on the racial underdogs. Everyone wants to be an underdog, Jewish billionaires drone about holocaust survivor ancestors, people claim and extol their humble origins in exchange of social license to be wealthy. I can understand, origins from an elite family in the U.S indicates no nobility.

  22. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    can become our moral leader

    I think that you may have a problem with deciding on whose guidance you follow on the subject of morality.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I think that you may have a problem with deciding on whose guidance you follow on the subject of morality.

    “Moral” was an unfortunate choice of word on my part. I was thinking moral as in morale, not morality, while what I wrote was unclear. Correction accepted, thanks.

  23. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.
     
    I would kind of go along with that.

    As long as most people get married and have children it isn't really worth worrying about the minority who don't conform to the rules. They can be safely ignored, and in my view it's best to leave them alone. If you have a society in which the majority of people abandon monogamy then you do definitely have a problem.

    I'm not convinced that we have such a situation. Monogamy seems still to be the norm. Not necessarily marriage but monogamy in some form.

    Our real problem is that so many people are getting married and are remaining monogamous, but they're not having children. That's a problem with multiple causes but I don't think it has anything at all to do with a rising tide of libertinism.

    And as I said in my earlier comment, I don't think there is a rising tide of libertinism. Quite the reverse.

    The trans thing is interesting. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, much of the trans mania actually seems to be driven by avoidance of sex. If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life that doesn't sound like libertinism. That sounds like a twisted form of puritanism. It sounds like a phobia of sex.

    The high tide of modern sexual libertinism was the 1970s. The tide of libertinism has been receding ever since.

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It's a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    I'm not advocating for libertinism (and I'm certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @TomSchmidt, @anon, @winter

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It’s a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    This point admittedly has little purchase on my imagination, but it is probably true.

    I’m not advocating for libertinism (and I’m certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.

    I don’t know quite what to say to this. It’s probably another sound point.

    Maybe because I now have two marrying-age children with three more soon to arrive at that stage, I find the whole mess rather disturbing.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Maybe because I now have two marrying-age children with three more soon to arrive at that stage, I find the whole mess rather disturbing.
     
    I understand that. It's perfectly natural to hope that one's own kids will get married and have kids of their own. On balance that's still the most likely recipe for a happy fulfilled life.

    And I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing that everything is hunky-dory and that our modern society is healthy and there's nothing to worry about. Our modern society is very very unhealthy.

    But the real problem is that completely normal heterosexual desires and completely normal heterosexual behaviours are now seen as problematic. Completely normal heterosexual behaviours have been pathologised. Such normal behaviours are now seen as wrong and oppressive.

    A big part of the problem is of course feminism. Back in the 90s when the anti-sex feminists lost the Feminist Sex Wars we thought we wouldn't have to worry about those crazies any more. But we were wrong. The anti-sex feminists have made a major comeback. They're as crazy as ever and they're as aggressive as ever.

    I'd be more worried about the de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality than about a largely imaginary libertinism.

    The de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality is a fundamental attack on the foundation of any sane healthy society.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @SFG

  24. @Nodwink
    @dfordoom

    This the most sexually conservative Anglosphere society has been in my lifetime, at least in the public sphere.

    Just take a look at this from Australian TV in 1984. This would cause considerable controversy today.

    https://twitter.com/LaurenRosewarne/status/1384815481949802497

    Replies: @songbird

    Remarkable. I would have expected Australia to be similar to America in its mores.

    Perhaps, it has something to do with the population of Australia being less spread out. (the rural district being less habitable), so greater urban domination. Or perhaps it is tied to the transportation of criminals, or the fact that there wasn’t a big population of blacks.

    It’s a similar surprise to consider the lower drinking age.

    German TV was the same last time I saw it, or even worse, after a certain hour.

    American mores regarding television have always struck me as very strange. Sex is absolutely trivialized to the limit of anything that isn’t outright porn. It is like they went through every loophole in the process of subversion, they even have pushed at showing more of naked men, but they shy away from showing what the Minoans would have thought normal.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Remarkable. I would have expected Australia to be similar to America in its mores.
     
    We don't have America's legacy of Puritanism. We were lucky enough not to get Puritan settlers. We got convicts which in retrospect was a much better deal.

    Australia has always been a very very secular society.
  25. I find it strange that overflow of info is not matched by an attempt to understand & evaluate all this stuff. Also, too much parochialism & subjectivity.

    * The modern affluent world is, sexually, the most monogamous & moral of all epochs. One should not go to ancient Babylonia- the 18th C Russian orgies, as depicted in some memoirs & histories are enough.

    * sexuality aside- did we physiologically, not just culturally, evolve in a short span of existing human civilization, which is around 5,000 years? Having in mind that Caucasians, as a separate race, appeared 30,000 to 80,000 years ago, and African Negroes are attested ca. 8,000 to 12,000 years ago (physical anthropology)- did people change in some non-negligible way in the past, say, 3,000-4,000 years? Mind, European are, generally, 10 to 15 cm taller than just 300 years ago. What about mental & emotional processes?

    *  women, freedom,… are not older than 150 years. Of course, things have changed over centuries, but no one thought that women should be (or are even potentially) equal to men. From Aristotle to Kant and Nietzsche to George Eliot to Freud.

    Woman was, perhaps, a mystery for Freud, but Montaigne could have been closer to the truth that there was not a mystery at all. Due to their anatomy & physiology, women are almost completely governed by their reproductive role. Of course they have their education, financial independence, work outside home, … but, most of them are not happy. During the 18th & the 19th C, men thought- dump arranged marriages, give them freedom of choice plus education & they will find their soulmate & be happy. It turned out to be wrong.

    As someone said- why are there no female Mozarts? Because there are no female serial killers. Wars & similar conflicts stem from male type of sexuality, as Einstein had observed during WW1.

    * I’ve read somewhere that when some US state (Oregon?) dropped no fault divorce, the divorce rate- women initiate ca. 70% of divorces- plummeted by at least 50%. So, change the laws …

    * over-sexualization in the media, everywhere, is obvious & detrimental. When I think of it, the most productive & important people in past 200 years (that’s modernity) have been almost asexual, or have led sexually conventional life. Whatever one thinks of Bill Gates- and he is extremely smart, apart from his fortune, I’ve read a few of his reviews on the Goodreads- a superb mind -is anything but a sexual dynamo. I’ve read numerous biographies of truly great people who lived after 1850, i.e. modern times- and their sex lives were either conventional or almost non-existent. The greatest “sin” was to have an affair or two during a 40 years long marriage period.  

    So, heightened interest in sexuality- obscenity- fetishes- porn … is, statistically, good to keep masses busy with basically trivial stuff which is a natural part of life, but they become central, a man or a woman is a slave to it.

    Female promiscuity is the key to it all. They couldn’t do it earlier as they, probably, wished- but now they can. Combine this with their lack of orientation, unrealistic expectations from life, huge overestimate of themselves, childlessness or drastic drop in fertility, pliability to media manipulation, worship of celebrity culture, …

    As a wise woman once told me: Men should love their women. Women should respect their men. This is the key to happy marriage.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Bardon Kaldian

    * I’ve read somewhere that when some US state (Oregon?) dropped no fault divorce, the divorce rate- women initiate ca. 70% of divorces- plummeted by at least 50%.

    lol.

    I've read somewhere that LSD is still popular in some central Euro countries, for sure you can confirm.

    So, change the laws …

    I can't decide which book written over the last 30 years to point to, so I'll just marvel at the combination of ignorance with insouciance.

    tl;dr
    "False" and "Not possible".

    As a wise woman once told me: Men should love their women. Women should respect their men

    Paraphrase of Ephesians 5:33

    smh

  26. By the way, lest I be understood, I do not hold myself forth as a moral exemplar. I have at least as many sins of which to repent as the next man and probably more than most. If you knew me, you would know that this is no false humility on my part.

    However, I dislike attempts to rip my civilization out by the roots and I really dislike libertines who egregiously flaunt their own weak excuses for hedonism. I am impatient with the absurd offense some affect to take at my decent treatment of my wife as a wife—as the word would have been understood by decent men in 1662 or, heck, 1962—rather than as some postmodernized kind of female partner or pal.

    Our civilization cannot go on like this, slamming like a pinball ever more furiously between the bumpers of self-gratification, perversion, and crackpot theorizing regarding masculinity and femininity—not if the civilization expects to reach any good end, not any more than Roman civilization could in 0062.

  27. I read a study in which Chinese-American women who married Caucasian men were asked about their motivation for doing so. The author’s term for what they had sought: Egalitarian knighthood. Yes, The Wife of Bath’s Tale. Human nature doesn’t change.

  28. @SFG
    @Buzz Mohawk

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

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Buzz Mohawk

    LOL. My wife and I have been faithful to each other since we got married twenty years ago.

    [MORE]

    A friend of mine was a justice of the peace, and he performed our marriage on the balcony of his house, overlooking the beach. It was a small ceremony with a few friends.

    The next year, we travelled to her homeland in Transylvania. There, her family’s Hungarian priest, named Attila (I kid you not, Attila was his real name) performed a real, serious church wedding for us, in both the English and the Hungarian languages. Lots of friends and family there attended, and we had a big party afterward at a restaurant we rented for the occasion.

    Since all that, I really have felt that I swore an oath to God that I will be faithful to this woman.

    I do not want to piss off God.

    All of this makes me lucky.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @SFG
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I used to be a big fan of that song back in the 90s (I listened to 80s music in the 90s as a teenager, which tells you something), and always sang 'some guys do nothing but complain' extra loud, occasionally pointing at myself if nobody was around.

    So I think, as with a lot of the good popular music, Rod (or his songwriter) was onto something.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  29. @dfordoom

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    In some ways we're more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can lead to the loss of your job and your career.

    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real. Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it's less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism. A man who has consensual sex with a woman can have his life destroyed if the woman changes her mind after the act. If it wasn't as magical and meaningful as the woman expected it's rape.

    Surveys suggest that young people are having less sex than previous generations. Which would not be surprising. Engaging in entirely consensual heterosexual sex is now a high-risk activity. Engaging in the normal human activities that have always been part and parcel of courtship is now like wandering through a minefield.

    Read Steve Sailer's recent post on the professor accused of sexual misbehaviour. The behaviours in which he engaged were so innocuous that twenty years the women involved would simply have laughed the whole thing off.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/i-am-shocked-shocked-to-hear-that-the-u-of-michigans-professor-of-rock-n-roll-made-passes-at-coeds/

    Replies: @MattinLA, @Nodwink, @Almost Missouri, @iffen, @Mark G.

    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real.

    That idea probably comes from the acceptance of homosexuality, as you mention, plus decriminalization of prostitution and easier access to porn because of the internet. A.E. has produced information here previously, though, showing young people are having less actual sex.

    New York City just decided not to arrest prostitutes but to still arrest customers. This is sometimes called the Nordic model. The underlying premise here is that the men are exploiting the women so only the men are doing something wrong. According to this view, women never manipulate or exploit men. Anyone who thinks this is pretty naive about women but this is what modern day feminism wants us to accept.

    The manosphere blogger Roissy once said the actual goal of modern day feminism is to provide maximum sexual freedom for women while restricting it for men. I didn’t agree with a lot of what he said but he was probably right here. Women at work can still be sexually aggressive but it has become more dangerous for men to act like that in recent years. Women can sleep around and no male should disapprove but if she gets pregnant from some bad boy loser the males who weren’t supposed to disapprove of her promiscuity are then supposed to pay taxes to provide economic support for the child via welfare benefits. Women can be prostitutes and not get arrested but their male customers will still be arrested.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Mark G.

    Yeah, you're right...

    https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-new-puritans/

  30. By the way, I’ve noticed one thing: top modern scientists, Nobel prize rank, are generally monogamous & their wives are not that great looking. Usually, wives are colleagues or work in a similar academic discipline. And they seem happy. I haven’t heard any gossip about cheating, weird sex or anything similar.

    Even those scientists who become famous, like Sean Carroll- in my opinion, a handsome man- have wives who are, well, physically, re attractiveness, “below them”.

    It looks like when you have a creative, fulfilled life, a wife/husband you love, or at least you’re used to- you just don’t have time or interest to bother with threesomes, cheating or open relationships.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @Bardon Kaldian

    A lot of it could be just the normalization of porn (and commercial movies in general, which have become more explicit, although this tendency might be receding lately), creating an artificial demand for something that wasn't really needed or thought about before.

    Now many people want to try fetishes or threesomes or other things, erroneously thinking that they would make them happier, things that, two or three generations ago, only weird people such as those in Hollywood would be doing, and very few thought of as "normal behaviour".

    , @Dutch Boy
    @Bardon Kaldian

    They likely rated intelligence as more important than physical beauty (as do I).

  31. @Mark G.
    @dfordoom


    The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real.
     
    That idea probably comes from the acceptance of homosexuality, as you mention, plus decriminalization of prostitution and easier access to porn because of the internet. A.E. has produced information here previously, though, showing young people are having less actual sex.

    New York City just decided not to arrest prostitutes but to still arrest customers. This is sometimes called the Nordic model. The underlying premise here is that the men are exploiting the women so only the men are doing something wrong. According to this view, women never manipulate or exploit men. Anyone who thinks this is pretty naive about women but this is what modern day feminism wants us to accept.

    The manosphere blogger Roissy once said the actual goal of modern day feminism is to provide maximum sexual freedom for women while restricting it for men. I didn't agree with a lot of what he said but he was probably right here. Women at work can still be sexually aggressive but it has become more dangerous for men to act like that in recent years. Women can sleep around and no male should disapprove but if she gets pregnant from some bad boy loser the males who weren't supposed to disapprove of her promiscuity are then supposed to pay taxes to provide economic support for the child via welfare benefits. Women can be prostitutes and not get arrested but their male customers will still be arrested.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  32. @Bardon Kaldian
    By the way, I've noticed one thing: top modern scientists, Nobel prize rank, are generally monogamous & their wives are not that great looking. Usually, wives are colleagues or work in a similar academic discipline. And they seem happy. I haven't heard any gossip about cheating, weird sex or anything similar.

    Even those scientists who become famous, like Sean Carroll- in my opinion, a handsome man- have wives who are, well, physically, re attractiveness, "below them".

    It looks like when you have a creative, fulfilled life, a wife/husband you love, or at least you're used to- you just don't have time or interest to bother with threesomes, cheating or open relationships.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Dutch Boy

    A lot of it could be just the normalization of porn (and commercial movies in general, which have become more explicit, although this tendency might be receding lately), creating an artificial demand for something that wasn’t really needed or thought about before.

    Now many people want to try fetishes or threesomes or other things, erroneously thinking that they would make them happier, things that, two or three generations ago, only weird people such as those in Hollywood would be doing, and very few thought of as “normal behaviour”.

  33. A lot of it could be just the normalization of porn

    Smartphone cameras have done a lot to turn Gals who would rather not work,
    or can’t since the pandemic locked up many businesses,
    into private porn stars who can do their filming/videoing….

    Used to be 2 legal places to film porn in the USA, now it can be done anywhere
    there is enough light……
    No high priced equipment needed (smartphone costs high depending on your view)….

  34. @Bardon Kaldian
    By the way, I've noticed one thing: top modern scientists, Nobel prize rank, are generally monogamous & their wives are not that great looking. Usually, wives are colleagues or work in a similar academic discipline. And they seem happy. I haven't heard any gossip about cheating, weird sex or anything similar.

    Even those scientists who become famous, like Sean Carroll- in my opinion, a handsome man- have wives who are, well, physically, re attractiveness, "below them".

    It looks like when you have a creative, fulfilled life, a wife/husband you love, or at least you're used to- you just don't have time or interest to bother with threesomes, cheating or open relationships.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Dutch Boy

    They likely rated intelligence as more important than physical beauty (as do I).

  35. The real bottom line here is that societies that abound in patriarchal, fecund males are anathema to the economic oligarchs. Those guys have families to support and demand wages commensurate with that need. Destroy that family structure and that need and those demands wither and the swag ends up with the oligarchs. Of course, you can compound that by sending productive capacity to cheap labor venues overseas and importing a serf class, which makes family formation increasingly difficult.

  36. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.
     
    I would kind of go along with that.

    As long as most people get married and have children it isn't really worth worrying about the minority who don't conform to the rules. They can be safely ignored, and in my view it's best to leave them alone. If you have a society in which the majority of people abandon monogamy then you do definitely have a problem.

    I'm not convinced that we have such a situation. Monogamy seems still to be the norm. Not necessarily marriage but monogamy in some form.

    Our real problem is that so many people are getting married and are remaining monogamous, but they're not having children. That's a problem with multiple causes but I don't think it has anything at all to do with a rising tide of libertinism.

    And as I said in my earlier comment, I don't think there is a rising tide of libertinism. Quite the reverse.

    The trans thing is interesting. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, much of the trans mania actually seems to be driven by avoidance of sex. If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life that doesn't sound like libertinism. That sounds like a twisted form of puritanism. It sounds like a phobia of sex.

    The high tide of modern sexual libertinism was the 1970s. The tide of libertinism has been receding ever since.

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It's a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    I'm not advocating for libertinism (and I'm certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @TomSchmidt, @anon, @winter

    Here we stop to recall that classic 80s game “Leisure Suit Larry in the land of the Lounge Lizards.” Based, of course, on the 70s libertinism.

    AIDS pretty well put the kibosh on that, if herpes didn’t.

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    @TomSchmidt

    But of course, AIDS didn’t have to put the kibosh on heterosexual libertinism, since purely heterosexual transmission was all but nil. But the propagandists made sure it did.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  37. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.
     
    I would kind of go along with that.

    As long as most people get married and have children it isn't really worth worrying about the minority who don't conform to the rules. They can be safely ignored, and in my view it's best to leave them alone. If you have a society in which the majority of people abandon monogamy then you do definitely have a problem.

    I'm not convinced that we have such a situation. Monogamy seems still to be the norm. Not necessarily marriage but monogamy in some form.

    Our real problem is that so many people are getting married and are remaining monogamous, but they're not having children. That's a problem with multiple causes but I don't think it has anything at all to do with a rising tide of libertinism.

    And as I said in my earlier comment, I don't think there is a rising tide of libertinism. Quite the reverse.

    The trans thing is interesting. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, much of the trans mania actually seems to be driven by avoidance of sex. If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life that doesn't sound like libertinism. That sounds like a twisted form of puritanism. It sounds like a phobia of sex.

    The high tide of modern sexual libertinism was the 1970s. The tide of libertinism has been receding ever since.

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It's a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    I'm not advocating for libertinism (and I'm certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @TomSchmidt, @anon, @winter

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It’s a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    lol. Which of the many forms of puritanism in human history are you ignorantly referring to?

  38. anon[371] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    I find it strange that overflow of info is not matched by an attempt to understand & evaluate all this stuff. Also, too much parochialism & subjectivity.

    * The modern affluent world is, sexually, the most monogamous & moral of all epochs. One should not go to ancient Babylonia- the 18th C Russian orgies, as depicted in some memoirs & histories are enough.

    * sexuality aside- did we physiologically, not just culturally, evolve in a short span of existing human civilization, which is around 5,000 years? Having in mind that Caucasians, as a separate race, appeared 30,000 to 80,000 years ago, and African Negroes are attested ca. 8,000 to 12,000 years ago (physical anthropology)- did people change in some non-negligible way in the past, say, 3,000-4,000 years? Mind, European are, generally, 10 to 15 cm taller than just 300 years ago. What about mental & emotional processes?

    *  women, freedom,... are not older than 150 years. Of course, things have changed over centuries, but no one thought that women should be (or are even potentially) equal to men. From Aristotle to Kant and Nietzsche to George Eliot to Freud.

    Woman was, perhaps, a mystery for Freud, but Montaigne could have been closer to the truth that there was not a mystery at all. Due to their anatomy & physiology, women are almost completely governed by their reproductive role. Of course they have their education, financial independence, work outside home, ... but, most of them are not happy. During the 18th & the 19th C, men thought- dump arranged marriages, give them freedom of choice plus education & they will find their soulmate & be happy. It turned out to be wrong.

    As someone said- why are there no female Mozarts? Because there are no female serial killers. Wars & similar conflicts stem from male type of sexuality, as Einstein had observed during WW1.

    * I've read somewhere that when some US state (Oregon?) dropped no fault divorce, the divorce rate- women initiate ca. 70% of divorces- plummeted by at least 50%. So, change the laws ...

    * over-sexualization in the media, everywhere, is obvious & detrimental. When I think of it, the most productive & important people in past 200 years (that's modernity) have been almost asexual, or have led sexually conventional life. Whatever one thinks of Bill Gates- and he is extremely smart, apart from his fortune, I've read a few of his reviews on the Goodreads- a superb mind -is anything but a sexual dynamo. I've read numerous biographies of truly great people who lived after 1850, i.e. modern times- and their sex lives were either conventional or almost non-existent. The greatest "sin" was to have an affair or two during a 40 years long marriage period.  

    So, heightened interest in sexuality- obscenity- fetishes- porn ... is, statistically, good to keep masses busy with basically trivial stuff which is a natural part of life, but they become central, a man or a woman is a slave to it.

    Female promiscuity is the key to it all. They couldn't do it earlier as they, probably, wished- but now they can. Combine this with their lack of orientation, unrealistic expectations from life, huge overestimate of themselves, childlessness or drastic drop in fertility, pliability to media manipulation, worship of celebrity culture, ...

    As a wise woman once told me: Men should love their women. Women should respect their men. This is the key to happy marriage.

    Replies: @anon

    * I’ve read somewhere that when some US state (Oregon?) dropped no fault divorce, the divorce rate- women initiate ca. 70% of divorces- plummeted by at least 50%.

    lol.

    I’ve read somewhere that LSD is still popular in some central Euro countries, for sure you can confirm.

    So, change the laws …

    I can’t decide which book written over the last 30 years to point to, so I’ll just marvel at the combination of ignorance with insouciance.

    tl;dr
    “False” and “Not possible”.

    As a wise woman once told me: Men should love their women. Women should respect their men

    Paraphrase of Ephesians 5:33

    smh

  39. If I was to go on my Facebook today and be honest about who I am attracted to…. conventionally attractive women, mostly younger than me, not obese etc I think I would get a lot of negative feedback. Some would shame me, others might delete me.

    Now if I was to lie and say that I was gay, transexual etc I think I would get much love and support. There is something really wrong about this. Biologically normal preferences are shamed while deviant choices are praised.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @songbird
    @Jay Fink

    The people most likely to spread HIV seem to be celebrated in proportion to their likelihood of having HIV.

    , @TomSchmidt
    @Jay Fink

    That, sir, is a fitness test. aKa shit test.

    If you cannot stand up to her mockery, how will you stand up to a charging bear?

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

  40. @Jay Fink
    If I was to go on my Facebook today and be honest about who I am attracted to.... conventionally attractive women, mostly younger than me, not obese etc I think I would get a lot of negative feedback. Some would shame me, others might delete me.

    Now if I was to lie and say that I was gay, transexual etc I think I would get much love and support. There is something really wrong about this. Biologically normal preferences are shamed while deviant choices are praised.

    Replies: @songbird, @TomSchmidt

    The people most likely to spread HIV seem to be celebrated in proportion to their likelihood of having HIV.

  41. @Chrisnonymous
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I participated in one without the approval of her husband. I recommend against that. There were no corporeal consequences, but the psychological (and spiritual?) consequences made it not worth it.

    Sex is so messy. Making out with that woman was the most erotic experience I have ever had. The initial attraction was totally magnetic in a way I have never experienced with anyone else, and mutual. In the end, though, it was horrible. Now, would I take it back if I could? I don't know. Sex is so messy.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    I participated in one without the approval of her husband.

    That was your first mistake.

    Sex is so messy.

    Well, yeah, bodily fluids and stuff.

    Oh, and emotions. Unpredictable emotions. I discovered that I would develop attachments without trying, and sometimes I had a harder time moving on than the women. Maybe that is one of the reasons I am happy to be married.

    Screwing around is an emotional roller-coaster, and men have feelings too.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Resartus
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Screwing around is an emotional roller-coaster, and men have feelings too.
     
    In the 1890s, the medical community designated a female physical illness "Hysteria" (was actually just a female being horny)...
    Cure (as if something like that could be cured), was diddling the patient off in the drs office....
    Not hard to see where Drs and Patient sexual relations came from.....
  42. @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom

    Here we stop to recall that classic 80s game "Leisure Suit Larry in the land of the Lounge Lizards." Based, of course, on the 70s libertinism.

    AIDS pretty well put the kibosh on that, if herpes didn't.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy

    But of course, AIDS didn’t have to put the kibosh on heterosexual libertinism, since purely heterosexual transmission was all but nil. But the propagandists made sure it did.

    • Agree: dfordoom, Jay Fink
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    It seems the primary vector in Africa.

    But, yes: just as in slasher movies where the virgin survives and the sexually playful get killed off, so the culture dictated in the early 80s.

    People forget herpes because AIDS was much scarier.

  43. @songbird
    @Nodwink

    Remarkable. I would have expected Australia to be similar to America in its mores.

    Perhaps, it has something to do with the population of Australia being less spread out. (the rural district being less habitable), so greater urban domination. Or perhaps it is tied to the transportation of criminals, or the fact that there wasn't a big population of blacks.

    It's a similar surprise to consider the lower drinking age.

    German TV was the same last time I saw it, or even worse, after a certain hour.

    American mores regarding television have always struck me as very strange. Sex is absolutely trivialized to the limit of anything that isn't outright porn. It is like they went through every loophole in the process of subversion, they even have pushed at showing more of naked men, but they shy away from showing what the Minoans would have thought normal.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Remarkable. I would have expected Australia to be similar to America in its mores.

    We don’t have America’s legacy of Puritanism. We were lucky enough not to get Puritan settlers. We got convicts which in retrospect was a much better deal.

    Australia has always been a very very secular society.

  44. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It’s a rejection of perfectly normal desires.
     
    This point admittedly has little purchase on my imagination, but it is probably true.

    I’m not advocating for libertinism (and I’m certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.
     
    I don't know quite what to say to this. It's probably another sound point.

    Maybe because I now have two marrying-age children with three more soon to arrive at that stage, I find the whole mess rather disturbing.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Maybe because I now have two marrying-age children with three more soon to arrive at that stage, I find the whole mess rather disturbing.

    I understand that. It’s perfectly natural to hope that one’s own kids will get married and have kids of their own. On balance that’s still the most likely recipe for a happy fulfilled life.

    And I want to emphasise that I’m not arguing that everything is hunky-dory and that our modern society is healthy and there’s nothing to worry about. Our modern society is very very unhealthy.

    But the real problem is that completely normal heterosexual desires and completely normal heterosexual behaviours are now seen as problematic. Completely normal heterosexual behaviours have been pathologised. Such normal behaviours are now seen as wrong and oppressive.

    A big part of the problem is of course feminism. Back in the 90s when the anti-sex feminists lost the Feminist Sex Wars we thought we wouldn’t have to worry about those crazies any more. But we were wrong. The anti-sex feminists have made a major comeback. They’re as crazy as ever and they’re as aggressive as ever.

    I’d be more worried about the de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality than about a largely imaginary libertinism.

    The de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality is a fundamental attack on the foundation of any sane healthy society.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    I think that you have a sound point in there somewhere. I am not incisive enough to unpack your comments and identify the point's application precisely, but won't say that you're pointed in the wrong direction. You probably aren't.

    Being a heritage American, I may just be too myopic regarding Puritanism to place it in its proper context. Puritanism is woven too tightly into traditional Americanism for the likes of me to unravel.

    , @SFG
    @dfordoom

    I'd agree.

    I'll respond to Ovelund's comment below because your comment is needed context.

    Old Puritanism, Cotton Mather and the like, onto about the sexual revolution, basically fit in a Christian framework. Now sure it was 'purer' not to have sex at all, but most Christian denominations were smart enough to realize their continuation required on people pairing off and forming families. (The ones that didn't, like the Shakers, died out.)

    Modern Puritanism is directed entirely at heterosexual male desire. Now in the old days, it was clear what to do if you got a girl 'in the family way'--you 'manned up' and married her. But now that would involve marriage, which feminists are (more or less) against, and childbearing, which again, feminists are (definitely) against.

    You've got the confluence of preexisting American Puritanism superimposed on a feminist movement composed of lesbians who hate the male gaze, and 'independent women' who want to live like men.

    It's an interesting question what happened to the 'sex-positive' branch of the feminist movement. Seems like at worst you'd have women with a few more notches in their bedpost before marriage (women wind up wanting kids eventually) and a drop in the birth rate and maybe some more birth defects from STDs. My best guess, from looking for feminists criticizing it, is that 1. lots of guys were accusing women of not being 'sex positive' to get them to sleep with them 2. the rise of porn meant men were asking women for increasingly nasty things like coming on their faces and choking (the last of which there is NO way to do safely, and I was (peripherally) in the kink scene). 3. men wanted to have sex without commitment, and the women didn't have a way to complain about that because having sex without commitment was supposed to be the goal. So they started turning everything into sexual harassment (and don't forget kids are more and more isolated and get less and less offscreen interaction these days).

    I have absolutely no idea how to test this incredibly complicated hypothesis.

    (Maybe as someone who's not a heritage American, but sympathetic to them, I have just enough distance to figure that out? Who knows?)

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @anon

  45. Bardon Kaldian: “Due to their anatomy & physiology, women are almost completely governed by their reproductive role.”

    Used to be, but not anymore.

    Bardon Kaldian: “Female promiscuity is the key to it all.”

    Yep. Female promiscuity wouldn’t be possible without scientific birth control and abortion. Women were liberated from enslavement to men through technology. Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    Bardon Kaldian: “When I think of it, the most productive & important people in past 200 years (that’s modernity) have been almost asexual, or have led sexually conventional life. … By the way, I’ve noticed one thing: top modern scientists, Nobel prize rank, are generally monogamous & their wives are not that great looking.”

    Einstein and Feynman were both womanizers, supposedly.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dr. Robert Morgan


    Female promiscuity wouldn’t be possible without scientific birth control and abortion. Women were liberated from enslavement to men through technology. Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.
     
    And that's a reality we have to deal with. It can't be undone.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  46. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Maybe because I now have two marrying-age children with three more soon to arrive at that stage, I find the whole mess rather disturbing.
     
    I understand that. It's perfectly natural to hope that one's own kids will get married and have kids of their own. On balance that's still the most likely recipe for a happy fulfilled life.

    And I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing that everything is hunky-dory and that our modern society is healthy and there's nothing to worry about. Our modern society is very very unhealthy.

    But the real problem is that completely normal heterosexual desires and completely normal heterosexual behaviours are now seen as problematic. Completely normal heterosexual behaviours have been pathologised. Such normal behaviours are now seen as wrong and oppressive.

    A big part of the problem is of course feminism. Back in the 90s when the anti-sex feminists lost the Feminist Sex Wars we thought we wouldn't have to worry about those crazies any more. But we were wrong. The anti-sex feminists have made a major comeback. They're as crazy as ever and they're as aggressive as ever.

    I'd be more worried about the de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality than about a largely imaginary libertinism.

    The de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality is a fundamental attack on the foundation of any sane healthy society.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @SFG

    I think that you have a sound point in there somewhere. I am not incisive enough to unpack your comments and identify the point’s application precisely, but won’t say that you’re pointed in the wrong direction. You probably aren’t.

    Being a heritage American, I may just be too myopic regarding Puritanism to place it in its proper context. Puritanism is woven too tightly into traditional Americanism for the likes of me to unravel.

  47. @Dr. Robert Morgan
    Bardon Kaldian: "Due to their anatomy & physiology, women are almost completely governed by their reproductive role."

    Used to be, but not anymore.

    Bardon Kaldian: "Female promiscuity is the key to it all."

    Yep. Female promiscuity wouldn't be possible without scientific birth control and abortion. Women were liberated from enslavement to men through technology. Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    Bardon Kaldian: "When I think of it, the most productive & important people in past 200 years (that’s modernity) have been almost asexual, or have led sexually conventional life. ... By the way, I’ve noticed one thing: top modern scientists, Nobel prize rank, are generally monogamous & their wives are not that great looking."

    Einstein and Feynman were both womanizers, supposedly.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Female promiscuity wouldn’t be possible without scientific birth control and abortion. Women were liberated from enslavement to men through technology. Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    And that’s a reality we have to deal with. It can’t be undone.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    Women's emancipation consumes itself perforce.


    Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    And that’s a reality we have to deal with. It can’t be undone.
     

     
    I do not think so. Some social developments are so intolerable, and bring such catastrophic results, that reversing them justifies any effort. This is one.

    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @dfordoom

  48. @Buzz Mohawk
    @SFG

    LOL. My wife and I have been faithful to each other since we got married twenty years ago.

    A friend of mine was a justice of the peace, and he performed our marriage on the balcony of his house, overlooking the beach. It was a small ceremony with a few friends.

    The next year, we travelled to her homeland in Transylvania. There, her family's Hungarian priest, named Attila (I kid you not, Attila was his real name) performed a real, serious church wedding for us, in both the English and the Hungarian languages. Lots of friends and family there attended, and we had a big party afterward at a restaurant we rented for the occasion.

    Since all that, I really have felt that I swore an oath to God that I will be faithful to this woman.

    I do not want to piss off God.

    All of this makes me lucky.

    Replies: @SFG

    I used to be a big fan of that song back in the 90s (I listened to 80s music in the 90s as a teenager, which tells you something), and always sang ‘some guys do nothing but complain’ extra loud, occasionally pointing at myself if nobody was around.

    So I think, as with a lot of the good popular music, Rod (or his songwriter) was onto something.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @SFG

    Yes, they were onto something, but maybe some men have reasons to complain, and that is relevant to this blog entry.

    My best friend, besides my wife, has been my friend since seventh grade. He has always been fun, decent and studious. We roomed together one year in college. While I have had so much fun with women, he, as far as I can tell, has had none.

    Granted, he is rather nerdy and awkward. He is not the kind of guy women are looking for, but he is truly a good man. He has successfully performed an amazing amount of good work in his chosen career. He owns his own house, free and clear now, and he is poised for a good retirement. He loves where he lives, goes regularly on camping and river trips, and continues to be my good friend.

    He is alone. I have never known him to even have a girlfriend, but I know he is heterosexual. Remember, we were roommates, and we have known each other since seventh grade. He has had many friends, and his work put him in contact with many people, so I hope that he had some hookups along the way, but I have never asked.

    I blame the women, not my friend, for his situation. Just as we men are stereotypically accused of going for the bimbo or the hottie, so do woman typically go for the rich guy, the strong-man, or the bad-boy. My friend is a decent man you can trust and count on and talk to, not a sexy tough guy or rich (not nearly as charismatic as me, LOL) but he would have provided a better life for a wife and children than many of those other guys -- and probably better than I.

  49. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Maybe because I now have two marrying-age children with three more soon to arrive at that stage, I find the whole mess rather disturbing.
     
    I understand that. It's perfectly natural to hope that one's own kids will get married and have kids of their own. On balance that's still the most likely recipe for a happy fulfilled life.

    And I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing that everything is hunky-dory and that our modern society is healthy and there's nothing to worry about. Our modern society is very very unhealthy.

    But the real problem is that completely normal heterosexual desires and completely normal heterosexual behaviours are now seen as problematic. Completely normal heterosexual behaviours have been pathologised. Such normal behaviours are now seen as wrong and oppressive.

    A big part of the problem is of course feminism. Back in the 90s when the anti-sex feminists lost the Feminist Sex Wars we thought we wouldn't have to worry about those crazies any more. But we were wrong. The anti-sex feminists have made a major comeback. They're as crazy as ever and they're as aggressive as ever.

    I'd be more worried about the de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality than about a largely imaginary libertinism.

    The de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality is a fundamental attack on the foundation of any sane healthy society.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @SFG

    I’d agree.

    I’ll respond to Ovelund’s comment below because your comment is needed context.

    Old Puritanism, Cotton Mather and the like, onto about the sexual revolution, basically fit in a Christian framework. Now sure it was ‘purer’ not to have sex at all, but most Christian denominations were smart enough to realize their continuation required on people pairing off and forming families. (The ones that didn’t, like the Shakers, died out.)

    Modern Puritanism is directed entirely at heterosexual male desire. Now in the old days, it was clear what to do if you got a girl ‘in the family way’–you ‘manned up’ and married her. But now that would involve marriage, which feminists are (more or less) against, and childbearing, which again, feminists are (definitely) against.

    You’ve got the confluence of preexisting American Puritanism superimposed on a feminist movement composed of lesbians who hate the male gaze, and ‘independent women’ who want to live like men.

    It’s an interesting question what happened to the ‘sex-positive’ branch of the feminist movement. Seems like at worst you’d have women with a few more notches in their bedpost before marriage (women wind up wanting kids eventually) and a drop in the birth rate and maybe some more birth defects from STDs. My best guess, from looking for feminists criticizing it, is that 1. lots of guys were accusing women of not being ‘sex positive’ to get them to sleep with them 2. the rise of porn meant men were asking women for increasingly nasty things like coming on their faces and choking (the last of which there is NO way to do safely, and I was (peripherally) in the kink scene). 3. men wanted to have sex without commitment, and the women didn’t have a way to complain about that because having sex without commitment was supposed to be the goal. So they started turning everything into sexual harassment (and don’t forget kids are more and more isolated and get less and less offscreen interaction these days).

    I have absolutely no idea how to test this incredibly complicated hypothesis.

    (Maybe as someone who’s not a heritage American, but sympathetic to them, I have just enough distance to figure that out? Who knows?)

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @SFG

    "You’ve got the confluence of preexisting American Puritanism superimposed on a feminist movement composed of lesbians who hate the male gaze, and ‘independent women’ who want to live like men".

    You nailed it. I had been confused. One one hand I felt we were going back to our puritan roots. It seems like such a sex negative culture compared to when I was growing up. One example of many is that there were hit songs in the 70s that featured a woman having an orgasm (Sylvia "Pillow Talk" is one of several I can think of). You would never hear anything like that today. It would be considered over the top obscene. Another example is how mini skirts were fashionable in the 60s while today everyone would point and call a woman who wears one a slut. The sex negative feminists have had a huge victory.

    Yet on the other hand we have never been less puritan. Homosexuality is considered normal if not good. Transsexualism has become normalized etc. This anti-puritanism has extended beyond sexuality. For example drug use has become destigmatized. Even the hardest drugs are on track to be decriminalized. Today it is more taboo to judge a drug addict than to be a drug addict.

    So your description of puritanism being superimposed exclusively on male heterosexuality influenced by sex negative lesbian feminists seems spot on to me.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @anon
    @SFG

    Old Puritanism, Cotton Mather and the like, onto about the sexual revolution, basically fit in a Christian framework.

    Cotton Mather died in 1728. The sexual revo you are probably thinking of didn't get started until about 200 years later. So there's some sort of something like history between the two dates, complete with signifiant persons who did things.

    Now sure it was ‘purer’ not to have sex at all,

    The actual Puritans were not what ignorant people imagine. They were quite pro-sex, within marriage. In fact, there are cases from early Massachusetts where a wife divorced her husband for inability to provide regular sexual intercourse.

    I have absolutely no idea how to test this incredibly complicated hypothesis.

    That's because it is mental masturbation with at least one wrong premise.

    Honestly, it is difficult to have some conversations here, due to lack of knowledge and incuriosity. Just as it would be difficult to discuss Algebra with people who cannot reliably perform addition or count higher than 10...with their shoes on, anyway.

  50. Dr. Robert Morgan

    Re women’s reproductive role

    Used to be, but not anymore.

    They are. Not sociologically, but bio-psychologically. Periods, maternal instinct etc. have not vanished. Gynecology has not disappeared. The point is that women are less socially and consciously determined by their reproductive role, but subconsciously- as ever.

    Basically, women want- their man, child & family, plus some financial stability. Modern life has given them education & other stuff (good, in my view), but left them without compass about the essentials for their happiness, panderig to their animalistic & irrational amorous natures.

    Einstein and Feynman were both womanizers, supposedly.

    Feynman was a womanizer until his last, happy marriage which he spent as a faithful husband; Einstein was talked about as such during the early Weimar era, but there is no proof, even in salacious bios, that he was one. Simply, there are no women who had been, supposedly, involved with him.

    Take 200 greatest mathematicians & physicists, past 150 years, and you’ll find, erotically, uber-conventional people who, if married, were faithful husbands & family men.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Maternal instinct kicks in after birth, but has no direct bearing on mating instinct which drives the sexual act. Animals like cats will go through a period of being in heat where the female seeks a mating partner, but without any comprehension of reproduction. Then when the kittens are born the mother will spend about 6 months being totally devoted to them, until they're ready to run off and be forgotten. All of the patterns which we see in human civilization where people engage in sex with the planned intent of breeding children are the consequence of intellectual abilities that are not defined by any primal instinct. That's why it's not true to say that women have an instinct to breed. They may have an instinct to bang the poolboy and then another instinct to care for an infant that results from that act. But no singular instinct guides the entire process from A to Z.

  51. @dfordoom
    @Dr. Robert Morgan


    Female promiscuity wouldn’t be possible without scientific birth control and abortion. Women were liberated from enslavement to men through technology. Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.
     
    And that's a reality we have to deal with. It can't be undone.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Women’s emancipation consumes itself perforce.

    Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    And that’s a reality we have to deal with. It can’t be undone.

    I do not think so. Some social developments are so intolerable, and bring such catastrophic results, that reversing them justifies any effort. This is one.

    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.
     
    It's not a white gentile problem. Birth rates for every race and every ethnic group have collapsed. Even in sub-Saharan Africa birth rates are plummeting. To do something about it we need to accept that the problem has nothing to do with race.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.
     
    The point I was making is that you can't un-discover the contraceptive pill.

    Obviously human survival depends on eventually stabilising birth rates at replacement level. I don't think it can be done by coercion. Or at least it can't be done by coercion without totalitarianism.

    You have to remember that demographics is like the climate. We don't understand it and we can't predict it. We don't fully understand the reasons that birth rates have fallen so dramatically (there are quite a few suspects but there's no smoking gun). We don't know what demographic trends will do in future. The problem may solve itself naturally.

    Technology may solve the problem for us. Technology may provide ways of boosting the birth rate through such things as artificial wombs. Technology might mean that declining population won't be a problem.

    We've already become disturbingly totalitarian in the West. I certainly don't want the West to become even more totalitarian. I don't want the government telling people how many kids they should have.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123

    , @TomSchmidt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Antibiotics probably had as large an effect. The major venereal diseases were bacterial, and nasty. Once syphilis and gonorrhea were slain by Fleming, it opened up new pathways.

    That's one reason why herpes and then AIDS exploded in the 70s. Promiscuous behavior no longer constrained by bacterial infections or pregnancy provided an opportunity for viruses to spread. And spread they did.

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children.
     
    The number one problem as far as demographic collapse is concerned is that most people have absolutely no idea that there actually is a problem. My experience when talking to normies is that virtually all of them believe that the world is facing an over-population crisis. If you try to tell them that birth rates are plummeting they think you're crazy. They simply don't believe it.

    An equally big related problem is that most normies believe in climate change, so they actually think that birth rates should be reduced.

    Even among the elites I suspect that there's still a widespread belief that birth rates should be reduced, not because they want white genocide but because they still accept the over-population and climate change narratives.

    And even among right-wingers there's still widespread belief that the poor and the working class are breeding like rabbits.

    There's not much point in discussing strategies to increase fertility until you can find a way to convince people that the world really is headed for demographic collapse.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  52. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    Women's emancipation consumes itself perforce.


    Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    And that’s a reality we have to deal with. It can’t be undone.
     

     
    I do not think so. Some social developments are so intolerable, and bring such catastrophic results, that reversing them justifies any effort. This is one.

    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @dfordoom

    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.

    It’s not a white gentile problem. Birth rates for every race and every ethnic group have collapsed. Even in sub-Saharan Africa birth rates are plummeting. To do something about it we need to accept that the problem has nothing to do with race.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.

    The point I was making is that you can’t un-discover the contraceptive pill.

    Obviously human survival depends on eventually stabilising birth rates at replacement level. I don’t think it can be done by coercion. Or at least it can’t be done by coercion without totalitarianism.

    You have to remember that demographics is like the climate. We don’t understand it and we can’t predict it. We don’t fully understand the reasons that birth rates have fallen so dramatically (there are quite a few suspects but there’s no smoking gun). We don’t know what demographic trends will do in future. The problem may solve itself naturally.

    Technology may solve the problem for us. Technology may provide ways of boosting the birth rate through such things as artificial wombs. Technology might mean that declining population won’t be a problem.

    We’ve already become disturbingly totalitarian in the West. I certainly don’t want the West to become even more totalitarian. I don’t want the government telling people how many kids they should have.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    I don’t want the government telling people how many kids they should have.
     
    Neither do I, nor do I think it necessary, but what is necessary is a serious pronatal attitude with an aggressive stance. The sooner, the better.

    The point I was making is that you can’t un-discover the contraceptive pill.
     
    The point is sound.

    It’s not a white gentile problem.
     
    But my people are white gentiles, so as far as I am concerned it is precisely and only a white gentile problem.

    (I would rather not engage with Twinkie on this. I cannot do it without appearing to virtue signal regarding an east Asian friend. It should go without saying, but somehow does not, that the concept of “my people” can possess a blurry edge without ceasing to exist as a concept. Happily, no one has appointed me racial commissar.)

    Thirty years ago, I donated a little money to the relief of a natural disaster in southeast Asia. The amount I donated was so small, it would hardly meet the scriptural counsel against bragging about alms, and I hope that whoever got that money overseas, it did him a little good; but my point is that I would not consider donating a single cent now. The existential crisis of my own people takes precedence.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @A123
    @dfordoom


    You have to remember that demographics is like the climate. We don’t understand it and we can’t predict it. We don’t fully understand the reasons that birth rates have fallen so dramatically (there are quite a few suspects but there’s no smoking gun).
     
    We do not know for "certain". However, there are two problems that were created by government that can be readily reversed:

    -1- God was driven from public schools and the public square primarily by secularist lawsuits. Bringing traditional Christianity back as the favoured religion of Christian America would have huge benefits.

    Returning churches to traditional values is a side-issue. However, if the State only favours traditional values there will be rewards for abandoning bizarre new-age wokism.

    -2- Two parent families were shattered by Elite Globalist economics that eradicated earning power. MAGA one income families used to be normal. The new populist GOP can fix this disaster if it gets enough support.

    This was further exacerbated by social safety net programs that encouraged absentee fathers. These can also be eliminated or reformed.
    ____

    If the U.S. takes the obvious steps and they do not halt declining population, then we can consider additional measures.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

  53. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.
     
    It's not a white gentile problem. Birth rates for every race and every ethnic group have collapsed. Even in sub-Saharan Africa birth rates are plummeting. To do something about it we need to accept that the problem has nothing to do with race.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.
     
    The point I was making is that you can't un-discover the contraceptive pill.

    Obviously human survival depends on eventually stabilising birth rates at replacement level. I don't think it can be done by coercion. Or at least it can't be done by coercion without totalitarianism.

    You have to remember that demographics is like the climate. We don't understand it and we can't predict it. We don't fully understand the reasons that birth rates have fallen so dramatically (there are quite a few suspects but there's no smoking gun). We don't know what demographic trends will do in future. The problem may solve itself naturally.

    Technology may solve the problem for us. Technology may provide ways of boosting the birth rate through such things as artificial wombs. Technology might mean that declining population won't be a problem.

    We've already become disturbingly totalitarian in the West. I certainly don't want the West to become even more totalitarian. I don't want the government telling people how many kids they should have.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123

    I don’t want the government telling people how many kids they should have.

    Neither do I, nor do I think it necessary, but what is necessary is a serious pronatal attitude with an aggressive stance. The sooner, the better.

    The point I was making is that you can’t un-discover the contraceptive pill.

    The point is sound.

    It’s not a white gentile problem.

    But my people are white gentiles, so as far as I am concerned it is precisely and only a white gentile problem.

    (I would rather not engage with Twinkie on this. I cannot do it without appearing to virtue signal regarding an east Asian friend. It should go without saying, but somehow does not, that the concept of “my people” can possess a blurry edge without ceasing to exist as a concept. Happily, no one has appointed me racial commissar.)

    Thirty years ago, I donated a little money to the relief of a natural disaster in southeast Asia. The amount I donated was so small, it would hardly meet the scriptural counsel against bragging about alms, and I hope that whoever got that money overseas, it did him a little good; but my point is that I would not consider donating a single cent now. The existential crisis of my own people takes precedence.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @Twinkie

    Pardon. For me to raise a topic and then say, “I would rather not engage,” is bad form. Still, I would rather just state it, hear your reply if any, and let the matter rest with specific respect to the two of us, for neither of us is a fit prop for the other's morality play.

    Until 1992, the year of California's Rodney King riot, the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. I had been an antinegro racialist since the age of four (a period during which my parents raised me in an apartment in a black neighborhood), and still the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. However, by imperceptible stages between 1992 and 2006, it gradually dawned on me that my identification as a United States citizen was cynically being manipulated to replace the body of United States citizens, including me.

    One could bring the foregoing tale from 2006 up to the present day, but the tale is too obvious to need telling. Your imagination can fairly accurately fill in the gaps, but the point is that prior to about 1992, American citizenship remained a rough but not unreasonable proxy by which to identify the historic, organic, authentic, heritage American people, along with some additions. That was fine with almost all of us.

    If immigration were today cut off or throttled back to no more 50,000 annually, if this were done in good faith, if I believed the new immigration regime likely to remain stable, and if dual citizenship were outlawed, then I would happily return from racialism to citizenism, because what alternative?

    As I said, it's all very obvious. In fact, it is so obvious that it's a little humiliating, and more than a little irritating, to have to explain it over and over and over again—I don't mean to you, but to people in general.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie, @iffen

  54. @Jay Fink
    If I was to go on my Facebook today and be honest about who I am attracted to.... conventionally attractive women, mostly younger than me, not obese etc I think I would get a lot of negative feedback. Some would shame me, others might delete me.

    Now if I was to lie and say that I was gay, transexual etc I think I would get much love and support. There is something really wrong about this. Biologically normal preferences are shamed while deviant choices are praised.

    Replies: @songbird, @TomSchmidt

    That, sir, is a fitness test. aKa shit test.

    If you cannot stand up to her mockery, how will you stand up to a charging bear?

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
    @TomSchmidt

    This a common fallacy, the notion that women create BS for men as part of a drive to select the strongest mate. It's rather the opposite way around. Historically men guiding society learned to turn the female tendency to BS onto a route which sought to select for tough sons-in-law while placating the feminine tendency. But this was not the original driving force.

    Anyone who wants to test the hypothesis should run "sexual cannibalism" through search and see what comes up. In the early forms of species there was a more common practice which we still see surviving as a residue in such organisms as the black widow spider. In these cases the female will actually eat the male up after mating. The pseudo-evolutionary paradigm which some suggest would have you believe that the female black widow is trying to select for the best protector and provider when she chews the male spider down. But that's obviously absurd. How can he protect and provide for anyone if he's been eaten alive? Another whopper which gets thrown out is that the female black widow is trying to select for the best genes to pass on to her offspring by chewing up and spitting out the male spider. But again, common sense would say that males with the best sense of survival will avoid a female who practices sexual cannibalism. So this leads to a selection of the least fit mates, bot the best fit.

    Although it is true that long ago males responded to female sexual cannibalism by developing greater physical strength and this largely put an end the practice, but sexual cannibalism is still part of our primal evolutionary heritage and always will be. The female instincts are guided by much more than simply a wish to select the best protector, provider and overall genetic quality of a mate. Competition between the sexes is an independent dynamic unto itself which need not always mirror the priorities of protection, provision and genetic quality. History would be much simpler if things were so trite.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  55. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @TomSchmidt

    But of course, AIDS didn’t have to put the kibosh on heterosexual libertinism, since purely heterosexual transmission was all but nil. But the propagandists made sure it did.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    It seems the primary vector in Africa.

    But, yes: just as in slasher movies where the virgin survives and the sexually playful get killed off, so the culture dictated in the early 80s.

    People forget herpes because AIDS was much scarier.

  56. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    Women's emancipation consumes itself perforce.


    Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    And that’s a reality we have to deal with. It can’t be undone.
     

     
    I do not think so. Some social developments are so intolerable, and bring such catastrophic results, that reversing them justifies any effort. This is one.

    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @dfordoom

    Antibiotics probably had as large an effect. The major venereal diseases were bacterial, and nasty. Once syphilis and gonorrhea were slain by Fleming, it opened up new pathways.

    That’s one reason why herpes and then AIDS exploded in the 70s. Promiscuous behavior no longer constrained by bacterial infections or pregnancy provided an opportunity for viruses to spread. And spread they did.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  57. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Chrisnonymous


    I participated in one without the approval of her husband.
     
    That was your first mistake.

    Sex is so messy.
     
    Well, yeah, bodily fluids and stuff.

    Oh, and emotions. Unpredictable emotions. I discovered that I would develop attachments without trying, and sometimes I had a harder time moving on than the women. Maybe that is one of the reasons I am happy to be married.

    Screwing around is an emotional roller-coaster, and men have feelings too.

    Replies: @Resartus

    Screwing around is an emotional roller-coaster, and men have feelings too.

    In the 1890s, the medical community designated a female physical illness “Hysteria” (was actually just a female being horny)…
    Cure (as if something like that could be cured), was diddling the patient off in the drs office….
    Not hard to see where Drs and Patient sexual relations came from…..

  58. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    I don’t want the government telling people how many kids they should have.
     
    Neither do I, nor do I think it necessary, but what is necessary is a serious pronatal attitude with an aggressive stance. The sooner, the better.

    The point I was making is that you can’t un-discover the contraceptive pill.
     
    The point is sound.

    It’s not a white gentile problem.
     
    But my people are white gentiles, so as far as I am concerned it is precisely and only a white gentile problem.

    (I would rather not engage with Twinkie on this. I cannot do it without appearing to virtue signal regarding an east Asian friend. It should go without saying, but somehow does not, that the concept of “my people” can possess a blurry edge without ceasing to exist as a concept. Happily, no one has appointed me racial commissar.)

    Thirty years ago, I donated a little money to the relief of a natural disaster in southeast Asia. The amount I donated was so small, it would hardly meet the scriptural counsel against bragging about alms, and I hope that whoever got that money overseas, it did him a little good; but my point is that I would not consider donating a single cent now. The existential crisis of my own people takes precedence.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Pardon. For me to raise a topic and then say, “I would rather not engage,” is bad form. Still, I would rather just state it, hear your reply if any, and let the matter rest with specific respect to the two of us, for neither of us is a fit prop for the other’s morality play.

    [MORE]

    Until 1992, the year of California’s Rodney King riot, the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. I had been an antinegro racialist since the age of four (a period during which my parents raised me in an apartment in a black neighborhood), and still the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. However, by imperceptible stages between 1992 and 2006, it gradually dawned on me that my identification as a United States citizen was cynically being manipulated to replace the body of United States citizens, including me.

    One could bring the foregoing tale from 2006 up to the present day, but the tale is too obvious to need telling. Your imagination can fairly accurately fill in the gaps, but the point is that prior to about 1992, American citizenship remained a rough but not unreasonable proxy by which to identify the historic, organic, authentic, heritage American people, along with some additions. That was fine with almost all of us.

    If immigration were today cut off or throttled back to no more 50,000 annually, if this were done in good faith, if I believed the new immigration regime likely to remain stable, and if dual citizenship were outlawed, then I would happily return from racialism to citizenism, because what alternative?

    As I said, it’s all very obvious. In fact, it is so obvious that it’s a little humiliating, and more than a little irritating, to have to explain it over and over and over again—I don’t mean to you, but to people in general.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'm going to suppose you're north of 60, but maybe not. Citizenism seems like a stance by people like Steve Sailer, who were white in an America where we were gradually recognizing that blacks could be welcomed as citizens as well. I don't think that was unreasonable in the mid-1960s, given the generally well-dressed and respectful black civil rights marchers. There were riots before civil rights passed, but nothing like 2020 and BLM. Starting in 1965, Watts, Newark/Detroit 1967, MLK riots in 1968, and utter devastation of formerly stable areas followed.

    Anyone born past 1963 never saw that stable, all-boats-rising America. The year 1973, the year Hillary would have graduated Yale Law, is the end of that time, when wages stopped rising for the whole of society and we began our long period of ever-increasing elite wealth concentration. A high-schooler born in 1955 would have graduated in 1973 and been at the cusp of the long decline in working class wellbeing. The college student born in 1951 graduating that year would not have faced the same decline, but would have adulted into a slowly-declining society.

    I don't think it's coincidental that the three Boomer presidents were all born in 1946 and so exposed as young adults to the hopeful citizenism that grew from Civil Rights. (I consider Obama an Xer, being a 1961 baby.) Nor that they carried this sentiment to their Presidencies, continuing to pretend that the stable society of their 1950s youth would soon be the province of all, with one's slogan in 2016 implying he could make it return.

    It's possible that citizenism might have survived longer outside the major northern cities; Minnesota in the 80s was still a place where citizenism seemed possible. It does not any longer.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I didn't get to reply to you earlier about this, but since AE felicitously raised the subject again, here goes.


    Some other, mostly observably lesser civilizations have come up with their own answers to the question, but west of the Hajnal line, we had a profound answer that was compatible with our own civilization, an answer that harmonized with our people’s instinctive, inherited way of being.

    Marriage between one husband and one wife...
     
    I don't know how much you know about comparative sociology, but, in case you haven't read much about it, I should note that throughout history "primitive" pastoralists, in general, have had much more egalitarian social structures than "civilized" agriculturalists.

    This manifested in several different ways. First, among pastoralists (often called nomads though that is misleading as they had defined grazing territories and only moved between summer and winter pastures), property accumulation was rare and leadership was earned by wisdom and/or heroic deeds rather than inherited. Though not explicitly barred by law, marriages were monogamous except for the few nobles.

    And while pastoralists excelled in war and often took over the elite strata of the settled (agricultural) societies they conquered, agriculturalists are the ones who built civilizations as we recognize them today. In other words, the people of these "better" civilizations are the ones who exhibited great disparities between the wealthy and the poor, including lots of women for the former and none for the latter.

    The institutionalization of monogamy in Europe (and later to the rest of the world) wasn't because of ancient differences (on each side of the "Hajnal" line) - it had to do with the spread of Christianity, as were other traits of WEIRDness (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic).

    https://gript.ie/why-the-west-is-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic/

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/

    Try Henrich's book.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    One can support limited immigration (I favor a total hiatus) without being an anti-Semite. I can do it so I know others can as well.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

  59. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.
     
    It's not a white gentile problem. Birth rates for every race and every ethnic group have collapsed. Even in sub-Saharan Africa birth rates are plummeting. To do something about it we need to accept that the problem has nothing to do with race.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.
     
    The point I was making is that you can't un-discover the contraceptive pill.

    Obviously human survival depends on eventually stabilising birth rates at replacement level. I don't think it can be done by coercion. Or at least it can't be done by coercion without totalitarianism.

    You have to remember that demographics is like the climate. We don't understand it and we can't predict it. We don't fully understand the reasons that birth rates have fallen so dramatically (there are quite a few suspects but there's no smoking gun). We don't know what demographic trends will do in future. The problem may solve itself naturally.

    Technology may solve the problem for us. Technology may provide ways of boosting the birth rate through such things as artificial wombs. Technology might mean that declining population won't be a problem.

    We've already become disturbingly totalitarian in the West. I certainly don't want the West to become even more totalitarian. I don't want the government telling people how many kids they should have.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @A123

    You have to remember that demographics is like the climate. We don’t understand it and we can’t predict it. We don’t fully understand the reasons that birth rates have fallen so dramatically (there are quite a few suspects but there’s no smoking gun).

    We do not know for “certain”. However, there are two problems that were created by government that can be readily reversed:

    -1- God was driven from public schools and the public square primarily by secularist lawsuits. Bringing traditional Christianity back as the favoured religion of Christian America would have huge benefits.

    Returning churches to traditional values is a side-issue. However, if the State only favours traditional values there will be rewards for abandoning bizarre new-age wokism.

    -2- Two parent families were shattered by Elite Globalist economics that eradicated earning power. MAGA one income families used to be normal. The new populist GOP can fix this disaster if it gets enough support.

    This was further exacerbated by social safety net programs that encouraged absentee fathers. These can also be eliminated or reformed.
    ____

    If the U.S. takes the obvious steps and they do not halt declining population, then we can consider additional measures.

    PEACE 😇

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @A123


    We do not know for “certain”. However, there are two problems that were created by government that can be readily reversed:

    -1- God was driven from public schools and the public square primarily by secularist lawsuits. Bringing traditional Christianity back as the favoured religion of Christian America would have huge benefits.

     

    You have to accept that modern western societies are secular societies are they're going to remain secular societies because most people want to live in secular societies.

    To solve the problems of secular societies you need secular solutions. Any proposed solution based on religion will simply alienate the secular majority.

    -2- Two parent families were shattered by Elite Globalist economics that eradicated earning power. MAGA one income families used to be normal.
     
    That part I agree with.

    The new populist GOP can fix this disaster if it gets enough support.
     
    The new populist GOP exists mostly in your imagination.

    Replies: @A123

  60. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Civilizational patterns are important, and the most important among them is the pattern of marriage and the family. Many among us will stray from the pattern, of course. We can allow for straying. We always have. What we cannot allow however is a sustained attack upon the pattern itself, which is what is happening now.
     
    I would kind of go along with that.

    As long as most people get married and have children it isn't really worth worrying about the minority who don't conform to the rules. They can be safely ignored, and in my view it's best to leave them alone. If you have a society in which the majority of people abandon monogamy then you do definitely have a problem.

    I'm not convinced that we have such a situation. Monogamy seems still to be the norm. Not necessarily marriage but monogamy in some form.

    Our real problem is that so many people are getting married and are remaining monogamous, but they're not having children. That's a problem with multiple causes but I don't think it has anything at all to do with a rising tide of libertinism.

    And as I said in my earlier comment, I don't think there is a rising tide of libertinism. Quite the reverse.

    The trans thing is interesting. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, much of the trans mania actually seems to be driven by avoidance of sex. If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life that doesn't sound like libertinism. That sounds like a twisted form of puritanism. It sounds like a phobia of sex.

    The high tide of modern sexual libertinism was the 1970s. The tide of libertinism has been receding ever since.

    It also has to be stated that puritanism is a kind of sexual perversion. It's a rejection of perfectly normal desires.

    I'm not advocating for libertinism (and I'm certainly not attacking marriage), but both libertinism and puritanism when pushed to extremes are unhealthy. The modern Anglosphere seems to be tilting, in practice if not in theory, very much in the puritan direction.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @TomSchmidt, @anon, @winter

    If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life

    it’s more complicated than that. nothing about the various surgical and hormonal procedures they do necessarily damages sexual function, apart from raising or lowering libido, unless the doctor is completely incompetent. SRS occasionally does some damage but not normally. anecdotally, from what i’ve seen of (millennial) american queers, transexuals usually have very, very (one might say obsessively) active sex lives. usually very perverse and unhealthy ones tho

    but there’s also that newer cohort of teenage girls who turn FTM from terror of womanhood rather than any kind of dysphoria; in their case you may well be right, i personally haven’t known any and don’t know.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @winter


    anecdotally, from what i’ve seen of (millennial) american queers, transexuals usually have very, very (one might say obsessively) active sex lives
     
    Possibly. If so it confirms my main point. Libertinism today is only for the LGBTwhatever crowd.

    For normal heterosexuals the reality is quite the reverse. For heterosexuals a kind of puritanism seems to be the new normal. To some extent it may be voluntary but it seems to me that to a very large extent it's being imposed by anti-heterosexual propaganda and by the de-normalisation of heterosexuality.

    Anecdotally, from the heterosexual Millennials and Zoomers I know of, they seem to be much more puritanical in practice than previous generations. And much more monogamous.
  61. Hello,

    your claim that one is horniest in one’s twenties is nonsense, and got repeated so often it is mind-boggling that you guys with your five+ sigma IQs can’t figure it out.

    My sex drive did not diminish, neither did Andy Nowicki’s. Neil Strauss started his crappy, degenerate PUA life in his early thirties.

    The commenters on the “bang curve” article are mostly imbeciles; someone there did not even want to admit that the rampant fornication and decadence of our society is bad. These guys are as shallow as it gets.

    Further, I am not responsible for being a loser, and I don’t care that you call me a loser. Like Nowicki, I accept my loser status; what I don’t accept is my lusting after status.

    Sex is a dirty and disgusting activity anyway, it is a stain. I recommend Nowicki’s “Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker” and “Notes Before Death”; I share his anti-sex views, and I’m glad when I’m dead.

    Which brings me to another problem: no one has the right to force life onto me. I was forced into this shithole because my father ejaculated into my mother’s vagina. This is a shitty reason to exist.

    I was born mentally ill, and you guys can’t even defend, let alone implement eugenics! Even Vox Day, in Darkstream 340: Life is more than suffering, around 33:05, basically supports eugenics, at least he agrees that mentally ill people should not have children.

    Then another imbecile commenter wrote about “warrior monks”: listen, idiot! Christianity is strongest outside the West, monasteries in Vietnam are bursting. The problem is that atheism has destroyed our faith; even I came to Christ only after I turned thirty. I hanged myself when I was twenty-three. Not because I could not get a date — this was of no importance to me. I wanted to be a thinker of great importance. Certainly vain, but this was the only way I could imagine living a somewhat meaningful life.

    Needless to say, I knew I lacked the intellectual horse power for this, so suicide came natural, since I saw no reason to live anyway. What’s the point? It is a shitty world, even God will create this hellhole in the end because it’s so crappy. I repeat: even God will destroy this shitty place, He won’t “fix” any of this: He’ll just discard it completely. It is beyond fixing, it had Satan jerk onto it.

    Were I not a Christian, I would kill myself even if I had thousands of Bardots lined up for me, because I don’t want that anyway. I wanted a meaningful life; now God is, in a sense, meaning, but this life is still crap. I would laugh your sex- and money-obsessed commenters in the face, and shoot my head into pieces.

    I’ll end with a few aphorisms by the great Catholic thinker and reactionary Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

    Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

    Puritanism is the attitude that befits the decent man in the world today.

    Sensuality is a cultural legacy of the ancient world.
    Societies where the Greco-Roman legacy is being wiped out, or where it does not exist, only know sentimentalism and sexuality.

    To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

    Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

    In the end, there is no area of the soul sex would not succeed in corrupting.

    When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

    The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
    Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

    The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

    It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.

    PS: See also Kierkegaard, Otto Weininger, Schopenhauer’s remarks on the demeaning nature of sex in his II. vol. of The World As Will And Representation (additions to the 4th book). It is sad to think about how low we’ve sunk if that is what passes for “educated” people nowadays. Their crude remarks about sex, their preoccupation with it and with money. And then compare that to just the few I just mentioned! What a world of difference! How brilliant and deep their views. They were fluent in Latin and Greek, of course.

    Also, those shitty commenters certainly would not dare to even mention “incel” in front of Chris Langan, who’d crush them. Why? Because he wrote this:

    “Right. As far as Germany is concerned, everyone is forever knocking the
    so-called “nazi stud farms” of the 1930’s and 40’s. But before one can
    even dream of doing this in any meaningful way, one must consider the
    alternatives available in the present reproductively degenerate
    environment … and we’re not just talking about genocidally replacing
    indigenous Europeans with maladaptive foreigners. (As I say, the situation
    here is nearly as bad. As one of the premier bouncers in New York, if not
    the best-known of all, I was nothing if not accessible to women. That I
    didn’t get any reproductive play on Eastern LI, where rich and pampered
    women abound, and that I simultaneously watched these decadent party girls
    having out-of-wedlock children by a succession of dunces, creeps, and
    minority players, is really quite informative when you come right down to
    it.) Truly, the Caucasian genome is in freefall.”

    He’s in favor of marriage, obviously.

    Comments were closed, so I write this via anon mail because I have no interest in a debate. It is worse enough that all you guys have a voice, whereas losers like myself have to endure this hellhole I was forced into without asking.

    PPS: What you wrote about ancient Rome is not true at least for its “prime”. See Friedlaender’s massive treatment “Sittengeschichte Roms”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Sexisdirtyyes

    What you wrote about ancient Rome is not true at least for its “prime”.

    Pompey married Caesar's daughter, with Caesar's blessing, when the former was in his late forties and the latter was ~17. They were the two most powerful men in Rome. Even today that would not be deemed acceptable, and it certainly wouldn't have been a generation or two ago.

  62. @SFG
    @dfordoom

    I'd agree.

    I'll respond to Ovelund's comment below because your comment is needed context.

    Old Puritanism, Cotton Mather and the like, onto about the sexual revolution, basically fit in a Christian framework. Now sure it was 'purer' not to have sex at all, but most Christian denominations were smart enough to realize their continuation required on people pairing off and forming families. (The ones that didn't, like the Shakers, died out.)

    Modern Puritanism is directed entirely at heterosexual male desire. Now in the old days, it was clear what to do if you got a girl 'in the family way'--you 'manned up' and married her. But now that would involve marriage, which feminists are (more or less) against, and childbearing, which again, feminists are (definitely) against.

    You've got the confluence of preexisting American Puritanism superimposed on a feminist movement composed of lesbians who hate the male gaze, and 'independent women' who want to live like men.

    It's an interesting question what happened to the 'sex-positive' branch of the feminist movement. Seems like at worst you'd have women with a few more notches in their bedpost before marriage (women wind up wanting kids eventually) and a drop in the birth rate and maybe some more birth defects from STDs. My best guess, from looking for feminists criticizing it, is that 1. lots of guys were accusing women of not being 'sex positive' to get them to sleep with them 2. the rise of porn meant men were asking women for increasingly nasty things like coming on their faces and choking (the last of which there is NO way to do safely, and I was (peripherally) in the kink scene). 3. men wanted to have sex without commitment, and the women didn't have a way to complain about that because having sex without commitment was supposed to be the goal. So they started turning everything into sexual harassment (and don't forget kids are more and more isolated and get less and less offscreen interaction these days).

    I have absolutely no idea how to test this incredibly complicated hypothesis.

    (Maybe as someone who's not a heritage American, but sympathetic to them, I have just enough distance to figure that out? Who knows?)

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @anon

    “You’ve got the confluence of preexisting American Puritanism superimposed on a feminist movement composed of lesbians who hate the male gaze, and ‘independent women’ who want to live like men”.

    You nailed it. I had been confused. One one hand I felt we were going back to our puritan roots. It seems like such a sex negative culture compared to when I was growing up. One example of many is that there were hit songs in the 70s that featured a woman having an orgasm (Sylvia “Pillow Talk” is one of several I can think of). You would never hear anything like that today. It would be considered over the top obscene. Another example is how mini skirts were fashionable in the 60s while today everyone would point and call a woman who wears one a slut. The sex negative feminists have had a huge victory.

    Yet on the other hand we have never been less puritan. Homosexuality is considered normal if not good. Transsexualism has become normalized etc. This anti-puritanism has extended beyond sexuality. For example drug use has become destigmatized. Even the hardest drugs are on track to be decriminalized. Today it is more taboo to judge a drug addict than to be a drug addict.

    So your description of puritanism being superimposed exclusively on male heterosexuality influenced by sex negative lesbian feminists seems spot on to me.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jay Fink


    For example drug use has become destigmatized. Even the hardest drugs are on track to be decriminalized. Today it is more taboo to judge a drug addict than to be a drug addict.
     
    And more taboo to smoke a cigarette.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

  63. @SFG
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I used to be a big fan of that song back in the 90s (I listened to 80s music in the 90s as a teenager, which tells you something), and always sang 'some guys do nothing but complain' extra loud, occasionally pointing at myself if nobody was around.

    So I think, as with a lot of the good popular music, Rod (or his songwriter) was onto something.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Yes, they were onto something, but maybe some men have reasons to complain, and that is relevant to this blog entry.

    [MORE]

    My best friend, besides my wife, has been my friend since seventh grade. He has always been fun, decent and studious. We roomed together one year in college. While I have had so much fun with women, he, as far as I can tell, has had none.

    Granted, he is rather nerdy and awkward. He is not the kind of guy women are looking for, but he is truly a good man. He has successfully performed an amazing amount of good work in his chosen career. He owns his own house, free and clear now, and he is poised for a good retirement. He loves where he lives, goes regularly on camping and river trips, and continues to be my good friend.

    He is alone. I have never known him to even have a girlfriend, but I know he is heterosexual. Remember, we were roommates, and we have known each other since seventh grade. He has had many friends, and his work put him in contact with many people, so I hope that he had some hookups along the way, but I have never asked.

    I blame the women, not my friend, for his situation. Just as we men are stereotypically accused of going for the bimbo or the hottie, so do woman typically go for the rich guy, the strong-man, or the bad-boy. My friend is a decent man you can trust and count on and talk to, not a sexy tough guy or rich (not nearly as charismatic as me, LOL) but he would have provided a better life for a wife and children than many of those other guys — and probably better than I.

  64. @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @Twinkie

    Pardon. For me to raise a topic and then say, “I would rather not engage,” is bad form. Still, I would rather just state it, hear your reply if any, and let the matter rest with specific respect to the two of us, for neither of us is a fit prop for the other's morality play.

    Until 1992, the year of California's Rodney King riot, the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. I had been an antinegro racialist since the age of four (a period during which my parents raised me in an apartment in a black neighborhood), and still the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. However, by imperceptible stages between 1992 and 2006, it gradually dawned on me that my identification as a United States citizen was cynically being manipulated to replace the body of United States citizens, including me.

    One could bring the foregoing tale from 2006 up to the present day, but the tale is too obvious to need telling. Your imagination can fairly accurately fill in the gaps, but the point is that prior to about 1992, American citizenship remained a rough but not unreasonable proxy by which to identify the historic, organic, authentic, heritage American people, along with some additions. That was fine with almost all of us.

    If immigration were today cut off or throttled back to no more 50,000 annually, if this were done in good faith, if I believed the new immigration regime likely to remain stable, and if dual citizenship were outlawed, then I would happily return from racialism to citizenism, because what alternative?

    As I said, it's all very obvious. In fact, it is so obvious that it's a little humiliating, and more than a little irritating, to have to explain it over and over and over again—I don't mean to you, but to people in general.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie, @iffen

    I’m going to suppose you’re north of 60, but maybe not. Citizenism seems like a stance by people like Steve Sailer, who were white in an America where we were gradually recognizing that blacks could be welcomed as citizens as well. I don’t think that was unreasonable in the mid-1960s, given the generally well-dressed and respectful black civil rights marchers. There were riots before civil rights passed, but nothing like 2020 and BLM. Starting in 1965, Watts, Newark/Detroit 1967, MLK riots in 1968, and utter devastation of formerly stable areas followed.

    Anyone born past 1963 never saw that stable, all-boats-rising America. The year 1973, the year Hillary would have graduated Yale Law, is the end of that time, when wages stopped rising for the whole of society and we began our long period of ever-increasing elite wealth concentration. A high-schooler born in 1955 would have graduated in 1973 and been at the cusp of the long decline in working class wellbeing. The college student born in 1951 graduating that year would not have faced the same decline, but would have adulted into a slowly-declining society.

    I don’t think it’s coincidental that the three Boomer presidents were all born in 1946 and so exposed as young adults to the hopeful citizenism that grew from Civil Rights. (I consider Obama an Xer, being a 1961 baby.) Nor that they carried this sentiment to their Presidencies, continuing to pretend that the stable society of their 1950s youth would soon be the province of all, with one’s slogan in 2016 implying he could make it return.

    It’s possible that citizenism might have survived longer outside the major northern cities; Minnesota in the 80s was still a place where citizenism seemed possible. It does not any longer.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @TomSchmidt

    You have accurately described the difference between people like me and the stereotypical "boomers" who were born earlier, but you must remember that Steve Sailer was born in 1959 and qualifies as a later boomer, or even "Gen X," like me and Obama.

    As we came of age, our country went through an energy crisis and rapid inflation, the unprecedented resignation of a president, and the beginning, as you say, of flat wages and the disappearance of the middle class.

    It has never been as easy for us to build a middle class life and own a home as it was for our parents -- or our older, "boomer" siblings. True boomers, born before us, rock-and-rolled their way into everything America had to offer at its peak. This is why I get mad whenever some dumb commenter lumps me and Steve and the others into the boomer category.

    The boomers were my older siblings. I watched them act like idiots, and learned from their mistakes, while I witnessed the beginning of my country's fall.

    You are right to put us in the same category as Generation X.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @TomSchmidt


    I’m going to suppose you’re north of 60....
     
    Close enough.

    Citizenism seems like a stance by people like Steve Sailer, who were white in an America where we were gradually recognizing that blacks could be welcomed as citizens as well.
     
    Admittedly, when I said citizenism, I was thinking of pretty much everyone except the blacks. That is, I was thinking of ethnies which, in the main, seem to be tolerably assimilable.

    I do not know why my countrymen fail to notice that 400 uninterrupted years of acculturation have not sufficed to assimilate the negro—as if trying again during the next 100 years of acculturation could possibly make a difference. Nevertheless, you are right regarding the general orientation of Sailer's age cohort.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  65. @TomSchmidt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'm going to suppose you're north of 60, but maybe not. Citizenism seems like a stance by people like Steve Sailer, who were white in an America where we were gradually recognizing that blacks could be welcomed as citizens as well. I don't think that was unreasonable in the mid-1960s, given the generally well-dressed and respectful black civil rights marchers. There were riots before civil rights passed, but nothing like 2020 and BLM. Starting in 1965, Watts, Newark/Detroit 1967, MLK riots in 1968, and utter devastation of formerly stable areas followed.

    Anyone born past 1963 never saw that stable, all-boats-rising America. The year 1973, the year Hillary would have graduated Yale Law, is the end of that time, when wages stopped rising for the whole of society and we began our long period of ever-increasing elite wealth concentration. A high-schooler born in 1955 would have graduated in 1973 and been at the cusp of the long decline in working class wellbeing. The college student born in 1951 graduating that year would not have faced the same decline, but would have adulted into a slowly-declining society.

    I don't think it's coincidental that the three Boomer presidents were all born in 1946 and so exposed as young adults to the hopeful citizenism that grew from Civil Rights. (I consider Obama an Xer, being a 1961 baby.) Nor that they carried this sentiment to their Presidencies, continuing to pretend that the stable society of their 1950s youth would soon be the province of all, with one's slogan in 2016 implying he could make it return.

    It's possible that citizenism might have survived longer outside the major northern cities; Minnesota in the 80s was still a place where citizenism seemed possible. It does not any longer.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @V. K. Ovelund

    You have accurately described the difference between people like me and the stereotypical “boomers” who were born earlier, but you must remember that Steve Sailer was born in 1959 and qualifies as a later boomer, or even “Gen X,” like me and Obama.

    As we came of age, our country went through an energy crisis and rapid inflation, the unprecedented resignation of a president, and the beginning, as you say, of flat wages and the disappearance of the middle class.

    It has never been as easy for us to build a middle class life and own a home as it was for our parents — or our older, “boomer” siblings. True boomers, born before us, rock-and-rolled their way into everything America had to offer at its peak. This is why I get mad whenever some dumb commenter lumps me and Steve and the others into the boomer category.

    The boomers were my older siblings. I watched them act like idiots, and learned from their mistakes, while I witnessed the beginning of my country’s fall.

    You are right to put us in the same category as Generation X.

    • Agree: Mark G., V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Buzz Mohawk


    This is why I get mad whenever some dumb commenter lumps me and Steve and the others into the boomer category.
     
    Yep, same here.

    The generational thing makes a lot more sense if you think in terms of ten-year birth cohorts. Those born 1926-35 are the Silents. Those born 1936-1945 are the War Babies. Those born 1946-1955 are the Baby Boomers. Those born 1956-1965 are the Oil Crisis Babies. If you were born 1966-1975 you're Gen X.

    I think that scheme maps a lot closer to reality and I think it's a better way to look at generational cultural differences as well. It distinguishes between those for whom Sinatra was the major pop culture icon, those for whom it was Elvis, those for whom it was the Beatles/acid rock/Woodstock, those for who it was glam rock, disco or punk and those for whom it was 80s dance music.

    And it definitely captures more accurately the significant events that influenced those birth cohorts - WW2, 50s prosperity, the Cold War, the JFK assassination, Vietnam, the Oil Crisis, the Decade of Greed.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  66. @Jay Fink
    @SFG

    "You’ve got the confluence of preexisting American Puritanism superimposed on a feminist movement composed of lesbians who hate the male gaze, and ‘independent women’ who want to live like men".

    You nailed it. I had been confused. One one hand I felt we were going back to our puritan roots. It seems like such a sex negative culture compared to when I was growing up. One example of many is that there were hit songs in the 70s that featured a woman having an orgasm (Sylvia "Pillow Talk" is one of several I can think of). You would never hear anything like that today. It would be considered over the top obscene. Another example is how mini skirts were fashionable in the 60s while today everyone would point and call a woman who wears one a slut. The sex negative feminists have had a huge victory.

    Yet on the other hand we have never been less puritan. Homosexuality is considered normal if not good. Transsexualism has become normalized etc. This anti-puritanism has extended beyond sexuality. For example drug use has become destigmatized. Even the hardest drugs are on track to be decriminalized. Today it is more taboo to judge a drug addict than to be a drug addict.

    So your description of puritanism being superimposed exclusively on male heterosexuality influenced by sex negative lesbian feminists seems spot on to me.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    For example drug use has become destigmatized. Even the hardest drugs are on track to be decriminalized. Today it is more taboo to judge a drug addict than to be a drug addict.

    And more taboo to smoke a cigarette.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Good point. I recently read that they are considering lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes to near zero. This would be basically prohibition. At the same time marijuana is close to being legalized nationally and states are starting to decriminalize hard drugs including meth and heroin.

    I don't smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.

    Replies: @Mark G., @dfordoom

  67. @SFG
    @Buzz Mohawk

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

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Buzz Mohawk

    Thank you for the song, BTW. My wife likes Rod Stewart. She’s brought me around. I didn’t appreciate him before. He’s good.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Quiz question: How many children does Rod the Mod have?

    , @SFG
    @Buzz Mohawk

    No prob. I was big into soft-rock stuff in my teenage years and enjoyed Rod Stewart and Phil Collins, for what that's worth. (Yes, I was into middle-aged music as a teenager. I also couldn't keep my head out of National Review and the New Republic--this back in the 90s when they were a center-left and occasionally un-PC magazine.)

    Their politics all suck, I assume, but that's pretty common with musicians. (The Simpsons had an amusing bit recently where Lisa falls in love with Morrissey's music and veganism only to find he's now a fat old meat-eating conservative. Morrissey apparently complained, saying that among other things--you guessed it--he was still a vegan.)

    It's a little odd to watch 30 years pass and see Morrissey turn into a conservative, LGBT people drive white male nerds out of Dungeons & Dragons, and heterosexuality become low-status. I'm reminded of the Bob Hope joke, “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.” That was in 1975. Perhaps 5 more years and it will be real?

  68. @TomSchmidt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I'm going to suppose you're north of 60, but maybe not. Citizenism seems like a stance by people like Steve Sailer, who were white in an America where we were gradually recognizing that blacks could be welcomed as citizens as well. I don't think that was unreasonable in the mid-1960s, given the generally well-dressed and respectful black civil rights marchers. There were riots before civil rights passed, but nothing like 2020 and BLM. Starting in 1965, Watts, Newark/Detroit 1967, MLK riots in 1968, and utter devastation of formerly stable areas followed.

    Anyone born past 1963 never saw that stable, all-boats-rising America. The year 1973, the year Hillary would have graduated Yale Law, is the end of that time, when wages stopped rising for the whole of society and we began our long period of ever-increasing elite wealth concentration. A high-schooler born in 1955 would have graduated in 1973 and been at the cusp of the long decline in working class wellbeing. The college student born in 1951 graduating that year would not have faced the same decline, but would have adulted into a slowly-declining society.

    I don't think it's coincidental that the three Boomer presidents were all born in 1946 and so exposed as young adults to the hopeful citizenism that grew from Civil Rights. (I consider Obama an Xer, being a 1961 baby.) Nor that they carried this sentiment to their Presidencies, continuing to pretend that the stable society of their 1950s youth would soon be the province of all, with one's slogan in 2016 implying he could make it return.

    It's possible that citizenism might have survived longer outside the major northern cities; Minnesota in the 80s was still a place where citizenism seemed possible. It does not any longer.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @V. K. Ovelund

    I’m going to suppose you’re north of 60….

    Close enough.

    Citizenism seems like a stance by people like Steve Sailer, who were white in an America where we were gradually recognizing that blacks could be welcomed as citizens as well.

    Admittedly, when I said citizenism, I was thinking of pretty much everyone except the blacks. That is, I was thinking of ethnies which, in the main, seem to be tolerably assimilable.

    I do not know why my countrymen fail to notice that 400 uninterrupted years of acculturation have not sufficed to assimilate the negro—as if trying again during the next 100 years of acculturation could possibly make a difference. Nevertheless, you are right regarding the general orientation of Sailer’s age cohort.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You then need to ask yourself this question: why did they believe that blacks could be freed from segregation in the 1960s?

    Those people saw blacks who were getting better on any number of measures through the 1950s. Thomas Sowell points out that blacks had a higher employment rate than white for a considerable portion of the 20th century. As a group, they were getting wealthier, better educated, and less crime-prone.

    Since the 1960s, some have continued to get wealthier, but the average progress has slowed. You might blame civil rights laws. You might blame changes in welfare that vivisected the black family. You might blame the elites who decided to import a new underclass to undercut the economic functioning of blacks. Some combination of the 3?

    But it wasn't violent insurrection that won the civil rights changes for blacks. that mostly happened after, not before.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

  69. Bardon Kaldian: “The point is that women are less socially and consciously determined by their reproductive role, but subconsciously- as ever. Basically, women want- their man, child & family, plus some financial stability. Modern life has given them education & other stuff (good, in my view), but left them without compass about the essentials for their happiness, panderig to their animalistic & irrational amorous natures.”

    You have the typical, idealized view of women so common on the right. But the facts are against you. The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren’t so fond of children after all. The so-called “maternal instinct” turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all. But women are also conformist by nature, even more so than men, and so it’s reasonable to expect that changes in their behavior due to technology will be slowed down a bit by that.

    Bardon Kaldian: “Feynman was a womanizer until his last, happy marriage which he spent as a faithful husband; Einstein was talked about as such during the early Weimar era, but there is no proof, even in salacious bios, that he was one.”

    Feynman seems to have regarded himself as quite a whoremaster and cocksman, someone well-studied in the art of seduction.

    https://www.wildtanuki.com/richard-feynman-getting-girls-japan-titty-bars/

    The thrice married Feynman had a good attitude towards women, and in fact his third wife, at least according to wiki, was a shiksa he paid to be a live-in consort before he married her. Whether he really changed his ways or not after that seems to me improbable, but of course you’re free to make any assumption you like.

    As for Einstein, Zackheim quotes extensively from his correspondence and court records, some of it cited here:

    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2013/11/04/was-einstein-a-wife-beater-womanizer-plagiarizer-and-eugenicist-part-i/

    LOL. That guy was getting more pussy than Frank Sinatra!

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Dr. Robert Morgan


    You have the typical, idealized view of women so common on the right. But the facts are against you. The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren’t so fond of children after all. The so-called “maternal instinct” turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all. But women are also conformist by nature, even more so than men, and so it’s reasonable to expect that changes in their behavior due to technology will be slowed down a bit by that.
     
    No. It is the same with all women in the industrialized countries, from North America, via Europe to east Asia. Women crave family & their exclusive man, but even those not infested by feminism (Asia, eastern Europe) have low fertility rates due to social-economic changes & ecology. The US case is much deadlier, because a strong feminist & anti-white male ideology has done much to undermine everything. But, you mixed at least a few things:

    1. modern way of life- women working & not having enough kids

    2. exploitative nature of corporate capitalism which results in lower fertility for WW- unlike social measures in Hungary & Czechia & a few other countries, which purposefully finance fertility of the dominant national population

    3. no anti-male rhetoric in Poland, Russia etc. Not in Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina....

    4. maternal instinct is alive & well as ever, the best shown in sociological investigations across the 1st world. Just, women don't have social-economic conditions to give birth as much as earlier.

    Of course, one should differentiate between cultures- Norway is not Spain, Russia is not Canada, Italy is not Austria.


    Feynman seems to have regarded himself as quite a whoremaster and cocksman, someone well-studied in the art of seduction.

    https://www.wildtanuki.com/richard-feynman-getting-girls-japan-titty-bars/

    The thrice married Feynman had a good attitude towards women, and in fact his third wife, at least according to wiki, was a shiksa he paid to be a live-in consort before he married her. Whether he really changed his ways or not after that seems to me improbable, but of course you’re free to make any assumption you like.
     

    Feynman's first wife was his school sweetheart, whom he married knowing she had been dying from TBC. That was a tragic story of love commitment. After her death he was lost & wandered through strip clubs, started drinking etc. His 2nd marriage failed because he was absent- his wife dumped him because he didn't initiate any kind of intimacy with her, but was just obsessively calculating (she also suspected he was a Communist spy). Feynman finally found happiness in a marriage with an Englishwoman, had one son with her and adopted a daughter, and remained faithful to her until his death.

    Einstein was living a "lively2 life in the 1920s, but never cheated his 2nd wife (his cousin, a Jewish incestuous thing). He was a popular, legendary figure & surrounded by protective secretaries, and seems to have had a platonic love relation with some, potentially, Russian spy Olga, a few years before his death. But, having in mind he was in his 60s & 70s while in the US - no need to comment.

    He also didn't cheat on his first wife, even after their marriage collapsed.

    Replies: @Adûnâi, @SFG

    , @dfordoom
    @Dr. Robert Morgan


    The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren’t so fond of children after all. The so-called “maternal instinct” turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all.
     
    Yep.

    As demonstrated by their actual behaviour most women want one child and many don't actually want any children at all. And I suspect that most men are fine with that.

    In the real world real people don't give a damn about society or the future of the White Race or any similar abstractions. They care about their own lives and they care about what will make their own lives more pleasant.

    And those who want children believe that it's better to have just one because that will be most advantageous for their child.

    And people are substantially correct in making such decisions. They really are better off with one child or none. And their one child really will enjoy huge advantages because the parents can make a massive investment in that one child. They can afford to live in a nice neighbourhood and send their one child to a "good school" and they can put all their energies into getting that one child into a prestige college.

    The people who choose to have no children really do derive huge benefits from that decision.
  70. dfordoom: “The point I was making is that you can’t un-discover the contraceptive pill.”

    Sure you can. Technology can be lost. It’s happened before, and could happen again.

  71. anon[251] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    @dfordoom

    I'd agree.

    I'll respond to Ovelund's comment below because your comment is needed context.

    Old Puritanism, Cotton Mather and the like, onto about the sexual revolution, basically fit in a Christian framework. Now sure it was 'purer' not to have sex at all, but most Christian denominations were smart enough to realize their continuation required on people pairing off and forming families. (The ones that didn't, like the Shakers, died out.)

    Modern Puritanism is directed entirely at heterosexual male desire. Now in the old days, it was clear what to do if you got a girl 'in the family way'--you 'manned up' and married her. But now that would involve marriage, which feminists are (more or less) against, and childbearing, which again, feminists are (definitely) against.

    You've got the confluence of preexisting American Puritanism superimposed on a feminist movement composed of lesbians who hate the male gaze, and 'independent women' who want to live like men.

    It's an interesting question what happened to the 'sex-positive' branch of the feminist movement. Seems like at worst you'd have women with a few more notches in their bedpost before marriage (women wind up wanting kids eventually) and a drop in the birth rate and maybe some more birth defects from STDs. My best guess, from looking for feminists criticizing it, is that 1. lots of guys were accusing women of not being 'sex positive' to get them to sleep with them 2. the rise of porn meant men were asking women for increasingly nasty things like coming on their faces and choking (the last of which there is NO way to do safely, and I was (peripherally) in the kink scene). 3. men wanted to have sex without commitment, and the women didn't have a way to complain about that because having sex without commitment was supposed to be the goal. So they started turning everything into sexual harassment (and don't forget kids are more and more isolated and get less and less offscreen interaction these days).

    I have absolutely no idea how to test this incredibly complicated hypothesis.

    (Maybe as someone who's not a heritage American, but sympathetic to them, I have just enough distance to figure that out? Who knows?)

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @anon

    Old Puritanism, Cotton Mather and the like, onto about the sexual revolution, basically fit in a Christian framework.

    Cotton Mather died in 1728. The sexual revo you are probably thinking of didn’t get started until about 200 years later. So there’s some sort of something like history between the two dates, complete with signifiant persons who did things.

    Now sure it was ‘purer’ not to have sex at all,

    The actual Puritans were not what ignorant people imagine. They were quite pro-sex, within marriage. In fact, there are cases from early Massachusetts where a wife divorced her husband for inability to provide regular sexual intercourse.

    I have absolutely no idea how to test this incredibly complicated hypothesis.

    That’s because it is mental masturbation with at least one wrong premise.

    Honestly, it is difficult to have some conversations here, due to lack of knowledge and incuriosity. Just as it would be difficult to discuss Algebra with people who cannot reliably perform addition or count higher than 10…with their shoes on, anyway.

  72. @Buzz Mohawk
    @SFG

    Thank you for the song, BTW. My wife likes Rod Stewart. She's brought me around. I didn't appreciate him before. He's good.

    Replies: @anon, @SFG

    Quiz question: How many children does Rod the Mod have?

  73. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jay Fink


    For example drug use has become destigmatized. Even the hardest drugs are on track to be decriminalized. Today it is more taboo to judge a drug addict than to be a drug addict.
     
    And more taboo to smoke a cigarette.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    Good point. I recently read that they are considering lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes to near zero. This would be basically prohibition. At the same time marijuana is close to being legalized nationally and states are starting to decriminalize hard drugs including meth and heroin.

    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Jay Fink


    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.
     
    I just went back and re-read one of my favorite books, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. It starts with a prologue that gives an extensive description of the U.S. in 1963 before the massive changes that started in the later sixties. It occurred to me while reading it that wokism is an attempt to take the America of 1963 and turn it into the exact opposite. Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish but the use of drugs was rare and exotic so if you take the reverse of that you would have widespread drug use and more restrictions on tobacco and alcohol.

    The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them.

    Replies: @SFG, @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @Jay Fink


    Good point. I recently read that they are considering lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes to near zero. This would be basically prohibition.
     
    And the Australian government wants to ban vaping. Which is definitely Prohibition.

    At the same time marijuana is close to being legalized nationally and states are starting to decriminalize hard drugs including meth and heroin.
     
    Yes, it's selective Prohibition. Marijuana, meth and heroin are now Good Drugs. Nicotine is a Bad Drug because it's consumed by Bad People (such as working class people).

    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.
     
    Yes, that's pretty accurate.

    It's amusing that nicotine makes people more productive but it's a Bad Drug. Marijuana makes people less productive but it's a Good Drug. Basically marijuana is a Good Drug because liberals enjoy it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

  74. @V. K. Ovelund

    ... Jimmy Swaggart was disgraced for giving a street hooker $15 to take her blouse off.
     
    It's fascinating how the likes of Swaggart can be disgraced for such a pathetic, tawdry, ultimately trivial act, but a twice-divorced orange billionaire hero, dissolute but not pathetic, can become our moral leader and 45th president of the United States.

    There is no barb in the comment. It's literally fascinating. Maybe if the woman had been a high-flying fashion model and Swaggart had boldly given a $50,000 diamond instead of $15, Swaggart would be a hero, too.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @iffen, @Ian Smith, @Wency

    When you flamboyantly preach sexual purity or eternal damnation while raking in millions, you’re going to be more harshly judged for your sexual life. Everyone loathes hypocrites. So f*** Swaggart, Haggard, Zacharias, and all those other holier than thou shmucks.

  75. @Dr. Robert Morgan
    Bardon Kaldian: "The point is that women are less socially and consciously determined by their reproductive role, but subconsciously- as ever. Basically, women want- their man, child & family, plus some financial stability. Modern life has given them education & other stuff (good, in my view), but left them without compass about the essentials for their happiness, panderig to their animalistic & irrational amorous natures."

    You have the typical, idealized view of women so common on the right. But the facts are against you. The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren't so fond of children after all. The so-called "maternal instinct" turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all. But women are also conformist by nature, even more so than men, and so it's reasonable to expect that changes in their behavior due to technology will be slowed down a bit by that.

    Bardon Kaldian: "Feynman was a womanizer until his last, happy marriage which he spent as a faithful husband; Einstein was talked about as such during the early Weimar era, but there is no proof, even in salacious bios, that he was one."

    Feynman seems to have regarded himself as quite a whoremaster and cocksman, someone well-studied in the art of seduction.

    https://www.wildtanuki.com/richard-feynman-getting-girls-japan-titty-bars/

    The thrice married Feynman had a good attitude towards women, and in fact his third wife, at least according to wiki, was a shiksa he paid to be a live-in consort before he married her. Whether he really changed his ways or not after that seems to me improbable, but of course you're free to make any assumption you like.

    As for Einstein, Zackheim quotes extensively from his correspondence and court records, some of it cited here:

    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2013/11/04/was-einstein-a-wife-beater-womanizer-plagiarizer-and-eugenicist-part-i/

    LOL. That guy was getting more pussy than Frank Sinatra!

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @dfordoom

    Dr. Robert Morgan

    You have the typical, idealized view of women so common on the right. But the facts are against you. The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren’t so fond of children after all. The so-called “maternal instinct” turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all. But women are also conformist by nature, even more so than men, and so it’s reasonable to expect that changes in their behavior due to technology will be slowed down a bit by that.

    No. It is the same with all women in the industrialized countries, from North America, via Europe to east Asia. Women crave family & their exclusive man, but even those not infested by feminism (Asia, eastern Europe) have low fertility rates due to social-economic changes & ecology. The US case is much deadlier, because a strong feminist & anti-white male ideology has done much to undermine everything. But, you mixed at least a few things:

    1. modern way of life- women working & not having enough kids

    2. exploitative nature of corporate capitalism which results in lower fertility for WW- unlike social measures in Hungary & Czechia & a few other countries, which purposefully finance fertility of the dominant national population

    3. no anti-male rhetoric in Poland, Russia etc. Not in Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina….

    4. maternal instinct is alive & well as ever, the best shown in sociological investigations across the 1st world. Just, women don’t have social-economic conditions to give birth as much as earlier.

    Of course, one should differentiate between cultures- Norway is not Spain, Russia is not Canada, Italy is not Austria.

    Feynman seems to have regarded himself as quite a whoremaster and cocksman, someone well-studied in the art of seduction.

    https://www.wildtanuki.com/richard-feynman-getting-girls-japan-titty-bars/

    The thrice married Feynman had a good attitude towards women, and in fact his third wife, at least according to wiki, was a shiksa he paid to be a live-in consort before he married her. Whether he really changed his ways or not after that seems to me improbable, but of course you’re free to make any assumption you like.

    Feynman’s first wife was his school sweetheart, whom he married knowing she had been dying from TBC. That was a tragic story of love commitment. After her death he was lost & wandered through strip clubs, started drinking etc. His 2nd marriage failed because he was absent- his wife dumped him because he didn’t initiate any kind of intimacy with her, but was just obsessively calculating (she also suspected he was a Communist spy). Feynman finally found happiness in a marriage with an Englishwoman, had one son with her and adopted a daughter, and remained faithful to her until his death.

    Einstein was living a “lively2 life in the 1920s, but never cheated his 2nd wife (his cousin, a Jewish incestuous thing). He was a popular, legendary figure & surrounded by protective secretaries, and seems to have had a platonic love relation with some, potentially, Russian spy Olga, a few years before his death. But, having in mind he was in his 60s & 70s while in the US – no need to comment.

    He also didn’t cheat on his first wife, even after their marriage collapsed.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Overall, I would partially agree with Dr. Robert Morgan - women obey men. Aryan men order their women to be whores. They do.

    > "...those not infested by feminism (Asia, eastern Europe)..."

    Eastern Europe and East Asia is where feminism originated, bucko. Long before the USA developed transvestitism, there once existed the USSR and then Mao's China which explicitly pushed equal rights between the sexes. Feminism did not lead to an irreversible drop in birth rates.

    > "...have low fertility rates due to social-economic changes & ecology."

    Nonsense. The socio-economic conditions in Africa are much worse than in Eastern Europe, and yet their women have stopped having children since capitalism & Christianity destroyed the Warsaw Pact.

    > "1. modern way of life- women working & not having enough kids"
    The USSR had mandatory employment for all its women - and had no trouble keeping the birthrate up.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Сумарный_коэффициент_рождаемости_РФ_1946-2016.png

    > "unlike social measures in Hungary & Czechia & a few other countries, which purposefully finance fertility of the dominant national population"
    Poland - 1.38 (2010), 1.42 (2019).
    Czechia - 1.493 (2010), 1.709 (2019).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Czech_Republic

    > "3. no anti-male rhetoric in Poland, Russia etc. Not in Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina…."
    There are plenty of anti-domestic violence faggots in Russia.
    https://time.com/5942127/russia-domestic-violence-women/

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @SFG
    @Bardon Kaldian

    A small fraction of women do find intelligence attractive.

    It's not enough to be useful for most smart guys, but if you're literally Einstein...

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  76. @Jay Fink
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Good point. I recently read that they are considering lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes to near zero. This would be basically prohibition. At the same time marijuana is close to being legalized nationally and states are starting to decriminalize hard drugs including meth and heroin.

    I don't smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.

    Replies: @Mark G., @dfordoom

    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.

    I just went back and re-read one of my favorite books, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. It starts with a prologue that gives an extensive description of the U.S. in 1963 before the massive changes that started in the later sixties. It occurred to me while reading it that wokism is an attempt to take the America of 1963 and turn it into the exact opposite. Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish but the use of drugs was rare and exotic so if you take the reverse of that you would have widespread drug use and more restrictions on tobacco and alcohol.

    The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them.

    • Thanks: Jay Fink
    • Replies: @SFG
    @Mark G.

    Economic inequality isn't really just a woke-capital conspiracy. The USA had a very good position after WW2 where everyone else had been laid low by, well, WW2. After that you'd expect things to get relatively worse, though the way it turned out had to do with civil rights and the sexual revolution breaking up the old New Deal coalition and the conservative southerners throwing in with Big Business in the GOP. Basically, the left won the culture war and the right the economic war. Someone here said in the old Soviet bloc, it was the reverse.

    There's quite a bit of evidence, mostly from leftist authors, of course (Piketty is the most famous), that inequality just tends to rise naturally (the return on capital exceeds that to growth) as rich people buy the government until widespread protest pushes it back a little. Of course the right is even more to blame for this than the left--they kept equivocating about abortion while the businesses sent production overseas.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    , @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish
     
    And those Americans were the ones who went on to put a man on the Moon. The Apollo Program is what you get when people smoke and relax with a few martinis at the end of the day.
  77. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    Women's emancipation consumes itself perforce.


    Now they can indulge their sexual desires as much as they want, just like men, without the inconvenience of pregnancy or children.

    And that’s a reality we have to deal with. It can’t be undone.
     

     
    I do not think so. Some social developments are so intolerable, and bring such catastrophic results, that reversing them justifies any effort. This is one.

    There seems to be no apparent way “to deal with” this reality—that is, no apparent way to accommodate widespread postmodern birth-control-facilitated promiscuity—except by settling for our people to cease to exist. White Gentiles will never settle for that, not when it comes to it, not if I have anything to say about it.

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children. There exists no acceptable alternative. Like recruitment in wartime, one can volunteer to fight or be drafted to fight, but fight one must. There is no other option.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @TomSchmidt, @dfordoom

    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children.

    The number one problem as far as demographic collapse is concerned is that most people have absolutely no idea that there actually is a problem. My experience when talking to normies is that virtually all of them believe that the world is facing an over-population crisis. If you try to tell them that birth rates are plummeting they think you’re crazy. They simply don’t believe it.

    An equally big related problem is that most normies believe in climate change, so they actually think that birth rates should be reduced.

    Even among the elites I suspect that there’s still a widespread belief that birth rates should be reduced, not because they want white genocide but because they still accept the over-population and climate change narratives.

    And even among right-wingers there’s still widespread belief that the poor and the working class are breeding like rabbits.

    There’s not much point in discussing strategies to increase fertility until you can find a way to convince people that the world really is headed for demographic collapse.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom

    The number one problem as far as demographic collapse is concerned is that most people have absolutely no idea that there actually is a problem. My experience when talking to normies is that virtually all of them believe that the world is facing an over-population crisis. If you try to tell them that birth rates are plummeting they think you’re crazy. They simply don’t believe it.

    Try telling them that demographers were warning about this as early as 100 years ago if you REALLY want to blow some minds. It's not that we're going to suffer a population collapse so much as the economy is structured to sell things to new people coming along. Once you run out of young, wealthy consumers (which has happened in the West and rich East Asia, and soon China), the growth model simply ceases to function.

    I don't yell at the neighbor's kids running on my lawn: the sound of their playing is delightful to me. It's a sound threatening to disappear from too many places.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  78. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Dr. Robert Morgan


    You have the typical, idealized view of women so common on the right. But the facts are against you. The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren’t so fond of children after all. The so-called “maternal instinct” turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all. But women are also conformist by nature, even more so than men, and so it’s reasonable to expect that changes in their behavior due to technology will be slowed down a bit by that.
     
    No. It is the same with all women in the industrialized countries, from North America, via Europe to east Asia. Women crave family & their exclusive man, but even those not infested by feminism (Asia, eastern Europe) have low fertility rates due to social-economic changes & ecology. The US case is much deadlier, because a strong feminist & anti-white male ideology has done much to undermine everything. But, you mixed at least a few things:

    1. modern way of life- women working & not having enough kids

    2. exploitative nature of corporate capitalism which results in lower fertility for WW- unlike social measures in Hungary & Czechia & a few other countries, which purposefully finance fertility of the dominant national population

    3. no anti-male rhetoric in Poland, Russia etc. Not in Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina....

    4. maternal instinct is alive & well as ever, the best shown in sociological investigations across the 1st world. Just, women don't have social-economic conditions to give birth as much as earlier.

    Of course, one should differentiate between cultures- Norway is not Spain, Russia is not Canada, Italy is not Austria.


    Feynman seems to have regarded himself as quite a whoremaster and cocksman, someone well-studied in the art of seduction.

    https://www.wildtanuki.com/richard-feynman-getting-girls-japan-titty-bars/

    The thrice married Feynman had a good attitude towards women, and in fact his third wife, at least according to wiki, was a shiksa he paid to be a live-in consort before he married her. Whether he really changed his ways or not after that seems to me improbable, but of course you’re free to make any assumption you like.
     

    Feynman's first wife was his school sweetheart, whom he married knowing she had been dying from TBC. That was a tragic story of love commitment. After her death he was lost & wandered through strip clubs, started drinking etc. His 2nd marriage failed because he was absent- his wife dumped him because he didn't initiate any kind of intimacy with her, but was just obsessively calculating (she also suspected he was a Communist spy). Feynman finally found happiness in a marriage with an Englishwoman, had one son with her and adopted a daughter, and remained faithful to her until his death.

    Einstein was living a "lively2 life in the 1920s, but never cheated his 2nd wife (his cousin, a Jewish incestuous thing). He was a popular, legendary figure & surrounded by protective secretaries, and seems to have had a platonic love relation with some, potentially, Russian spy Olga, a few years before his death. But, having in mind he was in his 60s & 70s while in the US - no need to comment.

    He also didn't cheat on his first wife, even after their marriage collapsed.

    Replies: @Adûnâi, @SFG

    Overall, I would partially agree with Dr. Robert Morgan – women obey men. Aryan men order their women to be whores. They do.

    > “…those not infested by feminism (Asia, eastern Europe)…”

    Eastern Europe and East Asia is where feminism originated, bucko. Long before the USA developed transvestitism, there once existed the USSR and then Mao’s China which explicitly pushed equal rights between the sexes. Feminism did not lead to an irreversible drop in birth rates.

    > “…have low fertility rates due to social-economic changes & ecology.”

    Nonsense. The socio-economic conditions in Africa are much worse than in Eastern Europe, and yet their women have stopped having children since capitalism & Christianity destroyed the Warsaw Pact.

    > “1. modern way of life- women working & not having enough kids”
    The USSR had mandatory employment for all its women – and had no trouble keeping the birthrate up.
    > “unlike social measures in Hungary & Czechia & a few other countries, which purposefully finance fertility of the dominant national population”
    Poland – 1.38 (2010), 1.42 (2019).
    Czechia – 1.493 (2010), 1.709 (2019).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Czech_Republic

    > “3. no anti-male rhetoric in Poland, Russia etc. Not in Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina….”
    There are plenty of anti-domestic violence faggots in Russia.
    https://time.com/5942127/russia-domestic-violence-women/

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Adûnâi

    Sorry, but you're clueless. You don't know what "feminism" means. You don't know history.

    EOD

  79. @V. K. Ovelund

    ... Jimmy Swaggart was disgraced for giving a street hooker $15 to take her blouse off.
     
    It's fascinating how the likes of Swaggart can be disgraced for such a pathetic, tawdry, ultimately trivial act, but a twice-divorced orange billionaire hero, dissolute but not pathetic, can become our moral leader and 45th president of the United States.

    There is no barb in the comment. It's literally fascinating. Maybe if the woman had been a high-flying fashion model and Swaggart had boldly given a $50,000 diamond instead of $15, Swaggart would be a hero, too.

    Replies: @Not only wrathful, @iffen, @Ian Smith, @Wency

    Swaggart actually got caught twice with a prostitute. He might have been able to recover from the one time. I also think the bit about just asking her her to take her top off sounds like a possibly dubious defense.

    There’s something especially low about the act, because he can’t claim extraordinary temptation. When you hear about a powerful man (e.g. Tiger Woods) getting busted for one or more affairs, there’s often a moment of “But for the grace of God, so go I.” Because how many of us really know with certainty that no sexual temptation could be placed before us that would cause us to destroy our families?

    Yet virtually any married man can go pick up a street hooker, and yet few do so. It deserves no leniency in any position for which character is a qualification, because it unambiguously demonstrates poor character.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  80. @Buzz Mohawk
    @SFG

    Thank you for the song, BTW. My wife likes Rod Stewart. She's brought me around. I didn't appreciate him before. He's good.

    Replies: @anon, @SFG

    No prob. I was big into soft-rock stuff in my teenage years and enjoyed Rod Stewart and Phil Collins, for what that’s worth. (Yes, I was into middle-aged music as a teenager. I also couldn’t keep my head out of National Review and the New Republic–this back in the 90s when they were a center-left and occasionally un-PC magazine.)

    Their politics all suck, I assume, but that’s pretty common with musicians. (The Simpsons had an amusing bit recently where Lisa falls in love with Morrissey’s music and veganism only to find he’s now a fat old meat-eating conservative. Morrissey apparently complained, saying that among other things–you guessed it–he was still a vegan.)

    It’s a little odd to watch 30 years pass and see Morrissey turn into a conservative, LGBT people drive white male nerds out of Dungeons & Dragons, and heterosexuality become low-status. I’m reminded of the Bob Hope joke, “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.” That was in 1975. Perhaps 5 more years and it will be real?

  81. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Dr. Robert Morgan


    You have the typical, idealized view of women so common on the right. But the facts are against you. The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren’t so fond of children after all. The so-called “maternal instinct” turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all. But women are also conformist by nature, even more so than men, and so it’s reasonable to expect that changes in their behavior due to technology will be slowed down a bit by that.
     
    No. It is the same with all women in the industrialized countries, from North America, via Europe to east Asia. Women crave family & their exclusive man, but even those not infested by feminism (Asia, eastern Europe) have low fertility rates due to social-economic changes & ecology. The US case is much deadlier, because a strong feminist & anti-white male ideology has done much to undermine everything. But, you mixed at least a few things:

    1. modern way of life- women working & not having enough kids

    2. exploitative nature of corporate capitalism which results in lower fertility for WW- unlike social measures in Hungary & Czechia & a few other countries, which purposefully finance fertility of the dominant national population

    3. no anti-male rhetoric in Poland, Russia etc. Not in Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina....

    4. maternal instinct is alive & well as ever, the best shown in sociological investigations across the 1st world. Just, women don't have social-economic conditions to give birth as much as earlier.

    Of course, one should differentiate between cultures- Norway is not Spain, Russia is not Canada, Italy is not Austria.


    Feynman seems to have regarded himself as quite a whoremaster and cocksman, someone well-studied in the art of seduction.

    https://www.wildtanuki.com/richard-feynman-getting-girls-japan-titty-bars/

    The thrice married Feynman had a good attitude towards women, and in fact his third wife, at least according to wiki, was a shiksa he paid to be a live-in consort before he married her. Whether he really changed his ways or not after that seems to me improbable, but of course you’re free to make any assumption you like.
     

    Feynman's first wife was his school sweetheart, whom he married knowing she had been dying from TBC. That was a tragic story of love commitment. After her death he was lost & wandered through strip clubs, started drinking etc. His 2nd marriage failed because he was absent- his wife dumped him because he didn't initiate any kind of intimacy with her, but was just obsessively calculating (she also suspected he was a Communist spy). Feynman finally found happiness in a marriage with an Englishwoman, had one son with her and adopted a daughter, and remained faithful to her until his death.

    Einstein was living a "lively2 life in the 1920s, but never cheated his 2nd wife (his cousin, a Jewish incestuous thing). He was a popular, legendary figure & surrounded by protective secretaries, and seems to have had a platonic love relation with some, potentially, Russian spy Olga, a few years before his death. But, having in mind he was in his 60s & 70s while in the US - no need to comment.

    He also didn't cheat on his first wife, even after their marriage collapsed.

    Replies: @Adûnâi, @SFG

    A small fraction of women do find intelligence attractive.

    It’s not enough to be useful for most smart guys, but if you’re literally Einstein

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @SFG

    It is not the point of one individual, but of a culture.

    Roughly, the US is a culture of a rather comical macho posturing. In the US, real intellectuals mean virtually nothing as potential female erotic interest. Among civilized countries, I don't know about Asia, but in "real Europe"- from Paris to Petrograd- intellectuals are sexier than celebrities in American culture.
    Athletes- so-so; entertainers, musicians- yes, for most females except those with sharp mind & wit.

    Also, one should differentiate between a public intellectual & a serious scientist. Not too visible scientists can always find women for wives, because there are always (truly) educated females who want to be wives of such people (bimbos & celebrity hookers exist for social circles scientists usually despise); public intellectuals like Sartre, Camus, Heidegger (as an intellectual), ... have always had a chorus of adoring females, generally intellectualized good looking females & it depended on them what they wanted to do with their marriages & lives. Some are naturally monogamous, some not. Depends.

    Actually- it is preposterous to think that virtually all men who are mostly mentally oriented, so to speak, would even wish to bang bimbos or models or some great looking Hollywood celebrities. These are non-intersecting worlds.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

  82. @Mark G.
    @Jay Fink


    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.
     
    I just went back and re-read one of my favorite books, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. It starts with a prologue that gives an extensive description of the U.S. in 1963 before the massive changes that started in the later sixties. It occurred to me while reading it that wokism is an attempt to take the America of 1963 and turn it into the exact opposite. Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish but the use of drugs was rare and exotic so if you take the reverse of that you would have widespread drug use and more restrictions on tobacco and alcohol.

    The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them.

    Replies: @SFG, @dfordoom

    Economic inequality isn’t really just a woke-capital conspiracy. The USA had a very good position after WW2 where everyone else had been laid low by, well, WW2. After that you’d expect things to get relatively worse, though the way it turned out had to do with civil rights and the sexual revolution breaking up the old New Deal coalition and the conservative southerners throwing in with Big Business in the GOP. Basically, the left won the culture war and the right the economic war. Someone here said in the old Soviet bloc, it was the reverse.

    There’s quite a bit of evidence, mostly from leftist authors, of course (Piketty is the most famous), that inequality just tends to rise naturally (the return on capital exceeds that to growth) as rich people buy the government until widespread protest pushes it back a little. Of course the right is even more to blame for this than the left–they kept equivocating about abortion while the businesses sent production overseas.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @SFG


    Of course the right is even more to blame for this than the left–they kept equivocating about abortion while the businesses sent production overseas.
     
    The trade deficits started after 1970. Why this point instead of earlier? The late sixties combination of increased spending for welfare programs and the Vietnam war had resulted in the government deciding to increase money printing to pay for it. This was followed by increasing inflation and an outflow of gold. Nixon did not want to stop the inflation and throw the country into a recession right before the election, fearing that might cause him to lose, so he took the country out of the Bretton Woods system and severed the last link to gold.

    This enabled the country to continue on its inflationary course. Inflation caused rising prices. Wages are the price of labor so wages rose and made American workers less able to compete on the world market. Businesses may have sent production overseas and received the blame for the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs but the originating cause was the government engaging in overspending and trying to pay for it by printing up money. The role of government here is not understood by many people. They blame free market capitalism for a problem actually created by the government.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  83. @A123
    @dfordoom


    You have to remember that demographics is like the climate. We don’t understand it and we can’t predict it. We don’t fully understand the reasons that birth rates have fallen so dramatically (there are quite a few suspects but there’s no smoking gun).
     
    We do not know for "certain". However, there are two problems that were created by government that can be readily reversed:

    -1- God was driven from public schools and the public square primarily by secularist lawsuits. Bringing traditional Christianity back as the favoured religion of Christian America would have huge benefits.

    Returning churches to traditional values is a side-issue. However, if the State only favours traditional values there will be rewards for abandoning bizarre new-age wokism.

    -2- Two parent families were shattered by Elite Globalist economics that eradicated earning power. MAGA one income families used to be normal. The new populist GOP can fix this disaster if it gets enough support.

    This was further exacerbated by social safety net programs that encouraged absentee fathers. These can also be eliminated or reformed.
    ____

    If the U.S. takes the obvious steps and they do not halt declining population, then we can consider additional measures.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

    We do not know for “certain”. However, there are two problems that were created by government that can be readily reversed:

    -1- God was driven from public schools and the public square primarily by secularist lawsuits. Bringing traditional Christianity back as the favoured religion of Christian America would have huge benefits.

    You have to accept that modern western societies are secular societies are they’re going to remain secular societies because most people want to live in secular societies.

    To solve the problems of secular societies you need secular solutions. Any proposed solution based on religion will simply alienate the secular majority.

    -2- Two parent families were shattered by Elite Globalist economics that eradicated earning power. MAGA one income families used to be normal.

    That part I agree with.

    The new populist GOP can fix this disaster if it gets enough support.

    The new populist GOP exists mostly in your imagination.

    • Replies: @A123
    @dfordoom


    You have to accept that modern western societies are secular societies are they’re going to remain secular societies because most people want to live in secular societies.
     
    Most people want to live in a society where a child has a mother & a father.

    There is a difference between:

    • "Rigid" religious societies where enforcers have the power to control and punish in the name of strict dogma. These are inherently anti-modern, and it is why Muslim countries have fared so poorly.
    • "Shared Values" religious societies gain strength where common beliefs bring people together. The fact that both Churches & Synagogues teach the Ten Commandments values provides core expectations for behaviour. Belief in God also provides resilience in the face of hardship.

    One of the problems with secular society is a lack inherent cohesion. Many of the crazy factionalist problems that face the U.S. today are due to a complete lack of respect for others. Anti-Religious secularism provides no consistent touch point for all citizens.

    What is the "godless secular" solution for training youth in common, shared beliefs required for national survival, such as Patriotism?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

  84. @winter
    @dfordoom


    If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life

     

    it's more complicated than that. nothing about the various surgical and hormonal procedures they do necessarily damages sexual function, apart from raising or lowering libido, unless the doctor is completely incompetent. SRS occasionally does some damage but not normally. anecdotally, from what i've seen of (millennial) american queers, transexuals usually have very, very (one might say obsessively) active sex lives. usually very perverse and unhealthy ones tho

    but there's also that newer cohort of teenage girls who turn FTM from terror of womanhood rather than any kind of dysphoria; in their case you may well be right, i personally haven't known any and don't know.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    anecdotally, from what i’ve seen of (millennial) american queers, transexuals usually have very, very (one might say obsessively) active sex lives

    Possibly. If so it confirms my main point. Libertinism today is only for the LGBTwhatever crowd.

    For normal heterosexuals the reality is quite the reverse. For heterosexuals a kind of puritanism seems to be the new normal. To some extent it may be voluntary but it seems to me that to a very large extent it’s being imposed by anti-heterosexual propaganda and by the de-normalisation of heterosexuality.

    Anecdotally, from the heterosexual Millennials and Zoomers I know of, they seem to be much more puritanical in practice than previous generations. And much more monogamous.

  85. @dfordoom
    @A123


    We do not know for “certain”. However, there are two problems that were created by government that can be readily reversed:

    -1- God was driven from public schools and the public square primarily by secularist lawsuits. Bringing traditional Christianity back as the favoured religion of Christian America would have huge benefits.

     

    You have to accept that modern western societies are secular societies are they're going to remain secular societies because most people want to live in secular societies.

    To solve the problems of secular societies you need secular solutions. Any proposed solution based on religion will simply alienate the secular majority.

    -2- Two parent families were shattered by Elite Globalist economics that eradicated earning power. MAGA one income families used to be normal.
     
    That part I agree with.

    The new populist GOP can fix this disaster if it gets enough support.
     
    The new populist GOP exists mostly in your imagination.

    Replies: @A123

    You have to accept that modern western societies are secular societies are they’re going to remain secular societies because most people want to live in secular societies.

    Most people want to live in a society where a child has a mother & a father.

    There is a difference between:

    • “Rigid” religious societies where enforcers have the power to control and punish in the name of strict dogma. These are inherently anti-modern, and it is why Muslim countries have fared so poorly.
    • “Shared Values” religious societies gain strength where common beliefs bring people together. The fact that both Churches & Synagogues teach the Ten Commandments values provides core expectations for behaviour. Belief in God also provides resilience in the face of hardship.

    One of the problems with secular society is a lack inherent cohesion. Many of the crazy factionalist problems that face the U.S. today are due to a complete lack of respect for others. Anti-Religious secularism provides no consistent touch point for all citizens.

    What is the “godless secular” solution for training youth in common, shared beliefs required for national survival, such as Patriotism?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @A123

    The reality that you're still refusing to face is that we have a secular society. The fact that you disapprove of that reality doesn't change it. Reality is like that. It doesn't care whether you approve of it or not.

    We have a secular society and we have to learn to live with it. Wishing and hoping that Christianity will stage a comeback isn't going to achieve anything.

    Replies: @A123

  86. @Buzz Mohawk
    @TomSchmidt

    You have accurately described the difference between people like me and the stereotypical "boomers" who were born earlier, but you must remember that Steve Sailer was born in 1959 and qualifies as a later boomer, or even "Gen X," like me and Obama.

    As we came of age, our country went through an energy crisis and rapid inflation, the unprecedented resignation of a president, and the beginning, as you say, of flat wages and the disappearance of the middle class.

    It has never been as easy for us to build a middle class life and own a home as it was for our parents -- or our older, "boomer" siblings. True boomers, born before us, rock-and-rolled their way into everything America had to offer at its peak. This is why I get mad whenever some dumb commenter lumps me and Steve and the others into the boomer category.

    The boomers were my older siblings. I watched them act like idiots, and learned from their mistakes, while I witnessed the beginning of my country's fall.

    You are right to put us in the same category as Generation X.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    This is why I get mad whenever some dumb commenter lumps me and Steve and the others into the boomer category.

    Yep, same here.

    The generational thing makes a lot more sense if you think in terms of ten-year birth cohorts. Those born 1926-35 are the Silents. Those born 1936-1945 are the War Babies. Those born 1946-1955 are the Baby Boomers. Those born 1956-1965 are the Oil Crisis Babies. If you were born 1966-1975 you’re Gen X.

    I think that scheme maps a lot closer to reality and I think it’s a better way to look at generational cultural differences as well. It distinguishes between those for whom Sinatra was the major pop culture icon, those for whom it was Elvis, those for whom it was the Beatles/acid rock/Woodstock, those for who it was glam rock, disco or punk and those for whom it was 80s dance music.

    And it definitely captures more accurately the significant events that influenced those birth cohorts – WW2, 50s prosperity, the Cold War, the JFK assassination, Vietnam, the Oil Crisis, the Decade of Greed.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom

    I think we know exactly when the Baby Boom ended: November 22, 1963, and not the death of Aldous Huxley. 1964 was the last year of the nominal boom, and I would love to see the birth numbers for that year, month by month. My guess: September-December, or children conceived after Dallas, are much fewer than children before. If you look at a graph of births, the dropoff to 1965 from 1964 is severe, and my guess is reflects the lack of optimism in the future.

    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.

    But grouping mid-50s kids with kids from 65 crosses this boundary. A child born in 1956 would have spent its youth in the optimistic, growing phase of the USA, where things got better, year after year. Its high school (1974) and college (1978) years would have dropped it as an adult into a collapsing society, but would not have colored the halcyon days of youth.

    Strauss and Howe identify Boomers as 1943-1960. The leading edge of that group profited immensely by getting to things before the crush, and the tail end turned 13 before 1973 finished, so its youth up to 13 was pretty good. A good shorthand: a boomer is too young to remember WW2, and old enough to remember Kennedy getting shot.

    Interestingly, Biden saved the Silents, who looked to be the only generation under Strauss and Howe never to supply a President.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  87. @SFG
    @Mark G.

    Economic inequality isn't really just a woke-capital conspiracy. The USA had a very good position after WW2 where everyone else had been laid low by, well, WW2. After that you'd expect things to get relatively worse, though the way it turned out had to do with civil rights and the sexual revolution breaking up the old New Deal coalition and the conservative southerners throwing in with Big Business in the GOP. Basically, the left won the culture war and the right the economic war. Someone here said in the old Soviet bloc, it was the reverse.

    There's quite a bit of evidence, mostly from leftist authors, of course (Piketty is the most famous), that inequality just tends to rise naturally (the return on capital exceeds that to growth) as rich people buy the government until widespread protest pushes it back a little. Of course the right is even more to blame for this than the left--they kept equivocating about abortion while the businesses sent production overseas.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Of course the right is even more to blame for this than the left–they kept equivocating about abortion while the businesses sent production overseas.

    The trade deficits started after 1970. Why this point instead of earlier? The late sixties combination of increased spending for welfare programs and the Vietnam war had resulted in the government deciding to increase money printing to pay for it. This was followed by increasing inflation and an outflow of gold. Nixon did not want to stop the inflation and throw the country into a recession right before the election, fearing that might cause him to lose, so he took the country out of the Bretton Woods system and severed the last link to gold.

    This enabled the country to continue on its inflationary course. Inflation caused rising prices. Wages are the price of labor so wages rose and made American workers less able to compete on the world market. Businesses may have sent production overseas and received the blame for the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs but the originating cause was the government engaging in overspending and trying to pay for it by printing up money. The role of government here is not understood by many people. They blame free market capitalism for a problem actually created by the government.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    This enabled the country to continue on its inflationary course. Inflation caused rising prices. Wages are the price of labor so wages rose and made American workers less able to compete on the world market. Businesses may have sent production overseas and received the blame for the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs but the originating cause was the government engaging in overspending and trying to pay for it by printing up money. The role of government here is not understood by many people. They blame free market capitalism for a problem actually created by the government.
     
    So the failure to restore conventional American tariffs after European and Asian industrial economies had rebuilt from the war is not the chief cause?

    As far as I know, international competitiveness was hardly even a concept in the United States before the Kennedy era.

    Regarding wages, Americans used to see rising wages as a good thing. Tariffs prevented international markets from driving American wages down.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  88. @Dr. Robert Morgan
    Bardon Kaldian: "The point is that women are less socially and consciously determined by their reproductive role, but subconsciously- as ever. Basically, women want- their man, child & family, plus some financial stability. Modern life has given them education & other stuff (good, in my view), but left them without compass about the essentials for their happiness, panderig to their animalistic & irrational amorous natures."

    You have the typical, idealized view of women so common on the right. But the facts are against you. The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren't so fond of children after all. The so-called "maternal instinct" turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all. But women are also conformist by nature, even more so than men, and so it's reasonable to expect that changes in their behavior due to technology will be slowed down a bit by that.

    Bardon Kaldian: "Feynman was a womanizer until his last, happy marriage which he spent as a faithful husband; Einstein was talked about as such during the early Weimar era, but there is no proof, even in salacious bios, that he was one."

    Feynman seems to have regarded himself as quite a whoremaster and cocksman, someone well-studied in the art of seduction.

    https://www.wildtanuki.com/richard-feynman-getting-girls-japan-titty-bars/

    The thrice married Feynman had a good attitude towards women, and in fact his third wife, at least according to wiki, was a shiksa he paid to be a live-in consort before he married her. Whether he really changed his ways or not after that seems to me improbable, but of course you're free to make any assumption you like.

    As for Einstein, Zackheim quotes extensively from his correspondence and court records, some of it cited here:

    https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2013/11/04/was-einstein-a-wife-beater-womanizer-plagiarizer-and-eugenicist-part-i/

    LOL. That guy was getting more pussy than Frank Sinatra!

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @dfordoom

    The falling fertility rates and falling marriage rates tell the tale. Given the option to have children or not have them, their actual behavior says that they aren’t so fond of children after all. The so-called “maternal instinct” turns out to be largely imaginary; everyone, male or female, is for himself most of all.

    Yep.

    As demonstrated by their actual behaviour most women want one child and many don’t actually want any children at all. And I suspect that most men are fine with that.

    In the real world real people don’t give a damn about society or the future of the White Race or any similar abstractions. They care about their own lives and they care about what will make their own lives more pleasant.

    And those who want children believe that it’s better to have just one because that will be most advantageous for their child.

    And people are substantially correct in making such decisions. They really are better off with one child or none. And their one child really will enjoy huge advantages because the parents can make a massive investment in that one child. They can afford to live in a nice neighbourhood and send their one child to a “good school” and they can put all their energies into getting that one child into a prestige college.

    The people who choose to have no children really do derive huge benefits from that decision.

  89. @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @Twinkie

    Pardon. For me to raise a topic and then say, “I would rather not engage,” is bad form. Still, I would rather just state it, hear your reply if any, and let the matter rest with specific respect to the two of us, for neither of us is a fit prop for the other's morality play.

    Until 1992, the year of California's Rodney King riot, the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. I had been an antinegro racialist since the age of four (a period during which my parents raised me in an apartment in a black neighborhood), and still the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. However, by imperceptible stages between 1992 and 2006, it gradually dawned on me that my identification as a United States citizen was cynically being manipulated to replace the body of United States citizens, including me.

    One could bring the foregoing tale from 2006 up to the present day, but the tale is too obvious to need telling. Your imagination can fairly accurately fill in the gaps, but the point is that prior to about 1992, American citizenship remained a rough but not unreasonable proxy by which to identify the historic, organic, authentic, heritage American people, along with some additions. That was fine with almost all of us.

    If immigration were today cut off or throttled back to no more 50,000 annually, if this were done in good faith, if I believed the new immigration regime likely to remain stable, and if dual citizenship were outlawed, then I would happily return from racialism to citizenism, because what alternative?

    As I said, it's all very obvious. In fact, it is so obvious that it's a little humiliating, and more than a little irritating, to have to explain it over and over and over again—I don't mean to you, but to people in general.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie, @iffen

    I didn’t get to reply to you earlier about this, but since AE felicitously raised the subject again, here goes.

    Some other, mostly observably lesser civilizations have come up with their own answers to the question, but west of the Hajnal line, we had a profound answer that was compatible with our own civilization, an answer that harmonized with our people’s instinctive, inherited way of being.

    Marriage between one husband and one wife…

    I don’t know how much you know about comparative sociology, but, in case you haven’t read much about it, I should note that throughout history “primitive” pastoralists, in general, have had much more egalitarian social structures than “civilized” agriculturalists.

    This manifested in several different ways. First, among pastoralists (often called nomads though that is misleading as they had defined grazing territories and only moved between summer and winter pastures), property accumulation was rare and leadership was earned by wisdom and/or heroic deeds rather than inherited. Though not explicitly barred by law, marriages were monogamous except for the few nobles.

    And while pastoralists excelled in war and often took over the elite strata of the settled (agricultural) societies they conquered, agriculturalists are the ones who built civilizations as we recognize them today. In other words, the people of these “better” civilizations are the ones who exhibited great disparities between the wealthy and the poor, including lots of women for the former and none for the latter.

    The institutionalization of monogamy in Europe (and later to the rest of the world) wasn’t because of ancient differences (on each side of the “Hajnal” line) – it had to do with the spread of Christianity, as were other traits of WEIRDness (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic).

    https://gript.ie/why-the-west-is-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic/

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/

    Try Henrich’s book.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    I think that this supposed egalitarianism of less complex societies is part and parcel of the whole “noble savage” and "peaceful primitives" dogma.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @RSDB

  90. @Jay Fink
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Good point. I recently read that they are considering lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes to near zero. This would be basically prohibition. At the same time marijuana is close to being legalized nationally and states are starting to decriminalize hard drugs including meth and heroin.

    I don't smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.

    Replies: @Mark G., @dfordoom

    Good point. I recently read that they are considering lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes to near zero. This would be basically prohibition.

    And the Australian government wants to ban vaping. Which is definitely Prohibition.

    At the same time marijuana is close to being legalized nationally and states are starting to decriminalize hard drugs including meth and heroin.

    Yes, it’s selective Prohibition. Marijuana, meth and heroin are now Good Drugs. Nicotine is a Bad Drug because it’s consumed by Bad People (such as working class people).

    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.

    Yes, that’s pretty accurate.

    It’s amusing that nicotine makes people more productive but it’s a Bad Drug. Marijuana makes people less productive but it’s a Good Drug. Basically marijuana is a Good Drug because liberals enjoy it.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @dfordoom

    I think you nailed it. Liberals don't like nicotine because it is mostly consumed by the working class people they look down on. If you look at a map of state smoking rates (from the CDCs BRFSS survey) it is nearly identical to the red/blue political map. The one major exception is Mormon Utah which is solidly red but has the lowest smoking rate. OTOH Marijuana is most popular in liberal states. Massachusetts was #1 for weed smoking in a survey I saw.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Not only wrathful

  91. @Mark G.
    @Jay Fink


    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.
     
    I just went back and re-read one of my favorite books, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. It starts with a prologue that gives an extensive description of the U.S. in 1963 before the massive changes that started in the later sixties. It occurred to me while reading it that wokism is an attempt to take the America of 1963 and turn it into the exact opposite. Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish but the use of drugs was rare and exotic so if you take the reverse of that you would have widespread drug use and more restrictions on tobacco and alcohol.

    The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them.

    Replies: @SFG, @dfordoom

    Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish

    And those Americans were the ones who went on to put a man on the Moon. The Apollo Program is what you get when people smoke and relax with a few martinis at the end of the day.

  92. @A123
    @dfordoom


    You have to accept that modern western societies are secular societies are they’re going to remain secular societies because most people want to live in secular societies.
     
    Most people want to live in a society where a child has a mother & a father.

    There is a difference between:

    • "Rigid" religious societies where enforcers have the power to control and punish in the name of strict dogma. These are inherently anti-modern, and it is why Muslim countries have fared so poorly.
    • "Shared Values" religious societies gain strength where common beliefs bring people together. The fact that both Churches & Synagogues teach the Ten Commandments values provides core expectations for behaviour. Belief in God also provides resilience in the face of hardship.

    One of the problems with secular society is a lack inherent cohesion. Many of the crazy factionalist problems that face the U.S. today are due to a complete lack of respect for others. Anti-Religious secularism provides no consistent touch point for all citizens.

    What is the "godless secular" solution for training youth in common, shared beliefs required for national survival, such as Patriotism?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The reality that you’re still refusing to face is that we have a secular society. The fact that you disapprove of that reality doesn’t change it. Reality is like that. It doesn’t care whether you approve of it or not.

    We have a secular society and we have to learn to live with it. Wishing and hoping that Christianity will stage a comeback isn’t going to achieve anything.

    • Replies: @A123
    @dfordoom

    The reality you fail to grasp is that most Americans do not want SJW secularism. Most Americans believe in God.

    Your desperate desire for a godless society doesn't work. Name any faithless secular society that is effective. The few godless societies that have limped along have had to create a new central faith, such as an Almighty Party -or- Devotion to the State. These "1984" Orwellian constructs are unstable.

    Your absolutist devotion to Atheism is blinding you to a much larger world.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

  93. @dfordoom
    @Jay Fink


    Good point. I recently read that they are considering lowering nicotine levels in cigarettes to near zero. This would be basically prohibition.
     
    And the Australian government wants to ban vaping. Which is definitely Prohibition.

    At the same time marijuana is close to being legalized nationally and states are starting to decriminalize hard drugs including meth and heroin.
     
    Yes, it's selective Prohibition. Marijuana, meth and heroin are now Good Drugs. Nicotine is a Bad Drug because it's consumed by Bad People (such as working class people).

    I don’t smoke but it seems to me cigarettes are the equivalent of hetrosexual white males in the pecking order of wokism.
     
    Yes, that's pretty accurate.

    It's amusing that nicotine makes people more productive but it's a Bad Drug. Marijuana makes people less productive but it's a Good Drug. Basically marijuana is a Good Drug because liberals enjoy it.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    I think you nailed it. Liberals don’t like nicotine because it is mostly consumed by the working class people they look down on. If you look at a map of state smoking rates (from the CDCs BRFSS survey) it is nearly identical to the red/blue political map. The one major exception is Mormon Utah which is solidly red but has the lowest smoking rate. OTOH Marijuana is most popular in liberal states. Massachusetts was #1 for weed smoking in a survey I saw.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Jay Fink


    I think you nailed it. Liberals don’t like nicotine because it is mostly consumed by the working class people they look down on.
     
    Yep. Attitudes towards drugs are to a very large extent driven by class and ideological hatreds.

    It's also possible that smoking is an unpleasant reminder of the Bad Old Days. You remember the Bad Old Days, when America put men on the moon. When Americans drove Buicks and Pontiacs built by Americans in American factories. The Bad Old Days when kids would go to the park and kick football around. The Bad Old Days when kids would unwrap their Christmas presents and the boys would be excited because they got toy dump trucks and fire engines and the girls would be excited because they got a Barbie play house. The Bad Old Days when America led the word in computer technology and companies like IBM were the envy of the world. The Bad Old Days when Americans liked baseball and NASCAR racing.

    In some ways smoking is symbolic of the old evil patriarchal America when Dad would come home from work and sit down and light a cigarette while Mom would fix him a dry martini or a Bourbon on the rocks.

    Marijuana is symbolic of the much better new America in which the kids go to Drag Queen Story Hour instead of kicking footballs around and parents are proud of their transgender sons.

    This also explains the current propaganda push against meat-eating. Hot dogs and pot roasts symbolise the evil Old America while veggie-burgers symbolise the bold New America.
    , @Not only wrathful
    @Jay Fink

    The only person I noticed smoking in Manhattan when on the look out for a lighter was a homeless man. Cigarettes are not as stark a status marker in Europe.

  94. @Adûnâi
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Overall, I would partially agree with Dr. Robert Morgan - women obey men. Aryan men order their women to be whores. They do.

    > "...those not infested by feminism (Asia, eastern Europe)..."

    Eastern Europe and East Asia is where feminism originated, bucko. Long before the USA developed transvestitism, there once existed the USSR and then Mao's China which explicitly pushed equal rights between the sexes. Feminism did not lead to an irreversible drop in birth rates.

    > "...have low fertility rates due to social-economic changes & ecology."

    Nonsense. The socio-economic conditions in Africa are much worse than in Eastern Europe, and yet their women have stopped having children since capitalism & Christianity destroyed the Warsaw Pact.

    > "1. modern way of life- women working & not having enough kids"
    The USSR had mandatory employment for all its women - and had no trouble keeping the birthrate up.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Сумарный_коэффициент_рождаемости_РФ_1946-2016.png

    > "unlike social measures in Hungary & Czechia & a few other countries, which purposefully finance fertility of the dominant national population"
    Poland - 1.38 (2010), 1.42 (2019).
    Czechia - 1.493 (2010), 1.709 (2019).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Poland
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Czech_Republic

    > "3. no anti-male rhetoric in Poland, Russia etc. Not in Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina…."
    There are plenty of anti-domestic violence faggots in Russia.
    https://time.com/5942127/russia-domestic-violence-women/

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Sorry, but you’re clueless. You don’t know what “feminism” means. You don’t know history.

    EOD

  95. @SFG
    @Bardon Kaldian

    A small fraction of women do find intelligence attractive.

    It's not enough to be useful for most smart guys, but if you're literally Einstein...

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    It is not the point of one individual, but of a culture.

    Roughly, the US is a culture of a rather comical macho posturing. In the US, real intellectuals mean virtually nothing as potential female erotic interest. Among civilized countries, I don’t know about Asia, but in “real Europe”- from Paris to Petrograd- intellectuals are sexier than celebrities in American culture.
    Athletes- so-so; entertainers, musicians- yes, for most females except those with sharp mind & wit.

    Also, one should differentiate between a public intellectual & a serious scientist. Not too visible scientists can always find women for wives, because there are always (truly) educated females who want to be wives of such people (bimbos & celebrity hookers exist for social circles scientists usually despise); public intellectuals like Sartre, Camus, Heidegger (as an intellectual), … have always had a chorus of adoring females, generally intellectualized good looking females & it depended on them what they wanted to do with their marriages & lives. Some are naturally monogamous, some not. Depends.

    Actually- it is preposterous to think that virtually all men who are mostly mentally oriented, so to speak, would even wish to bang bimbos or models or some great looking Hollywood celebrities. These are non-intersecting worlds.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Bardon Kaldian

    "Roughly, the US is a culture of a rather comical macho posturing".

    I enjoy looking at pictures of different countries and cultures on Instagram. You get a feel for what young people are like all over the world. Yes I know it's Instagram so it's self selecting for the kind of people who like to post pictures of themselves, probably a more narcissistic crowd than average. Still it's interesting to me.

    There is one European country with macho posturing...Italy. My impression (based on a hunch more than anything) is it wasn't always this extreme. It looks to me like the young Italians are trying to live up to stereotypes about them. It's like everyone is auditioning for the old Jersey Shore TV show.

    France is geographically close to Italy but culturally very different. It is a soft feminine culture. It's amazing to me how intellectual/nerdy most of the young French men look. This is obviously what the French women want. These guys have no problem coupling up with the ladies, many who have an intellectual vibe themselves.

    French women are pretty, slender and feminine looking but much less flashy or overtly sexy looking as their Italian counterparts. The French women have more of a girl next door look while the Italian women dress like they are going out to the club 24/7. They both have their charms and I find them both more appealing than today's American women.

  96. @Mark G.
    @SFG


    Of course the right is even more to blame for this than the left–they kept equivocating about abortion while the businesses sent production overseas.
     
    The trade deficits started after 1970. Why this point instead of earlier? The late sixties combination of increased spending for welfare programs and the Vietnam war had resulted in the government deciding to increase money printing to pay for it. This was followed by increasing inflation and an outflow of gold. Nixon did not want to stop the inflation and throw the country into a recession right before the election, fearing that might cause him to lose, so he took the country out of the Bretton Woods system and severed the last link to gold.

    This enabled the country to continue on its inflationary course. Inflation caused rising prices. Wages are the price of labor so wages rose and made American workers less able to compete on the world market. Businesses may have sent production overseas and received the blame for the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs but the originating cause was the government engaging in overspending and trying to pay for it by printing up money. The role of government here is not understood by many people. They blame free market capitalism for a problem actually created by the government.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    This enabled the country to continue on its inflationary course. Inflation caused rising prices. Wages are the price of labor so wages rose and made American workers less able to compete on the world market. Businesses may have sent production overseas and received the blame for the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs but the originating cause was the government engaging in overspending and trying to pay for it by printing up money. The role of government here is not understood by many people. They blame free market capitalism for a problem actually created by the government.

    So the failure to restore conventional American tariffs after European and Asian industrial economies had rebuilt from the war is not the chief cause?

    As far as I know, international competitiveness was hardly even a concept in the United States before the Kennedy era.

    Regarding wages, Americans used to see rising wages as a good thing. Tariffs prevented international markets from driving American wages down.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @V. K. Ovelund


    So the failure to restore conventional American tariffs after European and Asian industrial economies had rebuilt from the war is not the chief cause?
     
    The rebuilding of European and Japanese factories was certainly a factor in manufacturing jobs moving overseas. Reality is complex so there is often more than one cause for something. Many people are not really aware, though, how much of our manufacturing decline was due to self-inflicted wounds.

    What makes viewing the reality more difficult is that there were beneficiaries here who would like to see the blame put entirely on nefarious foreigners to distract attention from the fact that there are domestic interests involved. The money printing leading to inflation leading to higher domestic wages leading to American labor being less competitive with cheaper foreign labor leading to jobs moving overseas did benefit anyone getting that extra money being printed up. This includes the military-industrial complex and groups such as blacks that are heavy users of welfare and so received a disproportionate amount of the increased welfare spending starting in the late sixties. The inflation boosted stock prices so wealthy people who own lots of stocks benefited too. These are all groups who want the money printing and inflation to continue.

    On the other side are the many working class and middle class whites who have been harmed by factory and office jobs transferring overseas. If they had a better understanding how the increased money printing and inflation starting in the sixties was one of the causes of this they would look for politicians to vote for who want to stop it.
  97. @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    @Twinkie

    Pardon. For me to raise a topic and then say, “I would rather not engage,” is bad form. Still, I would rather just state it, hear your reply if any, and let the matter rest with specific respect to the two of us, for neither of us is a fit prop for the other's morality play.

    Until 1992, the year of California's Rodney King riot, the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. I had been an antinegro racialist since the age of four (a period during which my parents raised me in an apartment in a black neighborhood), and still the thought of nationally identifying as anything other than a United States citizen had never crossed my mind. However, by imperceptible stages between 1992 and 2006, it gradually dawned on me that my identification as a United States citizen was cynically being manipulated to replace the body of United States citizens, including me.

    One could bring the foregoing tale from 2006 up to the present day, but the tale is too obvious to need telling. Your imagination can fairly accurately fill in the gaps, but the point is that prior to about 1992, American citizenship remained a rough but not unreasonable proxy by which to identify the historic, organic, authentic, heritage American people, along with some additions. That was fine with almost all of us.

    If immigration were today cut off or throttled back to no more 50,000 annually, if this were done in good faith, if I believed the new immigration regime likely to remain stable, and if dual citizenship were outlawed, then I would happily return from racialism to citizenism, because what alternative?

    As I said, it's all very obvious. In fact, it is so obvious that it's a little humiliating, and more than a little irritating, to have to explain it over and over and over again—I don't mean to you, but to people in general.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Twinkie, @iffen

    One can support limited immigration (I favor a total hiatus) without being an anti-Semite. I can do it so I know others can as well.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    One can support limited immigration (I favor a total hiatus) without being an anti-Semite.
     
    One can support limited immigration without being a redhead, as well.

    I will gladly drop the anti-Semitism when leading Semites drop the anti-me. But they will not, and probably in the main cannot, for they seem to be evolutionarily adapted to their anti-Gentile role.

    Consider for example the extraordinary, blithe statement by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas last week: “There is no indication that [fines assessed against aliens for illegal entry or illegal presence in the United States] promoted compliance with noncitizens’ departure obligations.... We can enforce our immigration laws without resorting to ineffective and unnecessary punitive measures.”

    So nonenforcement is now enforcement, according to Homeland Security, yet can you think of a more Jewish way of putting it than Mayorkas just did?

    Those people effortlessly make words stand on their heads. They actually think up this nonsense in real time. They are very quick, and very calm, to do it. No, I do not think that I will be cajoled into dropping my guard yet again. Not this time.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    Darn it. I took the bait. The only person who had mentioned Jews in this thread was you.

    You got me.

  98. It would be good to add a few remarks that could elucidate some things. This is an American forum, so it reflects American attitudes & culture (plus some other Anglosphere countries).

    Judging from American popular culture & from other sources (being in the US for some time), I would say:

    * continental Europe is, of course, a continent of very different cultures & modes of behavior, as well as values. But they have many things in common. There is a rift between Western, affluent Europe & Eastern, ex- Communist (for instance, only 15-20% of Western European men would defend their country from foreign invasion; the percentage for Eastern Europe is 50-70%. The same rift is visible in attitudes toward homosexuals, Muslims, other races as neighbors or potential members of family,..). One could not overestimate differences between, say, Iceland and France, and between them and Poland & Russia re values, social behavior, ethics, attitude toward marriage, ideas of masculinity, family life, ….

    * but, there is a common culture for, say, school system & ethics of education. There are no nerds, jocks, geeks, … in high school. Bullying does exist, but it is minimal. “Popularity” in school means almost nothing. Athletic disciplines in high schools do exist, but are completely marginal & have no repercussion for anyone’s social status. Also, the culture of “dating” is mostly absent, except for some people. You find your partner in your social circles naturally.

    * when you study, you mostly study. Of course sex life is there, but not obsessively so. And of course, not few marriages are “conceived” at universities during studies

    * in a society at large, rich people & entrepreneurs are, of course, influential- but no one looks to them as anything special. OK, these people are rich and- so? They are no societies’ “heroes”. In fact, especially in ex-Communist countries, there is a loathing & contempt for them, because they are seen as thieves.

    * most societies are, give or take, egalitarian & tend to be so for health system, insurance etc.

    * there are no winner-loser categories

    * there is, except in some countries, no fear of “female power”, nor of financial disaster for men following a divorce

    I could go on & on, but, this fragment should suffice …

  99. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I didn't get to reply to you earlier about this, but since AE felicitously raised the subject again, here goes.


    Some other, mostly observably lesser civilizations have come up with their own answers to the question, but west of the Hajnal line, we had a profound answer that was compatible with our own civilization, an answer that harmonized with our people’s instinctive, inherited way of being.

    Marriage between one husband and one wife...
     
    I don't know how much you know about comparative sociology, but, in case you haven't read much about it, I should note that throughout history "primitive" pastoralists, in general, have had much more egalitarian social structures than "civilized" agriculturalists.

    This manifested in several different ways. First, among pastoralists (often called nomads though that is misleading as they had defined grazing territories and only moved between summer and winter pastures), property accumulation was rare and leadership was earned by wisdom and/or heroic deeds rather than inherited. Though not explicitly barred by law, marriages were monogamous except for the few nobles.

    And while pastoralists excelled in war and often took over the elite strata of the settled (agricultural) societies they conquered, agriculturalists are the ones who built civilizations as we recognize them today. In other words, the people of these "better" civilizations are the ones who exhibited great disparities between the wealthy and the poor, including lots of women for the former and none for the latter.

    The institutionalization of monogamy in Europe (and later to the rest of the world) wasn't because of ancient differences (on each side of the "Hajnal" line) - it had to do with the spread of Christianity, as were other traits of WEIRDness (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic).

    https://gript.ie/why-the-west-is-weird-western-educated-industrialized-rich-and-democratic/

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/

    Try Henrich's book.

    Replies: @iffen

    I think that this supposed egalitarianism of less complex societies is part and parcel of the whole “noble savage” and “peaceful primitives” dogma.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen


    supposed egalitarianism of less complex societies
     
    It’s not just lower complexity - it has to do with the “mode of production.” And the relative egalitarianism of pastoralists (and greater freedom for women among them) is repeatedly attested by the neighboring agriculturalists/settled civilizations since the ancient times.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @RSDB
    @iffen

    Stratification is a form of complexity.

    Replies: @iffen

  100. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    One can support limited immigration (I favor a total hiatus) without being an anti-Semite. I can do it so I know others can as well.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

    One can support limited immigration (I favor a total hiatus) without being an anti-Semite.

    One can support limited immigration without being a redhead, as well.

    I will gladly drop the anti-Semitism when leading Semites drop the anti-me. But they will not, and probably in the main cannot, for they seem to be evolutionarily adapted to their anti-Gentile role.

    [MORE]

    Consider for example the extraordinary, blithe statement by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas last week: “There is no indication that [fines assessed against aliens for illegal entry or illegal presence in the United States] promoted compliance with noncitizens’ departure obligations…. We can enforce our immigration laws without resorting to ineffective and unnecessary punitive measures.”

    So nonenforcement is now enforcement, according to Homeland Security, yet can you think of a more Jewish way of putting it than Mayorkas just did?

    Those people effortlessly make words stand on their heads. They actually think up this nonsense in real time. They are very quick, and very calm, to do it. No, I do not think that I will be cajoled into dropping my guard yet again. Not this time.

  101. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    One can support limited immigration (I favor a total hiatus) without being an anti-Semite. I can do it so I know others can as well.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

    Darn it. I took the bait. The only person who had mentioned Jews in this thread was you.

    You got me.

  102. @dfordoom
    @A123

    The reality that you're still refusing to face is that we have a secular society. The fact that you disapprove of that reality doesn't change it. Reality is like that. It doesn't care whether you approve of it or not.

    We have a secular society and we have to learn to live with it. Wishing and hoping that Christianity will stage a comeback isn't going to achieve anything.

    Replies: @A123

    The reality you fail to grasp is that most Americans do not want SJW secularism. Most Americans believe in God.

    Your desperate desire for a godless society doesn’t work. Name any faithless secular society that is effective. The few godless societies that have limped along have had to create a new central faith, such as an Almighty Party -or- Devotion to the State. These “1984” Orwellian constructs are unstable.

    Your absolutist devotion to Atheism is blinding you to a much larger world.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @A123


    The reality you fail to grasp is that most Americans do not want SJW secularism.
     
    Lots of people say they believe in God in a very vague way but they live totally secular lives. There's a very small number of militant atheists and there's a minority of the population who are actively religious but most people are in practice indifferent to religion.

    I'm sure there are many people who oppose SJWism and Wokeism but they would still prefer living in a secular society.

    Your absolutist devotion to Atheism is blinding you to a much larger world.
     
    I'm not a militant atheist. I'm a secularist. Like most people I'm pretty much indifferent to religion as long as religious people don't try to impose their beliefs or their moral values on me.

    Replies: @iffen

  103. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Mark G.


    This enabled the country to continue on its inflationary course. Inflation caused rising prices. Wages are the price of labor so wages rose and made American workers less able to compete on the world market. Businesses may have sent production overseas and received the blame for the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs but the originating cause was the government engaging in overspending and trying to pay for it by printing up money. The role of government here is not understood by many people. They blame free market capitalism for a problem actually created by the government.
     
    So the failure to restore conventional American tariffs after European and Asian industrial economies had rebuilt from the war is not the chief cause?

    As far as I know, international competitiveness was hardly even a concept in the United States before the Kennedy era.

    Regarding wages, Americans used to see rising wages as a good thing. Tariffs prevented international markets from driving American wages down.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    So the failure to restore conventional American tariffs after European and Asian industrial economies had rebuilt from the war is not the chief cause?

    The rebuilding of European and Japanese factories was certainly a factor in manufacturing jobs moving overseas. Reality is complex so there is often more than one cause for something. Many people are not really aware, though, how much of our manufacturing decline was due to self-inflicted wounds.

    What makes viewing the reality more difficult is that there were beneficiaries here who would like to see the blame put entirely on nefarious foreigners to distract attention from the fact that there are domestic interests involved. The money printing leading to inflation leading to higher domestic wages leading to American labor being less competitive with cheaper foreign labor leading to jobs moving overseas did benefit anyone getting that extra money being printed up. This includes the military-industrial complex and groups such as blacks that are heavy users of welfare and so received a disproportionate amount of the increased welfare spending starting in the late sixties. The inflation boosted stock prices so wealthy people who own lots of stocks benefited too. These are all groups who want the money printing and inflation to continue.

    On the other side are the many working class and middle class whites who have been harmed by factory and office jobs transferring overseas. If they had a better understanding how the increased money printing and inflation starting in the sixties was one of the causes of this they would look for politicians to vote for who want to stop it.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  104. @dfordoom
    @Buzz Mohawk


    This is why I get mad whenever some dumb commenter lumps me and Steve and the others into the boomer category.
     
    Yep, same here.

    The generational thing makes a lot more sense if you think in terms of ten-year birth cohorts. Those born 1926-35 are the Silents. Those born 1936-1945 are the War Babies. Those born 1946-1955 are the Baby Boomers. Those born 1956-1965 are the Oil Crisis Babies. If you were born 1966-1975 you're Gen X.

    I think that scheme maps a lot closer to reality and I think it's a better way to look at generational cultural differences as well. It distinguishes between those for whom Sinatra was the major pop culture icon, those for whom it was Elvis, those for whom it was the Beatles/acid rock/Woodstock, those for who it was glam rock, disco or punk and those for whom it was 80s dance music.

    And it definitely captures more accurately the significant events that influenced those birth cohorts - WW2, 50s prosperity, the Cold War, the JFK assassination, Vietnam, the Oil Crisis, the Decade of Greed.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    I think we know exactly when the Baby Boom ended: November 22, 1963, and not the death of Aldous Huxley. 1964 was the last year of the nominal boom, and I would love to see the birth numbers for that year, month by month. My guess: September-December, or children conceived after Dallas, are much fewer than children before. If you look at a graph of births, the dropoff to 1965 from 1964 is severe, and my guess is reflects the lack of optimism in the future.

    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.

    But grouping mid-50s kids with kids from 65 crosses this boundary. A child born in 1956 would have spent its youth in the optimistic, growing phase of the USA, where things got better, year after year. Its high school (1974) and college (1978) years would have dropped it as an adult into a collapsing society, but would not have colored the halcyon days of youth.

    Strauss and Howe identify Boomers as 1943-1960. The leading edge of that group profited immensely by getting to things before the crush, and the tail end turned 13 before 1973 finished, so its youth up to 13 was pretty good. A good shorthand: a boomer is too young to remember WW2, and old enough to remember Kennedy getting shot.

    Interestingly, Biden saved the Silents, who looked to be the only generation under Strauss and Howe never to supply a President.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @TomSchmidt


    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.
     
    That doesn't make any sense at all. The events of November 1963 were only significant to those old enough at the time to know what happened. If you were two years old at the time, or four years old, or six years old, then on November 22 1963 you didn't even know there was such a person as President Kennedy.

    1956 seems to me to be a reasonable cut-off date. If you were born prior to 1956 you were old enough at the time for it to have an emotional impact.

    In the same way it's quite appropriate to include those born in 1936 as War Babies because what distinguishes the War Babies from the Silents is that the Silents were just old enough for WW2 to have some emotional impact on them while the War Babies were too young.

    Not that I'm buying into your conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination but even leaving aside conspiracy theories it was an event that had a huge emotional impact on those old enough at the time to be affected.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  105. @V. K. Ovelund
    @TomSchmidt


    I’m going to suppose you’re north of 60....
     
    Close enough.

    Citizenism seems like a stance by people like Steve Sailer, who were white in an America where we were gradually recognizing that blacks could be welcomed as citizens as well.
     
    Admittedly, when I said citizenism, I was thinking of pretty much everyone except the blacks. That is, I was thinking of ethnies which, in the main, seem to be tolerably assimilable.

    I do not know why my countrymen fail to notice that 400 uninterrupted years of acculturation have not sufficed to assimilate the negro—as if trying again during the next 100 years of acculturation could possibly make a difference. Nevertheless, you are right regarding the general orientation of Sailer's age cohort.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    You then need to ask yourself this question: why did they believe that blacks could be freed from segregation in the 1960s?

    Those people saw blacks who were getting better on any number of measures through the 1950s. Thomas Sowell points out that blacks had a higher employment rate than white for a considerable portion of the 20th century. As a group, they were getting wealthier, better educated, and less crime-prone.

    Since the 1960s, some have continued to get wealthier, but the average progress has slowed. You might blame civil rights laws. You might blame changes in welfare that vivisected the black family. You might blame the elites who decided to import a new underclass to undercut the economic functioning of blacks. Some combination of the 3?

    But it wasn’t violent insurrection that won the civil rights changes for blacks. that mostly happened after, not before.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @TomSchmidt


    You then need to ask yourself this question: why did they believe that blacks could be freed from segregation in the 1960s?
     
    They believed it for the reason you state. It is a good reason:

    Those people saw blacks who were getting better on any number of measures through the 1950s. Thomas Sowell points out that blacks had a higher employment rate than white for a considerable portion of the 20th century. As a group, they were getting wealthier, better educated, and less crime-prone.
     
    So Americans decided that Segregation was no longer necessary. That makes sense. Had I been of an age to have an opinion at that time, then I likely would have decided so, too.

    However, having desegregated, Americans should have judged Desegregation on its practical results—and especially on its results for us. In my opinion, Gregory Hood judges it about right:


    We deserve reparations for trillions wasted in a 60-year effort to babysit a population that pays us back with violence and hatred. Most importantly, we deserve liberation from this albatross that prevents any kind of real national life. Almost any price would be worth paying if we could be sovereign and free, something our ancestors took for granted.
     
    I cannot believe that Americans would have agreed to desegregate had they been told that the results would be an endless train of negro corruption, privilege, incompetence, dependency and violence.
    , @Twinkie
    @TomSchmidt

    https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.110.213/pg2.00d.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Black-Men-Historical-Marriage-1890-to-2010.jpg

    https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.110.213/pg2.00d.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Black-Women-Historical-Marriage-1890-to-2010.jpg

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/35/e2/8e35e269a5c965692461578a21b34134.png

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/97/0b/67/970b67b547d12b2c5e46e20b24cb4d3a.jpg

    https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0255_poverty_by_race.png

  106. @TomSchmidt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You then need to ask yourself this question: why did they believe that blacks could be freed from segregation in the 1960s?

    Those people saw blacks who were getting better on any number of measures through the 1950s. Thomas Sowell points out that blacks had a higher employment rate than white for a considerable portion of the 20th century. As a group, they were getting wealthier, better educated, and less crime-prone.

    Since the 1960s, some have continued to get wealthier, but the average progress has slowed. You might blame civil rights laws. You might blame changes in welfare that vivisected the black family. You might blame the elites who decided to import a new underclass to undercut the economic functioning of blacks. Some combination of the 3?

    But it wasn't violent insurrection that won the civil rights changes for blacks. that mostly happened after, not before.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

    You then need to ask yourself this question: why did they believe that blacks could be freed from segregation in the 1960s?

    They believed it for the reason you state. It is a good reason:

    Those people saw blacks who were getting better on any number of measures through the 1950s. Thomas Sowell points out that blacks had a higher employment rate than white for a considerable portion of the 20th century. As a group, they were getting wealthier, better educated, and less crime-prone.

    So Americans decided that Segregation was no longer necessary. That makes sense. Had I been of an age to have an opinion at that time, then I likely would have decided so, too.

    However, having desegregated, Americans should have judged Desegregation on its practical results—and especially on its results for us. In my opinion, Gregory Hood judges it about right:

    We deserve reparations for trillions wasted in a 60-year effort to babysit a population that pays us back with violence and hatred. Most importantly, we deserve liberation from this albatross that prevents any kind of real national life. Almost any price would be worth paying if we could be sovereign and free, something our ancestors took for granted.

    I cannot believe that Americans would have agreed to desegregate had they been told that the results would be an endless train of negro corruption, privilege, incompetence, dependency and violence.

  107. @Bardon Kaldian
    @SFG

    It is not the point of one individual, but of a culture.

    Roughly, the US is a culture of a rather comical macho posturing. In the US, real intellectuals mean virtually nothing as potential female erotic interest. Among civilized countries, I don't know about Asia, but in "real Europe"- from Paris to Petrograd- intellectuals are sexier than celebrities in American culture.
    Athletes- so-so; entertainers, musicians- yes, for most females except those with sharp mind & wit.

    Also, one should differentiate between a public intellectual & a serious scientist. Not too visible scientists can always find women for wives, because there are always (truly) educated females who want to be wives of such people (bimbos & celebrity hookers exist for social circles scientists usually despise); public intellectuals like Sartre, Camus, Heidegger (as an intellectual), ... have always had a chorus of adoring females, generally intellectualized good looking females & it depended on them what they wanted to do with their marriages & lives. Some are naturally monogamous, some not. Depends.

    Actually- it is preposterous to think that virtually all men who are mostly mentally oriented, so to speak, would even wish to bang bimbos or models or some great looking Hollywood celebrities. These are non-intersecting worlds.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    “Roughly, the US is a culture of a rather comical macho posturing”.

    I enjoy looking at pictures of different countries and cultures on Instagram. You get a feel for what young people are like all over the world. Yes I know it’s Instagram so it’s self selecting for the kind of people who like to post pictures of themselves, probably a more narcissistic crowd than average. Still it’s interesting to me.

    There is one European country with macho posturing…Italy. My impression (based on a hunch more than anything) is it wasn’t always this extreme. It looks to me like the young Italians are trying to live up to stereotypes about them. It’s like everyone is auditioning for the old Jersey Shore TV show.

    France is geographically close to Italy but culturally very different. It is a soft feminine culture. It’s amazing to me how intellectual/nerdy most of the young French men look. This is obviously what the French women want. These guys have no problem coupling up with the ladies, many who have an intellectual vibe themselves.

    French women are pretty, slender and feminine looking but much less flashy or overtly sexy looking as their Italian counterparts. The French women have more of a girl next door look while the Italian women dress like they are going out to the club 24/7. They both have their charms and I find them both more appealing than today’s American women.

  108. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    I think that this supposed egalitarianism of less complex societies is part and parcel of the whole “noble savage” and "peaceful primitives" dogma.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @RSDB

    supposed egalitarianism of less complex societies

    It’s not just lower complexity – it has to do with the “mode of production.” And the relative egalitarianism of pastoralists (and greater freedom for women among them) is repeatedly attested by the neighboring agriculturalists/settled civilizations since the ancient times.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    I agree to disagree.

    (Relying on information provided by a group's mortal and existential enemies should be done with caution.)

  109. @TomSchmidt
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You then need to ask yourself this question: why did they believe that blacks could be freed from segregation in the 1960s?

    Those people saw blacks who were getting better on any number of measures through the 1950s. Thomas Sowell points out that blacks had a higher employment rate than white for a considerable portion of the 20th century. As a group, they were getting wealthier, better educated, and less crime-prone.

    Since the 1960s, some have continued to get wealthier, but the average progress has slowed. You might blame civil rights laws. You might blame changes in welfare that vivisected the black family. You might blame the elites who decided to import a new underclass to undercut the economic functioning of blacks. Some combination of the 3?

    But it wasn't violent insurrection that won the civil rights changes for blacks. that mostly happened after, not before.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie

  110. @Jay Fink
    @dfordoom

    I think you nailed it. Liberals don't like nicotine because it is mostly consumed by the working class people they look down on. If you look at a map of state smoking rates (from the CDCs BRFSS survey) it is nearly identical to the red/blue political map. The one major exception is Mormon Utah which is solidly red but has the lowest smoking rate. OTOH Marijuana is most popular in liberal states. Massachusetts was #1 for weed smoking in a survey I saw.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Not only wrathful

    I think you nailed it. Liberals don’t like nicotine because it is mostly consumed by the working class people they look down on.

    Yep. Attitudes towards drugs are to a very large extent driven by class and ideological hatreds.

    It’s also possible that smoking is an unpleasant reminder of the Bad Old Days. You remember the Bad Old Days, when America put men on the moon. When Americans drove Buicks and Pontiacs built by Americans in American factories. The Bad Old Days when kids would go to the park and kick football around. The Bad Old Days when kids would unwrap their Christmas presents and the boys would be excited because they got toy dump trucks and fire engines and the girls would be excited because they got a Barbie play house. The Bad Old Days when America led the word in computer technology and companies like IBM were the envy of the world. The Bad Old Days when Americans liked baseball and NASCAR racing.

    In some ways smoking is symbolic of the old evil patriarchal America when Dad would come home from work and sit down and light a cigarette while Mom would fix him a dry martini or a Bourbon on the rocks.

    Marijuana is symbolic of the much better new America in which the kids go to Drag Queen Story Hour instead of kicking footballs around and parents are proud of their transgender sons.

    This also explains the current propaganda push against meat-eating. Hot dogs and pot roasts symbolise the evil Old America while veggie-burgers symbolise the bold New America.

  111. @A123
    @dfordoom

    The reality you fail to grasp is that most Americans do not want SJW secularism. Most Americans believe in God.

    Your desperate desire for a godless society doesn't work. Name any faithless secular society that is effective. The few godless societies that have limped along have had to create a new central faith, such as an Almighty Party -or- Devotion to the State. These "1984" Orwellian constructs are unstable.

    Your absolutist devotion to Atheism is blinding you to a much larger world.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The reality you fail to grasp is that most Americans do not want SJW secularism.

    Lots of people say they believe in God in a very vague way but they live totally secular lives. There’s a very small number of militant atheists and there’s a minority of the population who are actively religious but most people are in practice indifferent to religion.

    I’m sure there are many people who oppose SJWism and Wokeism but they would still prefer living in a secular society.

    Your absolutist devotion to Atheism is blinding you to a much larger world.

    I’m not a militant atheist. I’m a secularist. Like most people I’m pretty much indifferent to religion as long as religious people don’t try to impose their beliefs or their moral values on me.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    to religion as long as religious people don’t try to impose their beliefs or their moral values on me.

    Why should the mechanism used by a person to arrive at a moral position influence your opinion of the given moral "guidance"? Why can't you just reject the moral value? I assume that you reject many of the values being imposed by the Woke totalitarians. Are you okay with the Woke cult, but resent them imposing their values upon you? BTW, they got there by the secular route.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  112. @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom

    I think we know exactly when the Baby Boom ended: November 22, 1963, and not the death of Aldous Huxley. 1964 was the last year of the nominal boom, and I would love to see the birth numbers for that year, month by month. My guess: September-December, or children conceived after Dallas, are much fewer than children before. If you look at a graph of births, the dropoff to 1965 from 1964 is severe, and my guess is reflects the lack of optimism in the future.

    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.

    But grouping mid-50s kids with kids from 65 crosses this boundary. A child born in 1956 would have spent its youth in the optimistic, growing phase of the USA, where things got better, year after year. Its high school (1974) and college (1978) years would have dropped it as an adult into a collapsing society, but would not have colored the halcyon days of youth.

    Strauss and Howe identify Boomers as 1943-1960. The leading edge of that group profited immensely by getting to things before the crush, and the tail end turned 13 before 1973 finished, so its youth up to 13 was pretty good. A good shorthand: a boomer is too young to remember WW2, and old enough to remember Kennedy getting shot.

    Interestingly, Biden saved the Silents, who looked to be the only generation under Strauss and Howe never to supply a President.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.

    That doesn’t make any sense at all. The events of November 1963 were only significant to those old enough at the time to know what happened. If you were two years old at the time, or four years old, or six years old, then on November 22 1963 you didn’t even know there was such a person as President Kennedy.

    1956 seems to me to be a reasonable cut-off date. If you were born prior to 1956 you were old enough at the time for it to have an emotional impact.

    In the same way it’s quite appropriate to include those born in 1936 as War Babies because what distinguishes the War Babies from the Silents is that the Silents were just old enough for WW2 to have some emotional impact on them while the War Babies were too young.

    Not that I’m buying into your conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination but even leaving aside conspiracy theories it was an event that had a huge emotional impact on those old enough at the time to be affected.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom


    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.

    That doesn’t make any sense at all. The events of November 1963 were only significant to those old enough at the time to know what happened. If you were two years old at the time, or four years old, or six years old, then on November 22 1963 you didn’t even know there was such a person as President Kennedy.

    1956 seems to me to be a reasonable cut-off date. If you were born prior to 1956 you were old enough at the time for it to have an emotional impact.
     

    I've asked people from around that time. People as late as 1959 remember Kennedy's assassination, maybe because it happened in kindergarten. 1956 and 1958 people definitely remember it. I haven't found a 1960 baby, but a friend born in 1961 recalled the assassination in this way: he noticed his mother was crying, and he remembers her crying, and he asked her why she was crying and she told him. The memory of that has remained; not of President Kennedy, but his crying mother. That would put him at maybe 35 months old, and I cannot imagine too many children directly recalling things that happened before 3 (instead of recalling what people TOLD them about their early years).

    A 1962 or 1963 child could not even have that, I think.

    The point about the babies born after late 1963 is the emotional reaction of mothers to the stress. The ones in utero over that period would have had a different cocktail of stress chemicals as a result. Would it have a major effect? What if the stress of the Kennedy Assassination drove a woman to drink or smoke more?

    The loss of faith in the future would certainly drive the birth rate lower, despite the bow wave of the conventional boom turning 18 in 1964. You don't see this in 1964, which is lower than 63, lower than 62, which is lower than 61, so much as the absolute cliff from 1964 to 1965. I don't know what drove that cliff, but it wasn't a faltering economy (well, they did end silver coinage in 1964, showing inflation was heating up) since the real wall was hit 1970-1973 with the oil price increases.

    Not that I’m buying into your conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination but even leaving aside conspiracy theories
    What "conspiracy theory" have I advanced? Whoever killed the man, I'm not arguing he wasn't assassinated. I'm positing an effect of his assassination on the social mood of the country. I recall that "everyone remembers where he was on 9/11" if old enough, and the same held for Kennedy's assassination.

    What effect did that have?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  113. @Twinkie
    @iffen


    supposed egalitarianism of less complex societies
     
    It’s not just lower complexity - it has to do with the “mode of production.” And the relative egalitarianism of pastoralists (and greater freedom for women among them) is repeatedly attested by the neighboring agriculturalists/settled civilizations since the ancient times.

    Replies: @iffen

    I agree to disagree.

    (Relying on information provided by a group’s mortal and existential enemies should be done with caution.)

  114. @dfordoom
    @A123


    The reality you fail to grasp is that most Americans do not want SJW secularism.
     
    Lots of people say they believe in God in a very vague way but they live totally secular lives. There's a very small number of militant atheists and there's a minority of the population who are actively religious but most people are in practice indifferent to religion.

    I'm sure there are many people who oppose SJWism and Wokeism but they would still prefer living in a secular society.

    Your absolutist devotion to Atheism is blinding you to a much larger world.
     
    I'm not a militant atheist. I'm a secularist. Like most people I'm pretty much indifferent to religion as long as religious people don't try to impose their beliefs or their moral values on me.

    Replies: @iffen

    to religion as long as religious people don’t try to impose their beliefs or their moral values on me.

    Why should the mechanism used by a person to arrive at a moral position influence your opinion of the given moral “guidance”? Why can’t you just reject the moral value? I assume that you reject many of the values being imposed by the Woke totalitarians. Are you okay with the Woke cult, but resent them imposing their values upon you? BTW, they got there by the secular route.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Why should the mechanism used by a person to arrive at a moral position influence your opinion of the given moral “guidance”?
     
    It doesn't. I object to any group or any individual who wants to impose moral values on me or on society.

    I assume that you reject many of the values being imposed by the Woke totalitarians.
     
    Correct.

    Are you okay with the Woke cult, but resent them imposing their values upon you?
     
    I don't mind crazy people believing crazy things. The world is full of crazy people who believe crazy things. If a guy is convinced that he's the Emperor Napoleon that doesn't bother me in the least. As long as he doesn't try to force me to join him in invading Russia and he doesn't expect me to obey his imperial edicts I'm happy to tolerate him.

    So yes, I'd say that I'd be perfectly happy to tolerate the insane beliefs of Wokeists if they didn't have both the power and the determination to impose their beliefs and values on me (or on others).

    I used to know a couple of Trotskyists. They were nice guys. Their political beliefs were insane. They didn't bother me because they represented a Trotskyist splinter group that had all of about six members nationwide so their power to impose their beliefs on me was zero. If they'd managed to gain control of the government then that would have worried me.

    I also used to know a hippie chick who was into Tarot and astrology. She was completely nuts. All of her beliefs were completely nuts. Fortunately she didn't gain control of the government either and she didn't control a media empire so her craziness didn't bother me.

    BTW, they got there by the secular route.
     
    Yep. There are religious crazies and secular crazies. But I'm realistic enough to accept that I live in a secular society and that that's not going to change. I don't like the Wokeist crazies but I have no desire to exchange them for religious crazies.

    I just don't like anyone imposing their moral values on me. I guess I'd have to admit that while I despise economic libertarianism I do have social libertarian tendencies. I regard economic libertarianism and social libertarianism as two different animals.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  115. @Jay Fink
    @dfordoom

    I think you nailed it. Liberals don't like nicotine because it is mostly consumed by the working class people they look down on. If you look at a map of state smoking rates (from the CDCs BRFSS survey) it is nearly identical to the red/blue political map. The one major exception is Mormon Utah which is solidly red but has the lowest smoking rate. OTOH Marijuana is most popular in liberal states. Massachusetts was #1 for weed smoking in a survey I saw.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Not only wrathful

    The only person I noticed smoking in Manhattan when on the look out for a lighter was a homeless man. Cigarettes are not as stark a status marker in Europe.

  116. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    to religion as long as religious people don’t try to impose their beliefs or their moral values on me.

    Why should the mechanism used by a person to arrive at a moral position influence your opinion of the given moral "guidance"? Why can't you just reject the moral value? I assume that you reject many of the values being imposed by the Woke totalitarians. Are you okay with the Woke cult, but resent them imposing their values upon you? BTW, they got there by the secular route.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Why should the mechanism used by a person to arrive at a moral position influence your opinion of the given moral “guidance”?

    It doesn’t. I object to any group or any individual who wants to impose moral values on me or on society.

    I assume that you reject many of the values being imposed by the Woke totalitarians.

    Correct.

    Are you okay with the Woke cult, but resent them imposing their values upon you?

    I don’t mind crazy people believing crazy things. The world is full of crazy people who believe crazy things. If a guy is convinced that he’s the Emperor Napoleon that doesn’t bother me in the least. As long as he doesn’t try to force me to join him in invading Russia and he doesn’t expect me to obey his imperial edicts I’m happy to tolerate him.

    So yes, I’d say that I’d be perfectly happy to tolerate the insane beliefs of Wokeists if they didn’t have both the power and the determination to impose their beliefs and values on me (or on others).

    I used to know a couple of Trotskyists. They were nice guys. Their political beliefs were insane. They didn’t bother me because they represented a Trotskyist splinter group that had all of about six members nationwide so their power to impose their beliefs on me was zero. If they’d managed to gain control of the government then that would have worried me.

    I also used to know a hippie chick who was into Tarot and astrology. She was completely nuts. All of her beliefs were completely nuts. Fortunately she didn’t gain control of the government either and she didn’t control a media empire so her craziness didn’t bother me.

    BTW, they got there by the secular route.

    Yep. There are religious crazies and secular crazies. But I’m realistic enough to accept that I live in a secular society and that that’s not going to change. I don’t like the Wokeist crazies but I have no desire to exchange them for religious crazies.

    I just don’t like anyone imposing their moral values on me. I guess I’d have to admit that while I despise economic libertarianism I do have social libertarian tendencies. I regard economic libertarianism and social libertarianism as two different animals.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    I also used to know a hippie chick who was into Tarot and astrology. She was completely nuts. All of her beliefs were completely nuts. Fortunately she didn’t gain control of the government either....
     
    That adverb “fortunately” makes it the site's best line of the week.
  117. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Why should the mechanism used by a person to arrive at a moral position influence your opinion of the given moral “guidance”?
     
    It doesn't. I object to any group or any individual who wants to impose moral values on me or on society.

    I assume that you reject many of the values being imposed by the Woke totalitarians.
     
    Correct.

    Are you okay with the Woke cult, but resent them imposing their values upon you?
     
    I don't mind crazy people believing crazy things. The world is full of crazy people who believe crazy things. If a guy is convinced that he's the Emperor Napoleon that doesn't bother me in the least. As long as he doesn't try to force me to join him in invading Russia and he doesn't expect me to obey his imperial edicts I'm happy to tolerate him.

    So yes, I'd say that I'd be perfectly happy to tolerate the insane beliefs of Wokeists if they didn't have both the power and the determination to impose their beliefs and values on me (or on others).

    I used to know a couple of Trotskyists. They were nice guys. Their political beliefs were insane. They didn't bother me because they represented a Trotskyist splinter group that had all of about six members nationwide so their power to impose their beliefs on me was zero. If they'd managed to gain control of the government then that would have worried me.

    I also used to know a hippie chick who was into Tarot and astrology. She was completely nuts. All of her beliefs were completely nuts. Fortunately she didn't gain control of the government either and she didn't control a media empire so her craziness didn't bother me.

    BTW, they got there by the secular route.
     
    Yep. There are religious crazies and secular crazies. But I'm realistic enough to accept that I live in a secular society and that that's not going to change. I don't like the Wokeist crazies but I have no desire to exchange them for religious crazies.

    I just don't like anyone imposing their moral values on me. I guess I'd have to admit that while I despise economic libertarianism I do have social libertarian tendencies. I regard economic libertarianism and social libertarianism as two different animals.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I also used to know a hippie chick who was into Tarot and astrology. She was completely nuts. All of her beliefs were completely nuts. Fortunately she didn’t gain control of the government either….

    That adverb “fortunately” makes it the site’s best line of the week.

  118. @Bardon Kaldian
    Dr. Robert Morgan

    Re women's reproductive role

    Used to be, but not anymore.
     
    They are. Not sociologically, but bio-psychologically. Periods, maternal instinct etc. have not vanished. Gynecology has not disappeared. The point is that women are less socially and consciously determined by their reproductive role, but subconsciously- as ever.

    Basically, women want- their man, child & family, plus some financial stability. Modern life has given them education & other stuff (good, in my view), but left them without compass about the essentials for their happiness, panderig to their animalistic & irrational amorous natures.

    Einstein and Feynman were both womanizers, supposedly.
     
    Feynman was a womanizer until his last, happy marriage which he spent as a faithful husband; Einstein was talked about as such during the early Weimar era, but there is no proof, even in salacious bios, that he was one. Simply, there are no women who had been, supposedly, involved with him.

    Take 200 greatest mathematicians & physicists, past 150 years, and you'll find, erotically, uber-conventional people who, if married, were faithful husbands & family men.

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

    Maternal instinct kicks in after birth, but has no direct bearing on mating instinct which drives the sexual act. Animals like cats will go through a period of being in heat where the female seeks a mating partner, but without any comprehension of reproduction. Then when the kittens are born the mother will spend about 6 months being totally devoted to them, until they’re ready to run off and be forgotten. All of the patterns which we see in human civilization where people engage in sex with the planned intent of breeding children are the consequence of intellectual abilities that are not defined by any primal instinct. That’s why it’s not true to say that women have an instinct to breed. They may have an instinct to bang the poolboy and then another instinct to care for an infant that results from that act. But no singular instinct guides the entire process from A to Z.

  119. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    I think that this supposed egalitarianism of less complex societies is part and parcel of the whole “noble savage” and "peaceful primitives" dogma.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @RSDB

    Stratification is a form of complexity.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @RSDB

    Stratification is a form of complexity.

    I'm not sure what to do with this information and how it relates to my objection to the content of Twinkie's comment.

    Replies: @RSDB

  120. @RSDB
    @iffen

    Stratification is a form of complexity.

    Replies: @iffen

    Stratification is a form of complexity.

    I’m not sure what to do with this information and how it relates to my objection to the content of Twinkie’s comment.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @iffen

    A more egalitarian society would be a "less complex society", unless there was some corresponding development of some other sort of complexity.

    Replies: @RSDB, @iffen

  121. @iffen
    @RSDB

    Stratification is a form of complexity.

    I'm not sure what to do with this information and how it relates to my objection to the content of Twinkie's comment.

    Replies: @RSDB

    A more egalitarian society would be a “less complex society”, unless there was some corresponding development of some other sort of complexity.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @RSDB

    Sorry if I was unclear, but I was making a general point; I'm not trying to link this idea to prevalence or absence of polygamy among pastoralists.

    An article about polygamy in Israeli Bedouin: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polygamy-persists-among-israel-s-bedouins-women-are-pushing-change-n922296

    I don't know what an occupational breakdown might look like for this population, nor to what extent they might be considered a "complex society".

    , @iffen
    @RSDB

    Sorry if I was unclear,

    I will accept responsibility for using a term like complex society. I mean that the cut-off is between those groups that were literate and those that were not. For the non-literate societies there are two main sources of information: archaeology and attendant artifacts and written records left by the literate societies with which they had contact. Both sources have problems that complicate the idea that “we know” how their societies were structured and operated.

    Even in Western Civilization, women were treated as property until recent times. The status of women in pre-modern times was an adjunct to a man. They were wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and grandmothers. The idea that some non-literate societies were some sort of pre-dawn feminist paradise is ridiculous.

    Replies: @RSDB

  122. @RSDB
    @iffen

    A more egalitarian society would be a "less complex society", unless there was some corresponding development of some other sort of complexity.

    Replies: @RSDB, @iffen

    Sorry if I was unclear, but I was making a general point; I’m not trying to link this idea to prevalence or absence of polygamy among pastoralists.

    An article about polygamy in Israeli Bedouin: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polygamy-persists-among-israel-s-bedouins-women-are-pushing-change-n922296

    I don’t know what an occupational breakdown might look like for this population, nor to what extent they might be considered a “complex society”.

  123. @TomSchmidt
    @Jay Fink

    That, sir, is a fitness test. aKa shit test.

    If you cannot stand up to her mockery, how will you stand up to a charging bear?

    Replies: @Patrick McNally

    This a common fallacy, the notion that women create BS for men as part of a drive to select the strongest mate. It’s rather the opposite way around. Historically men guiding society learned to turn the female tendency to BS onto a route which sought to select for tough sons-in-law while placating the feminine tendency. But this was not the original driving force.

    Anyone who wants to test the hypothesis should run “sexual cannibalism” through search and see what comes up. In the early forms of species there was a more common practice which we still see surviving as a residue in such organisms as the black widow spider. In these cases the female will actually eat the male up after mating. The pseudo-evolutionary paradigm which some suggest would have you believe that the female black widow is trying to select for the best protector and provider when she chews the male spider down. But that’s obviously absurd. How can he protect and provide for anyone if he’s been eaten alive? Another whopper which gets thrown out is that the female black widow is trying to select for the best genes to pass on to her offspring by chewing up and spitting out the male spider. But again, common sense would say that males with the best sense of survival will avoid a female who practices sexual cannibalism. So this leads to a selection of the least fit mates, bot the best fit.

    Although it is true that long ago males responded to female sexual cannibalism by developing greater physical strength and this largely put an end the practice, but sexual cannibalism is still part of our primal evolutionary heritage and always will be. The female instincts are guided by much more than simply a wish to select the best protector, provider and overall genetic quality of a mate. Competition between the sexes is an independent dynamic unto itself which need not always mirror the priorities of protection, provision and genetic quality. History would be much simpler if things were so trite.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Patrick McNally

    This a common fallacy, the notion that women create BS for men as part of a drive to select the strongest mate. It’s rather the opposite way around. Historically men guiding society learned to turn the female tendency to BS onto a route which sought to select for tough sons-in-law while placating the feminine tendency. But this was not the original driving force.

    The idea is rooted in the fundamental fact that a man creates as many fertile gametes in a day as a woman does in her entire life, pushing out 1 or 2 fertilizeable ova. In shorthand, sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive. A woman who breeds with a man realistically surrenders 1/10th of her reproductive potential doing so (figuring 2 years pregnancy to weaning, and a 20-year highly fertile period), while presumably his remains unlimited. Those facts are undisputed; the tendency to fitness test is at worst unproven as an explanation.

    But, yes, in a warrior society, tough sons to join the Männer Sippe, for one example, would be required for long-term viability.

    In the early forms of species there was a more common practice which we still see surviving as a residue in such organisms as the black widow spider. In these cases the female will actually eat the male up after mating. The pseudo-evolutionary paradigm which some suggest would have you believe that the female black widow is trying to select for the best protector and provider when she chews the male spider down.
    That is obviously absurd, as you note. More likely is that the male spider, likely to die in any case, serves as a meal that allows the female to supply her eggs with more nutrition and so leave behind more descendants. Given that spiders do not survive over multiple years, the action must be genetically coded, since it cannot be learned from other spiders.

    I see the same effect in the fall, when VERY large mantises prowl my territory, looking for bugs and perhaps mates. The female will eat the male after mating in captivity, but apparently not so often in the wild. Since there are no giant mantises in the spring, they're all going to be dead a few weeks later. Not anthropomorphizing male insects with American individualism, perhaps they are programmed to help propagate the species at the expense of a few days of their soon-to-be-ending lives.

    Of course, it might be an example of an evolutionary "just-so" story, where everything is interpreted in light of evolution by natural selection.

    Although it is true that long ago males responded to female sexual cannibalism by developing greater physical strength and this largely put an end the practice, but sexual cannibalism is still part of our primal evolutionary heritage and always will be.
    Is "us" humans? It would make no sense for a female human to engage in such a practice. Though there are some interesting effects at the level of gametes.

  124. @RSDB
    @iffen

    A more egalitarian society would be a "less complex society", unless there was some corresponding development of some other sort of complexity.

    Replies: @RSDB, @iffen

    Sorry if I was unclear,

    I will accept responsibility for using a term like complex society. I mean that the cut-off is between those groups that were literate and those that were not. For the non-literate societies there are two main sources of information: archaeology and attendant artifacts and written records left by the literate societies with which they had contact. Both sources have problems that complicate the idea that “we know” how their societies were structured and operated.

    Even in Western Civilization, women were treated as property until recent times. The status of women in pre-modern times was an adjunct to a man. They were wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and grandmothers. The idea that some non-literate societies were some sort of pre-dawn feminist paradise is ridiculous.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @iffen


    Both sources have problems that complicate the idea that “we know” how their societies were structured and operated.
     
    This is a very good point, or so at least it seems to me.

    I think that Twinkie's distinction, though, was between predominantly pastoral cultures and predominantly "sedentary" farming cultures, rather than between literate and non-literate societies. These distinctions are not necessarily identical; Turcomans, Oirats, Buryats, etc. for instance have a long written tradition.

    women were treated as property
     
    I will let you argue this one out with Talha when he comes back. :)

    Replies: @RSDB

  125. @iffen
    @RSDB

    Sorry if I was unclear,

    I will accept responsibility for using a term like complex society. I mean that the cut-off is between those groups that were literate and those that were not. For the non-literate societies there are two main sources of information: archaeology and attendant artifacts and written records left by the literate societies with which they had contact. Both sources have problems that complicate the idea that “we know” how their societies were structured and operated.

    Even in Western Civilization, women were treated as property until recent times. The status of women in pre-modern times was an adjunct to a man. They were wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and grandmothers. The idea that some non-literate societies were some sort of pre-dawn feminist paradise is ridiculous.

    Replies: @RSDB

    Both sources have problems that complicate the idea that “we know” how their societies were structured and operated.

    This is a very good point, or so at least it seems to me.

    I think that Twinkie’s distinction, though, was between predominantly pastoral cultures and predominantly “sedentary” farming cultures, rather than between literate and non-literate societies. These distinctions are not necessarily identical; Turcomans, Oirats, Buryats, etc. for instance have a long written tradition.

    women were treated as property

    I will let you argue this one out with Talha when he comes back. 🙂

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @RSDB

    However, it was a fair criticism that the argument above largely did depend on outside sources, and there is a reason for that; Twinkie's deliberate restriction of his discussion to exclude the nobility somewhat complicates matters, because many of the written sources, especially the historical ones, such as the Secret History of the Mongols (which, by the way, describes plenty of polygamous marriage), focus mainly on the upper part of society. What ordinary people did was, by and large, just not considered very important.

    Of course there is plenty of modern ethnographical research on populations existing today or at least recently, which, though subject to its own biases, is probably fairly good at identifying obvious things most of the time.

    Interestingly Caroline Humphrey identifies a greater differentiation of wealth among more nomadic than more sedentary Buryats but some of this probably has to do with the specific circumstances of the case; it seems from the account above that the more sedentary Buryat populations were on average somewhat poorer.

    Replies: @iffen

  126. @Patrick McNally
    @TomSchmidt

    This a common fallacy, the notion that women create BS for men as part of a drive to select the strongest mate. It's rather the opposite way around. Historically men guiding society learned to turn the female tendency to BS onto a route which sought to select for tough sons-in-law while placating the feminine tendency. But this was not the original driving force.

    Anyone who wants to test the hypothesis should run "sexual cannibalism" through search and see what comes up. In the early forms of species there was a more common practice which we still see surviving as a residue in such organisms as the black widow spider. In these cases the female will actually eat the male up after mating. The pseudo-evolutionary paradigm which some suggest would have you believe that the female black widow is trying to select for the best protector and provider when she chews the male spider down. But that's obviously absurd. How can he protect and provide for anyone if he's been eaten alive? Another whopper which gets thrown out is that the female black widow is trying to select for the best genes to pass on to her offspring by chewing up and spitting out the male spider. But again, common sense would say that males with the best sense of survival will avoid a female who practices sexual cannibalism. So this leads to a selection of the least fit mates, bot the best fit.

    Although it is true that long ago males responded to female sexual cannibalism by developing greater physical strength and this largely put an end the practice, but sexual cannibalism is still part of our primal evolutionary heritage and always will be. The female instincts are guided by much more than simply a wish to select the best protector, provider and overall genetic quality of a mate. Competition between the sexes is an independent dynamic unto itself which need not always mirror the priorities of protection, provision and genetic quality. History would be much simpler if things were so trite.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    This a common fallacy, the notion that women create BS for men as part of a drive to select the strongest mate. It’s rather the opposite way around. Historically men guiding society learned to turn the female tendency to BS onto a route which sought to select for tough sons-in-law while placating the feminine tendency. But this was not the original driving force.

    The idea is rooted in the fundamental fact that a man creates as many fertile gametes in a day as a woman does in her entire life, pushing out 1 or 2 fertilizeable ova. In shorthand, sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive. A woman who breeds with a man realistically surrenders 1/10th of her reproductive potential doing so (figuring 2 years pregnancy to weaning, and a 20-year highly fertile period), while presumably his remains unlimited. Those facts are undisputed; the tendency to fitness test is at worst unproven as an explanation.

    But, yes, in a warrior society, tough sons to join the Männer Sippe, for one example, would be required for long-term viability.

    In the early forms of species there was a more common practice which we still see surviving as a residue in such organisms as the black widow spider. In these cases the female will actually eat the male up after mating. The pseudo-evolutionary paradigm which some suggest would have you believe that the female black widow is trying to select for the best protector and provider when she chews the male spider down.
    That is obviously absurd, as you note. More likely is that the male spider, likely to die in any case, serves as a meal that allows the female to supply her eggs with more nutrition and so leave behind more descendants. Given that spiders do not survive over multiple years, the action must be genetically coded, since it cannot be learned from other spiders.

    I see the same effect in the fall, when VERY large mantises prowl my territory, looking for bugs and perhaps mates. The female will eat the male after mating in captivity, but apparently not so often in the wild. Since there are no giant mantises in the spring, they’re all going to be dead a few weeks later. Not anthropomorphizing male insects with American individualism, perhaps they are programmed to help propagate the species at the expense of a few days of their soon-to-be-ending lives.

    Of course, it might be an example of an evolutionary “just-so” story, where everything is interpreted in light of evolution by natural selection.

    Although it is true that long ago males responded to female sexual cannibalism by developing greater physical strength and this largely put an end the practice, but sexual cannibalism is still part of our primal evolutionary heritage and always will be.
    Is “us” humans? It would make no sense for a female human to engage in such a practice. Though there are some interesting effects at the level of gametes.

  127. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    One way or another, whether wholly voluntarily or via escalating coërcion, white Gentile women with IQs over 110 must bear white Gentile men more children.
     
    The number one problem as far as demographic collapse is concerned is that most people have absolutely no idea that there actually is a problem. My experience when talking to normies is that virtually all of them believe that the world is facing an over-population crisis. If you try to tell them that birth rates are plummeting they think you're crazy. They simply don't believe it.

    An equally big related problem is that most normies believe in climate change, so they actually think that birth rates should be reduced.

    Even among the elites I suspect that there's still a widespread belief that birth rates should be reduced, not because they want white genocide but because they still accept the over-population and climate change narratives.

    And even among right-wingers there's still widespread belief that the poor and the working class are breeding like rabbits.

    There's not much point in discussing strategies to increase fertility until you can find a way to convince people that the world really is headed for demographic collapse.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    The number one problem as far as demographic collapse is concerned is that most people have absolutely no idea that there actually is a problem. My experience when talking to normies is that virtually all of them believe that the world is facing an over-population crisis. If you try to tell them that birth rates are plummeting they think you’re crazy. They simply don’t believe it.

    Try telling them that demographers were warning about this as early as 100 years ago if you REALLY want to blow some minds. It’s not that we’re going to suffer a population collapse so much as the economy is structured to sell things to new people coming along. Once you run out of young, wealthy consumers (which has happened in the West and rich East Asia, and soon China), the growth model simply ceases to function.

    I don’t yell at the neighbor’s kids running on my lawn: the sound of their playing is delightful to me. It’s a sound threatening to disappear from too many places.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @TomSchmidt


    Try telling them that demographers were warning about this as early as 100 years ago if you REALLY want to blow some minds.
     
    Yep. The warning signs were there by the beginning of the 20th century, and some people did notice them.

    It's interesting that we think of the Victorian age as an age of optimism but by late Victorian times there were widespread fears of cultural decay and social degeneration.

    It’s not that we’re going to suffer a population collapse so much as the economy is structured to sell things to new people coming along. Once you run out of young, wealthy consumers (which has happened in the West and rich East Asia, and soon China), the growth model simply ceases to function.
     
    Yep.
  128. @dfordoom
    @TomSchmidt


    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.
     
    That doesn't make any sense at all. The events of November 1963 were only significant to those old enough at the time to know what happened. If you were two years old at the time, or four years old, or six years old, then on November 22 1963 you didn't even know there was such a person as President Kennedy.

    1956 seems to me to be a reasonable cut-off date. If you were born prior to 1956 you were old enough at the time for it to have an emotional impact.

    In the same way it's quite appropriate to include those born in 1936 as War Babies because what distinguishes the War Babies from the Silents is that the Silents were just old enough for WW2 to have some emotional impact on them while the War Babies were too young.

    Not that I'm buying into your conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination but even leaving aside conspiracy theories it was an event that had a huge emotional impact on those old enough at the time to be affected.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.

    That doesn’t make any sense at all. The events of November 1963 were only significant to those old enough at the time to know what happened. If you were two years old at the time, or four years old, or six years old, then on November 22 1963 you didn’t even know there was such a person as President Kennedy.

    1956 seems to me to be a reasonable cut-off date. If you were born prior to 1956 you were old enough at the time for it to have an emotional impact.

    I’ve asked people from around that time. People as late as 1959 remember Kennedy’s assassination, maybe because it happened in kindergarten. 1956 and 1958 people definitely remember it. I haven’t found a 1960 baby, but a friend born in 1961 recalled the assassination in this way: he noticed his mother was crying, and he remembers her crying, and he asked her why she was crying and she told him. The memory of that has remained; not of President Kennedy, but his crying mother. That would put him at maybe 35 months old, and I cannot imagine too many children directly recalling things that happened before 3 (instead of recalling what people TOLD them about their early years).

    A 1962 or 1963 child could not even have that, I think.

    The point about the babies born after late 1963 is the emotional reaction of mothers to the stress. The ones in utero over that period would have had a different cocktail of stress chemicals as a result. Would it have a major effect? What if the stress of the Kennedy Assassination drove a woman to drink or smoke more?

    The loss of faith in the future would certainly drive the birth rate lower, despite the bow wave of the conventional boom turning 18 in 1964. You don’t see this in 1964, which is lower than 63, lower than 62, which is lower than 61, so much as the absolute cliff from 1964 to 1965. I don’t know what drove that cliff, but it wasn’t a faltering economy (well, they did end silver coinage in 1964, showing inflation was heating up) since the real wall was hit 1970-1973 with the oil price increases.

    Not that I’m buying into your conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination but even leaving aside conspiracy theories
    What “conspiracy theory” have I advanced? Whoever killed the man, I’m not arguing he wasn’t assassinated. I’m positing an effect of his assassination on the social mood of the country. I recall that “everyone remembers where he was on 9/11” if old enough, and the same held for Kennedy’s assassination.

    What effect did that have?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @TomSchmidt


    I recall that “everyone remembers where he was on 9/11” if old enough, and the same held for Kennedy’s assassination.

    What effect did that have?
     
    I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just arguing that the people who were really intensely affected emotionally were people born prior to 1956. The Silent Generation, The War Babies and the Early Boomers. For those people the JFK assassination was an emotional cataclysm. Many of them never quite recovered. For those born in 1956 or later it was at most a very dim vague childhood recollection.

    It's also significant that the other event that had an immense psychological impact was the Vietnam War. And the Vietnam War was a very big deal indeed for the War Babies (born 1936-45) and the Early Boomers (born 1946-1955). The Vietnam War cast a shadow over them that never entirely went away because for them it was personal. They personally had to deal with the idea of possibly being sent to fight in that war. For the following birth cohort (born 1956 to 1965) the Vietnam War was a childhood memory but it wasn't personal. They were too young to have to worry about being sent to Vietnam.

    For both those reasons I see 1956 as the pivotal birth year. There's a huge chasm between people born before 1956 and those born after that date. It's an almost unbridgeable psychological chasm.
  129. @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom


    All the babies born after November, 1963, were born into a world that knew a Deep State could assassinate a President.

    That doesn’t make any sense at all. The events of November 1963 were only significant to those old enough at the time to know what happened. If you were two years old at the time, or four years old, or six years old, then on November 22 1963 you didn’t even know there was such a person as President Kennedy.

    1956 seems to me to be a reasonable cut-off date. If you were born prior to 1956 you were old enough at the time for it to have an emotional impact.
     

    I've asked people from around that time. People as late as 1959 remember Kennedy's assassination, maybe because it happened in kindergarten. 1956 and 1958 people definitely remember it. I haven't found a 1960 baby, but a friend born in 1961 recalled the assassination in this way: he noticed his mother was crying, and he remembers her crying, and he asked her why she was crying and she told him. The memory of that has remained; not of President Kennedy, but his crying mother. That would put him at maybe 35 months old, and I cannot imagine too many children directly recalling things that happened before 3 (instead of recalling what people TOLD them about their early years).

    A 1962 or 1963 child could not even have that, I think.

    The point about the babies born after late 1963 is the emotional reaction of mothers to the stress. The ones in utero over that period would have had a different cocktail of stress chemicals as a result. Would it have a major effect? What if the stress of the Kennedy Assassination drove a woman to drink or smoke more?

    The loss of faith in the future would certainly drive the birth rate lower, despite the bow wave of the conventional boom turning 18 in 1964. You don't see this in 1964, which is lower than 63, lower than 62, which is lower than 61, so much as the absolute cliff from 1964 to 1965. I don't know what drove that cliff, but it wasn't a faltering economy (well, they did end silver coinage in 1964, showing inflation was heating up) since the real wall was hit 1970-1973 with the oil price increases.

    Not that I’m buying into your conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination but even leaving aside conspiracy theories
    What "conspiracy theory" have I advanced? Whoever killed the man, I'm not arguing he wasn't assassinated. I'm positing an effect of his assassination on the social mood of the country. I recall that "everyone remembers where he was on 9/11" if old enough, and the same held for Kennedy's assassination.

    What effect did that have?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I recall that “everyone remembers where he was on 9/11” if old enough, and the same held for Kennedy’s assassination.

    What effect did that have?

    I’m not really disagreeing with you, I’m just arguing that the people who were really intensely affected emotionally were people born prior to 1956. The Silent Generation, The War Babies and the Early Boomers. For those people the JFK assassination was an emotional cataclysm. Many of them never quite recovered. For those born in 1956 or later it was at most a very dim vague childhood recollection.

    It’s also significant that the other event that had an immense psychological impact was the Vietnam War. And the Vietnam War was a very big deal indeed for the War Babies (born 1936-45) and the Early Boomers (born 1946-1955). The Vietnam War cast a shadow over them that never entirely went away because for them it was personal. They personally had to deal with the idea of possibly being sent to fight in that war. For the following birth cohort (born 1956 to 1965) the Vietnam War was a childhood memory but it wasn’t personal. They were too young to have to worry about being sent to Vietnam.

    For both those reasons I see 1956 as the pivotal birth year. There’s a huge chasm between people born before 1956 and those born after that date. It’s an almost unbridgeable psychological chasm.

  130. @TomSchmidt
    @dfordoom

    The number one problem as far as demographic collapse is concerned is that most people have absolutely no idea that there actually is a problem. My experience when talking to normies is that virtually all of them believe that the world is facing an over-population crisis. If you try to tell them that birth rates are plummeting they think you’re crazy. They simply don’t believe it.

    Try telling them that demographers were warning about this as early as 100 years ago if you REALLY want to blow some minds. It's not that we're going to suffer a population collapse so much as the economy is structured to sell things to new people coming along. Once you run out of young, wealthy consumers (which has happened in the West and rich East Asia, and soon China), the growth model simply ceases to function.

    I don't yell at the neighbor's kids running on my lawn: the sound of their playing is delightful to me. It's a sound threatening to disappear from too many places.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Try telling them that demographers were warning about this as early as 100 years ago if you REALLY want to blow some minds.

    Yep. The warning signs were there by the beginning of the 20th century, and some people did notice them.

    It’s interesting that we think of the Victorian age as an age of optimism but by late Victorian times there were widespread fears of cultural decay and social degeneration.

    It’s not that we’re going to suffer a population collapse so much as the economy is structured to sell things to new people coming along. Once you run out of young, wealthy consumers (which has happened in the West and rich East Asia, and soon China), the growth model simply ceases to function.

    Yep.

  131. @Buzz Mohawk

    The assumption is that we’ve become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time.
     
    Right. In some ways, we haven't. Each new generation thinks it is doing something nobody did before, when in fact, such things have always gone on.

    I had an open relationship for a couple of years with a girlfriend in the early 1990s. It wasn't a parade of partners, but it happened a couple of times for each of us, and we stayed together. We openly recounted our adventures for each other. A couple of years later, I, um, participated in one with a rather hot married woman -- with the approval of her husband. We all became friends and had dinner together.

    Replies: @SFG, @Chrisnonymous, @Audacious Epigone

    What feelings did you have towards the man, the husband of the rather hot married woman?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Audacious Epigone

    Your question comes late, and I just found it. I will answer to the best of my ability:

    The man was from France, a professor of history and political science at a nearby university. He was somewhat older than his wife. I found him to be a stereotypical intellectual, but very open and friendly. He was proud of his wine collection, and he spoke as if he really felt that his accent and affect mattered a lot.

    What I mean is that I found him to be a stereotype, but a very nice one.

    His wife was very, very attractive. She is the one who first explained to me that they both were open to fulfilling their fantasies. When she first brought me home to meet her husband, he asked her, "Have you been a naughty girl?"

    It was all very easy, and I liked the man. I respected him.

    I have just a bit more to add, but it belongs below the "more" tag, thus:
    He, um, shaved her bare for me. He literally did that, preparing her nether regions for me. He mentioned some Middle Eastern practice. I just enjoyed it. Apparently he was a scholar of the Middle East. I really didn't care one way or the other.

  132. RSDB says:
    @RSDB
    @iffen


    Both sources have problems that complicate the idea that “we know” how their societies were structured and operated.
     
    This is a very good point, or so at least it seems to me.

    I think that Twinkie's distinction, though, was between predominantly pastoral cultures and predominantly "sedentary" farming cultures, rather than between literate and non-literate societies. These distinctions are not necessarily identical; Turcomans, Oirats, Buryats, etc. for instance have a long written tradition.

    women were treated as property
     
    I will let you argue this one out with Talha when he comes back. :)

    Replies: @RSDB

    However, it was a fair criticism that the argument above largely did depend on outside sources, and there is a reason for that; Twinkie’s deliberate restriction of his discussion to exclude the nobility somewhat complicates matters, because many of the written sources, especially the historical ones, such as the Secret History of the Mongols (which, by the way, describes plenty of polygamous marriage), focus mainly on the upper part of society. What ordinary people did was, by and large, just not considered very important.

    Of course there is plenty of modern ethnographical research on populations existing today or at least recently, which, though subject to its own biases, is probably fairly good at identifying obvious things most of the time.

    Interestingly Caroline Humphrey identifies a greater differentiation of wealth among more nomadic than more sedentary Buryats but some of this probably has to do with the specific circumstances of the case; it seems from the account above that the more sedentary Buryat populations were on average somewhat poorer.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @RSDB

    Of course there is plenty of modern ethnographical research on populations existing today or at least recently, which, though subject to its own biases

    Right. For example, some existing hunter gathers have been pushed to marginal areas. We can't be sure how much of the culture is pre-contact and not. Plus, there were always migrations and population upheavals that likely altered the cultures.

    What ordinary people did was, by and large, just not considered very important.

    Right. Where are the pyramids for the peons?

    Many times the peons did not have the culture or ethnicity of the ruling classes.

    Replies: @RSDB

  133. @Audacious Epigone
    @Buzz Mohawk

    What feelings did you have towards the man, the husband of the rather hot married woman?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Your question comes late, and I just found it. I will answer to the best of my ability:

    The man was from France, a professor of history and political science at a nearby university. He was somewhat older than his wife. I found him to be a stereotypical intellectual, but very open and friendly. He was proud of his wine collection, and he spoke as if he really felt that his accent and affect mattered a lot.

    What I mean is that I found him to be a stereotype, but a very nice one.

    His wife was very, very attractive. She is the one who first explained to me that they both were open to fulfilling their fantasies. When she first brought me home to meet her husband, he asked her, “Have you been a naughty girl?”

    It was all very easy, and I liked the man. I respected him.

    I have just a bit more to add, but it belongs below the “more” tag, thus:

    [MORE]

    He, um, shaved her bare for me. He literally did that, preparing her nether regions for me. He mentioned some Middle Eastern practice. I just enjoyed it. Apparently he was a scholar of the Middle East. I really didn’t care one way or the other.

  134. iffen says:
    @RSDB
    @RSDB

    However, it was a fair criticism that the argument above largely did depend on outside sources, and there is a reason for that; Twinkie's deliberate restriction of his discussion to exclude the nobility somewhat complicates matters, because many of the written sources, especially the historical ones, such as the Secret History of the Mongols (which, by the way, describes plenty of polygamous marriage), focus mainly on the upper part of society. What ordinary people did was, by and large, just not considered very important.

    Of course there is plenty of modern ethnographical research on populations existing today or at least recently, which, though subject to its own biases, is probably fairly good at identifying obvious things most of the time.

    Interestingly Caroline Humphrey identifies a greater differentiation of wealth among more nomadic than more sedentary Buryats but some of this probably has to do with the specific circumstances of the case; it seems from the account above that the more sedentary Buryat populations were on average somewhat poorer.

    Replies: @iffen

    Of course there is plenty of modern ethnographical research on populations existing today or at least recently, which, though subject to its own biases

    Right. For example, some existing hunter gathers have been pushed to marginal areas. We can’t be sure how much of the culture is pre-contact and not. Plus, there were always migrations and population upheavals that likely altered the cultures.

    What ordinary people did was, by and large, just not considered very important.

    Right. Where are the pyramids for the peons?

    Many times the peons did not have the culture or ethnicity of the ruling classes.

    • Agree: RSDB
    • Replies: @RSDB
    @iffen


    pre-contact
     
    Though (with no intention to contradict) I would just note that in the cases of peoples such as the Mongols and various sorts of Turks they have had a great deal of contact with the societies around them for centuries; probably rather more contact, in fact, than the members of these societies would have liked.

    Replies: @iffen

  135. RSDB says:
    @iffen
    @RSDB

    Of course there is plenty of modern ethnographical research on populations existing today or at least recently, which, though subject to its own biases

    Right. For example, some existing hunter gathers have been pushed to marginal areas. We can't be sure how much of the culture is pre-contact and not. Plus, there were always migrations and population upheavals that likely altered the cultures.

    What ordinary people did was, by and large, just not considered very important.

    Right. Where are the pyramids for the peons?

    Many times the peons did not have the culture or ethnicity of the ruling classes.

    Replies: @RSDB

    pre-contact

    Though (with no intention to contradict) I would just note that in the cases of peoples such as the Mongols and various sorts of Turks they have had a great deal of contact with the societies around them for centuries; probably rather more contact, in fact, than the members of these societies would have liked.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @RSDB

    Though (with no intention to contradict) I would just note

    I would just note that I frigg**g absolutely love contradiction.

    I seem to have lost our point of disagreement. I just restate that those who put forward some sort of feminist paradise of yore need to put some facts into the saddle bag and open it up and show us.

  136. @RSDB
    @iffen


    pre-contact
     
    Though (with no intention to contradict) I would just note that in the cases of peoples such as the Mongols and various sorts of Turks they have had a great deal of contact with the societies around them for centuries; probably rather more contact, in fact, than the members of these societies would have liked.

    Replies: @iffen

    Though (with no intention to contradict) I would just note

    I would just note that I frigg**g absolutely love contradiction.

    I seem to have lost our point of disagreement. I just restate that those who put forward some sort of feminist paradise of yore need to put some facts into the saddle bag and open it up and show us.

  137. @Sexisdirtyyes
    Hello,

    your claim that one is horniest in one's twenties is nonsense, and got repeated so often it is mind-boggling that you guys with your five+ sigma IQs can't figure it out.

    My sex drive did not diminish, neither did Andy Nowicki's. Neil Strauss started his crappy, degenerate PUA life in his early thirties.

    The commenters on the "bang curve" article are mostly imbeciles; someone there did not even want to admit that the rampant fornication and decadence of our society is bad. These guys are as shallow as it gets.

    Further, I am not responsible for being a loser, and I don't care that you call me a loser. Like Nowicki, I accept my loser status; what I don't accept is my lusting after status.

    Sex is a dirty and disgusting activity anyway, it is a stain. I recommend Nowicki's "Confessions of a Would-Be Wanker" and "Notes Before Death"; I share his anti-sex views, and I'm glad when I'm dead.

    Which brings me to another problem: no one has the right to force life onto me. I was forced into this shithole because my father ejaculated into my mother's vagina. This is a shitty reason to exist.

    I was born mentally ill, and you guys can't even defend, let alone implement eugenics! Even Vox Day, in Darkstream 340: Life is more than suffering, around 33:05, basically supports eugenics, at least he agrees that mentally ill people should not have children.

    Then another imbecile commenter wrote about "warrior monks": listen, idiot! Christianity is strongest outside the West, monasteries in Vietnam are bursting. The problem is that atheism has destroyed our faith; even I came to Christ only after I turned thirty. I hanged myself when I was twenty-three. Not because I could not get a date -- this was of no importance to me. I wanted to be a thinker of great importance. Certainly vain, but this was the only way I could imagine living a somewhat meaningful life.

    Needless to say, I knew I lacked the intellectual horse power for this, so suicide came natural, since I saw no reason to live anyway. What's the point? It is a shitty world, even God will create this hellhole in the end because it's so crappy. I repeat: even God will destroy this shitty place, He won't "fix" any of this: He'll just discard it completely. It is beyond fixing, it had Satan jerk onto it.

    Were I not a Christian, I would kill myself even if I had thousands of Bardots lined up for me, because I don't want that anyway. I wanted a meaningful life; now God is, in a sense, meaning, but this life is still crap. I would laugh your sex- and money-obsessed commenters in the face, and shoot my head into pieces.

    I'll end with a few aphorisms by the great Catholic thinker and reactionary Nicolás Gómez Dávila:

    Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

    Puritanism is the attitude that befits the decent man in the world today.

    Sensuality is a cultural legacy of the ancient world.
    Societies where the Greco-Roman legacy is being wiped out, or where it does not exist, only know sentimentalism and sexuality.

    To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

    Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

    In the end, there is no area of the soul sex would not succeed in corrupting.

    When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

    The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
    Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

    The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

    It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.

    PS: See also Kierkegaard, Otto Weininger, Schopenhauer's remarks on the demeaning nature of sex in his II. vol. of The World As Will And Representation (additions to the 4th book). It is sad to think about how low we've sunk if that is what passes for "educated" people nowadays. Their crude remarks about sex, their preoccupation with it and with money. And then compare that to just the few I just mentioned! What a world of difference! How brilliant and deep their views. They were fluent in Latin and Greek, of course.

    Also, those shitty commenters certainly would not dare to even mention "incel" in front of Chris Langan, who'd crush them. Why? Because he wrote this:

    "Right. As far as Germany is concerned, everyone is forever knocking the
    so-called “nazi stud farms” of the 1930’s and 40’s. But before one can
    even dream of doing this in any meaningful way, one must consider the
    alternatives available in the present reproductively degenerate
    environment … and we’re not just talking about genocidally replacing
    indigenous Europeans with maladaptive foreigners. (As I say, the situation
    here is nearly as bad. As one of the premier bouncers in New York, if not
    the best-known of all, I was nothing if not accessible to women. That I
    didn’t get any reproductive play on Eastern LI, where rich and pampered
    women abound, and that I simultaneously watched these decadent party girls
    having out-of-wedlock children by a succession of dunces, creeps, and
    minority players, is really quite informative when you come right down to
    it.) Truly, the Caucasian genome is in freefall."

    He's in favor of marriage, obviously.

    Comments were closed, so I write this via anon mail because I have no interest in a debate. It is worse enough that all you guys have a voice, whereas losers like myself have to endure this hellhole I was forced into without asking.

    PPS: What you wrote about ancient Rome is not true at least for its "prime". See Friedlaender's massive treatment "Sittengeschichte Roms"

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    What you wrote about ancient Rome is not true at least for its “prime”.

    Pompey married Caesar’s daughter, with Caesar’s blessing, when the former was in his late forties and the latter was ~17. They were the two most powerful men in Rome. Even today that would not be deemed acceptable, and it certainly wouldn’t have been a generation or two ago.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS