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
Exacting Personal Costs for Nonconformity
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

TomSchmidt writes specifically about the fire hose of voter irregularities across the country and the epitaph of Trump’s first term more generally:

ISN’T that really the issue? Maybe good intentions were in place: Trump complained about problems, which he knew were present. What did he do about dealing with them?

He couldn’t have dealt directly with these problems himself. That’s not what an executive does. But the personnel in place meant they wouldn’t be dealt with preemptively, and that looks like a fatal flaw in the president’s approach.

Granting full legitimacy to the vote counts as they stand for the sake of argument, was Covid worth half a percentage point in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia? If so–and it seems if not probable than at least plausible–iffen called it:

Since the vote was so close in many states there are numerous explanations. If I had to choose just one it would be Covid. It likely kept a few % of old white people home on election day, not to mention the numbers of voters who blame the weather on the President and vote accordingly, and that group would definitely blame Trump for Covid.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over Trump’s alleged denigration of fallen soldiers. But those World War I veterans got the last laugh, as MarkU explains:

So what have you got against dead people? Be fair, most of them have worked most of their lives, paid their taxes and a soon as they are dead they lose their voting rights. Naturally they have to vote by post because they cannot present in person. Even if they could, you Republican types would probably try to spin it as some sort of voter intimidation.

I know a lot of you think it is suspicious that the deceased are mainly voting for Biden, but the dead probably feel a great deal of affinity with Biden, after all he is practically one of them.

We condemn ageism here in the harshest terms, of course!

Twinkie entertains the idea that political dissolution may well be the least bad idea on offer:

Democrats have been engaging in election fraud for a very long time. I don’t think, though, that’s due to the Democrats being less moral than Republican pols and electioneers. This is a natural consequence of the Democrats having support in constituencies that are amenable to “machine”-building such as urban districts, Indian reservations, and the like. And because of the relative ease of cheating for the Democrats, Republican operatives have long said that GOP candidates usually needed to win by about 3% or so to overcome such shenanigans. And of course, the Democrats have had the media in their tank for a very long time too.

Arrayed against these disadvantages, the GOP has had some natural bulwarks. First, the electorate has been generally center-right, at least socially. Even Democratic pollsters and quants have admitted that Democratic candidates are on average considerably to the left of the general electorate in ideology. Certainly when voters are given party platforms without any party labels, they more often than not choose the Republican one.

Second, voting has reliably skewed older, and this has usually favored the GOP in most circumstances (an exception would be older black females).

Third, the business lobby traditionally sided with the GOP as it tended to support pro-growth and low-tax policies.

This election, in my view, has witnessed the acceleration and culmination of the long-term trends that have seen the amplification of these Democratic strengths and erosion of Republican ones. That is, the Democrats now have a near-total control of the major institutions and have become brazen in overtly pushing the party line – at schools, at work, and in the media. The propaganda and indoctrination are relentless and they have become very good at exacting personal costs for nonconformity. So the country is increasingly more “woke” (at least on the surface) and is less center-right in its public expressions than ever before… which in turn allow the left to be even more brazen and hysterical in its control of the institutions and of the news, the information, and the entertainment we consume.

In the mean time, the corporate sector has long ceased to even pretend to be patriotic. It is now openly globalist and antithetical to tradition, and has gone over to the Democrats as political funding figures confirm. Likewise the media doesn’t pretend to be neutral – it now portrays the GOP and Republican voters as Nazis and racists as a matter of routine, that is, as people who ought to lose their livelihood, be assaulted in the streets, and disenfranchised.

Given these trends, it’s hardly surprising that the Democrats and their allies have pulled all the stops in this farce of an election. Of course, that does not make it any less angering. Indeed, it’s infuriating – and deeply worrisome for the next generation, including my children. And it is because I worry about my children’s future and that of their peers, other young Americans, that I now think AE is right. We need a peaceful separation, Czech-Slovak-style, or I fear it will be civil strife sooner or later.

It is worth noting the neo-liberal wing of the Democrat party is firmly in control of the Democrat apparatus. The neo-liberal wing has effectively weaponized Wokeism not just against the right but also against the economic left. The progressive wing fell in line behind the Biden/Harris corptocracy in return for inclusions on a few non-binding committees, and now they’re being asked to take the fall for the relatively poor Democrat performance in House elections. The Biden/Harris campaign did more to court Never Trump Republicans than it did to bring in AOC/Sanders supporters, and it looks as though there may end up being more former Republicans in the Biden administration than there will be progressives.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: COTW 
Hide 180 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rosie says:

    It is worth noting the neo-liberal wing of the Democrat party is firmly in control of the Democrat apparatus.

    Indeed. The voters want economic progressivism and social conservatism. The donor plutocracy wants fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (the opposite). The plutocrats use the Republicans to advance their economic agenda and they use the Democrats to advance their social agenda, creating the illusion that people have a choice. Of course, in fact we have a bicephalous tyrant that governs according to the Golden Rule: Them that’s got the gold make the rules.

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Jtgw
    , @dfordoom
    , @Twinkie
    , @iffen
  2. Jtgw says:
    @Rosie

    I think this might have been true up till maybe Obama but increasingly the plutocrats get both kinds of liberalism from the Democrats and don’t need Republicans anymore.

    It’s tough as I consider myself a libertarian and in principle support the liberal program but what they’re pushing is a perverted form that benefits the establishment.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  3. Talha says:

    There may also be costs for conformity…getting kicked out of categories:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  4. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Indeed. The voters want economic progressivism and social conservatism. The donor plutocracy wants fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (the opposite).

    Broadly speaking I think that’s true.

    • Replies: @anon
  5. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    The voters want economic progressivism and social conservatism. The donor plutocracy wants fiscal conservatism and social liberalism (the opposite). The plutocrats use the Republicans to advance their economic agenda and they use the Democrats to advance their social agenda

    That’s too simplistic and doesn’t quite capture true voter sentiments. And of course, it also depends on what you mean by “economic progressivism.”

    In reality, the income tax system in the U.S. is quite progressive. The top 20% of income tax payers remit 80% of the total income taxes collected. Over the years, thanks to lots of Republican tax cuts, the lower and lower middle classes have come to pay hardly any income tax – in other words, they have virtually no skin in the game fiscally while consuming a disproportionately vast share of the fiscal spending by the government at all levels. The voters are split on this situation – some on the left think that this is fine and, indeed, that the tax system should become even more demanding on the top brackets while many on the right think this creates a moral hazard – of the masses voting to be given other people’s income (proverbially democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what to have for dinner).

    Where there is a broad consensus is the idea that corporatism has run amok in the system, whereby a master plumber or an owner of a modest HVAC business who make above the top tax bracket bear the tax burden of being “the rich” to be looted by the system (not to mention bearing the vagaries of the market forces), but large, increasingly transnational firms benefit enormously from subsidies and tax breaks originating from tax laws and policies crafted by an army of lobbyists. Indeed, both the right and the left condemn the fact that many large businesses – such as banking and financial services giants as well as insurance companies and union-dominated Detroit automakers (okay, maybe not so much the automakers) – are now deemed “too big to fail” and successfully have managed to “privatized profits and socialize risks/costs.” An outstanding example of his phenomenon was TARP through which executives of failing firms gave themselves millions in bonuses while the firms were rescued by the public money – in the mean time, over 800,000 homeowners lost their homes through foreclosure.

    So middle (and middle class) America is not demanding that successful neighborhood business owners and well-paid wage slaves* be taxed even more highly, so that the former can benefit at the expense of the latter (which is really an amazingly selfless phenomenon, to the credit of ordinary Americans) – they simply want corporatist abuses and raiding of the public money to stop. In other words, they want Wall Street and Silicon Valley to pay more to keep up the country, not their dentist neighbor with a bigger house. The so-called fiscal conservatism you attribute to the donor class is not fiscal conservatism at all – it’s robbing the top segment of the middle to pay the bottom and the tiny corporatist slice on top, a fiscal Caesarism, if anything.

    *It should also be noted that small business owners and highly-paid professionals aren’t by and large “the wealthy.” They are typically people trying to be wealthy through their labor. The real wealthy are those with a very large stock of accumulated property and such people aren’t in the least bothered by a progressive income tax system (provided inflation is not high). If anything they often favor such a system, which acts as a barrier to entry for “the new money” to enter their ranks. That’s one of the reasons, seemingly paradoxically, the super wealthy often favor the progressive income tax system.

  6. As usual, I mostly agree with Twinkie‘s incisive comments, but I have to take a bit of an exception to this:

    the GOP has had some natural bulwarks. First, the electorate has been generally center-right, at least socially. Even Democratic pollsters and quants have admitted that Democratic candidates are on average considerably to the left of the general electorate in ideology. Certainly when voters are given party platforms without any party labels, they more often than not choose the Republican one.

    It is true that the electorate is broadly center-right, but I wouldn’t characterize that as a “bulwark”. That’s simply what the electorate is, and if elections were fair, that’s what the government would be too. Election cheats and dishonest media are how the Left defraud the electorate out of their representation. The electorate preferring something different from what the fraud class imposes upon them isn’t a bulwark, it is the problem itself.

    If democracy were a real thing here, a center-right electorate would get a center-right government. Instead, the center-right electorate has to fight tooth and nail to get a sorta center-right government, and more usually gets some kind of woke-corporatist monstrosity where the same old donorist agents keep turning up in key spots.

    That Republican operatives reckon they need a 3% margin of victory to beat the Dem margin of fraud bespeaks their passive acceptance of the system’s corruption. The nature of two party democracy is that both candidates seek a 51% coalition of voters, so elections naturally tend to equilibrium-ize near parity. Getting a a reliable 3% margin is a surprisingly tall hurdle.

    • Thanks: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
  7. @Twinkie

    So middle (and middle class) America is not demanding that successful neighborhood business owners and well-paid wage slaves* be taxed even more highly, so that the former can benefit at the expense of the latter (which is really an amazingly selfless phenomenon, to the credit of ordinary Americans) – they simply want corporatist abuses and raiding of the public money to stop. In other words, they want Wall Street and Silicon Valley to pay more to keep up the country, not their dentist neighbor with a bigger house.

    And this is why the oligarch class want to keep them locked down, cowering in their basements, as their future livelihoods are destroyed. Same goes for the woke youngsters, who were useful idiots long enough to seal their own fates.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  8. Twinkie says:
    @Almost Missouri

    if elections were fair

    Life ain’t fair and there isn’t such a thing as a “level playing field” in real life… not even on the football field. Or, as the laconic Spartans would put it, “If.”

    Still, as someone who wants to make life as fair and just as possible, I share your outrage about the passive acceptance of a crooked system. On the other hand, that’s the card human nature has dealt to conservatism. People who are temperamentally conservatives don’t naturally favor mass-politics (or machine politics or its poor cousin “street theater”), which is, by its very nature, “revolutionary.” For that matter, they aren’t very good at it either even when they take to it.

    So in this Age of the Common Man, politics is naturally a field that favors the left. Traditionally, this was balanced by the power of the propertied being naturally more conservative, but “the propertied” as such as gone over to the left. So the middle (or center-right) stands on its own.

    • Agree: iffen, Talha
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  9. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    The voters want economic progressivism

    Not exactly. They want an economy that works for them.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Rosie
  10. Speaking of personal costs and my recent comment on AE about the problem of cancellation spreading beyond social media, today The Conservative Treehouse announced it is being deplatformed by WordPress for unnamed (i.e., spurious) service of terms violations.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/11/15/the-treehouse-is-deplatformed/

    I feel the wave coming. It’s like when I used to go to the ocean as a kid and saw those swells rising and rising, waiting for them to break over me.

    • Replies: @anon
  11. Jtgw says:
    @Twinkie

    And when you put it like that the electorate really is closer to libertarianism than socialism. Even when it comes to “social conservatism” I think what Americans really want is for their local communities to determine norms of behavior and not have Washington impose same standards on everyone.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
  12. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    In reality, the income tax system in the U.S. is quite progressive. The top 20% of income tax payers remit 80% of the total income taxes collected. Over the years, thanks to lots of Republican tax cuts, the lower and lower middle classes have come to pay hardly any income tax – in other words, they have virtually no skin in the game fiscally while consuming a disproportionately vast share of the fiscal spending by the government at all levels.

    First of all, I’m not sure the “lower and lower middle class” consume a “disproportionately vast share” of government spending. Most government spending cannot be apportioned in the way you claim. Do the rich not use highways or benefit from defense spending and law enforcement? Speaking of defense, whose sons are dying in all these wars? The very downscale folks whose contribution you find lacking.

    Moreover, even if you are correct that the have-nots don’t pay any taxes, it’s hardly their fault their good jobs were sent overseas, with immigrants coming here to drive down their wages. The plutocrats always promised that the “benefits of globalization” would be broadly shared, with income redistribution if necessary. And about that dentist. Doesn’t he pay lower prices for everything because of foreign labor? If he has a problem with his tax bill, maybe he oughtta take that up with the plutocrats who purposely destroyed the lives of working class Americans.

    Your whole narrative only makes sense in a closed system. That said, you are correct about whom the voters want to see paying more. I call that economic progressivism.

  13. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    Not exactly. They want an economy that works for them.

    Good grief, often. Must we engage in petty semantics?

    • Replies: @iffen
  14. Mark G. says:
    @Jtgw

    And when you put it like that the electorate really is closer to libertarianism than socialism.

    Average Americans have never seen themselves as libertarian but at the same time they have always been more libertarian than the rest of the world.

    The writer H.G. Wells once visited the U.S. and remarked afterwards that almost all Americans he met seemed to be some sort of liberal. By liberal he didn’t mean Fabian socialists like him or Shaw. He meant nineteenth century Gladstone liberalism. He meant the tradition of English political writers going from Locke to Mill and Cobden. This liberalism included a more conservative wing of writers like Burke. Burke was a Whig, not a Tory.

    Disraeli conservatism was never popular here in the U.S. since we never had a king, an aristocratic class of large landowners or an established church. The more radical forms of socialism also never were popular here, whether it was the national socialism of a Hitler or the international socialism of a Lenin.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Twinkie
    , @Jtgw
  15. Rosie says:
    @Mark G.

    The more radical forms of socialism also never were popular here, whether it was the national socialism of a Hitler or the international socialism of a Lenin.

    To any extent this is true, it is only because of the opportunities provided by the Westward expansion. With that over and done with, national socialism is precisely what the average Joe and Jane Sixpack voters want.

  16. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    Must we engage in petty semantics?

    I don’t believe that means what you think it means.

    The majority of Americans are satisfied with a capitalist economy as long as it works for them. They recoil at the idea of socialism. They are progressive in a social democratic sense, for example, they like Social Security.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @YetAnotherAnon
  17. Rosie says:

    The majority of Americans are satisfied with a capitalist economy as long as it works for them. They recoil at the idea of socialism. They are progressive in a social democratic sense, for example, they like Social Security.

    They only “recoil” at the idea of socialism defined as an absolute command economy. Of course, so defined, there aren’t any socialists.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  18. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    First of all, I’m not sure the “lower and lower middle class” consume a “disproportionately vast share” of government spending. Most government spending cannot be apportioned in the way you claim. Do the rich not use highways or benefit from defense spending and law enforcement?

    Defense spending is about 15% of the federal budget, but transportation budget is pretty small. Moreover these costs don’t vary based on income – you don’t drive on the highway more or consume a higher level of national defense because you have a higher income. Law enforcement usage is more scaled by income (indirectly) – the poor consume its services disproportionately for obvious reasons (rich areas don’t have as much crime).

    In contrast, entitlements account for the biggest chunk of the federal budget. Medicaid (free healthcare for the poor) alone is 10% of the entire budget at close to $400 billion per annum (plus over $200 billion additional funding from states).

    Speaking of defense, whose sons are dying in all these wars? The very downscale folks whose contribution you find lacking.

    Where did I say that they were “lacking,” whatever that means? I simply stated that the poor pay little to none in income tax while enjoying the government spending disproportionately.

    Speaking of military deaths, there are somethings to consider. First, there are OCO (overseas contingency operations) deaths and non-OCO deaths (from accidents, self-inflicted wounds, and illnesses). Since 2006, 74% of military deaths have been non-OCO deaths, 93% of which occurred in the U.S. During the same period about 2,000 military personnel died in Afghanistan and 2200 in Iraq, of whom 81-84% were from hostile action. In contrast, over 13,000 died from non-OCO causes, of which nearly 2,000 were from vehicle accidents. In other words, military personnel are far more likely to die from ordinary causes stateside than they are likely to die from combat overseas (one of the main reasons for this is that combat is usually borne by a tiny sliver of high-tempo, high-readiness combat units and its personnel in the US military which has a GIGANTIC logistical and administrative tail).

    Then there is the dirty little secret, which rarely go mentioned in the media, that the poor (and black) are disproportionately under-represented in those high-tier combat units that see the most action (and likely experience the most combat casualties). Such units that brave the most dangers are largely drawn from middle class and upper middle class recruits with relatively high aptitude test scores, not the poor and the downtrodden (though that’s often the media portrayal). Indeed, the most elite of the combat units that do the riskiest missions are typically filled with adventurous white males (and some American Indian, Hispanic, and certain Asian – mostly Korean and Filipino – equivalents) from relatively upscale backgrounds (who grew up doing sports like water polo). The most extreme example of this is Erik Prince, Navy SEAL and founder of Blackwater, who came from literally a billionaire family.

    So to the extent that the poor die in the military, they are much more represented in non-combat roles (e.g. logistics, communications, etc.), doing tasks unrelated to combat stateside than they are in dangerous combat missions overseas. Nor is this a uniquely American phenomenon. During World War I, for example, the officers of the British landed gentry class, despite the relentless political and economic attacks on their aristocratic way of life from the governments in power prior to the war, signed up in large numbers and were killed disproportionately highly, often bravely leading their social inferiors from the front, with revolvers in hand (indeed at the infamous Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, the British army lost somewhere between 300,000-500,000 men and almost an entire generation of upper crust British men, the flower of their aristocracy, perished).

    Moreover, even if you are correct that the have-nots don’t pay any taxes, it’s hardly their fault

    I did not write that the have-nots didn’t pay any taxes, I wrote that the poor and the lower middle class pay little to no income taxes. Also, I don’t recall faulting anyone except the corporatists. Please try to read what I actually wrote, not what you imagine I did.

    And about that dentist. Doesn’t he pay lower prices for everything because of foreign labor?

    You think the dentists’ liability insurance bills and lease (real estate costs) have gone down, because of immigrants?

    If he has a problem with his tax bill

    Not only did I not write about any such complaint, I used a neighborhood dentist as an example of someone “richer” that ordinary Americans don’t blame for the current iniquity to their credit… unlike, it seems, you as your retort appears to evince resentment toward the petit bourgeoisie.

    the plutocrats who purposely destroyed the lives of working class Americans.

    You won’t get an argument from me on that score.

    I call that economic progressivism.

    That’s not how that term is used in typical political discourse. Though resentment toward that dentist or plumbing business owner because he has a bigger house and wanting to exact a bigger tax bill out of him is.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Yahya K.
    , @John Gruskos
  19. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    They only “recoil” at the idea of socialism defined as an absolute command economy. Of course, so defined, there aren’t any socialists.

    An absolute command of the economy is not socialism – that’s communism, something only popular with the very young, affluent radicals with no memory or knowledge of the Cold War.

    And Americans in general favor some form of a social safety net, but do not favor extensive intrusion of the state into the free market economy.

    https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807047941/poll-sanders-rises-but-socialism-isnt-popular-with-most-americans

    • Replies: @Rosie
  20. Twinkie says:
    @Mark G.

    This liberalism included a more conservative wing of writers like Burke. Burke was a Whig, not a Tory.

    Indeed Burkean conservatism is THE intellectual genesis of modern American conservatism as described and espoused by the likes of Russell Kirk.

  21. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    Those polls tell us what Americans think of the word “socialism,” not what they think of socialism itself. If socialism doesn’t mean a mixed economy with a social safety net, then I don’t know what the hell it means, because, as you say, an unmixed command economy is communism.

    • Agree: utu
  22. anon[421] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    The Conservative Treehouse announced it is being deplatformed by WordPress for unnamed (i.e., spurious) service of terms violations.

    I wonder what the Conservative Treehouse said when Chateau Heartiste was deplatformed by WordPress for unnamed TOS violations?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  23. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    Law enforcement usage is more scaled by income (indirectly) –

    Lol, no. It is precisely the well-to-do who benefit most from law enforcement. After all, they’re the ones with something to steal.

    So to the extent that the poor die in the military, they are much more represented in non-combat roles (e.g. logistics, communications, etc.), doing tasks unrelated to combat stateside than they are in dangerous combat missions overseas.

    Evidence or I call bullsh!t.

    You think the dentists’ liability insurance bills and lease (real estate costs) have gone down, because of immigrants?

    No, but the fact remains that he enjoys lower consumer prices as a result of foreign labor. Besides, you and I both know that those are business expenses and therefore not part of his taxable income.

    Not only did I not write about any such complaint, I used a neighborhood dentist as an example of someone “richer” that ordinary Americans don’t blame for the current iniquity to their credit… unlike, it seems, you as your retort appears to evince resentment toward the petit bourgeoisie.

    Though resentment toward that dentist or plumbing business owner because he has a bigger house and wanting to exact a bigger tax bill out of him is.

    The White working-class should present the upper middle class, but not because they have bigger houses, but because they have piled on as TPTB have not only dispossessed but actively ridiculed and even demonized them for decades now.

    Contemporary progressives of the sort I think you’re referring to (AOC, et. al.) aren’t anti-bourgeois either. They’re fine with upper-middle class success, so long as it’s non-white. They don’t say there ought not be an UMC, only that it ought to be (along with the country as a whole) non-White. Class politics (muh taxes) is over.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Jim Christian
  24. Jtgw says:
    @Mark G.

    Libertarianism is largely an intellectual distillation of this American tradition.

  25. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    Lol, no. It is precisely the well-to-do who benefit most from law enforcement. After all, they’re the ones with something to steal.

    Law enforcement resources are disproportionately spent on poor (and black) areas, because that’s where crime happens. “Lol, no” is not an argument among the non-teenage girl demographic. Do you really not get the geographic distribution of crime and where policing is done?

    Evidence or I call bullsh!t.

    First, here is an overview: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf

    Now, look at this: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/guide-usmilitary-casualty-statistics.html

    Pay, in particular, to the table on race. Now, can you guess why whites are about 60% of the military, but 80-85% of the combat deaths and why blacks and Hispanics are 16% of the military each, yet account for only 10% and 5% of the casualties each? Can you read between the lines?

    You understand that the military uses a series of aptitude tests that are basically IQ tests and that highly elite combat units tend to have higher average scores than MOS’s that are for truck drivers and supply clerks? Now, where do you think those higher average aptitude scores come from, recruits from the very poor? Even in Vietnam – with a conscript force – the idea that the poor or the black died disproportionately was a myth, and now, with a long service volunteer force, it’s doubly so.

    No, but the fact remains that he enjoys lower consumer prices as a result of foreign labor.

    Consumption is a bigger part of the family budget of the lower economic stratum. Lower consumer prices benefit the poor more than the rich.

    Besides, you and I both know that those are business expenses and therefore not part of his taxable income.

    Yes, but they reduce his income/profit.

    Contemporary progressives of the sort I think you’re referring to (AOC, et. al.) aren’t anti-bourgeois either. They’re fine with upper-middle class success, so long as it’s non-white.

    I wasn’t referring to AOC-types, but more broadly the economic progressivism as defined in modern times that support a progressive tax system, etc. And I don’t think AOC is “fine” with upper middle class success since almost all such demographic is white or Asian (who are non-whites last time I looked at the mirror).

    They don’t say there ought not be an UMC, only that it ought to be (along with the country as a whole) non-White.

    Economic progressives don’t want to get rid of UMC, they want to tax it more heavily.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
  26. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    Law enforcement resources are disproportionately spent on poor (and black) areas, because that’s where crime happens. “Lol, no” is not an argument among the non-teenage girl demographic. Do you really not get the geographic distribution of crime and where policing is done?

    Yes, I get it, Twinkles, but the nonexistence of law enforcement resources would result in the immediate looting and pillaging of your Potemkin villages faster than you can say “Defund the Police!”

    You understand that the military uses a series of aptitude tests that are basically IQ tests and that highly elite combat units tend to have higher average scores than MOS’s that are for truck drivers and supply clerks? Now, where do you think those higher average aptitude scores come from, recruits from the very poor?

    No, they come from the most promising ranks of the White working-class (((a win-win!))). I know you think WWC people are all dumb, Twinkles, but that’s just your usual snooty classism showing.

    Yes, but they reduce his income/profit.

    Evidently not so much that he can’t afford that big house you referenced earlier.

    Consumption is a bigger part of the family budget of the lower economic stratum. Lower consumer prices benefit the poor more than the rich.

    And foreign labor hurts them more. What’s your point? If the upper middle
    e class has buyer’s remorse about globalism, they’re evidently too damned cowardly to say or do anything about it, even the retired ones. I’m drowning in my tears.

    Really, this is absurd. The lower classes have to spend all their money on basic necessities hence Twinkles is the victim here while he lives large in a white country his kind had no part in building.

    Economic progressives don’t want to get rid of UMC, they want to tax it more heavily.

    If true, you are here conceding that AOC and Co. are not, in fact, a threat to the “upper middle class” (by which term I suspect you mean to what us working-class rubes call mere “rich people” as opposed to the “filthy rich”).

    Your basic-b!tch conservatism (with a twist of anti-blackness) is not the solution for my people, Twinkles.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  27. nebulafox says:

    1) I don’t care about being liked, I will take being ignored.

    2) The fetishization of those who look differently is a great way of blocking those who think differently.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @res
    , @Audacious Epigone
  28. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    There can be positives to non-conformity as well. In your (current) neck of the woods, there was a Dutch footballer who converted to Islam recently and married into the royal family of the Sultanate of Johor. Prince Dennis, y’all:

    Peace.

  29. @Twinkie

    Life ain’t fair

    I used the word “fair” not from personal attachment to it but because it is a word the journalist pseuds are currently using to describe the election. Whether life is fair or not is a bit of a digression here. The question is really honesty. If the state does not actually want the electorate’s opinion, they shouldn’t poll them for it.

    (My own view of fairness is that life may or may not be fair, but our mortal minds can’t really tell, as illustrated by various parables, fairy tales, etc.)

    Otherwise, yes I agree, conservatives (aka most citizens) tend to be individualistic and uninterested in mass movements, and therefore disadvantaged in modern politics, which is essentially a fealty kabuki of acting out the Establishment’s aims and paranoias.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  30. @Twinkie

    Way to dodge the truth: jews are at the top of the food chain, having corrupted and ruined everything. Its ok, lots of folks dodge the truth. God forbid the truth we all know is spoken. I appreciate the comment, but you dodged the truth. AE does all the time and did here too. They tell about the theft, but dodge the real issue. Jews at the top with a wrecking ball in one hand, taking in the ill-gotten fruits with the other.. C’mon, you know the truth.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Twinkie
  31. @Rosie

    Evidence or you call bullshit, Rosie? No evidence needed, in the flight deck business, NO ONE wants blacks around. They were useless 40 years ago, they’re useless now. Rosie, why do you comment on stuff you know nothing about? Like women in the military in general, blacks are worthless in any high-level, risky, or life-threatening military venture. They only want the money. The job. Risk is for the White boys. THAT is the truth.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  32. Rosie says:
    @Jim Christian

    Evidence or you call bullshit, Rosie? No evidence needed, in the flight deck business, NO ONE wants blacks around. They were useless 40 years ago, they’re useless now. Rosie, why do you comment on stuff you know nothing about? Like women in the military in general, blacks are worthless in any high-level, risky, or life-threatening military venture. They only want the money. The job. Risk is for the White boys. THAT is the truth.

    You know, Jim, I’ve been commenting here long enough that there is really no excuse for this kind of ignorance about my views. Almost all commenters here, including ones who can’t stand me, like Twinkles here, interpret my comments in light of that context. Why don’t you?

  33. Yahya K. says:
    @Twinkie

    I did not write that the have-nots didn’t pay any taxes, I wrote that the poor and the lower middle class pay little to no income taxes.

    This is correct. The bottom 50% pay little in income taxes, both as a percentage of total taxes collected by the government, and as a % of their personal income.

    But a more complete picture would take into account the myriad of taxes (payroll, consumption, property, local, state, federal) that are charged in the US.

    The New York Times had an excellent chart a while back showing the COMBINED (payroll, consumption etc.) effective tax rate per income bracket.

    A few points:

    1) For the bottom 50%, consumption and payroll taxes make up the lion’s share of their contribution (85%+), while property and income taxes are minuscule. This is likely because they would not own as much property, and because their income range falls below the minimum needed to pay income taxes. (It’s likely that they pay a net negative income tax due to receiving tax credits). The top 400, on the other hand, pay the majority of their taxes in the form of corporate/business/property taxes and in income tax. The estate tax is relatively small. So are the payroll taxes due to the cap.

    2) The group with the lowest effective tax rate are the Top 400 richest Americans, who only pay 23% overall. The second next lowest are the bottom 10%, who pay 25.6% of their income in taxes. The group which pays the most taxes is the top 0.1%, who pay 33.3%, most of it in income taxes. So overall, the tax system is pretty progressive, right up to but not including the top 400, who manage to pay less taxes (as a % of their income) than the poorest 10% of Americans.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @nebulafox
  34. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    the idea that the poor or the black died disproportionately was a myth,

    Are you sure about this?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  35. iffen says:
    @Yahya K.

    Interesting information, YK. I see caveats here and there. I’m guessing that this is for the US as a whole. There is a heck of a difference with regard to income and taxes between a state like Alabama (mine) and Massachusetts, not to mention all the other state differences. Some states don’t even have an income tax. Some states exempt groceries from sales tax, etc.

    Payroll taxes are “different.” Most people receive “their” taxes back and then some. Also, Social Security payouts are weighted in such a way that the lowest earners get a bonus when the start collecting vis-à-vis the higher earners.

    Many lower income people rent property, so they in effect, pay the property taxes (which the property owner expenses) via pass through.

  36. nebulafox says:
    @Yahya K.

    A lot of American oligarchs keep their money overseas. Note that Biden’s campaign neglected to mention going after that when talking about their tax plans.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
  37. Yahya K. says:
    @nebulafox

    A lot of American oligarchs keep their money overseas.

    Most oligarchs, from any country, keep their money oversees. If you think American oligarchs are bad, you should check out the Russian ones.

    I think in terms of tax evasion, the American rich don’t really need oversees tax shelters. The tax code at home is built to their advantage already. For example, most of the taxes they pay are in the form of corporate/business/capital gains taxes, which are currently set at around 21% after the Trump tax cuts, and income taxes, which have all sorts of deductions built into them that any competent accountant can take advantage of. So they are already at the 23% rate from the get go. But I guess if they really wanted to hammer that tax bill down to $0, oversees shelters would do the trick.

    Note that Biden’s campaign neglected to mention going after that when talking about their tax plans.

    The best way to get the top 400 to pay their taxes is to create a public database with their names on it, and how much taxes they paid that year. That way they can be shamed personally and publicly for not paying taxes. And they could even be encouraged to get some virtue-signaling points if they pay more than their peers.

    I should note, however, that raising income taxes on the top 400 wouldn’t move the needle much. The Buffet Rule, which would have raised the minimum effective tax rate to 30% for those earning $1,000,000+ a year, was estimated to raise about $47 billion over ten years. That would come to about $4.7 billion per year on average, hardly enough money to pay for anything in the federal budget.

    The only way to make a big dent is to take away from their wealth, not their income. BUT, a wealth tax has proven to be unworkable multiple times by different countries. Austria abolished their wealth tax in 1994, Denmark in 1997, Sweden in 2007, and France in 2017; because the wealth tax didn’t raise enough revenue (~0.2% of GDP on average) to compensate for administrative costs, and rich people parked their money elsewhere and even fled the country at times (like IKEA’s Ingvar Kamprad).

    Some say that there are new technologies that would allow authorities to go after oversees money, but this hasn’t been tried yet. We’ll see how it goes.

  38. Rosie says:
    @anon

    I wonder what the Conservative Treehouse said when Chateau Heartiste was deplatformed by WordPress for unnamed TOS violations?

    Rape Coach Roosh had it coming. Please spare us the false equivalencies.

    • Replies: @anon
  39. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    The majority of Americans are satisfied with a capitalist economy as long as it works for them. They recoil at the idea of socialism. They are progressive in a social democratic sense, for example, they like Social Security.

    They recoil at the word socialism because socialism is a word that means “evil” and they don’t know what “social democrat” means. They see things in moral terms. Socialists are bad people. They would recoil at the idea of social democracy because it sounds like socialism and socialism is the same as communism and communism is evil.

    People like the welfare state but if you asked them if they approved of the welfare state they’d say no. Because the welfare state is socialism. But they like Social Security.

    If you offered them a social democratic program and called it a social democratic program they’d reject it. But if you called it something else they’d embrace it.

    They like capitalism in theory because capitalism is the opposite of communism (which is evil) but in practice they’re tired of being screwed by capitalism.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  40. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    hence Twinkles is the victim here while he lives large in a white country his kind had no part in building.

    You are what Razib Khan calls a “dumb animal.”

    You are not interested in knowing and understanding the truth – you want to win internet arguments and validate your twisted feelings. So when you have been demonstrated to be ignorant or wrong, you immediately switch to “Get out of my country, you mud-person.”

    It’s a waste of time to engage you. But I write here for the benefit of other readers.

    No, they come from the most promising ranks of the White working-class (((a win-win!))). I know you think WWC people are all dumb, Twinkles, but that’s just your usual snooty classism showing.

    Right, it’s “classism” to note that class and aptitude are highly correlated. Do you understand this thing called heritability?

    Are the parentheses to indicate the Jews are fault for that dynamic? I think that’s “-ism” of some kind – though why you are not transparent about it, I don’t get. Criticism and even outright hostility toward Jews isn’t exactly penalized around here (Jewish commenter Jack D recently accused me of being an anti-Semite after he couldn’t argue the substance with me).

    • Replies: @Rosie
  41. @Twinkie

    entitlements account for the biggest chunk of the federal budget.

    I simply stated that the poor pay little to none in income tax while enjoying the government spending disproportionately.

    If you take entitlement spending into account while ignoring income taxes such as the social security tax and the medicare tax (combined 15.2%), it sure looks like the poor are getting a good deal.

  42. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Rape Coach Roosh had it coming.

    Lol @ your ignorance.

    Please spare us the false equivalencies.

    SJW detected. Only Black Lives Matter, Rosie!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  43. res says:
    @nebulafox

    2) The fetishization of those who look differently is a great way of blocking those who think differently.

    This is one of the most distressing aspects of the “diversity” craze.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  44. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    You are what Razib Khan calls a “dumb animal.”

    There’s no low you won’t sink to, is there Twinkles? You are not even above calling people animals. I’ve never called anyone a “mudperson” in my life, but if I had, I would at least be calling them a “person,” which is a great deal more basic civility than you can muster for those you deem inferior to yourself.

    Right, it’s “classism” to note that class and aptitude are highly correlated. Do you understand this thing called heritability?

    Sorry, Twinkles, but said correlation does not mean that there are no smart people in the working class. For that to be the case, you’d have to assume perfect equality of opportunity, which doesn’t exist even now let alone prior generations. And yes, you are an arrogant, classist douchebag.

    Are the parentheses to indicate the Jews are fault for that dynamic? I think that’s “-ism” of some kind – though why you are not transparent about it, I don’t get.

    I can’t slip anything past you, can I Twinkles?

    • Troll: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
  45. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Rape Coach Roosh had it coming.

    Lol @ your ignorance.

    Please spare us the false equivalencies.

    SJW detected. Only Black Lives Matter, Rosie!

    Ok, 192, if rape coaching shouldn’t be relegated to the dark web, is there anything that crosses the line I your opinion? How to make bombs? How to groom kids? How to manufacture fentanyl? You tell me.

  46. nebulafox says:
    @Rosie

    Regret after the beer goggles fade or the guy being a sleazy liar does not a rape make.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Rosie
  47. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    Modern America has a way of mixing the worst of the public and private sectors, ergo how we can have a health care system that is simultaneously the most expensive and the most inefficient in the developed world. American rates of obesity just make things worse. Or, on my more cynical days, I believe that Amazon-backed politicians indulged the rioters because already pandemic pressed COVID retailers got hit and bankrupted, whereas Bezos can easily afford privatized security. To think of the elites in the private and public sectors in America as at odds is to mistake rhetoric for reality, they are deeply comfortable with each other, hence Corporate America’s adoption of wokeism.

    I’m a long standing critic of the GOP’s parodyable tendency to fetishize the free market, but I can see a political opening around “making the market work for ordinary citizens”. America’s not Singapore or Denmark, it has to find something that is going to work over a sprawling landmass with 350 million people who do not take kindly to Chinese levels of control.

    • Agree: iffen, Dissident
  48. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    I used to post under the comments section on Roosh’s site once in a while and try to engage with those guys. They generally had a low estimation of women, were bitter and assumed an adversarial stance to females (at least that’s how it came across to me), but they didn’t strike me as the rapist archetype…more the Leisure Suit Larry archetype with a chip on the shoulder.

    “who do not take kindly to Chinese levels of control.”
    Thank God! USA! USA! USA!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Jim Christian
  49. Rosie says:
    @nebulafox

    Regret after the beer goggles fade or the guy being a sleazy liar does not a rape make.

    Actually, one could certainly argue that a guy being a sleazy liar ought to make a rape, or at least a crime of some sort. Indeed, it used to make the crime of seduction.

    Why is this not still a crime? It’s illegal to take someone’s property by false pretenses. Why do we make an exception for sex?

    As far as your jibe about regret, this is a load of hogwash. Women do not accuse men of rape because of regret. Women are much more likely to report in surveys that they have been raped than they are to report rape to the authorities, precisely because they know they can’t prove it.

    Anyway, I’m not sure what your point is. Do you deny that Roosh coached men in how to get away with rape? And if so, do you deny that he coached them in how to walk right up to the line of what is just barely permissible?

    I’ll admit I get misogynists mixed up sometimes, so I’m willing to defer to those with more expertise than me.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(crime)#:~:text=Seduction%2C%20in%20criminal%20law%2C%20is,set%20an%20age%20of%2021.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @dfordoom
    , @nebulafox
  50. Muse says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    seemingly paradoxically, the super wealthy often favor the progressive income tax system.

    The wealthy don’t worry about income taxes and payroll taxes because most of their money is derived from inheritance and capital gains. They don’t pay FICA tax. The FICA they pay in income stops after $142k. Dividend income is exempt from FICA. Long Term Capital gains under approx $450k a year is only paid at a rate of 15%. This is why executives and owners want to get paid in shares as Incentive Stock Options. So a working family pays at rates close to 30%, plus FICA and FICA medical, (nearly 40%) while the wealthy pay at 15%. Moreover, they can deduct accrued capital losses indefinitely until they losses are exhausted against other investment gains and spread realized gains out by delaying sales of securities or the exercising of the options to let the income from capital gains trickle in at a slower pace. On top of that, they can also hold onto the stocks and if their estate is under a certain amount, their heirs will get a step up in the basis of these assets and not pay taxes on gains that should have been realized by the decedent..

    Additional capital gains tax dodges include zero taxes on investments made in qualified opportunity zones, (up to $10 million in realized gains exempted if the proceeds from a realized gain are invested for 10 years in an opportunity zone) . QSB’s Qualified Small Business stocks are exempt (under $50 million). If you are charitably minded, you can gift stocks to qualified charities without selling them and take the tax benefits off your income tax likely at 37% if you are wealthy instead of capital gains at a max 20% tax rate. Often times, the charities and charitable trusts that benefit from these contributions end up being run by the family members of the donor, and they earn substantial salaries. This is a gift that keeps on giving back.

    We have not even gotten into charitable remainder trusts.

    The system is completely rigged against middle and upper middle income groups.

    • Agree: Twinkie, V. K. Ovelund
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  51. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    I think this is the link you were likely looking for:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_(tort)

    And I think this is likely why it is no longer a crime:
    Initially, the tort of seduction was a remedy for a father’s property interest in his daughter’s chastity.[2] However, the damages to which the father would be entitled were based on the father’s loss of the working services of a daughter, much as a master could sue if a third-party caused injury to his servant that rendered the servant unable to work, because she was “seduced and debauched” and became pregnant as a result of nonmarital sexual activity. The tort of seduction was one of the most common civil actions toward the end of the 19th century, and fathers were often successful before juries.[3]

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  52. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    Yes, I know that’s the story, but I think it’s more complicated than that. The fact is that a tort of seduction would be necessary to compensate the father for a real loss. If a woman couldn’t marry and couldn’t work, he would have to support her indefinitely. This remedy for fathers also indirectly redressed (usually rather prevented) the injury to the woman, who would otherwise feel like a burden on her family.

    I thought that seduction was a crime, but maybe it was just a tort.

    Edit: Yes, apparently it was not just a crime, but a felony at common law.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction

    • Replies: @Talha
  53. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    I don’t get that: reeking of frustration and hatred isn’t a turn on. Men and women are supposed to like each other.

    • Replies: @Talha
  54. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    I think because, as you mentioned the case in which someone swindled another out of money/property due to a lie, the onus would be on the aggrieved party to show there was some tangible damage or quantifiable harm done (in the above case it seems this would be provable future monetary damages to the father).

    In an age where the majority of women have multiple partners before settling down, I don’t think anyone can make this case anymore. I could be wrong.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
  55. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    In an age where the majority of women have multiple partners before settling down, I don’t think anyone can make this case anymore. I could be wrong.

    That’s true, but it begs the question whether women would have multiple partners before settling down if seduction were still unlawful.

    Also, you have to keep in mind the difference between a crime and a tort. Only the tort serves a compensatory purpose. The crime is another matter. Sending someone to prison doesn’t compensate for an economic loss, it punishes for violation of a person’s dignity or honor, if you prefer. The fact that there is no longer any economic loss doesn’t mean that the affront to the person’s honor shouldn’t be redressed.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Talha
  56. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Actually, one could certainly argue that a guy being a sleazy liar ought to make a rape, or at least a crime of some sort.

    If being a sleazy liar in order to get what you want (and I’m not talking just about sex but about life in general) were a crime you’d need to build enough prisons to hold tens of millions more people.

    For one thing every politician and every journalist would be in prison. And every lawyer.

    I’m not saying that being a sleazy liar is OK, but in practice you can’t really make it a crime.

    It’s a good idea not to have sex with someone until you know the person well enough to know he isn’t a sleazy liar. And men aren’t the only ones who lie to get what they want.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Rosie
  57. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    That’s true, but it begs the question whether women would have multiple partners before settling down if seduction were still unlawful.

    My guess would be that yes, they would.

    Also, women can and do seduce men.

    I think you’re being unrealistic in thinking we can go back to the sexual mores of the Victorian era. I’m not saying that the sexual mores of today are good, but the past wasn’t all good either.

  58. nebulafox says:
    @Rosie

    But what if you want to be seduced? That would make you like an accessory to the crime. 😉

    Can’t say, I never read Roosh. In general, I think a non-psychopath can determine what parts of the “manosphere” are sound and what is BS pretty easily. It really is not that hard. If you truly need society to inform you that rape is wrong and will probably end with you yourself being raped in prison, then a blog is not at fault: you might very well be a minimal thinking ahead psychopath!

    Re, regret: my generation of guys would not be preserving texts proving consent in the age of MeToo if that were not so.

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Rosie
  59. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    I think the point of those guys is to learn to hide that and put forward an attractive veneer to get laid, thus the “artist” in “pick up artist”, no?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  60. Twinkie says:
    @nebulafox

    But what if you want to be seduced? That would make you like an accessory to the crime. 😉

    Only a rapist would say that in Rosie-world.

  61. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    But see, that’s the thing. Just like studying making you smarter or physical activity making you more confident and focused, actually becoming a slicker, happier, more charming guy brings in the women. There is no need to “hide” it.

    Almost as if all these hacks are dressing up old medicine as new magic.

    • Replies: @Talha
  62. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    great deal more basic civility

    I would at least be calling them a “person

    douchebag

    Apparently I am not even an animal, but a dirty inanimate object.

    This is pearls before swine, but last try: re-read the thread. I gave you the benefit of doubt and argued the substance of the matters at hand dispassionately. Once you realized you lost the argument, you personalized the discussion, engaged in diversion and name calling, and suggested I don’t belong in the country for which I have made more sacrifices than you’d ever know.

    You are a nasty, half-witted shrew who tries to invert her unhappiness with her own flaws into bigotry and other people’s fault. I feel sorry for your husband and children.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  63. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    We know where this eventually leads…

    Peace.

  64. Twinkie says:
    @Jim Christian

    Way to dodge the truth: jews are at the top of the food chain, having corrupted and ruined everything.

    Jews are disproportionately highly represented among the liberal elites who have steered the country wrong, but I don’t think there is some sort of a Jewish conspiracy. Nor are they alone at fault for wrecking the country.

    But this rather (in my mind) reasonable view didn’t stop a notable Jewish commenter on Unz from calling me an anti-Semite.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/2020-in-a-nutmeg/#comment-4283501

    I’m not afraid of criticizing Jews when they ought be criticized, but I also don’t believe in ascribing some nefarious cabal-making to them either. Having gained considerable experience in “the Deep State” as such, I know that ordinary greed and incompetence are far better explanations for where we are than some convoluted conspiracy.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, Dissident
  65. Twinkie says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Otherwise, yes I agree, conservatives (aka most citizens) tend to be individualistic and uninterested in mass movements, and therefore disadvantaged in modern politics, which is essentially a fealty kabuki of acting out the Establishment’s aims and paranoias.

    I disagree with the idea that most citizens are individualistic. I think most ordinary people are rather communitarian (so are conservatives), but such communities are organic and natural, e.g. family, church, bowling league, school friends, etc.

    Left-wing mobilization of crowds of “activists” for mass politics and street theater is not organic – it’s deeply artificial and constructed by ideology, not by natural ties of kinship, neighborliness, shared religion, etc… which is why the adherents of the former get hysterical when confronted with dissenters.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  66. Twinkie says:
    @iffen

    Are you sure about this?

    Yes. Try this for a good summary, but I will append some additional notes below: https://www.vvof.org/factsvnv.htm

    The stereotypes are wrong. Let’s look at the facts, starting with who actually served in Vietnam.
    The image of those who fought in Vietnam is one of poorly educated, reluctant draftees — predominantly poor whites and minorities. But in reality, only one-third of Vietnam-era veterans entered the military through the draft, far lower than the 66 percent drafted in World War II.

    It was the best-educated and most egalitarian military force in America’s history — and with the advent of the all-volunteer military, is likely to remain so. In WWII, only 45 percent of the troops had a high school diploma. During the Vietnam War, almost 80 percent of those who enlisted had high school diplomas, and the percentage was higher for draftees — even though, at the time, only 65 percent of military-age males had a high school diploma.

    Throughout the Vietnam era, the median education level of the enlisted man was about 13 years. Proportionately, three times as many college graduates served in Vietnam than in WWII.

    Though the notion persists that those who died in Vietnam were mostly members of a minority group, it’s not true. About 5 percent of KIAs were Hispanic and 12.5 percent were black — making both minorities slightly under-represented in their proportion of draft-age males in the national population.

    Where the stereotype of blacks dying disproportionately (20% of the blacks) in Vietnam comes from is during the early 1964-1966 period when the number of killed was relatively very low (it was 200 or so in 64 and 2000 in 65). By 1967, the black casualty rate was 13% and by 1970, it was under 10%. The average over the entire war was 12.5% (actual combat deaths were around 11%). This was when blacks were 13.5% of the draft age manpower in the U.S.

    And of the 58,000 who died in the war, over 40,000 were regular and reserve and under 18,000 were selective service. Also, by pay grade, 8,000 were officers (including warrant officers) and under 49,000 were enlisted, meaning officers – definitionally higher class – were disproportionately represented among the dead. The most dangerous rank in Vietnam was captain/company commander (something two of my uncles can attest as they were company commanders of an allied contingent in Vietnam).

    • Thanks: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @res
  67. iffen says:
    @Talha

    In an age where the majority of women have multiple partners before settling down, I don’t think anyone can make this case anymore. I could be wrong.

    Right. Another way to look at this is that she is likely to know how to do fun stuff that you don’t.

    • Replies: @Talha
  68. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    I draw different conclusions from this information.

    [MORE]

    25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees. (66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII.)

    Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.

    Draftees died at a noticeably higher rate than non-draftees. It would be informative to know the racial breakdown of draftees.

    88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.


    86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics);

    12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.

    Blacks died at a higher rate than whites among those that were in Vietnam.*

    *see below on that 12.5%

    76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.

    Three-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.

    Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.

    This means that 25% were below the poverty level. It would be informative to know what % of the draft age population was below the poverty level. Just from the information given we can see that the death rate at the poverty level, 25% was slightly higher than the professional/ managerial 23%.

    I found this of interest:

    Of all enlisted men who died in V’nam, blacks made up 14.1% of the total. This came at a time when they made up 11.0% of the young male population nationwide. If we add officer casualties to enlisted then the black percentage is reduced to 12.5% of all casualties.
    Of the 7262 blacks who died, 6, 955 or 96% were Army and Marine enlisted men. The combination of our selective service policies, our AFQT testing of both drafted and volunteers, the need for skilled enlisted men in many areas of the armed forces, all conspired to assign blacks in greater numbers to the combat units of the Army and Marine Corps. Early in the war, when blacks made up about 11.0% of our V’nam force, black casualties soared to over 20% of the total (1965, 1966). Black leaders protested and Pres Johnson ordered that black participation should be cut back in the combat units. As a result, the black casualty rate was cut to 11.5% by 1969.

    https://www.americanwarlibrary.com/vietnam/vwc10.htm

    And this:

    Statistics from the first three years of the war support these complaints. African-Americans represented approximately 11 percent of the civilian population. Yet in 1967, they represented 16.3 percent of all draftees and 23 percent of all combat troops in Vietnam. In 1965, African-Americans accounted for nearly 25 percent of all combat deaths in Vietnam. By 1967 this percentage had dropped considerably, to 12.7, but the perception that blacks were more likely to be drafted and killed remained widespread.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/opinion/racism-vietnam-war.html

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    , @Twinkie
  69. Tulip says:

    Why would you let your peasants, whom you can tax farm and conscript, become “independent”? Even more so, why would you let your “citizens” attempt to break away from a completely benign system like liberal democracy to pursue their own hateful, illiberal republic? Do people think Main Street Republicans are going to trade shitty neoliberalism for Beirut under occupation out of patriotic support for the Yahoos?

  70. Rosie says:
    @nebulafox

    Re, regret: my generation of guys would not be preserving texts proving consent in the age of MeToo if that were not so.

    No, you’re just paranoid. The fact is that certain industries are notorious for quid pro quo sexual harassment. Your average guy without casting couch power is highly unlikely to be accused of rape. Rape accusations on campus are vanishingly rare. Disciplinary actions even moreso, isolated high-profile cases notwithstanding. Do college girls not regret casual sex? I can tell you from my college days that I never once saw or heard of a girl turning regret into a rape charge. Evidently, that hasn’t changes.

    Of course, if people want to keep texts proving consent, there’s no harm in that, but let’s not pretend it’s anything more than extra security against an exceedingly remote possibility.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2017/05/11/study-89-of-colleges-reported-zero-campus-rapes-in-2015/37431949/

  71. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    you lost the argument

    You do this all the time, Twinkles, but announcing that you won an argument does not make it so. Evidently, you’re not bright (or honest) enough to admit when you’ve been beaten.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Truth
  72. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    If being a sleazy liar in order to get what you want (and I’m not talking just about sex but about life in general) were a crime you’d need to build enough prisons to hold tens of millions more people.

    I don’t share your pessimistic view of human nature.

    I think you’re being unrealistic in thinking we can go back to the sexual mores of the Victorian era. I’m not saying that the sexual mores of today are good, but the past wasn’t all good either

    I don’t have strong feelings either way, precisely because, as you say, there are good and bad things about both approaches.

    Here’s what I will say, though. Conservative Treehouse was under no moral obligation to defend Roosh the Rape Coach from deplatforming as the OP implied. Rape coaching, or Seduction Coaching if you prefer, is like pornography. It simply is not the sort of expression that our free speech norms were intended to protect or need to protect.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @anon
  73. @Twinkie

    In reality, the income tax system in the U.S. is quite progressive.

    Relevant data, 2016, via The Tax Foundation:

       * The highest-earning 0.1 percent of  U.S. individual federal income-tax returns report an average annual income (on an AGI basis) of $6.9 million, accounting for 10 percent of all U.S. individual income.
       * The next 0.9 percent average $820,000, accounting for 10 percent.
       * The next 4 percent average $280,000, accounting for 15 percent.
       * The next 5 percent average $164,000, accounting for 11 percent.
       * The next 15 percent average $105,000, accounting for 22 percent.
       * The next 25 percent average $58,000, accounting for 20 percent.
       * The remaining 50 percent average $16,700, accounting for 12 percent.

    The individual federal income tax is one of several significant taxes in the United States, so figures regarding the nationwide share each tranche bears of the individual federal income-tax burden should be read advisedly:

       * The highest-earning 0.1 percent remit 18 percent of all U.S. individual federal income taxes.
       * The next 0.9 percent remit 19 percent.
       * The next 4 percent remit 21 percent.
       * The next 5 percent remit 11 percent.
       * The next 15 percent remit 17 percent.
       * The next 25 percent remit 11 percent.
       * The remaining 50 percent remit 3 percent.

    [MORE]

    The individual federal income tax here discussed accounts for only 27 percent of all federal, state and local taxes collected in the United States. This is significant because the other taxes are generally less progressive or (as in the case of the 15.3-percent federal payroll tax) are even regressive.

    In all cases, definitions employed by the sources linked are also used here.

    One wants an annual income of $2.1 million to join the top 0.1 percent of earners in the United States. To qualify for the other tranches wants incomes of $480,000, $198,000, $140,000, $81,000 and $40,000, respectively, as of 2016. (Post-2016 data remain incomplete.)

    I cannot produce bar charts in A.E.’s house style, so I’ll leave the charting to interested others, but there are the data at any rate.

    • Thanks: Yahya K.
    • Replies: @iffen
  74. utu says:
    @Rosie

    You did very well. He did not win the argument.

    • Thanks: Rosie
  75. @Rosie

    And about that dentist…. If he has a problem with his tax bill, maybe he oughtta take that up with the plutocrats who purposely destroyed the lives of working class Americans.

    How can he take that up with them? That dentist has no influence.

    The tax system is designed to pit you and me against the dentist to ensure that the dentist never gets any influence. That’s how the plutocrats like it.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  76. res says:
    @Twinkie

    Throughout the Vietnam era, the median education level of the enlisted man was about 13 years. Proportionately, three times as many college graduates served in Vietnam than in WWII.

    Focusing on this because you chose to bold it. You really need to correct that for the proportion of college graduates in the population at the time. Looking at this page:
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/

    We see 5.5% of men in 1940 and 13.6% in 1969. That’s not even quite the right correction to make. What we really want is the proportion of college educated men among the age demographics of the respective armies (e.g. 18-20 year olds are highly unlikely to have college degrees), but that is a much harder figure to even estimate.

    All of that said, I think your primary point of “the idea that the poor or the black died disproportionately was a myth” holds up fairly well.

    I do wonder if focusing on 18-22 year old draftee deaths would change things though given the tendency to hide in academia.

    One statistic from your link which seems somewhat contradictory (what proportion of the population fell in this category? heavily depends on lower/other middle class split point I suspect).

    76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.

    P.S. Some more statistics.

    [MORE]

    Much of this also appears at your link, but I think the second sources and excerpts are still worthwhile.

    http://www.uswardogs.org/vietnam-statistics/

    1. 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.
    2. 86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
    3. 170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam ; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.
    4. 70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.
    5. 86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
    6. 14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
    7. 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
    8. Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
    9. Religion of Dead: Protestant — 64.4%; Catholic — 28.9%; other/none — 6.7%

    https://www.uswings.com/about-us-wings/vietnam-war-facts/

    58,148 were killed in Vietnam, 75,000 severely disabled, 23,214 were 100% disabled, 5,283 lost limbs and 1,081 sustained multiple amputations.

    Of those killed, 61% were younger than 21 years old.

    11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old.

    Of those killed, 17,539 were married.

    The average age of the men killed: 23.1 years.

    Deaths Average Age
    Enlisted: 50,274, 22.37 years
    Officers: 6,598, 28.43 years
    Warrants: 1,276, 24.73 years

    Some WWII stats which don’t lend themselves to summarization.
    https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers

    While we are here, this is an interesting and detailed article which is somewhat relevant (you might very well know all/most of this already, but not everyone here has your background).
    https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/
    For example.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie
  77. @dfordoom

    They recoil at the word socialism because socialism is a word that means “evil” and they don’t know what “social democrat” means.

    Quite right. Nor am I exempt from the syndrome. I recoil, too.

    Yet as far as I can tell, Americans born after 1975 or 1980 lack the relevant mental association. They don’t recoil. I am unsure that they should.

  78. Truth says:
    @Rosie

    After four years, the No-Holds-Barred battle between Sweet Polly Pure(white)bread and The Goryeo Knifefighter rages on. And the electorate STILL hasn’t declared a winner.

    Rosie, Twinkie, thanks for the entertainment, I truly need it at this time. You are the greatest!

  79. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    How can he take that up with them? That dentist has no influence.

    By opposing globalization rather than whining about taxes and telling the unemployed to “learn to code.”

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

    It seems clear that blacks (and gentile whites and Hispanics) died in Vietnam at about their proportion of the service-age national population. Twinkie says blacks were slightly below and you say slightly above. The discrepancy may have to do with “all military deaths” vs. “died in combat”. In the civilian population, young black males die at a higher rate than non-black groups for a variety of reasons well understood by readers. Those reasons continue to apply while those young black men are in the military. So if you back out deaths due to homicide, vehicular accident, negligent firearms discharge, illnesses, etc., you may find blacks are proportionally underrepresented in actual combat deaths.

    Then there is the fact that the reasons driving higher black male civilian mortality continue to apply not only in the military but also in actual combat. But I doubt there is any statistical way to separate those out.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  81. Rosie says:
    @Truth

    And the electorate STILL hasn’t declared a winner.

    Winning is not always possible. Some disputes cannot be solved with reasoned argument, because they turn on conflicts of interest, value judgments, or different assumptions about reality that resist empirical evaluation.

    I suspect this is the case with Twinkles and me, and he doesn’t want to admit this. Not long ago, he defended something (slut-shaming and ostracism, I think) on the grounds that it “serves the greater good.” Even if one assumes this is true, it has the stench of human sacrifice about it. He is ok with that. I’m not. There’s nothing else to say.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Twinkie
  82. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Apparently, there is a correlation between trait psychopathy and utilitarian acceptance of “instrumental harm” in the context of sacrificial dilemmas (is it permissible to harm the few for the benefit of the many?)

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268751543_%27Utilitarian%27_Judgments_in_Sacrificial_Moral_Dilemmas_Do_Not_Reflect_Impartial_Concern_for_the_Greater_Good

    That doesn’t mean Twinkles is wrong, of course. It just means that there is no possibility of agreement between two people who start from entirely different psychological orientations and sets of basic assumptions about right and wrong.

    Obviously, I think mine is superior, but I acknowledge that as opinion/value judgment rather than rationally demonstrable fact.

    • Agree: AaronB
  83. anarchyst says:

    I don’t agree with the author’s premise that COVID affected the vote totals. It is obvious that there was rampant cheating going on, from boxes of ballots mysteriously appearing during the night, when it was obvious that Trump was ahead in the count. Not only that, election observers were purposely discouraged from and kept out of the count areas by democRATs and their henchmen.
    It is clearly obvious that the cheating in this election cycle was clearly blatant; the cheaters didn’t care who witnessed the deeds.

  84. @iffen

    “for example, they like Social Security”

    And when you look at nineteenth century coroner’s inquests, you can see why. The number of deceased who left wives and children penniless, people dying of starvation, suicides and work accidents – all in what was probably the richest or second richest nation in the world.

    https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/CourtRecords/InquestsNDJ1865

    “he leaves a wife and seven children. After the Inquest the Jury very kindly entered into a subscription on behalf of the family.

  85. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    it begs the question whether women would have multiple partners before settling down if seduction were still unlawful.

    I think a lot of this comes down to the father no longer being allowed to play a legal guardianship role past a certain age. And I’m not talking about from a financial damage or property loss perspective as in the past, but from the fact that he is the father and has invested a massive amount of time and care and regard into the life of his daughter and has a very serious and legitimate concern about her future and keeping predatory males away from her.

    I’d personally like to see (though I don’t know how possible this is in the West) an adoption of the legal right of a father to interdict a relationship that he feels is not in the young woman’s interest. If he can prove his case in court (and not that he is just throwing his weight around and abusing his authority), then the law would side with him in keeping any young men away from her that he does not approve of. This would also be in the case of his necessary oversight over certain types of contracts; like for instance if she wants to get into movies or adult entertainment or be a pole dancer or whatever – he would be able to veto that contract.

    This would be for fathers that want to exercise this right. If a father doesn’t care if his daughter is a stripper or frequents certain events where she gets to explore sexual liberation, then none of this applies to him and he can simply choose to waive his right:

    The fact that there is no longer any economic loss doesn’t mean that the affront to the person’s honor shouldn’t be redressed.

    Agreed. See above; allow and support fathers in playing their natural role. They are more concerned than anyone else about making sure young predatory males don’t exploit their daughters.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  86. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    Agreed. See above; allow and support fathers in playing their natural role. They are more concerned than anyone else about making sure young predatory males don’t exploit their daughters.

    This is why I respect you, Talha. I might not agree with you, but you at least offer something of value (protection) in place of what you would take away (autonomy).

    The science increasingly supports your view. Adolescence does not end until several years past the age of legal majority. Car insurance companies have had it right all along.

    https://www.allstate.com/tr/car-insurance/ask-an-agent-turning-25.aspx

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Talha
  87. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    And by the way, Gwen’s story is tragic. God bless her for speaking the truth about it. One can make amends for much wrongdoing in life by sharing lessons learned with others, and hopefully sparing them the hurt that we have endured and, by the grace of God, found happiness in life.

    • Agree: Talha
  88. @Twinkie

    I appreciate your ideas, which bring many insights. However, the insults don’t help.

    I get the whole Nietzschean manospherical female-agency-is-complex/feminism-is-a-fitness-test thing. It’s good and the more women insist that they dislike it, the better; but this place isn’t a locker room and isn’t a bar. It’s a blog at Unz.

    Is a blog at Unz really the right place? Just because gentlemanly behavior has been turned to perversion by some others does not make gentlemanly behavior wholly obsolete.

    The blog is in little danger of being overrun by quarrelsome women. It will be all right.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  89. @Rosie

    By opposing globalization rather than whining about taxes and telling the unemployed to “learn to code.”

    You must have quite the dentist. Mine just tells people to “learn to floss.”

    I believe that you have misidentified the foe. Dentists might whine less about taxes if the really rich were made to pay an even higher rate.

    The dentist is stuck in political no-man’s land. He’s too affluent to enjoy political safety in numbers, but not affluent enough to enjoy a whit of real influence. One need not feel sorry for him but can we try raising taxes on billionaires first before we judge the man?

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Rosie
  90. So to the extent that the poor die in the military, they are much more represented in non-combat roles (e.g. logistics, communications, etc.), doing tasks unrelated to combat stateside than they are in dangerous combat missions overseas.

    Evidence or I call bullsh!t.

    I gather that you’ve never served in the U.S. Army nor been married to a regular soldier.

    That’s all right, but I have served in the U.S. Army. Also, I’ve a son serving now. Moreover, my father served before me—all three of us as full-time active duty soldiers in regular service. This does not make any of us wise, smart or truthful, but we happen to know something about U.S. Army service. Will you consider my testimony?

    The characterization to which you object is precisely correct, remains persistently true across generations, and is overwhelmingly obvious to everyone that serves in the ranks of the regular Army.

    Soldiers don’t talk about it much because there are a few blacks and a few other persons of just about every ethnicity in élite Army units. Soldiers value their comrades and don’t want to sow division in the ranks, and Political Correctness can destroy dissident Army careers anyway. But that doesn’t make the racial observation any less true.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  91. iffen says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    (as in the case of the 15.3-percent federal payroll tax) are even regressive.

    Yes, but the “payout” is very progressive. Low wage workers get a significant bonus when they collect SS and the people who have been paying at or near the cut-off suffer a penalty. Also, SS is “family” friendly: payouts to children of deceased workers until age 18, and the spouse with the lesser income (usually the wife) steps up to the higher payment received by the husband if he dies.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund, Twinkie
  92. iffen says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Well, the numbers are there, and while I’m not a mathemagician, I can read them, so to each his own.

    • Replies: @iffen
  93. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    at least offer something of value (protection) in place of what you would take away (autonomy).

    This is the ancient bond between daughter and father as her guardian.

    Peace.

  94. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You must have quite the dentist. Mine just tells people to “learn to floss.”

    Lol.

    One need not feel sorry for him but can we try raising taxes on billionaires first before we judge the man?

    Fair enough. All I’ll say is this. The Republicans should ignore him. Tax cuts didn’t work for Trump. There simply is not enough prosperity to make that a winning issue.

    BTW, it looks like my prediction about the election is looking better by the day. It appears that, according to the latest numbers, there wasn’t much movement towards Trump on the part of White college women, at least not enough to offset his loss of support among working-class White women, who obviously don’t have enough money to care about tax cuts. They wanted immigration control and trade protections for their husbands/brothers/sons. And themselves, too. If you are a waitress, and a factory closes in your town, you’re going to be looking at empty tables and lost tips in your diner.

    Of course, all this assumes that they actually want to win, which, to be fair, appears to not be the case.

  95. @Jtgw

    Well, you know what Z-Man says about libertarians.

  96. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    I don’t share your pessimistic view of human nature.

    I’d like to think I’m realistic rather than pessimistic. Most people are not sleazy liars. But there are enough sleazy liars around that you have to be careful. Both men and women are taking a risk if they jump into bed with someone without getting to know the person well enough to be sure the person isn’t a sleazy liar, or a crazy.

    It’s also wise to learn to recognise the red flags that indicate sleazy liar or crazy. It’s not that difficult, as long as you don’t jump into bed with the person straight away. If he tells you he has a glamorous high-status job it might be true, but it might not be. He might be a real marine biologist, or he might be George Costanza.

    Rape coaching, or Seduction Coaching if you prefer

    There’s a huge difference between rape and seduction. You cannot get seduced unless you’re willing to be seduced. I don’t much like the manosphere/PUA thing either but there’s still a huge gulf between rape and seduction.

    Teaching men how to be more attractive to women is not really any different from women learning how to be more attractive to men. If it doesn’t go beyond that it’s not very objectionable. As I said, if you get seduced it’s because you were willing for it to happen. Both men and women get seduced. You can always just say no. It’s only rape if you don’t have the option of saying no.

    Rape coaching, or Seduction Coaching if you prefer, is like pornography. It simply is not the sort of expression that our free speech norms were intended to protect or need to protect.

    Free speech norms change. And they’re not universal and they never were. No two people will be in complete agreement as to what constitutes pornography or seduction. Rape is more straightforward. Everybody agrees that rape is wrong. Not everybody agrees that pornography or seduction are wrong, or at least not everybody agrees that pornography or seduction should be regarded as crimes.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  97. Twinkie says:
    @iffen

    I posited the following:

    the idea that the poor or the black died disproportionately was a myth

    Let’s back up a little and re-summarize the numbers.

    1. Throughout the Vietnam War period, the percentage of blacks among the draft-age males in the United States was 13.5%.

    2. Among those sent to Vietnam, the percentage of blacks was 10.6%.

    3. Among those who died in Vietnam, the percentage of blacks was 12.5%.

    4. Among those who were killed by hostile action in Vietnam, the percentage of blacks was 12.1% (I was incorrect earlier when I wrote 11%).

    One could argue from points 2. and 3. that blacks died proportionately among those sent to Vietnam (although only moderately so). Of course, that begs the question, then, why blacks were a smaller contingent of the force in Vietnam than warranted by their share of the draft-age male population at the time (10.6% vs. 13.5%), which hardly fits the “disproportionate bearing of the burden” narrative.

    The leftist-dominated mainstream media long have claimed and propagated the idea that young black American males disproportionately bore the burden of deaths in Vietnam, but as you can see they were only 12.1% of those killed by the enemy in the Vietnam War when they comprised 13.5% of the draft-age males in the U.S.

    Again, that myth is a product of the 1964-66 period, when the black death rate in Vietnam WAS disproportionately high at roughly 20% of the deaths. But this was PRIOR to the major buildup for the war – the peak deaths in Vietnam were not until 1968-1969, by which time blacks accounted for 13% of the war dead and falling (by 1970, it was under 10%).

    This means that 25% were below the poverty level. It would be informative to know what % of the draft age population was below the poverty level. Just from the information given we can see that the death rate at the poverty level, 25% was slightly higher than the professional/ managerial 23%.

    None of this is useful, as you correctly surmised, unless we know the class distribution among the draft-age males at the time. It would be doubly helpful if we also knew the class distribution among those killed in combat in Vietnam. Unfortunately such data are not available… which is why I provided the breakdown of those killed between the enlisted and the officer class that gives a hint of the “death burden sharing in Vietnam” as such (if the military were ruthlessly using lower class people as cannon fodder, the percentage of the enlisted deaths should be higher than their share of the overall force, but in the Vietnam War the men of the officer class died at a slightly higher rate than the enlisted).

    Parenthetically, the general poverty rate in the U.S. during that time was in great flux – it fell from about 22.4% in 1959 to about 11% by 1975. But that overall number hid a great deal of variation (for example, in 1968, the poverty rates were over 45% among those 65 and older, a little under 30% among those 0-17 years in age, and 20% among ages 18-64. Similarly, in 1975, the white poverty rate was 7.5%, Hispanics at 22.8%, and blacks at 30% (blacks were the greatest beneficiaries of the socioeconomic changes at the time as their poverty rate was a whopping 55.1% in 1959).

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @iffen
  98. Twinkie says:
    @res

    You really need to correct that for the proportion of college graduates in the population at the time… We see 5.5% of men in 1940 and 13.6% in 1969. That’s not even quite the right correction to make. What we really want is the proportion of college educated men among the age demographics of the respective armies (e.g. 18-20 year olds are highly unlikely to have college degrees), but that is a much harder figure to even estimate.

    Yup, all good points.

    5.5% vs. 13.6% is only about 1 to 2.5, not quite three fold (so at least by those numbers, a higher percentage of college degree-holding men served in Vietnam than in WWII). But as you point out, we need to know the numbers in the age-appropriate demographics in the respective time periods. Nonetheless, my point was NOT that the upper class disproportionately bore the burden of the Vietnam War. As you summarize:

    All of that said, I think your primary point of “the idea that the poor or the black died disproportionately was a myth” holds up fairly well.

    All the numbers show that, despite small variations here and there, the burden of the war (and deaths) was widely spread and borne in a fairly egalitarian manner (I think that’s why the objection to the war grew and grew – if the suffering were predominantly among the poor and black, I don’t think the general public would have turned against the war quite much as it eventually did).

    Now, I didn’t invoke the Vietnam War to re-litigate left’s propaganda (as incorrect as it was). I was using it to show that even in a war with conscription, the poor (and the black) did not bear the brunt of the war deaths and that with today’s long-service, all-volunteer armed forces that trend has only strengthened, contrary to Rosie’s claim that poor (white) people bore the brunt of the the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military makes extensive use of aptitude testing to determine occupational specialty and this tends to place recruits of lower socio-economic (also meaning lower educational) background disproportionately in the tail side of the military (e.g. truck drivers, supply clerks, etc.). Such people are far less likely to die in combat than those in the proverbial “tip of the spear” units.

    Now, aptitude testing being what they are, I was NOT suggesting that combat units have the highest aptitude testing scores or men of the upper crust background (socially or educationally). Obviously, highly technical specialties in combat support and support services will have such people. But elite combat units that increasingly bear the burden of combat do have higher than average aptitude scores and tend to come from middle class and upper middle class background (to me, one of the more amusing parts of Jocko Willink interview of Jonny Kim – both men were SEALs – was when Willink questions the latter, “Man, how did you deal with the water training?” and Kim answers “I grew up on the beach and played water polo in high school”).

  99. @Talha

    Most of the Rooshkies were guys fresh outta college, just getting their first taste of WM abuse. 80 percent of women age 18-35 are massively obese, tatted up, pierced, nattily dressed at best and come complete with disgusting purple or green hair and a bad attitude for women so ugly. Throw in all the abortions and STDs these harlots rack up and the landscape looks pretty bleak for them finding a decent chick to family up with. They have a point.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Truth
    , @Talha
  100. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    . I don’t much like the manosphere/PUA thing either but there’s still a huge gulf between rape and seduction

    Then why is the con artist a criminal? This is the basic philosophical contradiction that you fail to account for. It looks like special pleading to me.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  101. Rosie says:
    @Jim Christian

    Most of the Rooshkies were guys fresh outta college, just getting their first taste of WM abuse. 80 percent of women age 18-35 are massively obese

    Men who think this way will die miserable and alone.

    At one time, I thought manosphere thinking was just a hodgepodge of random lies, but I increasingly see how all the lies work together to justify the reactionary animus. Hence, all the talk about miserable old cat ladies, but nary a peep about miserable old bachelors. The point being that women need men but men don’t need women, even though women actually cope better with singlehood than men do.

    Imagine being in a nursing home when your 85 years old waiting for some hostile, low-paid stranger to come and change your diaper, thinking to yourself, “Well what choice did I have? What was I supposed to do? Marry a size 12?”

    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Jim Christian
  102. Truth says:
    @Jim Christian

    No. Really they don’t because in every society the women take their behavioral cues from the men around them.

  103. Talha says:
    @Jim Christian

    80 percent of women age 18-35 are…

    I gotta disagree with that percentage, bro – and I live in the Midwest where plenty of ladies like to keep an extra layer of chubbiness. Maybe closer to 40- 50% at least from my experience. But then again, I don’t frequent where people hangout to pick up women, so take it with a grain of salt.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  104. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    I suspect this is the case with Twinkles and me, and he doesn’t want to admit this. Not long ago, he defended something (slut-shaming and ostracism, I think) on the grounds that it “serves the greater good.” Even if one assumes this is true, it has the stench of human sacrifice about it. He is ok with that. I’m not.

    This is a classic example of your straw man, diversion, and lying-by-omission. What I wrote was that harlots and cads should be avoided by decent people – I suppose that means some kind of social (in other words, entirely voluntary) ostracism, yes. But you leave out what you prescribed in its place: you wanted cads to be beaten up by the “wronged” women’s male kin or you wanted them imprisoned for “fraud.”

    So, according to you, I have “the stench of human sacrifice” because I want moral people to avoid socializing with promiscuous women and men, but you are a greater humanitarian, because you want jilted women to be able to marshal her menfolk to physically assault her estranged lover or enlist the state to imprison him. Not only is your idea much more violent (and bloodthirsty) and unjust, it’s also entirely unprincipled and self-serving on your part.

    You do this all the time, Twinkles, but announcing that you won an argument does not make it so. Evidently, you’re not bright (or honest) enough to admit when you’ve been beaten.

    You are delusional in the extreme. Let’s recap your debate “style,” shall we?

    [MORE]

    You: Americans want economic progressivism and social conservatism.

    Me: [Regarding the alleged American “economic progressivism”] They want Wall Street and Silicon Valley to pay more to keep up the country, not their dentist neighbor with a bigger house. [Meaning, ordinary Americans are decent enough to know that their mildly more successful neighbor is not the one robbing the system – the much wealthier corporatists are.]

    You: And about that dentist. Doesn’t he pay lower prices for everything because of foreign labor? [I guess what you are saying is that he should shut up about being robbed by the corporatists since he is doing better than you?]

    Me: You think the dentists’ liability insurance bills and lease (real estate costs) have gone down, because of immigrants? [Liability insurance and office lease are BIG businesses expenses for a dentist, and, no, they have not gone down because of “foreign labor” as you allege – what you wrote above is FACTUALLY WRONG. Instead of acknowledging the mistake, you double down below.]

    You: No, but the fact remains that he enjoys lower consumer prices as a result of foreign labor. Besides, you and I both know that those are business expenses and therefore not part of his taxable income. [So, here, instead of admitting that you were wrong about a dentist paying “lower prices for everything,” you try to evade it with a non-sequitur – “Those are business expenses!”]

    Me: Consumption is a bigger part of the family budget of the lower economic stratum. Lower consumer prices benefit the poor more than the rich. [And] Yes, but they [high insurance and lease costs] reduce his income/profit.

    You: Evidently not so much that he can’t afford that big house you referenced earlier. [Yet another diversion-non sequitur and an emotional one at that. What does that fact that he has a bigger house than you have anything to do with the fact that you were wrong about him supposedly paying lower prices for “everything.” This is a clear case of resentment and envy toward your neighbor simply because he is doing better than you, even though he is not the cause of the middle class economic malaise – the corporatists who shape government policy are.]

    Really, this is absurd. The lower classes have to spend all their money on basic necessities hence Twinkles is the victim here while he lives large in a white country his kind had no part in building. [Note, again, that you don’t admit that your earlier proclamation – “lower price for everything” – was wrong, but simply now resort to PERSONAL attacks, stating falsely that I claimed a victim status for myself and that my “kind” had no part in building the country, which implies that I am some sort of a parasitic interloper. And more personal attacks follow below.]

    Your basic-b!tch conservatism (with a twist of anti-blackness) is not the solution for my people, Twinkles. [So I am a bitch now and a racist.]

    Me: [Finally frustrated that my attempt at a rational discussion has been hijacked by your hysterical personal attacks] You are what Razib Khan calls a “dumb animal.”

    You are not interested in knowing and understanding the truth – you want to win internet arguments and validate your twisted feelings. So when you have been demonstrated to be ignorant or wrong, you immediately switch to “Get out of my country, you mud-person.”

    You: There’s no low you won’t sink to, is there Twinkles? You are not even above calling people animals. I’ve never called anyone a “mudperson” in my life, but if I had, I would at least be calling them a “person,” which is a great deal more basic civility than you can muster for those you deem inferior to yourself.

    And yes, you are an arrogant, classist douchebag. [So much for “basic civility” and, let’s not forget your Jew-baiting with the <<>> – so much for your projection of racism on my part.]

    And it goes like this with so much else with you. Even the discussion about war deaths and who bear the brunt of it ends with you not disputing the evidences I present so much as you just crying “bullshit” and engaging in ridiculous straw man (“said correlation does not mean that there are no smart people in the working class”) though I suggested no such thing.

    And you think you “won” the debate. You are an unhinged loon.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  105. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    . I don’t much like the manosphere/PUA thing either but there’s still a huge gulf between rape and seduction

    Then why is the con artist a criminal?

    Not all con artists get treated as criminals. Some become journalists or congressmen or CEOs.

    This is the basic philosophical contradiction that you fail to account for.

    As any good con artist will tell you, you can’t cheat an honest man. People who fall for confidence tricks do so usually because they’re motivated by greed. If someone tells you you can make a fortune in a land deal it’s probably a crooked land deal. If someone tells you can make 20% annually on an investment it’s undoubtedly a stupid high-risk investment.

    People usually get conned because they want to believe the fairy story they’ve been spun. Women (and men) who get seduced by sleazy liars get seduced because they want to believe the sleazy lies.

    You can’t cheat an honest man and you can’t seduce someone who doesn’t want to be seduced.

    It looks like special pleading to me.

    You won’t get any special pleading on behalf of the manosphere from me. But seducers, like con artists, prey on human weakness and if you’re sensible you don’t fall for the seductive lies. If you’re sensible you don’t believe he’s rich just because he told you he was rich when he picked you up in a bar and if you’re sensible you don’t believe he’s going to marry you just because he told you he’d marry you if you slept with him when he picked you up in a bar.

    If people really want to believe the lies they get told there’s not a great deal you can do to protect them. Unless you want to lock up your daughters until you find suitable husbands for them.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  106. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    At one time, I thought manosphere thinking was just a hodgepodge of random lies, but I increasingly see how all the lies work together to justify the reactionary animus. Hence, all the talk about miserable old cat ladies, but nary a peep about miserable old bachelors.

    Yeah, to a considerable extent I agree with that.

    I do think it’s become more difficult for people to find suitable mates. Bars were not very good places to meet prospective wives (or husbands) but internet dating sites are probably a lot worse.

    The kinds of social places where you might have a god chance to find suitable mates are less common these days. The internet has its good points but it’s been a catastrophe in so many ways.

    But I agree that manosphere thinking is pretty ugly.

  107. Twinkie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The characterization to which you object is precisely correct, remains persistently true across generations, and is overwhelmingly obvious to everyone that serves in the ranks of the regular Army.

    Oh, I don’t think she has any objection to the idea that blacks are under-represented in the higher-tier combat units that do brunt of the fighting these days. She has a problem with me stating that “very downscale people” are not disproportionately bearing the fighting and dying in the Middle East. She basically hates the upper middle class (i.e. people who have more than she does – even of the same race) and will not concede any redeeming qualities to them.

    You and I both know that the real dynamic behind the black under-representation in such units have to do with disparity in aptitude, not racism or any other convoluted schemes (you also know that the military tests for aptitudes of various kind and makes an extensive use of it to determine MOS and you also know that combat experience is highly desirable for career advancement in the army).

    What Rosie has trouble either understanding or accepting is that, setting aside nonwhites for the sake of the argument, the same exact dynamic is at work with white recruits alone. Recruits from the middle class and the upper middle class are – on average – better educated and have higher aptitudes than “very downscale” recruits, and end up in roles that require higher-than-average aptitudes. And while recruits with such qualities are often channeled into highly specialized and technical MOS’s, they are also given priority for high-tier combat units.

    Anyone who is even remotely aware of the military manpower policy knows this, but Rosie either is ignorant about it and can’t be bothered to learn the truth or refuses to acknowledge it out of class-resentment.

    I should also note that there are two confounding variables about military recruitment, which might potentially be the sources of Rosie’s apparent ignorance and confusion. First, there is a very distinct regional pattern to recruitment and has been for sometime – the South and the Midwest disproportionately send more recruits per capita than other regions (even during the Vietnam War, West Virginia had the highest service rate, bar none).

    Second, there is a high degree of heredity in military service, so much so that people are starting to use the word “military caste” these days. You yourself are a part of this pattern. So are my wife’s people (her grandfather served, her father did, all her three uncles, her cousins – one of whom I ran into overseas where he was flying a helicopter for the Navy).

    For that matter, though I am an immigrant in this country, the same cultural pattern persists in my family in the old country – one of my grandfathers, the oldest among brothers, was an army officer in an allied country and fought in a war, his middle brother did also and retired as a deaf colonel (you guessed it – commander of an arty regiment), and their youngest brother perished, leading a satchel charge attack on advancing enemy tanks as a 17 year-old junior ROTC leader). My own father attended the naval academy in his country and served and my mother’s brother did ROTC and was a marine officer. My two uncles on my father’s side were both infantry company commanders in Vietnam. And I, in turn, got to carry a rifle and serve as a fresh-faced junior officer on a shitty, cold mountaintop in the old country (which led my wife’s WWII combat vet grandpa to exclaim “You were a 90-day wonder!”).

    In any case, like much in human affairs, military service in America has become a regional, hereditary caste of sorts and a sub-culture with relevant affinities and sense of kinship and brotherhood – which does confound the class variable above.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  108. Twinkie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I appreciate your ideas, which bring many insights.

    Thank you.

    The blog is in little danger of being overrun by quarrelsome women.

    My problem with Rosie is not that she is a woman. As anyone who’s read my extensive commenting history here knows, I am an old romantic and believe in chivalry. I courted my wife properly and won her over when other men were simply interested in sexual conquest and were rejected by her (to whom I am sure Rosie referred when she would disparage women who are “pure as driven snow” in various comments). I likewise recommend young men (and women) to court their prospective spouses deliberately and soberly and get to know them, instead of jumping to bed together quickly (which I think is a rather sound advice that seemed to have incensed Rosie).

    No, it’s not that Rosie is a woman or even “quarrelsome,” but that she is a (transparently) deceptive debater and constantly engages in straw men and diversions when things don’t go her way. See my summary of a discussion with her below – her argument pattern is rather transparent:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/exacting-personal-costs-for-nonconformity/#comment-4291419

    As YOU likely know through past interactions, I hold people who can admit that they were wrong in high regard. I don’t have any problem admitting that I was incorrect when someone else point out that my numbers were wrong, for example. I sometimes issue corrections for my own previous citations. This same trait is the very reason why I trust AE’s writings – he unfailingly notes his own mistakes or misunderstanding when they come to light and doesn’t at all try to minimize or hide them. Likewise, I believe I commended you for admitting readily that you were misinformed about a political figure (I think it was Romney).

    My main problem and frustration with Rosie is that she is incapable of it. When she is wrong about something, she’ll minimize it, dissemble, divert, offer non sequiturs, or launch personal attacks. She says some pretty outlandish things and, when people try to correct her, she drags them into the mud so that both parties get dirty in order to get a “tie” (and if one or two supporters of hers says she “won,” she does a victory lap).

    Though I have strong opinions about things and get occasionally abrasive (and mock what I consider to be silliness), I am here to debate ideas – to offer my reasoned arguments and to learn and better my arguments when they are weak – not to throw muck at others and get my feelings validated. People like Rosie eat up bandwidth and poison productive discussions here.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  109. Twinkie says:
    @Talha

    I gotta disagree with that percentage, bro – and I live in the Midwest where plenty of ladies like to keep an extra layer of chubbiness. Maybe closer to 40- 50% at least from my experience.

    Yup. You can see the state-by-state numbers here from 1990 to 2018:

    https://obesity.procon.org/us-obesity-levels-by-state/

    In 1990, it was only 11.1% nation-wide, but is almost 40% as of 2018. That’s tragic. In 1990, MS was the only state over 15% and the vast stretches of rural American states were all under 15%. Now, all those states and more are over 30% and even over 35%.

    But “80%” is not even close to the truth and the obesity demographic actually skews older, not 18-35. It’s actually my age group that is the most obese, not younger people (men and women):

    The other commenter’s view, though, might be distorted by another factor – class (yes, there I go again, me evil, evil “classist”). As AE posted in the past, weight gain over the past decades has been disproportionately pronounced among lower class women. For men, the weight gain across classes is similar, but among women being trim vs. obese has become a class marker. Several of the commenters here and AE discussed that phenomenon at some length in the past.

    So if the other commenter hangs out a lot in an area where there is a concentration of that demographic, he is going to see more than 40% of women who are obese (though 80% is still much too high a figure).

    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  110. @Twinkie

    New England must be on the plus side. Way chubbier.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  111. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.

    86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics);

    12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.

    Caucasian category earned a 2.1% deferral.

    Blacks incurred a 1.9% penalty.

    Vietnam War when they comprised 13.5% of the draft-age males in the U.S

    The two sources that I cited gave 11% instead. The last two sentences of the americanwarlibrary paragraph that I quoted is very questionable in my opinion. Anyway, using 13.5% gives a different look than using 11%,

    I fully agree that we don’t have the data to make a good call on the economic class background of those killed.

  112. @Twinkie

    Rosie is Rosie, I roast her support for democrats’ collective depravity all the time. She takes it like a man. There’s worse than Rosie out there, not to blow sunshine up Rosie’s skirts, you understand. Her agenda is, kill off the White men, replace them all. The gender war goes on.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  113. @Rosie

    Really, Rosie? Size TWELVE? That’s crazy talk! To me, obesity starts at the OLD (much smaller) size 6, 8, maybe. Girls used to stay thin. Now, they’re freeeeee! And more, much, much more…

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @anonymous
  114. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    There are three main questions for me: what difference qualifies as disproportionate, did blacks serve in Vietnam at the same rate as whites, and of those that did serve how did the death rate compare to whites.

    If they were 10.6% of those serving, and if they were 11% of the eligible population then they received a bonus of .4%. If they were 13.5% of the eligible population then they received a bonus of 2.9%. Is 2.9% disproportionate?

    If 12.5% died and they were 10.6% of those serving they suffered a penalty of 1.9%. Is 1.9% disproportionate?

    If I accept the 1.9% as disproportionate then I should accept the 2.9% as disproportionate and vice-versa.

    1.9% seems significant to me, especially since we are talking dead people, but in my mind that is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that they apparently “underserved.”

    If they had served at the equivalent rate, either 11% or 13.5%, wouldn’t that reduce the 12.5% fatality rate?

    I accept your argument that it is a myth concerning blacks dying in Vietnam disproportionately.

  115. iffen says:
    @iffen

    You make some good points.

    I said that I could read the numbers, but I didn’t say how long that it would take me.

  116. iffen says:
    @Almost Missouri

    @iffen

    You make some good points.

    I said that I could read the numbers, but I didn’t say anything about how long it would take me.

    (Having mouse click problems as well as number reading problems.)

  117. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    and if you’re sensible you don’t believe he’s going to marry you just because he told you he’d marry you if you slept with him when he picked you up in a bar.

    On the whole, you make some fair points, Doom, but I have to push back on this. When I was young, things were much different (though changing rapidly). Girls really did wait quite a bit longer to have sex. You might date a guy for months, finally give in when he promised you the moon and said “if you love me you’ll do it) and then lo and behold, he suddenly lost interest. One wouldn’t think that a guy would be that patient, but yes they really were that patient!

    I’m not saying that any such legal measures would change things overnight. Rather, they would have stopped things getting to this point to begin with, and might just reverse the trends.

    Again, I’m not necessarily saying I think this is the way forward. We find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. We can go this way or that. I think there is merit in Talha’s protective approach, and there is merit in the more indulent, laissez-faire attitude of Buzz Mohawk and yourself.

    The one thing that I think does not have merit is that double standard, where we bring back the stigma against women (but not the legal sanctions on men) of generations past.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  118. Rosie says:
    @Jim Christian

    Her agenda is, kill off the White men, replace them all.

    Jim, you’re scaring me. If you’re this out of touch with reality, please seek help.

    I can be accused of lots of things, but desiring the replacement of White men is not among them.

    • Replies: @Talha
  119. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    So, according to you, I have “the stench of human sacrifice” because I want moral people to avoid socializing with promiscuous women and men, but you are a greater humanitarian, because you want jilted women to be able to marshal her menfolk to physically assault her estranged lover or enlist the state to imprison him. Not only is your idea much more violent (and bloodthirsty) and unjust, it’s also entirely unprincipled and self-serving on your part.

    Ah Twinkles, this is just the problem with you. You put people into categories and judge them as good or evil. You fail utterly to appreciate that people are capable of growing and learning from experience. You dismiss human beings as irredeemable garbage, despite calling yourself a Christian. How you square that circle in your head is beyond me.)

    Do you know why we call it The Department of Corrections, Twinkles? Prisons are not gigantic garbage cans for (sub)human refuse. They are a place where a malfeasor may pay his debt to society, reflect on his wrongdoings, and rejoin society as a better human being. A lifetime of ostracism is a great deal more cruel, violent, and hateful than an opportunity (yes, I said opportunity) to redeem yourself.

    I know this sounds like gobbledygook to you, Twinkles, and therein lies my point.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  120. Twinkie says:
    @Jim Christian

    Size 12 – esp. at today’s vanity sizing – means the woman in question is what healthcare professionals call “morbidly obese.” Apparently, it’s the largest size that most clothing companies sell. At one point in recent history, American women’s average size grew to a hefty size 14, so the clothing companies adjusted the numbers. Apparently today the true average size by the older standard is a massive 16-18! (Put another way, size 8 in 1950’s would be size 00 as of 2012 – it’s probably even smaller today.)

    From self-reporting online, it seems the new size 12 is anywhere from 170-190 lbs. for an average American woman (height 5’4”) – that is not only unattractive, it is a VERY unhealthy weight.

    As recently as 1980, the average weight for women in America was 144 lbs (still overweight) – today it is over 170 lbs. and climbing. Look at this from the 1950’s and weep:

    Earlier I critiqued your claim of “80%… very obese” as being way off. Your estimation is closer to the mark (c. 70%) if we are talking the “overweight or obese” category rather than just “obese.”

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Truth
  121. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Yeah, I don’t think I’ve ever gotten that vibe from any of your comments I’ve read. But then again, there are areas of this site where I rarely go; so maybe on Sailer’s threads you are all “yeah, kill male whitey!!!”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  122. @Twinkie

    Look at this from the 1950’s and weep:

    I wonder what the chart means by “low” and “high.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  123. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    One wouldn’t think that a guy would be that patient, but yes they really were that patient!

    Time preference is a real thing.

  124. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    Ah Twinkles, this is just the problem with you. You put people into categories and judge them as good or evil. You fail utterly to appreciate that people are capable of growing and learning from experience. You dismiss human beings as irredeemable garbage, despite calling yourself a Christian.

    This is, again, made-up in your mind. You and I already had a discussion about it: I believe in redemption, but real redemption requires repentance. You are on record as stating that “So I committed sin, what of it?” defiance is what “redemption” is. You want to rub your immorality on other people’s noses and call it “redemption” and then viciously attack them when they decline to accept it as such.

    Prisons are not gigantic garbage cans for (sub)human refuse. They are a place where a malfeasor may pay his debt to society, reflect on his wrongdoings, and rejoin society as a better human being.

    More delusions. Have you ever been to a real prison in America?

    A lifetime of ostracism is a great deal more cruel, violent, and hateful than an opportunity (yes, I said opportunity) to redeem yourself.

    Who said anything about “a lifetime” of ostracism? You think people can “rejoin [society] as a better human being” from imprisonment or being viciously assaulted, but they can’t from social ostracism?

    Your proposed solution is nothing more than a violent revenge fantasy against men (immoral as the target may be) for the women’s own moral failings of exercising self-control and preserving their own virtue.

  125. Twinkie says:
    @Talha

    She doesn’t want to kill off white men – she seems to want to enslave them, with white women (read herself) as their masters and superiors. It’s a control and revenge fantasy.

    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @Talha
  126. Talha says:
    @Twinkie

    I haven’t gotten that impression either – again, from the stuff I read, but maybe elsewhere she is espousing the male version of the Handmaid’s Tale. Since I champion a return to more patriarchal norms, it is natural that we would disagree, but my personal assessment of what Rosie wants (she can correct me if I’m wrong) is the freedom in relations between the two sexes inherited from the 60s without the baggage of women being taken advantage of in a sexual free-market.

    I simply do not think that world is possible; sexual freedom is always to the male advantage and males will always have an advantage over women in the ability to exploit and discard them – you don’t hear much about a group of women getting a man drunk in order to run a train on him.

    I posted an article a while back about Tinder and these kinds of apps. All the guys are loving it and all the women were either miserable or ambivalent. They were basically doing it because everyone else was and they didn’t know how else to go about getting male attention and not lose out on opportunities.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/tinder-hook-up-culture-end-of-dating

    And of course:

    So I think that is just not going to happen – the only thing that will keep young males in line are other more-experienced males with skin in the game to look after young women (naturally their daughters) and the legal rights to do so. The patriarchy that was there and gave baths and changed diapers and sat patiently to feed (and then mop up the mess) and was there for moments like this in their daughters’ lives:

    My personal take is that the patriarchy will have to eventually realize that fathers have a common vested interest and reassert itself (in spite of the opposition – especially the opinion of those that never invested any time in having their own children but insist they care more about your daughter than you do) and clean this all up.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Twinkie
    , @Truth
  127. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    Since I champion a return to more patriarchal norms, it is natural that we would disagree, but my personal assessment of what Rosie wants (she can correct me if I’m wrong) is the freedom in relations between the two sexes inherited from the 60s without the baggage of women being taken advantage of in a sexual free-market.

    Hmmm. I suppose that depends on what freedoms you’re talking about. As I have said before, I would be fine with an outright criminalization of premarital sex, as was the case in prior generations. Sexual freedom is not a priority for me at all, but I say that with this caveat: In the past, prostitution has flourished where men do not have access to women.

    Prostitution is not a solution. It just concentrates the misery into a scapegoat and poses the same human sacrifice dilemma that I referenced earlier. It relegates women to perpetual degradation and misery so that “respectable” women can preen ourselves on our superior virtue. If women are to be made miserable by men’s objectification and abuse of us, I’d rather have all of us take a few bites of that sh!t sandwich than condemn a minority of unfortunate sisters to a lifetime diet of same.

    Now, if you’re talking about other freedoms, like the freedom to fall in love with and choose our own husbands (with some degree or another of input from our parents), it may well be that some heartbreak is just the cost of doing business. In that case, so be it.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean we give up looking for better solutions.

    And this is very well said:

    The patriarchy that was there and gave baths and changed diapers and sat patiently to feed (and then mop up the mess)

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Talha
    , @Talha
  128. nebulafox says:
    @Jim Christian

    In poorer parts of the Deep South and Rust Belt, most people are obese. I cannot give you exact percentages, but I can confidently say the contrast is enough to genuinely surprise someone who moves to a more affluent area after growing up. Especially if this coincides with you noticing women for the first time (I was a late bloomer)-like night and day.

  129. nebulafox says:
    @Rosie

    Legalized, regulated prostitution >>> porn addictions or an increase in rape. You can even tax it for government revenue!

    Prostitution is not like hard drugs: it is never going to go away because it is rooted in human nature. Some men will always be willing to pay for NSA sex, and some women will be desperate enough for money to provide it for pay. Better to prevent underage trafficking or diseases or murder by getting it off the streets and reducing stigma for all involved, be they workers or johns.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  130. Twinkie says:
    @Talha

    I haven’t gotten that impression either – again, from the stuff I read, but maybe elsewhere she is espousing the male version of the Handmaid’s Tale.

    If heartbroken women can exact a violent renege on the man (by having her kin assault him) or have the state imprison him, he is, in practice, at her mercy.

    In that scenario, once a man enters into a sexual relationship with a woman, he cannot leave her no matter how she behaves unless he is willing to endure mob violence or prison. He essentially becomes her inferior, a slave of sorts, because he has to do her bidding. Her vision is nothing more than an inversion of an ugly past in which husbands made wives do their bidding and could assault them for noncompliance.

    I simply do not think that world is possible; sexual freedom is always to the male advantage and males will always have an advantage over women in the ability to exploit and discard them – you don’t hear much about a group of women getting a man drunk in order to run a train on him.

    There is truth in what you write – God has made women and men different and made it more imperative and wise for women to excise sexual prudence than men (but in return he gave them the truly awe-inspiring blessing of carrying a new life in them). But that’s not even the whole story. While women can’t gang-rape a man, a woman can entrap a man with pregnancy and history is replete with men who “did the honorable thing” and married women they did not love.

    Now, I have no sympathy for such men. One could rather simply say they should not have engaged in an immoral behavior in pursuit of physical pleasure, but then you can say that exact same thing for a woman who gives up her virtue willingly. My solution is rather simple: polite company ought to disapprove both women and men who engage in such behaviors. Rosie wants only the men punished (violently, I might add), because the heartbreak is supposedly punishment enough for the women and because man allegedly have the power to give “affection” to women that women cannot go without.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Talha
  131. Twinkie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I would assume they were thresholds at which people were considered outside the normal range – too light or too heavy.

  132. @Truth

    Twinkie and Rosie should get a room already. But they absolutely must go dutch on the bill, as Twinkie footing the whole tab would likely strike Rosie as a little too … Dark Ages (i.e., 1950s).

    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @Rosie
  133. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Prostitution is not a solution.

    Agreed, but I think society has already thrown in the towel on that one:

    So we now have sexual freedom along with prostitution.

    I’m of the opinion that public and open prostitution (like brothels that advertise themselves) should be stopped, but people that are discreet about it should be left alone; I don’t like the idea of the surveillance security-state necessary to stop these private consensual vices.

    Now, if you’re talking about other freedoms, like the freedom to fall in love with and choose our own husbands (with some degree or another of input from our parents), it may well be that some heartbreak is just the cost of doing business.

    I think it’s more of a compromise. Most fathers would not want to interfere in this matter (definitely not at the legal level – we are talking things like restraining orders and annulments and other such matters that are not frivolous) unless they saw that their daughter was making a serious and costly mistake the partner she was choosing. As far as heartbreak – I guess this is one of those things one must be cognizant of when approaching the matter. I know that when I was courting my wife, I definitely wanted to marry her, but if her father had said no, I was ready to walk away – would-be patriarchs have to respect the role and rank one aspires to. So…heartbreak goes both ways – male and female – when a father is involved and I expect other young males to defer to my authority when it comes to my daughter. If there was heartbreak involved, then it is a good lesson learned for the young man when he tries for another young lady; get the steps in the right order, step A should not be somewhere after step D…

    Peace.

  134. Talha says:
    @Twinkie

    In that scenario, once a man enters into a sexual relationship with a woman, he cannot leave her no matter how she behaves unless he is willing to endure mob violence or prison.

    This won’t fly. Both men and women need a viable way out of a bad marriage situation (assuming they don’t have a religious prohibition against divorce – which may present a different moral dilemma) that takes into account everything from children to property rights.

    God has made women and men different and made it more imperative and wise for women to excise sexual prudence than men

    And He gave them fathers that can help remind them of this and protect them from the wolves who look at them like slabs of meat…fathers know wolves when they see one, even when the young woman can’t.

    My solution is rather simple: polite company ought to disapprove both women and men who engage in such behaviors.

    Seems reasonable and evenhanded (this is key – I’ve known of Muslim girls who have rebelled because their families are lax in this regard with the sexual escapades of their sons, but expect a virtuous daughter – everyone hates hypocrisy)…but this is going to be a long and hard slog in a society where it is celebrated when men marry men. It can be turned around, but this will take time and effort.

    Peace.

  135. anon[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    rape coaching

    Is a strawman that has nothing to do with RooshV or Heartiste…unless you’ve gone full lesbian separatist and have decided that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. Of course, that has obvious problems for you.

    I laugh at your tribalism and your ignorance.

    An intelligent person might contemplate RooshV’s current path and mediate on it…but you obviously won’t.

    Sundance at Conservative Treehouse would no doubt the offended at my question. But to SJW’s like Rosie here there’s no real difference between Heartiste and Treehouse, and that’s the point. Cuckservatives are always ready to “fire to the right”, and so it’s easy for leftards to cut them out of the herd one by one.

    Only Black Lives Matter, right Rosie? Have you knelt before a black person yet this week? Better get with it!

  136. anon[418] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Here’s what I will say, though. Conservative Treehouse was under no moral obligation to defend Roosh the Rape Coach from deplatforming as the OP implied.

    Lol @ your ignorance.

    You really are funny when you literally don’t know what you are ranting about, and…you haven’t got a clue what you are ranting about.

    Your false and defamatory claim that RooshV was a “rape coach” would be libelous under Victorian era law and culture, of course, but facts do not actually concern you in the slightest.

    That whooshing sound over your head is an actual philosophical and political point.

    PS: The OP implied nothing about Conservative Treehouse, Heartiste or RooshV, but as usual you don’t let mere facts get in the way of one of your rants.

    lol @ old ladies in pantsuits who are too addle-brained to follow a simple chain of logic.

  137. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Again, I’m not necessarily saying I think this is the way forward. We find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. We can go this way or that. I think there is merit in Talha’s protective approach, and there is merit in the more indulent, laissez-faire attitude of Buzz Mohawk and yourself.

    The problem is that society and culture can be changed very rapidly but human natures changes very slowly (and possibly doesn’t change at all).

    The Sexual Revolution happened very quickly. We haven’t adapted to it yet. Perhaps we never can.

    Women were given control over their own sexuality. They were given the freedom to have sex when they wanted to, with whomever they pleased. This was good for some women, very bad for others. Women may have wanted sexual freedom but they still wanted marriage and security. The Sexual Revolution meant that men no longer had to offer marriage and security in exchange for sex.

    Women on the whole haven’t figured out how to deal with this. They gained freedom but lost security. For young beautiful women it meant lots of fun. For women who weren’t so young or so beautiful it was a disaster.

    It wasn’t all gain for men either. Wealthy good-looking high-status men got more sex than ever before. Men who didn’t fall into those categories lost out on both sex and marriage.

    We have to figure out how to have sexual freedom that benefits everybody, rather than just benefiting a minority of both men and women. A good start would be banning internet dating sites (which are much more destructive than either porn or prostitution).

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @Rosie
  138. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    with some degree or another of input from our parents

    I was reminded of a great set of posts Dr. Shadee Elmasry made that were rolled into a single thread where he outlined the role of the wali (guardian) for his daughter and the “fun stuff” he gets to dig into (this advice is good for any father from any faith background that is scrutinizing a young man looking to be his future son-in-law):
    “Being a wali is not an honorary role. You’re not just throwing out the first pitch. You’re actually trying to throw curve balls to see whether this guy checks out or has issues. Here are some questions and demands a wali should make…
    -Background check. Call and meet at least four people that were close to this man and interview them….
    -I need to see your financials to make sure you’re not in some ridiculous debt or have bad credit…
    -Educational background or skill set…
    -If this is a stranger, we need medical records. If you have an STD and she doesn’t, this is not going to work….
    -Have you agreed on life essentials such as religious beliefs, where to live, how to school kids, etc?
    -In laws are important. Have you at least met them and spent some time with them to make sure there’s nothing alarming?
    -Get 50% of the dowry up front…
    -The dowry should be commensurate to current standards depending on the man’s job. For example in our area in America 5, 7, or 10k is a common range.
    …The wali’s job is to eliminate the bad things that could have been avoided. If that means he has to be demanding and hated for a few months, it’s worth the cost. It’s preventative medicine.”
    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1153325126362046464.html

    Daughters shouldn’t have to worry about the above – that’s the father’s job.

    Peace.

  139. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    The Sexual Revolution meant that men no longer had to offer marriage and security in exchange for sex.

    I remember sitting in a gathering with the spiritual guide of my own teacher (I guess he would be called my spiritual “grand shaykh” – I dunno, let’s call him “GS”). Anyway…he was telling us about his time in Germany when he went to be trained on something for his company (from Pakistan). He was assigned a German man either in his late forties or his early fifties and they got on fairly well. As their friendship grew, and this was one of the first times my grand shaykh had been exposed to other cultures, they started talking about life and sharing other ideas. My GS was a bit surprised that this man (at his age) hadn’t settled down and started a family like he had, so he asked him why he hadn’t found a woman to marry and build a home with.

    His response was simply; “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  140. Truth says:
    @Twinkie

    Size 12 – esp. at today’s vanity sizing – means the woman in question is what healthcare professionals call “morbidly obese.”

    Is that right?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1346316/Size-12-women-From-model-yoga-fanatic.html

    • Replies: @Rosie
  141. Truth says:
    @Talha

    you don’t hear much about a group of women getting a man drunk in order to run a train on him.

    Trust me bro, that sort of thing will traumatize a dude for years, especially the 3rd or 4th time.

    • Replies: @Talha
  142. Talha says:
    @Truth

    I guy can survive the first two times of being run over by a train?!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  143. iffen says:
    @Talha

    I guy can survive the first two times of being run over by a train?!

    The train is the line of women having sex with the man.

    Truth’s satirical “3rd or 4th time” is mocking the idea that we should ignore differences in the sexual behavior between men and women.

    • Replies: @Talha
  144. Talha says:
    @iffen

    I know, I was pulling his leg in that I think a group of women running a man over with an actual train is more likely.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  145. iffen says:
    @Talha

    This might be an example of how foolish you look when you try to explain something to someone who is likely smarter than you.

    • Replies: @Talha
  146. Talha says:
    @iffen

    Your heart was in the right place.

    Peace.

  147. Rosie says:
    @fredyetagain aka superhonky

    Twinkie and Rosie should get a room already.

    Gross.

  148. Rosie says:
    @Talha

    His response was simply; “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?”

    Peace.

    I’m not sure such people are worth bothering with. A girl would probably be happier single than with a man who views her in that fashion.

    The thing about cat ladies is…at least they have their cats.

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
  149. Rosie says:
    @Truth

    Is that right?

    No, a size 12 would be overweight, but not obese, let alone morbidly obese.

    As far as looking good at a size 12, that depends a great deal on overall fitness. A strong 12 is very different from a flabby 12.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  150. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Having two cats, I can say that they are generally very nice companions…though just a couple of days ago our two Siberians went into one of their fighting frenzies and managed to knock over my company laptop and busted the screen while I was upstairs on a prayer break…that’s when they are “my wife’s cats”.

    Peace.

    • LOL: Rosie
  151. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Women on the whole haven’t figured out how to deal with this. They gained freedom but lost security. For young beautiful women it meant lots of fun. For women who weren’t so young or so beautiful it was a disaster.

    This is rothe conventional wisdom around these parts. I’m not sure it’s true. I would very much like to see data on perceived attractiveness as a correlate of early marriage. I remember when a homeschooling friend of mine gained a son shortly after her daughter graduated from college. I had always been fond of her daughter, whom I’d known for years already, but when I saw the pics from their small wedding, I was blown away by how beautiful she was, and even moreso by the fact that I had noticed it before. And please understand, I’m not talking about beautiful in the sense that most brides look beautiful on their wedding days, with the fancy updos and professional makeup and all that. I’m talking about seriously knock-out gorgeous. I had never noticed before because I just am not really that aware of people’s appearance.

    It occurred to me then that it must be much easier to get a young guy to commit when you look like that. Of course, that’s just an anecdote, and I’m sure people here could come up with contrary anecdotes. I would really like to see some hard data on that.

    The Sexual Revolution happened very quickly. We haven’t adapted to it yet. Perhaps we never can.

    I think we can and probably already are. Like I told Talha, the “why buy the cow” guys would probably not be the best husbands/fathers, and might be just as well that their genes don’t survive into future generations.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  152. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Like I told Talha, the “why buy the cow” guys would probably not be the best husbands/fathers, and might be just as well that their genes don’t survive into future generations.

    I don’t disagree with you about the “why buy the cow” guys. But what about the women who provide all that free milk to those guys? Are they just as bad?

    There’s also the question of the costs and risks involved in buying the cow. Many men these days think that those costs and risks are too great. They’re probably wrong in most cases but it’s perceptions that matter, not reality. If people believe the risks are too great they won’t make the purchase. It probably wouldn’t hurt to make buying the cow a more attractive proposition.

    There are cases in which marriage actually will make people financially worse off. One thing that needs to be done is to make some changes to welfare systems so that people get rewarded for marrying Which I would stress does not mean getting rid of welfare. I’m not one of those vicious anti-welfare types but there’s no reason that welfare can’t be made more pro-marriage.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Rosie
  153. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    But what about the women who provide all that free milk to those guys? Are they just as bad?

    No, they’re not. They’re just trying to compete in the dating market as it exists.

    They’re probably wrong in most cases but it’s perceptions that matter, not reality.

    Any suggestions as to what to do about that? They certainly are wrong. The fact that anti marriage “men’s rights advocates” ignore is that most divorces do not result in a support order. 66% of divorced couples have no children. If you marry a woman you’re own age, in her mid-twenties, you are unlikely to get divorced, and even if you do, you’re unlikely to ever have to pay child support.

    There are cases in which marriage actually will make people financially worse off. One thing that needs to be done is to make some changes to welfare systems so that people get rewarded for marrying Which I would stress does not mean getting rid of welfare. I’m not one of those vicious anti-welfare types but there’s no reason that welfare can’t be made more pro-marriage.

    Agreed.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  154. anonymous[279] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

    I believe “Rosie” starred in this video —

  155. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    But what about the women who provide all that free milk to those guys? Are they just as bad?

    No, they’re not. They’re just trying to compete in the dating market as it exists.

    The “don’t buy a cow” guys would probably say that they’re just adapting to the dating market as it exists.

    If the dating market as it exists is destructive then it’s up to both men and women to change it. As I said earlier, the essential first step is to ban internet dating sites.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @nebulafox
  156. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    The “don’t buy a cow” guys would probably say that they’re just adapting to the dating market as it exists.

    If the dating market as it exists is destructive then it’s up to both men and women to change it.

    Why do you hate women so much?

  157. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    No, a size 12 would be overweight, but not obese

    Dream on.

    At the average American female height of 5′ 4″, it is certainly obese and is considered “morbidly obese” especially with any comorbidity. Size 12 is still the LARGEST size most female clothmakers sell, meaning it is now what 14-16 used to be just a few years ago and larger still than what women in 1980’s, let alone 1950’s wore of the same number (translated to size 20+ back in those days).

    1950’s people were right – at 5′ 4″, an average, healthy weight should be around 122 lbs.

    190 lbs. and above at that height IS morbidly obese and is correlated with all manners of negative health effects.

  158. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    I’m actually hopeful here: the COVID restrictions are making everybody really bullish for real life interaction again.

    OT, but what’s your take on the current fracas between Australia and the PRC? I’m pretty surprised that Beijing doesn’t seem to remember what the 21 Demands ended up doing to Chinese nationalism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  159. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    OT, but what’s your take on the current fracas between Australia and the PRC?

    Australia has been behaving with breathtaking stupidity towards China.

    Australia will eventually have to make a choice between the US and China and the only sane choice is China.

    The first thing we should do is to leave the thoroughly evil Five Eyes alliance. We have zero common interests with Canada, Britain or the US. Those nations are irrelevant to our future.

  160. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    Don’t let the door hit you in the …

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  161. @dfordoom

    Australia will eventually have to make a choice between the US and China and the only sane choice is China.

    The first thing we should do is to leave the thoroughly evil Five Eyes alliance. We have zero common interests with Canada, Britain or the US. Those nations are irrelevant to our future.

    Americans, pay attention. The Australian @dfordoom is an honest, reasonable man. If we’ve alienated him then we have done something wrong.

    Even if you believe as I do that Americans should care little what foreigners think, Australia is a crucial exception.

    @dfordoom:

    The breach of which you speak seriously, maybe even catastrophically damages long-term American interests. What can Americans do to begin to repair the breach?

    Australians hardly ever ask Americans for anything. If they ask this time, then I for one am willing to listen.

  162. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    Don’t let the door hit you in the …

    That’s how I feel about your US military bases in Australia. Get the f*ck out of my country. And you can take your cultural degeneracy with you.

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

    That’s how I feel about your US military bases in Australia. Get the f*ck out of my country. And you can take your cultural degeneracy with you.

    If many Australians feel likewise then the U.S. should withdraw its military presence from Australia politely but without delay, even if the Australian government objects. For the U.S. to alienate ordinary Australians would be an historic geostrategical blunder.

    [MORE]

    The two continents Anglo-Saxons and their assimilates still dominate are North America and Australia. Do Americans not recognize China to be an enduring, first-class rival? The balance of power is not hard to grasp.

    The Australians are extremely easy to get along with and always have been. Driving purposeless wedges between their country and ours is most unwise. They’ll do the right thing if we just leave them alone: they always have.

    I had no idea that we were irritating them. We should stop.

    (Actually, I didn’t even know that we still had armed forces permanently stationed in Australia. Naval only? No U.S. soldier with whom I served mentioned going there that I recall.)

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  164. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    >Australia will eventually have to make a choice between the US and China and the only sane choice is China.

    Vietnam and Japan don’t think so. Maybe it is because they don’t have the luxury of viewing China as this abstract alternative, whether historically or in terms of immediate political reality.

    Mind, I’m all for ditching the empire: I think it is an integral part of the only realistic way for America to solve its own internal problems. But if you think the PRC’s gonna make for a nice replacement, think again. The people who have to actually live next to the Chinese know better.

    >The first thing we should do is to leave the thoroughly evil Five Eyes alliance.

    Buddy: you don’t even know what evil *is*.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Yahya K.
  165. nebulafox says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Being a good place with good policies and good things to offer gets others to follow you and want to be your friend more than a million lectures or NGOs or invasions ever will. The latter’s counterproductive. People don’t want to be told what to do. America’s leadership has gotten that ass-backwards over the last 30 years. Before that: people wanted to be like America. Now: not so much. Do more at home, talk less abroad, and have the basic courage that good results will follow…

    Put more crassly, if you were an aspiring African authoritarian trying to develop your country, what would you choose as a model: the place with high-speed railways or the place with obese anarchists crapping on the streets?

    (That being said, I wouldn’t take somebody who seriously thinks that the Five Eyes are evil and the PRC somehow isn’t by comparison as representative of the body politic in his country. I’m far from a bleeding hearts human rights type: but seriously: it’s no different from the woke Hollywood types who make movies in Xinjiang while taking knees for BLM. Talk about myopic.)

    • Agree: Yahya K.
  166. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    Vietnam and Japan don’t think so.

    Don’t they? They joined RCEP. They clearly see China rather than the US as the future.

    I think you’re underestimating Japanese dislike of the US. Japan has been an ally of the US for the same reason Australia has been. They’re under US military occupation. They don’t have a choice. But they don’t like it.

    Buddy: you don’t even know what evil *is*.

    I’ve seen US foreign policy in action so I’m well aware of what evil is.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  167. Yahya K. says:
    @nebulafox

    Mind, I’m all for ditching the empire: I think it is an integral part of the only realistic way for America to solve its own internal problems.

    But why not both? Plenty of leaders managed to deal with internal problems while deftly navigating the international scene. I get that the US is having trouble finding capable leaders as of present. But governing America should be EASY mode compared to what other countries had to face during the worst of their times. You guys have lots of land, abundant resources, a reservoir of human talent, and a good reputation built up over the past century (though this reputation is diminishing by the hour).

    And in terms of the cost of maintaining the empire, for all the grousing about muh military spending and such, the defense budget remains at a paltry 3.1% of GDP – an all time low.

    Honestly, I think that you are going to miss being El Numero Uno. I mean, would you rather be living in the world’s leading civilization, or some comfy but ultimately irrelevant land mass in the far corner of the world (Russia I am looking at you!)?

    The people who have to actually live next to the Chinese know better.

    I agree. The Chinese have shown every indication that they are going to be just as bellicose – if not moreso – than the US as a hegemon. Just look at the sort of tizzy fits they throw whenever someone crosses their path. This is not the sort of behavior that should give people confidence in China as a world leader.

    As far as US hegemony is concerned, I am not aware of any other power that has behaved any better. Better the devil you know.

    • Agree: iffen, Yahya K.
  168. Honestly, I think that you are going to miss being El Numero Uno. I mean, would you rather be living in the world’s leading civilization, or some comfy but ultimately irrelevant land mass in the far corner of the world (Russia I am looking at you!)?

    A fair question, fairly put.

    The results the United States achieves by being El Numero Uno grow more bizarre and more perverse by the decade. The United States no longer even knows what she is trying to achieve abroad. Example: a glance at a map suggests that North Korea might pose an inherent problem to South Korea, China, Russia and Japan, but probably not to the United States. Second example: another glance at a map suggests that Afghanistan … is a country reputedly located somewhere on the dark side of the Himalayas.

    I prefer comfy but irrelevant.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  169. @Talha

    We had a perfectly serviceable acronym, NAM (def #3), but it never really got on outside the Steveosphere.

    • Thanks: Talha
  170. @Rosie

    The Federal Reserve massively benefits corporate America in general and the banks in particular. This welfare is largely extracted from the middle and working class through steady increases in consumer prices. It dwarfs direct transfer payments.

  171. @nebulafox

    The fetishization of those who look differently is a great way of blocking those who think differently.

    Pure gold, thanks.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  172. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    >Don’t they? They joined RCEP. They clearly see China rather than the US as the future.

    Correct. But that doesn’t mean they want them to take on a US-esque role in the region.

    >I think you’re underestimating Japanese dislike of the US.

    No, I’m not. The Japanese don’t have the same love/hate generational relationship with American bases that the Koreans tend to have. And I’m saying this as a guy who saw Okinawans get very, very angry after soldiers committed crimes off-base growing up.

    The Japanese government does not want Susan Rice to become SecState under Biden because she had a track record of sacrificing their own interests to cooperate with the Chinese and not keeping them in the loop. (Despite the rhetoric of the “Pivot to Asia”, in practice, the Obama Administration cultivated relationships with NATO allies a lot better than they did in Asia.) The Trump administration, by contrast, did inform them of everything they were going to bring up when meeting with the Chinese. And they aren’t alone: Singapore’s foreign minister has stated on record that Rice would make everybody in the region nostalgic for Trump. This isn’t the behavior of nations that want the US completely gone from the region.

    And to be honest, I don’t think the Chinese want us completely gone, either, because if we do disappear overnight, Japan and South Korea are going to develop nuclear weapons in a few months. This goes way back: it was one of the things Nixon and Mao talked about in 1972.

    (For the record: my own position is that we should completely withdraw from Korea and leave behind a skeleton crew in Japan, depending on how things go. ROKA can take care of itself just fine.)

    >I’ve seen US foreign policy in action so I’m well aware of what evil is.

    The USA is a retarded gorilla that likes to throw around cruise missiles and NGOs while screaming “I’m helping, I’m helping” and shaking the hands of pederasts and famine causers. What it does not do these days is kidnap people on your soil whose crime it was to run an unfriendly blog, or lock you up in slave labor for belonging to the wrong race in the wrong region, or steal whole industries wholesale.

    China has worked hard for its current prosperity and power, and has earned it: I don’t begrudge them that at all. Nor am I interested in what China wants to do within its own borders. But it is pretty clear that China’s current leadership sees the suppression of anybody ideologically hostile to it outside its borders as a pressing issue, and that’s going to inevitably lead to conflicts with nations that have a tradition of letting people say and do what they want: especially when this is coupled with stuff like mass industrial espionage.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  173. nebulafox says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The simultaneous fall of the USSR and the rise of the Baby Boomers to power was an unfortunate moment. The USSR’s existence put a check on some of the wackier notions in vogue among America’s ruling class, whether with domestic or foreign policy.

    >Example: a glance at a map suggests that North Korea might pose an inherent problem to South Korea, China, Russia and Japan, but probably not to the United States.

    I actually think the DPRK’s leadership is quite rational. Their ideology is deeply racist-I mean the real “we are an innocent, pure race against a world of animals” thing, not what Americans and Europeans are being told is “racist”-but that doesn’t mean they are crazy.

    The supposed danger is that they might take the widespread but shallow ethno-nationalism on display in South at face value and do something stupid out of a belief that a widespread section of the South Korean public will support them. That would be dangerous if true: but that would mean they are ignorant of the reality that nobody goes from South to North, anymore than people went from West to East in Germany. I just don’t buy that. Kim didn’t survive this long in power by being that shallow of an analyzer. Even ordinary North Koreans are well aware that their country is deeply impoverished compared to China, let alone the South.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  174. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    >Don’t they? They joined RCEP. They clearly see China rather than the US as the future.

    Correct. But that doesn’t mean they want them to take on a US-esque role in the region.

    I honestly don’t think that China has any interest in doing any such thing.

    But it is pretty clear that China’s current leadership sees the suppression of anybody ideologically hostile to it outside its borders as a pressing issue, and that’s going to inevitably lead to conflicts with nations that have a tradition of letting people say and do what they want:

    To the extent that that’s happening it’s an inevitable result of US foreign policy which is based very much on interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. The US has been responsible for creating a new Cold War climate. If the US is trying to destablise you then naturally you’re going to react.

    The US simply will not accept the existence of rival powers. As far as the US is concerned other countries are either enemies or tame vassals.

    And it’s certainly not China that is responsible for the growing totalitarianism of the West.

  175. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    The simultaneous fall of the USSR and the rise of the Baby Boomers to power was an unfortunate moment. The USSR’s existence put a check on some of the wackier notions in vogue among America’s ruling class, whether with domestic or foreign policy.

    Yes, I agree. That’s a hobbyhorse of mine as well.

    I actually think the DPRK’s leadership is quite rational.

    I agree. They’re certainly more rational than the Americans.

  176. @Rosie

    You mean he advocated actual rape or are you using “rape” in a sense that strips women of their agency?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS