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
Maintaining the Mandate of Heaven
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

Twinkie on Occidental xenophilia:

Some commenters would occasionally remark on Unz that South Korea is very “xenophobic,” how Koreans hate foreigners, etc. (usually accompanied by how amazingly xenophilic white people are in comparison). That’s an outdated stereotype. I would point out to no avail that:

1. Both left and right administrations in South Korea have pushed for “globalization” as an official state ideology for the past 30-40 years.

2. These administrations have encouraged rural and downscale males unable to find local wives to find them overseas, mostly in Vietnam (and even subsidizing such marriages).

3. South Korean traditional and social media relentlessly push and extol how wonderful xenophilia is.

Is it any wonder that the South Korean public’s attitude is now (by self-assessment) more welcoming to outsiders than even that of the United States? This is not magic. It’s not unique to Americans or Germans (and certainly not just whites). It happens when the state and the media join hands and indoctrinate the population thusly.

Badwhite countries like Russia and Hungary are more restrictionist than globalist countries like South Korea and, increasingly, Japan are.

On a similar note, nebulafox on one of the practical problems with race-based nationalism in a globalized world:

One of the big practical problems I see with enforcing race based nationalism in an age of global travel: very few men in *any* culture are going to choose “no wife” over “foreign wife”.

If the Covidians get their way, though, the age of global travel for non-aristocrats may be coming to an end. The jet-setting cosmopolitan oligarchy can intermarry while the serfs stay in place to maintain local flavor. Maybe neo-feudalism will be better than neo-liberalism for ethnonationalism!

BostonJoe on how after 60 years it’s time for Republican will to power:

Republicans need to just get a lot better at cheating and fraud than Democrats. No quarter for these aholes.

They deliver their votes first then we deliver the win. All of our dead people vote. All of the non-dead as well. Everyone mails in two, three, four, ten ballots apiece.

Based on what we can tell: there is no danger to fraud. You can’t be held accountable. Suits are too early (‘no standing’) or too late (‘laches’).

So let’s just flood the system with Republican votes. That is the game, game on.

Cases have been made that the GOP did that in 2000 and 2004. Democracy destroys itself. There is no electoral solution to stave off dissolution. It’s a question of when and how, not if.

Ryan Andrews on what American conservatism must become in the 21st century if the political orientation is to avoid the dustbin of history:

If the proportion of conservatives to left-liberals were exactly the same in every last census block in the country, it would still be worth dividing the place in two, and letting those so inclined move to the country of their choice.

As it happens however, that is not the case. In fact, red-state America, with the exception of Alaska, is literally a contiguous block. Yet instead of thanking their good fortune at such an opportunity falling into their laps (they certainly didn’t do anything to deserve it), conservatives alternate between fraudulently puffing-their-chests about not surrendering all the red counties in blue states and pathetically moaning that blue counties are mixed in with most red states; ‘it’s all so impractical.’ So, in true conservative fashion, they do nothing. If as a conservative, you cannot see that half the country (probably a bit more, really) is utterly and irrevocably lost, and that if you don’t act to conserve the other half, that too will be lost within a couple generations, then I don’t know what to say. You can lead a horse to water, but if he thinks the strain of craning his neck to take a drink is not worth the effort, then he’s not going to make it.

Almost Missouri on how, not satisfied with having stolen the financial future from the zoomers and millennials, boomers have responded to Covid by stealing the daily activities that make young life worth living from them, too:

One way to understand the current panicdemic is as a farewell middle finger from Boomers+ to younger generations. In prior and deadlier epidemics there was no such thing as a “lockdown”, there was merely the aggregate of private actions to reduce harm in whatever way anyone thought most efficacious to their particular circumstances. This year, faced with a heavier-than-usual flu season, which mainly affects the older generation, we have a historically unprecedented global totalitarian response, the burden of which is disproportionately borne by the young so that some meager benefit may be reaped by the old.

This dynamic is perhaps most starkly on display at colleges, where the generation that ecstatically rioted to take over the universities in the 1960s, now that they are in control of those same institutions, has peremptorily shutdown every remaining pleasant, human, and free aspect of tertiary education so they can maximize their own convenience (“teach” from home in pajama bottoms) while diminishing their young students to nothing more than captive video heads. The young are the most restricted while their risk was effectively zero. Their elderly teachers are the most free while they gain modest risk reductions from everyone else’s sacrifice. If the restrictions on student-to-student social contact seem oddly overdone for their stated purpose, that’s because they are. The Boomers know perfectly well what they would have done as students in these circumstances, and they want to be absolutely sure that it is not done to them, now that they are the ones in control.

Is it vampiricism or sensible triage?

Or is the entire framing incorrect? It resonates rhetorically with me, but both the public response to and polling on the virus hardly indicate the Covid divide is a generational one. That the putatively punished youth are apparently happy to sit on their console controllers instead of forcefully resisting the restrictions is not missed by dfordoom:

Another way to understand it is as an example of the crybaby younger generations doing what they do best – crying when they don’t get what they want.

When Boomers thought they were treated unfairly (such as being drafted to fight a stupid evil war in Vietnam) they got off their asses and did something about it. They took to the streets, and risked being beaten up by the police.

The only members of the crybaby younger generations getting off their asses and doing something is the antifa loons. They’re stupid and crazy and evil but at least they’re doing more than sitting in the corner sobbing about how unfair it all is and how mean the Boomers have been to them.

An anon offers hope that China launching a revanchist campaign against Taiwan in defiance of a compromised Biden administration is unlikely. When all your eggs–or more precisely, the means of impregnating them–are in one basket, the thought of that basket becoming cannon fodder is especially horrifying:

I view the chances of China starting aggressive war as doubtful. Virtually the entire PLA consists of only-children. Getting too many of them killed would be a very bad situation for the current regime, it might approach “lost the Mandate of Heaven” badness.

Here’s to hoping the middle kingdom maintains the mandate by keeping the Pacific pacific.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy, Science • Tags: COTW 
Hide 275 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rosie says:

    One of the big practical problems I see with enforcing race based nationalism in an age of global travel: very few men in *any* culture are going to choose “no wife” over “foreign wife”.

    Finally, a bit of honesty about White men’s lack of concern for their race, and the reasons for it.

    A minor quibble:

    Since boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers, the choice is not between no wife and a foreign wife. It is between a wife you can get in your own country versus the one you can get from some desperately poor Third World country.

    Why should men have that choice? If it’s okay to go abroad for a “better” wife, why not a better worker, or a better product? You can have a nation, or you can have a collection of individuals.

  2. Some Guy says:

    Badwhite countries like Russia and Hungary are more restrictionist than globalist countries like South Korea and, increasingly, Japan are.

    I don’t know about that. South Korea and Japan are mostly taking in fellow East/Southeast Asian AFAIK, while Russia has freedom of movement with some Muslim Central Asian countries.

    Anyway, once Covid has been mismanaged to the degree that hospitals are overflowing, what alternative is there to a lockdown? Telling old people to go home and die? Isn’t it actually young Democrats that support harsher Covid-measures, and boomer Republicans that oppose them?

    • Replies: @SIMP simp
  3. Twinkie says:

    AE, you asked this question on another thread, but the window for commenting closed before I could reply:
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/immigration-restrictionist-sentiment-by-country/#comment-4343615

    Can anyone tell the difference between a Korean and a Vietnamese by how they look?

    Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians, indeed, have different typical looks. But these days the most obviously notable difference is height. The average height for younger (20’s) South Korean males is 5’9”. That for Vietnamese is 5’5”.

    The reputed national temperaments are also different – Koreans are said to be cantankerous and intense while Vietnamese are often described as mellow and easier-going:

  4. Blacks, you know, and Hispanics, are not, generally speaking, liberal.

    They are quite conservative on every issue except issues that involve their own race or ethnicity.

    Smart conservatives, if they want to win, would enlist them, whatever prejudice they may have against them (and in my town, it’s not even the blacks, it’s the Puerto Ricans everybody hates).

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Catdog
  5. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    Finally, a bit of honesty about White men’s lack of concern for their race, and the reasons for it.

    I don’t think that was a commentary about white men’s pursuit of women, any women, so much as a commentary on men, any men, doing so. Those traditional stereotypes – those of men desiring women who look sexually attractive, cook well, and are eager to please and of women desiring men who seem powerful and are good providers – exist for a reason. Put another way and pithily, men pursue beauty and women pursue status. Though, again, the rise of assortative mating is disrupting that hitherto truism greatly.

    The point here is that it isn’t better patriotism or higher racial concern that makes women’s marriage choices more “nationalistic” – it’s because feminine sexual attractiveness can be found everywhere (including overseas) and is more portable across cultures and national boundaries, while masculine high social status in a given country is found mostly, often exclusively, in that country. And this dynamic isn’t exclusive to the United States.

    By the way, the same dynamic is also why, for example, in the U.S., a much higher percentage of foreign-born Asian women marry native males than immigrant Asian males marry native women, but the gap narrows significantly among American-born Asians. Foreign-born females don’t suffer a beauty penalty when they cross the borders (indeed, they may increase in attractiveness, i.e. “exotic-ness”), but foreign-born males do suffer a drop in social status when they come to a new country, something that tends to dissipate with the next generation born natively, especially as their educational and professional prospects rise (via linguistic and cultural assimilation among other factors).

    Since boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers, the choice is not between no wife and a foreign wife.

    But that’s only true under circumstances of mutual desirability. If trends aren’t parallel in both sexes, for example if native women become much more demanding (e.g. higher hypergamy among women) or much less attractive (e.g. highly obese), the choice, as such, can become more binary.

    It is between a wife you can get in your own country versus the one you can get from some desperately poor Third World country.

    Also not always true, because you are assuming here that there aren’t other options such as a wife from another developed country with a different male-female dynamic/culture or one from a mid-level developed country. Indeed I think many “mail-order brides” come from such countries (e.g. Ukraine or Thailand) rather than “desperately poor Third World country” such as, say, Bangladesh or Guatemala.

  6. …not satisfied with having stolen the financial future from the zoomers and millennials, boomers have responded to Covid by stealing the daily activities that make young life worth living from them, too

    AM’s comments are usually worthwhile, but this is an example of how any analysis with the word boomer (or any of the other pop-socio generational labels) sports a red flag that nonsense is coming your way.

    where the generation that ecstatically rioted to take over the universities in the 1960s

    About one tenth of one percent of this “generation” attended Columbia. For every one protesting the war, several were on the ground overseas waging it. The top-selling 45s in 1968 were “Hey Jude”, ” Love Is Blue”, and “Honey”. Republicans won five of the six presidential elections from that year on as the electorate “boomerfied”. They had just lost five of seven before that!

    One way to understand the current panicdemic is as a farewell middle finger from Boomers+ to younger generations.

    Would you read the disastrous 1964 election the same way? There is something Freudian in all this.

    a revanchist campaign against Taiwan

    Back when we called the island Formosa, this was their flag. They should bring it back!

    [MORE]

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  7. Pericles says:

    Another way to understand it is as an example of the crybaby younger generations doing what they do best – crying when they don’t get what they want.

    When Boomers thought they were treated unfairly (such as being drafted to fight a stupid evil war in Vietnam) they got off their asses and did something about it. They took to the streets, and risked being beaten up by the police.

    Lol, this is pretty rich coming from the surrender-and-die-white-man eeyore of this site. While we’re at it, let’s hear what the call center in Kolkata has to add too.

  8. unit472 says:

    China’s ‘One Child’ policy has had some unfortunate consequences especially in skewing the male female ratio. That quite a few Western men have taken Chinese wives hasn’t helped. However I don’t think fear of casualties is going to deter China from asserting what it sees as a legitimate claim to Taiwan ( though it hasn’t run the place since 1890. The real risk of losing the ‘mandate of heaven’ is posed by attempting an invasion and having it fail. That would destroy the regime and its entirely possible such an invasion would fail. The straits of Taiwan are 100 miles wide and Taiwan is a nation of over 20 million with a capable military.

    It took the US/UK years to amass enough combat power to breach Hitler’s Atlantic Wall and it was a close fought thing. Without absolute control of the skies over the invasion beaches and the ability to prevent the Germans from pouring reinforcements into Normandy it would’ve failed.

  9. iffen says:

    There is no electoral solution to stave off dissolution. It’s a question of when and how, not if.

    Friggin’ Energizer Bunny.

  10. iffen says:
    @obwandiyag

    You tell’em Obi.

    BLM, but only if they vote right.

  11. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    the rise of assortative mating is disrupting that hitherto truism greatly.

    You’re saying that marrying up or down is decreasing, not that the impetus for that dynamic is fading?

  12. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    The point here is that it isn’t better patriotism or higher racial concern that makes women’s marriage choices more “nationalistic”

    I’m not sure about that, but it doesn’t really matter what the reasons are in the end. The consequences remain the same regardless. Though you are correct to point out that the thrust of the comment was that men of all races will do this, White men are particularly individualistic.

    But that’s only true under circumstances of mutual desirability. If trends aren’t parallel in both sexes, for example if native women become much more demanding (e.g. higher hypergamy among women) or much less attractive (e.g. highly obese), the choice, as such, can become more binary.

    It appears from the data that women are not becoming more “hypergamous” but less so, as more women are marrying men with less education than themselves. As far as obesity is concerned, that is more or less what I said. It’s not that they can’t get a wife. It’s just that they feel they can do better going outside. It also bears repeating that we’re all getting fatter, not just women.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @anonymous
    , @Twinkie
    , @anon
  13. Jay Fink says:
    @Twinkie

    I am corresponding with a young lady in Ukraine, we are opponents in a music game I play. She has worked for mail order bride agencies. She tells me 100% of the agency profiles are fake and it’s all a scam. She says the only real profiles are on general dating sites, not the agencies. I was disappointed to hear this but not too surprised.

    I asked her if the women in Ukraine are as pretty as the ones on the websites and she said yes they are. She says there is a lot of pressure for women to be pretty and thin there. She is slightly overweight (for Ukranian not U.S standards), bought some chocolates and other women in line at the store criticized her for eating chocolate when she is already fat. That story was sort of sad to me but I also was amazed by it. That type of fat shaming is unheard of in the U.S where obesity is the norm.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  14. Rosie says:
    @unit472

    China’s ‘One Child’ policy has had some unfortunate consequences especially in skewing the male female ratio.

    Indeed, and of course in India, they don’t have any such policy, but female infanticide has led to a dearth of marriage prospects for poor, rural men. I guess they should’ve thought of that before killing all those baby girls.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
  15. @Rosie

    Why should men have that choice? If it’s okay to go abroad for a “better” wife, why not a better worker, or a better product? You can have a nation, or you can have a collection of individuals.

    A sense of magnitude and proportion is needed here.

    Importing “better (cheaper) workers” or “product” from abroad: hundreds of millions.

    Importing more attractive wives from abroad: tens of thousands.

    The two phenomena may have equivalency in your moral scales. But in terms of actually impacting the math of the grounded reality that a nationalist might care about, one is the entire source of the problem and the other is a rounding error.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
  16. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    more women are marrying men with less education than themselves.

    This is not the only criterion that women use when evaluating prospects. It may not even be the most salient.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  17. Rosie says:
    @PennTothal

    The two phenomena may have equivalency in your moral scales. But in terms of actually impacting the math of the grounded reality that a nationalist might care about, one is the entire source of the problem and the other is a rounding error.

    Not only are they morally equivalent. They derive from precisely the same attitude. The world is a great big global shopping mall, for wives and widgets alike. To have a future, you have to have a nationalist culture, and a nationalist culture would not accept foreign mail-order brides.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  18. iffen says:
    @PennTothal

    A sense of magnitude and proportion is needed here.

    A complete immigration hiatus now!

    (Except for Einsteins and beauty queens.)

  19. Pericles says:
    @Jay Fink

    Women’s traditional culture in the West has been pretty thoroughly crushed over the years.

  20. Pericles says:
    @iffen

    It’s furthermore fairly unavoidable when there are 60% women on campus.

  21. @Rosie

    One or two others have made some fair counterpoints but @Rosie’s central point is unassailable:

    … a nationalist culture would not accept foreign mail-order brides.

    Right. It would not.

    Nationalists do not seek to split couples that are already married, and the occasional cross-border match will inevitably occur, but one can under no circumstance expect a friendly reaction from one’s own tribe’s women when foreign women are brought in to displace them. It is hard to imagine a more direct threat.

    One cannot talk one’s way around this point.

    Even Roman legions and Viking raiders, who routinely ravished the women of defeated cities and of conquered lands while putting the beaten menfolk to the sword, did not generally bring the foreign women home. The few that did, like Catullus, mostly did it during depraved times and were still notorious for it. If the unmarried soldier wanted a foreign bride, rather than return home, he remained to forcibly colonize the occupied foreign land. He lived there the rest of his life. Why is that?

    • Agree: Catdog
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @MBlanc46
  22. iffen says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    … a nationalist culture would not accept foreign mail-order brides.

    Right. It would not.

    But “we” are not race nationalists; “we” are civic nationalists. Not to mention the fact that we are hyper-individualists and telling someone whom they can or can’t marry violates the Constitution. (It’s there. You just have to have the right Supreme Court to find it in the 1st Amendment.)

    So, no, it is definitely assailable.

    • Agree: RoatanBill
    • Replies: @Talha
  23. @Rosie

    “Since boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers, the choice is not between no wife and a foreign wife”.
    In 2015 in Germany there were a bit more than 4 million men between 20 and 30 and a bit for than 4 million women in that age. I would assume that this is the relevant age for finding a spouse. Then around 1 million people immigrated, mostly men younger than 30. I have not found any study, which examines the effect of such mass migration on the partner market, but I could imagine that such numbers do have consequences.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
  24. Talha says:
    @iffen

    I think you cannot stop someone from marrying anyone they want, but you could still restrict them importing the person by denying residency. If I recall, there was a legal effort by families of men with war brides from Asia after WW1 and Korea to overturn restrictions on this.

    I’m not saying this should happen, just that it legally has precedence.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: Rosie
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @iffen
  25. Rosie says:

    That may be true, but it is the area that proponents of the hypergamy hoax typically point to as causing the mischief, because women have higher educational attainment. Men earn more money, so women seeking men who earn as much or more than they do should not be a problem.

    Women who marry men with less education are particularly likely to marry a man who earns more than them, but then that is to be expected. Men who earn more money than their education would predict are also likely to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than their education would predict, and therefore more attractive as a companion.

    “we” are civic nationalists.

    Civic nationalism is just slow-lane multiculturalism.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  26. Talha says:
    @Talha

    And it doesn’t have to have a racial component as it did in the past, you could basically say; we are denying the importing of spouses from any an all lands.

  27. The only members of the crybaby younger generations getting off their asses and doing something is the antifa loons. They’re stupid and crazy and evil but at least they’re doing more than sitting in the corner sobbing about how unfair it all is and how mean the Boomers have been to them.

    Seeing as how the authorities starting with Trump have come down like a ton of bricks on anyone opposing Antifa, even in legitimate self-defense, there is no mystery about this phenomena. If “getting of their asses” means going to prison after a kangaroo court verdict, or more often having one’s career ended, best to avoid that until the environment changes so that such activities are minimally acceptable.

  28. I view the chances of China starting aggressive war as doubtful. Virtually the entire PLA consists of only-children. Getting too many of them killed would be a very bad situation for the current regime, it might approach “lost the Mandate of Heaven” badness.

    How can this statement be true? China’s Total Fertility Rate today is 1.5, twenty years ago it was 1.7 and thirty years ago it was 2.43. What is the average age of a PLA member? What age is the average recruit?

    This also doesn’t take into account the fact that only children are less likely to enlist than those with siblings, for obvious reasons.

    For comparison the average American military officer was 34.5 years old in 2015, up from 32.1 in 1973. And the average American enlisted member was just over the age of 27 in 2015, compared with age 25 in 1973.

    US military.

    25 and under: 595,129
    26 to 30: 274,855
    31 to 35: 194,124
    36 to 40: 136,607
    41 and over: 103,703

    If we look into the future, over half the babies born in China in the first eight months of 2017 were second children.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2117823/more-half-chinese-newborns-are-second-children-state-media-report

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Unit472
    , @Wency
  29. @Rosie

    … the hypergamy hoax …

    Not a hoax.

    It’s not everything, nor does it describe the behavior of all women in all circumstances, but it is plainly not a hoax.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Rosie
  30. @unit472

    However I don’t think fear of casualties is going to deter China from asserting what it sees as a legitimate claim to Taiwan ( though it hasn’t run the place since 1890. The real risk of losing the ‘mandate of heaven’ is posed by attempting an invasion and having it fail. That would destroy the regime and its entirely possible such an invasion would fail. The straits of Taiwan are 100 miles wide and Taiwan is a nation of over 20 million with a capable military.

    Another factor is Taiwan having one or more crown jewels the PRC’s current economy is totally dependent on, most notably TSMC, the world’s best logic computer chip company (at the same time diverse Intel has lost the ability to move to smaller chip processes, creating an increasing worldwide mismatch between demand and supply). It’s trivial to destroy fab lines and the very delicate and expensive machines in them, and that would be the end of a lot of exports from the PRC, plus a lot of their internal consumption. No doubt there are quite a few other less prominent jewels in the island.

    On the other hand, see how Xi doesn’t give a damn if his people freeze in winter, this time by embargoing coal from Australia. I get the impression he believes his and the CCPs power over their subjects and slaves is strong enough he doesn’t need the mandate of heaven. Perhaps he believes he can achieve a level equal to or exceeding Mao. Who lost a lot of power after the catastrophic Great Leap Forward, which he only got back by fomenting the Cultural Revolution, which is not I think a typical way of regaining the mandate of heaven.

  31. @Talha

    And it doesn’t have to have a racial component as it did in the past….

    I does not have to, it won’t, and it can’t.

    We’re not even going to get negro Segregation back, alas (though a disturbing number of U.S. negroes seem persistently bent on behavior that would convince their fellow citizens otherwise). Prohibiting a white American citizen by law from marrying, say, a yellow one is not going to happen.

  32. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Interesting, and I would benefit from further study on the subject, but I was unaware that we ever had restrictions on the immigration of the spouses of American citizens.

    • Replies: @Talha
  33. @Talha

    My last comment inadvertently replied to something other than what you actually wrote.

    And it doesn’t have to have a racial component as it did in the past, you could basically say; we are denying the importing of spouses from any an all lands.

    What you actually wrote stands. Even if I wished to argue against you (and I don’t), I would need to appeal to improbable hypotheticals. I would rather just endorse your program.

    • Replies: @Talha
  34. @Rosie

    desperately poor Third World country

    Typical of someone trying to make a point that is so weak that it needs an embellishment for support.

    Why should men have that choice?

    Women have the same choice – don’t they?

    If it’s okay to go abroad for a “better” wife, why not a better worker, or a better product?

    It is OK for a better wife, worker and product. It’s called the free market. Look into that concept.

    You can have a nation, or you can have a collection of individuals.

    As an anarchist because I absolutely know that gov’t is just a euphemism for murder and economic slavery, I’ll take the individual route, thank you.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Realist
    , @Haruto Rat
  35. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It’s not everything, nor does it describe the behavior of all women in all circumstances, but it is plainly not a hoax.

    I contend that it is. Twinkie is right that women are more concerned about status and men are more concerned about appearance. If that is what is meant by hypergamy, then fine.

    But I don’t think it is. When people use that term, they usually mean to imply (if I’m not mistaken) that women have unreasonable expectations and men do not. That is false, and to the extent that “female hypergamy” implies this, it is a hoax.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @anon
    , @iffen
  36. anonymous[764] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It appears from the data that women are not becoming more “hypergamous” but less so, as more women are marrying men with less education than themselves.

    women have unreasonable expectations and men do not. That is false.

    May I submit that blanket nationwide statistics that you can pull related to hypergamy don’t really tell the relevant story?

    These statistics will include, indeed may well be numerically dominated by, women who are outside of the domain which is (or at least should be) considered eligible by young single men looking to get married and start a family. For example they will already have kids, and/or be past child-bearing age.

    The relevant population when discussing real-world dating options for eligible young single males is non-obese women ages 18-35 with no kids. Any statistics one could pull related to female hypergamy should be restricted to that group.

  37. @Talha

    If you deny that importation, the men might just become expats and take their skill set and knowledge with them to improve their new home to the detriment of the US.

    It’s typical of the law to try to fix one area while causing harm in another.

  38. @Rosie

    I see you can’t counter my statements so you flee with a vacuous reply.

    Why not point out where I’m wrong?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @dfordoom
  39. @Rosie

    When people use that term [hypergamy], they usually mean to imply (if I’m not mistaken) that women have unreasonable expectations and men do not. That is false.

    The setting for my reply is unfair to you, for here you have a bunch of men having a masculine conversation in a masculine mode, where things are said that would not ordinarily be suitable for mixed company. Let me just say that your point is taken. Of course, men do indeed have unreasonable expectations. Often. Nor do I exempt myself from that rule.

    [MORE]

    I can think of several things to write. Some might interest you more than others. Skim if you wish. Pick out the points you like. I don’t have all the answers, anyway, but I will say this:

    A sound family without strong, virtuous masculine leadership is never likely. Across 19th-century European Christendom, there seems to have been a remarkable degree of general agreement as to what constituted strong, virtuous masculine leadership. One couldn’t always get it, of course, but one knew what it was—and, really, when we today are in our right minds, we still know.

    I believe what you had around 2014 was some young guys who had spent too much time in bars and had heard the depraved culture yelling at them that the wife’s submission to her husband was an obsolete principle. So the rowdy young guys rebelled—and, being young, they were crude and obnoxious about it. They had never been told, and seldom been shown, the actual, qualified nature of a happy wife’s submission; but they knew (and they were right about this) that the utterly nonsubmissive wife is either a monster or, more likely, an oxymoron.

    That the rowdy young guys experimented with cad’s behavior is undeniable.

    By 2020, nevertheless, many of those guys are married with children. Experience with an actual wife rapidly corrects the overreach. The young husbands come around, because an actual wife makes coming around worthwhile. They settle down.

    And they stop posting to the manosphere boards. The ones left behind on the boards are the residue that could not get wives.

    The right-wingers at Charlottesville, 2017, were a distinct class from the manosphere, but there is or used to be some overlap between the two classes, and several of the Charlottesvillains are personally known to me. I have seen them make the transition. Their wives and young families today are happy and strong, so it may be inferred, looking back, that the young guys of 2014 weren’t entirely on the wrong track.

    Personally, I doubt that fundamental societal questions like these are settled by public coed discussions like the one you and I are having now, as friendly as such discussions might be. Such questions are settled within families and, in a truly healthy society, are mediated in law enacted via masculine concourse. A relevant feminine channel probably exists in parallel, largely out of the view of the men, but of course I know little about that.

  40. Realist says:
    @RoatanBill

    A while back Rosie was posting about women’s rights this…women’s rights that. So I ask her what she meant by women’s rights…she refused to answer…writing that I should know what women’s rights are. I then ask her why women are so special that they get rights that men don’t…she refused to answer my questions. Logic is not Rosie’s strong point.

    Attempting a meaningful discourse with Rosie is a fool’s errand.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  41. @RoatanBill

    Women have the same choice – don’t they?

    I took a quick look at the Eurostat data on marriages by country of birth, and in Eastern Europe the number of native F/foreign M marriages typically exceeds that of native M/foreign F marriages.

    These numbers should be taken cum grano salis as:
    – some marriages are likely counted twice – in both countries;
    – no data on Poland, Czechia, Belgium, France etc.
    – in Nordic countries, totals do not match, which means CoB of one or both was not reported (up to 16% of marriages in Sweden)

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  42. Unit472 says:
    @Blinky Bill

    China’s fertility rate is/was constrained by its shortage of females of child bearing age. Sure a Chinese man lucky enough to get a wife can have two children but large families are not cheap and China doesn’t provide a lot of social services so there is even less incentive to have multiple children!

    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
  43. Catdog says:
    @obwandiyag

    Genius. Why hasn’t anyone thought of this before? Somebody get Karl Rove in here.

  44. @Twinkie

    Put another way and pithily, men pursue beauty and women pursue status

    Looking around at people I know, who tend to be well off and professional, they have all recently married others with similar status and beauty to themselves. Their dating lives were like that too.

  45. @Realist

    I’m well aware of the Rosie types in the world. I pester this Rosie to expose her for what she does. Any inconvenient questions she simply ignores. She can’t back up her rhetoric with logic and reason because almost none is used to produce her world view.

    She’s part of the entitled FSA (Free Shit Army) and demands others provide her and her kind with whatever it is she can hang the label of humanitarian need on, which is pretty much what all the leftists always want – more free stuff that gov’t steals from others to give to them for votes. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    • Replies: @Catdog
    , @Jay Fink
  46. @Haruto Rat

    My comment, which you highlighted, was meant to say that both men and women are free to choose whomever they want. If men choose to do more of an activity and women less, that doesn’t mean that there’s some prohibition in the works. Just like men largely make up the roofers of the world and women largely make up the nurses, it’s a free choice and both are equally capable of making it.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @Haruto Rat
  47. Catdog says:
    @RoatanBill

    I am grateful to Rosie for calling out the toxic misogynist rhetoric from our side. Having expectations that our women maintain traditional values is one thing. Expecting them to put up with being constantly demeaned is another. There’s no future for white people without white women.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  48. @Unit472

    I view the chances of China starting aggressive war as doubtful. Virtually the entire PLA consists of only-children. Getting too many of them killed would be a very bad situation for the current regime, it might approach “lost the Mandate of Heaven” badness.

    You do realize that every member of the PLA is descended from a “Chinese man lucky enough to get a wife” and none from those who were not. Approximately one third of whom will have siblings. And that in 2019 15 million Chinese were born. The current cohort of recruits which, was born 25 years ago is drawn from a pool 21 million people, born in the year 1995, which like you admitted, skews disproportionately male!

  49. Talha says:
    @iffen

    I’m reproducing a conversation I had with Mr. Unz a while ago:

    Mr. Unz said:

    However, this was not at all the case with the 1964 Immigration Act, which passed overwhelmingly with around 80% support in Congress, having very little strong opposition. In fact, if you read the political magazines or newspapers at the time, you’ll discover that it was considered a “feel good bill” and didn’t really get all that much attention, something like raising Veterans’ Benefits. Passage of the bill wasn’t any sort of diabolical plot—it’s just that few people opposed it.

    Very interesting, did not know this. This actually seems to follow the eventual pattern for any nation with an imperial footprint, which the US increasingly became after WW2. I mean you had GI’s stationed in Japan, Philippines…and then Korea and Vietnam.

    Asian war brides seem to have naturally followed:
    No surprises there.

    And of course, laws then seem to have naturally followed:
    “As American interests led to increased American activity in the Pacific and Asia, brides of American men contributed heavily to bi-racial families. The American annexation of Hawaii, Philippines and wars in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam created both marriage and children. During the 1950s, Asian war brides were among the largest groups of Asian immigrants coming to the US.”
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/Multi-racial.htm

    “According to Winfrey, approximately 50,000 “war brides” came to the United States from Japan starting in 1947. Many were disowned by their families for marrying those who had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then occupied Japan, Winfrey said. Others were rejected by their American in-laws for being foreigners….’One very interesting fact I discovered is that Japanese ‘war brides,’ by default, were responsible for opening the gate so that all other Asians could enter the U.S.,’ Winfrey said. ‘Evidently, the War Brides Act of 1945 overturned the Immigration Act of 1924 which had banned Asians from immigrating to America. There is so much I’m learning about these brave women, of which my Mom was one.’”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/war-brides-japan-take-focus-new-documentary-n625761

    Well, I guess you can file this one under:
    Own Goal
    or
    Miscegenation/Immigration Laws Overturned By GIs Thirst for Asian Poontang
    or
    Raising Veterans’ “Benefits”

    I guess once the Asians were in-like-flynn, the US population may have just figured; aw what the hell, open up the gates.

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/elevating-excellent-commenters/#comment-3633132

    Also:

    “During this period, approximately 15,000 Koreans immigrated to the United States. The McCarran and Walter Act of 1952 nullified the Asian immigration ban and made Asian immigrants eligible for citizenship. The second wave consisted of three groups: Korean wives of American soldiers, known as war brides; war orphans adopted by American families; and around 27,000 people composed of students, businessmen, and intellectuals.[6]2 The War Bride Act of 1946 facilitated the immigration of Korean wives of American servicemen.”
    http://sites.bu.edu/koreandiaspora/issues/history-of-korean-immigration-to-america-from-1903-to-present/

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/elevating-excellent-commenters/#comment-3633267

    Peace.

    • Thanks: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
  50. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Winfrey said. Others were rejected by their American in-laws for being foreigners….’

    This is a bunch of woke BS. I know two families that were composed of former GIs and war brides and they weren’t rejected by family or community.

    • Replies: @Talha
  51. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I would rather just endorse your program.

    Whoa! Wait a minute here. For the record, I’m not advocating anything – I’m simply outlining legal possibilities. I’m not sure where I stand on this particular issue and – as an immigrant myself, with friends that have married women from overseas and brought them here* – I recuse myself from it.

    Peace.

    *One of these men being a brother who is a convert that many would call “white trash” who married a Somali lady, who is the kind of wife men dream of having. He was telling me; she never argues with him, she is always supportive of anything he undertakes, very loving to the kids, great cook, never complains about lack of finances, is always encouraging him to keep good ties with his parents, doesn’t fraternize with other men, etc. MashaAllah – you read about those kinds in medieval books on the ideal wife.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Talha
    , @RSDB
  52. Talha says:
    @iffen

    I’m sure, at the time, there were both kinds of situations; acceptance of these ladies and rejection of them based on race.

    Peace.

  53. A123 says:

    I view the chances of China starting aggressive war as doubtful.

    Hong Kong shows why an invasion of Taiwan will not happen.

    The CCP Elites have spent decades failing to assimilating a population of Han Chinese they obtained 100% peacefully in the “handover”. Xi is able to escape the “loss of face” from this fiasco by accurately pointing out that the major mistakes devastating HK’s economy happened before he took office. However, it is obvious that Xi has no plan to revive Hong Kong’s economy.
    ___

    Xi will not have such a prior excuse, if he orders the Assimilation of Taiwan by Force. The Han ethnic death toll would topple Xi’s regime, and he is 100% aware of that fact.

    It would take an extremely unlikely chain of misunderstandings, mistakes, and unintentional escalations to kick off an invasion of Taiwan. Such an string of improbable events is as statistically likely as a Biden victory.

    PEACE 😇

  54. Wyatt says:
    @Rosie

    Why should men have that choice? If it’s okay to go abroad for a “better” wife, why not a better worker, or a better product? You can have a nation, or you can have a collection of individuals.

    Because men losing choice and freedom while still being beholden to the responsibilities of civil and social life is the entire goddamn reason things are going downhill as quickly as they are. The thing you don’t understand is how badly women fuck up the social mores and orders that create the conditions of prosperity.

    I will tell you until your eggs become even drier: women don’t build things, they can only break them. Second wave feminism was THE killer for American industry. Once both husband and wife could be wagecucks, corporate types were more than free to sell out the American worker because at least one person in the household was working and if two managed to have a job, they had income comparable to one working man in the 50s. You can’t sell out the whole fucking country as quickly as they have if they deprive the only workers of jobs. That’s why China was opened up after Andrea Dworkin had started being a disgusting, revolutionary pig and Andy Warhol had gotten shot. You can’t put the cart before the horse, dear.

    You really should stop trying to pontificate to men like some third rate feminist when all your job is to lie back and occasionally pop out a kid. It’s like an 8 year old carrying one of those baby paint cans and thinking she’s as strong as the 43 year old guy double heaving two of the big buckets. Who in the goddamn are you to complain that men shouldn’t be doing something when it was your gender that betrayed white America with degeneracy and profligacy? The only difference between you and a feminist is in what you blame men for. Men are the great defenders of white nationalism says the feminist with daddy issues. Men are not the great defenders of white nationalism says you.

    Why should men bother playing such a game where they lose on either side when contending with a white woman? Go spend your time cleaning up SJW trash if you want to make a difference and make some ungrateful purple haired skanks into marriage material.

  55. @Wyatt

    women don’t build things, they can only break them.

    That’s one of the best statements I’ve heard in a long time, and I’m embarrassed to say I never thought about it that way. You are absolutely correct.

  56. @RoatanBill

    My comment, which you highlighted, was meant to say that both men and women are free to choose whomever they want. If men choose to do more of an activity and women less, that doesn’t mean that there’s some prohibition in the works. Just like men largely make up the roofers of the world and women largely make up the nurses, it’s a free choice and both are equally capable of making it.

    Partly factual but unilluminating and unhelpful. Nature has not been repealed.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @RoatanBill
  57. anon[167] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    C’mon…even Wiki admits that “marrying up” exists.

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

    In most comments sections, every day is a new first-day-of-class with some people literally asking the same basic question that was previously answered in detail…and that is why any serious discussion generally only happens when moderation is tight, and FAQ’s are required reading.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  58. @RoatanBill

    That isn’t even a question for me.

    I just wanted to demonstrate that, under some circumstances, women may use said freedom more actively than men.

    It should be also noted that globally the number of men marrying foreigners would be roughly the same as the number of women marrying foreigners. //C.O.

    Also, if no man worldwide had “that choice” (c) Rosie, no woman would have it either. //C.O. again

  59. @Wyatt

    I will tell you until your eggs become even drier: women don’t build things, they can only break them.

    Factual within a limited context, but largely misleading.

    Haven’t you ever been to a workplace at which most of the women start work at 8 a.m. and, but for lunch break, keep working steadily until quitting time? A workplace at which the men are often distracted and get little done during the last hour or two of the day?

    If you have not, then your experience differs from mine. In my experience, the woman’s to-do list gets done. The man’s, not so much.

    No one in this comment column is more antifeminist than I am, but unsound arguments against feminism are hardly needed where sound arguments suffice. The problem is not feminine unproductivity but rather the feminization of the masculine workplace, which wrecks the masculine team spirit that would make male employees productive.

    The other, bigger problem is state authority that shoulders husbands aside and stands in to take their place. Are those bad husbands? Yes, sometimes, but nevertheless.

    • Replies: @Wyatt
    , @Aidan Kehoe
    , @MBlanc46
  60. Regarding the comment from “Almost Missouri” in the article, I mostly agree. As a retired boomer, I feel very sad that this Covid hysteria is “destroying the lives of Zoomers and Millenials.” But, from what I’ve observed, as a group, they object to these lockdowns less than my generation. Many are so afraid of the virus that they shop at home for groceries. And they willingly wear masks more than boomers. I’ve seen many wearing masks while riding their bikes. Such is the power of propaganda, which has destroyed their free will. There was so much more freedom when we boomers were young. We grew up in a different world.

    With the bars shut down, as well as most social gatherings, how many college students, living under enforced dictatorships, are even dating when they can’t see the opposite sex faces? Parents should not pay for their kid’s college ‘mis-educations’ if they are staying home in their pajamas taking classes remotely. Better to work at Walmart. I predict a Baby Bust in 2021.

    I fervently urge young White males to organize and rebel in great numbers. If they fail to do so their future is toast.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @dfordoom
  61. Talha says:
    @Talha

    A slight correction; this particular brother’s situation did not involve him bringing her over since she was already here.

    Though I know of other cases of a brother who had a difficult time and had to wait a few years to bring in a woman he went back to marry in Pakistan because there were a lot of restrictions and legal hurdles at the time specifically dealing with Pakistan. It was either the tail end of Bush II or the start of Obama.

  62. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    hypergamy: marriage into an equal or higher caste or social group

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypergamy

    You can’t just make up your own personalized definition of a word.

    It’s agin the rules.

    that women have unreasonable expectations

    Pshaw! Like that happens IRL.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  63. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    He was telling me

    Well, of course he was. Where is “iffen” when you need him?

    (I’m not casting aspersions on these no doubt excellent people, to whom I wish all the best– all in good humor).

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

    Why partially factual? What part is and isn’t factual?

    I don’t understand your nature comment at all. Please elaborate.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  65. Anonymous[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    By the way, the same dynamic is also why, for example, in the U.S., a much higher percentage of foreign-born Asian women marry native males than immigrant Asian males marry native women, but the gap narrows significantly among American-born Asians.

    But even if the gap narrows, could it be Asian women are marrying quality white men while Asian men(born in the US) are marrying white rejects, usually the fat and ugly? And why do Asians look up to race-mixing? Doesn’t that lead to dissolution? Like whites who mix with blacks end up with black kids, Asians who mix with whites or Jews end up with kids who identify more with white/Jewish than with Asian. After all, despite PC, it’s not as if all non-whites are favored over whites. Only blacks are essentially. Whites have more prestige than any group except blacks and Jews.

    As for your earlier comment on race-mixing and changing loyalties:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/culturally-christian/#comment-3089753

    But what appealed to me the most about this country was that I felt like I was the architect of my own destiny here (back in East Asia, I felt as though my future – though conventionally a very good one – was all mapped out for me, and I fell somewhat imprisoned).

    True that there are advantages to deracination. You’re no longer bound to nation and culture. It’s about individualism and more freedom. Its attraction is understandable but also means dissolution and disappearance of identity and culture. It seems Jews are the only ones who managed to forge individuality and identity together. Though highly individualistic, they are also identity-prone.
    The same can’t be said for Asians. Also, is Asian individualism true individualism when deracinated Asians simply transfer loyalty from one side to another? After all, the end result of Twinkie wasn’t genuine individuality but to be more-American-than-American and very Christian. He left one prison to enter another with all its obligations.

    But you don’t really fall in love with something as large and abstract as a country or even an idea. You really fall in love with people. And I did fall in love hard with Americans. What clinched the deal, so to speak, was falling in love with my wife and her family who loved me back every bit as much as I loved them. Her people adopted me as their own and treated me as one of their sons.

    But there are good people all over the world. You can go anywhere and find nice/kind/decent people. Does that mean one should abandon one’s own identity and loyalty to kinfolk and ancestors and go off with another? After all, there are Koreans in Russia who adopted it as home. Despite the vagaries of communism, many Koreans(and non-Russians of all stripes) felt welcomed as ‘fellow Russians’ or ‘comrades’.
    In this, Americans aren’t special. Most people are nice, kind, and decent. It’s like dogs will find most people nice and kind. And that’s why dogs can switch loyalty from one master to another. They go for kindness. Anyway, it’s one thing to appreciate the fact that some Americans are decent and warm people but quite another to abandon one’s ancestral nation and switch loyalties to another nation/people because of their warmth and kindness.
    True identity is not founded on niceness and kindness. It’s likely that whites are kinder than Jews on average, but Jews still stick to Jewish identity. Whites are kinder than blacks, but blacks keep with black identity. It’s like one can come from a troubled family, but the fact remains he is still part of that family. Should he go off with another family and pretend to belong to it because it’s ‘nicer’? Then, all the kids should embrace Mr. Rogers as their daddy.

    Also, this obsessive need for approval from Americans seems very much alive in current Korea as well. It’s likely that all the PC or ‘progressive’ Koreans in US and S.K. became that way because they met very ‘nice’ homos, Liberals, Leftists, and globalists. Maybe they found such people to be ‘nicer’ and more ‘inclusive’ than homegrown Korean nationalists. So, the underlying emotions of yourself and recent Korean ‘progressives’ are rather similar. It’s based on inferiority complex and being overly impressed with being accepted by the Superior West. You gush on and on about how WHITE Americans opened their hearts to you. You sound like a dog being petted on the head. But PC Koreans are no different. “I went to US college, and homos were so nice to me.”

    I still carry with me the note that my wife’s grandparents gave me at our wedding. It was an incredibly kind, generous, and affectionate one. It said that after my wife brought me home to visit them the first time, they knew right away that I was a good, honorable, young Christian gentleman and that, since then, they had hoped their granddaughter would marry me.

    That’s all very touching, but when Christianity becomes the main self-identifier, ethnicity and deep culture go out the window. Such mindset would suggest that a white man or woman should prefer a Christian of another race than a white non-Christian. Christianity is a great religion with noble precepts, but it’s deracinating. It cuts one’s roots from one’s own people and history. Unlike Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are ethno-religions(as opposed to credo-religions). Therefore, Jewish and Hindu spirituality roots the members within their own history. But when Koreans or any other people adopt Christianity, being Christo-universal has precedence over ethnicity and ancestral history.

    Though Korean Christian vs Globo-homo seems to be a thing, both are product of the same underlying dynamics: Mindless imitation of the West. When the US was overwhelmingly Christian and proud of it, servile and imitative Koreans became mindless Christians. Now, that the US is ruled by Jews who elevated globo-homo as the new official cult, young Koreans have been converted to the new ‘faith’. Whether Koreans became Christians or globo-homo minions, they are imitating and obeying the empire. It’s as if they have no cultural will or agency of their own. For 2000 yrs, Koreans imitated Chinese Confucianism as the greatest thing. But when rich and powerful US took over Korea, Koreans look to the US for what is good and right. Always looking over their shoulders at the top power.

    When Korea came under US influence in the past, it was Anglo-Christian dominated. But over the yrs, US has become Jewish-dominated. So, younger Koreans imitate the New US of homo-celebration and Negro-worship.

    And of course, Jews don’t need to be in Korea to influence people there. As Korean elites read the New York Times and Western Media dominated by Jews(and as most Korean scholars are trained in US academies run by Jews) and as Koreans are incapable of critical mindset and original thought, they just become slaves of the prevalent ideology of the empire. Jews control the information and editorials read by Korean elites whose main mentality is to gain status in the Western hierarchy. Gaining approval from the West is the most important thing for them, just like gaining approval from white Americans was the greatest thing for Twinkie. So, if turning their nation into diverse globohomo capital will win them the most doggy biscuits from the US empire, Korean elites will do just that. But they aren’t alone. Poles are the same way. And the Irish have truly fallen. They are nothing but cuck dogs of Jewish-run US empire.

    All my young life, my parents – who were “old time” East Asians – advised against me becoming an American. They told me that white Americans might feel sorry toward blacks, but that they would always see me, an Asian, as an alien and a foreigner and that I would always be a second-class citizen in America. I remember my father telling me, “Why would you want to play a supporting character in America? You can be the main star back home.”

    So, your parents’ main opposition to you becoming American was not Korean patriotism but the fear that Americans won’t accept you. It suggests your parents Korean nationalism had no inherent value, i.e. they stuck to it because they felt America won’t be accepting of their kind. It isn’t so much an identity based on remembrance and pride as one of compensation for being rejected by a superior nation/people.
    True nationalism doesn’t work like that. Even if another people do accept you you, you still stick with your own kind. Jews are like that. Whites have been so nice to Jews since end of WWII, but Jews still remain Jewish. They socially assimilate but culturally stick with their own history and identity. If Korean nationalism is based on fear and resentment of not being accepted by Americans, then it means Koreans will happily give up their nationalism IF Americans accept them. In other words, Korean nationalism was nothing more than a Losers’ Club based on being rejected by the Winners. But the moment the Winners open the door open to the Losers, the Losers are happy to abandon their domain for that of the Winners.

    That said, the old-timer Asians were more right than wrong. While overt discrimination against Asians have faded in the US, it’s still true that the US favors certain groups over others. You can ask any Arab that question. US favors Jews over Arabs. And the fact that the US never came to terms with its responsibility for the division and destruction of Korean while putting up BLM signs in US embassy shows that US cares more for blacks than for Asians. How many Asians are attacked by blacks in the US in any given year? US is quiet about that. How many Asian and immigrant businesses were destroyed by blacks in 2020? America is silent about that too.
    But then, America’s preference of blacks over Asians has something to do with Asians themselves. America loves winners and mavericks, and blacks have that swagger whereas Asians tend to be servile. Even Asian ‘progressives’ who make a lot of noise are servile to Western PC. Their attitudes are reflective of American attitudes. So, they hold up BLM signs while hardly saying anything about Asian victims of blacks. Why would America have respect for such servile dog-like creatures?

    But here he was, my grandfather-in-law. A World War II war hero who never finished college, because he went to war for his country. Who survived numerous battles and was decorated just as many times.

    I’m sure the Greatest Generation went through a lot, but Americans were relatively unscathed by WWII that had a far more devastating impact on Europe, Russia, and Asia. So, Americans were hardly the only ones touched by tragedy of war. And have you forgotten what the US military did to nations like Korea, Vietnam, and Middle East? Most of the bombings in Korea had little to do with hitting military targets. US had tons of war material left over from WWII bound for the scrapyard. Military Industrial Complex decided it was profitable to dump them all on Korea and then build more bombs to get the factories running again. Korean Lives Certainly Didn’t Matter whereas Big Fat Profits did. It was close to genocide based on capitalist greed.
    I’m sure many brave and honorable US soldiers served in Korea and other theaters, but these US-led wars are crazy. Btw, even though communism sucks, what did Kim Il Sung do wrong by trying to unify his nation? Rhee wanted to do the same, of course under his command. Wanting to a reunify a nation divided by foreign powers is a bad thing? Btw, there never would have been a North Korea if the US didn’t plot with Soviet Union to divide the peninsula in half, with each side installing their own puppets. Kim in the North purged the native leftists, but Rhee in the South slaughtered 100,000s to consolidate power.

    As if that wasn’t bad enough, US got S.K. involved in Vietnam. So, S.K. joined with the US in slaughtering Vietnamese people and using women as whores. S.K. made lots of money off the war, like Japan did from Korean War, but it was blood money.
    And there is an underlying similarity between S.K. then and S.K. now. Whether serving as attack dogs for the US empire or serving as barking dogs of Western PC, it’s Koreans acting servile to their master. Back then, US told Koreans to ‘go kill gooks’, and today, US tells Koreans to march for globo-homo, BLM, and whatever. And in both cases, Koreans complied.

    a kind, generous, and loving Christian gentleman who accepted this foreign boy his granddaughter brought home as dear one of his own. How could I not love deeply someone like that?

    Sure, he seems like a fine man. But aren’t your own parents fine people? Your grandparents? And weren’t there fine people among your ancestors that goes back 1,000s of yrs? Because you met a fine American gentleman, you switched loyalties to another country?

    Also, even if most Americans are nice people, they don’t control the destiny of their country and its place in the world. Most Germans under National Socialism were kind and nice people. Even with all the anti-Jewish propaganda, most Germans would not have wanted to beat up Jews, let alone kill them. But the power was with Hitler.
    Likewise, while most Americans have always been nice, the big decisions were made by war-mongers, arrogant elites, imperialists, and the like. The deep state. The fact is US government supported Japanese colonization of Korea and Manchuria until things came to a head. Also, what kind of ‘liberation’ is dividing a nation in half among the empires? It’s like out of the frying pan into the fire. So, thanks to US policy, Koreans woke up to find the Japanese were defeated but their nation was suddenly divided in half, brother pitted against brother as enemies? Some liberation. In 25 yrs, it will be centennial anniversary of the division, but South Koreans seem more interested in K-pop, globo-homo, and soap operas than resolving this national tragedy. Still, until now, despite divergences of North and South along economic systems and ideologies, they still had one thing in common that could serve to lead to unification. Common blood. But with South Koreans not having children, emigrating abroad, and importing tons of foreigners, even the bloodlines of North and South will be different, with S.K. in 50 yrs looking more Peru. Then, it won’t be one people divided by ideology but two separate peoples, and the division will be permanent. US policies led to the division, but you want to fight for America. Of course, US wants to keep Korea divided because the ‘threat of the North’ is handy excuse to keep troops there against China.

    I’m sure people like your grandfather in law wouldn’t have done such a thing as he’s a kind and decent man. But US was never ruled by such people. It was ruled by the greedy and vicious, which is true of just about any country.

    How could I not shed blood to defend his – and now my own – country? How could I not adore the people and society that produced such a fine human being?

    Defend America from what? When did Vietnam threaten America? It was the Americans who were dropping bombs over there. And why was there a war? Because the US divided Vietnam when Ho Chi Minh was poised to liberate the nation from French rule. Was the US defending itself when it invaded Iraq? US military has been the National Offense, not National Defense.

    My note was simply, “Father, you were wrong” (about me not being accepted as an American).

    So, your father was okay with your switch of loyalties as long as you were accepted as an American? So, abandoning your original nationality is okay as long as the richer and superior country accepts you? Now, suppose there is a nation even bigger, richer, and more powerful than the US. Would you be willing to abandon American identity if that entity accepted you? True loyalty isn’t based on which side has more power or offers more riches. A true patriot remains loyal to his poor nation over a rich nation that accepts him. Also, his identity is based on HIS OWN feelings of belonging, not on what ANOTHER people/nation feels about him.

    Also, don’t you see the dangers of American Acceptance of the other? Following your logic, the majority of Koreans should reject their own identity and become Americans because the New America is so accepting of them. Jews understand this danger. Even as they hated antisemitism, they also fear acceptance by goyim because some Jews might simply assimilate and give up their Jewishness.
    So, in a way, American acceptance of non-whites can be more dangerous than white rejection of them. Back when Americans thought of Asians as ‘chinks, japs, and gooks’ and restricted Asian immigration, Asians had to be nationalist and build up their own nations. Also, in reaction to Western ethno-centrism, they cultivated their own defensive ethno-nationalism. But as the richer and bigger West opens up to Asians, Asians happily give up their identities to become deracinated Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. And this ‘welcoming’ and ‘inclusive’ attitude among whites leads to the Great Replacement in the West. It also serves as template for New Korea and New Japan that follows the model of ‘inclusion’ which leads to Great Replacement.
    Now, one Twinkie or just a handful marrying white women is not a problem. But if we expand Twinkism to a Western Principle, it means the death of both West and East. It means Easterners should flock to the West to be accepted and find more attractive mates. And it means Westerners should be ‘good kind Christians’ and accept the Twinkies of the world as husbands for their daughters.

    And if old-time Koreans dote on race-mixed white-Korean kids are more attractive, it means the problem didn’t begin with current PC. All the plastic surgery and hair dyeing in Korea among young Koreans seems an extension of old Koreans finding white feature superior. So, looking up to whiteness goes back to old Koreans and their servility to the West.
    Now that whites cuck to Jewish power and suck up to blacks, Koreans are following in the same footsteps because their core meaning derives from imitating whites in looks and attitude. Not only do Koreans want to look white but want to ‘think’ white. As whites wave the homo flag, praise blacks, and obey Jews, Koreans seem to be doing just that. The New Acting White.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Jay Fink
    , @Twinkie
  66. Rosie says:
    @RoatanBill

    Why not point out where I’m wrong?

    You are an anarchist. That means you and I have a basic axiomatic disagreement. You believe that liberty is the first, last, and only value. As such, it is not possible for me to find any common ground with you. One cannot argue about values, but if you insist…

    Typical of someone trying to make a point that is so weak that it needs an embellishment for support.

    Okay there are some women who live in not-so-desperately poor countries who are nonetheless willing to sell themselves online to the highest bidder. Still, I suspect that these women feel they have no other options for a better life. The United States isn’t a “desperately poor Third World country,” but that doesn’t change the fact that huge swaths of the population have no prospects and no hope for the future. Being a Social Darwinist, I know you don’t care about these people, but that they exist is not seriously in dispute.

    Why should men have that choice?

    Women have the same choice – don’t they?

    I’m not saying that women ought to have that right, but not men. If I was, that would be hypocritical, but I’m not saying that. Hence, your retort is irrelevant.

    It is OK for a better wife, worker and product. It’s called the free market. Look into that concept.

    Yes, I’m well aware of that concept, thanks. That Invisible Hand has destroyed my country right before my eyes over the past 25 years, as rootless individualists like yourself have looted it for all it’s worth.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  67. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    I visited with them, used to take our kids out together and my wife knew his wife before we moved.

    You hear men complain about their wives all the time, it is very rare to hear a man say his wife never fights with him. I’ve only known of one other case and read of another one.

    He’s a very genuine and softhearted guy that has to deal with a lot of issues due to his lack of money, it seems God decided to bless him in one aspect to make his life easier. A pleasant and serene home environment and sound marriage can easily allí a person to deal with all sorts of other problems. That’s the other thing, he will talk about a bunch of stuff going wrong with his car or his house, etc. but it’s always in a matter of fact and clinical way – he doesn’t complain.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @RSDB
  68. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    You can’t just make up your own personalized definition of a word.

    It’s agin the rules.

    This is tiresome, iffen. By “hypergamy hoax,” I mean the claim that women are responsible for delayed marriage and low birthrates on account of their unreasonable expectations. I don’t think I said that hypergamy does not exist in fact.

    What would one call the male tendency to get the best-looking woman he can? The fact that there is no special term for that is telling.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  69. iffen says:
    @Talha

    it seems God decided to bless him in one aspect to make his life easier

    Proverbs 21:9

    It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @anon
  70. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    What would one call the male tendency to get the best-looking woman he can?

    Trophy wife syndrome?

    It is a nod to hypergamy in that the male thinks that he is marrying up.

    I mean the claim that women are

    I just told you that you can’t do that.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  71. anon[457] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen

    Proverbs 17:1 “Better a dry morsel with peace, Than a house full of feasting with strife.”

  72. nebulafox says:
    @Twinkie

    My own perception is that Vietnamese are generally more introverted, far more indirect and slippery, more detached, more pragmatic, and tend to be verrrry cynical/hyper-realist in their outlook. I wouldn’t call them mellow-maybe my own perception is skewed after living next to Malays, but still-but they are definitely nowhere near as intense as the Asian Scots-Irish. There’s also none of the focus on high quality and precision: underlying perfectionism.

    Part of this is just different circumstances, of course: Vietnam is still a deeply corrupt developing country where you have to watch your back for petty crime. But I do think there is an underlying temperament gap to it all. Maybe mountains and jungle do produce different people in the end. Seems to be that way, regardless of global region.

    • Replies: @iffen
  73. nebulafox says:
    @follyofwar

    I take an even-handed approach: plenty of blame to go around. Nobody need be characterized by the prevailing zeitgeist, regardless of age-or race, or sex, or whatever. You control you, the individual, even if you are being screwed out of the chance to control your circumstances.

    There’s no getting around the fact that the US is ruled by a gerontocracy that seems to take every effort to enrich themselves at the expense of others in their dying years, and that under-40s have been disproportionately screwed over by them over the past decade or two. Nor can we ignore the fact that the people in power who are-by virtue of their age-most vulnerable to COVID are not taking the restrictions they happily impose upon others seriously. That does speak volumes.

    All the same, my own generation has been coached from childhood onwards in victimhood morality and managerial culture, as opposed to the dignity morality and building culture of yesteryear. It’s our responsibility to change-or at least reject-that if it isn’t working well for us. And it isn’t. You can’t pick the rules of the game, but you can pick the game you play.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  74. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    I just told you that you can’t do that.

    Sure I can. What are you going to do about it?

    • Replies: @iffen
  75. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    What are you going to do about it?

    I am going to disqualify you from the discussion group composed of honest and intelligent people.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @A123
  76. Peter Frost says: • Website

    Last year, the Korea Herald ran an editorial on the issue of “multicultural children” in South Korea:

    Nearly all multicultural children enter elementary school, but only about 70 percent of them go on to attend middle school. The proportion of multicultural students who have graduated from high school is estimated to be far below 50 percent, with few of them having the chance to attend university.

    Most of these undereducated children will likely end up being jobless, with little hope for their future.

    Unless this worrying situation is addressed in a serious manner, it will become yet another cause for social instability. Some rural communities, where nearly all newborns are children born between Korean husbands and immigrant wives, may collapse altogether.

    Interestingly, this is not seen as an indictment of immigration. It’s seen as an indictment of Koreans. They should “revise school textbooks that give the impression that multicultural families are abnormal. This perception should be abandoned and replaced with a more positive view. Efforts should be stepped up to instill multicultural elements into school curriculums to encourage students to adapt to changes in society.”

    There is little indication that such a strategy would work. “Multicultural youth” don’t do badly in all academic subjects, just cognitively demanding ones like mathematics. They actually do well in music, art, and physical education — where there is more social interaction and, presumably, more social discrimination.

    Reference: http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20191112000276

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  77. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    You hear men complain about their wives all the time

    And then you wonder how it could possibly come to be that they might have anything to complain about. 🙂

    • LOL: Talha
  78. Rosie says:

    I am going to disqualify you from the discussion group composed of honest and intelligent people

    Except that you don’t have the authority to do that. People coin new terms all the time. There’s even a word in the dictionary for it: neologism. Look it up.

    Normally, well-meaning people are fine with it, so long as the speaker is clear about their intended meaning.

    Why are you being such a little b!tch today, iffen? Are you on your period or something?

    • Replies: @iffen
  79. A123 says:
    @iffen

    As an uninvolved party, may I offer a suggestion….

    You & Rosie might both benefit by avoiding the term Hypergamy. Some definitions only allow its use between classes, not within a single class. For example:

    Hypergamy is when a man marries a woman of a lower social status, or the woman marries ‘up’, which elevates her position in society. (1)

    ____

    You both seem to be on generally similar tracks with:

    — Men want the “best” possible bride
    — Woman want the “best” possible groom.
    — Men & Women value different things, so “best” is not a single absolute score.

    It can even change over time. Women wanting to have kids “now” would prioritize stability and and immediate interest in family. Much younger women are often interested in characteristics associated with high likelihood of future performance.
    ____

    The Trophy Wife concept points to a real aspect of human genetics: (2)

    A systematic review of the literature shows that facial symmetry is one of the most influential visual markers of attractiveness and health, important for mate selection,

    That being said — Regardless of how they look, trophy wives with lower IQ or mental instability are problematic.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-are-hypergamy-hypogamy.html

    (2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309329878_What_does_facial_symmetry_reveal_about_health_and_personality

  80. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    Except that you don’t have the authority to do that.

    Aksully, since it’s my list …

    well-meaning people are fine with it

    Well, well, I find out that I am not well-meaning.

    Why are you being such a little b!tch today, iffen? Are you on your period or something?

    I’m post menopausal. What’s your excuse?

  81. iffen says:
    @nebulafox

    Asian Scots-Irish.

    My God!

    Tell me you are talking about behavioral and cultural similarities and not some actual mutant genetic hybrid.

    • Replies: @A123
    , @Twinkie
  82. @RoatanBill

    Why partially factual? What part is and isn’t factual?

    I don’t understand your nature comment at all. Please elaborate.

    Thank you for asking. I have drafted an answer, but how can an answer at blog-comment length explain an entire worldview? The gulf that separates your worldview from mine might just be too wide.

    Trying to bridge the gulf, my answer is almost comically scattershot. Every article of the answer exposes hidden premises which demand explication that cannot be given at reasonable length here. The answer follows but, if you click MORE, please be prepared for a quick hop from topic to topic.

    [MORE]

    Prospects. At birth, a boy and a girl face radically different prospects in life. Thus, when you say, “[I]t’s a free choice and both are equally capable of making it,” the first thing that occurs to me is that few if any realities confront men and women equally.

    Masculine liberty. Relations between men and women in postmodern society are screwed up generally. If I may be blunt, women are ill adapted to the sort of liberty a self-respecting man demands. The woman-as-a-free-agent seldom acquires a stable family with three or more children. Since a people soon ceases to exist when its women each have fewer than three, the lack of families and children is a matter of dire concern.

    Discipline. On the other hand, though more capable of independent action, men are on average less disciplined. Or perhaps women require less discipline to function productively. I am not sure that it matters which is true: it’s significant, either way. Moreover, women are more practical, though men are more just.

    Teamwork. Unless given a sufficiently strong male leader, women are almost incapable of proper teamwork. This is why, despite women’s superior discipline, it is preferable to leave men free—without female participation or interference—to do most of the world’s work outside the home.

    Convention. We badly need to return to a more conventional social structure that applies heavy informal peer pressure effectively to constrain men to support their wives and children, while acknowledging those men as masters of their own homes. Every imaginable alternative to the conventional has been tried. They all fail.

    Divorce. So what about divorce? Some men who say what you have said have divorce court in mind. I do not know whether you have that in mind, but those men are right: divorce court in the U.S. during our generation has become an exercise in wanton cruelty to the husband. The judge gets to play the big man, backed by vast, barely accountable state power. It’s not right.

    Marriage. But there is a larger context. It is too often forgotten that marriage is not chiefly about making husbands and wives happy, but about raising children.

    Balance. It is also forgotten that, on average, where there are three or more children, wives do the majority of the work. Since no one can force a wife to do the work or, really, tell her how to do it, the husband has a balance of authority to strike. If he fails to strike it, trouble invariably arises.

    Resources. Women demand resources, the acquisition of resources, and positions that facilitate the acquisition of resources. They demand these on behalf of their families if they have families; otherwise on behalf of themselves. When properly performed on behalf of a family, a woman’s rôle in demanding resources is indispensable, though there are several ways a woman’s instinct in the matter can be disordered and turned to evil. (Please note that I did not say that only women do evil.) If not turned to evil, if the family is well functioning then, ideally, the husband acquires resources and the wife disposes them under the husband’s loose superintendence.

    My answer is far too dense and covers far too much ground for it all to make sense without further context; but it is already too long. Let me know if there is a specific point on which you would like me to elaborate.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  83. A123 says:
    @iffen

    Asian Scots-Irish.

    My God!

    Tell me you are talking about behavioral and cultural similarities and not some actual mutant genetic hybrid.

    Wedding photos suggest the latter interpretation.

    PEACE 😇
     

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  84. @Rosie

    What would one call the male tendency to get the best-looking woman he can?

    If unconstrained, the brute male tendency is to get the best-looking women he can—or, rather, to get one good-looking woman and then as many other, additional women as possible.

    I would call this not hypergamy but polygamy.

    The point is that a healthy society (which is not what we have now) effectively restrains both.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  85. Wyatt says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Haven’t you ever been to a workplace at which most of the women start work at 8 a.m. and, but for lunch break, keep working steadily until quitting time? A workplace at which the men are often distracted and get little done during the last hour or two of the day?

    “Because men losing choice and freedom while still being beholden to the responsibilities of civil and social life…”

    “…how badly women fuck up the social mores and orders that create the conditions of prosperity.”

    I am genuinely convinced you have a reading or learning disability. That’s twice now you’ve failed to comprehend a post of mine’s content when I spelled out what my intent was in clear and plain language. A workplace is not even a microcosm of a civilization or a society. An office is not a legislator’s hall, it’s not a battlefield, it’s not a scholar’s study. All the shit that goes into forming the character and ethical content of a nation are not made by women, but women will always try to intrude upon the critical institutions which they had no hand in making and insist on their ‘rightful’ place as participants where they then fuck up that institution with their hand wringing, their virtue signaling and their boundless sympathy for the downtrodden with other people’s money.

    Can you imagine a group of Mexican congressmen doing interviews about how they’re “proud latinos” and all the old white men are afraid of them like AOC does? Hell, just look at Rosie here. Her credentials are popping out some white kids and that makes her qualified to dictate what men can or cannot do because it upsets her if they do (or don’t.) Here she is, bitching at right and center right men instead of going down to her local college and redpilling some rainbow haired slags on why they’re gonna end up miserable, poor and alone at 50 with 3 cats and a case of toxoplasma gondii.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  86. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    If unconstrained, the brute male tendency is to get the best-looking women he can—or, rather, to get one good-looking woman and then as many other, additional women as possible.

    But that is not really relevant to the question of men’s behavior within a monogamous society.

    The hypergamy hoax argument goes like this, if I understand it correctly.

    Women can only get pregnant by one man. Therefore, her interest is in securing the highest quality mate possible.

    Men, OTOH, can impregnate many women. Hence, he is less choosy about his sexual partners in the state of nature.

    Therefore, if men and women aren’t getting married and having kids, it must be women’s fault, since they are the more particular sex.

    The problems with this argument are apparent. When forced to choose just one wife, he is every bit as particular as women are.

    Hence, the whole discussion about hypergamy is a transparent attempt to blame, pathologies, and demonize women in particular. The idea was to find some logical reason why a WN, manospherians, and assorted other reactionaries go together like peas in the same pod. It has been a disaster.

  87. @V. K. Ovelund

    I got an email with your reply, but that reply does not show up on this site. I guess it’s part of the email issue the site has had for a few days.

    I read your email – twice. I don’t mean to be rude or condescending, but the prose didn’t say anything I could recognize as logical or rational. To me it represents a word salad.

    I suspect it is something a philosopher, psychologist, or other humanities person might write but as a STEM person I can’t catch your drift.

    The gulf that separates your worldview from mine might just be too wide.

    I think I agree.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  88. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    You need to place the medications on the floor and back away from the medicine cabinet.

  89. Rosie says:
    @Wyatt

    Here she is, bitching at right and center right men instead of going down to her local college and redpilling some rainbow haired slags on why they’re gonna end up miserable, poor and alone at 50 with 3 cats and a case of toxoplasma gondii.

    The problem is that you would have to actually prove your bs that women are the problem before you start dictating to others what they should be doing.

  90. Wency says:
    @Blinky Bill

    Thanks, this kind of math is helpful and gets overlooked a lot. It may seem like a truism, but a lot more people come from big families than produce big families, and this would be true even if TFR were stable, for the simple reason that big families have more people in them. Even if “only child” is the most popular family arrangement, it will seldom be the arrangement most people come from.

    Lifelong childlessness generally seems to exist in a range from around 15-30% in most modern societies, and that number is pretty variable and a big driver of swings in TFR within the 1-3 range. A feature of very low TFR societies is usually that married TFR is much higher and more stable than overall TFR.

    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  91. @Rosie

    Hence, the whole discussion about hypergamy is a transparent attempt to blame, pathologize, and demonize women in particular.

    I cannot deny it.

    However, cads do get laid.

    For information—I don’t know how personal we want to get here—I was never much of a cad and I wasn’t very good at it, but even I knew that I had to summon a bit of the cadly attitude for two or three months 25+ years ago to attract and hold the attention of the young woman that would become my wife.

    Telling a lineup of strong, red-blooded bachelors that they’re being bad will only make them smile. They’re infuriating. In moderation, that’s just how they’re supposed to be, isn’t it?

  92. @Rosie

    Now I’m a looter in your estimation.

    Let me tell you how I see it. For my entire working life I have been robbed at every turn by gov’t to support policies I despise.

    I have never had a days worth of unemployment in my life, but was docked for that program without being asked if I wanted to participate.

    I was against all the wars and the entire concept of the US military and yet I was robbed to support it without being asked if I wanted to participate.

    I was against the purposeful and deliberate discrimination that the civil rights legislation enshrined into law and was robbed to support all the freeloaders it gives preference to.

    The only thing I’ve done is work my butt off and try to keep as much of what I earned without being looted by the powers you deem essential.

    You are the looter by supporting a profligate gov’t that is slowly but surely destroying the country.

    And BTW – you still haven’t provided a proper rebuttal to my statements and I don’t expect you to ever participate in an honest conversation.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  93. @Catdog

    What toxic misogynist rhetoric? What is the constant demeaning you speak of?

    This is like the jews and their antisemitism. If a man says something, he’s a misogynist. If a woman says something and the man counters, its demeaning women.

    I call bullshit.

  94. Rosie says:

    However, cads do get laid.

    And guys want that bitchy woman who plays hard to get. On the other hand, the most surefire way to get rid of a guy is to bring up marriage and children.

    People want what they cannot have.

    You could call it “adopting a carly attitude,” but I do think that both men and women should avoid giving the impression that their wellbeing or happiness depends on another human being, not by pretending, but by actually cultivating strength of character and wisdom.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206%3A33&version=KJV

  95. @RoatanBill

    I read your email – twice.

    The courtesy and attention are appreciated.

    I don’t mean to be rude or condescending, but the prose didn’t say anything I could recognize as logical or rational. To me it represents a word salad.

    To me, too. I did not wish to ignore your question but, obviously, after my one-liner had failed, did not know how to answer properly at reasonable length, either.

    I have never had a day’s worth of unemployment in my life….

    Accept my respect.

  96. @V. K. Ovelund

    Haven’t you ever been to a workplace at which most of the women start work at 8 a.m. and, but for lunch break, keep working steadily until quitting time? A workplace at which the men are often distracted and get little done during the last hour or two of the day?
    If you have not, then your experience differs from mine. In my experience, the woman’s to-do list gets done. The man’s, not so much.

    I have worked in a meat processing factory, a liquor store, an IT-support call centre for a larger US multinational, (or ‘call center,’ I suppose, if I’m going to write ‘liquor store’ for my native ‘off licence’), a small software company, a small satellite ISP, an EU daughter company of a large Japanese printer manufacturer, an English-language school in Turkey, about fifteen public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, several GP practices (small businesses in and of themselves with a culture influenced by but distinct from the culture of hospital medicine), and an out of hours (urgent care) provider. The dynamic that different groups of people within an organisation have significantly different amounts of downtime, or different patterns to that downtime, is really common.

    In my experience that is entirely down to the job role; as a doctor I had stressful times at three in the morning running an ED where half the nursing staff were away to sleep, and I couldn’t actually have used them if they had stayed up and attempted to help, they were not going to manage iv access on an eighteen-month-old or speak to the neurosurgical referral centre for me; as a software tester our busy times were diametrically opposed to the busy times of the developers; as a GP the nurses are slammed in the mornings to get bloods before the courier comes, while my busy time is from about 11:00 AM to close of business.

    I’ve never seen the dynamic you describe. I’d be fascinated to learn what industry you are in.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  97. @Rosie

    And guys want that bitchy woman who plays hard to get.

    Hard to get, yes. The other thing, no.

    The symmetry you seek does not exist.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  98. Wency says:
    @unit472

    One difference, of course, is that Taiwan can’t hope to resist the PRC if it really wants to take the island and is prepared to absorb tens of thousands of casualties and destroy much of Taiwan’s infrastructure to do it. But what would be the point?

    The only scenario in which the invasion is worth it is one that looks less like D-Day and more like Hitler’s Invasions of Denmark or Czechoslovakia. Taiwan goes to sleep one night an independent nation and wakes up the next morning a province of the PRC.

    Some armchair generals on these boards seem to have that low an estimation of Taiwan’s military, but the truth is that even if Taiwan’s military is 80% fluff, it would only take a small hardened core within its army to make a 90-mile invasion extremely costly and risky.

    So the only way I see it happening, without a CCP leadership that has lost its mind, is if political factors in Taiwan neutralize the military, whether out of fear of Chinese intimidation in the face of a declining America (more likely) or a sincere desire or at least ambivalence about joining the PRC (dubious).

  99. @Wyatt

    That’s twice now you’ve failed to comprehend a post of mine….

    Correction accepted.

  100. Rosie says:
    @RoatanBill

    Now I’m a looter in your estimation.

    I didn’t call you a looter. I called you a rootless individualist.

    This is an error of logic.

    All L are I

    does not mean

    All I are L.

    For what it’s worth, I understand how you see it. I just don’t agree with you, though I certainly think the input of small government types is a valuable part of the political process. You’re just not going to get your way all the time, absolutist rhetoric about taxation as “robbery” notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  101. @Rosie

    You absolutely did include me in with the looters.
    You are disgusting.

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
  102. dfordoom says: • Website
    @RoatanBill

    Why not point out where I’m wrong?

    Putting your faith in the magic powers of the free market for starters. Supporting the free market even when it destroys society. But of course there’s no such thing as society for libertarians.

    If libertarians ever get their own society it will collapse into chaos within a very short space of time.

    So being a libertarian is where you’re wrong.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  103. @dfordoom

    There hasn’t been a free market since 1913/14 when the Federal Reserve and funny money made its appearance. Therefore, the free market didn’t destroy anything. The free market would correct the insanity of current policy.

    I’m not a libertarian.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  104. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    Wow, a ton of misconceptions on your part. I’ll touch upon a few.

    “But even if the gap narrows, could it be Asian women are marrying quality white men while Asian men(born in the US) are marrying white rejects, usually the fat and ugly?”

    It could simply be that Asian men are marrying white women because they are mutually attracted to one another. I would say you are focusing too much of the physical aspect in a relationship. Certainly, that is important, but not as vital as personal compatibility and family formation.

    “And why do Asians look up to race-mixing? Doesn’t that lead to dissolution?”

    To the contrary, it leads to union. I think this type of bond is something that is above you pay grade.

    “Whites have more prestige than any group except blacks and Jews.”

    OK, please define “prestige” here. What metrics are you employing here? Furthermore, you offer a categorical error here, as Jews are not a race compared to whites and blacks.

    “After all, the end result of Twinkie wasn’t genuine individuality but to be more-American-than-American and very Christian. He left one prison to enter another with all its obligations.”

    To the contrary, it was genuine individuality to embrace his faith. It’s a not a prison to be Christian; rather, it sets your mind and soul free.

    “True that there are advantages to deracination. You’re no longer bound to nation and culture. It’s about individualism and more freedom.”

    Let’s be more precise here. When a person freely chooses to marry outside of their race, it is about their individuality and freedom as an appreciation for the nation they reside in and the culture that he/she is part of.

    “True identity is not founded on niceness and kindness. It’s likely that whites are kinder than Jews on average, but Jews still stick to Jewish identity. Whites are kinder than blacks, but blacks keep with black identity.”

    Ah, yes, the No True Scotsman fallacy rears its ugly head. OK, so what constitutes “true identity” compared to “identity”? Perhaps you are characterizing something you prefer by which others must abide by, lest their identity be other than true? Furthermore, kindness and niceness are human traits. Now, if you insist that one race is “kinder” or “nicer” than another race, perhaps you are basing it on sociological studies? Please cite.

    “Does that mean one should abandon one’s own identity and loyalty to kinfolk and ancestors and go off with another?”

    To the contrary, men/women who marry outside of their race are STRENGTHENING their identity and loyalty, past and present. That is what happened when European stock began to intermarry in the States, especially for 1st generation immigrants. Americans are mutts. It’s who we are.

    “True nationalism doesn’t work like that. Even if another people do accept you you, you still stick with your own kind. Does that mean one should abandon one’s own identity and loyalty to kinfolk and ancestors and go off with another?”

    Again, another crack at the No True Scotsman fallacy. What exactly is “true nationalism”? Furthermore, “our kind” is dependent upon our own decisions about race and culture.

    “Christianity is a great religion with noble precepts, but it’s deracinating.”

    The Bible teaches exactly the opposite, because it tells us that God created every race equally in his image, and he loves every race equally. The Bible says, “From one man he made all the nations. We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:26, 29).

  105. dfordoom says: • Website
    @follyofwar

    As a retired boomer, I feel very sad that this Covid hysteria is “destroying the lives of Zoomers and Millenials.” But, from what I’ve observed, as a group, they object to these lockdowns less than my generation. Many are so afraid of the virus that they shop at home for groceries. And they willingly wear masks more than boomers. I’ve seen many wearing masks while riding their bikes. Such is the power of propaganda, which has destroyed their free will.

    That’s what I observe as well. Boomers and Gen Xers seem somewhat sceptical about lockdowns and masks. The hysteria is not really being driven by Boomers. It’s driven more by Zoomers and Millennials. They’re the ones who are most zealous about pushing the hysteria.

    I fervently urge young White males to organize and rebel in great numbers. If they fail to do so their future is toast.

    I don’t think they will. The only young White males actively trying to change things in significant numbers are the Antifa crowd, and they’re trying to change things for the worse not the better.

    You can’t organise and rebel if you don’t have a focus. No-one is going to organise and rebel unless they have something to believe in. Some vision of a better society. Wokeism, SJWism and antifa provides that vision. It’s a false and evil vision but it’s seductive.

    MAGAism has failed. The dissident right has failed. The dissident right has failed because all it seems to offer people is irrational hate and (increasingly) a retreat into a fantasy world of conspiracy theories. People are more likely to rally behind a positive message.

    • Replies: @Talha
  106. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    All the same, my own generation has been coached from childhood onwards in victimhood morality and managerial culture, as opposed to the dignity morality and building culture of yesteryear. It’s our responsibility to change-or at least reject-that if it isn’t working well for us. And it isn’t.

    I agree.

    To take one example, if younger people actually dislike the lockdowns they could take to the streets and make them largely unworkable. But they don’t. One of the reasons they don’t is that so many of them are True Believers in lockdowns and masks. But there are other reasons. If they took an active stand on the issue they might get defriended on social media. That’s too big a risk to take.

    The first step in taking control of your own life – quit social media.

  107. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    MAGAism has failed.

    Don’t count them out yet! They’re going for the ever-popular boobs and money strategy!

    Peace.

    • LOL: dfordoom
    • Replies: @nebulafox
  108. nebulafox says:

    OT: hand wringing over whether to give 600 dollars out to ordinary Americans while still finding 500 million dollars to give to the foreign state of Israel without any debate at all is not a good look, GOP.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Talha
  109. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    I always thought Sulla had a pretty cool personal life, so I might be biased in my louche ways. 😉

    Nothing wrong with using that as a campaign tool, IMO. I would go a step further and encourage people to bring food, beer, etc.

    Make your capaigns fun, lively, authentic. Everything the managerial dominated Democrats are not. That is the future for the GOP, not in having a massive stick up their ass and being “moral”.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @Talha
  110. 22pp22 says:

    In the years up till WWI, France had a very low birthrate. Many, many families had only one child. Then look what happened!

    The birthrate was just over 2 per woman in 1914, but infant mortality was still a serious issue before the invention of antibiotics.

    France as a nation has never recovered from WWI.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  111. Rosie says:
    @anon

    In most comments sections, every day is a new first-day-of-class with some people literally asking the same basic question that was previously answered in detail…and that is why any serious discussion generally only happens when moderation is tight, and FAQ’s are required reading.

    Oh dear. A censorious anon doesn’t like it that people are allowed to question the female hypergamy dogma.

    Anyway, my questions about this theory have never been answered. Maybe you can give it a shot. How do you know that women’s tendency to “marry up” has caused them, in particular, to delay marriage, forgo children, and wreak havoc upon civilization

    Come to think of it, why don’t you go back and read some old threads about it?

    • Replies: @anon
  112. Rosie says:
    @nebulafox

    OT: hand wringing over whether to give 600 dollars out to ordinary Americans while still finding 500 million dollars to give to the foreign state of Israel without any debate at all is not a good look, GOP.

    Quite. I don’t understand how anyone can take them seriously anymore.

  113. Jay Fink says:
    @Rosie

    The Chinese rank near the top of IQs yet somehow never thought this out before killing millions of girls.

    • Disagree: Blinky Bill
  114. Jay Fink says:
    @Erik Sieven

    That is true throughout Europe. The Ukranian woman I correspond with said there is a rather large Muslim immigrant population in her city and they are all men.

  115. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    The strongest sign that China does not want war is that it has enhanced its “coast guard.” (I use quotes because some of these monster cutters are 12,000 tons, the size of a destroyer.) Other countries seem to be following suit with CG enhancement. These are not warships. The worst-case scenario with cutters is a ramming, or the exchange of small-arms fire. You create a “presence” without risking WWIII. A USCG blog suggested that maybe a squad of Marines should deploy to a cutter; a slight escalation, but not WWIII and the end of the world; a good way to let off steam. I hope that interservice rivalries do not ruin this excellent state of affairs.

  116. @RoatanBill

    Typical woman. Immediately dissociates from what she says the moment before.

    I’ve tried to stay out of this particular discussion because inevitably I have to point out that I’m one of the few expats who married “up and in” — to someone much richer and ingratiated with the Communist Party.

    I tried to simply advance this point and was ignored by her ranting about how I should never be allowed back into the US. Who said I wanted to go back, lady? The place has been burning to the ground for months because of its entitled women lol.

    Either way, she’s totally delusional. Not worth even concern trolling her.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  117. Jay Fink says:
    @RoatanBill

    I like having Rosie here because she adds diversity to what would be a pretty like minded group. In the real world there are millions of pro welfare state women like her. Yet they rarely post in a blog like this. I take it she is a single mom. If not she still very much sympathizes with them. It’s healthy to see those views represented and I enjoy the debates and discussion that come with it.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  118. Jay Fink says:
    @Anonymous

    “It’s likely that whites are kinder than Jews on average”.

    Jews are an ethnicity within the white umbrella not a separate race. There are kind and unkind people of every race and ethnicity. The fact that Jews have extremely low rates of violent crime shows that we are not an especially unkind people. A lot of Jewish men, probably myself included, are considered menches…sensitive nice guy types.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  119. dfordoom says: • Website
    @22pp22

    In the years up till WWI, France had a very low birthrate. Many, many families had only one child. Then look what happened!

    The birthrate was just over 2 per woman in 1914, but infant mortality was still a serious issue before the invention of antibiotics.

    France as a nation has never recovered from WWI.

    You could actually argue that France never really recovered from Napoleon’s Wars. Some estimates put the death toll for France in those wars as high as three million. France may have suffered more deaths as a result of the Napoleonic Wars than from the First World War. Napoleon ruined France. That’s where the pursuit of military glory leads.

    After the Napoleonic Wars France’s position as a Great Power was largely based on illusion. That illusion was shattered in 1870.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @iffen
  120. @Jay Fink

    I like having Rosie here because she adds diversity to what would be a pretty like minded group. In the real world there are millions of pro welfare state women like her. Yet they rarely post in a blog like this.

    Yes. Echo chambers without dissent are boring. Rosie engages within the frame of the discussion but from a different perspective.

    It’s brutal. I do not know whether I could stomach the masculine banter here if I were female, but so far she can. She predates me here, and I hope that she sticks around a long time to come.

  121. RSDB says:
    @nebulafox

    Bright were the days at Merry Mount, when the May-Pole was the banner-staff of that gay colony! They who reared it, should their banner be triumphant, were to pour sun-shine over New England’s rugged hills, and scatter flower-seeds throughout the soil. Jollity and gloom were contending for an empire. Midsummer eve had come, bringing deep verdure to the forest, and roses in her lap, of a more vivid hue than the tender buds of Spring. But May, or her mirthful spirit, dwelt all the year round at Merry Mount, sporting with the Summer months, and revelling with Autumn, and basking in the glow of Winter’s fireside. Through a world of toil and care, she flitted with a dreamlike smile, and came hither to find a home among the lightsome hearts of Merry Mount.

  122. MBlanc46 says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I’ve been in a number of workplaces with both men and women. I’ve never noticed women out working the men. Both sexes seem pretty good at not doing what they are being paid to do.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  123. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jay Fink

    I like having Rosie here because she adds diversity to what would be a pretty like minded group. In the real world there are millions of pro welfare state women like her.

    In the real world most people support the welfare state. It’s only a minority of vicious selfish right-wingers who oppose it. The world of Unz Review bears no resemblance to the real world.

    Yet they rarely post in a blog like this.

    Women generally avoid the far right like the plague. With good reason. It’s common for dissident rightists to express seething hatred of women, and then they complain that women don’t support the dissident right.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
  124. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    not in having a massive stick up their ass and being “moral”.

    I’m not sure the GOP can top the DNC in this. I think if they weren’t so pro-Covid-restrictions, they may have drag queens twerking on stage and passing out free reefer.

    Huxley’s and Orwell’s vision were discussed in a previous thread. I think the vision of elites controlling people with imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever is too much…it makes a man think he is a slave.

    Now…imagine a human face pressed and suffocating slowly between a ample pair, staring at a wad of cash wedged in the cleavage in front of him…well, he may not mind enslavement.

    Different means to an end.

    Peace.

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

    Seems fundamentally wrong to indicate that people should not depend on others as people literally do, and as research increasingly shows, individuals essentially make up their decisions through group cues.

    Individualism is practically, literally false. Arguably one of the most toxic memes of Western civilization, and once which its essential falsity(yet contagiousness) is taking down the civilization that spawned it.

    • Agree: dfordoom, V. K. Ovelund
    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @nebulafox
  126. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Women generally avoid the far right like the plague. With good reason.

    There are statements made about women in this thread that, were I to say them in front of my mother, she would slap me silly, possibly with any footwear within reach…with good reason.

    Alas…the unreflective sausage-fest rolls on…

    Peace.

  127. @MBlanc46

    I’ve been in a number of workplaces with both men and women. I’ve never noticed women out working the men. Both sexes seem pretty good at not doing what they are being paid to do.

    So far, it’s three to one against me. If I think that I notice something obvious no one else notices, then I probably either am mistaken or have had an atypical experience.

    You really haven’t noticed the women to be steadier on the job? Fascinating. What I notice is that the men have better stamina when long hours are required during the week leading up to a deadline. The men are also more creative on average, but during an ordinary week the women just get more done.

  128. @dfordoom

    I believe that every clause of this paragraph is factually incorrect:

    Women generally avoid the far right like the plague. With good reason. It’s common for dissident rightists to express seething hatred of women, and then they complain that women don’t support the dissident right.

    You just don’t know the people you’re talking about well enough.

    Regarding women, I am not sure what kind of women you think my dissident-right friends and I are married to. Since I am pseudonymous, I cannot prove to you that they are sociable, attractive, well-liked and just all-around normal. I suppose that they’re less frivolous than average, for what that’s worth.

    Look, this isn’t really fair to you, for it puts you in the position that, if you respond, you might insult my wife. I don’t mean to engage unfairly. It’s just that the women of which you speak aren’t going to be found hanging around a blog like this.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @iffen
  129. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It’s just that the women of which you speak aren’t going to be found hanging around a blog like this.

    So, then his statement would have been accurate if he had said:
    “Women generally avoid far right online forums like the plague. With good reason.”

    Yes? 🤔

    Peace.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  130. Talha says:
    @nebulafox

    Oh goody, goody!!! Not less than ten million for “gender programs” in Pakistan! Yaaay!!!

    Peace.

    • LOL: Blinky Bill
  131. 1. Both left and right administrations in South Korea have pushed for “globalization” as an official state ideology for the past 30-40 years.

    China and Israel are part of the global community but act with autonomy and national pride. Israel has both feminism and nationalism(and healthy birthrates).

    S. Korea’s problem is that its main impetus flows from cultural hollowness that cries out for recognition and approval from superior powers.

    Also, lacking originality, imitative Koreans take other people’s ideas and try to own them via extra zeal and fanaticism.

    So, Koreans made the most zealous Confucians, Christians, Communists, Americucks, and now globo-homo tards.

  132. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    That’s where the pursuit of military glory leads.

    Yeah, just look where it got Ancient Greece and Rome.

    Friggin’ Peacenik Energizer Bunny

  133. iffen says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    You don’t believe that the Enlightenment was the fount of innovation and modernity?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  134. iffen says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It’s just that the women of which you speak aren’t going to be found hanging around a blog like this.

    So you are arguing that women are smarter than men?

  135. @Supply and Demand

    The only reason I engage with her is to try to point out the Grand Canyon sized holes in her arguments. She also has a nasty streak when cornered, but that’s expected.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  136. iffen says:
    @Pericles

    Ahh, yes, the illustrated difference between the real deal and LARPers.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  137. @Jay Fink

    I don’t mind an honest difference of opinion. Hitting the agree button is boring. It’s when issues that have been pointed out are ignored that the conversation breaks down.

    Blindly pushing ahead is what the left is famous for and look at where the US is today. In the 50’s, the US was on top and the average person pulled his own weight. Now, millions are on the dole and they want more of it. This is a slow motion suicide and the parasites in the society are currently consuming the host.

    You would think that for self preservation reasons those parasites would lessen up, but it appears the elite parasites and the bottom feeder parasites have joined up to finish off the productive that they both depend on.

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

    So, then his statement would have been accurate if he had said: “Women generally avoid far right online forums like the plague. With good reason.”

    Sure. The hard dissident right does not all believe one thing but does practically unanimously believe that men and women fill distinct rôles. Just because one believes that does not mean that one needs to be weird about it.

    And why would one be weird about it? The whole point is to be normal when half the world around us is going mad.

    The hard dissident-right husband is master of his home. This means that the home is normal by common, ordinary, contemporary American standards and that the wife is happy. It should go without saying—but because of pervasive feminist nonsense does not go without saying—that the hard dissident-right husband has little more practical control over his wife’s or children’s behavior than any happy husband has. It’s almost as though we were normal people who happen to feel that the late 20th and early 21st centuries have been a mistake.

    Maybe a stock photo to represent the type would help?

    @iffen helpfully adds:

    So you are arguing that women are smarter than men?

    Well …

    Finding myself in a hole, I should stop digging.

    I believe that I have a grill to attend to, anyway.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  139. @RoatanBill

    You would think that for self preservation reasons those parasites would lessen up, but it appears the elite parasites and the bottom feeder parasites have joined up to finish off the productive that they both depend on.

    I would rather shift the bottom feeder parasites over to feed off the elite parasites, leaving the productive middle in peace. As far as I gather, with some differences of emphasis, Rosie would prefer the same. If you left it to me, the U.S. federal income tax rates on annual incomes under $2 million would remain unchanged, but step up toward a 70 percent rate at $20 million on an AMT three-year average basis—with however (to take the target off your back) no phaseout of the AMT exemption.

    Since I am no member of Congress, the exact details I outline are unimportant, nor do I seek support for any particular scheme; but you may catch my general drift.

    What do you think of schemes of this kind?

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @RoatanBill
  140. @A123

    Is that Twinkie for realz?

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

    What do you think of schemes of this kind?

    So, you prefer your version of theft over the current one. I would like to get rid of the theft in general.

    Penalizing those that have a high income means they will vote with their feet and leave the jurisdiction. That’s now happening in California.

    Subsidizing the bottom feeders simply means they will increase in number because there’s no incentive for them to get off the dole.

    I would propose that all welfare at all levels get a termination date certain, say two years from now and a reductions date certain one year from now. So, for one year things are as they are now. Year two sees each month’s allotment of welfare decreased by 1/12th, so at the end of the year all welfare payments are $0.

    Along with this, I’d invent manual labor jobs to hire the welfare recipients. For those with REAL physical impairments, they would go into a different program that also makes them work for a living as best they can. By REAL, I mean that fat slobs don’t qualify because they have no muscle mass. Those I would caution to get lean or starve as the program progresses.

    For the corporate and other fat cats, I’d set corporate taxation to ZERO while simultaneously destroying the lobby industry because without taxation, they no longer have the right to representation. Further, corporations would be prohibited from spending on anything not directly related to their product or service. That would include no spending on political campaigns, charities, etc. That removes the $$$ from the political class. All stock market purchases must be kept for a minimum of 1 year and stock can’t be used as collateral for anything. That kills off high frequency trading and the mania that creates bubbles.

    For the existing billionaires, I’d take all their accumulated wealth except for 1 billion in one go and give it back to them piecemeal if they can show the need to start or maintain businesses that benefit the working class. Funds not so employed are forfeit in 5 years. This outright theft is to give back what they connived from the existing system since they purchased the laws and regulations; call it reparations.

    None of this, however, would work as long as fractional reserve banking and fiat currency exists. The US needs to go back on to a commodity standard that precludes money from nothing.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  142. @Jay Fink

    That’s not really what mensch means, unless the term has evolved in these PC times. However, I agree that Jews are whites.

  143. @V. K. Ovelund

    I should also mention that setting the corporate tax rate to zero would simply recognize that no corporation currently pays any tax. Corporations are hidden tax collectors for gov’t. Every cent they submit as their tax bill is simply a cost of doing business and gets buried in the cost of their product or service. That hidden tax is paid by the consumer eventually.

    Gov’t likes this scheme because it hides the true tax the average person pays. If corporations paid no taxes as a matter of law, all taxes would then have to be collected directly from the human beings in the society and everyone would be shocked at the proposed tax increase they must pay to offset what corporations have hidden from them for decades. That just might get people really pissed off.

    The reduction to zero for corporations would allow the free market to reset goods and service prices by lowering them at the checkout line via competition. It would also make the US the largest corporate tax haven in the world and that can only mean headquarters moving into the US and jobs for US citizens as a result. The only losers are gov’t entities that can no longer cheat their citizens via the con they’ve enjoyed for decades.

  144. 128 says:

    The geniuses here realize that a dentist or a landlord also includes that cost of paying his own tax in his bill to his patients and lesees right?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  145. Jay Fink says:
    @dfordoom

    Our host here has posted thousands of surveys that show not all women are the same politically. Many married white women are in fact what you would consider right wing. Single moms and married women are very different from each other politically, they are not a unified block.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  146. nebulafox says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    You know why we laud men of conscience and principle when they are safely confined to death, the ones who stuck by them despite social opprobrium, possibly death? Because they are few: and they were meant to be few. Such people can also be quite antisocial, obnoxious, or destructive. There’s no such thing as a free lunch in life: if you want the good craziness, you got to take the bad craziness, something that the modern managerial state tolerates less and less in practice as they continue to laud it more and more in words.

    Most people are shaped completely by what is around them. And that’s OK. It’s how it was meant to be.

  147. SIMP simp says:
    @Some Guy

    Vietnamese brides married with korean men will not create a hostile community and their children will be native korean speakers exposed from birth to korean culture and conscripted in the korean army. My guess is that most children will be far better assimilated than the children of migrants who live in their own ethnic communities in Western Europe.
    There is a problem with these new korean children doing poorly in school but my guess that’s primarily a result of heredity. If daddy is a farmer who is so unsuccessful that he can’t find a local girl to marry and mommy has to sell herself to a foreigner to make a living, the kid doesn’t get the best genes.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Twinkie
  148. nebulafox says:
    @SIMP simp

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that Japan and South Korea face anywhere near the same scale of problems here that the US and Europe face, or that Vietnamese and Filipina women coming in as mail-order brides is anything like having a de facto open border with Central America or the Islamic World/Africa.

    I think what Twinkie is emphasizing (and I agree with him) is that Western notions of multiculturalism have penetrated more into East Asian societies than the people than idealize these societies from a distance think, and that not everything’s hunky-dory with the influx.

    > If daddy is a farmer who is so unsuccessful that he can’t find a local girl to marry and mommy has to sell herself to a foreigner to make a living, the kid doesn’t get the best genes.

    Bingo. Also, the marriages have more than average potential for abuse: both parties are in it for rather mercenary reasons, and the woman is likely to be younger and have few options/resources. That’s never going to help the kids.

    • Agree: Twinkie
  149. nebulafox says:

    Yeah, I know, Hetfield hated the song, and I get why. Whatever, the chorus is getting me off my ass.

  150. @iffen

    I mean, it may or may not have been, but it doesn’t make the mind-matter separation any more real then or now. Neuroscientifically we can comfortably that people are heavily influenced by the surrounding environment, what they consume and more, and it is necessary to address people as a whole if we want individuals to thrive, rather than specific individuals alone.

    • Replies: @iffen
  151. iffen says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    the mind-matter separation any more real

    I don’t know what this is.

    it is necessary to address people as a whole if we want individuals to thrive

    Yes, this is what is failing. The consequences are that the most capable are still flourishing to an extent, but the less capable are falling though the cracks. The question is, and we seem to be doing the experiment to find out, does the upper crust really need the lower echelons to flourish? The 1% flourished in ancient civilizations without regard to the flourishing of the mudsill. We shall see if that model still works.

  152. Globalism means being obsessed about how one’s people/nation is approved by the global empire(dominated by Jews and US).

    Rootsism or Earthism means respecting the land in your folks are buried and not defiling it.

    Russia bans globo-homo parades as defiler of sacred Russian soil.

    Koreans have been cut off from their roots, so their main driving incentive is to win plaudits from the master, the Jew-run globo-homo US empire. These young Koreans don’t care that their globo-homo parades is a total desecration of the land of their forebears. It’s what happens when pop culture(especially the degenerate one that we have today) becomes the main culture. It’s like people raised on junk food than real food. Mental diabetes and soul cancer.

    Ireland is already far gone in this direction. Irish used to believe in blood and soil. But they are now racing to lose their lands to foreigners with Sweden and Germany. And of course, the UK.
    And Poland isn’t far behind.

    In a way, Jews got it right. If you want to take control of souls and colonize the spirit of other nations, go with pleasure than with pain. If you try to take over other nations with guns and bombs, there is a reaction. People tend to resist and fight back.

    But if you come with candies and fun stuff, people tend to surrender to the good times. Globo-homo in infectious to many because it’s about partying, celebrating, and song and dance. So, people fail to see its poisonous nature. It’s like Hansel and Gretel got hooked with candies and cookies. And Pinocchio became a slave through promise of fun times.

    It’s like the routine INQUSITION in HISTORY OF THE WORLD PT 1.
    Christianity spread but wasn’t much fun. So, if Jews want take over the world, spread their influence as song and dance number. Especially shallow kids fall for that stuff.

  153. anonymous[105] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    What if you take those symmetric biological imperatives and then add asymmetric relentless cultural propaganda which tells young women that they are perfect angels and victims of a patriarchy who should never settle for anything less than perfection in a man while telling young men that they are the root of all evil and deserve nothing?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  154. @128

    I voted for Ronald Reagan long ago as you did, but since then the gap between the top 1 percent and the bottom 90 percent has doubled.

    The geniuses here realize that a dentist or a landlord also includes that cost of paying his own tax in his bill to his patients and lesees right?

    No one has proposed to tax dentists in this thread.

    Regarding landlords, their rental properties earn as much as the market will bear as far as I know. If federal income-tax rates were to rise on annual incomes over $2 million, how would this enable landlords to raise their rents? Please be specific.

    I suspect that the really big landlords might have to sell if one boosted their taxes high enough. Selling would drive down the value of rental property as far as I know. Falling property values usually mean falling rents—or mean the conversion of rental units into condominiums that make the renter a homeowner.

    Thus, you may have it backward. But what do I know? I am not a genius like you.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
  155. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh

    Grilling in winter is a pain.

    Real Conservative Men can grill in any weather. If you let a bit of sleet or snow stop you from grilling you’re no better than a goddamn soyboy.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Daniel Chieh
  156. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    it doesn’t really matter what the reasons are in the end. The consequences remain the same regardless.

    Yes, that is true. However, if you are at all interested in changing or ameliorating such tendencies, you ought to know the real reasons for the differences between men and women. If you don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge the facts at hand, so to speak, you can’t affect the values as such. It’s not that women are more nationalistic than men – it’s that what men value in women are portable across borders, but what women value in men usually are not.

    So you are going to get different responses from men and women regarding “closing the borders” to movements of people. Given those conditions, haranguing the men in moral terms that they are insufficiently patriotic compared to women would not work well. I think that was to what “nebulafox” referred when he made the comment to which you objected.

    That said, this is a very minor issue numerically speaking. Marriages to foreigners are a tiny fraction of the total. It’s like worrying about birth tourism (which I of course oppose stridently) while ignoring illegal immigration, i.e. a few tens of thousands – of mostly upscale visitors – vs. millions of underclass people.

    It appears from the data that women are not becoming more “hypergamous” but less so

    Let me clarify. When I wrote of “hypergamy” and “obesity” as examples, I did not intend to specify them as actual causes, but rather situations or possibilities (“e.g.”) that could cause the male-female disparity in desires/desirability.

    In actuality, I agree with you that hypergamy has declined substantially. I referred many times to the rise of assortative marriage in the United States (doctors marrying other doctors, not attractive nurses). However, I do not think that means women are less hypergamous in their desires, but more that they are increasingly less able to attain what they desire due to an increase in male socio-economic-educational selectivity (or desire for parity), especially among the upper middle and upper classes.

    I do think, however, this hypergamous desire (possibly more elevated in the past) and not being able to attain it are leading more women (esp. in lower middle and lower classes) to abstain from the marriage market. If true, then the resulting surplus males would have to find wives elsewhere. Or likewise abstain from marriage and be more “r-selected” than “K-selected” in their sexual behaviors as discussed on another thread.

    As far as obesity is concerned, that is more or less what I said. It’s not that they can’t get a wife. It’s just that they feel they can do better going outside.

    And men plainly can since the U.S. has the highest or one of the highest obesity rates in the world. Almost definitionally women from just about anywhere else (and not just “some desperate Third World country”) would be trimmer. Women would do the same if they could (somehow) attain men from overseas who are less demanding but still have high social status in the U.S. But, alas, that is mostly impossible.

    It also bears repeating that we’re all getting fatter, not just women.

    Also true, yes. But the patterns are different. With men, there is more modest weight gain across all groups whereas with women, the gain is disproportionately concentrated among those of lower classes. This exacerbates the first issue (female hypergamy decline) we discuss above, especially since obesity dramatically lowers a woman’s “market value” as such since it affects beauty, which men seek. Meanwhile, men are less (rather than completely not) affected by changes in attractiveness since the main female concern is status.

    But even among men, such a trend is present, if less pronounced. Younger men tell me all the time that, at least in the dating (not marriage) market, athletic and muscular men are disproportionately more successful in attracting multiple females than obese men. Although I have no way of verifying what they say, I also heard that, again, in the dating (not marriage) market, attractive men will have encounters with both attractive (or trim) and less attractive (or more obese) women, but attractive women almost never do so with less attractive men. In other words, female selectivity is still higher, at least in the increasingly more common “casual” market.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @iffen
    , @Corvinus
    , @nebulafox
  157. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    Real Conservative Men can grill in any weather. If you let a bit of sleet or snow stop you from grilling you’re no better than a goddamn soyboy.

    That’s the kind of a thing that not-so-real men say.

    I let my wife grill, because I am a lion. Lions don’t hunt. They laze around, impregnate lionesses, and only arouse to fight when their authority is challenged or there is a threat to the pride. Lionesses do the hunting. 😉

  158. Jay Fink says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    ” I voted for Ronald Reagan long ago as you did, but since then the gap between the top 1 percent and the bottom 90 percent has doubled”.

    The gap increased when Obama was President as much as anytime. The neolibs/Democrat establishment favor policies that lead to this gap as much as anyone.

    What makes things worse is the left blames the wealth gap on “tax cuts for the rich”. In reality this is a trivial reason. It’s Wall Street bailouts, QE and other stimulus that cause the gap.
    Mainstream Democrats strongly favor this and will destroy anyone who tries to get in the way.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  159. Twinkie says:
    @SIMP simp

    Vietnamese brides married with korean men will not create a hostile community and their children will be native korean speakers exposed from birth to korean culture and conscripted in the korean army.

    I don’t know about a “hostile” community, but these bi-ethnic children tend to be much more likely to be a part of the underclass and be alienated from the society in general. Hostility will likely follow. At minimum, there will be agitation for “equality,” i.e. special rights.

    Also, the ROK government only recently amended its conscription regulation to allow (!) young men of such backgrounds to be conscripted. This is quite incomprehensible for most people who come from countries with volunteer armies (“What? Why is it a problem that the government won’t force you to serve in the military?”). Draft evasion is extremely harshly penalized in South Korea, both legally and in public sentiments. It’s highly detrimental to one’s career and prospects there to evade conscription. And the situation is the same if a young men was spared conscription for “irregular” reasons.

  160. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jay Fink

    Many married white women are in fact what you would consider right wing.

    Right wing, but not dissident right. I’ve hung out on lots of dissident right forums. Very few women. In some cases none.

    My point was that there are elements in the dissident right that actively repel women.

    If there are lots of women whose views align to some extent with the dissident right but they’re so appalled by dissident right forums that they actively avoid them then isn’t that an even more spectacular failure on the part of the dissident right?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @iffen
  161. @dfordoom

    If there are lots of women whose views align to some extent with the dissident right but they’re so appalled by dissident right forums that they actively avoid them then isn’t that an even more spectacular failure on the part of the dissident right?

    I would say, no, because the hard dissident right seeks male camaraderie online (and offline, too), but looks for women only offline. The tiny number of women that for whatever reason intrude into hard dissident-right forums online are ridiculed, slapped down and run off as soon as they start fitness testing—not because the men there dislike women but because hard dissident-right forums are not meant for women.

    The hard dissident right operates by consensus on the theory that women are less wedded to political views than men are. Hence, the strategy is to catch the woman (offline) and then to impart the politics to her in that order, rather than the other way around. This does not always work, but for a fellow who wishes to marry, it only needs to work once.

    By the way, at least one important dissident-right forum stands behind a paywall, so you might be unfamiliar.

  162. @dfordoom

    Real Conservative Men can grill in any weather.

    I have, in fact, grilled in winter. And I rather enjoy it, but I think its a pretty heavy waste of propane(since you’re trying to fight the cold). In part I mentioned it to V. K. Ovelund in case he has any suggestions or ideas on how to improve it.

    But yeah, beyond that, I really like the grill. Sous vide steaks finished with charcoal is close to heaven.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  163. @Daniel Chieh

    In part I mentioned it to V. K. Ovelund in case he has any suggestions or ideas on how to improve it.

    Unfortunately, I am more likely to have suggestions on how to burn the meat than to improve it.

  164. Rosie says:
    @anonymous

    What if you take those symmetric biological imperatives and then add asymmetric relentless cultural propaganda which tells young women that they are perfect angels and victims of a patriarchy who should never settle for anything less than perfection in a man while telling young men that they are the root of all evil and deserve nothing?

    If that were true, you would arguably have at least a facially plausible hypothesis. Of course, you’d still have to prove it.

  165. Rosie says:
    @RoatanBill

    The only reason I engage with her is to try to point out the Grand Canyon sized holes in her arguments.

    There are no holes in my arguments. There is a hole in your brain as a result of which you are incapable of understanding that value judgments are not facts

  166. Rosie says:
    @Twinkie

    That said, this is a very minor issue numerically speaking. Marriages to foreigners are a tiny fraction of the total. It’s like worrying about birth tourism (which I of course oppose stridently) while ignoring illegal immigration, i.e. a few tens of thousands – of mostly upscale visitors – vs. millions of underclass people.

    I think that’s true, and I also think it is true that lower-class men are going to be the ones who can’t find wives, and they’re not going to be able to get mail-order brides, either. My suspicion is that men get mail-order brides because they are old and don’t want to marry someone their age, or because they have mo0and they want an obnoxious prenup that self-respecting native women wouldn’t agree to.

    Also, it bears noting that men outearn women in all educational groups, so I don’t see any reason why working-class women would check out of the marriage market. Men who are unemployable derelicts (drug addicts or what have you) aren’t going to be able to buy a mail-order bride (prostitute) either.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @Technite78
    , @Twinkie
  167. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    attractive men will have encounters with both attractive (or trim) and less attractive (or more obese) women

    LOL

    Unattractive men too, if they get the chance.

  168. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    My point was that there are elements in the dissident right that actively repel women people.

    No charge.

  169. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    a mail-order bride (prostitute) either.

    I had not realized that you were in the “marriage is glorified prostitution camp”.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  170. Rosie says:
    @iffen

    I had not realized that you were in the “marriage is glorified prostitution camp”.

    Normal marriages aren’t prostitution, just the kind that involves women selling themselves off to the highest bidding stranger on the internet.

    • Replies: @iffen
  171. @iffen

    My point was that there are elements in the dissident right that actively repel women people.

    No charge.

    Nonsense.

    The dissident right exists because the problems against which it reacts exist. The dissident right would largely evaporate if the problems did. Until the problems materialize in your own life, though, it’s easy to find fault, or to imagine that the dissident right’s recruits were abnormal.

    If you believe that the dissident right will not continue to grow, then you have not yet sized up the inexorables involved. Normal people are being forced into it by the hundreds of thousands. If our élites were wise, they would relieve the pressure before the hundreds of thousands became tens of millions.

    Trump, 2016, was a harbinger. Steve Bannon is right. Our élites still are not listening.

    • Replies: @iffen
  172. @iffen

    @dfordoom and @iffen:

    I had not read what you wrote carefully enough.

    … there are elements in the dissident right that actively repel …

    I suspect that this holds the dissident right to a standard to which few others are held; but the standard is, in itself, a backhanded honor, I suppose.

    Refusal to disavow our own is a distinctive (though not universal) dissident-right characteristic.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @dfordoom
  173. Corvinus says:
    @Twinkie

    “This exacerbates the first issue (female hypergamy decline) we discuss above, especially since obesity dramatically lowers a woman’s “market value” as such since it affects beauty, which men seek. Meanwhile, men are less (rather than completely not) affected by changes in attractiveness since the main female concern is status.”

    Not on the average. The fatter a man (or woman) is, the more likely they are deemed by women to be other than attractive. There is only a small subset of men who are overweight, yet have the bankbook to serve as a counter for those women–which is also a small subset–who are willing to overlook that particular trait.

    You can’t hide your lyin’ eyes…

  174. anon[412] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Oh dear. A censorious anon doesn’t like it that people are allowed to question the female hypergamy dogma.

    After making my obviously obvious observation, I wondered how to illustrate it.
    Thanks for providing excellent support.

    It’s always the first day of the freshman year in so many comments sections at Unz and other places. This is why a serious conversation is pretty much not possible outside of a moderated or even curated zone.

    Thanks again for the totally excellent illustration of my point!

    PS: You, Rosie, from time to time rant about the “manosphere” as if you have a clue. It’s just another example of your ignorance. There are manospherians here, some even know a sekret handshake, but unz is not any part of the ‘sphere.

    There are places where men have serious discussions and arguments. There are Men’s rights sites. There are still pick-up-artist sites, despite Heartiste’s cancellation. There are even places where serious Christian men and a few women discuss a lot of issues around marriage, from a Biblical point of view – all are somewhere within the fuzzy boundaries of the manosphere.

    This place ain’t one of them. This is not the ‘sphere.

    • Troll: Rosie
  175. Rosie says:
    @Wyatt

    That’s why China was opened up after Andrea Dworkin had started being a disgusting, revolutionary pig and Andy Warhol had gotten shot. You can’t put the cart before the horse, dear.

    Hmmm. Now you’re going to try to blame women for the fact that men sold out the country for cheap labor. Nice.

    Who in the goddamn are you to complain that men shouldn’t be doing something when it was your gender that betrayed white America with degeneracy and profligacy?

    Blah, blah, blah no evidence, as usual.

    Go spend your time cleaning up SJW trash if you want to make a difference and make some ungrateful purple haired skanks into marriage material.

    I don’t take orders from you, and I don’t accept your premise that women are the problem.

  176. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I suspect that this holds the dissident right to a standard to which few others are held; but the standard is, in itself, a backhanded honor, I suppose.

    What are you talking about here? The misogyny on the dissident right is worse than anything I’ve ever seen shy of late eighties rape lyrics.

    Indeed, it is far worse than even the most radical feminism has ever been.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  177. nebulafox says:
    @Twinkie

    I actually do believe male hypergamy exists. It’s just less explicit than for women because men tend to have different priorities in what makes them want to commit, and because making something of themselves independently of women is how men upgrade their choice in the first place. It’s subconscious, but it is there.

    There’s a basic, core difference in what makes a woman and a man decide they are ready to marry, from my experience. For a woman, it is all about the person they are with. For a man, it’s less about that: men tend to be more focused on what they are doing, not who they are with. That’s not to say they don’t care about who they are with at all, but generally speaking, guys who are on the right track tend to figure out that if they get their crap together, the women start coming. So, for a man, wanting to get married ordinarily indicates that you are happy with who you are and where you are going. You don’t have to have everything figured out, but you need to be OK with the general trajectory, be OK with the basic template of who you are, and be OK with that being your base-line. Needless to say, for some men, these conditions can be satisfied as early as their late teens, for others, it never does, and most are somewhere in between.

    If a guy’s not happy with who he is and where he’s going, but also thinks there’s a realistic chance he can change that, he’s not going to want to get married at all for the foreseeable future. Generally, the male who actually succeeds in breaking out to a higher tier is not *explicitly* doing this because he wants a higher-quality wife, so it isn’t quite the same as the female variant. The men who succeed here are the guys who are *not* focused on winning the approval of others, who rather become a person that other people are innately attracted to. But the implicit motivation is still probably part of why that mental switch on commitment does not flip.

    So what if the guy does not think there’s a realistic chance he can change that? That’s where a mail-order bride can come in. In some countries, this is genuinely an alternative to life-long celibacy. But in the US, it’s cashing in your victory in the sperm lottery to short-circuit the system: to get something better than what you can naturally have for far less effort. (And in fairness, given how rigged the system tends to be against lower-tier men, why should they play by the rules?)

    I think everybody should make up their own minds about the rights and wrongs of today’s courtship scene. What I do find ironic is that left-wingers who rail on about the excesses of unfettered economic capitalism do not critique the same thing for sexual hypercompetition, and vice versa. It’d be great if everybody could admit that winners and losers do exist in life, whether the subject is trade, immigration, taxes, cultural mores, or whatever. Admitting losers and winners exist, and will always exist, means we can honestly discuss trade-offs and what sort of social contracts should be part of the game without compulsively de-legitimizing each other. But that would require a wholesale rejection of the 2020 America zeitgeist, on too many levels, so I’m not holding my breath.

    • Replies: @anon
  178. @Rosie

    That graph is meaningless because it does not control for the type of degree (STEM, humanities, social sciences, etc) or years of experience.

    If you compare men (and men only) with a master’s degree in education and 2 years of experience versus a master’s degree in computer science with 10 years of experience, there would be the large gaps also.

  179. Mark G. says:
    @Rosie

    The misogyny on the dissident right is worse than anything I’ve ever seen shy of late eighties rape lyrics.

    That is a problem among some parts of the dissident right.

    I remember one time here at unz.com I said I thought it was a good thing women have more freedom to pursue careers now and that women living with abusive males could more easily leave and find a job to support themselves. Two males replied with comments that women need to be beaten regularly to keep them in line.

    You just are not going to get many women to join into a political coalition with you if you talk like that. The only other group where a majority votes Republican besides white males is white females. Why would white males want to alienate the only other group that is on their side?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  180. Rosie says:
    @Mark G.

    beaten regularly

    And that’s actually rather mild compared to the fantasies about chaining women naked to a stove.

    The only other group where a majority votes Republican besides white males is white females. Why would white males want to alienate the only other group that is on their side?

    Beats me. They single out White women all the time, even ignoring evidence that flies in the face of their hate. That White women are as opposed to affirmative action as White men is dismissed on the theory that we actually support we just don’t want to say so to pollsters.

    I don’t like to plumb the depths of other people’s motives, but there is clearly something other than a rational assessment of the facts going on here.

  181. anon[249] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    I actually do believe male hypergamy exists

    You actually do not understand what hypergamy is. Do not expect to learn it here, either.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  182. @Rosie

    The misogyny on the dissident right …

    … is none of your business.

    Stick your fingers in the fire, and you will get burned. Stay out of the damned locker room. The hard dissident right is not trying to appeal to you.

    Six years later, most of those guys are happily married with children. If their wives don’t mind, then those men are going to be uninterested in what you think.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Corvinus
    , @dfordoom
  183. Talha says:
    @Talha

    (Sigh) Note the “Times Pick” comment…apparently social distancing is optional when degeneracy is an option:

    Peace.

  184. Rosie says:

    That graph is meaningless because it does not control for the type of degree (STEM, humanities, social sciences, etc) or years of experience.

    If you compare men (and men only) with a master’s degree in education and 2 years of experience versus a master’s degree in computer science with 10 years of experience, there would be the large gaps also.

    All of that is beside the point. I’m not saying that women are underpaid. I’m simply saying that finding a man who earns more than you should not be particularly difficult regardless of class.

    • Replies: @Technite78
  185. @Mark G.

    Why would white males want to alienate the only other group that is on their side?

    Hell, Mark, they’re young. If they were trying to alienate young women, it’s not working very well. They get married. They settle down. They stop spouting nonsense. Same as everyone else.

    In view of the oppression the system levies against them broadly, what’s surprising is that they’re doing as well as they are.

  186. Rosie says:

    … is none of your business.

    Pardon me but it certainly is my f***ing business.

    If the manosphere guys want to crawl back into the hole whence they came, I’ll be happy to butt out.

    But if they are going to bring that crap into WN circles, then it is my right and duty as a White mother of White children to expose their baseless hate for what it is.

    White advocates are going to have to win over the mainstream if they ever want to make a difference for actual White families with actual White children.

  187. @Rosie

    That’s not a reasonable conclusion either; it assumes the size of each cohort is roughly the same.

    For example, if there are far more women that have graduated high school than men, a large fraction of them will have to find husbands in the “less than high school” cohort.

    • Replies: @Technite78
  188. Rosie says:

    That’s not a reasonable conclusion either; it assumes the size of each cohort is roughly the same.

    Okay. Since noone else bothers to look up any data around here, I did it myself. About 40% of White women, as compared to 32% of White men, get bachelor’s degrees, the point at which the pay gap becomes especially large.

    But we’ve already established that men earn more than women throughout the economy as a whole, and we’ve already established that women are more and more willing to marry men with less education than themselves. Whether that 8% difference is sufficiently large to cause a serious imbalance in the force I can’t say. Maybe some of our statisticians can weigh in. There is no doubt, at least, the the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has hit men particularly hard.

    Here is what I think is going on:

    There is a real shortage of marriageable men, but not because of female hypergamy, but rather because men are disproportionately likely to wind up dead, in jail, on drugs, etc. by the time they reach marriage age. I also don’t necessarily blame them. As I have said elsewhere, economic dislocation is bound to cause despondency in vulnerable populations.

    While the dissident right always likes to talk about the right half of the male bell curve, they ignore problems on the left half.

    My prediction would be that marriage rates for men are not radically different by income level, except for marginally employed underclass men, who are particularly likely to remain single. I am pretty sure I’ve posted evidence to that effect in the past, but I can’t fine it now. I’ll keep looking.

    • Replies: @Technite78
    , @iffen
    , @Jay Fink
  189. Rosie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    FYI, I intended comment #192 to be a reply to you, Sir.

  190. @Technite78

    …and to add to that, there is age stratification. For Boomers, there were far more men in the workplace, they tended to have more education, and more years experience. For millennials that’s not true at all… in many fields women have more education and years of experience than men of the same age cohort (the graph doesn’t show that because it’s not broken down by years of experience or age). So as long as twenty- to thirty-something professional women want to marry 50- to 60-something professional men… they should be able to find a husband who earns more.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  191. @Rosie

    See my comment at 196… not to mention my previous comment about bachelor’s degrees not having equivalent earning power across the academic spectrum.

  192. nebulafox says:
    @anon

    Yeah, you are probably right. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  193. Rosie says:
    @Technite78

    and to add to that, there is age stratification.

    The 8% gap I mentioned above is controlled for age. The subjects were born 1980-84.

    https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/women-more-likely-than-men-to-have-earned-a-bachelors-degree-by-age-31.htm

    You have to remember, too, that women witha college degree are more likely to marry than women without one.

    By contrast, there is only a 6% gap in high school graduation rates, so presumably there are more men available within that group, yet their marriage rates are lower.

    This points to minimum standards (be a law-abiding citizen with a job not a drug habit) rather than hypergamy.

    • Replies: @Technite78
  194. @Rosie

    I don’t see why you think that low marriage rates among age demographics where women have more education than men *disproves* hypergamy.

    In fact, the more extreme the hypergamy, the larger the required superiority in education, status, and earning power the prospective husband must have to be considered a suitable marriage partner.

    Of course, current popular culture promotes promiscuous sex… but extreme hypergamy in marriage partners. The result is obviously not good.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  195. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    While the dissident right always likes to talk about the right half of the male bell curve, they ignore problems on the left half.

    Dammit. Now I have to take you off my list.

    Of course it’s not because they are dissident. It’s because they are right.

  196. iffen says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The dissident right exists because the problems against which it reacts exist.

    True enough, I suppose, but the “reaction” is the problem. I see many of the same problems.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  197. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    just the kind that involves women selling themselves off

    Well, good people find themselves in bad situations all the time. I am pretty much a straight up “There, but for the Grace of God … type”.

  198. Rosie says:
    @nebulafox

    Yeah, you are probably right. Thanks.

    You see, NF, the manospherians have it all worked out. Hypergamy is defined precisely to pathologize women and only women. It’s kind of like how “racism” is arbitrarily defined as something only White people do.

    Of course, that is correct insofar as dictionary definitions go, but they are unwilling to acknowledge that there is any male equivalent of “female hypergamy.”

    But the implicit motivation is still probably part of why that mental switch on commitment does not flip.

    Fair, and here’s what that looks like to women. Rather than marrying young “for better or worse,” they want to wait until they think they can do better, sowing their “wild oats” in the meantime (if they can). Five or ten years later, they’re still the same unaccomplished losers they were when they were younger and had more hair and less belly. Now, they want to court good-looking 22 year olds and then screech about “hypergamy” when they strike out.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @nebulafox
  199. Rosie says:
    @Technite78

    I don’t see why you think that low marriage rates among age demographics where women have more education than men *disproves* hypergamy.

    I don’t. I just don’t think there is any reason to believe that education of women is causing the lower marriage rates. The data do not bear that out. If it were true, you would expect women with less education to be more likely to get married and vice versa.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/19/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married/

    Moreover, I’m not even sure how significant “lower marriage rates” really are given that people just move in together now.

    • Replies: @Technite78
  200. @Rosie

    I wouldn’t say it’s the education of women itself that’s the cause of lower marriage rates… it’s the perceived increase in status that usually accompanies the higher level of education, along with other perceived increases in status associated with work environment (office vs. factory), political viewpoint (progressive vs. conservative), etc.

    As far as whether lower marriage rates are significant given the increased number of couples living together… I’d say it’s very significant once the woman gets pregnant.

  201. Rosie says:

    Well, good people find themselves in bad situations all the time. I am pretty much a straight up “There, but for the Grace of God … type”.

    Indeed. Few women resort to prostitution in the absence of serious distress, but understandable prostitution is still prostitution. The prostitute who sells herself to pay for her little brother’s life-saving surgery is a better person than many respectable people, but the fact remains that she has been forced into a degrading situation that shouldn’t be seen as normal or fair or appropriate.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
  202. A few readers seem to be laboring under the misconception that the hard dissident right were trying to appeal to someone. The hard dissident right need not appeal. That is not how it’s structured. It is not a marketing campaign. Recruits keep coming, anyway, because this clown world in which we live won’t stop driving the recruits in.

    Some of you recommend that the hard dissident right police the offputting online behavior of a handful of youthful blowhards, clever pranksters, and wannabe hard-right nitwits, plus one notorious self promoter. However, the movement has learned form Pat Buchanan and Peter Brimelow: policing is not this movement’s style—and good optics are impossible anyway for a movement on which the gun sights of a battalion of Jewish media are always trained.

    Please don’t take my word for it, though. I have said what I have said. You may investigate on your own from this point if you wish.

    For those of you who would like a place to start investigating, start here.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  203. iffen says:
    @Rosie

    I’m only agreeing with the latter part of your comment. I don’t believe that mail order brides should be called prostitutes.

    And on the previous subject:

    Hypergamy is human nature.

    Evolution whut dunnit.

    Human nature is not anybody’s “fault”.

    Unless, of course, there really is a …

  204. Rosie says:

    wouldn’t say it’s the education of women itself that’s the cause of lower marriage rates… it’s the perceived increase in status that usually accompanies the higher level of education, along with other perceived increases in status associated with work environment (office vs. factory), political viewpoint (progressive vs. conservative), etc.

    Whatevs.

    As far as whether lower marriage rates are significant given the increased number of couples living together… I’d say it’s very significant once the woman gets pregnant.

    Not really. Establishing paternity is a simple matter, and unmarried fathers have all the same rights and responsibilities as married fathers, for good or ill.

    But even if cohabitation is unwise, that doesn’t change the fact that lower marriage rates are not evidence of destructive hypergamy when women are still committing to one man in a committed, residential partnership. That’s monogamy, not hypergamy.

    • Replies: @Technite78
  205. iffen says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    For those of you who would like a place to start investigating, start here.

    So, you actually do know what you are trying to sell.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  206. anon[319] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Hypergamy is defined precisely to pathologize women and only women.

    lol. So very predictable.

    Thanks for further confirmation! Very helpful!

  207. @V. K. Ovelund

    For those of you who would like a place to start investigating, start here.

    Or, if under 30 years of age, here.

  208. @iffen

    So, you actually do know what you are trying to sell.

    Heh. I’m usually a sucker for bait, but not this time, my online friend.

    I will think not one whit less of you if you ignore my links. If you haven’t clicked them already, they’re probably not for you.

  209. @Rosie

    when women are still committing to one man in a committed, residential partnership. That’s monogamy, not hypergamy.

    Wait, what? They’re orthogonal, not mutually exclusive. What is your definition of hypergamy?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  210. Rosie says:
    @Technite78

    Wait, what? They’re orthogonal, not mutually exclusive. What is your definition of hypergamy?

    My patience is beginning to wear thin with this conversation.

    Anyway, no hypergamy and monogamy are not mutually exclusive, but monogamy and the hypergamy hoax of manosphere provenance are mutually exclusive. The claim is that women won’t settle down with one man because they’re all competing for (sleeping around with) various Chads.

    But you already knew that, didn’t you?

    • Replies: @Technite78
  211. @Rosie

    Anyway, no hypergamy and monogamy are not mutually exclusive, but monogamy and the hypergamy hoax of manosphere provenance are mutually exclusive. The claim is that women won’t settle down with one man because they’re all competing for (sleeping around with) various Chads.

    Is your patience wearing thin, or are you having difficulty with the definition of hypergamy?

    Hint: it has nothing to do with sleeping around.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  212. Jay Fink says:
    @Rosie

    “My prediction would be that marriage rates for men are not radically different by income level, except for marginally employed underclass men”.

    I looked it up and found several articles and charts on the subject. Married men are much more affluent than single men and the marriage/income correlation has never been stronger than today.

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

    My point was that there are elements in the dissident right that actively repel women people.

    No charge.

    LOL. Can we agree on “there are elements in the dissident right that actively repel normal sane people, especially women?”

    • Replies: @iffen
  214. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Refusal to disavow our own is a distinctive (though not universal) dissident-right characteristic.

    It’s a foolish characteristic in my opinion. Any political movement that wants to succeed has to be prepared to distance itself from its lunatic fringe. When you have people associated with the dissident right saying that a civil war would be a really good thing even if it killed ten to twenty million people (and that was an actual recent comment on UR) then I think it would be wise to disavow such people.

    The “no enemies to the right” meme is suicidally foolish.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  215. dfordoom says: • Website
    @iffen

    The dissident right exists because the problems against which it reacts exist.

    True enough, I suppose, but the “reaction” is the problem. I see many of the same problems.

    On the dissident right there’s the same staggering disconnect from reality that you observe among Wokeists and SJWs. The same tendency to live in a dream world. The same tendency to react to criticism by doubling down. The same tendency towards more and more extreme positions. The same belief that they and they alone have all the answers. The same lack of interest in what ordinary people think. And the same tendency towards embracing views that are just out-and-out crazy.

    The only difference is that the Wokeists/SJWs have elite support and media support so to some extent they can absorb the damage that their lunatic fringe does. The dissident right has zero elite support and virtually zero media support (and no support at all from mainstream media and social media). So the dissident right’s lunatic fringe does it a lot more damage.

    • Agree: iffen
  216. Corvinus says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    “The hard dissident right is not trying to appeal to you.”

    Of course you are making appeals as a representative of the cottage grievance mongering industry. Piranha-like swarming against contrary positions. Collectivism. Identity and racial politics. Demand for total ideological conformity. Demand for racial loyalty. Propaganda and memes.

    “Six years later, most of those guys are happily married with children.”

    And what happened in those six years? I imagine the National Justice Party that you had linked to, and assume you support, is decidedly pro-Christian, as it is a necessary underpinning to the promotion of white interests.

    Now certainly, “righteous alphas” exist, but inevitably there will be a plethora of “unrighteous alphas” who claim, under the umbrella of religion, are conducting themselves as Christians by practicing “game” and touting “hypergamy” and the “socio-sexual hierarchy”**. I can only imagine that you and this group oppose such notions as they are other than compatible with Christianity, which again is the conduit to the stabilizing influence of Western Civilization.

    **Men, Christian or otherwise, who create and perpetuate that structure make a series of subjective behavioral and personality appraisals as its foundational pieces. Any protestation about this label or refusal to act in the prescribed manner brings about a pejorative response. It may be “convenient” for men to articulate what they believe are definitive aspects of their fellow man’s conduct because they subscribe to this hierarchy, but what about those men who find definitive flaws in how those decisions were arrived? What happens when those men challenge the structure by arguing that the “unvarnished truth of the structure” is in reality a set of assumptions predicated on sophistry? Would God and his son Jesus truly judge in this exact manner by calling Christian men betas, gammas, and situational alphas?

    Furthermore, what has been proposed is an alternative model, and a proven one…it is called the Christian Bible, which offers complexity to behavior rather than stereotypes. Manhood develops most appropriately when we pursue the kingdom of God rather than an idol of masculinity itself and all of its worldly trimmings. Upon closer inspection, the men found in the Bible is the epitome of inner fortitude, not outward toughness. In other words, secular standards of masculinity, i.e. Western Civilization machismo, woefully falls short for Biblical manhood.

    Finally, as the Z-man blog had once opined, “This is where the men’s rights crowd and the pickup artists got it all wrong. The answer to the degeneracy of feminism is not sullen indifference or craven opportunism. The solution to feminism is for men to get back to policing their own ranks, by enforcing codes of conduct that leave women no choice but to fulfill their natural roles. If white people are going to survive, it will be in a world in which guys like Riley Reynolds are found dead in a ditch. It’s a world where Roosh V lives in fear of men, not in fear of women. That was always the insidiousness of feminism. It was never really about women. It was always about undermining Western societies by emasculating the men. A society where the men are unwilling to protect their daughters from pornographers, too timid to fight back against Pakistani rape gangs, is a defeated society. Men who wait for someone else to protect their women will never find the courage to fight against their masters. When men on our side get that and begin to enforce a moral code on other men, the revolution begins.”

    No doubt here that the manosphere, with its concepts of “game”, “hypergamy”, and “socio-sexual hierarchy”, are sworn enemies of Christianity and Western Civilization.

    • Thanks: Jay Fink
  217. @dfordoom

    … it would be wise to disavow such people.

    Bah! Humbug. Never. Impossible.

    Disavowal. What loserdom! That is precisely the behavior against which the dissident right dissents.

    You might as well offer such advice to a stone wall. The leopard behind this wall will not change its spots.

    If you wish to disavow, you go right ahead.

  218. To all readers attempting to shift me to a weaker position: maybe I need to make this shorter. We are not trying to appeal to you. Go away.

    You’ll be back.

    • Replies: @Talha
    , @iffen
  219. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    We are not trying to appeal to you. Go away. You’ll be back.

    Confidence and optimism can be a very good thing.

    A couple of comments…
    1) Is there a spiritual outlook or common religious platform that is congealing among the people you are talking about? Reactionary groups without one tend to fracture and splinter and it leads to a lot of infighting. Reactionary groups also have problems holding things together in the long run after victory is achieved…or maybe you’ll just cross that bridge when you get there…?

    2) Do you have adult children? If so, have you been generally successful in passing along your values and outlook onto them? Your close family and associates know you better than anyone; are they on board with the platform?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    , @dfordoom
    , @RSDB
  220. @Talha

    1) Is there a spiritual outlook or common religious platform that is congealing among the people you are talking about?

    No, unfortunately there is not.

    Reactionary groups without one tend to fracture and splinter and it leads to a lot of infighting.

    I see that you have experience with reactionary groups. Refusal to disavow is one internal pacification mechanism. Widespread trust of Mike Peinovich is another, but generally you are right. The group’s younger men do not realize it, but fracturing and splintering are quite probable, and sooner rather than later, alas.

    [MORE]

    Reactionary groups also have problems holding things together in the long run after victory is achieved….

    Political victory of this group in its present form is unlikely. Hurdles are too many and too high. Practically, the group starts from too weak a position. Politics however are an epiphenomenon. Much good prosocial work can be done short of outright political victory. As for politics itself, political factions shift and recombine according to pressure applied: winning is best, but one need not win to have an effect.

    The earlier link has linked to a men’s club that is standing up a political front, in case unforeseen circumstances should make limited political progress possible. The political front is seriously intended but incidental. Peinovich is realistic regarding practical prospects. The club is the main thing.

    2) Do you have adult children?

    Two. Both are sons. You?

    If so, have you been generally successful in passing along your values and outlook onto them?

    The eldest, no. The second and I understand one another quite well, but he is a strong, tough, industrious, honorable lad with his own views. I am very fond of both of them.

    Your close family and associates know you better than anyone; are they on board with the platform?

    Generally, no. Some are exceptions. However, I get along well with all of them.

    My wife has always been further right than me, since the day I first met her.

    Otherwise, I would be glad to give details if asked, but several persons are involved and I fear that the details might interest me and bore you. As far as associates are concerned, fortunately, my field of work is nonpolitical.

    Thank you for asking. What about your own close family and associates?

    Confidence and optimism can be a very good thing.

    Some readers seem to suspect me of posing. It’s not actually so, but that’s all right.

    I do not know whether I am precisely optimistic, but for once I disagree with my friend @dfordoom. What I am confident of is that more of the old, U.S. Republican Party approach, with its endless, skittish, frightened disavowals, will never work. It’s the Left’s job to disavow the Right, not ours. Let the Left do it without our help.

    • Replies: @Talha
  221. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The misogyny on the dissident right …

    … is none of your business.

    Stick your fingers in the fire, and you will get burned. Stay out of the damned locker room. The hard dissident right is not trying to appeal to you.

    The problem is that you could end up with a movement consisting of a tiny handful of hardline ideologically pure men who really could all fit into a single locker room. When you stop trying to make any kind of appeal to moderates you can end up in a purity spiral.

    You also end up being like the guys I used to know who belonged to a Trotskyist splinter group. They were incredibly ideologically pure. They made no compromises at all. There were only six of them in the entire country but their ideological purity was unimpeachable.

    A political movement has to have more than an uncompromising hardline attitude. It has to have a strategy for winning, or at the very least a strategy for gaining some degree of political influence. Otherwise it’s just LARPing.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  222. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Do you have adult children? If so, have you been generally successful in passing along your values and outlook onto them?

    That’s actually a critically important question, for anyone with strongly held religious, social or political views.

    And for anyone with strongly held religious, social or political views another key question is – have you ever made a convert from outside your immediate family? Have you ever persuaded anyone to at least consider the possibility that your views might be worth looking into?

    • Agree: Talha
  223. @dfordoom

    The problem is that you could end up with a movement consisting of a tiny handful of hardline ideologically pure men who really could all fit into a single locker room.

    When have you ever seen me to go for ideological purity? Not since I was 16 years old.

    “White people have interests” is about as mundane a slogan as one could invent.

    I align with you in many matters as you know, but if I judge your disavowal strategy to be counterproductive and backward, then am I hardly likely to adopt it. Oddly, as far as I know, disavowal would be the tool not of the flexible and accommodating but of the very ideological purist of whom you and I equally disapprove.

    I think that some people worry about optics so much that it cripples them. By all means, let us iron our shirts, clean our fingernails, and sit up straight at the dinner table; but beyond that, one must just do what one does. Movements, like persons, ought to be themselves, not something else; and if someone doesn’t like it, then you try to find common ground and to get along where you can.

    Whether the men overflow the locker room is not for you to decide but is a matter for observation. Observation says that, in fact, the men do.

  224. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    A very good comment but I would alter

    Reactionary groups also have problems holding things together in the long run after victory is achieved…or maybe you’ll just cross that bridge when you get there…?

    to

    People in general also have problems holding things together in the long run after victory is achieved…or maybe you’ll just cross that bridge when you get there…?

    [MORE]

    There was a mention in another thread which I think is now closed about the development of the USSR– very rocky going and an awful lot of infighting, at least to begin with.

    And then you have the problem that much of the ability actually to run the country, deal with foreign governments, etc. is probably tied up in the establishment you want to replace. Sometimes (like revolutionary France) the new government learns in a hurry.

    If anything, reactionaries might have an advantage here, because a reactionary faction usually controls a portion of the elite.

    The example endlessly discussed on here of Franco’s Spain is an example of this as well– even during the civil war the Reds mismanaged their part of the country to such an extent that the most successful Nationalist propaganda was simply the difference in food prices between the two territories. Of course, that didn’t stop the fight from being a very long and hard one. And in that case the “spiritual outlook” you mentioned certainly existed; I’m not sure where a reactionary organization can cohere without one. A man has a soul; I feel an organization must also have a kind of soul -a form to build around- if it is to endure at all. But I am starting to blabber here.

    Or another example that comes to mind– the two rebellious factions in Ceylon, the communist (Russian-aligned) JVP and the ethno-nationalist LTTE, had very different trajectories. When it came to fighting, the JVP, despite a very widespread organization and sympathy in high places, acquired a reputation for fecklessness and lack of competence, whereas the Tigers developed the opposite reputation. On the other hand, the JVP survived the execution of many of its leaders and the destruction of its fighting capacity to become a political party while the LTTE, well, has not*.

    ..
    I am reminded sometimes of how little I really know about the world, and how incompetent I am to judge its course– at times like this I am glad of my own insignificance.

    I think I was going to write a reply to you on a thread now closed on the increasing vagueness of American religion– you quoted a poll to me from some Calvinist(iirc?) org about Christians essentially being split on the divinity of Christ; there are similar polls of US Catholics showing an ignorance of Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist– this fits in with a slow lulling to sleep, as a religion with no content can have no principle of opposition within itself to any sort of oppression or wickedness. It can only be an insubstantial comfort, almost literally an “opiate of the masses”.


    *except apparently overseas, where the UK parliament is lit up on the Tiger remembrance day with a Tiger emblem and the phrase “We remember”.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @Talha
  225. iffen says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You’ll be back.

    Ahh, yes, a political movement based on inevitability. Maybe you can make it work when the commies couldn’t.

    To all readers attempting to shift me to a weaker position:

    I’m just give advice to people whom I believe are in dead-end tracks, whether that is Rosie and her brand of WN, doom with his climate change denialism and airhead peacenik beliefs, or various conspiracy loons which includes “the Jews whut donnit” crowd. I “give” all of you and others the “right” to have mistaken and looney beliefs. My opposition is political; you are mucking up the polity.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  226. iffen says:
    @dfordoom

    Can we agree on “there are elements in the dissident right that actively repel normal sane people, especially women?”

    Sure, except for that oxymoron that you threw in there at the last.

  227. Twinkie says:
    @Rosie

    My suspicion is that men get mail-order brides because they are old and don’t want to marry someone their age, or because they have mo0and they want an obnoxious prenup that self-respecting native women wouldn’t agree to.

    The kinds of men who seek international marriages through brokers seem to be mostly lower middle class men. They probably coincide well as a category with the same economic class of males who used to be more securely middle class (e.g. men without college degrees but with relatively well-paid manufacturing or technical jobs). And they probably have harder time finding female company than actual lower class males, hence the entry into the unconventional dating/marriage market.

    Also, it bears noting that men outearn women in all educational groups

    That’s rather irrelevant data because men out-earn women for many other reasons, e.g. actual hours worked, greater relative workforce participation (after having children), etc. Moreover, hypergamy isn’t just about money, it’s about status. There is an overlap between the two, but there are crucial differences. Most female college graduates probably prefer to marry a male with a master’s degree who makes less money than the sanitation worker or plumber who makes more.

    buy a mail-order bride (prostitute)

    I am hardly informed about the international marriage brokerage industry, but my wife and I did see a documentary about it some years ago, during the years when Russia’s economy had tanked badly. What struck us as somewhat comical was the following. A group of American men had paid money to a Russian broker to arrange a tour of several Russian cities, in which they were to meet interested Russian women.

    At one point, the American men began to complain bitterly to the broker that they were being “paraded” on a podium like so much merchandise for the Russian women (who also paid the broker). In other words, the men were being evaluated just as much as the women were. And we got the sense that the men weren’t just being evaluated for their economic prospects.

    The women weren’t looking for sugar daddies or pimps. Nobody was being “sold” or “prostituted.” What was being “sold” was the mutual fantasy (with at least a kernel of truth, if not the whole picture) that Russian women were more traditional and feminine and American men were kinder, more equality-minded, and less likely to be alcoholic/abusive.

  228. Twinkie says:
    @Anonymous

    But even if the gap narrows, could it be Asian women are marrying quality white men while Asian men(born in the US) are marrying white rejects, usually the fat and ugly?

    Among older cohorts of white-Asian marriages, there was a sizable component of war/military brides with uneven status dynamic. That generation is fading away, and today’s white-Asian marriages are just as, and possibly more, assortative than others – for both AMWF and WMAF ones.

    I can personally attest to this as I married my college sweetheart.

    Search “AMWF couples” online and see how many “fat and ugly” women you see.

  229. RSDB says:
    @RSDB

    It’s very nice to be thanked for this comment and I greatly appreciate it.

    Still, I have rambled an awful lot and managed to lose track of several different trains of thought. Posting late at night was probably not such a great idea.

    Anyway, happy Christmas Eve, everybody.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @RSDB
  230. Discussions like the one I and several other men have here been carrying on here would go better in private, face to face. Meanwhile, if I have overstepped the bounds of amenable conduct during public discussion, please pardon.

    Let me just say this. When the university ran me off last year, not a single colleague disavowed me. Three senior colleagues including my supervisor strove hard to save my job. Setting aside the usual ratio of a few disgruntled young undergraduates (for all faculty must deal with these), not one person who actually knew me opposed me.

    All three of the colleagues that strove to save my job stood left of center, but we had known one another and served together for ten years. I had covered their lectures when they were ill or out of town. They were loyal.

    Those colleagues and others are still my friends—just as Michael Kinsley, Bill Press and Chris Matthews are still Pat Buchanan’s friends. Like Buchanan, I appreciated not being disavowed.

    • Agree: RSDB
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @RSDB
  231. anon[305] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    It appears from the data that women are not becoming more “hypergamous” but less so, as more women are marrying men with less education than themselves.

    Older, post-prime, over-educated women settle for what they can get, news at 11.

    As far as obesity is concerned, that is more or less what I said. It’s not that they can’t get a wife. It’s just that they feel they can do better going outside

    Female fatness is the male arousal killer. Men with options will choose a slender babe over a chubster every time. Men without options will often choose porn over a fat wife. The typical man-hating feminist like yourself tends to forget that male desire exists, is a legitimate facet of humanity, and greatly influences the functioning of the sexual and marriage markets.

    It also bears repeating that we’re all getting fatter, not just women.

    True, but obesity affects women’s romantic and marital prospects far more than it affects men’s.

    Men don’t have the easy road to sexual satisfaction that prime nubility women have, but men have something else: the God-given attribute of attracting women via multiple avenues of compensating attractiveness traits.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Corvinus
    , @nebulafox
  232. iffen says:

    You timid pansies are pathetic with your fear of fat women.

    Where is the bravado? The fearlessness?

    Just strap that 2×4 perpendicularly across your back and jump on for the ride of your life.

    • Replies: @Talha
  233. Twinkie says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Like Buchanan, I appreciated not being disavowed.

    Request for disavowal is a trap – it’s designed to either 1) have you lose a friend/supporter (if you do) or 2) paint you negatively (if you don’t). Don’t play that game. As I wrote before: https://www.unz.com/anepigone/living-in-an-amish-paradise/#comment-4329997

    And as a practical advice, ignore the request to opine on Hitler (or Richard Spencer or whomever the latest straw man the media props up as the “rightist” icon) whatever one’s view of him. It’s a silly trap. Successful insurgents know that they have a limited amount of time in the spotlight and exercise good discipline to take maximum advantage of the limited window of attention – or, as my first mentor and trainer advised me, “Don’t defend every hill. Ask yourself, ‘Is this the hill I want to die on?’ and, if yes, only fight on that hill. Otherwise, as an insurgent (or insurgent trainer), you are going to die a lot. Make sure the fight is worth the pain and then, only then, fight and MAKE IT COUNT!”

    Having to embrace or denounce the latest ogre is a false choice. If the media is persistent on setting the trap, turn it back on them and say, “I don’t denounce my fellow Americans, even those with whom I disagree. Denouncing fellow citizens is what totalitarians and communists do. Do YOU agree with Stalin and Hitler that you should go about denouncing people and ruining their lives, because you disagree with them? [Pause for response and if they deflect…] There are lots of people in this country with whom I disagree on many different subjects, but if they love our shared country as I do and wish to join in opposing the destructive and impoverishing policies of those in power, I welcome their vote and invite them to exercise their right to protest peacefully the oppression of those in power.”

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @iffen
    , @dfordoom
  234. Twinkie says:
    @iffen

    Tell me you are talking about behavioral and cultural similarities

    Koreans are often called the Irishmen of Asia. Steve Sailer occasionally quotes P.J. O’Rourke who likened Koreans to his Ulster-Irish cousins after visiting. O’Rourke’s actual words were:

    They don’t like anyone who isn’t Korean, and they don’t like each other all that much, either. They’re hardheaded, hard-drinking, tough little bastards, ‘the Irish of Asia’.

  235. Twinkie says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Is that Twinkie for realz?

    No, man, my wife and I are much more attractive than that. My wife and I have aged obviously, but my wife was a catalog model in college and I used to be called a “hot Asian.” When my wife and I were picking up food from a restaurant in the PNW once, a black lady walked by, nodded at me, and muttered to my wife, “Wow. How do you get one of these?”

    I know it’s cocky and boastful, but we have very good-looking kids. They have been approached by modeling agents more than once.

    • LOL: Corvinus
  236. Rosie says:
    @Technite78

    Hint: it has nothing to do with sleeping around.

    You are either unfamiliar with the manosphere narrative or you are being dishonest.

    Hypergamy is very much associated with polygamy, as sexual license is considered a kind of quasi polygamy where multiple women share the same “alpha males.” The manosphere narrative is that hypergamy is so such a strong instinct that women would prefer to share one highly desirable mate than have a mediocrity all to themselves. Quit being disingenuous.

  237. Rosie says:
    @Jay Fink

    I looked it up and found several articles and charts on the subject. Married men are much more affluent than single men and the marriage/income correlation has never been stronger than today.

    That doesn’t help you. I’ve already said that underclass men aren’t getting married, so including them in the unmarried pool is going to bring down the average of that group.

    The question is whether working-class men with steady employment have comparable marriage rates to middle-class men. Of course, even if they do not, you still have to take into account that fact that working-class people just shack up, since there is little point to getting married if noone has any money.

  238. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Older, post-prime, over-educated women settle for what they can get, news at 11.

    Alas, the story changes. Here I thought hypergamist women’s refusal to settle was causing the collapse of civilization or something.

    Men without options will often choose porn over a fat wife.

    Thanks for admitting such. They will bitterly regret that when they’re old, alone, neglected, and miserable. Or maybe they won’t. Maybe their like the Grinch inside, such that they will never be sorry for not having a family.

    Your soul is an appalling dump heap
    Overflowing with the most disgraceful
    Assortment of deplorable rubbish
    Imaginable, mangled up in tangled up knots!

    True, but obesity affects women’s romantic and marital prospects far more than it affects men’s.

    I suspect it is wishful thinking like this that is responsible for much of the uncle’s problem.

  239. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    “Don’t defend every hill. Ask yourself, ‘Is this the hill I want to die on?’ and, if yes, only fight on that hill.

    You usually give good advice. I’m not sure that you will ever be able to top this.

  240. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    “Don’t defend every hill. Ask yourself, ‘Is this the hill I want to die on?”

    Would you say that the dissident right has generally made very poor choices when it comes to choosing hills on which to die?

    For example do you think the fight over Confederate statues was worthwhile? It seems to me to have been a trap – it’s difficult to defend Confederate statues without appearing to defend the Confederacy and it’s difficult to defend the Confederacy without appearing to defend slavery. And it was a fight that was always going to be lost.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @V. K. Ovelund
  241. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “Older, post-prime, over-educated women settle for what they can get, news at 11”.

    Of course, it depends on what you exactly mean by “older” “post prime”, and “over educated”.

    “Female fatness is the male arousal killer.”

    On one hand, yes. On the other hand, what metric are you employing regarding fatness?

    “Men with options will choose a slender babe over a chubster every time.”

    Nearly every time. What happens if she is rich and the other options are poor, and you can live on the lap of luxury?

    “The typical man-hating feminist like yourself tends to forget that male desire exists, is a legitimate facet of humanity, and greatly influences the functioning of the sexual and marriage markets”.

    Rosie, a man hating feminist? Lol, no. Might as well call her a liberal Jewess while you’re at it.

    Indeed, male desire exists, but that is based on what each man wants for himself. As far as the sexual and marriage markets are concerned, the reality is that today’s men are doing pretty well.

    “True, but obesity affects women’s romantic and marital prospects far more than it affects men’s.”

    It impacts men and women fairly equally.

    “Men don’t have the easy road to sexual satisfaction that prime nubility women have, but men have something else: the God-given attribute of attracting women via multiple avenues of compensating attractiveness traits.”

    It’s easier for men than you think.

  242. @dfordoom

    Few persons outside North America have made as sustained an effort to understand the United States from afar as you have. (If the topic were Australia, my contribution to the conversation would hardly reach three lines in length!)

    For example do you think the fight over Confederate statues was worthwhile? It seems to me to have been a trap – it’s difficult to defend Confederate statues without appearing to defend the Confederacy and it’s difficult to defend the Confederacy without appearing to defend slavery. And it was a fight that was always going to be lost.

    The Confederates of whom you speak are U.S. Southerners’ honored kin. Southerners laud their valor and cherish their memory.

    Normal nonblack Americans, whether North or South, are sick of hearing about slavery.

  243. Talha says:
    @iffen

    You timid pansies are pathetic with your fear of fat women.

    Imma dock you points for missing an obvious chance at alliteration…observe:

    “You fainthearted pansies are feeble with your fear of fat females.”

    Ten yard penalty, fourth down.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
  244. Talha says:
    @RSDB

    You make a good point, though when you say “people in general”…well, yes; entropy.

    I guess the question also comes down to what is reactionary on a given spectrum; Daesh is reactionary…so is the Taliban, but who has proven to have more holding/staying power?

    Is Lenin a reactionary? Would Jesus (pbuh) be defined as a reactionary? Is this a moving target depending on context and culture?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    , @RSDB
  245. Talha says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    No, unfortunately there is not.

    Personally, I think this a big blind spot.

    I see that you have experience with reactionary groups.

    I’ve been keeping up with the various reactionary groups as they arise in the Muslim world. You can actually see things play out in real time. For instance, Daesh started out with phenomenal success and took over a vast amount of territory. In the beginning they were assassinating senior Muslim scholars who disagreed with them as “corrupt” and “sellouts” and “heretics”, etc. At the end, rival Daesh factions were disclosing coordinates to the Russians and others in order to have the other faction conveniently eliminated.

    Refusal to disavow is one internal pacification mechanism.

    This is an interesting strategy. I think this may work unless some obvious member does something waaaay off the deep end.

    Widespread trust of Mike Peinovich is another

    Just looked into him. Interesting fellow. Seems to have had a Jewish wife who divorced him (don’t know if he has kids) and his parents and family have denounced him as a Nazi and I believe his father asked him to change his last name to “Enoch”. I’ll keep my eyes on him to see how he fares in life. A movement that puts one man as a kind of cult of personality in a position of de facto leadership has a lot riding on him.

    Much good prosocial work can be done short of outright political victory.

    This much is true and years of dedicated work in this area often proceeds political victories that comes decades or even generations later and a result of this groundwork.

    Peinovich is realistic regarding practical prospects. The club is the main thing.

    That makes sense given current circumstances.

    Two. Both are sons. You?

    Technically only my daughter is a adult. Islamically, both she and my eldest son are, and my third son is on the cusp.

    I am very fond of both of them.

    Good, keep good relations with them; politics shouldn’t break apart families.

    My wife has always been further right than me, since the day I first met her.

    This is very interesting and seems fairly rare these days.

    Otherwise, I would be glad to give details if asked

    No need for details, we are just discussing generalities.

    What about your own close family and associates?

    Well, since my path is just your run-of-the-mill traditional Sunni Islam, I’d say, yeah – they are on board. Some of my more distant cousins are fairly liberal on some things. As far as things like work or neighbors; I don’t discuss politics with them at all.

    I also belong to a Sufi Brotherhood and many of my friends come from that relationship, but that’s not common in my particular family circle (well, not anymore – it used to be quite common [almost universal] a couple of generation back) and I have good friends that belong to other Sufi Brotherhoods from other chains.

    Some readers seem to suspect me of posing. It’s not actually so, but that’s all right.

    I generally assume people are telling the truth unless they say something very outlandish. Nothing you said strikes me as such.

    You simply frequent circles that others do not. What is quite normal in one circle maybe seen as completely foreign in another. For instance, it is very common among my friends and circles that one or more (or all) of their children have the entire Qur’an memorized and that many of the men are both university-educated professionals and take (or teach) classes on the side part-time reading classical medieval Islamic texts in the original Arabic (mashaAllah for both). That may seem just bizarre to someone, but I assure you it is pretty routine in my circles.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  246. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    “Reactionary” is pretty much a leftist term of abuse that others picked up, so I guess it means whatever people want it to mean. As a term of self-reference it is mostly a novelty, I think.

    Cambridge dictionary defines it as entailing opposition to political or social change, or to “new ideas”. This is, to put it mildly, very broad.

    I will ramble a bit in response to your other questions– caveat lector.

    [MORE]

    Not that my use of the word is particularly important here (see below), but I generally use it in a way vaguely synonymous with “rightist” or at least opposed to the revolutionary left; that means not Lenin (in that context, the term could probably refer to the Whites), but I don’t think I have ever thought of applying it to the first century– if Jesus Christ (Christ is born — Happy Christmas, everybody! a little late but still Christmas by the calendar) even had any political agenda at all, which is a bit much to grant. I guess you could say He was at least non-revolutionary because He had about the best opportunity in the world to raise a military revolt and didn’t do it.

    Anyway, in this conversation I’m not the one who initiated the use of this particular bit of terminology, so I’d be happy to accept your categorizations. You applied it to a particular grouping in US politics, one which I see only in a very fuzzy way. Would you apply it to yourself? Libertarians? Authoritarians? The “dissident right” as a whole? “Rosie”? “Dissidents” as a whole? People who believe in God?

    Holding power and staying power are two different things, at least as regards a guerilla war. I’m not a military theorist so I’ll leave this off here for the actual military theorists on here, if you want to ask them about it?

    Anyway the Taliban are a pretty good example of what I mentioned before about lacking abilities held by the governing class– look at the Bamiyan episode; viewed in the most favorable light it still boils down to the Taliban’s idea of diplomacy being to stamp their feet and throw a tantrum when they weren’t happy with something.

    To be fair, Afghanistan at that time probably didn’t have that much governing competence left at the higher levels in any other faction either. Other people here probably know more about this than me. “Twinkie” in particular is probably a good person to ask about this sort of thing. I would ask him myself –I am actually somewhat interested in this topic– but I am not very good at framing questions; you are much better at the Socratic thing than I am.

    But analyzing reasons for success and failure, as you seem to suggest, is probably a useful thing here for future reference. I’ve said before that radical Islam, especially of the ISIS/Daesh stripe, seems to me to have a fair bit in common with Bolshevik communism or 19th century anarchism/nihilism– you’ve called it nihilist yourself a number of times; perhaps you’ve also been thinking of some aspects of this sort? That would, again, be another comparison, with different relative success/failure analyses. Also worth doing?

    As a very, very digressive side note, the Taliban has always reminded me a little bit of the LTTE, on the level of subconscious impressions. The Taliban are a very national group, unlike ISIS/Daesh which is internationalist and millenarian; their shady contacts with Pakistan are somewhat reminiscent of the LTTE connection with Tamil Nadu; their quite successful elimination of rival groups from the same background — these are all overt similarities which reinforce what is, again, largely a subconscious impression.

    Twinkie’s statement in another thread, that large countries don’t do small wars well, is worth bearing in mind here. I don’t know very much about the future of Afghanistan, but then I don’t even know very much about the future of the US. Fortunately, there are things surer than politics.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  247. RSDB says:
    @Talha

    Not really relevant, but some of our problems have been around for a while.

    [MORE]

    In the skit below, from a 1969 film, the famous liberal poet Bharathiyar returns from the dead to see what effects his verses have on people; he encounters types we might nowadays call “slutwalk” feminists (I apologize for the use of the word), BLM-type thugs, and a PUA type, and is very disappointed.

    The subtitles are simply horrible but they do convey the literal meaning of what is said, for the most part.

    Watch at your own risk of boredom:

  248. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Ten yard penalty, fourth down.

    I’m certain that I received greater penalties for vulgarity that went uncommented and properly so.

    • Replies: @Talha
  249. RSDB says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Yes, do not fall for “Monsters are due on Maple street” tactics (or see, also, the origin of the term “salami tactics” in communist Hungary).

    Twinkie’s comment is enlightening, and probably good advice for life in general, too.

    I don’t know if these discussions would go better face to face– certainly in some cases. As for me, I am glad to benefit from the conversations other people have here. Also, the written format allows, I find, for better thought-through answers and for an ability to resume lost threads of conversation not really possible in real life except in a very few cases. Not that I’ve been taking advantage of either of these possibilities much lately, of course, only that there must be some benefits to this sort of interaction to weigh against its many obvious disadvantages, or none of us would be here.

  250. nebulafox says:
    @Rosie

    IMO, there’s plenty of blame to go around for why a lot of people my age are so dissatisfied with the dating scene. The first thing to point out is that we’re-the men and the women-on average more obese, more mentally ill, more socially awkward thanks to technology, less wealthy, and a host of other things that tend to put a damper on romance.

    I don’t know much, but I hazard a guess that fixing things starts there. The other thing to remember is that people who have no reason to complain aren’t heard online, as with so many other things. 😉

    >Rather than marrying young “for better or worse,” they want to wait until they think they can do better, sowing their “wild oats” in the meantime (if they can).

    For some people, early marriages work great. For a lot of others, it doesn’t. One other thing my generation also tends to be is more irreligious. This erases one of the big contributory factors toward earlier marriages found in previous times.

    Re, your specific point: the kind of guy I’m talking about often doesn’t have the option of doing anything at all in their early 20s, marriage or otherwise. And honestly, that’s fine: I’m not faulting women for this, for Pete’s sake. I do tend to believe that tying in someone’s intrinsic human worth to their sex life is generally a bad idea for a host of reasons (I would say the same thing about other not-entirely-but still-somewhat-controllable factors like wealth or credentials), but the innate aversion women have toward losers is probably responsible for human civilization.

    But in a culture that has a high school-esque obsessive relationship with sex and also treats mating as a free market like any other, it shouldn’t be surprising that people previously in the worst position in the market are disinclined to cash in when that changes, especially if they’ve been bombarded daily with reminders of what they-and they alone-were being denied for years up to that point. It is what it is: no one is to blame for what they prefer or for acting in their own interests.

  251. nebulafox says:
    @anon

    >Men don’t have the easy road to sexual satisfaction that prime nubility women have, but men have something else: the God-given attribute of attracting women via multiple avenues of compensating attractiveness traits.

    It’s a trade-off: different set of advantages and disadvantages that extends well beyond sexuality. And these trade-offs are there for a reason. Younger women might have an easier time attracting attention, but they also have a much sharper, harder biological clock for childbearing than men do. An older man who wants to become a father does face some hidden challenges (higher risk of mental disorders, the physical strain of keeping up with your kids, etc), but in theory, is only limited by his ability to attract a woman who can bear children. Whereas if you are a woman in your late 30s and you want to become a mother, biology is going to force you to make some quick, hard decisions to do so.

    It’s not better or worse, just a different set of perks and challenges. Whether it is better for you personally depends on you yourself. Why this is a controversial thing to state is beyond me. I suppose in the current age of victimhood morality, this is unappealing.

  252. One of the big practical problems I see with enforcing race based nationalism in an age of global travel: very few men in *any* culture are going to choose “no wife” over “foreign wife”.

    And they should not be asked to.

    Criminals, druggies, psychos, retards, layabouts–no wife is fine. In fact, a healthy society takes measures to discourage breeding by those folks.

    But a materially productive net-taxpaying men should not have difficulty finding a wife and having a family. If he does the “system” is broken–immigration, ideology, education, media, incentives, divorce/custody law, feminism, messaging to women, women’s behavior; something, probably many things. The nation is failing at it’s most basic task–reproducing itself.

    Patriarchy of some sort seems to be required for a nation to maintain itself. When that goes, everything goes. It’s nominally possible to continue with a patriarchy of sane males continuing to have families with local and foreign women, propagating the nation’s culture. But the HBD constraint means that does not really work, however comfortable for one generation. (It won’t work with Korea.)

    So the core problem of national will, ideology, media messaging, the resulting behavior of women must be addressed for a nation to survive.

  253. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Much good prosocial work can be done short of outright political victory.

    This much is true and years of dedicated work in this area often proceeds political victories that comes decades or even generations later and a result of this groundwork.

    Yes, I agree with that.

    It’s particularly important for any political movement that identifies itself as right-wing since the political right has a reputation for being all about greed. It would certainly be useful for such a movement to establish a reputation for actually caring about people. And not just in the abstract – actually doing concrete things on a small scale to help actual people.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @RSDB
  254. dfordoom says: • Website
    @RSDB

    “Reactionary” is pretty much a leftist term of abuse that others picked up, so I guess it means whatever people want it to mean. As a term of self-reference it is mostly a novelty, I think.

    Cambridge dictionary defines it as entailing opposition to political or social change, or to “new ideas”. This is, to put it mildly, very broad.

    In today’s world reactionaries are not people who want to stop political and social change. They want to reverse those changes. Which actually makes modern reactionaries revolutionaries.

    The difficulty lies in deciding how far you want to turn back the clock. If your aim is to return to the social and cultural mores of the 80s you’d probably get a huge amount of support. If your objective is a return to the social and cultural mores of the 1950s you’d get less support but you’d get some. If you want to return to the social and cultural mores of the 19th century, or the 15th century, well good luck with that.

    The other difficulty lies in selling the idea of being a reactionary as something positive rather than negative.

    Would you apply it to yourself? Libertarians?

    Libertarians want to return to a world that never existed outside the fever dreams of libertarians. They want to return to Utopia.

  255. RSDB says:
    @dfordoom

    Yes, this is absolutely correct, it’s such a darned shame that socially conservative organizations like, say, the Knights of Columbus never help anybody or do any charity work.

    [MORE]

    Sarcasm aside, you have a good point. No organization with any kind of social goal will work without socially-directed effort at low levels, and, since the analogy of insurgency has been repeatedly used, no insurgent or dissident movement can survive without making friends in its environment, and friendships are made by kindness and self-sacrifice.

    Such as, for one example, to start out with, the behavior (as self-described) of the commenter two replies up.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @iffen
  256. @Rosie

    Finally, a bit of honesty about White men’s lack of concern for their race, and the reasons for it.

    A minor quibble:

    Since boys and girls are born in roughly equal numbers, the choice is not between no wife and a foreign wife. It is between a wife you can get in your own country versus the one you can get from some desperately poor Third World country.

    Why should men have that choice? If it’s okay to go abroad for a “better” wife, why not a better worker, or a better product? You can have a nation, or you can have a collection of individuals.

    On cue, pure Rosie: It’s men’s fault. Man up. There are tons of beautiful (only “a few pounds” overweight) chaste (less than 20 sexual partners) young (35 years old) women just pinning for a husband (child-support payer).

    Obvious stuff, without going book length:

    — Korean farmers are not “the West”
    The importing-wives situation Twinkie mentions is in Korea. Basically farmers. They literally can not find Korean women willing to be farm wives. Importing foreign brides is absolutely trivial in the West.

    — More foreign men in the West.
    Other way around in the West. There are more foreign men than foreign women in the West.

    — Sexual relations skew in the West.
    Foreign women in the West overwhelmingly belong to foreign men. Which suggests any xenophilia in the West (i.e. among whites) skews toward white women having sex with non-white men. Maybe not marriage. Lots of white women have sex with foreign men … but the foreign men just want to uh … have sexual relations with them, but prefer a chaste woman of their own nation for a wife.

    — The worst matches for whites from the HBD–maintaining the race–perspective are white-black. (Most of the others–like Twinkie’s–are not much of an issue.) White women are sexually involved with blacks–even marriage, which black men aren’t particularly prone to–by 2-to-1. Sexual relations and non-martial child bearing are likely 4 or 5X greater for white women. Who has “lack of concern for their race”?

    — “Down on the farm”
    The men left “down on the farm” problem of Korean farmers exists throughout the West. White women flock to cities for “opportunity”–i.e. soft jobs, often from the government and whoring (attention and actual). Men continue to do the materially productive work done in rural areas, would like to have wives and families and white women have deserted them.

    — White men still to the materially productive labor.
    White men are still farming, mining, engineering, machining, running factories, refineries, power plants, being mechanics, fixing and maintaining machinery, doing construction. Basically white men are still doing the labor–with some Asian and Latino men chipping in–that keeps America running. Materially productive men should have wives in a healthy nation. But lots of them no longer find suitable women willing to be loyal wives.

    — Bottom line — it takes two to tango.
    Bottom line: contra Rosie, men are just as entitled as women to marry as they see fit. If there are fewer marriages it is because men and women are just not finding each other to be “a good deal”.

    — What’s changed?
    The above did not use to be the case. What’s changed:
    — feminism
    — female careerism
    — soft jobs–often government created–lessening female desire for male support
    — female sluttiness, reducing their desirability to men looking for wives
    — flab; Americans are much more overweight and that reduces sexual attractiveness; excess poundage dramatically affects desirably of women, where a woman whose body signals “there’s room for your baby” is inherently more desirably
    — social media; Many women can not be parted from their phone. They are already wedded to the phone … so a guy is signing up to be at best 2nd banana.
    — divorce rape; Divorce now is for … whatever; no social stigma. Simply “he’s not making me haaaappy”. Women institute 65-70% of divorces and usually a guy loses most of his contact with his kids while forking over a huge piece of his paycheck. A guy is basically serving at his wife’s sufferance once he marries. This puts a premium on female loyalty, which dramatically declines with female sluttiness. There’s no reason a capable and productive guy should sign up to get ripped off. (And in a sane society he would not have to.)
    — female attitudes; potential loyal wife and mother is not the vibe most young women give off

    to be fair on the male behavior side …
    — the video games in the basement thing is negative; men appeal more to most women with a more active, robust, physical vibe.
    — on-line porn; some men on the less outgoing side facing the shitty marriage market just tune out. Absent on-line porn, more of them would stay in there pitching, hoping against hope.

    But overwhelmingly “what’s changed” is that women are just less desirably marriage partners. They are older, fatter, less chaste, worse attitudes, more demanding financially, unwilling to live (and perhaps not even around at all) in rural areas. All working against the idea they’ll be a loyal wife and mother to a man’s children. And the legal environment is slanted against men if their wives decide to blow things up. So hardly surprising men have less interest.

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

    On cue, pure Rosie: It’s men’s fault.

    Though I do not disagree with you, if you are waiting for women to respond fairly to an appeal like this, you may wait long.

    In a woman’s view, the man who is not delivering security, resources and status is always at fault (unless the man is her son). You don’t have to agree with her, but she is not going to see it your way. She does not process the question as you do. She’s female.

    Rosie’s behavior is just normal. Reading Rosie here beats listening to the masculine echo chamber all the time, at any rate.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  258. dfordoom says: • Website
    @RSDB

    Yes, this is absolutely correct, it’s such a darned shame that socially conservative organizations like, say, the Knights of Columbus never help anybody or do any charity work.

    The Knights of Columbus are not the dissident right. There might be some overlap between social conservatives and the dissident right but they’re hardly the same thing.

    It would be to the advantage of the dissident right for self-identified dissident rightists to be seen doing some charity work.

    No organization with any kind of social goal will work without socially-directed effort at low levels, and, since the analogy of insurgency has been repeatedly used, no insurgent or dissident movement can survive without making friends in its environment, and friendships are made by kindness and self-sacrifice.

    Yes.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @RSDB
  259. RSDB says:
    @dfordoom

    Well, OK, I think I’ve misunderstood you.

    Since you’re the commenter who, at least as far as I’ve noticed, uses the phrase most frequently, who exactly are the “dissident right” then? How would you categorize them based on, say, the same questions Talha and I have been asking in order to categorize “reactionaries”? Is this category rigid, or does it expand and contract with, say, what is considered “dissident”?

    I think you’ve definitely got the right idea, but one can take it too far– I’m mentally picturing the KKK Housing Benefit and Ice Cream Social right now; I’m not sure how well that would go over.

    • LOL: iffen, Talha
  260. RSDB says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Gabriel Betteredge disagrees:

    I left him, miserable enough, leaning on the sill of my window, with his face hidden in his hands and Penelope peeping through the door, longing to comfort him. In Mr. Franklin’s place, I should have called her in. When you are ill-used by one woman, there is great comfort in telling it to another—because, nine times out of ten, the other always takes your side.

    (from The Moonstone)

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  261. iffen says:
    @RSDB

    No organization with any kind of social goal will work without socially-directed effort at low levels, and, since the analogy of insurgency has been repeatedly used, no insurgent or dissident movement can survive without making friends in its environment, and friendships are made by kindness and self-sacrifice.

    It worked for the Black Panther Party in the U. S.

    Just look at them now.

    Oh, wait, never mind.

  262. @RSDB

    Okay, but Rosie, outnumbered, is hardly ill-using anybody.

    • Replies: @RSDB
  263. RSDB says:
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I have no clue; I usually avoid threads here on “Russians or Ukrainians– who is better?” or “men or women– who is better?”– all I meant was that Betteredge disagrees with your comment above on the subject of whether in some given situation, according to a woman, the man is “always at fault” unless he is her son.

    In other words, he is saying that in a quarrel between a man and a woman a second woman would not necessarily take the side of the first, or at least in this instance his daughter Penelope wouldn’t.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  264. @Twinkie

    That was a joke in poor taste. Even roundeyes can generally distinguish between East Asians and Southeast Asians. Between Koreans and Japanese–that is a little trickier for many of us!

  265. @Rosie

    guys want that bitchy woman who plays hard to get

    Is there any evidence for this? I’ve never experienced any anecdotal evidence of or for it. There are bitchy women who play hard to get and men pursue them, but that’s in spite of the hard to get/bitchiness and because of other factors.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS