The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
When Society Encourages Mean Girls to Bully Boys
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, whose 2012 book The Righteous Mind I reviewed in Taki’s, writes:

The Yale Problem Begins in High School

by Jonathan Haidt | Nov 24, 2015 | campus turmoil, free speech | 182 comments

A month before the Yale Halloween meltdown, I had a bizarre and illuminating experience at an elite private high school on the West Coast. I’ll call it Centerville High.

One possibility for the school Haidt is talking about is Lakeside School in Seattle, which Bill Gates and Paul Allen attended. Haidt gave a talk there on October 21.

I gave a version of a talk that you can see here, on Coddle U. vs. Strengthen U. …

But then the discussion began, and it was the most unremittingly hostile questioning I’ve ever had. I don’t mind when people ask hard or critical questions, but I was surprised that I had misread the audience so thoroughly. My talk had little to do with gender, but the second question was “So you think rape is OK?” Like most of the questions, it was backed up by a sea of finger snaps — the sort you can hear in the infamous Yale video, where a student screams at Prof. Christakis to “be quiet” and tells him that he is “disgusting.” I had never heard the snapping before. When it happens in a large auditorium it is disconcerting. It makes you feel that you are facing an angry and unified mob — a feeling I have never had in 25 years of teaching and public speaking.

After the first dozen questions I noticed that not a single questioner was male. I began to search the sea of hands asking to be called on and I did find one boy, who asked a question that indicated that he too was critical of my talk. But other than him, the 200 or so boys in the audience sat silently.

After the Q&A, I got a half-standing ovation: almost all of the boys in the room stood up to cheer. And after the crowd broke up, a line of boys came up to me to thank me and shake my hand. Not a single girl came up to me afterward.

After my main lecture, the next session involved 60 students who had signed up for further discussion with me. We moved to a large classroom. The last thing I wanted to do was to continue the same fruitless arguing for another 75 minutes, so I decided to take control of the session and reframe the discussion. Here is what happened next:

One of Haidt’s most illuminating techniques is simply to ask his audience to answer his questions by raising their hands. [Update: working link.]

Me: What kind of intellectual climate do you want here at Centerville? Would you rather have option A: a school where people with views you find offensive keep their mouths shut, or B: a school where everyone feels that they can speak up in class discussions?

Audience: All hands go up for B.

Me: OK, let’s see if you have that. When there is a class discussion about gender issues, do you feel free to speak up and say what you are thinking? Or do you feel that you are walking on eggshells and you must heavily censor yourself? Just the girls in the class, raise your hand if you feel you can speak up? [about 70% said they feel free, vs about 10% who said eggshells ]. Now just the boys? [about 80% said eggshells, nobody said they feel free].

Me: Now let’s try it for race. When a topic related to race comes up in class, do you feel free to speak up and say what you are thinking, or do you feel that you are walking on eggshells and you must heavily censor yourself? Just the non-white students? [the group was around 30% non-white, mostly South and East Asians, and some African Americans. A majority said they felt free to speak, although a large minority said eggshells] Now just the white students? [A large majority said eggshells]

Me: Now lets try it for politics. How many of you would say you are on the right politically, or that you are conservative or Republican? [6 hands went up, out of 60 students]. Just you folks, when politically charged topics come up, can you speak freely? [Only one hand went up, but that student clarified that everyone gets mad at him when he speaks up, but he does it anyway. The other 5 said eggshells.] How many of you are on the left, liberal, or democrat? [Most hands go up] Can you speak freely, or is it eggshells? [Almost all said they can speak freely.]

Me: So let me get this straight. You were unanimous in saying that you want your school to be a place where people feel free to speak up, even if you strongly dislike their views. But you don’t have such a school. In fact, you have exactly the sort of “tolerance” that Herbert Marcuse advocated [which I had discussed in my lecture, and which you can read about here]. You have a school in which only people in the preferred groups get to speak, and everyone else is afraid.

What are you going to do about this? Let’s talk.

After that, the conversation was extremely civil and constructive. The boys took part just as much as the girls. We talked about what Centerville could do to improve its climate, and I said that the most important single step would be to make viewpoint diversity a priority.

On the entire faculty, there was not a single teacher that was known to be conservative or Republican. So if these teenagers are coming into political consciousness inside of a “moral matrix” that is uniformly leftist, there will always be anger directed at those who disrupt that consensus.

That night, after I gave a different talk to an adult audience, there was a reception at which I spoke with some of the parents. Several came up to me to tell me that their sons had told them about the day’s events. The boys finally had a way to express and explain their feelings of discouragement. Their parents were angry to learn about how their sons were being treated and… there’s no other word for it, bullied into submission by the girls.*

Tina Fey’s movie Mean Girls with Lindsey Lohan makes the point that girls have always been extremely adept on average at nonviolent bullying: girls tend to be quick and sharp at interpersonal thinking with a talent for knowing precisely where to slip in the psychological stiletto.

Of course, most of that talent has been deployed over the millennia against their rivals in the sexual marketplace, other females (although little brothers and henpecked husbands have been victims too). But now our society encourages girls, at the point where their social skills are most advanced relative to boys of the same age, to use their Mean Girls techniques to bully and silence boys in the name of Fighting Patriarchy.

It would be interesting to study how big a price females pay down the road in lack of romantic satisfaction due to being encouraged to psychologically emasculate the boys around them. Like I’ve been saying for a long time, there’ll be no final victor in the War Between the Sexes.

Obviously, this strategy likely pays off for the handful of lesbians looking for more feminine girls.

But does it really make the female majority happier in the long run?

It seems like today’s reigning mindset is fundamentally confused about who you primarily compete with and who you primarily cooperate with in a sexually reproductive species.

 
Hide 370 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Must be those estrogen like chemicals leaking from the plastic in bottled water. I am serious, that it might be part of the problem, making boys docile.

    Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR
    http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals
    Mar 02, 2011 · Most plastic products, from sippy cups to food wraps, can release chemicals that act like the sex hormone estrogen, according to a study in …

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I, for one, welcome our estrogenic plastic overwrap.
  2. My mind is blown. I didn’t think such a thing existed outside stupid high school movies and even there it’s still mostly intra-gender warfare.

  3. “But does it really make the female majority happier in the long run?”

    No. I know from experience with what we used to call ‘self-defeating behavior’ on the part of former partners.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    Yep.
    , @Anonymous
    No. I know from experience with what we used to call ‘self-defeating behavior’ on the part of former partners.

    Could you elaborate on this experience? I think it could be helpful to others of us.
  4. “It would be interesting to study how big a price females pay down the road in lack of romantic satisfaction due to being encouraged to psychologically emasculate the boys around them.”

    I saw this happening to my son in elementary school.

    Probably zero, if they all do it. Younger women will just go to whatever extreme needed to get banged by the alphas they really want. When their looks are mostly gone, they’ll settle for some guy who will support the alpha’s children, change diapers, cook dinner, etc. there’s always some guy who’ll do it. Or, just demand that society provide free support, free daycare, free divorce porn, free vibrators, etc.

    Females hate men, deep down; it’s biological, and deeper than emotion. If they’re not trained to do otherwise, they’ll let it out.

    Ultimately, the only price will come in the fall of Western Civ, the result of a failure to get boys to participate and a failure to find and nurture the exceptional boys who provide the real advances. Didn’t I just see an article about two cute girls who went to ISIS, only to be murdered?

    • Replies: @bomag
    nurture the exceptional boys who provide the real advances

    Very key point. The remote outliers are the ones that carry us forward.
  5. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    that strategy of making females into pseudo-males also pays off for rich investors–more aggressive females are more likely to be able to better compete against males in the workforce…thus increasing the supply of labor and consumers, depressing wage, increasing sales, increasing the GDP and economic growth. Makes the rich richer. But that’s just a coincidence. Because there is no way that anything important in america has anything to do with economics or corporate profits. America is not like that.

    • Replies: @Horpor
    Centrist, do you always repeat the same thing under Steve's blogposts? I.e. that evil capitalists are behind all our worries and that in particular they have conspired to create the feminist movement.
    I mean, everyone here has already understood your great political discovery and you could - maybe? - give some other pearls of your wisdom, like a hypothesis on the capitalistic origins of the concept of 'safe-space' or some other highly literate and empirically proven idea.
    , @Harry
    Spot on about the role of money and corporations. The left seems to have gotten itself a nice little ideological monopoly on being critical of those forces. How convenient.

    (OT: Seen your blog. You say: "And again I ask--why am I the only person on earth to see this yet?" You're not. Check my "Website" link (not my site) for Richard D. Fuerle's "Erectus Walks Amongst Us")
    , @Bleuteaux
    Please don't forget that one of the primary roles of women in the workforce is to eliminate competition from lower level males. The women who are hired via AA to fill slots will never seriously compete with or challenge higher management, and in fact their affirmative action status often means unyielding loyalty to whatever upper level (often male) patronage may have gotten them the job. In my company, this seems to explain almost all human resources personnel I encounter.

    All in all, I think your comments on this thread and elsewhere are spot on. Following the money will almost never lead to wrong. I spend all day at a company where personal greed and cronyism are justified as good business.

  6. Check out mean girls Taylor Swift and Courtenay showing up in the comments of that article attempting to justify their behavior and shame Haidt back onto the reservation.

  7. Can’t anybody here look on the bright side?

    Emasculated male Democrats now (and Democrats is what these kids are) means fewer Democrats in the future.

    It’s hard enough already for Democrats to reproduce (Carter is the only postwar Dem POTUS to have more than 2 kids vs 2 being the minimum number of postwar GOP POTUS kids).

    Dems have been counting on outnumbering the GOP in the future. Not among their elite they won’t.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    White Dems are a dying breed. Blacks and Aztecs, not so much.
    , @Simon in London
    They advance by conversion, not reproduction. That's why they put much more effort into controlling the minds of the young than into reproduction.
  8. When I operated my retail business, I noticed a distinct difference between female sales reps from California and female sales reps from everywhere else. The products I dealt with had a somewhat masculine appeal to the public at large, and most vendors were aware of this. If a woman rep was smart, she would use her feminine instincts to her advantage, giving customers an, “oh, you big strong man, you!” vibe.

    Men do have an innate “expert,” gene that I’m sure is challenging for women to deal with, but if women don’t let it evolve into a confrontation, they can charm men by letting them believe they’re the experts they think they are. I always tried to keep my expert gene in check, but I still had problems with every female sales rep from California that I ever dealt with. If you asked them a technical question that they couldn’t answer, they took it as an affront, sometimes making up an answer so they wouldn’t look stupid. If you asked to speak with someone who might know the answer, they really got offended. They would sometimes lose sales due to rudeness to make some vague feminist “point.”

    Female vendors from Montana, Tennessee or Colorado, on the other hand, were very pleasant to deal with…usually preferable to men, in my opinion. Even New York women were pleasant by comparison. This was several years ago, and I always saw it as a California thing, but it may have expanded beyond California by now.

    • Replies: @Curle
    In the TV show Weeds the main character is a female who almost always gets her way. The twist is she uses female charm to do so only showing an aggressive side when protecting her cubs. The part is played by Mary Louise Parker, an actress raised in the South.
  9. I’m glad Haidt managed to have the students participate in an open and civil debate. That said, it would be the height of naiveté to expect the overwhelming majority of students, who already self-identify as liberal, to work enthusiastically to change a school culture in which they feel free to speak their minds and in which those they consider enemies must walk on egg shells.

    • Replies: @sabril

    That said, it would be the height of naiveté to expect the overwhelming majority of students, who already self-identify as liberal, to work enthusiastically to change a school culture in which they feel free to speak their minds and in which those they consider enemies must walk on egg shells.
     
    I basically agree. If you ask people in the abstract and in general whether they want an environment where people are free to speak their minds, then of course they will agree. Probably in large part because when you ask them that question, they focus on their own desire to express their views.

    (I think it's a bit like asking men if they favor polygamy. Many average men will answer "yes," thinking that it gives them the right to have multiple girls; they don't consider that in reality it's likely to leave them involuntarily celibate.)

    But in general, most people have a strong emotional desire to silence those with whom they disagree. Like ricpic says, they want their perceived enemies to be walking on egg shells.
  10. It’s amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as “left-wing.”

    They’re about as left-wing as Richelieu.

    • Replies: @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    , @Anonymous
    It's hard to deal with these sorts of girls, because they take a small scale personal conflict and escalate it into a societal issue and rope as many others into the drama as possible.

    They will force all their Facebook friends and teachers, and other authority figures to get involved in the issue and choose a side…and god help whoever chooses the wrong side.

    There is a fear of getting labelled a rape apologist or racist or ugly monster. Once you are tainted by these accusations, you can find yourself socially isolated…which is something no teenager wants.

    I think the changes happening are really affecting girls most of all. Boys are pretty much as they always were in private or among themselves - but they are smart enough to not want to stick their necks out and get themselves in trouble
    , @ben tillman

    It’s amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as “left-wing.”

    They’re about as left-wing as Richelieu.
     
    The goal of the Left is to obtain wealth and power for themselves, and they've been extremely successful. Why in the world would you expect the "rich and powerful" to be somewhere other than the Left? Five hundred years ago, sure, but now?
    , @andy russia
    there's also this thing where they say we lived in the best of times and that the past is Hitler, "misogyny" and whatnot.

    When someone points out the social rot, they invariably say something to the effect that the past is irredeemably evil and they invoke Pinker's book which "proves" that violence has gone down.

    when someone as much as says "I like innocent old movies", they're like "OMG what do you mean innocent, what about the Holocaust-racism-misogyny!!!eleven"

    It's scary. Imagine hordes of SJWs with a huge chip on their shoulder in charge of libraries, archives etc.

    And of course, they don't see how in the end, they're defending the status quo, a thoroughly elitist activity to start with that alone would undermine the little leftist street cred they have.

    , @Cloudbuster
    About as left-wing as Robespierre, actually.
  11. Meanwhile, in China they expect more than 3,400 cases of AIDS to be reported by the end of the year among students18-22 by the end of the year, with something like 81% contracted via gay sex.

    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-11/25/content_22518516.htm

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Meanwhile, in China they expect more than 3,400 cases of AIDS to be reported by the end of the year among students 18-22...
     
    Being China, their production will no doubt increase exponentially until they become the world's leading exporter.

    How many are in a case, by the way? Twelve?
    , @Anonymous
    To put this in perspective, new cases of HIV in the US are around 50,000 per year:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/health/04hiv.html
  12. If white girls decontextualize those verbal bullying skills it will blow up in their face later on when they look for a mate in their 20’s. By that time boys will have been exposed to it and know what to look out for, so when their date sinks a couple nasty verbal daggers into them, he drops her.

    I suspect this is already happening since a lot as girls are encouraged to go full on hostile towards boys. They really make staying in the dorm and playing CofD or doing a solitary hike on the weekend look attractive as compared to going on a date with a two legged pit viper with a schizoid personality.

  13. People don’t believe me when I tell them that thanks to feminism and women’s sexual freedom, America will fill up with adult male virgins, like in Japan. Then we read stories like this. Speculations about the effects of environmental hormones aside, the feminist death cult has managed to create disincentives hostile to boys’ natural drive to seek out mates by subjecting the less attractive young men to social, economic and even legal sanctions if they show sexual interest in girls.

    • Replies: @marty
    I've been saying for 20 years that youngsters weren't having sex. In the mid '90's, people would disagree by citing condom sales figures.
  14. But does is really make the female majority happier in the long run?

    A 25% rate of women today reliant on anti-depressants suggest not.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    Prozac and pills that control or almost eliminate their periods are what allow tens of millions of women to survive in jobs until retirement. This regimen permits women to experience some of the calm, steady nature of men, and they'll never give it up.
  15. Forget the harpies, let the Syrian refugees have them. Remember one thing, shrews only get worse over time, never better; if they’re on the borderline now they’ll be unbearable later. Do not invest. Ukrainian women are better looking anyway, cast your eyes upon them and be pleased.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Ukrainian certainly, but Russian, Polish, German, Dutch, Czech, Italian and particularly French as well. What they all have, the French above all, is femininity, which most American woman lost as a result of their historic need to step up and take over when the man of the house lay dead on the front porch with an Indian arrow through his heart.

    I would go so far as to say that American macho style homosexuality is directly related to this masculinisation of the American female: if you're going to get a "man" in any case, you might as well find a real one.
  16. @Desiderius
    It's amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as "left-wing."

    They're about as left-wing as Richelieu.

    ‘Left-wing’ means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful–women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    ‘Working class’ isn’t really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs–what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class–well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There’s a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    • Agree: Vendetta, CJ, dfordoom, Hail
    • Replies: @27 year old
    the worst part is how blind the american "left wing" is to this
    , @Mark Eugenikos

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality...
     
    Why would you say that? I believe quite a few people on this forum understand perfectly well the problems of excess inequality. And I mean here inequality in its various forms, i.e. economic (shipping middle class factory jobs overseas while importing third worlders to do IT/retail/service jobs), ethnic (again importing third worlders), cognitive (NAMs, both indigenous and imported), etc.

    Anybody who's traveled a bit would have realized that more harmonious societies are also more homogenous, i.e. less unequal. Examples: NW and central Europe before huge influx of immigrants, Japan, Korea. Who (at least among us here) wouldn't want to live in the U.S. that is like the U.S. from the fifties? It's well before my time but we've all heard and read plenty about it. What's not to like?
    , @ben tillman

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands....

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class....
     
    The Left has never had any concern for issues of "class". The back-and-forth between Trotsky and Dewey makes it clear that class conflict was a means to another end.
    , @anon
    Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.
    , @Desiderius

    ‘Left-wing’ means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful–women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.
     
    I can see why those who have created and propagated the fake-Left gain by so defining it. I fail to see how the rest of us, Left, Right, and Center, gain by agreeing with them and helping them spread the lie, however.

    There is also something to be said for truth, whatever one's ideology.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs–what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful."

    I do disagree. You are right that society needs people who will object to excess inequality, but it need not be leftists. And it shouldn't be them, because at root, leftists don't care. All they will ever really strive for is realizing their own will to power, using the aggrieved and the envious as thier tools.
    , @Anonymous
    That having a Democratic Party that cares more for such issues as LGBTQiA concerns & gun control nowadays than what lower class people actually care about such as good schools for their children, so-called 'right-to work' laws & minimum wage ordinances is as much as a result of the curtailing the ability of unions being able to be involved in the political process & the resultant inability for the party of JFK & LBJ to get their funding for working class folks as it is much the result of the Frankfurt School types taking over the DNC, which meant the democrats were now compelled to go somewhere else to get their funding, which eventually having to go so far as going to Wall Street to keep on keeping on. So as a result, the Democrats that do manage to make it to the White House happen to be corporatists in the vain of the Clintons & Obama(what happened to the promised change?). With that being said, it's amazing that even 50% of the electorate actually bothers to vote @ all, mostly in Presidential elections.
    , @Hail
    Thank you, SFG, for adding such excellent commentary to this discussion. Twittered:

    What does it mean to be on the Left today? https://t.co/VTUZc1NHvj (Comment by SFG, @Steve_Sailer blog, @UnzReview) pic.twitter.com/Fj21364XCj— Hail (@Hail__To_You) November 27, 2015
     

    @Hail__To_You @Steve_Sailer @UnzReview the comments on Steve's blogs are better than 98% of media from paid contributors.— Professor Avenue (@ProfAve) November 27, 2015
     
    , @reiner Tor

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality
     
    No, I think it's easy to agree with this.
  17. “But does it really make the female majority happier in the long run?”

    Short answer? A world of no.

    And of course, whose fault will that be? (We’ll return to the Wonderful World of Rhetorical Questions after a message from our sponsor ….)

  18. SFG,

    Agree with you 100 %. I came to this position from the left. Of those who agree with you how many are left wingers versus right wingers ?

    • Replies: @CJ
    I came to this position from the left

    I'm one of nature's right-wingers but in the last decade and a bit I've come to realize that globalization has a serious downside even if commies say so, old-style labour leaders were correct to oppose massive low-wage immigration, economists say whatever their sponsors want them to say, and "conservative" political parties assiduously serve their big business donors while abusing their small-business middle-class base. Another guy who figured a lot of this out before I did once told me that the journey from liberal to conservative is no big deal, it's the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.
    , @dfordoom

    Agree with you 100 %. I came to this position from the left. Of those who agree with you how many are left wingers versus right wingers ?
     
    I'm centre-left on economic issues and a social conservative (in fact by today's standards I'm an arch-reactionary on social issues). I don't see myself as having moved away from the Left - it was the Left that moved away from me. My views on social issues haven't changed much. 25 years ago my views on social issues were quite acceptable in leftist circles. 50 years ago they'd have been absolutely mainstream on the Left.

    I also found that the leftist party here (the Labor Party) was moving away from me on economic issues. They used to be an actual left-wing party. Now they're a party of big business but ultra-hard left on social issues.

    It was political correctness that disillusioned me with the Left. Particularly the intolerance displayed by feminists.
  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Desiderius
    It's amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as "left-wing."

    They're about as left-wing as Richelieu.

    It’s hard to deal with these sorts of girls, because they take a small scale personal conflict and escalate it into a societal issue and rope as many others into the drama as possible.

    They will force all their Facebook friends and teachers, and other authority figures to get involved in the issue and choose a side…and god help whoever chooses the wrong side.

    There is a fear of getting labelled a rape apologist or racist or ugly monster. Once you are tainted by these accusations, you can find yourself socially isolated…which is something no teenager wants.

    I think the changes happening are really affecting girls most of all. Boys are pretty much as they always were in private or among themselves – but they are smart enough to not want to stick their necks out and get themselves in trouble

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Anonymous wrote:

    Boys are pretty much as they always were in private or among themselves – but they are smart enough to not want to stick their necks out and get themselves in trouble
     
    Have you ever read Tom Wolfe's essay "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers"? The punchline is that all of the pampered little minorities who get to act out their grievances end up, in the end, back in the projects living miserable lives.

    I.e., the joke is on these kids who are flexing their rhetorical muscles trying to intimidate their betters. Yeah, a few of them will get sinecures as affirmative-action counselors or whatever. But most of them are going to end up with lousy lives.

    I kind of feel sorry for them. Of course, I can't help indulging myself occasionally just telling the truth to an SJW to see if I can cause him/her to have a coronary.

    Dave
    , @Forbes

    It’s hard to deal with these sorts of girls, because they take a small scale personal conflict and escalate it into a societal issue and rope as many others into the drama as possible.
     
    These sorts? Pretty much all girls and women, in my experience.
  20. Of course, most of that talent has been deployed over the millennia against their rivals in the sexual marketplace, other females (although little brothers and henpecked husbands have been victims too).

    So poor pathetic White guys are now victims of:

    black guys

    muslims

    illegal mexicans

    feminists

    cultural Marxists

    and now…………………..little girls!!!

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    The jiujitsu move of turning the enemy's attacks against itself is prominent among white nationalists. One Priss Factory is the most consistent exponent of this tactic, advocating that whites seek safe places. (One supposes, also claiming "micro-aggression.") But Steve Sailer is not above partaking.

    The fact is, it isn't unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    It's obfuscating to turn the free speech issue into one of gender oppression, just for the pleasure of turning the tables.
    , @Wyrd
    Comrade Rifleman, how goes battle with moose and squirrel?
    , @Mr. Anon
    'So poor pathetic White guys are now victims of:"

    Said by the guy whose screen name is "Rifleman".

    Why not just "Phallic-symbol-man", Chuck Connors?
    , @bomag
    Trolling works better when you have a grain of truth.

    It is not that White guys are victimized by "little girls". It is that our political enemies use the pretense of helping "little girls" to stifle debate; hide the truth; and extract more wealth from those who are creating it.
  21. Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Naah, it's easy. Chicks dig bad boys.

    She defines 'bad boy' as 'Republican', which kind of makes sense in her milieu. Sort of the like way Hollywood made Nazis sexy by making them powerful and evil, and launched a thousand BDSM fetishes.
    , @Anonymous
    A troll, a slut, or both.
    , @Anonymous
    One word….Clickbait
    , @Cwhatfuture
    Anyone who would marry that deserves what he gets.

    It left me disgusted.
    , @Trelane
    I read a few paragraphs, estimated its source and target IQ to be less than 110 and hit 'backspace'.
    , @cipher
    Romanian,

    The woman who wrote the article you linked to is a woman filled with resentment, revilement and a budding remorse. One can only hope and pray that she has enough awareness to prevent the world which made a home in her from making a home in her child.
    , @AndrewR
    That was certainly an interesting read.

    One must take all Salon stories with a grain of salt. There's a significant chance that they're all creative writing exercises.

    Anyway, not that the US wasn't politically polarized back in 2004 but it's far worse now. There's simply no common ground left. I despair for the future.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    It's predictable garbage, exaggerated when not made up entirely from whole cloth.

    Like that fake rape story in Rolling Stone.

    And yeah, girls like bad boys, as SFG said.

    Also, I speed-read the story, and I didn't get any indication that she herself was as good a lover as she wants us to believe. She being politically left, I would expect her to be as disappointing as the mythical Republican she says she fucked for 15 seconds. (I wonder if that was Haven Monahan.)
    , @Whiskey
    Fairly typical of most educated, professional women. They want a companion who is a sexless, teddy bear provider, and hot sex with bad boys. I think for a brief moment they can get it, but not for long. Eventually the teddy bear provider will disgust them, and probably catch on. Female infidelity is a deal breaker for the vast majority of men and always will be (deeply closeted gays the exception of course).

    Women of course enjoy degrading themselves. They find it Fifty Shades of Grey hot.

    Can the nuclear family as a widespread institution survive with most men knowing the true nature of female sexuality and desire? The utter unlikelihood of most women remaining faithful for those who are not uber Alpha? I would say, no. [The story was a woman's fantasy made for other women to read and find "hot." Or, gay-marriage norming straight marriage.]

    Like it or not, Whites are simply moving to Black norms of reproduction and family: single moms, kids with different bad boys, no fatherly involvement or support (why would there be any?) and men focused completely on being the baddest, sexiest, bad boys around. With the dearth of male cooperation and wealth building that implies. Asians *may* resist this for some time, but even in China and Japan you see signs of the same thing. I think even Mormons will dissolve under female hypergamy.

    Women can certainly have sexual freedom. Getting a man to stick around on the other hand is pretty unlikely. Women certainly don't like it, but chose it freely.

    Call it the Reverse Jane Austen. Instead of aunts and sisters and friends preaching choosiness and chastity until a woman chooses, its girrrrrrrrrllllll! power to slutty eleventy!!!11!! But its what women want to hear.
    , @CJ
    I speed-read that, so I only lost a few minutes of my life. Note the description of the author,

    ... a writer and academic advisor in Chicago.

    That means she's on the staff of some community college, telling prospective students what prerequisites they need and how to apply for financial aid. She doesn't make any money from writing or she wouldn't be in Salon.
    , @Big Bill
    It may have been written by a guy. One of those unemployed Comp Lit PhD guys. It really doesn't take much talent to write a bodice ripper, and guys have been churning out tons of those for over 75 years. Why do you assume it was written by a woman? Salon is a pulp rag, so why wouldn't they follow traditional pulp practices, like buying cheap bodice ripper clickbait from guy writers.
    , @Brutusale
    Give the quality of "man" that identifies as Democratic, what choice does she have?
    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    What do I think? Salon is the Weekly World News for libs.
    , @Elmer T. Jones
    She lied about the Republican sex. It was the best she ever had. Her editor told her to cast him as a sexual failure to prove that her leftist husband was in fact, the stud.

    Salon invests a lot of energy in portraying men as sexual losers. They routinely run essays portraying Trump supporters as sexually inadequate racists. But you can count on Salon to headline a dozen Trump photos per day. At the end of every essay is a collage of Trump as a lipstick-smeared prison bitch.
    , @anon
    option 1)

    she wants to be ****ed hard not soft (as suggested by her account of her early sex life)

    so either she needs someone naturally hot blooded or someone who has an ethnic hatred for flyover blonde women

    a lot of academic leftism is/was a scam for non hot blooded academic males to act like hot blooded rebels so they could get sex from buxom young blonde women

    (but they're not really hot blooded so it doesn't work long term)

    (her description of sex after Bush won the election as an exception to the rule suggests her husband has a low level of ethnic animosity towards her that was inflamed by Bush's win)

    eventually she got bored and picked someone who she thought would bang her the way she liked - the Republican thing was just a coincidence

    .

    option 2)

    i don't know how old she is but women go through their mid-life crisis around 30 instead of 40 for men. they often cheat around then but don't get caught as much - so this could be just that with added dramaz.

    .

    option 3)

    it's revenge - her husband cheated on her so she cheated back - when women do that they often pick a guy or a type of guy they know their husband / bf hates most.

    (which is really dumb btw)

    .

    making it public makes it seem more like the revenge option

    (although it might be that her being unsatisfied is what led to hubby trying to polish his ego with a young student who wouldn't know any better)

    , @Mr. Anon
    It's "Penthouse Letters" for the kind of woman that reads Salon. It might be about as real as Penthouse Letters was too.
    , @anon
    On reflection I think my earlier thinking was completely wrong and a good reminder to never take anything in the msm at face value.

    It's a man writing, someone like the husband in the story.
    , @Curle
    I didn't know Ta Nehisi Coates wrote under a female pseudonym.
    , @AnAnon
    "One year, Uncle So-and-So dropping n-bombs before we even reached the table. Another year, Dad’s Coworker X openly wishing “Monica [Lewinsky] had taken a big chomping bite.” " - Fake.
    , @KP
    Bullshit of the highest order, and/or Yet Another Proof of Poe's Law.
  22. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    the worst part is how blind the american “left wing” is to this

  23. >Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR<

    ruining class

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28United_States%29

    • Replies: @SFG
    Actually, I've always been convinced the endocrine disrupters are behind a lot of men who feel 'female', and the right won't say anything because it makes companies look bad and the left won't say anything because it makes transgenderism look bad.
  24. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    Naah, it’s easy. Chicks dig bad boys.

    She defines ‘bad boy’ as ‘Republican’, which kind of makes sense in her milieu. Sort of the like way Hollywood made Nazis sexy by making them powerful and evil, and launched a thousand BDSM fetishes.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    I know the Chateau Heartiste angle, but I can't explain to myself the kind of exhibitionism that makes you write this, especially if your cuckolded husband might read it. Also, the article gives you the sense that the political vitriol is tearing Americans apart. The woman actually demonizes and dehumanizes people of a different political color in a two-party state. I've never experienced anything like this at any family reunion, with or without strangers. My parents, and they're not alone in this, wouldn't even tell me who they voted for, saying it's impolite to ask. If politics is not studiously avoided, then it's trivialized. My relative in the military tells me about being in Iraq and Afghanistan, my doctor relative tells me about the state of the health system, some international relations seep in, but I don't think anyone would go "you dirty fascist" or something like that. And there's certainly no political proselytizing. I think the younger generation, growing up with American media, is more political, but in an aimless way, more for status points. They're actually emoting American (lefty) liberalism, but in a sterile way, since it has no bearing on their society. We have no Blacks to oppress, no slavery we feel the need to atone for (the beauty of late feudalism is that your ancestors were likely slaves/serfs as well, not just the Roma, they were just freed earlier) etc. I particularly like ganging up on my girlfriend with her mother to hector her about refugees, on which she started out as a good little European values goodwhite. The refugee thing has become my own little "Carthago delenda est" and I keep undermining her and her friends' (all of them women, the men take what I give them as ammo) worldview with hatefacts.
    , @Simon in London
    I think that was Hugo Boss, not Hollywood.
  25. For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don’t give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I’m guessing revenge porn, dick pics and “smile more, honey” just exists in the figment of women’s imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    • Replies: @SFG
    Sure, call your opponents losers. It's funny how the left is so happy to represent *economic market* losers (which I'm in favor of), but *sexual market* losers are worthy of mockery...
    , @ayatollah1988
    It's not a personal gripe against women. Your comment is almost as dumb as when you claimed that Steve's criticism of Clock Boy was due to jealousy.
    , @Anonym
    A lot of us here are married, or otherwise do not struggle with attracting women.
    , @anon
    The post is a report about how PC teachers create and maintain an anti-male climate at school.
    , @pyrrhus
    Classic troll projection and deception....
    , @Kit
    You're going to get nothing but grief for posting this from this crowd of pantswetters cowering in terror at teenage girls, but thank you. You speak truth.
    , @ben tillman

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women.
     
    You have to be an idiot to think your comment is responsive to Steve's post. It had nothing to do with how men feel around women; it had to do with how men feel around women in contexts in which the power structure enforces double standards to their detriment.

    The problem, and the enemy, isn't the women. It's the power structure that enables and encourages their aggression.
    , @Tracy

    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don’t give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I’m guessing revenge porn, dick pics and “smile more, honey” just exists in the figment of women’s imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!
     
    The emasculating of men hasn't ended at all, quite obviously, so it wouldn't have ended with your "self-respecting, successful women" not giving a shit about "Steve Sailer-men." I, as a woman, would take Steve Sailer and "Steve Sailer-men" over an SJW type without thinking twice about it. What woman truly wants a weak man who allows himself to be bossed around, is led by politically correct demagogues, and doesn't have the brains to see what's happening to Western civilization -- or the 'nads to want to do something about it? There is not much sexier than brains, and it's conservative men who have them. I'd take "a Steve Sailer-man" over an idiot Brad Pitt every time.

    Contrary to your apparent belief, there are lots of conservative women out there. You don't hear much from us because the people who control the channels of culture don't want you to. But if you'd head out of your gentrified, hipster neighborhood and take a look around, you'll see that we are legion.

    All that said, as someone who's deal with customer service, I really loathe that "Smile, honey" routine. It's not a "Steve Sailer-man" phenomenon, however. At least not in my experience. Far from it! And while women typically don't engage in revenge porn, they're definitely the types to key cars, harass a guy at work so he gets fired, engage in domestic violence and get away with it, lie about rape, lie about their husbands molesting their kids if they want custody, and do a huge slew of other nasty-ass things. And dick pics? I bet that for every dick pic out there, there's a picture of some naked chick making with the duck face. Get real, man.
  26. What’s the line?
    “there’ll be no final victor in the War Between the Sexes.”

    Because there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.

    Although much less so than when Kissinger said it.

  27. @SFG
    Naah, it's easy. Chicks dig bad boys.

    She defines 'bad boy' as 'Republican', which kind of makes sense in her milieu. Sort of the like way Hollywood made Nazis sexy by making them powerful and evil, and launched a thousand BDSM fetishes.

    I know the Chateau Heartiste angle, but I can’t explain to myself the kind of exhibitionism that makes you write this, especially if your cuckolded husband might read it. Also, the article gives you the sense that the political vitriol is tearing Americans apart. The woman actually demonizes and dehumanizes people of a different political color in a two-party state. I’ve never experienced anything like this at any family reunion, with or without strangers. My parents, and they’re not alone in this, wouldn’t even tell me who they voted for, saying it’s impolite to ask. If politics is not studiously avoided, then it’s trivialized. My relative in the military tells me about being in Iraq and Afghanistan, my doctor relative tells me about the state of the health system, some international relations seep in, but I don’t think anyone would go “you dirty fascist” or something like that. And there’s certainly no political proselytizing. I think the younger generation, growing up with American media, is more political, but in an aimless way, more for status points. They’re actually emoting American (lefty) liberalism, but in a sterile way, since it has no bearing on their society. We have no Blacks to oppress, no slavery we feel the need to atone for (the beauty of late feudalism is that your ancestors were likely slaves/serfs as well, not just the Roma, they were just freed earlier) etc. I particularly like ganging up on my girlfriend with her mother to hector her about refugees, on which she started out as a good little European values goodwhite. The refugee thing has become my own little “Carthago delenda est” and I keep undermining her and her friends’ (all of them women, the men take what I give them as ammo) worldview with hatefacts.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Most ordinary Americans generally avoid talking about things like politics or religion at dinners and get togethers, especially when they're larger affairs and there's people you don't know as well or see as often and their guests and stuff.
  28. Has everyone here forgotten the decades long dosing of millions of boys who showed “inappropriate behavior” with Ritalin?

    Maybe Obama should have the Air Force and Navy bomb ISIS’s water supply with Ritalin.

    • Replies: @Bryan Bell
    Ritalin is a stimulant.
  29. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    A troll, a slut, or both.

  30. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    One word….Clickbait

  31. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality…

    Why would you say that? I believe quite a few people on this forum understand perfectly well the problems of excess inequality. And I mean here inequality in its various forms, i.e. economic (shipping middle class factory jobs overseas while importing third worlders to do IT/retail/service jobs), ethnic (again importing third worlders), cognitive (NAMs, both indigenous and imported), etc.

    Anybody who’s traveled a bit would have realized that more harmonious societies are also more homogenous, i.e. less unequal. Examples: NW and central Europe before huge influx of immigrants, Japan, Korea. Who (at least among us here) wouldn’t want to live in the U.S. that is like the U.S. from the fifties? It’s well before my time but we’ve all heard and read plenty about it. What’s not to like?

  32. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    Anyone who would marry that deserves what he gets.

    It left me disgusted.

  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A factor in the feminization of young white males over recent decades — at least as regards public school students — has been lower participation rates in the contact sports due to at least two factors:

    1) school and school district consolidation beginning mainly in the 1970s: This resulted in much larger consolidated high schools where sports like football became increasingly the domain of elite athletes. My county in western North Carolina had 9 small community high schools in the 1950s and early 1960s. Each high school had a football team, for example. Now, with it has 3 high schools, and that’s with a population about twice as large as when there were nine high schools. Where there was once 9 quarterbacks, there are now 3.

    2) racial integration: This put whites, who mature about a year later than blacks, at a disadvantage in competition for starting positions, quite apart for innate average differences in the foot speed, for example.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Actually, yeah. It might actually be better to have worse football teams by giving more kids a chance to play, and thus expanding the number of kids who do some sort of sport--it has health benefits and personality benefits. But it's hard, because who doesn't want a winning team?
  34. This post is emblematic of typical old man talk with no more than a topical understanding of the current youth or even the youth of years past. At times Steve seems tripped up by the theater of today’s rebellious young adult rather than its actual substance. Whether the fashion is flapper ware, smoking or wearing tie dye. The outward imagine and behaviors are irrelevant. It’s simply an expression of precociousness except the mechanism has changed.

    Now women think they really can wear big boy pants and do everything a man can do. The crushing reality of a limited time span of attractiveness combined with the cruel certainty of loneliness outside of the traditional monogamous paradigm will wear out these neo-feminists.

    And they will all be doomed to multiple cat ownership. No need to fret.

    • Replies: @a Newsreader
    I would prefer that more girls become pleasant young women instead of insolent harpies. For every unhappy middle-aged single cat-woman there's an equally unhappy middle-aged single man. This isn't good for anyone.
    , @SFG
    Sure, but they can wreck society while they're at it.

    There's also a more subtle problem. Historically, the left was the guardian of free speech (yes, really). If they now decide free speech is only good when it favors minorities, women, and LGBTCBY (you can actually find Jews on both sides of this issue), the right is obviously going to counterattack by going after blasphemy like it's 1799, and we're going to have a ridiculous situation where there are hate-speech laws against insulting blacks *and* Christians. (Read up on the 'food disparagement' laws of the Midwest if you want to see one of the ridiculous things the right is capable of.)

    And another old Anglo-Saxon freedom will be lost.
  35. @Rifleman

    Of course, most of that talent has been deployed over the millennia against their rivals in the sexual marketplace, other females (although little brothers and henpecked husbands have been victims too).
     
    So poor pathetic White guys are now victims of:

    black guys

    muslims

    illegal mexicans

    feminists

    cultural Marxists

    and now.......................little girls!!!

    The jiujitsu move of turning the enemy’s attacks against itself is prominent among white nationalists. One Priss Factory is the most consistent exponent of this tactic, advocating that whites seek safe places. (One supposes, also claiming “micro-aggression.”) But Steve Sailer is not above partaking.

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    It’s obfuscating to turn the free speech issue into one of gender oppression, just for the pleasure of turning the tables.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.
     
    But Whites aren't high-status. We may be high status in a sense, or from a particular perspective, but we're low-status in other senses and from other perspectives. Officially, and the government's official policy is pretty damn important, Whites are the lowest-status population in the country.

    And it isn't unusual for low-status groups to be subjected to persecution by high-status groups.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    Built into your words is the assumption that the sexes are the same. They are not.

    This "free speech issue" puts boys down more than girls, and the evidence is right in front of your face, but you choose to "obfuscate" it by sneaking your assumptions about the sexes into your argument without stating or admitting it.

    What you just did is "prominent" among anti-white racists.

    Happy Thanksgiving.
    , @Bob Arctor

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.
     
    Over here in reality practically every society in recorded history placed far harsher restrictions on lower status castes than on higher status ones; it's so lopsided that I can't think of even one clear exception to this rule.

    It's almost impressive in a way that you can write transparently obvious and utterly idiotic lies so easily, but then again I guess it just comes naturally to you. It's scary to think that you (and people like you) get away with it so much of the time.

    NB: Since when did ~37% of the population become "the masses"?

    , @SFG
    It's complicated.

    A majority of high-status positions are held by white men. (Even subtracting Jews, this is still true.)

    White men as a whole face discrimination in government employment, university admissions, and are subject to PC policing if they say something out of line. They are the butts of endless jokes on TV and film meant to attack their self-esteem.

    So high-status white men don't really care about affirmative action because they'll give a slot to their daughter, and their son can marry a woman who has her own career (or trust fund). Low-status white men see their job opportunities curtailed and a lot of bile directed at them when they turn on the TV to relax with a beer after busting their butts hauling boxes at Walmart.
    , @Paco Wové
    "The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to."

    An example or two would be nice.
  36. OT:

    Here’s the coalition of the fringes in action

    The who is the muslim aboriginal and the whom is a jew

    Pretty funny.

    Also, Andrew Bolt, Australia’s leading “conservative” pundit, doesn’t have any sympathy for the jew being abused in the video

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tribal_warfare_in_melbourne/

  37. @Hosswire
    But does is really make the female majority happier in the long run?

    A 25% rate of women today reliant on anti-depressants suggest not.

    Prozac and pills that control or almost eliminate their periods are what allow tens of millions of women to survive in jobs until retirement. This regimen permits women to experience some of the calm, steady nature of men, and they’ll never give it up.

  38. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    I read a few paragraphs, estimated its source and target IQ to be less than 110 and hit ‘backspace’.

  39. @Desiderius
    It's amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as "left-wing."

    They're about as left-wing as Richelieu.

    It’s amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as “left-wing.”

    They’re about as left-wing as Richelieu.

    The goal of the Left is to obtain wealth and power for themselves, and they’ve been extremely successful. Why in the world would you expect the “rich and powerful” to be somewhere other than the Left? Five hundred years ago, sure, but now?

  40. There is method to this madness of course. By fostering war against their white brothers, fathers, and male peers, the left helps decimate the population, making it easier to replace them with more leftist lower IQ third-worlders who will be compliant in keeping them in power and paying no attention as the regime becomes more fascist. Everything the leftist does is aimed at gaining and maintaining political power.

    On a different subject, your July piece on the lightening of Neymar is at the top of Unz again. Comments are closed, but it occurred to me that Neymar almost certainly dreams of becoming the next Ayrton Senna. Senna’s funeral in 1994 was a State spectacle of the type you’d imagine for a Pope.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I don't recall ever hearing about Senna before this.

    I just read his wikipedia article. Fighter jets escorting the plane carrying his coffin? The largest gathering of mourners in modern times? For a racing driver? Seriously, this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response.
    , @IA

    Everything the leftist does is aimed at gaining and maintaining political power.
     
    The more screwed up you are the more "rights" you have. The civil rights movement of the 60s mau-maued the flak catchers. Traditionalist white men are the most competitive and successful group by far (especially when motivated and organized) and therefore serve as permanent flak catchers. It cannot end. But . . .

    If white men want to take one big step, stop buying the human rights racket, it's way past its due date.
    , @5371
    Neymar has cut his hair short and buckled down to playing football, with good results.
  41. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    Romanian,

    The woman who wrote the article you linked to is a woman filled with resentment, revilement and a budding remorse. One can only hope and pray that she has enough awareness to prevent the world which made a home in her from making a home in her child.

  42. I’m impressed Haidt mentioned Marcuse. It feels like there was a big intellectual counter offensive against the “cultural Marxism conspiracy theory” recently.

    • Replies: @fnn
    The CM/FS theory is going mainstream. A veteran National Review-type conservative recently had a major book published on the topic:
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Pleasure-Palace-Subversion/dp/159403768X
    , @SFG
    I suspect he reads Sailer, at the very least.
    , @Desiderius
    The edit history on Wikipedia for Cultural Marxism is pretty fascinating. Dalrock's very talented party minder Boxer also frequently contorts himself in pretzels trying to deny it exists.
  43. @Romanian
    I know the Chateau Heartiste angle, but I can't explain to myself the kind of exhibitionism that makes you write this, especially if your cuckolded husband might read it. Also, the article gives you the sense that the political vitriol is tearing Americans apart. The woman actually demonizes and dehumanizes people of a different political color in a two-party state. I've never experienced anything like this at any family reunion, with or without strangers. My parents, and they're not alone in this, wouldn't even tell me who they voted for, saying it's impolite to ask. If politics is not studiously avoided, then it's trivialized. My relative in the military tells me about being in Iraq and Afghanistan, my doctor relative tells me about the state of the health system, some international relations seep in, but I don't think anyone would go "you dirty fascist" or something like that. And there's certainly no political proselytizing. I think the younger generation, growing up with American media, is more political, but in an aimless way, more for status points. They're actually emoting American (lefty) liberalism, but in a sterile way, since it has no bearing on their society. We have no Blacks to oppress, no slavery we feel the need to atone for (the beauty of late feudalism is that your ancestors were likely slaves/serfs as well, not just the Roma, they were just freed earlier) etc. I particularly like ganging up on my girlfriend with her mother to hector her about refugees, on which she started out as a good little European values goodwhite. The refugee thing has become my own little "Carthago delenda est" and I keep undermining her and her friends' (all of them women, the men take what I give them as ammo) worldview with hatefacts.

    Most ordinary Americans generally avoid talking about things like politics or religion at dinners and get togethers, especially when they’re larger affairs and there’s people you don’t know as well or see as often and their guests and stuff.

  44. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands….

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class….

    The Left has never had any concern for issues of “class”. The back-and-forth between Trotsky and Dewey makes it clear that class conflict was a means to another end.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Can you tell us what you mean by that? I doubt I'm the only one here who has never taken much interest in internecine communist disputes.
    , @SFG
    It was Debs' primary concern. FDR was known as a 'traitor to his class' and so on. Bernie Sanders, in another era, seems pretty much focused on economic issues, to the point of getting Black Lives Matter on his case. There are countless other examples, at least up through the sixties.
  45. Part of the problem is that civil debate is so rare nowadays from any corner. On the mainstream left it’s pretty much completely discouraged towards members of “privileged” groups. So these children have had few real models of civil and rational discussion, and they’ve been actively indoctrinated into thinking that people who think different from them are evil.

    While the seeds for all this were planted long ago, this has really only started to bloom in the last few years. It may seem like a short time for us adults but for a 17 year old this is all they’ve known since they reached the formal operational stage of thought.

    Since Seattle is essentially Ground Zero of the SJW phenomenon, and since “elite” thought is so thoroughly cucked at this point, it’s hardly a surprise that students at this elite high school would react like they did.

    I really like Haidt and his work but I figured he could have seen this coming.

  46. @ben tillman

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands....

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class....
     
    The Left has never had any concern for issues of "class". The back-and-forth between Trotsky and Dewey makes it clear that class conflict was a means to another end.

    Can you tell us what you mean by that? I doubt I’m the only one here who has never taken much interest in internecine communist disputes.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Can you tell us what you mean by that? I doubt I’m the only one here who has never taken much interest in internecine communist disputes.
     
    The gentile Left (as you might term it) or gentile "communists" or "socialists" from Robert Owen to Dewey sought to foster class cooperation, while Jews like Trotsky sought to foster class conflict.

    Welshman Robert Owen is often said to have coined the term “communism” in the first half of the 19th century, although a Wikipedia entry now attributes it to a French follower of Owen. Owen envisioned, and the term denoted, a societal arrangement of class cooperation (“hierarchic harmony” in MacDonald’s terms, “stratified stability” in T.D. Seeley’s terms, etc.). Marx and his Jewish successors like Trotsky, however, conceptualized a “communism” marked by class conflict.

    There’s a remarkable little book called “Their Morals and Ours” documenting the exchange between Trotsky and the socialist Dewey a century later. Dewey continued to advocate class cooperation while Trotsky advocated class conflict and the pursuit of a morality determined by the answer to the following question: Is it good for the revolution? Class conflict, apparently, was good for the revolution.

    Exchanges like the Dewey-Trotsky and Dewey-Lippmann exchanges reflect fundamental differences in the Jewish and non-Jewish conceptualization of the “leftist” project.

    Walter Lippmann (author of Public Opinion and The Phantom Public) contended that democracy (self-government) was impossible in an age of increasing complexity. He advocated government by a technocratic elite with “journalists” acting as intermediaries generating public support for the policies of the elite. Dewey rejected this idea and preferred the construction of a functioning democracy through education and uplifting of the public and through a focus on politics at the level of the local community.

    In other words, Dewey advocated cooperation, decentralization of power, and self-rule. If you consider those things to be policies of "The Left", then, indeed, "society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality."
  47. @Clyde
    Must be those estrogen like chemicals leaking from the plastic in bottled water. I am serious, that it might be part of the problem, making boys docile.

    Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR
    http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals
    Mar 02, 2011 · Most plastic products, from sippy cups to food wraps, can release chemicals that act like the sex hormone estrogen, according to a study in …

    I, for one, welcome our estrogenic plastic overwrap.

  48. @Leftist conservative
    that strategy of making females into pseudo-males also pays off for rich investors--more aggressive females are more likely to be able to better compete against males in the workforce...thus increasing the supply of labor and consumers, depressing wage, increasing sales, increasing the GDP and economic growth. Makes the rich richer. But that's just a coincidence. Because there is no way that anything important in america has anything to do with economics or corporate profits. America is not like that.

    Centrist, do you always repeat the same thing under Steve’s blogposts? I.e. that evil capitalists are behind all our worries and that in particular they have conspired to create the feminist movement.
    I mean, everyone here has already understood your great political discovery and you could – maybe? – give some other pearls of your wisdom, like a hypothesis on the capitalistic origins of the concept of ‘safe-space’ or some other highly literate and empirically proven idea.

    • Replies: @Leftist conservative
    sorry about that....did I trigger you? You might wanna go to your safe space, hon....
  49. @Stephen R. Diamond
    The jiujitsu move of turning the enemy's attacks against itself is prominent among white nationalists. One Priss Factory is the most consistent exponent of this tactic, advocating that whites seek safe places. (One supposes, also claiming "micro-aggression.") But Steve Sailer is not above partaking.

    The fact is, it isn't unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    It's obfuscating to turn the free speech issue into one of gender oppression, just for the pleasure of turning the tables.

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    But Whites aren’t high-status. We may be high status in a sense, or from a particular perspective, but we’re low-status in other senses and from other perspectives. Officially, and the government’s official policy is pretty damn important, Whites are the lowest-status population in the country.

    And it isn’t unusual for low-status groups to be subjected to persecution by high-status groups.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    But Whites aren’t high-status.
     
    A (very small) subset of whites are high(est) status. They've figured out that it is in their interest to propagate the lie that the average white (also applies to male) partakes in the privileges which go along with that status. The lie serves to deflect attention away from that subset and toward those who would other be their most serious competition.

    Creating a fake Left has proven to be a brilliant stroke in executing this strategy.
    , @Romanian
    Maybe you need to relearn the vocabulary that would explain this. Take the words high/low, caste and slavery. What would describe certain Whites, the kind that make the world go round but can't get no respect, is "high caste slaves", like coders and the like, who have to walk on said eggshells. Blue collar and frayed collar Whites are low caste slaves. Look at South Africa. Meanwhile, minorities and the like can be high caste or low caste, but they're free. In ancient times, the free, but very poor, Roman citizen was considered of higher standing than the slave tutoring a patrician's son in Greek and mathematics. He also enjoyed a greater standing in front of the law and certain privileges (in the classical sense, of things being awarded to the few, not an innate trait of the many) not available to the slave.
    , @Jonathan Silber
    Whites are still high-status and always will be, even if they were to become a minority in their own land. What Whites can achieve, and in fact do achieve, no others can; that alone will always give them place of honor among the races--as well as making themselves, of course, object of the envy, hatred, & resentment, of the lesser peoples.

    And even in the absence of superior ability, Whites would retain high status on the strength of sheer good looks alone: for the rest of the world, White beauty is the Gold Standard.

  50. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    That was certainly an interesting read.

    One must take all Salon stories with a grain of salt. There’s a significant chance that they’re all creative writing exercises.

    Anyway, not that the US wasn’t politically polarized back in 2004 but it’s far worse now. There’s simply no common ground left. I despair for the future.

  51. @anony-mouse
    Can't anybody here look on the bright side?

    Emasculated male Democrats now (and Democrats is what these kids are) means fewer Democrats in the future.

    It's hard enough already for Democrats to reproduce (Carter is the only postwar Dem POTUS to have more than 2 kids vs 2 being the minimum number of postwar GOP POTUS kids).

    Dems have been counting on outnumbering the GOP in the future. Not among their elite they won't.

    White Dems are a dying breed. Blacks and Aztecs, not so much.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    White Dems are a dying breed. Blacks and Aztecs, not so much
     
    Did you read the article? They own education, including the media, and so they own your kids.
    , @Hail

    White Dems are a dying breed.
     
    This is often taken for granted. How true is it?

    According to GSS: White women born 1944-1974 (sample size=5,343) who were between ages of 40-50 at the time of data collection (in 1994-2014, i.e., having reached their final lifetime completed fertilities) had the following fertility rates by political orientation:

    [Political Identification] (% of Pop.): Final Lifetime TFR (Whites age 40+) (GSS variables: childs, age, race, 1994-2014)
    1. [Strong Democrat] (10%): 1.61 Final TFR
    2. [Not Strong Democrat] (16%): 1.83
    3. [Independent, Near Democrat] (11%): 1.79
    4. [Independent] (18%): 2.00
    5. [Independent, Near Republican] (10%): 1.86
    6. [Not Strong Republican] (19%): 2.12
    7. [Strong Republican] (13%): 2.14
    8. [Other Party] (2%): 1.89

    The difference in final fertility (acc. to GSS) between White Democrats (categories 1,2,3 above) and White Republicans (5,6,7) is 2.07:1.76, or given equal starting numbers, a Republican child generation 118% as large as a Democrat child generation.

    Another way of looking at it (given replacement fertility = 2.1) is that both groups are shrinking, but White Democrats are shrinking somewhat faster.

    White Republicans, base population 100, at 2.07 TFR
    First child generation: 98
    Second child generation: 96
    Third child generation: 94 (Starting today as Year Zero, this will be past year 2100)

    White Democrats, base population 100, at 1.76 TFR
    First child generation: 84
    Second child generation: 70
    Third child generation: 59

    New ratio, given equal starting numbers, in third child generation: 94:59, or 160 White Republicans for 100 White Democrats (assuming that political ideology is perfectly inherited).

    Two other trends overshadow this, though: Firstly, even White conservatives' relatively higher fertility really cannot compete with Nonwhite fertility, even First World Nonwhite fertility, which would make this all a parlor game, like different Christian sects spending energy debating each other on esoteric points of theology in Egypt in the 700s and 800s AD, including looking into different fertility rates among adherents to different points of view in the ongoing theological disputes. Egypt was invaded by an Islamic army in the mid-600s and became majority Muslim by the 900s... Secondly, White conservatives with higher fertility may be drawn disproportionately from the left side of the Bell Curve in overall ability, which, if true, is dysgenic and not necessarily desirable. Richard Spencer, a rising leader on what has been called the dissident Right, or "AltRight," says that such people outbreeding "liberal Whites" is not a good thing. "They are not capable of governing".
  52. @Wanderer
    Meanwhile, in China they expect more than 3,400 cases of AIDS to be reported by the end of the year among students18-22 by the end of the year, with something like 81% contracted via gay sex.

    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-11/25/content_22518516.htm

    Meanwhile, in China they expect more than 3,400 cases of AIDS to be reported by the end of the year among students 18-22…

    Being China, their production will no doubt increase exponentially until they become the world’s leading exporter.

    How many are in a case, by the way? Twelve?

    • Replies: @Olorin
    A gross.
    , @Gato de la Biblioteca
    Don't be a tool. You know damned well and good that a case is 24.
  53. It’s interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite – blondes are more likely to be homely “dog girls” and brunettes are urbane, “cat girls.”

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    • Replies: @SFG
    In movies, it might be the old Jewish love of thinking of themselves as these down-home Lower East Side types fighting against the evil WASPs. Of course this gets reversed in reality with big city types (disproportionately Jewish, some Italians) and heartlanders (Germanic and hence blonde).

    You see a similar dynamic with rom-coms, I think.
    , @Herr Niemand
    Genetic footprint of vikings?
    , @This Is Our Home

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing,
     
    Hair dye.
    , @Clyde

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.
     
    OK but are they natural blonds? Though tinting their hair blond will/might make them go blond as far as blond behavior. What they think blond behavior is. So is it blond genetics at work or brunettes going blond too? Inquiring men's minds want to know for beach volleyball and tennis. Golf....not as much.
    , @Steve Sailer
    "Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes."

    Among natural blondes, that might well be true. Women in the Nordic countries like sports more than women in the Mediterranean countries.

    Nobody seems less interested in sports than Mexican-American girls. Has there ever been a prominent Mexican-American female athlete? I used to assume that Lisa Fernandez, the great UCLA softball player of the 1980s, was a local Mexican-American girl, but she turns out to be Caribbean (Cuban and Puerto Rican) born in NYC.
    , @Unladen Swallow
    I don't notice that in the US, it may be an Anglo-Australian thing, due to less darker haired people and the propensity of blonde(ish) hair to get lighter when exposed to the Sun, which I imagine is common in Australia. There is also the hair dye angle, a lot of blondes aren't really blonde. I would say in my little corner of the world, the taller (although not necessarily more athletic) women seem to be disproportionately black or dark brown in hair color.
    , @Wilkey
    It’s interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite – blondes are more likely to be homely “dog girls” and brunettes are urbane, “cat girls.”

    You've just described the plot of the extremely popular Broadway musical "Wicked," and there is most certainly an ethnic, WASP v. Jew angle to it. Glenda is rich, dumb, blonde, and mean. Elpheba (the Wicked Witch) is smart, talented, good, and arrives at school dressed pretty much like a Hasidic Jew. The WASP v. Jew references and the multiple allusions to Nazi Germany were so obvious to me that I'm surprised I have never read comment on them before. The show is also wayyyy overrated. Entirely worth missing.
    , @Rodolfo
    I had also noticed it before. I think it is something biological, as blondes generally have narrower hips than mediterranean women and longer legs. Probably the mediterranean girls have more estrogen.
    , @Andrew
    @unpc dowunder

    "Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc."

    No you aren't. My daughter's elite level lacrosse team to is 16 blondes, 3 redheads, and 3 brunettes. No girls with black hair.

    They are 15 year odds, so this isn't hair dye.
    , @Melendwyr
    Being outdoors in sunlight tends to lighten hair, and quite a lot of people have hair that darkens during winter and brightens during summer as a result.
  54. @Stephen R. Diamond
    The jiujitsu move of turning the enemy's attacks against itself is prominent among white nationalists. One Priss Factory is the most consistent exponent of this tactic, advocating that whites seek safe places. (One supposes, also claiming "micro-aggression.") But Steve Sailer is not above partaking.

    The fact is, it isn't unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    It's obfuscating to turn the free speech issue into one of gender oppression, just for the pleasure of turning the tables.

    Built into your words is the assumption that the sexes are the same. They are not.

    This “free speech issue” puts boys down more than girls, and the evidence is right in front of your face, but you choose to “obfuscate” it by sneaking your assumptions about the sexes into your argument without stating or admitting it.

    What you just did is “prominent” among anti-white racists.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

    • Agree: This Is Our Home
  55. OT:

    Devastating analysis of the Harvard Law School hate crime hoax by Harvard Law School students.

    https://royallasses.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/0-relax/

    • Replies: @PenskeFile
    That is some first-class work!
  56. I taught an esoteric subject at university and the result was that all the students in my groups got to know each other really well. The overall behaviour of the group depended on the alpha female, who was not always the prettiest or the brightest. The alpha-female in my best ever class was a Welsh girl and her side-kick. The side-kick was an A-student with film star good looks. The alpha female was neither of those things.

    The worst class was when I was a mature student in NZ. The chief bitch was a conceited little viper. She was moderately pretty and not at all bright, but back-stabbing and cruelty was how she made her mark and asserted her authority.

    At another university, I had a real problem class (two were sent down). I took the alpha-female aside and we had a frank discussion. She was not a particularly nice person, but she saw the error of her ways and things had turned around within two weeks.

    Women enforce social norms far more than men do. This is why the popularity of PC among women is such a problem. They do not face you like a man. They spread poison behind the back of their chosen victims.

    HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews (for their esprit de corps and IQ). Driving them away is folly. I have tried to appeal to their self-interest by pointing out that the people moving to Europe and violently anti-Semitic and misogynistic. I have had a lot more success with Jews than white women, who take a perverse pride in holding two mutually incompatible positions.

    • Replies: @Herr Niemand
    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?
    , @neutral
    "HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews"

    Truly laughable, the group of people that are more responsible than anyone else for this now are going to switch sides ? First of all, they will never switch sides, the non white world is much more in their favour than a white one, white nationalism is by far a greater threat than the occasional terror attack. Second, what makes you think that most HBD-friendly groups would want them on our side ?
    , @SFG
    Oy. I hope you're right, but given what I've seen, I'm not optimistic.
    , @Cryptogenic
    Eschewing all attempts at diversity and just appealing to smart white men is enough.

    As for women interested in HBD: You can have Lagertha.
  57. @Wanderer
    Meanwhile, in China they expect more than 3,400 cases of AIDS to be reported by the end of the year among students18-22 by the end of the year, with something like 81% contracted via gay sex.

    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-11/25/content_22518516.htm

    To put this in perspective, new cases of HIV in the US are around 50,000 per year:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/health/04hiv.html

  58. @advancedatheist
    People don't believe me when I tell them that thanks to feminism and women's sexual freedom, America will fill up with adult male virgins, like in Japan. Then we read stories like this. Speculations about the effects of environmental hormones aside, the feminist death cult has managed to create disincentives hostile to boys' natural drive to seek out mates by subjecting the less attractive young men to social, economic and even legal sanctions if they show sexual interest in girls.

    I’ve been saying for 20 years that youngsters weren’t having sex. In the mid ’90’s, people would disagree by citing condom sales figures.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    Condom sales probably follow a Pareto distribution like many other phenomena: 20 percent of the men buy 80 percent of the condoms. Also by the 1990's the aggressive marketing of condoms to gays as a way to prevent HIV transmission might have added to the sales.
  59. @ben tillman

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.
     
    But Whites aren't high-status. We may be high status in a sense, or from a particular perspective, but we're low-status in other senses and from other perspectives. Officially, and the government's official policy is pretty damn important, Whites are the lowest-status population in the country.

    And it isn't unusual for low-status groups to be subjected to persecution by high-status groups.

    But Whites aren’t high-status.

    A (very small) subset of whites are high(est) status. They’ve figured out that it is in their interest to propagate the lie that the average white (also applies to male) partakes in the privileges which go along with that status. The lie serves to deflect attention away from that subset and toward those who would other be their most serious competition.

    Creating a fake Left has proven to be a brilliant stroke in executing this strategy.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    They’ve figured out that it is in their interest to propagate the lie that the average white (also applies to male) partakes in the privileges which go along with that status. The lie serves to deflect attention away from that subset and toward those who would other be their most serious competition.
     
    Forty years ago there was white privilege for whites of all classes and the New Left back then made a bid deal about it. Working class whites did have a leg up, such as Irish-Americans hiring the same and their fellow Catholics for big city fire and police jobs. But this has dwindled down to zero and gone negative by today. What we have today is non-white privilege via non-whites hiring their own kind and via affirmative action. There are also "old boy" networks of women, lesbians and gays who do their best hire people same as themselves in university administration jobs and various FedGuv and State and county agencies. Congressional staff has trended very gay for years. Of course they can do this with complete impunity. Though maybe once per year you read of a white male or female in Gov't or public school system suing due to harassment and being denied promotions due to black racism.

    Gay privileged--- That awful open borders DHS head Janet (from another planet) Napolitano got hired (2013) as president of the California state university system. She has been getting gov't checks for at least 25 straight years and will eventually get pensions paid by Arizona, Federal Gov't, California

  60. I think all the female blaming of the far-right blogs is an attempt by men to feel like they are making a difference without attacking the real troublemakers.

    I’m a woman of Gen X or whatnot and I don’t remember the boys ever being bullied. The only people who bullied me to be politically liberal were the non-white girls.

    I’ve never had a problem with fellow blondes…anywhere around the globe.

    Instead of saying ‘Girls or Women’ I would like to know what racial/ethnic type of ‘Women/Girls’ are we specifically discussing?

    I mean if your going to try to be all race conscious around a girl who could conceivably pass as hispanic/arab/jewish then well…you deserve what you get!

    It’s so much easier to sit around talking about the shortcomings of modern day women then actually you know worry about what the people running Goldman Sachs are up to or where Soros is going to strike next.

    Deep down inside you guys are freaking out about the women because you know you can’t do anything about Soros.

    This is what being powerless feels like.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Coincidentally I am reading a three month old Financial Times review of a four volume Italian novel series of female friendship:

    "People who don't see (Elena) Ferrante's genius are those who can't face her uncomfortable truths: that woman's friendships are as much about hatred as love; that our projections determine our stories as much as any fact; that we carry our origins, indelibly, to our graves."

    The rest of the review, by a woman, mostly just recaps the plot.
  61. “Like I’ve been saying for a long time, there’ll be no final victor in the War Between the Sexes.”

    Ok, I’m getting confused. You also tend to finish with “There won’t be a final victor in the War Between the Sexes because there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

    Which is it, Steve? Obviously its a good thing if the fraternizing continues, at least in theory anyway. Unless the Mean Girls can figure out how to put the kibosh on all the fraternizing.

  62. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    In movies, it might be the old Jewish love of thinking of themselves as these down-home Lower East Side types fighting against the evil WASPs. Of course this gets reversed in reality with big city types (disproportionately Jewish, some Italians) and heartlanders (Germanic and hence blonde).

    You see a similar dynamic with rom-coms, I think.

  63. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    It’s predictable garbage, exaggerated when not made up entirely from whole cloth.

    Like that fake rape story in Rolling Stone.

    And yeah, girls like bad boys, as SFG said.

    Also, I speed-read the story, and I didn’t get any indication that she herself was as good a lover as she wants us to believe. She being politically left, I would expect her to be as disappointing as the mythical Republican she says she fucked for 15 seconds. (I wonder if that was Haven Monahan.)

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Buzz Mohawk wrote:

    It’s predictable garbage, exaggerated when not made up entirely from whole cloth
     
    When I was young and naive, I used to think stories like this were actually true.

    I also used to think that spokesmen on commercials really believed what they said about the blue and green crystals in the laundry detergent.

    Based on the comments on Salon, it seems that some people never do notice that, alas, a significant fraction of the human race are pathological liars.

    Dave
  64. @Rifleman

    Of course, most of that talent has been deployed over the millennia against their rivals in the sexual marketplace, other females (although little brothers and henpecked husbands have been victims too).
     
    So poor pathetic White guys are now victims of:

    black guys

    muslims

    illegal mexicans

    feminists

    cultural Marxists

    and now.......................little girls!!!

    Comrade Rifleman, how goes battle with moose and squirrel?

  65. This is one reason why I don’t touch American or Canadian women with a 10 foot pole.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Best to use the half foot pole for that purpose.
  66. Let me get this straight, Mr. SoothSailor. You base your claim “When society encourages mean girls to bully boys” solely on the testimony of one social psychologist–a “soft” science that has previously come under criticism on this fine blog!–who based his conclusions in part with his interaction with one high school. You would think that your source would provide other than anecdotal evidence, which can be rife with confirmation bias. Now, it is certainly can be true that today’s boys may be “bullied” by girls, that today’s boys are “not has manly” as their fathers and grandfathers, but you’re going to have to do more than merely his “expertise”.

    “But outside of The Righteous Mind, liberals (like most people) don’t think abstractly.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> Some PEOPLE do not think abstractly.

    Now, two studies came to the conclusion that liberals compared to conservatives are better at abstract thinking.

    http://psp.sagepub.com/content/41/2/250.abstract

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150122114428.htm

    Then, there is this interesting study.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.VlfyKGSrT9M

    “Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place. More than one study has shown these same results, which is why I felt it was worth investigating. A few questions to keep in mind: If these differences do legitimately exist, how can—or better yet—how should we use this knowledge? How can insight gained from research of this kind prove helpful in the quest for more effective communication across party lines? Can empathy and understanding of personality differences, without judgments or stereotyping, aid in the productivity of political debates around topics such as climate change or evolution?”

    Ben Tillman–But Whites aren’t high-status.

    Ben, can you please make up your mind? I thought “whites” developed civilization and maintain it even today. So, why the seemingly change of heart?

    Ben Tillman–The goal of the Left is to obtain wealth and power for themselves, and they’ve been extremely successful.

    Corrected for accuracy –> The goal of some people, both left and right, is to obtain wealth and power for themselves, and they’ve been extremely successful.

    AdvancedAtheist–People don’t believe me when I tell them that thanks to feminism and women’s sexual freedom, America will fill up with adult male virgins, like in Japan.

    They shouldn’t believe you. Men are still dating, still marrying, still carousing. Just ask the Manosphere.

    Anony-Mouse–Emasculated male Democrats now (and Democrats is what these kids are) means fewer Democrats in the future.

    Assuming that male Democrats are indeed emasculated in large numbers.

    Radical Centrist–that strategy of making females into pseudo-males also pays off for rich investors–more aggressive females are more likely to be able to better compete against males in the workforce…thus increasing the supply of labor and consumers, depressing wage, increasing sales, increasing the GDP and economic growth. Makes the rich richer.

    That’s an interesting theory. Have any evidence to back up your assertion? Any sources I can sink my teeth into?

    “At another university, I had a real problem class (two were sent down). I took the alpha-female aside and we had a frank discussion. She was not a particularly nice person, but she saw the error of her ways and things had turned around within two weeks.”

    Cool story, bro.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Let me get this straight, Mr. SoothSailor. You base your claim “When society encourages mean girls to bully boys” solely on the testimony of one social psychologist–a “soft” science that has previously come under criticism on this fine blog!
     
    Corvinus, you're old.

    I bet you couldn't find a normal man between 18 and 30 who wouldn't see the value in Haidt's piece. Nor could you find an honest woman who wouldn't agree.

    Haidt's on his way to being a voice of a generation and you're stuck touting flawed studies about how brain science supposedly proves that 'liberals' are more rational than 'conservatives.'

    Go away grandpa, don't you have some skulls to measure?

  67. There’s a problem with the “Mean Girls” analogy. In Social Justice Mean Girls, The hot chicks aren’t the villains. Head Cheerleaders typically have the social awareness to not fully believe that the patriarchy is against them. There’s a certain type of girl, who’s smart enough to do mental gymnastics but hyper sensitive to the smallest slight. It’s like the social part of their brain is constantly working overtime assigning negative motives onto men. Modern feminism strikes me as paranoid about men

    • Replies: @SFG
    I think it hijacks the female brain module that's always looking for signs of bad behavior from men--which is really quite evolutionarily adaptive, there really are always evil men trying to take advantage of women! (Look at our ghetto dads with 14 kids.)

    (There are evil women trying to take advantage of men--witness our modern divorce industry--but they had a lot fewer opportunities in times past.)

    You've also got the fact that misogyny and misandry are natural responses to a low position in the sexual market--and since there are limited supplies of partners, someone will *always* be at the bottom. Nobody likes me? The other gender must be to blame. It explains both feminism and Gamergate.
    , @Simon in London
    " There’s a certain type of girl, who’s smart enough to do mental gymnastics but hyper sensitive to the smallest slight. It’s like the social part of their brain is constantly working overtime assigning negative motives onto men. "

    Yep. It's weird having to constantly go back over unsent texts/emails and edit them with the view "how could this possibly be taken wrong?", but that's how it goes these days.
    , @anon
    Head Cheerleaders typically have the social awareness to not fully believe that the patriarchy is against them.

    Well, duhh. "Hot chicks" know the patriarchy exists for their express benefit and that it is generally insanely attentive to their slightest whims. They love the patriarchy, IME. Generally, people always love a game at which they are natural winners, no mystery there.

    Sour grapes for all the other women complaining about men (or men complaining about women). This complaining by women about men and vice versa has been going on about as long as there has been men or women or at least means to record their thoughts/opinions.
  68. Steve, no one is putting guns to girls heads to make them PC-Red Guard their male peers. They do it willingly.

    I’d say most women and girls prefer the way things are — with the vast majority of their male peers emasculated. And indeed, there ARE definitive and “final” winners in the war between the sexes … if you realize that old school monogamy is dead dead dead. Killed by the pill, condom, anonymous urban living, rising female income and status, leaving hypergamy free to play.

    Most women and girls if given a choice would share a few high status, dominant men, with achingly brief encounters, over a lifetime of beta male devotion. When beta male provisioning becomes worthless/devalued by rising female income and declining male wages and relative status/power, even more so.

    There is a *reason* this stuff happens all the time. Women like emasculating men, its got a name among PUAs lets call it here the “stuff test.” (You can guess the real name, I understand this is a G rated blog).

    Women love love love to “stuff test” a man to find out if he’s the real Alpha deal or a mewling beta male pretender. Emasculate 95% of men, and by definition those left are the real Alpha deal. Again most women would prefer to share an Alpha than have ALL of a beta male.

    This is why btw that most women support mass Third World immigration particularly Muslims. And why “Chicks dig Chechens.” They ache for a man to simply dominate them and take charge, and will happily slave away at two jobs supporting their weed smoking, MMA wannabe, drug murdering and terrorist husbands. Paging Mrs. Tsarnaev, Mrs. Tsarnaev, your pressure cooker is ready. [As if she didn’t know.]

    What Roissy/Heartiste does is the Lord’s Work. Men and **especially** boys need to know PUA stuff, and yes this means the end of monogamy and the nuclear family but that was baked into the cake the moment birth control became cheap and reliable and women moved into the workforce.

    Heartiste had a discussion recently of Drug Dealer Game. Pretending to be a Drug Dealer, particularly an “intelligent” one who is “thinking of going straight” is like crack to women. They can’t get enough of it. In HS, after all, who just tells girls to shove it and has them swooning? Thug or Old School Clean Cut Athletes who are BMOC, the school drug dealer, and other uber-dominant men. And as girls emasculate more and more of their male peers, they demand ever more dominance in their men. Probably most of the HS girls Haidt talked to would be happy in burqua being told what to do for the rest of their lives.

    Example: Angela “Let’s Flood All of Europe with Muslims” Merkel. It doesn’t stop even after menopause.

    This is why the “personal is the political” and it is vital for every White man and boy to Alpha up as much as possible.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Whiskey, you sound frustrated. Is it because of your own experiences with women? Are you putting yourself out there, meeting and talking with different women? Are you talking about the PUA stuff because it works from personal experience, i.e. you now appear alpha, or is it mainly out of frustration of seeing other men work it successfully and you struggling?

    I ask this, because if you go on about this sort of stuff IRL in front of women, you are going to come across as the male equivalent of the leftist cat lady. Some of these young cat ladies can even be relatively attractive. However, I'm sure after 10 minutes of talking to one any male is going to come to the conclusion that he basically has to have a CV that includes Peace Corps membership, a job at the Pew foundation saving dolphins or maybe minority outreach somewhere, or an inner-city (or wherever the NAMs live now) school teacher in order to get anywhere. And you are going to need to be up to date with what the Kardashians are doing in order to have something to talk about. The average male looks at this self-centered, media-obsessed person, and thinks "Where do I start in taming this shrew?" And moves on.

    So maybe you need to get out there a bit, get some female advice as to how to improve your appearance to the best possible extent, and just talk to women. Ask them questions to find what they might be interested in, and when you hit something you are interested in as well, talk about it with interest. You obviously know most of the other PUA stuff, so you should know not to be too eager right?
    , @Guy
    While I appreciate Sailer and many of other writings of the Alt-Right, I don't think they realize that the demographic of their own daughters, young white women, are complicit with other parts of the left and the parts of the right to oppress normal(beta,hardworking) white boys and young men. Peter Frost was the only one who was even able to broach the surface of this subject in
    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/young-male-and-single/?highlight=young+boys

    Of course the old guys will say its all about sex, but it's far worse than that. Women have no interest in even relationships anymore, let alone marriage, and infidelity, in my own experiences, is extremely common when these relationships occur, and women don't want to even be women anymore in their interactions with us.

    As an aside, the rise of the younger generation of the alt-right and much of the fitness culture present in the west is due to these phenomena.
  69. @Stephen R. Diamond
    The jiujitsu move of turning the enemy's attacks against itself is prominent among white nationalists. One Priss Factory is the most consistent exponent of this tactic, advocating that whites seek safe places. (One supposes, also claiming "micro-aggression.") But Steve Sailer is not above partaking.

    The fact is, it isn't unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    It's obfuscating to turn the free speech issue into one of gender oppression, just for the pleasure of turning the tables.

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    Over here in reality practically every society in recorded history placed far harsher restrictions on lower status castes than on higher status ones; it’s so lopsided that I can’t think of even one clear exception to this rule.

    It’s almost impressive in a way that you can write transparently obvious and utterly idiotic lies so easily, but then again I guess it just comes naturally to you. It’s scary to think that you (and people like you) get away with it so much of the time.

    NB: Since when did ~37% of the population become “the masses”?

  70. @AKAHorace
    SFG,

    Agree with you 100 %. I came to this position from the left. Of those who agree with you how many are left wingers versus right wingers ?

    I came to this position from the left

    I’m one of nature’s right-wingers but in the last decade and a bit I’ve come to realize that globalization has a serious downside even if commies say so, old-style labour leaders were correct to oppose massive low-wage immigration, economists say whatever their sponsors want them to say, and “conservative” political parties assiduously serve their big business donors while abusing their small-business middle-class base. Another guy who figured a lot of this out before I did once told me that the journey from liberal to conservative is no big deal, it’s the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    it’s the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.
     
    It's a journey worth taking.
  71. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    Fairly typical of most educated, professional women. They want a companion who is a sexless, teddy bear provider, and hot sex with bad boys. I think for a brief moment they can get it, but not for long. Eventually the teddy bear provider will disgust them, and probably catch on. Female infidelity is a deal breaker for the vast majority of men and always will be (deeply closeted gays the exception of course).

    Women of course enjoy degrading themselves. They find it Fifty Shades of Grey hot.

    Can the nuclear family as a widespread institution survive with most men knowing the true nature of female sexuality and desire? The utter unlikelihood of most women remaining faithful for those who are not uber Alpha? I would say, no. [The story was a woman’s fantasy made for other women to read and find “hot.” Or, gay-marriage norming straight marriage.]

    Like it or not, Whites are simply moving to Black norms of reproduction and family: single moms, kids with different bad boys, no fatherly involvement or support (why would there be any?) and men focused completely on being the baddest, sexiest, bad boys around. With the dearth of male cooperation and wealth building that implies. Asians *may* resist this for some time, but even in China and Japan you see signs of the same thing. I think even Mormons will dissolve under female hypergamy.

    Women can certainly have sexual freedom. Getting a man to stick around on the other hand is pretty unlikely. Women certainly don’t like it, but chose it freely.

    Call it the Reverse Jane Austen. Instead of aunts and sisters and friends preaching choosiness and chastity until a woman chooses, its girrrrrrrrrllllll! power to slutty eleventy!!!11!! But its what women want to hear.

  72. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    I speed-read that, so I only lost a few minutes of my life. Note the description of the author,

    … a writer and academic advisor in Chicago.

    That means she’s on the staff of some community college, telling prospective students what prerequisites they need and how to apply for financial aid. She doesn’t make any money from writing or she wouldn’t be in Salon.

  73. @Auntie Analogue
    Has everyone here forgotten the decades long dosing of millions of boys who showed "inappropriate behavior" with Ritalin?

    Maybe Obama should have the Air Force and Navy bomb ISIS's water supply with Ritalin.

    Ritalin is a stimulant.

  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female “empowerement” thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men’s to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in “reading” people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women’s well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can’t put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There's a lot of fraternizing with the enemy.
    , @Anonym
    Girls being more cruel than boys does not match my experience. Unless by cruel you mean "will not sleep with me".
    , @This Is Our Home

    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female “empowerement” thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men’s to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in “reading” people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?
     
    And this is the good side of women which we need to appeal to, 'female chivalry.'

    For various personal reasons I am excellent at playing these games girls play. My girlfriend's mother doesn't know this however. So when my girlfriend starts acting in a non-chivalrous way to me, her mother shuts her down even before I can react. Her mother is a lovely lady, as is my girlfriend of course, but girls will be girls!
    , @JEGG
    I totally agree that women are more cruel than men once we take violent interactions out of the picture. It's very hard, if not mostly impossible, for straight men to realize the extent to which this is the case, because they are biologically programmed to protect women. Gay men, who professionally interact with large numbers of women, are more likely to be aware of the self-serving downside of women and less likely to feel as if they are walking on eggshells around them. Gay men don't take women anywhere as seriously as straight men.
    , @SFG
    It's chivalry. From the evolutionary point of view women count more than men because they're the bottleneck in reproduction--1 woman and 10 men can produce many fewer children than 1 man and 10 women. They're also smaller and weaker, and, for most of human history where threats involved things like wild animals and collapsing houses, more vulnerable. So most cultures are obsessed with the protection of women. Even now arguing about 'men's rights' tends to be a loser even with righties. The problem is that women now believe in feminism and lots of men still believe in chivalry, so men get screwed.

    One of the nice things about Christianity was that every life had value before God. It's unrealistic, but the struggle for survival of the fittest is a very nasty place (and Darwin acknowledged this).
    , @Desiderius

    Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can’t put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.
     
    That's one part of it. Another part of it though comes from looking at how we got into this mess.

    I.e. at some point feminists got a critical mass of men to defect against their own (and society's) interest to give them the initial power they've now leveraged to dominance. To turn things around at this point will require getting some women to defect from that (intentionally, openly, proudly) self-serving coalition. That's requires appealing to their self-interest.
    , @Forbes

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?
     
    Well then, man-up. Life isn't a fair game.

    Your observation above is Neanderthal-like: your recourse to a verbose woman is to physically dominate her? Women, like teen-aged girls, are catty and gossipy and enforce their own bizarre social norms. Assuming they still have any friends. Ever notice how women and girls have a new BFF about every month? Their world is constantly filled with social strife and turmoil (and they love it).

    Why don't men/boys use their own interpersonal skills in rebuttal to women/girls' avowed superior skills? Try ignoring them. Ignore their boy-crushing taunts. Turn the tables. Stop being a pussy. Make them meet you on your terms. Almost nothing gets a woman/girl's attention faster than ignoring them. Most of what they do is attention-seeking drama. And they can't stand it when you ignore them. Most men give in to this behavior because they have no patience to listen to their grief. The make-up sex will be worth it.

    Be the man in their life, not a replacement girlfriend who listens to her gossip. Direct their verbal and interpersonal skills to raising your children. And yes, be the shoulder to cry on when needed. But be a man.
  75. @Buzz Mohawk

    Meanwhile, in China they expect more than 3,400 cases of AIDS to be reported by the end of the year among students 18-22...
     
    Being China, their production will no doubt increase exponentially until they become the world's leading exporter.

    How many are in a case, by the way? Twelve?

    A gross.

  76. @Desiderius
    It's amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as "left-wing."

    They're about as left-wing as Richelieu.

    there’s also this thing where they say we lived in the best of times and that the past is Hitler, “misogyny” and whatnot.

    When someone points out the social rot, they invariably say something to the effect that the past is irredeemably evil and they invoke Pinker’s book which “proves” that violence has gone down.

    when someone as much as says “I like innocent old movies”, they’re like “OMG what do you mean innocent, what about the Holocaust-racism-misogyny!!!eleven”

    It’s scary. Imagine hordes of SJWs with a huge chip on their shoulder in charge of libraries, archives etc.

    And of course, they don’t see how in the end, they’re defending the status quo, a thoroughly elitist activity to start with that alone would undermine the little leftist street cred they have.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Actually, that's pretty much who is in charge of libraries and archives. But librarians have this whole thing about access to information, so they'll defend your right to check out a copy of Mein Kampf.

    So far.
  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Interesting. This attempt to be constructive will do nothing of course, since they are only saying they want to support freedom of expression. The girls are bullying the dissenters because the authority figures as the school permit and encourage it. The brownshirts are thugs but they aren’t the problem. As petty aggressors the girls will pay no price whatsoever. The boys are learning a valuable lesson — the system is not your friend.

  78. @Leftist conservative
    that strategy of making females into pseudo-males also pays off for rich investors--more aggressive females are more likely to be able to better compete against males in the workforce...thus increasing the supply of labor and consumers, depressing wage, increasing sales, increasing the GDP and economic growth. Makes the rich richer. But that's just a coincidence. Because there is no way that anything important in america has anything to do with economics or corporate profits. America is not like that.

    Spot on about the role of money and corporations. The left seems to have gotten itself a nice little ideological monopoly on being critical of those forces. How convenient.

    (OT: Seen your blog. You say: “And again I ask–why am I the only person on earth to see this yet?” You’re not. Check my “Website” link (not my site) for Richard D. Fuerle’s “Erectus Walks Amongst Us”)

    • Replies: @Leftist conservative
    thanks for the link...however, I have actually seen that site before...maybe I got some ideas from there and forgot that and then thought they were my own ideas? :-)

    You mentioned my focus on the issue of how Big Money figures into every important aspect of america. For example, how Big Money figures into the development of feminism and the pseudo-male women of america. Someone else in this thread complained that I am obsessed with the issue of how big money figures into the development of our culture and just about everything else. But in my opinion big money is by far the dominant force in the development of just about every aspect of modern culture.

    So, in my eyes, any serious discussion on most any aspect of culture must account first and foremost for the role of big money. To fail to do so is akin to a rocket scientist failing to account for gravity. Big Money in american culture is like gravity in rocket science--the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    As usual on the dissident/paleo Right discussions, the role of big money is either ignored or only covered tangentially. I find that telling. Why is the Dissident/Paleo Right so reluctant to put the role of big money upfront?

    My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america. Modern american liberalism was primarily the product of upper class funding of writers and academics who favored a focus on females and nonwhites and the elevation of their social status via propaganda. Over decades, such propaganda has elevated females and nonwhites in status and lowered the social status of white males. This campaign was meant to increase the supply of workers and consumers. This campaignn was almost certainly a reaction to the immigration moratorium of the 1920s (and the immigration moratorium eventually led to the golden age of white labor in the 1950s--bad for Capital). The civil rights era was created by Capital's multiculturalist propaganda in order to expand the supply of workers and consumers. Out of this labor-expansion propaganda campaign sprang modern american liberalism. Propaganda is the gasoline of the america mind.

    The conservative tribe is primarily the product of an anti-soviet propaganda campaign that got underway in the 1940s or maybe even as early as the 1920s. This propaganda campaign sacralized/made holy the idea of capitalism. Hence the reluctance of the dissident right to acknowledge that multiculturalism is not a tool of the Left but is instead a tool of Capital.The Dissident Right dogma holds Capital holy, which makes it awkward for them these days, seeing as how it is more and more obvious that mass immigration is not about leftism but about capitalism. And mass immigration and multiculturalism are blood brothers.

  79. @Desiderius

    But Whites aren’t high-status.
     
    A (very small) subset of whites are high(est) status. They've figured out that it is in their interest to propagate the lie that the average white (also applies to male) partakes in the privileges which go along with that status. The lie serves to deflect attention away from that subset and toward those who would other be their most serious competition.

    Creating a fake Left has proven to be a brilliant stroke in executing this strategy.

    They’ve figured out that it is in their interest to propagate the lie that the average white (also applies to male) partakes in the privileges which go along with that status. The lie serves to deflect attention away from that subset and toward those who would other be their most serious competition.

    Forty years ago there was white privilege for whites of all classes and the New Left back then made a bid deal about it. Working class whites did have a leg up, such as Irish-Americans hiring the same and their fellow Catholics for big city fire and police jobs. But this has dwindled down to zero and gone negative by today. What we have today is non-white privilege via non-whites hiring their own kind and via affirmative action. There are also “old boy” networks of women, lesbians and gays who do their best hire people same as themselves in university administration jobs and various FedGuv and State and county agencies. Congressional staff has trended very gay for years. Of course they can do this with complete impunity. Though maybe once per year you read of a white male or female in Gov’t or public school system suing due to harassment and being denied promotions due to black racism.

    Gay privileged— That awful open borders DHS head Janet (from another planet) Napolitano got hired (2013) as president of the California state university system. She has been getting gov’t checks for at least 25 straight years and will eventually get pensions paid by Arizona, Federal Gov’t, California

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The U. of California system has an Old Lesbians Network among the administrators, such as the UC Santa Cruz president who jumped off the highrise of her girlfriend (for whom she had gotten a $180k job with UC).
    , @Desiderius

    There are also “old boy” networks of women, lesbians and gays who do their best hire people same as themselves in university administration jobs and various FedGuv and State and county agencies.
     
    Likewise in Major Media.

    The situation is akin to the collapse of the Late Ming where the eunuchs took over after the virtual abdication of the Emperor. There is a difference in kind in the quality of leadership between those with progeny and those without.

  80. @22pp22
    I taught an esoteric subject at university and the result was that all the students in my groups got to know each other really well. The overall behaviour of the group depended on the alpha female, who was not always the prettiest or the brightest. The alpha-female in my best ever class was a Welsh girl and her side-kick. The side-kick was an A-student with film star good looks. The alpha female was neither of those things.

    The worst class was when I was a mature student in NZ. The chief bitch was a conceited little viper. She was moderately pretty and not at all bright, but back-stabbing and cruelty was how she made her mark and asserted her authority.

    At another university, I had a real problem class (two were sent down). I took the alpha-female aside and we had a frank discussion. She was not a particularly nice person, but she saw the error of her ways and things had turned around within two weeks.

    Women enforce social norms far more than men do. This is why the popularity of PC among women is such a problem. They do not face you like a man. They spread poison behind the back of their chosen victims.

    HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews (for their esprit de corps and IQ). Driving them away is folly. I have tried to appeal to their self-interest by pointing out that the people moving to Europe and violently anti-Semitic and misogynistic. I have had a lot more success with Jews than white women, who take a perverse pride in holding two mutually incompatible positions.

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?
     
    It's easy. You both appeal to their better side and troll them with how you and yours will be driven to join IS.

    Both carrot and stick.
    , @Anonymous
    "You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?"

    I would think it would involve showing them how it's in the best interests of their children and their personal safety.
    , @Anonymous
    "You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?"

    I would think it would involve showing them how it's in the best interests of their children and their personal safety.
    , @anon

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live.
     
    The girls are acting in the way being promoted by the PC teaching staff but yes feminism provides a lot of economic benefits at the upper middle class level. It's girls in the middle who get the down sides of feminism without the financial benefits who get the worst deal. Feminism doesn't really exist at the bottom - partly as a result of feminist support for mass immigration - so it's moot there.
    , @ben tillman

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest?
     
    Absolutely not. These immigrants will take resources that otherwise might go to these women and their children.

    There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live.
     
    That is false but beside the point. The immigrants will use resources that would otherwise be available for natives and their progeny.
    , @ben tillman

    You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?
     
    Simple. Remind them that average white people support them; i.e., they make it possible for women and their children to live in a safe and comfortable society.
  81. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    Genetic footprint of vikings?

  82. @Hubbub
    "But does it really make the female majority happier in the long run?"

    No. I know from experience with what we used to call 'self-defeating behavior' on the part of former partners.

    Yep.

  83. @Clyde

    They’ve figured out that it is in their interest to propagate the lie that the average white (also applies to male) partakes in the privileges which go along with that status. The lie serves to deflect attention away from that subset and toward those who would other be their most serious competition.
     
    Forty years ago there was white privilege for whites of all classes and the New Left back then made a bid deal about it. Working class whites did have a leg up, such as Irish-Americans hiring the same and their fellow Catholics for big city fire and police jobs. But this has dwindled down to zero and gone negative by today. What we have today is non-white privilege via non-whites hiring their own kind and via affirmative action. There are also "old boy" networks of women, lesbians and gays who do their best hire people same as themselves in university administration jobs and various FedGuv and State and county agencies. Congressional staff has trended very gay for years. Of course they can do this with complete impunity. Though maybe once per year you read of a white male or female in Gov't or public school system suing due to harassment and being denied promotions due to black racism.

    Gay privileged--- That awful open borders DHS head Janet (from another planet) Napolitano got hired (2013) as president of the California state university system. She has been getting gov't checks for at least 25 straight years and will eventually get pensions paid by Arizona, Federal Gov't, California

    The U. of California system has an Old Lesbians Network among the administrators, such as the UC Santa Cruz president who jumped off the highrise of her girlfriend (for whom she had gotten a $180k job with UC).

    • Replies: @Clyde
    I remember that. pix
    "Denton, a well-regarded engineer, had been named this spring in a series of articles examining UC management compensation. She had been criticized for an expensive university-funded renovation on her campus home, and for obtaining a UC administrative job for Kalonji."

    Lesbians with money love owning multiple properties, also many are realtors. Ellen DeGeneres and girlfriend are always buying and selling properties near Hollywood and the lowest price I have seen was 20 million with the highest at 42 million iirc.
    "ellen degeneres new house 2014 Ellen DeGeneres new $40 million dollar mansion is insane! It sits on 2.3 acres, and the main house is over 13,000 square....."
    , @Clyde
    I just reread yours and noticed this: "The dog run for her (Denton's) two border collies cost $30,000." What a unique rip-off of the California taxpayers. Jumping put an end to this.

    UC President Napolitano to Receive $570k Base Salary
    July 20, 2013 By Josephine Djuhana
    Janet Napolitano Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is now the new president of the University of California system, despite her lackluster track record as the secretary of Homeland Security and the glaring fact that she has virtually no educational experience under her belt whatsoever.
     
  84. @Anonymous
    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female "empowerement" thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men's to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in "reading" people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women's well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can't put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    There’s a lot of fraternizing with the enemy.

  85. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:

    This is a monumental and multi-layered analysis of Haidt’s crucial work. I know that of the 8 major points made all are true, but I’ve never seem them written down or logically laid out, just as one can know many things without having the genius to really and clearly understand them. I’m genuinely astounded.

    Perhaps you don’t even realise how interesting this post is?

    • Replies: @SFG
    It's got over 100 comments, only 20 or so of which are from me.

    I'd like to see Sailer write a book that isn't about Obama. He's made a lot of interesting insights over the years, and Barry's gone in a year. I mean, Steve, we know you have to make a living, and books about how bad Obama are sell copies, but...
    , @Hail

    points made all are true, but I’ve never seem them written down or logically laid out
     
    This is the brilliance of Steve Sailer.
  86. @Horpor
    Centrist, do you always repeat the same thing under Steve's blogposts? I.e. that evil capitalists are behind all our worries and that in particular they have conspired to create the feminist movement.
    I mean, everyone here has already understood your great political discovery and you could - maybe? - give some other pearls of your wisdom, like a hypothesis on the capitalistic origins of the concept of 'safe-space' or some other highly literate and empirically proven idea.

    sorry about that….did I trigger you? You might wanna go to your safe space, hon….

    • Replies: @Olorin
    For the love of iSteve, please save that sort of comment for Taki's.
    , @Horpor
    But You still didn't answer my question: is the safe-space a concept created by the capitalist cabal, which gathers once a month in a Prague cemetery?
  87. @AndrewR
    White Dems are a dying breed. Blacks and Aztecs, not so much.

    White Dems are a dying breed. Blacks and Aztecs, not so much

    Did you read the article? They own education, including the media, and so they own your kids.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    Too bad we can't have homeschool college..sighs...

    I spotted some blog posts from Aaron Clarey alias "Captain Capitalism" about college.
    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2014/09/college-is-not-means-unto-itself.html
    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2014/06/how-women-centers-reveal-how-pathetic.html
    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2015/07/college-as-fourth-layer-of-government.html
  88. @Anonymous
    It's hard to deal with these sorts of girls, because they take a small scale personal conflict and escalate it into a societal issue and rope as many others into the drama as possible.

    They will force all their Facebook friends and teachers, and other authority figures to get involved in the issue and choose a side…and god help whoever chooses the wrong side.

    There is a fear of getting labelled a rape apologist or racist or ugly monster. Once you are tainted by these accusations, you can find yourself socially isolated…which is something no teenager wants.

    I think the changes happening are really affecting girls most of all. Boys are pretty much as they always were in private or among themselves - but they are smart enough to not want to stick their necks out and get themselves in trouble

    Anonymous wrote:

    Boys are pretty much as they always were in private or among themselves – but they are smart enough to not want to stick their necks out and get themselves in trouble

    Have you ever read Tom Wolfe’s essay “Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers”? The punchline is that all of the pampered little minorities who get to act out their grievances end up, in the end, back in the projects living miserable lives.

    I.e., the joke is on these kids who are flexing their rhetorical muscles trying to intimidate their betters. Yeah, a few of them will get sinecures as affirmative-action counselors or whatever. But most of them are going to end up with lousy lives.

    I kind of feel sorry for them. Of course, I can’t help indulging myself occasionally just telling the truth to an SJW to see if I can cause him/her to have a coronary.

    Dave

    • Replies: @SFG
    At an upscale school in Seattle, they're probably going to do OK.
  89. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing,

    Hair dye.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    No, I think he's onto something: if you take hair dye out of the equation, I bet natural blonde girls tend to be more into sports than natural brunettes. It could be nature, it could be nurture, I don't know, but compare female sports participation in Sweden to Italy. Italian women are expected to spend a lot of time each day on grooming and seldom get intensely into sports.

    But, now that I think about it, there is the caveat that time spent in the sunshine and in chlorinated swimming pools tends to lighten hair, so girls on the swim team or cross country team, for example, tend to be blonder than they would be without environmental influences.

    So it's a complicated question, but there is likely to be something there.

  90. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    OK but are they natural blonds? Though tinting their hair blond will/might make them go blond as far as blond behavior. What they think blond behavior is. So is it blond genetics at work or brunettes going blond too? Inquiring men’s minds want to know for beach volleyball and tennis. Golf….not as much.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I remember on the last Saturday night of the 1984 L.A. Olympics standing in a ice cream shop in Westwood behind three Swedish Olympic Team couples out on a date. They likely had some athletic and good looking blond children.
    , @unpc downunder
    Obviously a lot of women dye their hair a lighter colour, but most White women who go blond start off with dull light-brown hair and fair skin rather than dark hair/olive skin. Many people of north European origin are born with fair hair which turns light brown as they get older. Women tend to prefer a strong, distinctive hair colour - such as blond, red or glossy black, and dull light-brown isn't very popular. Hence, technically speaking, a lot of sporty blond women may not be true blonds, but they are still relatively fair.

    In previous eras some women probably dyed their hair darker to make their skin look lighter, as do some artsy alternative women today.
  91. @AKAHorace
    SFG,

    Agree with you 100 %. I came to this position from the left. Of those who agree with you how many are left wingers versus right wingers ?

    Agree with you 100 %. I came to this position from the left. Of those who agree with you how many are left wingers versus right wingers ?

    I’m centre-left on economic issues and a social conservative (in fact by today’s standards I’m an arch-reactionary on social issues). I don’t see myself as having moved away from the Left – it was the Left that moved away from me. My views on social issues haven’t changed much. 25 years ago my views on social issues were quite acceptable in leftist circles. 50 years ago they’d have been absolutely mainstream on the Left.

    I also found that the leftist party here (the Labor Party) was moving away from me on economic issues. They used to be an actual left-wing party. Now they’re a party of big business but ultra-hard left on social issues.

    It was political correctness that disillusioned me with the Left. Particularly the intolerance displayed by feminists.

  92. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Herr Niemand
    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    It’s easy. You both appeal to their better side and troll them with how you and yours will be driven to join IS.

    Both carrot and stick.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    I'm light of the comment on 'female chivalry' I have a more comprehensive answer: troll them with how society will drop male chivalry if women don't collectively live up to their side of the bargain.

    Which of course is actually what will eventually happen one way or another.

  93. @John Rebel
    This is one reason why I don't touch American or Canadian women with a 10 foot pole.

    Best to use the half foot pole for that purpose.

  94. @Clyde

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.
     
    OK but are they natural blonds? Though tinting their hair blond will/might make them go blond as far as blond behavior. What they think blond behavior is. So is it blond genetics at work or brunettes going blond too? Inquiring men's minds want to know for beach volleyball and tennis. Golf....not as much.

    I remember on the last Saturday night of the 1984 L.A. Olympics standing in a ice cream shop in Westwood behind three Swedish Olympic Team couples out on a date. They likely had some athletic and good looking blond children.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Leif Erikson's sister, who terrorized the poor Skraelings of Vinland around 1000 AD, would be the captain of the field hockey team if she were in North America today.
  95. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Corvinus
    Let me get this straight, Mr. SoothSailor. You base your claim "When society encourages mean girls to bully boys" solely on the testimony of one social psychologist--a "soft" science that has previously come under criticism on this fine blog!--who based his conclusions in part with his interaction with one high school. You would think that your source would provide other than anecdotal evidence, which can be rife with confirmation bias. Now, it is certainly can be true that today's boys may be "bullied" by girls, that today's boys are "not has manly" as their fathers and grandfathers, but you're going to have to do more than merely his "expertise".

    "But outside of The Righteous Mind, liberals (like most people) don’t think abstractly."

    Corrected for accuracy --> Some PEOPLE do not think abstractly.

    Now, two studies came to the conclusion that liberals compared to conservatives are better at abstract thinking.

    http://psp.sagepub.com/content/41/2/250.abstract

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150122114428.htm

    Then, there is this interesting study.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.VlfyKGSrT9M

    "Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place. More than one study has shown these same results, which is why I felt it was worth investigating. A few questions to keep in mind: If these differences do legitimately exist, how can—or better yet—how should we use this knowledge? How can insight gained from research of this kind prove helpful in the quest for more effective communication across party lines? Can empathy and understanding of personality differences, without judgments or stereotyping, aid in the productivity of political debates around topics such as climate change or evolution?"

    Ben Tillman--But Whites aren’t high-status.

    Ben, can you please make up your mind? I thought "whites" developed civilization and maintain it even today. So, why the seemingly change of heart?

    Ben Tillman--The goal of the Left is to obtain wealth and power for themselves, and they’ve been extremely successful.

    Corrected for accuracy --> The goal of some people, both left and right, is to obtain wealth and power for themselves, and they've been extremely successful.

    AdvancedAtheist--People don’t believe me when I tell them that thanks to feminism and women’s sexual freedom, America will fill up with adult male virgins, like in Japan.

    They shouldn't believe you. Men are still dating, still marrying, still carousing. Just ask the Manosphere.

    Anony-Mouse--Emasculated male Democrats now (and Democrats is what these kids are) means fewer Democrats in the future.

    Assuming that male Democrats are indeed emasculated in large numbers.

    Radical Centrist--that strategy of making females into pseudo-males also pays off for rich investors–more aggressive females are more likely to be able to better compete against males in the workforce…thus increasing the supply of labor and consumers, depressing wage, increasing sales, increasing the GDP and economic growth. Makes the rich richer.

    That's an interesting theory. Have any evidence to back up your assertion? Any sources I can sink my teeth into?

    "At another university, I had a real problem class (two were sent down). I took the alpha-female aside and we had a frank discussion. She was not a particularly nice person, but she saw the error of her ways and things had turned around within two weeks."

    Cool story, bro.

    Let me get this straight, Mr. SoothSailor. You base your claim “When society encourages mean girls to bully boys” solely on the testimony of one social psychologist–a “soft” science that has previously come under criticism on this fine blog!

    Corvinus, you’re old.

    I bet you couldn’t find a normal man between 18 and 30 who wouldn’t see the value in Haidt’s piece. Nor could you find an honest woman who wouldn’t agree.

    Haidt’s on his way to being a voice of a generation and you’re stuck touting flawed studies about how brain science supposedly proves that ‘liberals’ are more rational than ‘conservatives.’

    Go away grandpa, don’t you have some skulls to measure?

  96. @Steve Sailer
    The U. of California system has an Old Lesbians Network among the administrators, such as the UC Santa Cruz president who jumped off the highrise of her girlfriend (for whom she had gotten a $180k job with UC).

    I remember that. pix
    “Denton, a well-regarded engineer, had been named this spring in a series of articles examining UC management compensation. She had been criticized for an expensive university-funded renovation on her campus home, and for obtaining a UC administrative job for Kalonji.”

    Lesbians with money love owning multiple properties, also many are realtors. Ellen DeGeneres and girlfriend are always buying and selling properties near Hollywood and the lowest price I have seen was 20 million with the highest at 42 million iirc.
    “ellen degeneres new house 2014 Ellen DeGeneres new $40 million dollar mansion is insane! It sits on 2.3 acres, and the main house is over 13,000 square…..”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here's my 2006 VDARE article on the Old Lesbians Network at the top of the UC system:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/diversity-is-strength-its-also-a-powerful-coterie-of-larcenous-lesbians

    , @KP
    Indeed, it seems a female failing. My own dear (very non-lez) wife has constant fantasies of This Property or That Property... it's really her version of porn.
  97. @CJ
    I came to this position from the left

    I'm one of nature's right-wingers but in the last decade and a bit I've come to realize that globalization has a serious downside even if commies say so, old-style labour leaders were correct to oppose massive low-wage immigration, economists say whatever their sponsors want them to say, and "conservative" political parties assiduously serve their big business donors while abusing their small-business middle-class base. Another guy who figured a lot of this out before I did once told me that the journey from liberal to conservative is no big deal, it's the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.

    it’s the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.

    It’s a journey worth taking.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I'd love to, I'm just afraid of winding up dead by one of my new friends when my ancestry comes out...

    The rest of you probably should go ahead, though. The country needs you...
    , @neon
    I've never made the journey: I was born a little reactionary.
  98. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    “Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes.”

    Among natural blondes, that might well be true. Women in the Nordic countries like sports more than women in the Mediterranean countries.

    Nobody seems less interested in sports than Mexican-American girls. Has there ever been a prominent Mexican-American female athlete? I used to assume that Lisa Fernandez, the great UCLA softball player of the 1980s, was a local Mexican-American girl, but she turns out to be Caribbean (Cuban and Puerto Rican) born in NYC.

    • Replies: @FPD72
    Nancy Lopez of LPGA fame.
    , @Thagomizer
    I think you're confusing liking sports with being good at sports. There is an overlap -- people born in the first few months of the year tend to consider themselves sporty because the can beat other kids in their classes.. But there are major exceptions.

    It's anecdotal, but I knew a few girls from El Salvador who were super sporty and into soccer and cross country.

    They were also awful. Their small frames and short limbs let other girls dominate them after a bit of training.

    I also remember reading about an early Central American game played with rubber balls that was traditionally co-ed.

    So considering the general body types, and the fact that Mexico stole the fattest country crown from the USA, top female athletes probably won't come from Mexico.
  99. @Anonymous
    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female "empowerement" thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men's to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in "reading" people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women's well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can't put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    Girls being more cruel than boys does not match my experience. Unless by cruel you mean “will not sleep with me”.

  100. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Anonymous
    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female "empowerement" thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men's to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in "reading" people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women's well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can't put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female “empowerement” thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men’s to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in “reading” people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And this is the good side of women which we need to appeal to, ‘female chivalry.’

    For various personal reasons I am excellent at playing these games girls play. My girlfriend’s mother doesn’t know this however. So when my girlfriend starts acting in a non-chivalrous way to me, her mother shuts her down even before I can react. Her mother is a lovely lady, as is my girlfriend of course, but girls will be girls!

  101. @This Is Our Home

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing,
     
    Hair dye.

    No, I think he’s onto something: if you take hair dye out of the equation, I bet natural blonde girls tend to be more into sports than natural brunettes. It could be nature, it could be nurture, I don’t know, but compare female sports participation in Sweden to Italy. Italian women are expected to spend a lot of time each day on grooming and seldom get intensely into sports.

    But, now that I think about it, there is the caveat that time spent in the sunshine and in chlorinated swimming pools tends to lighten hair, so girls on the swim team or cross country team, for example, tend to be blonder than they would be without environmental influences.

    So it’s a complicated question, but there is likely to be something there.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home

    But, now that I think about it, there is the caveat that time spent in the sunshine and in chlorinated swimming pools tends to lighten hair, so girls on the swim team or cross country team, for example, tend to be blonder than they would be without environmental influences.
     
    Another personal anecdote, but I spent a year and a half of my life almost permanently outdoors and/or in chlorinated swimming pools. Despite my short male hair, my girlfriend has asked a few times where my bright blond hair has gone.

    I suppose you need to be an American to have a good understanding of South v North European differences though.

    Having said all of that, it is much more likely for brunettes to dye their hair blonde than the other way around and I'd bet that people on TV including athletes are much more likely to dye their hair than those not on TV.

    , @Bill P
    I'd guess it's a regional biodiversity thing. On average, athletes are taller than ordinary people. On average, northern Europeans are taller than southern Europeans. They are also blonder than southern Euros. Therefore, it stands to reason that blondes are overrepresented in sports (among whites obviously).

    For an extreme example, if you take purely (or nearly so) Nordic sports like XC skiing, blondes are represented about as you'd expect according to their proportion of the Nordic population, but if you compare XC skiers to the global average hair color the skiers are far blonder.

    Of course there probably is some cultural component, but keep in mind that the average Norwegian girl is about 5'7", whereas the average Italian girl is about 5'3". This being the case, in Olympic sports other than gymnastics, diving and lightweight weightlifting, most of which give an advantage to taller, heavier people, you'd expect to see more Norwegian than Italian girls represented.

    The darker Europeans do have the tall Balkan contingent (and they give the Nordics a run for their money), but they are outnumbered a lot by the northern Euros.
  102. @Clyde
    I remember that. pix
    "Denton, a well-regarded engineer, had been named this spring in a series of articles examining UC management compensation. She had been criticized for an expensive university-funded renovation on her campus home, and for obtaining a UC administrative job for Kalonji."

    Lesbians with money love owning multiple properties, also many are realtors. Ellen DeGeneres and girlfriend are always buying and selling properties near Hollywood and the lowest price I have seen was 20 million with the highest at 42 million iirc.
    "ellen degeneres new house 2014 Ellen DeGeneres new $40 million dollar mansion is insane! It sits on 2.3 acres, and the main house is over 13,000 square....."

    Here’s my 2006 VDARE article on the Old Lesbians Network at the top of the UC system:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/diversity-is-strength-its-also-a-powerful-coterie-of-larcenous-lesbians

    • Replies: @Clyde
    So in 2006 the Harvard mean girl professors found ways of ganging up on men such as Harvard President Lawrence Summers. Just as an aside, Donna Shalala is mentioned in your 2006 VDare. She now heads the Clinton Foundation. Hill and Humma and Donna...old lesbians networking. May be complete bs but repeated on Rush Limbaugh that Hill & Huma share a suite when on the road. As Secretary of State, campaigning for President etc

    In 2015, Shalala was brought in to head the Clinton Foundation. According to the New York Times, Chelsea Clinton helped persuade Shalala to leave the Miami position, move to New York and head the foundation.
     
    , @JackOH
    (1) Dubious, or downright corrupt, hiring practices are the norm at the university where I work. Judging by campus insiders' blogs, ours isn't the only one infected with crony-and-kickback disease. Yes, the people hired are all "distinguished", or at least worthy of fawning write-ups in alumni mags and campus newsletters. (With student loan debt over $1 trillion, I suspect that exemplary RICO prosecutions of the most corrupt or most visible institutions are in the offing to help take down the higher ed lobby. That's just a wild hunch.)

    (2) As an initial assumption, I'll guess most of the full-time, tenured humanities and social sciences faculty here are so blinded by ideology (and institutional factors) that their capacity for scholarly inquiry is handicapped. I'm lampooning a bit, but they're the Ph. D-ed guys and gals who "know" it's all about money, or genitalia, or skin color, or economic interest, etc., when referring to the less educated masses. Complexity of motive and higher sensibility is something they regard as their province alone. Often true? Well, uh, maybe, often, sure, yeah, sometimes, okay, whatever. But, I wouldn't bet a nickel that the academy can even recognize complexity of motive and higher sensibility in people other than themselves.
    , @Ivy
    The financial services business is also infected by lesbians and their gay HR fellow travelers.
    Energy, defense and utilities, not so much.
  103. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website
    @Harry
    Spot on about the role of money and corporations. The left seems to have gotten itself a nice little ideological monopoly on being critical of those forces. How convenient.

    (OT: Seen your blog. You say: "And again I ask--why am I the only person on earth to see this yet?" You're not. Check my "Website" link (not my site) for Richard D. Fuerle's "Erectus Walks Amongst Us")

    thanks for the link…however, I have actually seen that site before…maybe I got some ideas from there and forgot that and then thought they were my own ideas? 🙂

    You mentioned my focus on the issue of how Big Money figures into every important aspect of america. For example, how Big Money figures into the development of feminism and the pseudo-male women of america. Someone else in this thread complained that I am obsessed with the issue of how big money figures into the development of our culture and just about everything else. But in my opinion big money is by far the dominant force in the development of just about every aspect of modern culture.

    So, in my eyes, any serious discussion on most any aspect of culture must account first and foremost for the role of big money. To fail to do so is akin to a rocket scientist failing to account for gravity. Big Money in american culture is like gravity in rocket science–the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    As usual on the dissident/paleo Right discussions, the role of big money is either ignored or only covered tangentially. I find that telling. Why is the Dissident/Paleo Right so reluctant to put the role of big money upfront?

    My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america. Modern american liberalism was primarily the product of upper class funding of writers and academics who favored a focus on females and nonwhites and the elevation of their social status via propaganda. Over decades, such propaganda has elevated females and nonwhites in status and lowered the social status of white males. This campaign was meant to increase the supply of workers and consumers. This campaignn was almost certainly a reaction to the immigration moratorium of the 1920s (and the immigration moratorium eventually led to the golden age of white labor in the 1950s–bad for Capital). The civil rights era was created by Capital’s multiculturalist propaganda in order to expand the supply of workers and consumers. Out of this labor-expansion propaganda campaign sprang modern american liberalism. Propaganda is the gasoline of the america mind.

    The conservative tribe is primarily the product of an anti-soviet propaganda campaign that got underway in the 1940s or maybe even as early as the 1920s. This propaganda campaign sacralized/made holy the idea of capitalism. Hence the reluctance of the dissident right to acknowledge that multiculturalism is not a tool of the Left but is instead a tool of Capital.The Dissident Right dogma holds Capital holy, which makes it awkward for them these days, seeing as how it is more and more obvious that mass immigration is not about leftism but about capitalism. And mass immigration and multiculturalism are blood brothers.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I basically agree with you. The modification I'd make is that it's actually two separate elites that actually dislike each other, but because they're both elite they propagate policies that support them, and the net effect is to propagate policies that support elite policies.

    There's an elite right that wants to keep wages down, because they own businesses and want to make more money. In the old days, they went in for red scares, etc., preventing socialism from ever taking root. They didn't really care that much about cultural-right issues like obscenity on TV, etc, so the left won those fights.

    There's an elite left that wants to end poverty, racism, etc. They're behind all the ridiculous SJW crap coming out of the universities. They don't really care that much about paycheck issues like unions anymore, so the right won those fights.

    The end result is that the left won the cultural war (LGBTCBY, sex on TV, white men are evil) and the right won the economic war (wages are low), which screws over...working-class white men. Exactly who's going for Trump.

    Since there's a lot of math and science people here: Let populist-elitist issues like immigration be denoted by the y axis (of course, the elites are on top), and traditional left-right stuff like abortion and affirmative action be denoted by the x axis (of course, the 'right' is on the positive side on the right of the graph paper). The elite right pulls up and to the right, the elite left pulls up and to the left, and you wind up going 'up'--with big profits for big business and the working and middle classes balkanized by race and gender.
    , @advancedatheist
    Richard Spencer has talked in some podcast appearances about how the white bourgeois class has acted against white people's interests in general. Traditionally Western societies had aristocracies to put a check on the greed of merchants, bankers and capitalists, and this had the effect of maintaining white identity; but then aristocracies lost the social and cultural wars of the Enlightenment, and their influence went into decline in the following egalitarian age. Now the commercial elite, at least in the U.S., can do pretty much whatever it wants, though it might take a few election cycles and some strategic investments to get its way.
    , @Bleuteaux
    I agree with this.

    I think the reason for varying levels of interest in the role of finance is that people have different levels of exposure to it. I was very much a garden variety Republican before getting my first real job out of graduate school, in Corporate America.
  104. @Buzz Mohawk
    It's predictable garbage, exaggerated when not made up entirely from whole cloth.

    Like that fake rape story in Rolling Stone.

    And yeah, girls like bad boys, as SFG said.

    Also, I speed-read the story, and I didn't get any indication that she herself was as good a lover as she wants us to believe. She being politically left, I would expect her to be as disappointing as the mythical Republican she says she fucked for 15 seconds. (I wonder if that was Haven Monahan.)

    Buzz Mohawk wrote:

    It’s predictable garbage, exaggerated when not made up entirely from whole cloth

    When I was young and naive, I used to think stories like this were actually true.

    I also used to think that spokesmen on commercials really believed what they said about the blue and green crystals in the laundry detergent.

    Based on the comments on Salon, it seems that some people never do notice that, alas, a significant fraction of the human race are pathological liars.

    Dave

    • Replies: @Anonym
    When I was young and naive, I used to think stories like this were actually true.

    It could be partly true. The parts I doubted were mainly how long he lasted and to a lesser extent how big he was. If he was very experienced surely he would last longer, doubly so if inebriated.

    It doesn't surprise me that women find right wing men attractive because such women are used to left wing men agreeing with them all the time and that won't pass any shit tests. Women are biologically programmed to test for weakness. They want someone to protect them and their children.

  105. @This Is Our Home

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?
     
    It's easy. You both appeal to their better side and troll them with how you and yours will be driven to join IS.

    Both carrot and stick.

    I’m light of the comment on ‘female chivalry’ I have a more comprehensive answer: troll them with how society will drop male chivalry if women don’t collectively live up to their side of the bargain.

    Which of course is actually what will eventually happen one way or another.

  106. OT: Obama calls for us to let in millions of migrants during his Thanksgiving address, then turns into complete pussy when guy jumps the White House fence. I thought this president didn’t believe in walls and fences?

  107. @22pp22
    I taught an esoteric subject at university and the result was that all the students in my groups got to know each other really well. The overall behaviour of the group depended on the alpha female, who was not always the prettiest or the brightest. The alpha-female in my best ever class was a Welsh girl and her side-kick. The side-kick was an A-student with film star good looks. The alpha female was neither of those things.

    The worst class was when I was a mature student in NZ. The chief bitch was a conceited little viper. She was moderately pretty and not at all bright, but back-stabbing and cruelty was how she made her mark and asserted her authority.

    At another university, I had a real problem class (two were sent down). I took the alpha-female aside and we had a frank discussion. She was not a particularly nice person, but she saw the error of her ways and things had turned around within two weeks.

    Women enforce social norms far more than men do. This is why the popularity of PC among women is such a problem. They do not face you like a man. They spread poison behind the back of their chosen victims.

    HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews (for their esprit de corps and IQ). Driving them away is folly. I have tried to appeal to their self-interest by pointing out that the people moving to Europe and violently anti-Semitic and misogynistic. I have had a lot more success with Jews than white women, who take a perverse pride in holding two mutually incompatible positions.

    “HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews”

    Truly laughable, the group of people that are more responsible than anyone else for this now are going to switch sides ? First of all, they will never switch sides, the non white world is much more in their favour than a white one, white nationalism is by far a greater threat than the occasional terror attack. Second, what makes you think that most HBD-friendly groups would want them on our side ?

    • Replies: @dcite
    I presume HBD is about genes. Genes are about mom and pop. Your arrow will go off into space without women on your side. They are half the equation.

    This kind of bullying the finger snapping gals perpetrated (sounds reptilian) is contrived, like most 20th c. feminism. In the old days, you were taught to be polite to each other. That's the golden rule in the material world. There's a reason why etiquette was the province of women.

    And this stuff about girls being so crueler. Only if you are the victim.Don't pat yourselves on the back too much, though it is true that "gallantry" is demanded too often of men. Gallants need ladies who behave like ladie. I think the sexes are equal in these matters. Boys make up for it by being loud and public and unreflective about their cruelty. They sort of admire it in each other. Girls do not admire nastiness in other girls. Or even in themselves. They just can't help it sometimes. Frankly, I prefer meanness behind my back where it can dissipate as stealthily as it came in and often no one hears of it. Loud, scary, public humiliation is never forgotten.
    Where is Emily Post when we really need her?

  108. @Steve Sailer
    Here's my 2006 VDARE article on the Old Lesbians Network at the top of the UC system:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/diversity-is-strength-its-also-a-powerful-coterie-of-larcenous-lesbians

    So in 2006 the Harvard mean girl professors found ways of ganging up on men such as Harvard President Lawrence Summers. Just as an aside, Donna Shalala is mentioned in your 2006 VDare. She now heads the Clinton Foundation. Hill and Humma and Donna…old lesbians networking. May be complete bs but repeated on Rush Limbaugh that Hill & Huma share a suite when on the road. As Secretary of State, campaigning for President etc

    In 2015, Shalala was brought in to head the Clinton Foundation. According to the New York Times, Chelsea Clinton helped persuade Shalala to leave the Miami position, move to New York and head the foundation.

  109. “girls tend to be quick and sharp at interpersonal thinking with a talent for knowing precisely where to slip in the psychological stiletto”

    That’s my daughter you’re describing.

    “Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
    Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
    Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw …”

    Heartiste’s “amused mastery” seems to be the only way to deal. Learned long ago there’s absolutely no point in employing logic.

  110. @Steve Sailer
    "Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes."

    Among natural blondes, that might well be true. Women in the Nordic countries like sports more than women in the Mediterranean countries.

    Nobody seems less interested in sports than Mexican-American girls. Has there ever been a prominent Mexican-American female athlete? I used to assume that Lisa Fernandez, the great UCLA softball player of the 1980s, was a local Mexican-American girl, but she turns out to be Caribbean (Cuban and Puerto Rican) born in NYC.

    Nancy Lopez of LPGA fame.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There you go.
    , @Steve Sailer
    Interestingly, Nancy Lopez got a huge number of endorsement deals especially for consumer packaged goods in the 1980s in part because she struck women as not very jockish, more feminine and maternal than the average jockette.
  111. @Steve Sailer
    The U. of California system has an Old Lesbians Network among the administrators, such as the UC Santa Cruz president who jumped off the highrise of her girlfriend (for whom she had gotten a $180k job with UC).

    I just reread yours and noticed this: “The dog run for her (Denton’s) two border collies cost $30,000.” What a unique rip-off of the California taxpayers. Jumping put an end to this.

    UC President Napolitano to Receive $570k Base Salary
    July 20, 2013 By Josephine Djuhana
    Janet Napolitano Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is now the new president of the University of California system, despite her lackluster track record as the secretary of Homeland Security and the glaring fact that she has virtually no educational experience under her belt whatsoever.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But she got celebrated for "speaking truth to power" in the Larry Summers Brouhaha.
    , @Clyde
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393054586?keywords=megastates%20america&qid=1448622886&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
    The Megastates of America Hardcover – 1972
    by Neal R Peirce (Author)
    1. New York - Still the 'Seat of Empire'
    2. Massachusetts - A Golden Age?
    3. New Jersey - In the shadows of Megalopolis
    4. Pennsylvania - Twilight Time?
    5. Ohio - The Middle-Class Society
    6. Illinois and the Mighty Lakeside City: Where Clout Counts
    7. Michigan - Auto Empires and Unions
    8. Florida - The Man-made State
    9. Texas - Land of the Monied 'Establishment'
    10. California - The Great Nation State

    I will be getting this book
  112. What happens when the “mean girls” are running the government?

  113. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Steve Sailer
    No, I think he's onto something: if you take hair dye out of the equation, I bet natural blonde girls tend to be more into sports than natural brunettes. It could be nature, it could be nurture, I don't know, but compare female sports participation in Sweden to Italy. Italian women are expected to spend a lot of time each day on grooming and seldom get intensely into sports.

    But, now that I think about it, there is the caveat that time spent in the sunshine and in chlorinated swimming pools tends to lighten hair, so girls on the swim team or cross country team, for example, tend to be blonder than they would be without environmental influences.

    So it's a complicated question, but there is likely to be something there.

    But, now that I think about it, there is the caveat that time spent in the sunshine and in chlorinated swimming pools tends to lighten hair, so girls on the swim team or cross country team, for example, tend to be blonder than they would be without environmental influences.

    Another personal anecdote, but I spent a year and a half of my life almost permanently outdoors and/or in chlorinated swimming pools. Despite my short male hair, my girlfriend has asked a few times where my bright blond hair has gone.

    I suppose you need to be an American to have a good understanding of South v North European differences though.

    Having said all of that, it is much more likely for brunettes to dye their hair blonde than the other way around and I’d bet that people on TV including athletes are much more likely to dye their hair than those not on TV.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I read a PJ O'Rourke article once that mentioned how few blonds he saw in Stockholm on a visit in February. I then went outside in downtown Chicago in July and saw a lot of blonds. There's a lot of seasonality to hair color among white people.
  114. @FPD72
    Nancy Lopez of LPGA fame.

    There you go.

  115. @FPD72
    Nancy Lopez of LPGA fame.

    Interestingly, Nancy Lopez got a huge number of endorsement deals especially for consumer packaged goods in the 1980s in part because she struck women as not very jockish, more feminine and maternal than the average jockette.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    I see what you did there!
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Nancy Lopez also did not come across as a lesbian.
    , @Desiderius
    Then she went and married strangely awkward jerk Ray Knight*. It was all downhill from there.

    * - maybe we're just still bitter here in Cincinnati over his leading role (along with Dan Driessen) in Dick Wagner's genius plan to save money by getting rid of the Big Red Machine. But I doubt it - he was a weird dude.
  116. @Steve Sailer
    I remember on the last Saturday night of the 1984 L.A. Olympics standing in a ice cream shop in Westwood behind three Swedish Olympic Team couples out on a date. They likely had some athletic and good looking blond children.

    Leif Erikson’s sister, who terrorized the poor Skraelings of Vinland around 1000 AD, would be the captain of the field hockey team if she were in North America today.

  117. @This Is Our Home

    But, now that I think about it, there is the caveat that time spent in the sunshine and in chlorinated swimming pools tends to lighten hair, so girls on the swim team or cross country team, for example, tend to be blonder than they would be without environmental influences.
     
    Another personal anecdote, but I spent a year and a half of my life almost permanently outdoors and/or in chlorinated swimming pools. Despite my short male hair, my girlfriend has asked a few times where my bright blond hair has gone.

    I suppose you need to be an American to have a good understanding of South v North European differences though.

    Having said all of that, it is much more likely for brunettes to dye their hair blonde than the other way around and I'd bet that people on TV including athletes are much more likely to dye their hair than those not on TV.

    I read a PJ O’Rourke article once that mentioned how few blonds he saw in Stockholm on a visit in February. I then went outside in downtown Chicago in July and saw a lot of blonds. There’s a lot of seasonality to hair color among white people.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    I've read that there's a lot of dyed hair in Sweden, blond to brunette. Brunettes are less an attractor for the Muzzie rape gangs.
  118. @PhysicistDave
    Buzz Mohawk wrote:

    It’s predictable garbage, exaggerated when not made up entirely from whole cloth
     
    When I was young and naive, I used to think stories like this were actually true.

    I also used to think that spokesmen on commercials really believed what they said about the blue and green crystals in the laundry detergent.

    Based on the comments on Salon, it seems that some people never do notice that, alas, a significant fraction of the human race are pathological liars.

    Dave

    When I was young and naive, I used to think stories like this were actually true.

    It could be partly true. The parts I doubted were mainly how long he lasted and to a lesser extent how big he was. If he was very experienced surely he would last longer, doubly so if inebriated.

    It doesn’t surprise me that women find right wing men attractive because such women are used to left wing men agreeing with them all the time and that won’t pass any shit tests. Women are biologically programmed to test for weakness. They want someone to protect them and their children.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Anonym wrote to me:

    It could be partly true. The parts I doubted were mainly how long he lasted and to a lesser extent how big he was.
     
    Well... maybe partly true. But so many aspects of it sound as if they were created for dramatic effect that I think Occam's Razor suggests she made the whole thing up. Anyway, I'm sure her editor did not call up the guy in question to "fact check" it!

    Anonym also wrote:

    It doesn’t surprise me that women find right wing men attractive because such women are used to left wing men agreeing with them all the time...
     
    She portrayed her left-wing academic lovers as such despicable excuses for men that I wonder if the whole piece wasn't really a sly satire aimed at left-wing guys and at academics.

    Dave
  119. @Clyde
    I just reread yours and noticed this: "The dog run for her (Denton's) two border collies cost $30,000." What a unique rip-off of the California taxpayers. Jumping put an end to this.

    UC President Napolitano to Receive $570k Base Salary
    July 20, 2013 By Josephine Djuhana
    Janet Napolitano Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is now the new president of the University of California system, despite her lackluster track record as the secretary of Homeland Security and the glaring fact that she has virtually no educational experience under her belt whatsoever.
     

    But she got celebrated for “speaking truth to power” in the Larry Summers Brouhaha.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Speaking of Summers, here is one from your archives:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/03/real-larry-summers-scandal.html
  120. @ben tillman

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.
     
    But Whites aren't high-status. We may be high status in a sense, or from a particular perspective, but we're low-status in other senses and from other perspectives. Officially, and the government's official policy is pretty damn important, Whites are the lowest-status population in the country.

    And it isn't unusual for low-status groups to be subjected to persecution by high-status groups.

    Maybe you need to relearn the vocabulary that would explain this. Take the words high/low, caste and slavery. What would describe certain Whites, the kind that make the world go round but can’t get no respect, is “high caste slaves”, like coders and the like, who have to walk on said eggshells. Blue collar and frayed collar Whites are low caste slaves. Look at South Africa. Meanwhile, minorities and the like can be high caste or low caste, but they’re free. In ancient times, the free, but very poor, Roman citizen was considered of higher standing than the slave tutoring a patrician’s son in Greek and mathematics. He also enjoyed a greater standing in front of the law and certain privileges (in the classical sense, of things being awarded to the few, not an innate trait of the many) not available to the slave.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    What would describe certain Whites, the kind that make the world go round but can’t get no respect, is “high caste slaves”, like coders and the like, who have to walk on said eggshells. Blue collar and frayed collar Whites are low caste slaves.
     
    This sounds like Orwell's "outer party" and "proles".
  121. @Clyde
    I just reread yours and noticed this: "The dog run for her (Denton's) two border collies cost $30,000." What a unique rip-off of the California taxpayers. Jumping put an end to this.

    UC President Napolitano to Receive $570k Base Salary
    July 20, 2013 By Josephine Djuhana
    Janet Napolitano Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is now the new president of the University of California system, despite her lackluster track record as the secretary of Homeland Security and the glaring fact that she has virtually no educational experience under her belt whatsoever.
     


    The Megastates of America Hardcover – 1972
    by Neal R Peirce (Author)
    1. New York – Still the ‘Seat of Empire’
    2. Massachusetts – A Golden Age?
    3. New Jersey – In the shadows of Megalopolis
    4. Pennsylvania – Twilight Time?
    5. Ohio – The Middle-Class Society
    6. Illinois and the Mighty Lakeside City: Where Clout Counts
    7. Michigan – Auto Empires and Unions
    8. Florida – The Man-made State
    9. Texas – Land of the Monied ‘Establishment’
    10. California – The Great Nation State

    I will be getting this book

    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the pointer. It looks like it is part of a series of similar books by Neal R Peirce: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562126
    There is also a 1983 followup:
    http://www.amazon.com/Book-America-Inside-Fifty-States/dp/0446380369
    , @Reg Cæsar
    How many Representatives and Electors have the first seven given to the last three since 1972?

    Speaking of Electors, Pearce is one-third of a triumvirate of Electoral College abolitionists, along with Lawrence Longley and the late James Michener. They had egg on their face in 2001, when their long-standing prediction that Americans would never accept a "wrong" result in the EC.

    In retrospect, that was quite dumb of them. Half of Americans don't vote, and (almost) half of the rest voted for the winner. That leaves only a quarter who would be angry.
  122. @Cereal Crepist
    I'm impressed Haidt mentioned Marcuse. It feels like there was a big intellectual counter offensive against the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" recently.

    The CM/FS theory is going mainstream. A veteran National Review-type conservative recently had a major book published on the topic:

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Walsh posts at PJ Media these days, abandoning NRO around the time Derb was booted (unrelated).
  123. From what I remember from the Mean Girls movie, Rachel McAdams et al. never targeted the boys. Of course, the content of this post better resembles my memory of the social power girls wielded back in my high school years. Moreover, my school would never have brought in a speaker who challenged the Narrative’s consequences quite like that.

  124. @Desiderius
    It's amusing how these uber-conformist SJW children of the rich and powerful to a woman identify as "left-wing."

    They're about as left-wing as Richelieu.

    About as left-wing as Robespierre, actually.

  125. @Steve Sailer
    Here's my 2006 VDARE article on the Old Lesbians Network at the top of the UC system:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/diversity-is-strength-its-also-a-powerful-coterie-of-larcenous-lesbians

    (1) Dubious, or downright corrupt, hiring practices are the norm at the university where I work. Judging by campus insiders’ blogs, ours isn’t the only one infected with crony-and-kickback disease. Yes, the people hired are all “distinguished”, or at least worthy of fawning write-ups in alumni mags and campus newsletters. (With student loan debt over $1 trillion, I suspect that exemplary RICO prosecutions of the most corrupt or most visible institutions are in the offing to help take down the higher ed lobby. That’s just a wild hunch.)

    (2) As an initial assumption, I’ll guess most of the full-time, tenured humanities and social sciences faculty here are so blinded by ideology (and institutional factors) that their capacity for scholarly inquiry is handicapped. I’m lampooning a bit, but they’re the Ph. D-ed guys and gals who “know” it’s all about money, or genitalia, or skin color, or economic interest, etc., when referring to the less educated masses. Complexity of motive and higher sensibility is something they regard as their province alone. Often true? Well, uh, maybe, often, sure, yeah, sometimes, okay, whatever. But, I wouldn’t bet a nickel that the academy can even recognize complexity of motive and higher sensibility in people other than themselves.

  126. This sounds like something I call the Princess Syndrome.

    Thank goodness I’m out of high school.

    I’ve noticed this behavior amongst 20-something women in bars whenever I engage. If I say something off color, their nose wrinkles and I get the “That’s offensive!” line, followed by a pause, within which I’m supposed to grovel and beg forgiveness. The first few times I got this response, I myself paused , feeling like I was in the Twilight Zone, but thankfully never apologized.

    Now I’ve gotten a bit more aggressive, and if one of them pulls the “That’s offensive!” line, I laugh and tell them to blow it out their backside, or else to toughen up. If they persist in telling me how much what I said was “offensive”, I ask them and their friends if they’re always such a lousy person to hang out with. Then I stop talking to them.

    And for the record, I’m usually just making a minor joke involving sex or race or homosexuality. It’s nothing worse that what you might hear on Family Guy or Archer or South Park or some other partially-politically incorrect show. And I’m definitely not threatening them.

    A few of these girls even went to a bouncer/bartender to complain about what I’d said—in other words, they tried to tell the teacher. Note this was after I’d stopped talking to them and refusing to engage if they tried. The bouncers/bartenders usually tell them to just let it go, at which they get even angrier: it seems as if this is the first time in their lives that they couldn’t have an “offensive” person hung, drawn, and quartered at a whim.

    This is a Princess Syndrome: in school and in work environments, we’ve given women a princess-like power over men, the ability to yell “off with their heads” at any moment, and be completely obeyed without question. A privileged American woman might grow from childhood to mid-20s these days and might never have a moment where her feelings aren’t paramount over a male’s feelings or beliefs, and when she didn’t have the immediate power to ruin his life for hurting her feelings.

    • Agree: Forbes
  127. @Anonymous
    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female "empowerement" thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men's to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in "reading" people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women's well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can't put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    I totally agree that women are more cruel than men once we take violent interactions out of the picture. It’s very hard, if not mostly impossible, for straight men to realize the extent to which this is the case, because they are biologically programmed to protect women. Gay men, who professionally interact with large numbers of women, are more likely to be aware of the self-serving downside of women and less likely to feel as if they are walking on eggshells around them. Gay men don’t take women anywhere as seriously as straight men.

  128. @Stan D Mute
    There is method to this madness of course. By fostering war against their white brothers, fathers, and male peers, the left helps decimate the population, making it easier to replace them with more leftist lower IQ third-worlders who will be compliant in keeping them in power and paying no attention as the regime becomes more fascist. Everything the leftist does is aimed at gaining and maintaining political power.

    On a different subject, your July piece on the lightening of Neymar is at the top of Unz again. Comments are closed, but it occurred to me that Neymar almost certainly dreams of becoming the next Ayrton Senna. Senna's funeral in 1994 was a State spectacle of the type you'd imagine for a Pope.

    I don’t recall ever hearing about Senna before this.

    I just read his wikipedia article. Fighter jets escorting the plane carrying his coffin? The largest gathering of mourners in modern times? For a racing driver? Seriously, this is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever read. I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response."

    Brazil has few heroes who are internationally known outside of their soccer team (I bet Pele will have a similar funeral one day). Senna was a world figure wherever motor sport is followed, who died in his prime and at the height of his fame.


    Remember also the wisdom of Glubb Pasha - "The heroes of declining nations are always the same - the athlete, the singer, the actor"


    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
    , @Tipo 61
    You had to be an F1 fan or Brazilian to understand it. Watch the movie 'Senna'.
    , @snorlax
    There was nearly as histrionic a response to Dale Earnhardt's death.
  129. @Yak-15
    This post is emblematic of typical old man talk with no more than a topical understanding of the current youth or even the youth of years past. At times Steve seems tripped up by the theater of today's rebellious young adult rather than its actual substance. Whether the fashion is flapper ware, smoking or wearing tie dye. The outward imagine and behaviors are irrelevant. It's simply an expression of precociousness except the mechanism has changed.

    Now women think they really can wear big boy pants and do everything a man can do. The crushing reality of a limited time span of attractiveness combined with the cruel certainty of loneliness outside of the traditional monogamous paradigm will wear out these neo-feminists.

    And they will all be doomed to multiple cat ownership. No need to fret.

    I would prefer that more girls become pleasant young women instead of insolent harpies. For every unhappy middle-aged single cat-woman there’s an equally unhappy middle-aged single man. This isn’t good for anyone.

  130. @newrouter
    >Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals : NPR<

    ruining class

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28United_States%29

    Actually, I’ve always been convinced the endocrine disrupters are behind a lot of men who feel ‘female’, and the right won’t say anything because it makes companies look bad and the left won’t say anything because it makes transgenderism look bad.

  131. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    Sure, call your opponents losers. It’s funny how the left is so happy to represent *economic market* losers (which I’m in favor of), but *sexual market* losers are worthy of mockery…

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    When whites reject blacks, SJW's call the whites "racists" and the blacks "victims."

    When women reject men, SJW's call the women "empowered" and the rejects "losers."

    I'd rather live in the world of empowered whites which shows more consideration for male sexual rejects than we currently see. At least the Catholic Church demonstrated that it valued the rejects' lives when it set up celibate monastic orders to give them homes and some measure of dignity.

  132. @Anonymous
    A factor in the feminization of young white males over recent decades --- at least as regards public school students --- has been lower participation rates in the contact sports due to at least two factors:

    1) school and school district consolidation beginning mainly in the 1970s: This resulted in much larger consolidated high schools where sports like football became increasingly the domain of elite athletes. My county in western North Carolina had 9 small community high schools in the 1950s and early 1960s. Each high school had a football team, for example. Now, with it has 3 high schools, and that's with a population about twice as large as when there were nine high schools. Where there was once 9 quarterbacks, there are now 3.

    2) racial integration: This put whites, who mature about a year later than blacks, at a disadvantage in competition for starting positions, quite apart for innate average differences in the foot speed, for example.

    Actually, yeah. It might actually be better to have worse football teams by giving more kids a chance to play, and thus expanding the number of kids who do some sort of sport–it has health benefits and personality benefits. But it’s hard, because who doesn’t want a winning team?

  133. @Yak-15
    This post is emblematic of typical old man talk with no more than a topical understanding of the current youth or even the youth of years past. At times Steve seems tripped up by the theater of today's rebellious young adult rather than its actual substance. Whether the fashion is flapper ware, smoking or wearing tie dye. The outward imagine and behaviors are irrelevant. It's simply an expression of precociousness except the mechanism has changed.

    Now women think they really can wear big boy pants and do everything a man can do. The crushing reality of a limited time span of attractiveness combined with the cruel certainty of loneliness outside of the traditional monogamous paradigm will wear out these neo-feminists.

    And they will all be doomed to multiple cat ownership. No need to fret.

    Sure, but they can wreck society while they’re at it.

    There’s also a more subtle problem. Historically, the left was the guardian of free speech (yes, really). If they now decide free speech is only good when it favors minorities, women, and LGBTCBY (you can actually find Jews on both sides of this issue), the right is obviously going to counterattack by going after blasphemy like it’s 1799, and we’re going to have a ridiculous situation where there are hate-speech laws against insulting blacks *and* Christians. (Read up on the ‘food disparagement’ laws of the Midwest if you want to see one of the ridiculous things the right is capable of.)

    And another old Anglo-Saxon freedom will be lost.

    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Interestingly in Hungary the holocaust denial law was accepted by the right only on condition that the law would punish denial of the crimes of communism. Similarly swastikas are illegal but so are the sickle and hammer and the red star (except as part of a foreign flag or coat of arms, which makes it even more ridiculous).
  134. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    It may have been written by a guy. One of those unemployed Comp Lit PhD guys. It really doesn’t take much talent to write a bodice ripper, and guys have been churning out tons of those for over 75 years. Why do you assume it was written by a woman? Salon is a pulp rag, so why wouldn’t they follow traditional pulp practices, like buying cheap bodice ripper clickbait from guy writers.

  135. @Stephen R. Diamond
    The jiujitsu move of turning the enemy's attacks against itself is prominent among white nationalists. One Priss Factory is the most consistent exponent of this tactic, advocating that whites seek safe places. (One supposes, also claiming "micro-aggression.") But Steve Sailer is not above partaking.

    The fact is, it isn't unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    It's obfuscating to turn the free speech issue into one of gender oppression, just for the pleasure of turning the tables.

    It’s complicated.

    A majority of high-status positions are held by white men. (Even subtracting Jews, this is still true.)

    White men as a whole face discrimination in government employment, university admissions, and are subject to PC policing if they say something out of line. They are the butts of endless jokes on TV and film meant to attack their self-esteem.

    So high-status white men don’t really care about affirmative action because they’ll give a slot to their daughter, and their son can marry a woman who has her own career (or trust fund). Low-status white men see their job opportunities curtailed and a lot of bile directed at them when they turn on the TV to relax with a beer after busting their butts hauling boxes at Walmart.

    • Agree: iffen
  136. From Private Eye here in the UK:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/669992335820914689/photo/1

    (University Challenge is a TV quiz of long standing, in which undergraduates from various universities compete.)

    • Replies: @neon
    Mildly amusing I suppose but not at all accurate.
    University Challenge is a bastion of white, male, public school, upper-middle class privilege, and long may it remain so.
    The comrades were wailing only a few months back at the lack of undergraduettes to be seen on the teams participating; whenever a team is heavily female, it never goes beyond one or two rounds; since the participating universities like to win, they don't repeat the error.
    The winner each year is now almost always from either Oxford or Cambridge. This was not always thew case, but for the last twenty years the collapse of standards at most of the redbricks has taken a very obvious toll.
  137. @Cereal Crepist
    I'm impressed Haidt mentioned Marcuse. It feels like there was a big intellectual counter offensive against the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" recently.

    I suspect he reads Sailer, at the very least.

  138. @ben tillman

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands....

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class....
     
    The Left has never had any concern for issues of "class". The back-and-forth between Trotsky and Dewey makes it clear that class conflict was a means to another end.

    It was Debs’ primary concern. FDR was known as a ‘traitor to his class’ and so on. Bernie Sanders, in another era, seems pretty much focused on economic issues, to the point of getting Black Lives Matter on his case. There are countless other examples, at least up through the sixties.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    It was Debs’ primary concern. FDR was known as a ‘traitor to his class’ and so on. Bernie Sanders, in another era, seems pretty much focused on economic issues, to the point of getting Black Lives Matter on his case. There are countless other examples, at least up through the sixties.
     
    That's not responsive, largely, and you're possibly begging the question by simply categorizing anyone who cared about the working class a Leftist.

    Was it Debs' primary concern, or did he just say it was his primary concern? Is Debs really a Leftist? How so? Did he want to hurt members of other classes, or did he just wan to help the working class? If he objected to the excesses of capitalism, wouldn't that put him on the Right? How is the fact that some people were or are focused on economic issues supposed to be responsive? How are the "countless other" people Leftists, how do they appear to be concerned about the working class, and how do you know the concern is real? How is the Roosevelt thing relevant at all? Surely the Left weren't complaining about him being a class traitor!
  139. @22pp22
    I taught an esoteric subject at university and the result was that all the students in my groups got to know each other really well. The overall behaviour of the group depended on the alpha female, who was not always the prettiest or the brightest. The alpha-female in my best ever class was a Welsh girl and her side-kick. The side-kick was an A-student with film star good looks. The alpha female was neither of those things.

    The worst class was when I was a mature student in NZ. The chief bitch was a conceited little viper. She was moderately pretty and not at all bright, but back-stabbing and cruelty was how she made her mark and asserted her authority.

    At another university, I had a real problem class (two were sent down). I took the alpha-female aside and we had a frank discussion. She was not a particularly nice person, but she saw the error of her ways and things had turned around within two weeks.

    Women enforce social norms far more than men do. This is why the popularity of PC among women is such a problem. They do not face you like a man. They spread poison behind the back of their chosen victims.

    HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews (for their esprit de corps and IQ). Driving them away is folly. I have tried to appeal to their self-interest by pointing out that the people moving to Europe and violently anti-Semitic and misogynistic. I have had a lot more success with Jews than white women, who take a perverse pride in holding two mutually incompatible positions.

    Oy. I hope you’re right, but given what I’ve seen, I’m not optimistic.

  140. @duderino
    There's a problem with the "Mean Girls" analogy. In Social Justice Mean Girls, The hot chicks aren't the villains. Head Cheerleaders typically have the social awareness to not fully believe that the patriarchy is against them. There's a certain type of girl, who's smart enough to do mental gymnastics but hyper sensitive to the smallest slight. It's like the social part of their brain is constantly working overtime assigning negative motives onto men. Modern feminism strikes me as paranoid about men

    I think it hijacks the female brain module that’s always looking for signs of bad behavior from men–which is really quite evolutionarily adaptive, there really are always evil men trying to take advantage of women! (Look at our ghetto dads with 14 kids.)

    (There are evil women trying to take advantage of men–witness our modern divorce industry–but they had a lot fewer opportunities in times past.)

    You’ve also got the fact that misogyny and misandry are natural responses to a low position in the sexual market–and since there are limited supplies of partners, someone will *always* be at the bottom. Nobody likes me? The other gender must be to blame. It explains both feminism and Gamergate.

    • Replies: @Difference Maker
    Haven't followed Gamergate beyond broad outlines but they did good work. I admit that I happen to enjoy video games, and tire of the increasing SJW nonsense pushed on everyone. Gamergate is an example of a successful counter attack.

    Thinking it over perhaps it is not surprising a pushback would come from the video game sphere of all places. Video gamers skew male to an extent that we might say that video games are inherently masculine, despite the nerdiness that may or may not be present. Since it's only video games, big dogs don't care about it. And so the SJWs were stomped
    , @Difference Maker
    Haven't followed Gamergate but from the broad outlines Gamergate did good work. I admit I happen to like video games and tire of the creeping SJW nonsense. Gamergate is an example of a successful counter attack

    Thinking it over perhaps it is not surprising that it came from the video game sphere of all places. Video games skew male enough that we can say that video games are inherently masculine, regardless of the nerdiness or not of the participants. Since it's only video games, the big dogs ignored it. And so the SJWs were stomped
  141. @Anonymous
    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female "empowerement" thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men's to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in "reading" people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women's well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can't put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    It’s chivalry. From the evolutionary point of view women count more than men because they’re the bottleneck in reproduction–1 woman and 10 men can produce many fewer children than 1 man and 10 women. They’re also smaller and weaker, and, for most of human history where threats involved things like wild animals and collapsing houses, more vulnerable. So most cultures are obsessed with the protection of women. Even now arguing about ‘men’s rights’ tends to be a loser even with righties. The problem is that women now believe in feminism and lots of men still believe in chivalry, so men get screwed.

    One of the nice things about Christianity was that every life had value before God. It’s unrealistic, but the struggle for survival of the fittest is a very nasty place (and Darwin acknowledged this).

  142. @andy russia
    there's also this thing where they say we lived in the best of times and that the past is Hitler, "misogyny" and whatnot.

    When someone points out the social rot, they invariably say something to the effect that the past is irredeemably evil and they invoke Pinker's book which "proves" that violence has gone down.

    when someone as much as says "I like innocent old movies", they're like "OMG what do you mean innocent, what about the Holocaust-racism-misogyny!!!eleven"

    It's scary. Imagine hordes of SJWs with a huge chip on their shoulder in charge of libraries, archives etc.

    And of course, they don't see how in the end, they're defending the status quo, a thoroughly elitist activity to start with that alone would undermine the little leftist street cred they have.

    Actually, that’s pretty much who is in charge of libraries and archives. But librarians have this whole thing about access to information, so they’ll defend your right to check out a copy of Mein Kampf.

    So far.

  143. @This Is Our Home
    This is a monumental and multi-layered analysis of Haidt's crucial work. I know that of the 8 major points made all are true, but I've never seem them written down or logically laid out, just as one can know many things without having the genius to really and clearly understand them. I'm genuinely astounded.

    Perhaps you don't even realise how interesting this post is?

    It’s got over 100 comments, only 20 or so of which are from me.

    I’d like to see Sailer write a book that isn’t about Obama. He’s made a lot of interesting insights over the years, and Barry’s gone in a year. I mean, Steve, we know you have to make a living, and books about how bad Obama are sell copies, but…

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It now has over 300 and yours weren't among the worst, in fact for some reason I only replied to you.
  144. @PhysicistDave
    Anonymous wrote:

    Boys are pretty much as they always were in private or among themselves – but they are smart enough to not want to stick their necks out and get themselves in trouble
     
    Have you ever read Tom Wolfe's essay "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers"? The punchline is that all of the pampered little minorities who get to act out their grievances end up, in the end, back in the projects living miserable lives.

    I.e., the joke is on these kids who are flexing their rhetorical muscles trying to intimidate their betters. Yeah, a few of them will get sinecures as affirmative-action counselors or whatever. But most of them are going to end up with lousy lives.

    I kind of feel sorry for them. Of course, I can't help indulging myself occasionally just telling the truth to an SJW to see if I can cause him/her to have a coronary.

    Dave

    At an upscale school in Seattle, they’re probably going to do OK.

  145. @anony-mouse
    Can't anybody here look on the bright side?

    Emasculated male Democrats now (and Democrats is what these kids are) means fewer Democrats in the future.

    It's hard enough already for Democrats to reproduce (Carter is the only postwar Dem POTUS to have more than 2 kids vs 2 being the minimum number of postwar GOP POTUS kids).

    Dems have been counting on outnumbering the GOP in the future. Not among their elite they won't.

    They advance by conversion, not reproduction. That’s why they put much more effort into controlling the minds of the young than into reproduction.

  146. @dfordoom

    it’s the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.
     
    It's a journey worth taking.

    I’d love to, I’m just afraid of winding up dead by one of my new friends when my ancestry comes out…

    The rest of you probably should go ahead, though. The country needs you…

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    I’m just afraid of winding up dead by one of my new friends when my ancestry comes out…
     
    It's a bit paranoid fear, but you could pull a Professor Gottfried and simultaneously support Israel and Kevin MacDonald (or, as Dr. Gottfried actually did, only a subset of MacDonald's theories while defending his right to express the rest). Israel could always be there for you, and, to be honest, I don't think it's healthy to reject half of your heritage. Be proud of Jewish achievement but acknowledge Jewish vices and past sins without obsessing about them too much. Just as I think for Germans there's a golden middle between holocaust denial and full-blown self-hatred, similarly I think there should be a golden middle for Jews. You shouldn't always apologise for what Jews did or are doing, nor should you hate a tribe which is yours on your parents' side, but there's no reason to deny that a lot of bad things were done by Jews or, indeed, is being done at this very moment.
  147. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    Give the quality of “man” that identifies as Democratic, what choice does she have?

  148. @Hubbub
    "But does it really make the female majority happier in the long run?"

    No. I know from experience with what we used to call 'self-defeating behavior' on the part of former partners.

    No. I know from experience with what we used to call ‘self-defeating behavior’ on the part of former partners.

    Could you elaborate on this experience? I think it could be helpful to others of us.

  149. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    What do I think? Salon is the Weekly World News for libs.

  150. @SFG
    Naah, it's easy. Chicks dig bad boys.

    She defines 'bad boy' as 'Republican', which kind of makes sense in her milieu. Sort of the like way Hollywood made Nazis sexy by making them powerful and evil, and launched a thousand BDSM fetishes.

    I think that was Hugo Boss, not Hollywood.

  151. @This Is Our Home

    White Dems are a dying breed. Blacks and Aztecs, not so much
     
    Did you read the article? They own education, including the media, and so they own your kids.
  152. @Leftist conservative
    thanks for the link...however, I have actually seen that site before...maybe I got some ideas from there and forgot that and then thought they were my own ideas? :-)

    You mentioned my focus on the issue of how Big Money figures into every important aspect of america. For example, how Big Money figures into the development of feminism and the pseudo-male women of america. Someone else in this thread complained that I am obsessed with the issue of how big money figures into the development of our culture and just about everything else. But in my opinion big money is by far the dominant force in the development of just about every aspect of modern culture.

    So, in my eyes, any serious discussion on most any aspect of culture must account first and foremost for the role of big money. To fail to do so is akin to a rocket scientist failing to account for gravity. Big Money in american culture is like gravity in rocket science--the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    As usual on the dissident/paleo Right discussions, the role of big money is either ignored or only covered tangentially. I find that telling. Why is the Dissident/Paleo Right so reluctant to put the role of big money upfront?

    My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america. Modern american liberalism was primarily the product of upper class funding of writers and academics who favored a focus on females and nonwhites and the elevation of their social status via propaganda. Over decades, such propaganda has elevated females and nonwhites in status and lowered the social status of white males. This campaign was meant to increase the supply of workers and consumers. This campaignn was almost certainly a reaction to the immigration moratorium of the 1920s (and the immigration moratorium eventually led to the golden age of white labor in the 1950s--bad for Capital). The civil rights era was created by Capital's multiculturalist propaganda in order to expand the supply of workers and consumers. Out of this labor-expansion propaganda campaign sprang modern american liberalism. Propaganda is the gasoline of the america mind.

    The conservative tribe is primarily the product of an anti-soviet propaganda campaign that got underway in the 1940s or maybe even as early as the 1920s. This propaganda campaign sacralized/made holy the idea of capitalism. Hence the reluctance of the dissident right to acknowledge that multiculturalism is not a tool of the Left but is instead a tool of Capital.The Dissident Right dogma holds Capital holy, which makes it awkward for them these days, seeing as how it is more and more obvious that mass immigration is not about leftism but about capitalism. And mass immigration and multiculturalism are blood brothers.

    I basically agree with you. The modification I’d make is that it’s actually two separate elites that actually dislike each other, but because they’re both elite they propagate policies that support them, and the net effect is to propagate policies that support elite policies.

    There’s an elite right that wants to keep wages down, because they own businesses and want to make more money. In the old days, they went in for red scares, etc., preventing socialism from ever taking root. They didn’t really care that much about cultural-right issues like obscenity on TV, etc, so the left won those fights.

    There’s an elite left that wants to end poverty, racism, etc. They’re behind all the ridiculous SJW crap coming out of the universities. They don’t really care that much about paycheck issues like unions anymore, so the right won those fights.

    The end result is that the left won the cultural war (LGBTCBY, sex on TV, white men are evil) and the right won the economic war (wages are low), which screws over…working-class white men. Exactly who’s going for Trump.

    Since there’s a lot of math and science people here: Let populist-elitist issues like immigration be denoted by the y axis (of course, the elites are on top), and traditional left-right stuff like abortion and affirmative action be denoted by the x axis (of course, the ‘right’ is on the positive side on the right of the graph paper). The elite right pulls up and to the right, the elite left pulls up and to the left, and you wind up going ‘up’–with big profits for big business and the working and middle classes balkanized by race and gender.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Really insightful deluge of posts SFG. I think there is some truth to what radical centrist says but it is really more complicated than his one insight that gets reiterated in every post. For example, at this point yes, groups like fwd.us want to increase the supply of labor, no argument from me.

    However it is quite astounding how many of the multiculturalists have as their big driver some sort of personal stake in multiculturalism - a wife, husband, in-law of a child, child, rent boy or interracial fetish of some kind. Or themselves. This includes those who advocate for immigration based on business reasons! They often have a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with business, if you dig for it. Zuckerberg is a classic example. Maybe Tony Blair and certainly Murdoch as well.

    The drive from business is definitely there. An easy way to get a leg up in business is to hire cheap or better from overseas. Much like the US Apollo program. They simply hired the best at the time. But it is far from the only driver.
  153. Steve, how come my last comment didn’t come through?

  154. OK. Enough from me now!

  155. If you watch Disney series for tweens, you’ll find that girls are encouraged to bully and physically assault boys, not only for fun but also to gain dominance. It must be part of the feminist plan to empower women.
    Young girls later get their comeuppance from abusive thugs when they grow up.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Disney TV provided horrible examples for impressionable kids, and was kept off the TV in our house. It was bad enough that so many other school kids got infected with the Disney viruses.

    A low point was when the elementary school Spring Sing was comprised entirely of their lousy songs, without any from the deep and rich songbook that were known to prior generations. The silver lining was that the music teacher got canned.
  156. @22pp22
    I taught an esoteric subject at university and the result was that all the students in my groups got to know each other really well. The overall behaviour of the group depended on the alpha female, who was not always the prettiest or the brightest. The alpha-female in my best ever class was a Welsh girl and her side-kick. The side-kick was an A-student with film star good looks. The alpha female was neither of those things.

    The worst class was when I was a mature student in NZ. The chief bitch was a conceited little viper. She was moderately pretty and not at all bright, but back-stabbing and cruelty was how she made her mark and asserted her authority.

    At another university, I had a real problem class (two were sent down). I took the alpha-female aside and we had a frank discussion. She was not a particularly nice person, but she saw the error of her ways and things had turned around within two weeks.

    Women enforce social norms far more than men do. This is why the popularity of PC among women is such a problem. They do not face you like a man. They spread poison behind the back of their chosen victims.

    HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews (for their esprit de corps and IQ). Driving them away is folly. I have tried to appeal to their self-interest by pointing out that the people moving to Europe and violently anti-Semitic and misogynistic. I have had a lot more success with Jews than white women, who take a perverse pride in holding two mutually incompatible positions.

    Eschewing all attempts at diversity and just appealing to smart white men is enough.

    As for women interested in HBD: You can have Lagertha.

  157. @duderino
    There's a problem with the "Mean Girls" analogy. In Social Justice Mean Girls, The hot chicks aren't the villains. Head Cheerleaders typically have the social awareness to not fully believe that the patriarchy is against them. There's a certain type of girl, who's smart enough to do mental gymnastics but hyper sensitive to the smallest slight. It's like the social part of their brain is constantly working overtime assigning negative motives onto men. Modern feminism strikes me as paranoid about men

    ” There’s a certain type of girl, who’s smart enough to do mental gymnastics but hyper sensitive to the smallest slight. It’s like the social part of their brain is constantly working overtime assigning negative motives onto men. ”

    Yep. It’s weird having to constantly go back over unsent texts/emails and edit them with the view “how could this possibly be taken wrong?”, but that’s how it goes these days.

  158. @Steve Sailer
    Interestingly, Nancy Lopez got a huge number of endorsement deals especially for consumer packaged goods in the 1980s in part because she struck women as not very jockish, more feminine and maternal than the average jockette.

    I see what you did there!

  159. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    She lied about the Republican sex. It was the best she ever had. Her editor told her to cast him as a sexual failure to prove that her leftist husband was in fact, the stud.

    Salon invests a lot of energy in portraying men as sexual losers. They routinely run essays portraying Trump supporters as sexually inadequate racists. But you can count on Salon to headline a dozen Trump photos per day. At the end of every essay is a collage of Trump as a lipstick-smeared prison bitch.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    She lied about the Republican sex. It was the best she ever had.

    I was thinking of writing pretty much the same thing. Even without writing that, there is something unconvincing in what she wrote at the end. The sort of thing she would say to her cuckolded husband: "Yes honey, you were much larger than him and you certainly have more stamina...". Then she closes her eyes and imagines submitting to strapping racist Republican man again and again as she is lost in ecstasy...
  160. @Stan D Mute
    There is method to this madness of course. By fostering war against their white brothers, fathers, and male peers, the left helps decimate the population, making it easier to replace them with more leftist lower IQ third-worlders who will be compliant in keeping them in power and paying no attention as the regime becomes more fascist. Everything the leftist does is aimed at gaining and maintaining political power.

    On a different subject, your July piece on the lightening of Neymar is at the top of Unz again. Comments are closed, but it occurred to me that Neymar almost certainly dreams of becoming the next Ayrton Senna. Senna's funeral in 1994 was a State spectacle of the type you'd imagine for a Pope.

    Everything the leftist does is aimed at gaining and maintaining political power.

    The more screwed up you are the more “rights” you have. The civil rights movement of the 60s mau-maued the flak catchers. Traditionalist white men are the most competitive and successful group by far (especially when motivated and organized) and therefore serve as permanent flak catchers. It cannot end. But . . .

    If white men want to take one big step, stop buying the human rights racket, it’s way past its due date.

  161. @ricpic
    I'm glad Haidt managed to have the students participate in an open and civil debate. That said, it would be the height of naiveté to expect the overwhelming majority of students, who already self-identify as liberal, to work enthusiastically to change a school culture in which they feel free to speak their minds and in which those they consider enemies must walk on egg shells.

    That said, it would be the height of naiveté to expect the overwhelming majority of students, who already self-identify as liberal, to work enthusiastically to change a school culture in which they feel free to speak their minds and in which those they consider enemies must walk on egg shells.

    I basically agree. If you ask people in the abstract and in general whether they want an environment where people are free to speak their minds, then of course they will agree. Probably in large part because when you ask them that question, they focus on their own desire to express their views.

    (I think it’s a bit like asking men if they favor polygamy. Many average men will answer “yes,” thinking that it gives them the right to have multiple girls; they don’t consider that in reality it’s likely to leave them involuntarily celibate.)

    But in general, most people have a strong emotional desire to silence those with whom they disagree. Like ricpic says, they want their perceived enemies to be walking on egg shells.

  162. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    I don’t notice that in the US, it may be an Anglo-Australian thing, due to less darker haired people and the propensity of blonde(ish) hair to get lighter when exposed to the Sun, which I imagine is common in Australia. There is also the hair dye angle, a lot of blondes aren’t really blonde. I would say in my little corner of the world, the taller (although not necessarily more athletic) women seem to be disproportionately black or dark brown in hair color.

  163. @Stan D Mute
    There is method to this madness of course. By fostering war against their white brothers, fathers, and male peers, the left helps decimate the population, making it easier to replace them with more leftist lower IQ third-worlders who will be compliant in keeping them in power and paying no attention as the regime becomes more fascist. Everything the leftist does is aimed at gaining and maintaining political power.

    On a different subject, your July piece on the lightening of Neymar is at the top of Unz again. Comments are closed, but it occurred to me that Neymar almost certainly dreams of becoming the next Ayrton Senna. Senna's funeral in 1994 was a State spectacle of the type you'd imagine for a Pope.

    Neymar has cut his hair short and buckled down to playing football, with good results.

  164. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    It’s interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite – blondes are more likely to be homely “dog girls” and brunettes are urbane, “cat girls.”

    You’ve just described the plot of the extremely popular Broadway musical “Wicked,” and there is most certainly an ethnic, WASP v. Jew angle to it. Glenda is rich, dumb, blonde, and mean. Elpheba (the Wicked Witch) is smart, talented, good, and arrives at school dressed pretty much like a Hasidic Jew. The WASP v. Jew references and the multiple allusions to Nazi Germany were so obvious to me that I’m surprised I have never read comment on them before. The show is also wayyyy overrated. Entirely worth missing.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "You’ve just described the plot of the extremely popular Broadway musical “Wicked,” and there is most certainly an ethnic, WASP v. Jew angle to it. Glenda is rich, dumb, blonde, and mean. Elpheba (the Wicked Witch) is smart, talented, good, and arrives at school dressed pretty much like a Hasidic Jew. The WASP v. Jew references and the multiple allusions to Nazi Germany were so obvious to me that I’m surprised I have never read comment on them before. The show is also wayyyy overrated. Entirely worth missing."

    I hated "Wicked"! I thought it was so political, and the music was bad. It was a big liberal schmaltz fest. Complete garbage.

    I didn't pick up on a WASP vs. Jew angle, but instead perceived a traditional vs. progressive/multicultural dichotomy.

    I would have walked out of it, except that I was with some friends, had spent a lot of money on my ticket, and kept thinking throughout the show that eventually it was finally going to be good, which, of course, never happened.
  165. @Steve Sailer
    Interestingly, Nancy Lopez got a huge number of endorsement deals especially for consumer packaged goods in the 1980s in part because she struck women as not very jockish, more feminine and maternal than the average jockette.

    Nancy Lopez also did not come across as a lesbian.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Yeah, Jim Don Bob. And she also didn't seem sexually interested in girls.
  166. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    I had also noticed it before. I think it is something biological, as blondes generally have narrower hips than mediterranean women and longer legs. Probably the mediterranean girls have more estrogen.

  167. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    It’s not a personal gripe against women. Your comment is almost as dumb as when you claimed that Steve’s criticism of Clock Boy was due to jealousy.

  168. @Cereal Crepist
    I'm impressed Haidt mentioned Marcuse. It feels like there was a big intellectual counter offensive against the "cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" recently.

    The edit history on Wikipedia for Cultural Marxism is pretty fascinating. Dalrock’s very talented party minder Boxer also frequently contorts himself in pretzels trying to deny it exists.

  169. Somewhat slightly on topic: https://www.t-nation.com/opinion/women-in-ground-combat?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article4179

    Strength coach rips into lowered physical standards for soldiers. Fun quote:

    “Equality,” and yet at the same time “diversity” (the old Orwellian term “doublethink” applies here: Good news! Your salary has been increased from $4000 to $3500!) have become the primary concern within some military organizations. The most important thing in the world is diversity, even when some of those super-valuable differences mean an un-equal ability to perform.

  170. Myself–Girls are far more cruel than boys.

    Ok, what metrics are involved? How are you able to prove this generalization?

    Myself–A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    So, are you suggesting that boys pound girls into submission??? Moreover, I think you’re giving too much credit to girls regarding their ability to use those skills you listed to “crush boys socially”.

    Harry–Spot on about the role of money and corporations. The left seems to have gotten itself a nice little ideological monopoly on being critical of those forces. How convenient.

    
Again, what evidence do you have that helps to prove this claim?

    Robert Rediger–They own education, including the media, and so they own your kids.

    Aren’t your portraying yourself as a “victim”? I thought only SJW’s label themselves in this manner.

    Robert Rediger–I bet you couldn’t find a normal man between 18 and 30 who wouldn’t see the value in Haidt’s piece. Nor could you find an honest woman who wouldn’t agree.

    I’m not saying there isn’t value, I’m saying what else besides his own observations does he offer into evidence?

    Robert Rediger–Haidt’s on his way to being a voice of a generation and you’re stuck touting flawed studies about how brain science supposedly proves that ‘liberals’ are more rational than ‘conservatives.’

    Ok, in what specific ways are the studies I cited “flawed”? How does your statement even muster for analysis?

    Radical Centrist–My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america…

    

Ok, what evidence do you have to lend credibility to your theory? Who are these “elites”? What are backgrounds behind these “propaganda campaigns”?

    SFG–You’ve also got the fact that misogyny and misandry are natural responses to a low position in the sexual market–and since there are limited supplies of partners, someone will *always* be at the bottom.

    Assuming that today’s men are even aware of this so-called “sexual market” or designate amongst their peers or competitors these artificial markers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Myself–A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?"

    Exactly. The deck is in many ways stacked against boys, because the boys essentially have to compete against girls with one hand tied behind their back and on the girls' home turf.
    , @This Is Our Home

    Aren’t your portraying yourself as a “victim”? I thought only SJW’s label themselves in this manner
     
    Everyone is a victim sometimes and nobody is a victim always. See, complexity isn't that hard!

    Ok, in what specific ways are the studies I cited “flawed”? How does your statement even muster for analysis?
     
    I told you in my answer when I placed quote marks around 'conservative' and 'liberal.' A lazy effort at labelling by them which rather discredits the whole study, don't you think? Or do you actually believe, grandpa, that politics is all about American blue versus American red?

    My point was subtly made but not that subtly!
  171. @Clyde
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393054586?keywords=megastates%20america&qid=1448622886&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
    The Megastates of America Hardcover – 1972
    by Neal R Peirce (Author)
    1. New York - Still the 'Seat of Empire'
    2. Massachusetts - A Golden Age?
    3. New Jersey - In the shadows of Megalopolis
    4. Pennsylvania - Twilight Time?
    5. Ohio - The Middle-Class Society
    6. Illinois and the Mighty Lakeside City: Where Clout Counts
    7. Michigan - Auto Empires and Unions
    8. Florida - The Man-made State
    9. Texas - Land of the Monied 'Establishment'
    10. California - The Great Nation State

    I will be getting this book

    Thanks for the pointer. It looks like it is part of a series of similar books by Neal R Peirce: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2562126
    There is also a 1983 followup:

  172. Hor hor hor

    Have met girls recently who were way out of their league. Not pretty, not smart, and not socially savvy. I’m unassailable. Of course, I’m slumming it, underachieving, and sleepy to boot, but there’s a reason idgaf

  173. @SFG
    I think it hijacks the female brain module that's always looking for signs of bad behavior from men--which is really quite evolutionarily adaptive, there really are always evil men trying to take advantage of women! (Look at our ghetto dads with 14 kids.)

    (There are evil women trying to take advantage of men--witness our modern divorce industry--but they had a lot fewer opportunities in times past.)

    You've also got the fact that misogyny and misandry are natural responses to a low position in the sexual market--and since there are limited supplies of partners, someone will *always* be at the bottom. Nobody likes me? The other gender must be to blame. It explains both feminism and Gamergate.

    Haven’t followed Gamergate beyond broad outlines but they did good work. I admit that I happen to enjoy video games, and tire of the increasing SJW nonsense pushed on everyone. Gamergate is an example of a successful counter attack.

    Thinking it over perhaps it is not surprising a pushback would come from the video game sphere of all places. Video gamers skew male to an extent that we might say that video games are inherently masculine, despite the nerdiness that may or may not be present. Since it’s only video games, big dogs don’t care about it. And so the SJWs were stomped

  174. @Steve Sailer
    Interestingly, Nancy Lopez got a huge number of endorsement deals especially for consumer packaged goods in the 1980s in part because she struck women as not very jockish, more feminine and maternal than the average jockette.

    Then she went and married strangely awkward jerk Ray Knight*. It was all downhill from there.

    * – maybe we’re just still bitter here in Cincinnati over his leading role (along with Dan Driessen) in Dick Wagner’s genius plan to save money by getting rid of the Big Red Machine. But I doubt it – he was a weird dude.

  175. @SFG
    I think it hijacks the female brain module that's always looking for signs of bad behavior from men--which is really quite evolutionarily adaptive, there really are always evil men trying to take advantage of women! (Look at our ghetto dads with 14 kids.)

    (There are evil women trying to take advantage of men--witness our modern divorce industry--but they had a lot fewer opportunities in times past.)

    You've also got the fact that misogyny and misandry are natural responses to a low position in the sexual market--and since there are limited supplies of partners, someone will *always* be at the bottom. Nobody likes me? The other gender must be to blame. It explains both feminism and Gamergate.

    Haven’t followed Gamergate but from the broad outlines Gamergate did good work. I admit I happen to like video games and tire of the creeping SJW nonsense. Gamergate is an example of a successful counter attack

    Thinking it over perhaps it is not surprising that it came from the video game sphere of all places. Video games skew male enough that we can say that video games are inherently masculine, regardless of the nerdiness or not of the participants. Since it’s only video games, the big dogs ignored it. And so the SJWs were stomped

  176. Hor hor hor

    Met some girls recently who were way out of their league. Not pretty, not smart, and not socially savvy. Of course I’m slumming it, underachieving, and sleepy to boot, but there’s a reason idgaf

  177. @Anonymous
    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female "empowerement" thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men's to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in "reading" people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women's well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can't put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can’t put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    That’s one part of it. Another part of it though comes from looking at how we got into this mess.

    I.e. at some point feminists got a critical mass of men to defect against their own (and society’s) interest to give them the initial power they’ve now leveraged to dominance. To turn things around at this point will require getting some women to defect from that (intentionally, openly, proudly) self-serving coalition. That’s requires appealing to their self-interest.

  178. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.

    • Replies: @CJ
    Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.

    That's it in a nutshell. Progs can bang on about green and gay all the live long day and it doesn't bother the wealthy a bit. As I occasionally tell one, "You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?"
  179. @Clyde

    They’ve figured out that it is in their interest to propagate the lie that the average white (also applies to male) partakes in the privileges which go along with that status. The lie serves to deflect attention away from that subset and toward those who would other be their most serious competition.
     
    Forty years ago there was white privilege for whites of all classes and the New Left back then made a bid deal about it. Working class whites did have a leg up, such as Irish-Americans hiring the same and their fellow Catholics for big city fire and police jobs. But this has dwindled down to zero and gone negative by today. What we have today is non-white privilege via non-whites hiring their own kind and via affirmative action. There are also "old boy" networks of women, lesbians and gays who do their best hire people same as themselves in university administration jobs and various FedGuv and State and county agencies. Congressional staff has trended very gay for years. Of course they can do this with complete impunity. Though maybe once per year you read of a white male or female in Gov't or public school system suing due to harassment and being denied promotions due to black racism.

    Gay privileged--- That awful open borders DHS head Janet (from another planet) Napolitano got hired (2013) as president of the California state university system. She has been getting gov't checks for at least 25 straight years and will eventually get pensions paid by Arizona, Federal Gov't, California

    There are also “old boy” networks of women, lesbians and gays who do their best hire people same as themselves in university administration jobs and various FedGuv and State and county agencies.

    Likewise in Major Media.

    The situation is akin to the collapse of the Late Ming where the eunuchs took over after the virtual abdication of the Emperor. There is a difference in kind in the quality of leadership between those with progeny and those without.

  180. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    A lot of us here are married, or otherwise do not struggle with attracting women.

  181. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    The post is a report about how PC teachers create and maintain an anti-male climate at school.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, the report describes how males feel they are living and operating under an anti-male culture. The evidence for this is literally some women screaming at men, and some idiotic SJW crap at school.

    I'm not sure how screaming suddenly became worse than revenge porn, harassment on tinder. There was a frat that kept nude pictures of girls they slept with on a private facebook page.
    Do you think these things are not real? Which is more aggressive?

    Whether you agree with it or not, Trump supports sure do feel comfortable enough to yell about Muslims, or beat down a black protestor when they feel like it. I'm sure 100% of them will tell you they have to walk on egg-shells as well.
  182. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    ‘Left-wing’ means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful–women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    I can see why those who have created and propagated the fake-Left gain by so defining it. I fail to see how the rest of us, Left, Right, and Center, gain by agreeing with them and helping them spread the lie, however.

    There is also something to be said for truth, whatever one’s ideology.

  183. @ben tillman

    The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.
     
    But Whites aren't high-status. We may be high status in a sense, or from a particular perspective, but we're low-status in other senses and from other perspectives. Officially, and the government's official policy is pretty damn important, Whites are the lowest-status population in the country.

    And it isn't unusual for low-status groups to be subjected to persecution by high-status groups.

    Whites are still high-status and always will be, even if they were to become a minority in their own land. What Whites can achieve, and in fact do achieve, no others can; that alone will always give them place of honor among the races–as well as making themselves, of course, object of the envy, hatred, & resentment, of the lesser peoples.

    And even in the absence of superior ability, Whites would retain high status on the strength of sheer good looks alone: for the rest of the world, White beauty is the Gold Standard.

  184. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    @unpc dowunder

    “Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.”

    No you aren’t. My daughter’s elite level lacrosse team to is 16 blondes, 3 redheads, and 3 brunettes. No girls with black hair.

    They are 15 year odds, so this isn’t hair dye.

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    How do you know it's not hair dye? At least in the South, girls start dying their hair at age 10-11. Athletic girls tend to be more popular in school, and probably pay more attention to their appearance, so it's no surprise they are more likely to dye their hair blond. On the flip side, a lot of "artsy" liberal type women dye their hair darker than it actually is, usually starting in high school.

    From my experience, men are pretty bad at spotting hair dye. They only notice it when it's super obvious, like a Mediterranean woman with thick dark eyebrows and bright peroxided hair. Because it doesn't clash with their skin tone or eyebrows, brunette Northern European women can pull off blond hair really easily. I've read that 70 % of American women dye their hair.
    , @Anonymous Nephew
    "My daughter’s elite level lacrosse team to is 16 blondes, 3 redheads, and 3 brunettes. No girls with black hair."

    Blondes tend to be the gold standard for female beauty, so wealthier males will attract more than their fair share. At my son's private school in England there were a lot of blonde girls, presumably the daughters of blonde mothers.
    , @Marty T
    Lacrosse is definitely one of the blonder sports, for both sexes.
  185. @Leftist conservative
    thanks for the link...however, I have actually seen that site before...maybe I got some ideas from there and forgot that and then thought they were my own ideas? :-)

    You mentioned my focus on the issue of how Big Money figures into every important aspect of america. For example, how Big Money figures into the development of feminism and the pseudo-male women of america. Someone else in this thread complained that I am obsessed with the issue of how big money figures into the development of our culture and just about everything else. But in my opinion big money is by far the dominant force in the development of just about every aspect of modern culture.

    So, in my eyes, any serious discussion on most any aspect of culture must account first and foremost for the role of big money. To fail to do so is akin to a rocket scientist failing to account for gravity. Big Money in american culture is like gravity in rocket science--the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    As usual on the dissident/paleo Right discussions, the role of big money is either ignored or only covered tangentially. I find that telling. Why is the Dissident/Paleo Right so reluctant to put the role of big money upfront?

    My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america. Modern american liberalism was primarily the product of upper class funding of writers and academics who favored a focus on females and nonwhites and the elevation of their social status via propaganda. Over decades, such propaganda has elevated females and nonwhites in status and lowered the social status of white males. This campaign was meant to increase the supply of workers and consumers. This campaignn was almost certainly a reaction to the immigration moratorium of the 1920s (and the immigration moratorium eventually led to the golden age of white labor in the 1950s--bad for Capital). The civil rights era was created by Capital's multiculturalist propaganda in order to expand the supply of workers and consumers. Out of this labor-expansion propaganda campaign sprang modern american liberalism. Propaganda is the gasoline of the america mind.

    The conservative tribe is primarily the product of an anti-soviet propaganda campaign that got underway in the 1940s or maybe even as early as the 1920s. This propaganda campaign sacralized/made holy the idea of capitalism. Hence the reluctance of the dissident right to acknowledge that multiculturalism is not a tool of the Left but is instead a tool of Capital.The Dissident Right dogma holds Capital holy, which makes it awkward for them these days, seeing as how it is more and more obvious that mass immigration is not about leftism but about capitalism. And mass immigration and multiculturalism are blood brothers.

    Richard Spencer has talked in some podcast appearances about how the white bourgeois class has acted against white people’s interests in general. Traditionally Western societies had aristocracies to put a check on the greed of merchants, bankers and capitalists, and this had the effect of maintaining white identity; but then aristocracies lost the social and cultural wars of the Enlightenment, and their influence went into decline in the following egalitarian age. Now the commercial elite, at least in the U.S., can do pretty much whatever it wants, though it might take a few election cycles and some strategic investments to get its way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The aristocrats did not consistently have the interests of poor commoner co-ethnics/co-nationalists at heart. The modern jet-set aristo has no interest in poor commoners at all. Spencer, being American, has little experience of them.
  186. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    option 1)

    she wants to be ****ed hard not soft (as suggested by her account of her early sex life)

    so either she needs someone naturally hot blooded or someone who has an ethnic hatred for flyover blonde women

    a lot of academic leftism is/was a scam for non hot blooded academic males to act like hot blooded rebels so they could get sex from buxom young blonde women

    (but they’re not really hot blooded so it doesn’t work long term)

    (her description of sex after Bush won the election as an exception to the rule suggests her husband has a low level of ethnic animosity towards her that was inflamed by Bush’s win)

    eventually she got bored and picked someone who she thought would bang her the way she liked – the Republican thing was just a coincidence

    .

    option 2)

    i don’t know how old she is but women go through their mid-life crisis around 30 instead of 40 for men. they often cheat around then but don’t get caught as much – so this could be just that with added dramaz.

    .

    option 3)

    it’s revenge – her husband cheated on her so she cheated back – when women do that they often pick a guy or a type of guy they know their husband / bf hates most.

    (which is really dumb btw)

    .

    making it public makes it seem more like the revenge option

    (although it might be that her being unsatisfied is what led to hubby trying to polish his ego with a young student who wouldn’t know any better)

  187. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I imagine there has been a fair amount of research on coeducation, though I am not familiar with any of it. (Surely we would never embark on complex social experiments without significant study and experiment… right?)

    Perhaps there are advantages to single-sex schools, at least for some grades.

    I wonder if things like the Industrial Revolution might have occurred to some extent because you had a large number of boys somewhat segregated from girls at the time boys (and groups of boys) tend to get into “nerdy stuff”?

    Even if K-12 coeducation was common by the 50s, maybe extending it to university level was one of the reasons for the 60s. Maybe a lot of boys were trying to impress the girls and the girls were egging them on… (today it’s not very impressive to intimidate the administration (many of who come from the 60s era), they’ve already superficially surrendered but they are pretty good at playing games themselves.)

    It would be interesting to see a graph of the percentage of the population in coed institutions over time.

  188. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    Classic troll projection and deception….

  189. @SFG
    Sure, call your opponents losers. It's funny how the left is so happy to represent *economic market* losers (which I'm in favor of), but *sexual market* losers are worthy of mockery...

    When whites reject blacks, SJW’s call the whites “racists” and the blacks “victims.”

    When women reject men, SJW’s call the women “empowered” and the rejects “losers.”

    I’d rather live in the world of empowered whites which shows more consideration for male sexual rejects than we currently see. At least the Catholic Church demonstrated that it valued the rejects’ lives when it set up celibate monastic orders to give them homes and some measure of dignity.

    • Replies: @JSM
    At least the Catholic Church demonstrated that it valued the rejects’ lives when it set up celibate monastic orders to give them homes and some measure of dignity.

    Good point. And the fact that celibacy was enforced gave a face-saving cover story to these men, that they were celibate not because they couldn't get a woman, but because they were super-men who could control their base urges.
    , @Anonymous
    Yeah, nothing says consideration for these rejects like corralling them together in isolated communes where they work for no pay and are told to shut up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastic_silence
  190. @SFG
    I basically agree with you. The modification I'd make is that it's actually two separate elites that actually dislike each other, but because they're both elite they propagate policies that support them, and the net effect is to propagate policies that support elite policies.

    There's an elite right that wants to keep wages down, because they own businesses and want to make more money. In the old days, they went in for red scares, etc., preventing socialism from ever taking root. They didn't really care that much about cultural-right issues like obscenity on TV, etc, so the left won those fights.

    There's an elite left that wants to end poverty, racism, etc. They're behind all the ridiculous SJW crap coming out of the universities. They don't really care that much about paycheck issues like unions anymore, so the right won those fights.

    The end result is that the left won the cultural war (LGBTCBY, sex on TV, white men are evil) and the right won the economic war (wages are low), which screws over...working-class white men. Exactly who's going for Trump.

    Since there's a lot of math and science people here: Let populist-elitist issues like immigration be denoted by the y axis (of course, the elites are on top), and traditional left-right stuff like abortion and affirmative action be denoted by the x axis (of course, the 'right' is on the positive side on the right of the graph paper). The elite right pulls up and to the right, the elite left pulls up and to the left, and you wind up going 'up'--with big profits for big business and the working and middle classes balkanized by race and gender.

    Really insightful deluge of posts SFG. I think there is some truth to what radical centrist says but it is really more complicated than his one insight that gets reiterated in every post. For example, at this point yes, groups like fwd.us want to increase the supply of labor, no argument from me.

    However it is quite astounding how many of the multiculturalists have as their big driver some sort of personal stake in multiculturalism – a wife, husband, in-law of a child, child, rent boy or interracial fetish of some kind. Or themselves. This includes those who advocate for immigration based on business reasons! They often have a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with business, if you dig for it. Zuckerberg is a classic example. Maybe Tony Blair and certainly Murdoch as well.

    The drive from business is definitely there. An easy way to get a leg up in business is to hire cheap or better from overseas. Much like the US Apollo program. They simply hired the best at the time. But it is far from the only driver.

  191. @Herr Niemand
    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    “You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?”

    I would think it would involve showing them how it’s in the best interests of their children and their personal safety.

  192. @Herr Niemand
    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    “You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?”

    I would think it would involve showing them how it’s in the best interests of their children and their personal safety.

  193. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Herr Niemand
    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live.

    The girls are acting in the way being promoted by the PC teaching staff but yes feminism provides a lot of economic benefits at the upper middle class level. It’s girls in the middle who get the down sides of feminism without the financial benefits who get the worst deal. Feminism doesn’t really exist at the bottom – partly as a result of feminist support for mass immigration – so it’s moot there.

  194. In the old days, they went in for red scares, etc., preventing socialism from ever taking root.

    SFG, was justice done to Ethel and Julius Rosenberg?

  195. @advancedatheist
    When whites reject blacks, SJW's call the whites "racists" and the blacks "victims."

    When women reject men, SJW's call the women "empowered" and the rejects "losers."

    I'd rather live in the world of empowered whites which shows more consideration for male sexual rejects than we currently see. At least the Catholic Church demonstrated that it valued the rejects' lives when it set up celibate monastic orders to give them homes and some measure of dignity.

    At least the Catholic Church demonstrated that it valued the rejects’ lives when it set up celibate monastic orders to give them homes and some measure of dignity.

    Good point. And the fact that celibacy was enforced gave a face-saving cover story to these men, that they were celibate not because they couldn’t get a woman, but because they were super-men who could control their base urges.

  196. @FactsAreImportant
    OT:

    Devastating analysis of the Harvard Law School hate crime hoax by Harvard Law School students.

    https://royallasses.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/0-relax/

    That is some first-class work!

  197. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    You’re going to get nothing but grief for posting this from this crowd of pantswetters cowering in terror at teenage girls, but thank you. You speak truth.

  198. @Leftist conservative
    thanks for the link...however, I have actually seen that site before...maybe I got some ideas from there and forgot that and then thought they were my own ideas? :-)

    You mentioned my focus on the issue of how Big Money figures into every important aspect of america. For example, how Big Money figures into the development of feminism and the pseudo-male women of america. Someone else in this thread complained that I am obsessed with the issue of how big money figures into the development of our culture and just about everything else. But in my opinion big money is by far the dominant force in the development of just about every aspect of modern culture.

    So, in my eyes, any serious discussion on most any aspect of culture must account first and foremost for the role of big money. To fail to do so is akin to a rocket scientist failing to account for gravity. Big Money in american culture is like gravity in rocket science--the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    As usual on the dissident/paleo Right discussions, the role of big money is either ignored or only covered tangentially. I find that telling. Why is the Dissident/Paleo Right so reluctant to put the role of big money upfront?

    My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america. Modern american liberalism was primarily the product of upper class funding of writers and academics who favored a focus on females and nonwhites and the elevation of their social status via propaganda. Over decades, such propaganda has elevated females and nonwhites in status and lowered the social status of white males. This campaign was meant to increase the supply of workers and consumers. This campaignn was almost certainly a reaction to the immigration moratorium of the 1920s (and the immigration moratorium eventually led to the golden age of white labor in the 1950s--bad for Capital). The civil rights era was created by Capital's multiculturalist propaganda in order to expand the supply of workers and consumers. Out of this labor-expansion propaganda campaign sprang modern american liberalism. Propaganda is the gasoline of the america mind.

    The conservative tribe is primarily the product of an anti-soviet propaganda campaign that got underway in the 1940s or maybe even as early as the 1920s. This propaganda campaign sacralized/made holy the idea of capitalism. Hence the reluctance of the dissident right to acknowledge that multiculturalism is not a tool of the Left but is instead a tool of Capital.The Dissident Right dogma holds Capital holy, which makes it awkward for them these days, seeing as how it is more and more obvious that mass immigration is not about leftism but about capitalism. And mass immigration and multiculturalism are blood brothers.

    I agree with this.

    I think the reason for varying levels of interest in the role of finance is that people have different levels of exposure to it. I was very much a garden variety Republican before getting my first real job out of graduate school, in Corporate America.

  199. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women.

    You have to be an idiot to think your comment is responsive to Steve’s post. It had nothing to do with how men feel around women; it had to do with how men feel around women in contexts in which the power structure enforces double standards to their detriment.

    The problem, and the enemy, isn’t the women. It’s the power structure that enables and encourages their aggression.

  200. @advancedatheist
    When whites reject blacks, SJW's call the whites "racists" and the blacks "victims."

    When women reject men, SJW's call the women "empowered" and the rejects "losers."

    I'd rather live in the world of empowered whites which shows more consideration for male sexual rejects than we currently see. At least the Catholic Church demonstrated that it valued the rejects' lives when it set up celibate monastic orders to give them homes and some measure of dignity.

    Yeah, nothing says consideration for these rejects like corralling them together in isolated communes where they work for no pay and are told to shut up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastic_silence

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    Better than the Muslim solution, telling the male sexual rejects that if they die fighting the infidel, they have 72 virgin girls waiting for them. The role of sexual eviction in creating Islamic terrorists deserves more attention than it has received, though Christopher Hitchens mentions it briefly in his book, God is Not Great.
  201. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey
    It’s interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite – blondes are more likely to be homely “dog girls” and brunettes are urbane, “cat girls.”

    You've just described the plot of the extremely popular Broadway musical "Wicked," and there is most certainly an ethnic, WASP v. Jew angle to it. Glenda is rich, dumb, blonde, and mean. Elpheba (the Wicked Witch) is smart, talented, good, and arrives at school dressed pretty much like a Hasidic Jew. The WASP v. Jew references and the multiple allusions to Nazi Germany were so obvious to me that I'm surprised I have never read comment on them before. The show is also wayyyy overrated. Entirely worth missing.

    “You’ve just described the plot of the extremely popular Broadway musical “Wicked,” and there is most certainly an ethnic, WASP v. Jew angle to it. Glenda is rich, dumb, blonde, and mean. Elpheba (the Wicked Witch) is smart, talented, good, and arrives at school dressed pretty much like a Hasidic Jew. The WASP v. Jew references and the multiple allusions to Nazi Germany were so obvious to me that I’m surprised I have never read comment on them before. The show is also wayyyy overrated. Entirely worth missing.”

    I hated “Wicked”! I thought it was so political, and the music was bad. It was a big liberal schmaltz fest. Complete garbage.

    I didn’t pick up on a WASP vs. Jew angle, but instead perceived a traditional vs. progressive/multicultural dichotomy.

    I would have walked out of it, except that I was with some friends, had spent a lot of money on my ticket, and kept thinking throughout the show that eventually it was finally going to be good, which, of course, never happened.

  202. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    Myself--Girls are far more cruel than boys.

    Ok, what metrics are involved? How are you able to prove this generalization?

    Myself--A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    So, are you suggesting that boys pound girls into submission??? Moreover, I think you’re giving too much credit to girls regarding their ability to use those skills you listed to “crush boys socially”.

    Harry--Spot on about the role of money and corporations. The left seems to have gotten itself a nice little ideological monopoly on being critical of those forces. How convenient.

    
Again, what evidence do you have that helps to prove this claim?

    Robert Rediger--They own education, including the media, and so they own your kids.

    Aren’t your portraying yourself as a “victim”? I thought only SJW’s label themselves in this manner.

    Robert Rediger--I bet you couldn’t find a normal man between 18 and 30 who wouldn’t see the value in Haidt’s piece. Nor could you find an honest woman who wouldn’t agree.

    I’m not saying there isn’t value, I’m saying what else besides his own observations does he offer into evidence?

    Robert Rediger--Haidt’s on his way to being a voice of a generation and you’re stuck touting flawed studies about how brain science supposedly proves that ‘liberals’ are more rational than ‘conservatives.’

    Ok, in what specific ways are the studies I cited “flawed”? How does your statement even muster for analysis?

    Radical Centrist--My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america...

    

Ok, what evidence do you have to lend credibility to your theory? Who are these “elites”? What are backgrounds behind these “propaganda campaigns”?

    SFG--You’ve also got the fact that misogyny and misandry are natural responses to a low position in the sexual market–and since there are limited supplies of partners, someone will *always* be at the bottom.

    Assuming that today’s men are even aware of this so-called “sexual market” or designate amongst their peers or competitors these artificial markers.

    “Myself–A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?”

    Exactly. The deck is in many ways stacked against boys, because the boys essentially have to compete against girls with one hand tied behind their back and on the girls’ home turf.

  203. @Stephen R. Diamond
    The jiujitsu move of turning the enemy's attacks against itself is prominent among white nationalists. One Priss Factory is the most consistent exponent of this tactic, advocating that whites seek safe places. (One supposes, also claiming "micro-aggression.") But Steve Sailer is not above partaking.

    The fact is, it isn't unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.

    It's obfuscating to turn the free speech issue into one of gender oppression, just for the pleasure of turning the tables.

    “The fact is, it isn’t unusual for the high status group (here, whites) to be subject to worse speech restrictions than the masses are subject to.”

    An example or two would be nice.

  204. @Steve Sailer
    Here's my 2006 VDARE article on the Old Lesbians Network at the top of the UC system:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/diversity-is-strength-its-also-a-powerful-coterie-of-larcenous-lesbians

    The financial services business is also infected by lesbians and their gay HR fellow travelers.
    Energy, defense and utilities, not so much.

  205. @Steve Sailer
    But she got celebrated for "speaking truth to power" in the Larry Summers Brouhaha.

    Speaking of Summers, here is one from your archives:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/03/real-larry-summers-scandal.html

  206. @BB753
    If you watch Disney series for tweens, you'll find that girls are encouraged to bully and physically assault boys, not only for fun but also to gain dominance. It must be part of the feminist plan to empower women.
    Young girls later get their comeuppance from abusive thugs when they grow up.

    Disney TV provided horrible examples for impressionable kids, and was kept off the TV in our house. It was bad enough that so many other school kids got infected with the Disney viruses.

    A low point was when the elementary school Spring Sing was comprised entirely of their lousy songs, without any from the deep and rich songbook that were known to prior generations. The silver lining was that the music teacher got canned.

  207. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:
    @marty
    I've been saying for 20 years that youngsters weren't having sex. In the mid '90's, people would disagree by citing condom sales figures.

    Condom sales probably follow a Pareto distribution like many other phenomena: 20 percent of the men buy 80 percent of the condoms. Also by the 1990’s the aggressive marketing of condoms to gays as a way to prevent HIV transmission might have added to the sales.

  208. “There’s a lot of fraternizing with the enemy.

  209. “There’s a lot of fraternizing with the enemy.”

    Too bad that women don’t fraternize with you back. They take full advantage of men’s protective instincts towards them, as well as men’s obsession with fair play, and give it to men hard and good. They do NOT argue for women’s entitlement and enfranchisement on the grounds that it is good for both genders: they flat out are adamant and straightforward in that they care about the well-being of women and women alone.

    Now compare it to men’s attitude. You have argued that girls emasculating boys may not be good for WOMEN in the future. That is, even as you “defend” men, you do so having as the central point of your argument women’s rather than men’s welfare. That is, even as you “defend” men, you “white knight” for women. That is typical of a lot of men. It is as if men were ashamed of openly opposing women except as a proxy for women’s interest.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I don't get this. I understand that white knighting requires a male adversary. Where is the male adversary in this contest?
  210. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    “A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs–what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.”

    I do disagree. You are right that society needs people who will object to excess inequality, but it need not be leftists. And it shouldn’t be them, because at root, leftists don’t care. All they will ever really strive for is realizing their own will to power, using the aggrieved and the envious as thier tools.

    • Replies: @Hail

    at root, leftists don’t care
     
    This is a question of semantics. What you are describing are nihilists. Much of the energy behind today's leftism may be nihilism, but must it be so? it all comes back to what we mean when we say "the Left"...
  211. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    It’s “Penthouse Letters” for the kind of woman that reads Salon. It might be about as real as Penthouse Letters was too.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Wait! Penthouse letters aren't real! Boy have you ever harshed my mellow. Next thing I know you'll be telling me the girls don't really look like their pictures.
  212. @Andrew
    @unpc dowunder

    "Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc."

    No you aren't. My daughter's elite level lacrosse team to is 16 blondes, 3 redheads, and 3 brunettes. No girls with black hair.

    They are 15 year odds, so this isn't hair dye.

    How do you know it’s not hair dye? At least in the South, girls start dying their hair at age 10-11. Athletic girls tend to be more popular in school, and probably pay more attention to their appearance, so it’s no surprise they are more likely to dye their hair blond. On the flip side, a lot of “artsy” liberal type women dye their hair darker than it actually is, usually starting in high school.

    From my experience, men are pretty bad at spotting hair dye. They only notice it when it’s super obvious, like a Mediterranean woman with thick dark eyebrows and bright peroxided hair. Because it doesn’t clash with their skin tone or eyebrows, brunette Northern European women can pull off blond hair really easily. I’ve read that 70 % of American women dye their hair.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "On the flip side, a lot of “artsy” liberal type women dye their hair darker than it actually is, usually starting in high school."

    My guess is that due to sun lightening hair (or other causes), there is a general correlation between light colored hair and outdoors, beach, swimming pool, suburban, fit, Nordic and morning person and, conversely, between dark hair and indoors, restaurant, dance club, urban, artsy, Mediterranean and night person.

    Girls likely choose their dye color based in part on their aspirations and inclinations.

  213. @Anonymous
    It's hard to deal with these sorts of girls, because they take a small scale personal conflict and escalate it into a societal issue and rope as many others into the drama as possible.

    They will force all their Facebook friends and teachers, and other authority figures to get involved in the issue and choose a side…and god help whoever chooses the wrong side.

    There is a fear of getting labelled a rape apologist or racist or ugly monster. Once you are tainted by these accusations, you can find yourself socially isolated…which is something no teenager wants.

    I think the changes happening are really affecting girls most of all. Boys are pretty much as they always were in private or among themselves - but they are smart enough to not want to stick their necks out and get themselves in trouble

    It’s hard to deal with these sorts of girls, because they take a small scale personal conflict and escalate it into a societal issue and rope as many others into the drama as possible.

    These sorts? Pretty much all girls and women, in my experience.

  214. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    The post is a report about how PC teachers create and maintain an anti-male climate at school.

    No, the report describes how males feel they are living and operating under an anti-male culture. The evidence for this is literally some women screaming at men, and some idiotic SJW crap at school.

    I’m not sure how screaming suddenly became worse than revenge porn, harassment on tinder. There was a frat that kept nude pictures of girls they slept with on a private facebook page.
    Do you think these things are not real? Which is more aggressive?

    Whether you agree with it or not, Trump supports sure do feel comfortable enough to yell about Muslims, or beat down a black protestor when they feel like it. I’m sure 100% of them will tell you they have to walk on egg-shells as well.

    • Replies: @anon
    This post was about teenagers at high school.

    Or more accurately about the climate created among teenagers by their PC teachers which the girls conform too.

    Either you have a problem with reading comprehension or purple spiky hair.
  215. @Buzz Mohawk

    Meanwhile, in China they expect more than 3,400 cases of AIDS to be reported by the end of the year among students 18-22...
     
    Being China, their production will no doubt increase exponentially until they become the world's leading exporter.

    How many are in a case, by the way? Twelve?

    Don’t be a tool. You know damned well and good that a case is 24.

  216. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Forget the harpies, let the Syrian refugees have them. Remember one thing, shrews only get worse over time, never better; if they're on the borderline now they'll be unbearable later. Do not invest. Ukrainian women are better looking anyway, cast your eyes upon them and be pleased.

    Ukrainian certainly, but Russian, Polish, German, Dutch, Czech, Italian and particularly French as well. What they all have, the French above all, is femininity, which most American woman lost as a result of their historic need to step up and take over when the man of the house lay dead on the front porch with an Indian arrow through his heart.

    I would go so far as to say that American macho style homosexuality is directly related to this masculinisation of the American female: if you’re going to get a “man” in any case, you might as well find a real one.

  217. @AndrewR
    Can you tell us what you mean by that? I doubt I'm the only one here who has never taken much interest in internecine communist disputes.

    Can you tell us what you mean by that? I doubt I’m the only one here who has never taken much interest in internecine communist disputes.

    The gentile Left (as you might term it) or gentile “communists” or “socialists” from Robert Owen to Dewey sought to foster class cooperation, while Jews like Trotsky sought to foster class conflict.

    Welshman Robert Owen is often said to have coined the term “communism” in the first half of the 19th century, although a Wikipedia entry now attributes it to a French follower of Owen. Owen envisioned, and the term denoted, a societal arrangement of class cooperation (“hierarchic harmony” in MacDonald’s terms, “stratified stability” in T.D. Seeley’s terms, etc.). Marx and his Jewish successors like Trotsky, however, conceptualized a “communism” marked by class conflict.

    There’s a remarkable little book called “Their Morals and Ours” documenting the exchange between Trotsky and the socialist Dewey a century later. Dewey continued to advocate class cooperation while Trotsky advocated class conflict and the pursuit of a morality determined by the answer to the following question: Is it good for the revolution? Class conflict, apparently, was good for the revolution.

    Exchanges like the Dewey-Trotsky and Dewey-Lippmann exchanges reflect fundamental differences in the Jewish and non-Jewish conceptualization of the “leftist” project.

    Walter Lippmann (author of Public Opinion and The Phantom Public) contended that democracy (self-government) was impossible in an age of increasing complexity. He advocated government by a technocratic elite with “journalists” acting as intermediaries generating public support for the policies of the elite. Dewey rejected this idea and preferred the construction of a functioning democracy through education and uplifting of the public and through a focus on politics at the level of the local community.

    In other words, Dewey advocated cooperation, decentralization of power, and self-rule. If you consider those things to be policies of “The Left”, then, indeed, “society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality.”

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @SFG
    I'm with Dewey, then.

    There are actually three groups here: communists (control of means of production by the working class achieved by revolution), socialists (control of means of production by the working class achieved through the franchise or other legal means), and technocrats (control of means of production by a group of intellectuals). (There other varieties of leftists, of course--anarchists and Greens come to mind.) Yes, communists and socialists are different groups. They came to blows in the German Revolution of 1919, among other times.

    Also, I don't think Lippmann and Trotsky were on the same side apart from being vaguely left and (duh) Jewish--the LAST thing Lippmann wanted was a revolution, for example. It doesn't break down as simply as Jewish and non-Jewish, although obviously Jews prefer some sectors of the left to others. (In this case this would be communists and technocrats.) Stalin, for his part, wasn't Jewish and was very much into class conflict. Also, it depends what you mean by 'conflict'--I doubt Bernie Sanders wants to kill anyone, just take some of their money. You can't simply group everyone you don't like on the left into a single group--a lot of these people hated each other. (What does Pat Buchanan think of Charles Krauthammer?)

    There are as many lefts as there are rights--y'all know about neocons, libertarians, and paleocons, for example. The left is even more diverse because lefties don't believe in authority and tend to splinter easily.
    , @PhysicistDave
    Ben Tillman wrote:

    In other words, Dewey advocated cooperation, decentralization of power, and self-rule.
     
    Well... every dictator advocates "cooperation" (with the commands of the dictator) and "self-rule" (i.e., voluntary compliance with the wishes of the dictator).

    I know that Dewey soft-pedaled the coercive aspects: better marketing to an American audience. But, I think it was clearly still there: if you chose not to go along with the Deweyite utopia, there would always be an iron fist in the background, no doubt a sad and reluctant iron fist from Dewey's perspective, but an iron fist all the same.

    Robert Owen, 0n the other hand, did favor truly voluntary socialism as I recall. But of course, it did not last long once Owen's charismatic leadership was no longer present.

    Dave
  218. @dfordoom

    it’s the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.
     
    It's a journey worth taking.

    I’ve never made the journey: I was born a little reactionary.

  219. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    On reflection I think my earlier thinking was completely wrong and a good reminder to never take anything in the msm at face value.

    It’s a man writing, someone like the husband in the story.

  220. “Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can’t put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex.”

    I keep hearing conflicting arguments. One group of people say today’s men are so soft to the point that that SJW’s and pro-immigrationists run roughshod over them. On the other hand, other people point out today’s men are so alienated that they are rising up and standing up to their protagonists. 

So, which side is “correct” in their assessment?


    Desiderius—I.e. at some point feminists got a critical mass of men to defect against their own (and society’s) interest to give them the initial power they’ve now leveraged to dominance. To turn things around at this point will require getting some women to defect from that (intentionally, openly, proudly) self-serving coalition. That’s requires appealing to their self-interest.

    You’re going to have to do more than make blanket statements. Who is this “critical mass of men”? Are not men forming their own “self-serving coalition” when attempting to reverse the effects of feminism? How does one appeal to their “self-interest”?

    Anon—Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.

    Are you that weak sauce as to NOT be able to rise against these “oligarchs”? Moreover, what sources do you have demonstrating that “oligarchs” have openly conspired regarding race and gender issues?

    Anon—The post is a report about how PC teachers create and maintain an anti-male climate at school.

    It’s not a report, it’s anecdotal evidence. So, since we are using this standard, based on my observations, today’s teens, regardless of gender, are generally able to discuss their issues in school without recourse by administration or teachers. There is no observable overt effort on the part of today’s educators to collectively conspire to “frame” issues in favor of one sex over the other sex. It’s those media-driven stories that make it appear that the environment at high schools is one that is in direct opposition to young men.

    Jonathan Silber—And even in the absence of superior ability, Whites would retain high status on the strength of sheer good looks alone: for the rest of the world, White beauty is the Gold Standard.

    
Corrected for accuracy —> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    Advanced Atheist—Richard Spencer has talked in some podcast appearances about how the white bourgeois class has acted against white people’s interests in general. Traditionally Western societies had aristocracies to put a check on the greed of merchants, bankers and capitalists, and this had the effect of maintaining white identity; but then aristocracies lost the social and cultural wars of the Enlightenment, and their influence went into decline in the following egalitarian age. Now the commercial elite, at least in the U.S., can do pretty much whatever it wants, though it might take a few election cycles and some strategic investments to get its way.

    Define “white”. Explain what are “white people’s interests”. Are “white” people able to exert their own liberty and decide for themselves what interests to pursue individually?

    Can anyone here ever specifically offer exact metrics?

    Moreover, these aristocracies worked to put capitalists “in their place” out of concern that their OWN POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS would be threatened. Aristocracies represented “old money and status”—their authority was put to the test by the growing power and influence of “new money”. It wasn’t about “white identity”, it was about maintaining the social order in their favor.

    Advanced Atheist—I’d rather live in the world of empowered whites which shows more consideration for male sexual rejects than we currently see.

    Well, if you read the fine chaps at “Return Of Kings” or the stable of writers at “Roissy”, there is utter contempt for “male sexual rejects”. That is, the sexual market value of alphas is being maintained at the expense of “betas”.

    Ben Tillman—The problem, and the enemy, isn’t the women. It’s the power structure that enables and encourages their aggression.

    So, what are you doing about this power structure? Can your efforts work to destroy it?

  221. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @duderino
    There's a problem with the "Mean Girls" analogy. In Social Justice Mean Girls, The hot chicks aren't the villains. Head Cheerleaders typically have the social awareness to not fully believe that the patriarchy is against them. There's a certain type of girl, who's smart enough to do mental gymnastics but hyper sensitive to the smallest slight. It's like the social part of their brain is constantly working overtime assigning negative motives onto men. Modern feminism strikes me as paranoid about men

    Head Cheerleaders typically have the social awareness to not fully believe that the patriarchy is against them.

    Well, duhh. “Hot chicks” know the patriarchy exists for their express benefit and that it is generally insanely attentive to their slightest whims. They love the patriarchy, IME. Generally, people always love a game at which they are natural winners, no mystery there.

    Sour grapes for all the other women complaining about men (or men complaining about women). This complaining by women about men and vice versa has been going on about as long as there has been men or women or at least means to record their thoughts/opinions.

  222. @Thomas Fuller
    From Private Eye here in the UK:

    https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/669992335820914689/photo/1

    (University Challenge is a TV quiz of long standing, in which undergraduates from various universities compete.)

    Mildly amusing I suppose but not at all accurate.
    University Challenge is a bastion of white, male, public school, upper-middle class privilege, and long may it remain so.
    The comrades were wailing only a few months back at the lack of undergraduettes to be seen on the teams participating; whenever a team is heavily female, it never goes beyond one or two rounds; since the participating universities like to win, they don’t repeat the error.
    The winner each year is now almost always from either Oxford or Cambridge. This was not always thew case, but for the last twenty years the collapse of standards at most of the redbricks has taken a very obvious toll.

  223. @Leftist conservative
    sorry about that....did I trigger you? You might wanna go to your safe space, hon....

    For the love of iSteve, please save that sort of comment for Taki’s.

  224. @ben tillman

    Can you tell us what you mean by that? I doubt I’m the only one here who has never taken much interest in internecine communist disputes.
     
    The gentile Left (as you might term it) or gentile "communists" or "socialists" from Robert Owen to Dewey sought to foster class cooperation, while Jews like Trotsky sought to foster class conflict.

    Welshman Robert Owen is often said to have coined the term “communism” in the first half of the 19th century, although a Wikipedia entry now attributes it to a French follower of Owen. Owen envisioned, and the term denoted, a societal arrangement of class cooperation (“hierarchic harmony” in MacDonald’s terms, “stratified stability” in T.D. Seeley’s terms, etc.). Marx and his Jewish successors like Trotsky, however, conceptualized a “communism” marked by class conflict.

    There’s a remarkable little book called “Their Morals and Ours” documenting the exchange between Trotsky and the socialist Dewey a century later. Dewey continued to advocate class cooperation while Trotsky advocated class conflict and the pursuit of a morality determined by the answer to the following question: Is it good for the revolution? Class conflict, apparently, was good for the revolution.

    Exchanges like the Dewey-Trotsky and Dewey-Lippmann exchanges reflect fundamental differences in the Jewish and non-Jewish conceptualization of the “leftist” project.

    Walter Lippmann (author of Public Opinion and The Phantom Public) contended that democracy (self-government) was impossible in an age of increasing complexity. He advocated government by a technocratic elite with “journalists” acting as intermediaries generating public support for the policies of the elite. Dewey rejected this idea and preferred the construction of a functioning democracy through education and uplifting of the public and through a focus on politics at the level of the local community.

    In other words, Dewey advocated cooperation, decentralization of power, and self-rule. If you consider those things to be policies of "The Left", then, indeed, "society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality."

    I’m with Dewey, then.

    There are actually three groups here: communists (control of means of production by the working class achieved by revolution), socialists (control of means of production by the working class achieved through the franchise or other legal means), and technocrats (control of means of production by a group of intellectuals). (There other varieties of leftists, of course–anarchists and Greens come to mind.) Yes, communists and socialists are different groups. They came to blows in the German Revolution of 1919, among other times.

    Also, I don’t think Lippmann and Trotsky were on the same side apart from being vaguely left and (duh) Jewish–the LAST thing Lippmann wanted was a revolution, for example. It doesn’t break down as simply as Jewish and non-Jewish, although obviously Jews prefer some sectors of the left to others. (In this case this would be communists and technocrats.) Stalin, for his part, wasn’t Jewish and was very much into class conflict. Also, it depends what you mean by ‘conflict’–I doubt Bernie Sanders wants to kill anyone, just take some of their money. You can’t simply group everyone you don’t like on the left into a single group–a lot of these people hated each other. (What does Pat Buchanan think of Charles Krauthammer?)

    There are as many lefts as there are rights–y’all know about neocons, libertarians, and paleocons, for example. The left is even more diverse because lefties don’t believe in authority and tend to splinter easily.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    SFG wrote:

    You can’t simply group everyone you don’t like on the left into a single group–a lot of these people hated each other.
     
    Hitler had Röhm and Strasser murdered. That does not mean they were not all Nazis.

    Quite commonly, the most hated enemies are members of the same political group. Really, what was the difference between Stalin and Trotsky except that Stalin wanted Stalin in charge and Trotsky wanted Trotsky in charge?

    Dave
  225. @Whiskey
    Steve, no one is putting guns to girls heads to make them PC-Red Guard their male peers. They do it willingly.

    I'd say most women and girls prefer the way things are -- with the vast majority of their male peers emasculated. And indeed, there ARE definitive and "final" winners in the war between the sexes ... if you realize that old school monogamy is dead dead dead. Killed by the pill, condom, anonymous urban living, rising female income and status, leaving hypergamy free to play.

    Most women and girls if given a choice would share a few high status, dominant men, with achingly brief encounters, over a lifetime of beta male devotion. When beta male provisioning becomes worthless/devalued by rising female income and declining male wages and relative status/power, even more so.

    There is a *reason* this stuff happens all the time. Women like emasculating men, its got a name among PUAs lets call it here the "stuff test." (You can guess the real name, I understand this is a G rated blog).

    Women love love love to "stuff test" a man to find out if he's the real Alpha deal or a mewling beta male pretender. Emasculate 95% of men, and by definition those left are the real Alpha deal. Again most women would prefer to share an Alpha than have ALL of a beta male.

    This is why btw that most women support mass Third World immigration particularly Muslims. And why "Chicks dig Chechens." They ache for a man to simply dominate them and take charge, and will happily slave away at two jobs supporting their weed smoking, MMA wannabe, drug murdering and terrorist husbands. Paging Mrs. Tsarnaev, Mrs. Tsarnaev, your pressure cooker is ready. [As if she didn't know.]

    What Roissy/Heartiste does is the Lord's Work. Men and **especially** boys need to know PUA stuff, and yes this means the end of monogamy and the nuclear family but that was baked into the cake the moment birth control became cheap and reliable and women moved into the workforce.

    Heartiste had a discussion recently of Drug Dealer Game. Pretending to be a Drug Dealer, particularly an "intelligent" one who is "thinking of going straight" is like crack to women. They can't get enough of it. In HS, after all, who just tells girls to shove it and has them swooning? Thug or Old School Clean Cut Athletes who are BMOC, the school drug dealer, and other uber-dominant men. And as girls emasculate more and more of their male peers, they demand ever more dominance in their men. Probably most of the HS girls Haidt talked to would be happy in burqua being told what to do for the rest of their lives.

    Example: Angela "Let's Flood All of Europe with Muslims" Merkel. It doesn't stop even after menopause.

    This is why the "personal is the political" and it is vital for every White man and boy to Alpha up as much as possible.

    Whiskey, you sound frustrated. Is it because of your own experiences with women? Are you putting yourself out there, meeting and talking with different women? Are you talking about the PUA stuff because it works from personal experience, i.e. you now appear alpha, or is it mainly out of frustration of seeing other men work it successfully and you struggling?

    I ask this, because if you go on about this sort of stuff IRL in front of women, you are going to come across as the male equivalent of the leftist cat lady. Some of these young cat ladies can even be relatively attractive. However, I’m sure after 10 minutes of talking to one any male is going to come to the conclusion that he basically has to have a CV that includes Peace Corps membership, a job at the Pew foundation saving dolphins or maybe minority outreach somewhere, or an inner-city (or wherever the NAMs live now) school teacher in order to get anywhere. And you are going to need to be up to date with what the Kardashians are doing in order to have something to talk about. The average male looks at this self-centered, media-obsessed person, and thinks “Where do I start in taming this shrew?” And moves on.

    So maybe you need to get out there a bit, get some female advice as to how to improve your appearance to the best possible extent, and just talk to women. Ask them questions to find what they might be interested in, and when you hit something you are interested in as well, talk about it with interest. You obviously know most of the other PUA stuff, so you should know not to be too eager right?

  226. @Anonymous
    Girls are far more cruel than boys. But girls used to spare boys from their cruel games. You could say it was a form of female chivalry. Girls used to consider it a big no-no to pick on boys. Girls who did that were often severely punished by other girls.

    Now, the whole female "empowerement" thing is about women using the skills they have that are clearly superior to men's to feel superior. It is pure cowardice. The strong picking on the weak. Because boys lack the malice and subtlety in "reading" people that girls have, and they cannot articulate words as quickly and fluently as girls can either. There is a very small number of boys who are natural politicians who can, just like there is a very small number of tough and muscled girls that can fight boys physically, but these are rare exceptions. Here is the catch:

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    And Steve Sailer, like many men who argue against feminism, is using the angle that feminism sucks because it is actually bad for women. I hate that. What if feminism was truly best for women? Would it be ok considering that it hurts men? What I hate most about many men that speak against feminism is that they always do so from the angle of women's well-being. Men seem to have this mental illness that they just can't put the interest of their own gender on the same level or above that of the opposite sex. It is like men are hard-wired to think about the well-being of women first, and feel ashamed of being against something vile that women do simply because it is bad for men.

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    Well then, man-up. Life isn’t a fair game.

    Your observation above is Neanderthal-like: your recourse to a verbose woman is to physically dominate her? Women, like teen-aged girls, are catty and gossipy and enforce their own bizarre social norms. Assuming they still have any friends. Ever notice how women and girls have a new BFF about every month? Their world is constantly filled with social strife and turmoil (and they love it).

    Why don’t men/boys use their own interpersonal skills in rebuttal to women/girls’ avowed superior skills? Try ignoring them. Ignore their boy-crushing taunts. Turn the tables. Stop being a pussy. Make them meet you on your terms. Almost nothing gets a woman/girl’s attention faster than ignoring them. Most of what they do is attention-seeking drama. And they can’t stand it when you ignore them. Most men give in to this behavior because they have no patience to listen to their grief. The make-up sex will be worth it.

    Be the man in their life, not a replacement girlfriend who listens to her gossip. Direct their verbal and interpersonal skills to raising your children. And yes, be the shoulder to cry on when needed. But be a man.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Your observation above is Neanderthal-like: your recourse to a verbose woman is to physically dominate her?
     
    You might want to catch up on what others have been learning about Neanderthals, although I kind of like the fact that you still use the "h", as I do.
  227. @Clyde

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.
     
    OK but are they natural blonds? Though tinting their hair blond will/might make them go blond as far as blond behavior. What they think blond behavior is. So is it blond genetics at work or brunettes going blond too? Inquiring men's minds want to know for beach volleyball and tennis. Golf....not as much.

    Obviously a lot of women dye their hair a lighter colour, but most White women who go blond start off with dull light-brown hair and fair skin rather than dark hair/olive skin. Many people of north European origin are born with fair hair which turns light brown as they get older. Women tend to prefer a strong, distinctive hair colour – such as blond, red or glossy black, and dull light-brown isn’t very popular. Hence, technically speaking, a lot of sporty blond women may not be true blonds, but they are still relatively fair.

    In previous eras some women probably dyed their hair darker to make their skin look lighter, as do some artsy alternative women today.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Definitely agree with you that going blond (tint, dye) works best on fair skinned women. You make good points that many were blond when younger. Their hair got darker as they got older. Its as if they have everything they need to be an older (say 24 years old) blond except for the hair. So they lighten it towards blond.

    Your original point could be that in NZ you see blonds going in for sports more _also_ women who were blond when younger. That many of the later tint their hair lighter and its not that much of leap because they are fair anyway. Fairness of course remains while their hair got darker.

    (dyed) glossy black hair on artsy alternative women today

    Sometimes intriguing but indicates too many dark thoughts. Same as women who always dress in black.
  228. @Anonym
    When I was young and naive, I used to think stories like this were actually true.

    It could be partly true. The parts I doubted were mainly how long he lasted and to a lesser extent how big he was. If he was very experienced surely he would last longer, doubly so if inebriated.

    It doesn't surprise me that women find right wing men attractive because such women are used to left wing men agreeing with them all the time and that won't pass any shit tests. Women are biologically programmed to test for weakness. They want someone to protect them and their children.

    Anonym wrote to me:

    It could be partly true. The parts I doubted were mainly how long he lasted and to a lesser extent how big he was.

    Well… maybe partly true. But so many aspects of it sound as if they were created for dramatic effect that I think Occam’s Razor suggests she made the whole thing up. Anyway, I’m sure her editor did not call up the guy in question to “fact check” it!

    Anonym also wrote:

    It doesn’t surprise me that women find right wing men attractive because such women are used to left wing men agreeing with them all the time…

    She portrayed her left-wing academic lovers as such despicable excuses for men that I wonder if the whole piece wasn’t really a sly satire aimed at left-wing guys and at academics.

    Dave

  229. @ben tillman

    Can you tell us what you mean by that? I doubt I’m the only one here who has never taken much interest in internecine communist disputes.
     
    The gentile Left (as you might term it) or gentile "communists" or "socialists" from Robert Owen to Dewey sought to foster class cooperation, while Jews like Trotsky sought to foster class conflict.

    Welshman Robert Owen is often said to have coined the term “communism” in the first half of the 19th century, although a Wikipedia entry now attributes it to a French follower of Owen. Owen envisioned, and the term denoted, a societal arrangement of class cooperation (“hierarchic harmony” in MacDonald’s terms, “stratified stability” in T.D. Seeley’s terms, etc.). Marx and his Jewish successors like Trotsky, however, conceptualized a “communism” marked by class conflict.

    There’s a remarkable little book called “Their Morals and Ours” documenting the exchange between Trotsky and the socialist Dewey a century later. Dewey continued to advocate class cooperation while Trotsky advocated class conflict and the pursuit of a morality determined by the answer to the following question: Is it good for the revolution? Class conflict, apparently, was good for the revolution.

    Exchanges like the Dewey-Trotsky and Dewey-Lippmann exchanges reflect fundamental differences in the Jewish and non-Jewish conceptualization of the “leftist” project.

    Walter Lippmann (author of Public Opinion and The Phantom Public) contended that democracy (self-government) was impossible in an age of increasing complexity. He advocated government by a technocratic elite with “journalists” acting as intermediaries generating public support for the policies of the elite. Dewey rejected this idea and preferred the construction of a functioning democracy through education and uplifting of the public and through a focus on politics at the level of the local community.

    In other words, Dewey advocated cooperation, decentralization of power, and self-rule. If you consider those things to be policies of "The Left", then, indeed, "society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality."

    Ben Tillman wrote:

    In other words, Dewey advocated cooperation, decentralization of power, and self-rule.

    Well… every dictator advocates “cooperation” (with the commands of the dictator) and “self-rule” (i.e., voluntary compliance with the wishes of the dictator).

    I know that Dewey soft-pedaled the coercive aspects: better marketing to an American audience. But, I think it was clearly still there: if you chose not to go along with the Deweyite utopia, there would always be an iron fist in the background, no doubt a sad and reluctant iron fist from Dewey’s perspective, but an iron fist all the same.

    Robert Owen, 0n the other hand, did favor truly voluntary socialism as I recall. But of course, it did not last long once Owen’s charismatic leadership was no longer present.

    Dave

  230. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Mean girl feminists often take an instant dislike to me. Typical incident:

    I was at the gym a few weeks ago doing some squats. In between sets, I was idly gazing at myself in the mirrors that line the walls.

    All of a sudden, apropos of nothing, a women (also reflected in the mirrors) starts yelling, “Stop looking at me”.

    She looks like late 40s professional woman, rather fit, but lacking the slightest sex appeal to me at a minimum because of her age. Looks like the type with a hot career, no kids/hubby, but lotsa red wine and cats. She’s gotta be at least 10-15 years older than any woman I’d look at.

    So I say, “I’m not looking at you”.

    She responds, “No, you are looking at me”.

    I say, “Lady, you are both egocentric and delusional if you think I am looking at you”, and laughed at her implication that I was sexually interested in her.

    She then stalked off. All the other guys in the weight room then started making jokes about her, the threat being gone, I guess, but my impression is that she could have bullied a lot of these guys.

    Women also occasionally directly pick me up (or attempt to), one of the good cards I got dealt in life, some attractiveness to the other sex. However, it sometimes goes haywire in feminists, they start feeling attracted to me, who by any measure is old school guy and looks the part as well, but also feel conflicted about that fraternization with a prime example of the enemy.

    Anyhow, anyone who takes any of this crap from mean girls deserves exactly what they get. Best thing to do is just laugh it off like Trump or the beer summit cop, the worst case is being left alone and it goes upward from there to hot steamy sex sometimes.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Is that you Joe?
  231. @Whiskey
    Steve, no one is putting guns to girls heads to make them PC-Red Guard their male peers. They do it willingly.

    I'd say most women and girls prefer the way things are -- with the vast majority of their male peers emasculated. And indeed, there ARE definitive and "final" winners in the war between the sexes ... if you realize that old school monogamy is dead dead dead. Killed by the pill, condom, anonymous urban living, rising female income and status, leaving hypergamy free to play.

    Most women and girls if given a choice would share a few high status, dominant men, with achingly brief encounters, over a lifetime of beta male devotion. When beta male provisioning becomes worthless/devalued by rising female income and declining male wages and relative status/power, even more so.

    There is a *reason* this stuff happens all the time. Women like emasculating men, its got a name among PUAs lets call it here the "stuff test." (You can guess the real name, I understand this is a G rated blog).

    Women love love love to "stuff test" a man to find out if he's the real Alpha deal or a mewling beta male pretender. Emasculate 95% of men, and by definition those left are the real Alpha deal. Again most women would prefer to share an Alpha than have ALL of a beta male.

    This is why btw that most women support mass Third World immigration particularly Muslims. And why "Chicks dig Chechens." They ache for a man to simply dominate them and take charge, and will happily slave away at two jobs supporting their weed smoking, MMA wannabe, drug murdering and terrorist husbands. Paging Mrs. Tsarnaev, Mrs. Tsarnaev, your pressure cooker is ready. [As if she didn't know.]

    What Roissy/Heartiste does is the Lord's Work. Men and **especially** boys need to know PUA stuff, and yes this means the end of monogamy and the nuclear family but that was baked into the cake the moment birth control became cheap and reliable and women moved into the workforce.

    Heartiste had a discussion recently of Drug Dealer Game. Pretending to be a Drug Dealer, particularly an "intelligent" one who is "thinking of going straight" is like crack to women. They can't get enough of it. In HS, after all, who just tells girls to shove it and has them swooning? Thug or Old School Clean Cut Athletes who are BMOC, the school drug dealer, and other uber-dominant men. And as girls emasculate more and more of their male peers, they demand ever more dominance in their men. Probably most of the HS girls Haidt talked to would be happy in burqua being told what to do for the rest of their lives.

    Example: Angela "Let's Flood All of Europe with Muslims" Merkel. It doesn't stop even after menopause.

    This is why the "personal is the political" and it is vital for every White man and boy to Alpha up as much as possible.

    While I appreciate Sailer and many of other writings of the Alt-Right, I don’t think they realize that the demographic of their own daughters, young white women, are complicit with other parts of the left and the parts of the right to oppress normal(beta,hardworking) white boys and young men. Peter Frost was the only one who was even able to broach the surface of this subject in
    https://www.unz.com/pfrost/young-male-and-single/?highlight=young+boys

    Of course the old guys will say its all about sex, but it’s far worse than that. Women have no interest in even relationships anymore, let alone marriage, and infidelity, in my own experiences, is extremely common when these relationships occur, and women don’t want to even be women anymore in their interactions with us.

    As an aside, the rise of the younger generation of the alt-right and much of the fitness culture present in the west is due to these phenomena.

  232. @SFG
    I'm with Dewey, then.

    There are actually three groups here: communists (control of means of production by the working class achieved by revolution), socialists (control of means of production by the working class achieved through the franchise or other legal means), and technocrats (control of means of production by a group of intellectuals). (There other varieties of leftists, of course--anarchists and Greens come to mind.) Yes, communists and socialists are different groups. They came to blows in the German Revolution of 1919, among other times.

    Also, I don't think Lippmann and Trotsky were on the same side apart from being vaguely left and (duh) Jewish--the LAST thing Lippmann wanted was a revolution, for example. It doesn't break down as simply as Jewish and non-Jewish, although obviously Jews prefer some sectors of the left to others. (In this case this would be communists and technocrats.) Stalin, for his part, wasn't Jewish and was very much into class conflict. Also, it depends what you mean by 'conflict'--I doubt Bernie Sanders wants to kill anyone, just take some of their money. You can't simply group everyone you don't like on the left into a single group--a lot of these people hated each other. (What does Pat Buchanan think of Charles Krauthammer?)

    There are as many lefts as there are rights--y'all know about neocons, libertarians, and paleocons, for example. The left is even more diverse because lefties don't believe in authority and tend to splinter easily.

    SFG wrote:

    You can’t simply group everyone you don’t like on the left into a single group–a lot of these people hated each other.

    Hitler had Röhm and Strasser murdered. That does not mean they were not all Nazis.

    Quite commonly, the most hated enemies are members of the same political group. Really, what was the difference between Stalin and Trotsky except that Stalin wanted Stalin in charge and Trotsky wanted Trotsky in charge?

    Dave

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    There was a vast, vast difference between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was an advocate of permanent revolution, aimed at establishing world communism. Stalin was an advocate of communism in one country. To reduce their differences to who they thought should be running things is simply absurd.
    , @reiner Tor
    Röhm or either Strasser would never have dreamt of the holocaust, or probably even of starting a major European war. They (especially the Strassers) were more interested in some socialist-type revolution than in external conquest or racial war. Otto Strasser even worked with Jews before joining Hitler's party and after leaving it in exile and after returning from exile.

    Saying "they were all Nazis" is quite meaningless.
  233. @fnn
    The CM/FS theory is going mainstream. A veteran National Review-type conservative recently had a major book published on the topic:
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Pleasure-Palace-Subversion/dp/159403768X

    Walsh posts at PJ Media these days, abandoning NRO around the time Derb was booted (unrelated).

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Walsh is good. His previous book, written as David Kahane, was very informative. He was one of the first to bang on about how much damage the Frankfurt School and Saul Alinsky have done. Hillary's senior thesis was on Saul Alinsky. Walsh's fiction is pretty good too.
  234. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A recent interview of Camille Paglia may interest you. (Her answers are in English.) She touches on a lot of what you bring up here, women’s happiness, the battle of the sexes, emasculation, what the future holds, etc. For those new to Paglia, she speaks very fast, and the way she expresses her thoughts is not linear, so she’s not the sort of “easy listen” we’re used to in the media. Don’t be turned off by it. She has a brilliant mind.

  235. @AndrewR
    I don't recall ever hearing about Senna before this.

    I just read his wikipedia article. Fighter jets escorting the plane carrying his coffin? The largest gathering of mourners in modern times? For a racing driver? Seriously, this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response.

    “I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response.”

    Brazil has few heroes who are internationally known outside of their soccer team (I bet Pele will have a similar funeral one day). Senna was a world figure wherever motor sport is followed, who died in his prime and at the height of his fame.

    Remember also the wisdom of Glubb Pasha – “The heroes of declining nations are always the same – the athlete, the singer, the actor

    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    • Replies: @Anonym
    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    Thanks Anonymous Nephew. That essay is very interesting. The whole thing is worth reading.
  236. @Andrew
    @unpc dowunder

    "Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc."

    No you aren't. My daughter's elite level lacrosse team to is 16 blondes, 3 redheads, and 3 brunettes. No girls with black hair.

    They are 15 year odds, so this isn't hair dye.

    “My daughter’s elite level lacrosse team to is 16 blondes, 3 redheads, and 3 brunettes. No girls with black hair.”

    Blondes tend to be the gold standard for female beauty, so wealthier males will attract more than their fair share. At my son’s private school in England there were a lot of blonde girls, presumably the daughters of blonde mothers.

  237. @AndrewR
    I don't recall ever hearing about Senna before this.

    I just read his wikipedia article. Fighter jets escorting the plane carrying his coffin? The largest gathering of mourners in modern times? For a racing driver? Seriously, this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response.

    You had to be an F1 fan or Brazilian to understand it. Watch the movie ‘Senna’.

  238. @Jim Don Bob
    Nancy Lopez also did not come across as a lesbian.

    Yeah, Jim Don Bob. And she also didn’t seem sexually interested in girls.

  239. Been dealing with the female “journeyman” (i.e. union) carpenters for years. Prior to the Women in Trades movement females on the job were usually just someone’s gf, who was then given the easiest task at the time, such as holding the measuring rod during building layout, while her bf did the surveying and calculating part. Or else they were basically eye candy, stemming from the days of economic boom and prodigious waste in the construction industry. Apparently this then gave some labor activist feminists the idea to start the “Women in Trades” program, so that divorcees with no job skills or else obnoxious, butch types could learn a business that could, conceivably, pay more. Then, when something doesn’t go right they have elaborate explanations for what went wrong, but it’s really not that they just aren’t cut out for rough, physically demanding work. There “has” to be some other, rational sounding argument. Of course, don’t try to challenge this; unions are above the law. In the Carpenters Union anyone can get in since there is no state certification, so it is just up to the discretion of whoever is controlling the project and how much disorganization they can stand.

    • Replies: @2Mintzin1
    Yup. When I worked for Brown & Root years ago in the Southwest, the female blocklayer on our mason crew could not make her daily quota ...so they made her a foreman.
    With the female pick and shovel laborers, the bosses ignored their lack of production and kept them on the job, something they would never have done with a man .This was necessary to keep them employed. A shovelful of dirt doesn't weigh very much at first , but at the end of the day (1/2 hour off for lunch, no breaks) it gets mighty heavy.
    This caused a lot of resentment, of course...I asked one of the women about it, and her reply was that B&R was a major federal contractor, and was supposed to produce good numbers re female participation in the workforce.
  240. @unpc downunder
    Obviously a lot of women dye their hair a lighter colour, but most White women who go blond start off with dull light-brown hair and fair skin rather than dark hair/olive skin. Many people of north European origin are born with fair hair which turns light brown as they get older. Women tend to prefer a strong, distinctive hair colour - such as blond, red or glossy black, and dull light-brown isn't very popular. Hence, technically speaking, a lot of sporty blond women may not be true blonds, but they are still relatively fair.

    In previous eras some women probably dyed their hair darker to make their skin look lighter, as do some artsy alternative women today.

    Definitely agree with you that going blond (tint, dye) works best on fair skinned women. You make good points that many were blond when younger. Their hair got darker as they got older. Its as if they have everything they need to be an older (say 24 years old) blond except for the hair. So they lighten it towards blond.

    Your original point could be that in NZ you see blonds going in for sports more _also_ women who were blond when younger. That many of the later tint their hair lighter and its not that much of leap because they are fair anyway. Fairness of course remains while their hair got darker.

    (dyed) glossy black hair on artsy alternative women today

    Sometimes intriguing but indicates too many dark thoughts. Same as women who always dress in black.

  241. @J1234
    When I operated my retail business, I noticed a distinct difference between female sales reps from California and female sales reps from everywhere else. The products I dealt with had a somewhat masculine appeal to the public at large, and most vendors were aware of this. If a woman rep was smart, she would use her feminine instincts to her advantage, giving customers an, "oh, you big strong man, you!" vibe.

    Men do have an innate "expert," gene that I'm sure is challenging for women to deal with, but if women don't let it evolve into a confrontation, they can charm men by letting them believe they're the experts they think they are. I always tried to keep my expert gene in check, but I still had problems with every female sales rep from California that I ever dealt with. If you asked them a technical question that they couldn't answer, they took it as an affront, sometimes making up an answer so they wouldn't look stupid. If you asked to speak with someone who might know the answer, they really got offended. They would sometimes lose sales due to rudeness to make some vague feminist "point."

    Female vendors from Montana, Tennessee or Colorado, on the other hand, were very pleasant to deal with...usually preferable to men, in my opinion. Even New York women were pleasant by comparison. This was several years ago, and I always saw it as a California thing, but it may have expanded beyond California by now.

    In the TV show Weeds the main character is a female who almost always gets her way. The twist is she uses female charm to do so only showing an aggressive side when protecting her cubs. The part is played by Mary Louise Parker, an actress raised in the South.

  242. @This Is Our Home
    This is a monumental and multi-layered analysis of Haidt's crucial work. I know that of the 8 major points made all are true, but I've never seem them written down or logically laid out, just as one can know many things without having the genius to really and clearly understand them. I'm genuinely astounded.

    Perhaps you don't even realise how interesting this post is?

    points made all are true, but I’ve never seem them written down or logically laid out

    This is the brilliance of Steve Sailer.

  243. @PhysicistDave
    SFG wrote:

    You can’t simply group everyone you don’t like on the left into a single group–a lot of these people hated each other.
     
    Hitler had Röhm and Strasser murdered. That does not mean they were not all Nazis.

    Quite commonly, the most hated enemies are members of the same political group. Really, what was the difference between Stalin and Trotsky except that Stalin wanted Stalin in charge and Trotsky wanted Trotsky in charge?

    Dave

    There was a vast, vast difference between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was an advocate of permanent revolution, aimed at establishing world communism. Stalin was an advocate of communism in one country. To reduce their differences to who they thought should be running things is simply absurd.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Hunsdon wrote to me:

    There was a vast, vast difference between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was an advocate of permanent revolution, aimed at establishing world communism. Stalin was an advocate of communism in one country.
     
    I am well aware of that "official" difference: Marketing 101 -- you gotta differentiate the product!

    But, do you really think Joe Stalin was opposed to Communist revolution abroad when the opportunity presented itself? Do you think that is how he actually behaved?

    And, do you really think that Trotsky would have sacrificed the Revolution in the USSR in order to foment revolution abroad if he had actually gained power?

    If you do, I can only say that you have not been observing the behavior of politicians as long as I have.

    Hunsdon also wrote:

    To reduce their differences to who they thought should be running things is simply absurd.
     
    On the contrary, what is absurd is to accept the two tyrants' propaganda at face value.

    As I said earlier, a depressing fraction of the human race -- and most politicians and nearly all dictators -- are pathological liars.

    Dave
  244. @anon
    Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.

    Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.

    That’s it in a nutshell. Progs can bang on about green and gay all the live long day and it doesn’t bother the wealthy a bit. As I occasionally tell one, “You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?”

    • Replies: @anon

    “You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?”
     
    That's the kind of one liner you can use to put a pebble in their shoe.

    You can't debate them really as they are more brain washed than rational but a nice little bit of cognitive dissonance in their shoe will gradually deprogram them - might take a year or two but if you find the right one for the person then it seems to work.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    As I occasionally tell one, “You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?”
     
    Don't forget to mention them by name: Soros, Singer, Adelson, and a WASP or two so they don't get the wrong idea-- Gates, Buffet, etc.

    Should they bring up Trump, just ask them to name another like him. The Kochs? Yeah, right…
  245. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    That having a Democratic Party that cares more for such issues as LGBTQiA concerns & gun control nowadays than what lower class people actually care about such as good schools for their children, so-called ‘right-to work’ laws & minimum wage ordinances is as much as a result of the curtailing the ability of unions being able to be involved in the political process & the resultant inability for the party of JFK & LBJ to get their funding for working class folks as it is much the result of the Frankfurt School types taking over the DNC, which meant the democrats were now compelled to go somewhere else to get their funding, which eventually having to go so far as going to Wall Street to keep on keeping on. So as a result, the Democrats that do manage to make it to the White House happen to be corporatists in the vain of the Clintons & Obama(what happened to the promised change?). With that being said, it’s amazing that even 50% of the electorate actually bothers to vote @ all, mostly in Presidential elections.

    • Replies: @bomag
    Unions sort of squandered things. It would have helped if they had spent more time keeping workers in a reasonable range of productivity.
  246. OT

    Now that we know the black tape at Harvard Law School was a hoax, the NYT et al are Haven Monahaning the story by swooning over a tepid essay by a Harvard Law professor thoughfully discussing how we can’t really be sure what happened, but ….

    The true story is quite funny … almost as funny as the Haven Monahan hoax. Some Harvard Law students expose it here: https://royallasses.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/0-relax/.
    The exposee is savage. It names names and the hoaxers are going to be quite uncomfortable for the rest of their stay at Harvard.

    the NYT comments haven’t erupted in derision, so the exposee hasn’t reached the wider public yet. Lock and load Steve.

    If you look closely, you can tell that the NYT and the professor have read the expose by the Harvard students and know the incident is a hoax because they mention that tape was put over the faces of MOST of the black professors, not all of them. This is a point brought up only in the exposee by the Harvard students. (It is part of what makes the story so Havenly delightful.) Also, a security guard knew it was a hoax within minutes because black students had done EXACTLY THE SAME THING A YEAR BEFORE.

    One of the funniest NYT comments:

    I asked my daughter, a recent Yale graduate, her opinion of the events on both Yale and Harvard campuses … My daughter’s response was more eloquent than I can re-phrase here, but she said that – although she never saw marginalization or exclusion of black students, it didn’t mean it never happened. “Maybe,” she said, …

    • Agree: Mike Sylwester
  247. @Elmer T. Jones
    She lied about the Republican sex. It was the best she ever had. Her editor told her to cast him as a sexual failure to prove that her leftist husband was in fact, the stud.

    Salon invests a lot of energy in portraying men as sexual losers. They routinely run essays portraying Trump supporters as sexually inadequate racists. But you can count on Salon to headline a dozen Trump photos per day. At the end of every essay is a collage of Trump as a lipstick-smeared prison bitch.

    She lied about the Republican sex. It was the best she ever had.

    I was thinking of writing pretty much the same thing. Even without writing that, there is something unconvincing in what she wrote at the end. The sort of thing she would say to her cuckolded husband: “Yes honey, you were much larger than him and you certainly have more stamina…”. Then she closes her eyes and imagines submitting to strapping racist Republican man again and again as she is lost in ecstasy…

  248. @Hunsdon
    There was a vast, vast difference between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was an advocate of permanent revolution, aimed at establishing world communism. Stalin was an advocate of communism in one country. To reduce their differences to who they thought should be running things is simply absurd.

    Hunsdon wrote to me:

    There was a vast, vast difference between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was an advocate of permanent revolution, aimed at establishing world communism. Stalin was an advocate of communism in one country.

    I am well aware of that “official” difference: Marketing 101 — you gotta differentiate the product!

    But, do you really think Joe Stalin was opposed to Communist revolution abroad when the opportunity presented itself? Do you think that is how he actually behaved?

    And, do you really think that Trotsky would have sacrificed the Revolution in the USSR in order to foment revolution abroad if he had actually gained power?

    If you do, I can only say that you have not been observing the behavior of politicians as long as I have.

    Hunsdon also wrote:

    To reduce their differences to who they thought should be running things is simply absurd.

    On the contrary, what is absurd is to accept the two tyrants’ propaganda at face value.

    As I said earlier, a depressing fraction of the human race — and most politicians and nearly all dictators — are pathological liars.

    Dave

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    I guess radical-centrist isn't the only one who sees the truth, then.

    Why don't you just make it easier and say that tyrants are tyrants, and Hitler is Stalin is Bush is Mao is Obama is Pol Pot is Charles II?
  249. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    I didn’t know Ta Nehisi Coates wrote under a female pseudonym.

  250. What I’d like to know is: Why does bullying that ranks a 7-10 on a 1-10 scale seem much more common in the US?

    I don’t think it’s just because the Internet and text messaging allows for more opportunities for this type of behavior.

    The young people of any society are largely a reflection of the adult in that society. For that reason, I think we are just kidding ourselves if we focus on just the individual bullies and say it’s all their fault as individuals or blame just their parents.

    It’s also worth noting that most people do not participate in “toxic bullying.”

    When it comes to the adult world and to political correctness, I would think the freedom to speak freely will continue to decrease as our society continues to fracture from one in which over 80% of the people were white and a majority of whites were Protestant into smaller and smaller subgroups.

    When we don’t have “mainstream thought” we have much more disagreement than agreement over all kinds of issues, don’t we? The actual disagreements may not always be significant but as we have seen many times, sometimes the groups who have the most in common fight the hardest and longest over the points on which they differ.

  251. @Leftist conservative
    sorry about that....did I trigger you? You might wanna go to your safe space, hon....

    But You still didn’t answer my question: is the safe-space a concept created by the capitalist cabal, which gathers once a month in a Prague cemetery?

  252. @PhysicistDave
    Hunsdon wrote to me:

    There was a vast, vast difference between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was an advocate of permanent revolution, aimed at establishing world communism. Stalin was an advocate of communism in one country.
     
    I am well aware of that "official" difference: Marketing 101 -- you gotta differentiate the product!

    But, do you really think Joe Stalin was opposed to Communist revolution abroad when the opportunity presented itself? Do you think that is how he actually behaved?

    And, do you really think that Trotsky would have sacrificed the Revolution in the USSR in order to foment revolution abroad if he had actually gained power?

    If you do, I can only say that you have not been observing the behavior of politicians as long as I have.

    Hunsdon also wrote:

    To reduce their differences to who they thought should be running things is simply absurd.
     
    On the contrary, what is absurd is to accept the two tyrants' propaganda at face value.

    As I said earlier, a depressing fraction of the human race -- and most politicians and nearly all dictators -- are pathological liars.

    Dave

    I guess radical-centrist isn’t the only one who sees the truth, then.

    Why don’t you just make it easier and say that tyrants are tyrants, and Hitler is Stalin is Bush is Mao is Obama is Pol Pot is Charles II?

    • Replies: @SFG
    The original argument was whether there was a distinction between a good, nontyrannical, (gentile) Left focusing on class cooperation, and a bad, tyrannical ( Jewish) left focusing on class conflict.

    I think tyrants are tyrants, and come in all ethnicities (the difference between Hitler and Shaka Zulu is one of opportunity and access to industrial machinery, and the main thing keeping Israelis from making lampshades out of the Palestinians in a few decades may well be the need to keep their liberal American brethren happy), but they often do believe in their ideology, while not hesitating to bend the rules a bit to preserve their own power (Stalin comes to mind).

    I also think you have tyrants on the left and on the right. That doesn't mean the differences between left and right don't matter--Texas is not like Sweden--just that authoritarian personality types exist on both sides, and gravitate to political parties where they can impose their will. So you tend to see them in Stalinist groups on the left and fascist groups on the right, just like they tend to avoid more moderate groups on both sides.

    I further think most left groups are going to rely on ginning up the proles against the capitalists--the question is how far they go, and how many bodies they leave in their wake. I don't recall any huge Danish purges of capitalists, but the French certainly killed a lot of aristocrats. Violence can have as much to do with historical factors as with ideology as well--the original French revolutionaries wanted a constitutional monarchy, for example.

    , @PhysicistDave
    Hunsdon wrote to me:

    Why don’t you just make it easier and say that tyrants are tyrants, and Hitler is Stalin is Bush is Mao is Obama is Pol Pot is Charles II?
     
    Because of course, as much as I dislike Bush and Obama, they are nowhere near as murderous as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Hitler: when you intentionally murder millions of innocent civilians, quantitative distinctions do become qualitative, don't you think?

    I would like to see both Bush and Obama put on trial for war crimes: I think both satisfy the Nuremberg criteria. But, no, not in the same league as the various socialists you named.

    Now, Charles II, from what I know, was more of a party animal than anything else: Restoration comedy and all that. Have I forgotten some of his particularly tyrannical acts, Hunsdon?

    Dave
  253. @S. Anonyia
    How do you know it's not hair dye? At least in the South, girls start dying their hair at age 10-11. Athletic girls tend to be more popular in school, and probably pay more attention to their appearance, so it's no surprise they are more likely to dye their hair blond. On the flip side, a lot of "artsy" liberal type women dye their hair darker than it actually is, usually starting in high school.

    From my experience, men are pretty bad at spotting hair dye. They only notice it when it's super obvious, like a Mediterranean woman with thick dark eyebrows and bright peroxided hair. Because it doesn't clash with their skin tone or eyebrows, brunette Northern European women can pull off blond hair really easily. I've read that 70 % of American women dye their hair.

    “On the flip side, a lot of “artsy” liberal type women dye their hair darker than it actually is, usually starting in high school.”

    My guess is that due to sun lightening hair (or other causes), there is a general correlation between light colored hair and outdoors, beach, swimming pool, suburban, fit, Nordic and morning person and, conversely, between dark hair and indoors, restaurant, dance club, urban, artsy, Mediterranean and night person.

    Girls likely choose their dye color based in part on their aspirations and inclinations.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I'd buy that. Feminist women buy those big glasses, conservative women get contacts.
    , @Bill Jones
    Plus it matches the bags under their eyes.
  254. @Hunsdon
    I guess radical-centrist isn't the only one who sees the truth, then.

    Why don't you just make it easier and say that tyrants are tyrants, and Hitler is Stalin is Bush is Mao is Obama is Pol Pot is Charles II?

    The original argument was whether there was a distinction between a good, nontyrannical, (gentile) Left focusing on class cooperation, and a bad, tyrannical ( Jewish) left focusing on class conflict.

    I think tyrants are tyrants, and come in all ethnicities (the difference between Hitler and Shaka Zulu is one of opportunity and access to industrial machinery, and the main thing keeping Israelis from making lampshades out of the Palestinians in a few decades may well be the need to keep their liberal American brethren happy), but they often do believe in their ideology, while not hesitating to bend the rules a bit to preserve their own power (Stalin comes to mind).

    I also think you have tyrants on the left and on the right. That doesn’t mean the differences between left and right don’t matter–Texas is not like Sweden–just that authoritarian personality types exist on both sides, and gravitate to political parties where they can impose their will. So you tend to see them in Stalinist groups on the left and fascist groups on the right, just like they tend to avoid more moderate groups on both sides.

    I further think most left groups are going to rely on ginning up the proles against the capitalists–the question is how far they go, and how many bodies they leave in their wake. I don’t recall any huge Danish purges of capitalists, but the French certainly killed a lot of aristocrats. Violence can have as much to do with historical factors as with ideology as well–the original French revolutionaries wanted a constitutional monarchy, for example.

    • Replies: @newrouter
    >So you tend to see them in Stalinist groups on the left and fascist groups on the right<

    two sides of a coin labeled statism
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I don’t recall any huge Danish purges of capitalists…
     
    Scandinavia is a lot less radical than you'd think. Big business is as comfortable there as it is in Japan or was in Ike's America.
    , @ben tillman

    The original argument was whether there was a distinction between a good, nontyrannical, (gentile) Left focusing on class cooperation, and a bad, tyrannical ( Jewish) left focusing on class conflict.
     
    No, the "original argument" was about whether we needed a "left" to oppose "inequality", and my point was that it depends on what you mean by "left".
  255. @Steve Sailer
    "On the flip side, a lot of “artsy” liberal type women dye their hair darker than it actually is, usually starting in high school."

    My guess is that due to sun lightening hair (or other causes), there is a general correlation between light colored hair and outdoors, beach, swimming pool, suburban, fit, Nordic and morning person and, conversely, between dark hair and indoors, restaurant, dance club, urban, artsy, Mediterranean and night person.

    Girls likely choose their dye color based in part on their aspirations and inclinations.

    I’d buy that. Feminist women buy those big glasses, conservative women get contacts.

  256. @Steve Sailer
    No, I think he's onto something: if you take hair dye out of the equation, I bet natural blonde girls tend to be more into sports than natural brunettes. It could be nature, it could be nurture, I don't know, but compare female sports participation in Sweden to Italy. Italian women are expected to spend a lot of time each day on grooming and seldom get intensely into sports.

    But, now that I think about it, there is the caveat that time spent in the sunshine and in chlorinated swimming pools tends to lighten hair, so girls on the swim team or cross country team, for example, tend to be blonder than they would be without environmental influences.

    So it's a complicated question, but there is likely to be something there.

    I’d guess it’s a regional biodiversity thing. On average, athletes are taller than ordinary people. On average, northern Europeans are taller than southern Europeans. They are also blonder than southern Euros. Therefore, it stands to reason that blondes are overrepresented in sports (among whites obviously).

    For an extreme example, if you take purely (or nearly so) Nordic sports like XC skiing, blondes are represented about as you’d expect according to their proportion of the Nordic population, but if you compare XC skiers to the global average hair color the skiers are far blonder.

    Of course there probably is some cultural component, but keep in mind that the average Norwegian girl is about 5’7″, whereas the average Italian girl is about 5’3″. This being the case, in Olympic sports other than gymnastics, diving and lightweight weightlifting, most of which give an advantage to taller, heavier people, you’d expect to see more Norwegian than Italian girls represented.

    The darker Europeans do have the tall Balkan contingent (and they give the Nordics a run for their money), but they are outnumbered a lot by the northern Euros.

  257. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    From an evolutionary perspective, blonde hair is a neotenic trait of attractiveness, because so many babies and young children have light hair or at least highlights, and in addition, humans are usually more drawn to light than to dark features, because darkness often indicates something ill or wounded. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, light hair casts a favorable natural spotlight on the face.

    That light yellow almost white haircolor is quite rare among Mediterraneans, but there are many “dirty” blondes. The tendency to attribute only dark hair (also dark eyes and olive/tan skin) to Mediterraneans leaves sizeable numbers of the population out; if you lived in the region, I don’t know that you would make the same corellation.

  258. OT: Steve, a recent interview with your friend Tino Sanandaji on the myths and truths of Sweden as a socialist welfare paradise; the central importance of culture, values, work ethic, trust, homogeneity, social capital, etc, (=genetics) when evaluating and setting economic policy; its truly off the charts insane catastrophic third world immigration/invasion levels that even makes Merkel blush, etc.

  259. @anon
    Mean girl feminists often take an instant dislike to me. Typical incident:

    I was at the gym a few weeks ago doing some squats. In between sets, I was idly gazing at myself in the mirrors that line the walls.

    All of a sudden, apropos of nothing, a women (also reflected in the mirrors) starts yelling, "Stop looking at me".

    She looks like late 40s professional woman, rather fit, but lacking the slightest sex appeal to me at a minimum because of her age. Looks like the type with a hot career, no kids/hubby, but lotsa red wine and cats. She's gotta be at least 10-15 years older than any woman I'd look at.

    So I say, "I'm not looking at you".

    She responds, "No, you are looking at me".

    I say, "Lady, you are both egocentric and delusional if you think I am looking at you", and laughed at her implication that I was sexually interested in her.

    She then stalked off. All the other guys in the weight room then started making jokes about her, the threat being gone, I guess, but my impression is that she could have bullied a lot of these guys.

    Women also occasionally directly pick me up (or attempt to), one of the good cards I got dealt in life, some attractiveness to the other sex. However, it sometimes goes haywire in feminists, they start feeling attracted to me, who by any measure is old school guy and looks the part as well, but also feel conflicted about that fraternization with a prime example of the enemy.

    Anyhow, anyone who takes any of this crap from mean girls deserves exactly what they get. Best thing to do is just laugh it off like Trump or the beer summit cop, the worst case is being left alone and it goes upward from there to hot steamy sex sometimes.

    Is that you Joe?

  260. @Steve Sailer
    "Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes."

    Among natural blondes, that might well be true. Women in the Nordic countries like sports more than women in the Mediterranean countries.

    Nobody seems less interested in sports than Mexican-American girls. Has there ever been a prominent Mexican-American female athlete? I used to assume that Lisa Fernandez, the great UCLA softball player of the 1980s, was a local Mexican-American girl, but she turns out to be Caribbean (Cuban and Puerto Rican) born in NYC.

    I think you’re confusing liking sports with being good at sports. There is an overlap — people born in the first few months of the year tend to consider themselves sporty because the can beat other kids in their classes.. But there are major exceptions.

    It’s anecdotal, but I knew a few girls from El Salvador who were super sporty and into soccer and cross country.

    They were also awful. Their small frames and short limbs let other girls dominate them after a bit of training.

    I also remember reading about an early Central American game played with rubber balls that was traditionally co-ed.

    So considering the general body types, and the fact that Mexico stole the fattest country crown from the USA, top female athletes probably won’t come from Mexico.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    I think you’re confusing liking sports with being good at sports. There is an overlap — people born in the first few months of the year tend to consider themselves sporty because the can beat other kids in their classes.
     
    That's a European thing. We don't use the same physical year in the US.
  261. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    To the administrator of this site:

    Can you not ban Corvinus? Some of the comments are very informative, and it’s annoying having these quality thoughts broken up by someone deliberately attempting to derail things. Everything the man says is so utterly childish and flimsy is adds nothing to the discussion, and actually takes away from the discussion if better-informed commenters feel the need to address him.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    Can you not ban Corvinus?

    I just skip over him. Pretty sure you can just put him (and anyone else you don't like to read) on the ignore list.
    , @Corvinus
    There is no deliberate attempt to derail anything. I am questioning the thought process of posters here. If you are going to make the accusation that EVERYTHING I say is "childish and flimsy", then you're going to have to submit evidence. Do you understand how discourse even works?
    , @gunslingergregi
    Brave soul willing to get the crowd behind a ban and semi prove the point of article he he he
    Class must be in session
  262. 2Mintzin1 [AKA "Mike"] says:
    @Captainron
    Been dealing with the female "journeyman" (i.e. union) carpenters for years. Prior to the Women in Trades movement females on the job were usually just someone's gf, who was then given the easiest task at the time, such as holding the measuring rod during building layout, while her bf did the surveying and calculating part. Or else they were basically eye candy, stemming from the days of economic boom and prodigious waste in the construction industry. Apparently this then gave some labor activist feminists the idea to start the "Women in Trades" program, so that divorcees with no job skills or else obnoxious, butch types could learn a business that could, conceivably, pay more. Then, when something doesn't go right they have elaborate explanations for what went wrong, but it's really not that they just aren't cut out for rough, physically demanding work. There "has" to be some other, rational sounding argument. Of course, don't try to challenge this; unions are above the law. In the Carpenters Union anyone can get in since there is no state certification, so it is just up to the discretion of whoever is controlling the project and how much disorganization they can stand.

    Yup. When I worked for Brown & Root years ago in the Southwest, the female blocklayer on our mason crew could not make her daily quota …so they made her a foreman.
    With the female pick and shovel laborers, the bosses ignored their lack of production and kept them on the job, something they would never have done with a man .This was necessary to keep them employed. A shovelful of dirt doesn’t weigh very much at first , but at the end of the day (1/2 hour off for lunch, no breaks) it gets mighty heavy.
    This caused a lot of resentment, of course…I asked one of the women about it, and her reply was that B&R was a major federal contractor, and was supposed to produce good numbers re female participation in the workforce.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Yup. Federal contractors gotta make their women and minority diversity numbers or they don't get contracts. I've been on projects where some of the minorities did Nothing, and nobody cared. Can gays and trannies be far behind?
  263. @AndrewR
    White Dems are a dying breed. Blacks and Aztecs, not so much.

    White Dems are a dying breed.

    This is often taken for granted. How true is it?

    According to GSS: White women born 1944-1974 (sample size=5,343) who were between ages of 40-50 at the time of data collection (in 1994-2014, i.e., having reached their final lifetime completed fertilities) had the following fertility rates by political orientation:

    [Political Identification] (% of Pop.): Final Lifetime TFR (Whites age 40+) (GSS variables: childs, age, race, 1994-2014)
    1. [Strong Democrat] (10%): 1.61 Final TFR
    2. [Not Strong Democrat] (16%): 1.83
    3. [Independent, Near Democrat] (11%): 1.79
    4. [Independent] (18%): 2.00
    5. [Independent, Near Republican] (10%): 1.86
    6. [Not Strong Republican] (19%): 2.12
    7. [Strong Republican] (13%): 2.14
    8. [Other Party] (2%): 1.89

    The difference in final fertility (acc. to GSS) between White Democrats (categories 1,2,3 above) and White Republicans (5,6,7) is 2.07:1.76, or given equal starting numbers, a Republican child generation 118% as large as a Democrat child generation.

    Another way of looking at it (given replacement fertility = 2.1) is that both groups are shrinking, but White Democrats are shrinking somewhat faster.

    White Republicans, base population 100, at 2.07 TFR
    First child generation: 98
    Second child generation: 96
    Third child generation: 94 (Starting today as Year Zero, this will be past year 2100)

    White Democrats, base population 100, at 1.76 TFR
    First child generation: 84
    Second child generation: 70
    Third child generation: 59

    New ratio, given equal starting numbers, in third child generation: 94:59, or 160 White Republicans for 100 White Democrats (assuming that political ideology is perfectly inherited).

    Two other trends overshadow this, though: Firstly, even White conservatives’ relatively higher fertility really cannot compete with Nonwhite fertility, even First World Nonwhite fertility, which would make this all a parlor game, like different Christian sects spending energy debating each other on esoteric points of theology in Egypt in the 700s and 800s AD, including looking into different fertility rates among adherents to different points of view in the ongoing theological disputes. Egypt was invaded by an Islamic army in the mid-600s and became majority Muslim by the 900s… Secondly, White conservatives with higher fertility may be drawn disproportionately from the left side of the Bell Curve in overall ability, which, if true, is dysgenic and not necessarily desirable. Richard Spencer, a rising leader on what has been called the dissident Right, or “AltRight,” says that such people outbreeding “liberal Whites” is not a good thing. “They are not capable of governing”.

    • Replies: @Hail
    A third factor to consider is that more of the "White Democrats" probably outbreed but I am not sure of the magnitude. Even at this late date, outmarrying/outbreeding so means to "leave the White population," if not for the White person him- or her-self then certainly so for purposes of their children's identity... Cf. the identitarian struggle of one Barack H. Obama.
  264. @SFG
    The original argument was whether there was a distinction between a good, nontyrannical, (gentile) Left focusing on class cooperation, and a bad, tyrannical ( Jewish) left focusing on class conflict.

    I think tyrants are tyrants, and come in all ethnicities (the difference between Hitler and Shaka Zulu is one of opportunity and access to industrial machinery, and the main thing keeping Israelis from making lampshades out of the Palestinians in a few decades may well be the need to keep their liberal American brethren happy), but they often do believe in their ideology, while not hesitating to bend the rules a bit to preserve their own power (Stalin comes to mind).

    I also think you have tyrants on the left and on the right. That doesn't mean the differences between left and right don't matter--Texas is not like Sweden--just that authoritarian personality types exist on both sides, and gravitate to political parties where they can impose their will. So you tend to see them in Stalinist groups on the left and fascist groups on the right, just like they tend to avoid more moderate groups on both sides.

    I further think most left groups are going to rely on ginning up the proles against the capitalists--the question is how far they go, and how many bodies they leave in their wake. I don't recall any huge Danish purges of capitalists, but the French certainly killed a lot of aristocrats. Violence can have as much to do with historical factors as with ideology as well--the original French revolutionaries wanted a constitutional monarchy, for example.

    >So you tend to see them in Stalinist groups on the left and fascist groups on the right<

    two sides of a coin labeled statism

  265. @Anonymous
    Yeah, nothing says consideration for these rejects like corralling them together in isolated communes where they work for no pay and are told to shut up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastic_silence

    Better than the Muslim solution, telling the male sexual rejects that if they die fighting the infidel, they have 72 virgin girls waiting for them. The role of sexual eviction in creating Islamic terrorists deserves more attention than it has received, though Christopher Hitchens mentions it briefly in his book, God is Not Great.

  266. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    Thank you, SFG, for adding such excellent commentary to this discussion. Twittered:

    What does it mean to be on the Left today? https://t.co/VTUZc1NHvj (Comment by SFG, @Steve_Sailer blog, @UnzReview) pic.twitter.com/Fj21364XCj— Hail (__To_You) November 27, 2015

    __To_You @Steve_Sailer @UnzReview the comments on Steve's blogs are better than 98% of media from paid contributors.— Professor Avenue (@ProfAve) November 27, 2015

  267. @Herr Niemand
    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest?

    Absolutely not. These immigrants will take resources that otherwise might go to these women and their children.

    There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live.

    That is false but beside the point. The immigrants will use resources that would otherwise be available for natives and their progeny.

  268. @Herr Niemand
    Are these women not in fact acting in their own self-interest? There is no way dangerous immigrants will hold any power at all in the communities in which this class of women will live. You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    You want high status women to support average white people. How do you do that?

    Simple. Remind them that average white people support them; i.e., they make it possible for women and their children to live in a safe and comfortable society.

  269. Heartiste and the other PUA websites had a few small points to make. As a guide to life, those sites are dumb.

    I’ve enjoyed an extremely happy and successful love and sex life. Women haven’t been a problem. They’ve been a joy.

    How did this happen? And, what in the hell happened to the rest of you guys?

    • Replies: @Marty
    Did you turn 30 before 1991?
  270. @Hail

    White Dems are a dying breed.
     
    This is often taken for granted. How true is it?

    According to GSS: White women born 1944-1974 (sample size=5,343) who were between ages of 40-50 at the time of data collection (in 1994-2014, i.e., having reached their final lifetime completed fertilities) had the following fertility rates by political orientation:

    [Political Identification] (% of Pop.): Final Lifetime TFR (Whites age 40+) (GSS variables: childs, age, race, 1994-2014)
    1. [Strong Democrat] (10%): 1.61 Final TFR
    2. [Not Strong Democrat] (16%): 1.83
    3. [Independent, Near Democrat] (11%): 1.79
    4. [Independent] (18%): 2.00
    5. [Independent, Near Republican] (10%): 1.86
    6. [Not Strong Republican] (19%): 2.12
    7. [Strong Republican] (13%): 2.14
    8. [Other Party] (2%): 1.89

    The difference in final fertility (acc. to GSS) between White Democrats (categories 1,2,3 above) and White Republicans (5,6,7) is 2.07:1.76, or given equal starting numbers, a Republican child generation 118% as large as a Democrat child generation.

    Another way of looking at it (given replacement fertility = 2.1) is that both groups are shrinking, but White Democrats are shrinking somewhat faster.

    White Republicans, base population 100, at 2.07 TFR
    First child generation: 98
    Second child generation: 96
    Third child generation: 94 (Starting today as Year Zero, this will be past year 2100)

    White Democrats, base population 100, at 1.76 TFR
    First child generation: 84
    Second child generation: 70
    Third child generation: 59

    New ratio, given equal starting numbers, in third child generation: 94:59, or 160 White Republicans for 100 White Democrats (assuming that political ideology is perfectly inherited).

    Two other trends overshadow this, though: Firstly, even White conservatives' relatively higher fertility really cannot compete with Nonwhite fertility, even First World Nonwhite fertility, which would make this all a parlor game, like different Christian sects spending energy debating each other on esoteric points of theology in Egypt in the 700s and 800s AD, including looking into different fertility rates among adherents to different points of view in the ongoing theological disputes. Egypt was invaded by an Islamic army in the mid-600s and became majority Muslim by the 900s... Secondly, White conservatives with higher fertility may be drawn disproportionately from the left side of the Bell Curve in overall ability, which, if true, is dysgenic and not necessarily desirable. Richard Spencer, a rising leader on what has been called the dissident Right, or "AltRight," says that such people outbreeding "liberal Whites" is not a good thing. "They are not capable of governing".

    A third factor to consider is that more of the “White Democrats” probably outbreed but I am not sure of the magnitude. Even at this late date, outmarrying/outbreeding so means to “leave the White population,” if not for the White person him- or her-self then certainly so for purposes of their children’s identity… Cf. the identitarian struggle of one Barack H. Obama.

  271. @Mr. Anon
    "A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs–what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful."

    I do disagree. You are right that society needs people who will object to excess inequality, but it need not be leftists. And it shouldn't be them, because at root, leftists don't care. All they will ever really strive for is realizing their own will to power, using the aggrieved and the envious as thier tools.

    at root, leftists don’t care

    This is a question of semantics. What you are describing are nihilists. Much of the energy behind today’s leftism may be nihilism, but must it be so? it all comes back to what we mean when we say “the Left”…

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Much of the energy behind today’s leftism may be nihilism, but must it be so?"

    Fundmentally, yes.
  272. Marty [AKA "coot veal or cot deal"] says:
    @Shouting Thomas
    Heartiste and the other PUA websites had a few small points to make. As a guide to life, those sites are dumb.

    I've enjoyed an extremely happy and successful love and sex life. Women haven't been a problem. They've been a joy.

    How did this happen? And, what in the hell happened to the rest of you guys?

    Did you turn 30 before 1991?

  273. @Anonymous Nephew
    "I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response."

    Brazil has few heroes who are internationally known outside of their soccer team (I bet Pele will have a similar funeral one day). Senna was a world figure wherever motor sport is followed, who died in his prime and at the height of his fame.


    Remember also the wisdom of Glubb Pasha - "The heroes of declining nations are always the same - the athlete, the singer, the actor"


    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    Thanks Anonymous Nephew. That essay is very interesting. The whole thing is worth reading.

  274. @Anonymous
    To the administrator of this site:

    Can you not ban Corvinus? Some of the comments are very informative, and it's annoying having these quality thoughts broken up by someone deliberately attempting to derail things. Everything the man says is so utterly childish and flimsy is adds nothing to the discussion, and actually takes away from the discussion if better-informed commenters feel the need to address him.

    Can you not ban Corvinus?

    I just skip over him. Pretty sure you can just put him (and anyone else you don’t like to read) on the ignore list.

  275. @Anonymous
    To the administrator of this site:

    Can you not ban Corvinus? Some of the comments are very informative, and it's annoying having these quality thoughts broken up by someone deliberately attempting to derail things. Everything the man says is so utterly childish and flimsy is adds nothing to the discussion, and actually takes away from the discussion if better-informed commenters feel the need to address him.

    There is no deliberate attempt to derail anything. I am questioning the thought process of posters here. If you are going to make the accusation that EVERYTHING I say is “childish and flimsy”, then you’re going to have to submit evidence. Do you understand how discourse even works?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote:

    Do you understand how discourse even works?
     
    Ummm..... Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do "discourse," at least not knowingly.

    They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not "discourse."

    No, I am not an illiterate who does not know the word "discourse": I have a Ph.D. from Stanford -- I know all sorts of polysyllabic words. I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, "Do you understand how discourse even works?"

    But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.

    Dave
  276. @Mr. Anon
    It's "Penthouse Letters" for the kind of woman that reads Salon. It might be about as real as Penthouse Letters was too.

    Wait! Penthouse letters aren’t real! Boy have you ever harshed my mellow. Next thing I know you’ll be telling me the girls don’t really look like their pictures.

    • Replies: @Curle
    I've gone the other direction. I used to think Penthouse letters were fake, you know, all this baloney about the high school teacher hitting on the teenage boy (as told from the point of view of the teenage boy), or at least that's how it seemed to me as a teenage boy. . . and then along came Mary Kay Latourneau and a series of female Florida HS teachers to upset my sense of reality.
  277. @SFG
    It was Debs' primary concern. FDR was known as a 'traitor to his class' and so on. Bernie Sanders, in another era, seems pretty much focused on economic issues, to the point of getting Black Lives Matter on his case. There are countless other examples, at least up through the sixties.

    It was Debs’ primary concern. FDR was known as a ‘traitor to his class’ and so on. Bernie Sanders, in another era, seems pretty much focused on economic issues, to the point of getting Black Lives Matter on his case. There are countless other examples, at least up through the sixties.

    That’s not responsive, largely, and you’re possibly begging the question by simply categorizing anyone who cared about the working class a Leftist.

    Was it Debs’ primary concern, or did he just say it was his primary concern? Is Debs really a Leftist? How so? Did he want to hurt members of other classes, or did he just wan to help the working class? If he objected to the excesses of capitalism, wouldn’t that put him on the Right? How is the fact that some people were or are focused on economic issues supposed to be responsive? How are the “countless other” people Leftists, how do they appear to be concerned about the working class, and how do you know the concern is real? How is the Roosevelt thing relevant at all? Surely the Left weren’t complaining about him being a class traitor!

  278. @Forbes
    Walsh posts at PJ Media these days, abandoning NRO around the time Derb was booted (unrelated).

    Walsh is good. His previous book, written as David Kahane, was very informative. He was one of the first to bang on about how much damage the Frankfurt School and Saul Alinsky have done. Hillary’s senior thesis was on Saul Alinsky. Walsh’s fiction is pretty good too.

  279. @Hunsdon
    I guess radical-centrist isn't the only one who sees the truth, then.

    Why don't you just make it easier and say that tyrants are tyrants, and Hitler is Stalin is Bush is Mao is Obama is Pol Pot is Charles II?

    Hunsdon wrote to me:

    Why don’t you just make it easier and say that tyrants are tyrants, and Hitler is Stalin is Bush is Mao is Obama is Pol Pot is Charles II?

    Because of course, as much as I dislike Bush and Obama, they are nowhere near as murderous as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or Hitler: when you intentionally murder millions of innocent civilians, quantitative distinctions do become qualitative, don’t you think?

    I would like to see both Bush and Obama put on trial for war crimes: I think both satisfy the Nuremberg criteria. But, no, not in the same league as the various socialists you named.

    Now, Charles II, from what I know, was more of a party animal than anything else: Restoration comedy and all that. Have I forgotten some of his particularly tyrannical acts, Hunsdon?

    Dave

  280. @AndrewR
    I don't recall ever hearing about Senna before this.

    I just read his wikipedia article. Fighter jets escorting the plane carrying his coffin? The largest gathering of mourners in modern times? For a racing driver? Seriously, this is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. I literally cannot comprehend how a racing driver dying during a race could result in such a histrionic response.

    There was nearly as histrionic a response to Dale Earnhardt’s death.

  281. @2Mintzin1
    Yup. When I worked for Brown & Root years ago in the Southwest, the female blocklayer on our mason crew could not make her daily quota ...so they made her a foreman.
    With the female pick and shovel laborers, the bosses ignored their lack of production and kept them on the job, something they would never have done with a man .This was necessary to keep them employed. A shovelful of dirt doesn't weigh very much at first , but at the end of the day (1/2 hour off for lunch, no breaks) it gets mighty heavy.
    This caused a lot of resentment, of course...I asked one of the women about it, and her reply was that B&R was a major federal contractor, and was supposed to produce good numbers re female participation in the workforce.

    Yup. Federal contractors gotta make their women and minority diversity numbers or they don’t get contracts. I’ve been on projects where some of the minorities did Nothing, and nobody cared. Can gays and trannies be far behind?

  282. @neutral
    "HBD-friendly groups need women and Jews"

    Truly laughable, the group of people that are more responsible than anyone else for this now are going to switch sides ? First of all, they will never switch sides, the non white world is much more in their favour than a white one, white nationalism is by far a greater threat than the occasional terror attack. Second, what makes you think that most HBD-friendly groups would want them on our side ?

    I presume HBD is about genes. Genes are about mom and pop. Your arrow will go off into space without women on your side. They are half the equation.

    This kind of bullying the finger snapping gals perpetrated (sounds reptilian) is contrived, like most 20th c. feminism. In the old days, you were taught to be polite to each other. That’s the golden rule in the material world. There’s a reason why etiquette was the province of women.

    And this stuff about girls being so crueler. Only if you are the victim.Don’t pat yourselves on the back too much, though it is true that “gallantry” is demanded too often of men. Gallants need ladies who behave like ladie. I think the sexes are equal in these matters. Boys make up for it by being loud and public and unreflective about their cruelty. They sort of admire it in each other. Girls do not admire nastiness in other girls. Or even in themselves. They just can’t help it sometimes. Frankly, I prefer meanness behind my back where it can dissipate as stealthily as it came in and often no one hears of it. Loud, scary, public humiliation is never forgotten.
    Where is Emily Post when we really need her?

  283. @Anonymous
    No, the report describes how males feel they are living and operating under an anti-male culture. The evidence for this is literally some women screaming at men, and some idiotic SJW crap at school.

    I'm not sure how screaming suddenly became worse than revenge porn, harassment on tinder. There was a frat that kept nude pictures of girls they slept with on a private facebook page.
    Do you think these things are not real? Which is more aggressive?

    Whether you agree with it or not, Trump supports sure do feel comfortable enough to yell about Muslims, or beat down a black protestor when they feel like it. I'm sure 100% of them will tell you they have to walk on egg-shells as well.

    This post was about teenagers at high school.

    Or more accurately about the climate created among teenagers by their PC teachers which the girls conform too.

    Either you have a problem with reading comprehension or purple spiky hair.

  284. @Corvinus
    There is no deliberate attempt to derail anything. I am questioning the thought process of posters here. If you are going to make the accusation that EVERYTHING I say is "childish and flimsy", then you're going to have to submit evidence. Do you understand how discourse even works?

    Corvinus wrote:

    Do you understand how discourse even works?

    Ummm….. Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do “discourse,” at least not knowingly.

    They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not “discourse.”

    No, I am not an illiterate who does not know the word “discourse”: I have a Ph.D. from Stanford — I know all sorts of polysyllabic words. I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, “Do you understand how discourse even works?”

    But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.

    Dave

    • Replies: @Guy
    U discourse brah?
    , @Mr. Anon
    "But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously."

    I have to assume you're right. I have never taken Corvinus seriously. Who would?
  285. @Romanian
    Maybe you need to relearn the vocabulary that would explain this. Take the words high/low, caste and slavery. What would describe certain Whites, the kind that make the world go round but can't get no respect, is "high caste slaves", like coders and the like, who have to walk on said eggshells. Blue collar and frayed collar Whites are low caste slaves. Look at South Africa. Meanwhile, minorities and the like can be high caste or low caste, but they're free. In ancient times, the free, but very poor, Roman citizen was considered of higher standing than the slave tutoring a patrician's son in Greek and mathematics. He also enjoyed a greater standing in front of the law and certain privileges (in the classical sense, of things being awarded to the few, not an innate trait of the many) not available to the slave.

    What would describe certain Whites, the kind that make the world go round but can’t get no respect, is “high caste slaves”, like coders and the like, who have to walk on said eggshells. Blue collar and frayed collar Whites are low caste slaves.

    This sounds like Orwell’s “outer party” and “proles”.

  286. @Steve Sailer
    "On the flip side, a lot of “artsy” liberal type women dye their hair darker than it actually is, usually starting in high school."

    My guess is that due to sun lightening hair (or other causes), there is a general correlation between light colored hair and outdoors, beach, swimming pool, suburban, fit, Nordic and morning person and, conversely, between dark hair and indoors, restaurant, dance club, urban, artsy, Mediterranean and night person.

    Girls likely choose their dye color based in part on their aspirations and inclinations.

    Plus it matches the bags under their eyes.

  287. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @CJ
    Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.

    That's it in a nutshell. Progs can bang on about green and gay all the live long day and it doesn't bother the wealthy a bit. As I occasionally tell one, "You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?"

    “You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?”

    That’s the kind of one liner you can use to put a pebble in their shoe.

    You can’t debate them really as they are more brain washed than rational but a nice little bit of cognitive dissonance in their shoe will gradually deprogram them – might take a year or two but if you find the right one for the person then it seems to work.

  288. @Clyde
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393054586?keywords=megastates%20america&qid=1448622886&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
    The Megastates of America Hardcover – 1972
    by Neal R Peirce (Author)
    1. New York - Still the 'Seat of Empire'
    2. Massachusetts - A Golden Age?
    3. New Jersey - In the shadows of Megalopolis
    4. Pennsylvania - Twilight Time?
    5. Ohio - The Middle-Class Society
    6. Illinois and the Mighty Lakeside City: Where Clout Counts
    7. Michigan - Auto Empires and Unions
    8. Florida - The Man-made State
    9. Texas - Land of the Monied 'Establishment'
    10. California - The Great Nation State

    I will be getting this book

    How many Representatives and Electors have the first seven given to the last three since 1972?

    Speaking of Electors, Pearce is one-third of a triumvirate of Electoral College abolitionists, along with Lawrence Longley and the late James Michener. They had egg on their face in 2001, when their long-standing prediction that Americans would never accept a “wrong” result in the EC.

    In retrospect, that was quite dumb of them. Half of Americans don’t vote, and (almost) half of the rest voted for the winner. That leaves only a quarter who would be angry.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Speaking of Electors, Pearce is one-third of a triumvirate of Electoral College abolitionists, along with Lawrence Longley and the late James Michener. They had egg on their face in 2001, when their long-standing prediction that Americans would never accept a “wrong” result in the EC.
     
    Despicable to abolish the Electoral College!
    But as far as accepting goes, George Bush governed more liberally than he intended to due to him losing the popular vote and the vote counting dispute in Florida that went on for a month. He felt he had a paper thin mandate. BUT...If not for the last minute release of George Bush's drunk driving in Maine in 1976, he would have easily won Florida and the US popular vote count. This poisoning the well release took place the weekend before Election Tuesday, 2000. My take is Democrat dirty tricks made this happen.

    This is the 1976 Maine police document recording the arrest of George W. Bush for driving under the influence of alcohol. Bush, who was 30 at the time,was popped over the Labor Day weekend near his family's Kennebunkport summer home. Bush pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor DUI charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driving privileges briefly revoked in the state of Maine. The arrest record card was released November 2 by Kennebunkport police. The Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles also released this summary of Bush's DUI conviction. (2 pages)
    (via the Smoking Gun)
     
    http://www.newser.com/story/197116/tennis-star-tells-how-w-bush-got-dui-on-beer-bender.html
  289. @SFG
    The original argument was whether there was a distinction between a good, nontyrannical, (gentile) Left focusing on class cooperation, and a bad, tyrannical ( Jewish) left focusing on class conflict.

    I think tyrants are tyrants, and come in all ethnicities (the difference between Hitler and Shaka Zulu is one of opportunity and access to industrial machinery, and the main thing keeping Israelis from making lampshades out of the Palestinians in a few decades may well be the need to keep their liberal American brethren happy), but they often do believe in their ideology, while not hesitating to bend the rules a bit to preserve their own power (Stalin comes to mind).

    I also think you have tyrants on the left and on the right. That doesn't mean the differences between left and right don't matter--Texas is not like Sweden--just that authoritarian personality types exist on both sides, and gravitate to political parties where they can impose their will. So you tend to see them in Stalinist groups on the left and fascist groups on the right, just like they tend to avoid more moderate groups on both sides.

    I further think most left groups are going to rely on ginning up the proles against the capitalists--the question is how far they go, and how many bodies they leave in their wake. I don't recall any huge Danish purges of capitalists, but the French certainly killed a lot of aristocrats. Violence can have as much to do with historical factors as with ideology as well--the original French revolutionaries wanted a constitutional monarchy, for example.

    I don’t recall any huge Danish purges of capitalists…

    Scandinavia is a lot less radical than you’d think. Big business is as comfortable there as it is in Japan or was in Ike’s America.

  290. @CJ
    Deflecting attention away from the growing power of the oligarchs onto issues of race and gender is good for the oligarchs.

    That's it in a nutshell. Progs can bang on about green and gay all the live long day and it doesn't bother the wealthy a bit. As I occasionally tell one, "You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?"

    As I occasionally tell one, “You do realize that the billionaires are totally okay with everything you say and do?”

    Don’t forget to mention them by name: Soros, Singer, Adelson, and a WASP or two so they don’t get the wrong idea– Gates, Buffet, etc.

    Should they bring up Trump, just ask them to name another like him. The Kochs? Yeah, right…

  291. @Forbes

    A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?
     
    Well then, man-up. Life isn't a fair game.

    Your observation above is Neanderthal-like: your recourse to a verbose woman is to physically dominate her? Women, like teen-aged girls, are catty and gossipy and enforce their own bizarre social norms. Assuming they still have any friends. Ever notice how women and girls have a new BFF about every month? Their world is constantly filled with social strife and turmoil (and they love it).

    Why don't men/boys use their own interpersonal skills in rebuttal to women/girls' avowed superior skills? Try ignoring them. Ignore their boy-crushing taunts. Turn the tables. Stop being a pussy. Make them meet you on your terms. Almost nothing gets a woman/girl's attention faster than ignoring them. Most of what they do is attention-seeking drama. And they can't stand it when you ignore them. Most men give in to this behavior because they have no patience to listen to their grief. The make-up sex will be worth it.

    Be the man in their life, not a replacement girlfriend who listens to her gossip. Direct their verbal and interpersonal skills to raising your children. And yes, be the shoulder to cry on when needed. But be a man.

    Your observation above is Neanderthal-like: your recourse to a verbose woman is to physically dominate her?

    You might want to catch up on what others have been learning about Neanderthals, although I kind of like the fact that you still use the “h”, as I do.

  292. @Myself
    @Steve Sailer

    "There’s a lot of fraternizing with the enemy."

    Too bad that women don't fraternize with you back. They take full advantage of men's protective instincts towards them, as well as men's obsession with fair play, and give it to men hard and good. They do NOT argue for women's entitlement and enfranchisement on the grounds that it is good for both genders: they flat out are adamant and straightforward in that they care about the well-being of women and women alone.

    Now compare it to men's attitude. You have argued that girls emasculating boys may not be good for WOMEN in the future. That is, even as you "defend" men, you do so having as the central point of your argument women's rather than men's welfare. That is, even as you "defend" men, you "white knight" for women. That is typical of a lot of men. It is as if men were ashamed of openly opposing women except as a proxy for women's interest.

    I don’t get this. I understand that white knighting requires a male adversary. Where is the male adversary in this contest?

  293. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote:

    Do you understand how discourse even works?
     
    Ummm..... Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do "discourse," at least not knowingly.

    They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not "discourse."

    No, I am not an illiterate who does not know the word "discourse": I have a Ph.D. from Stanford -- I know all sorts of polysyllabic words. I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, "Do you understand how discourse even works?"

    But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.

    Dave

    U discourse brah?

  294. @Jim Don Bob
    Wait! Penthouse letters aren't real! Boy have you ever harshed my mellow. Next thing I know you'll be telling me the girls don't really look like their pictures.

    I’ve gone the other direction. I used to think Penthouse letters were fake, you know, all this baloney about the high school teacher hitting on the teenage boy (as told from the point of view of the teenage boy), or at least that’s how it seemed to me as a teenage boy. . . and then along came Mary Kay Latourneau and a series of female Florida HS teachers to upset my sense of reality.

  295. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…“Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC… and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala…”

    Perhaps this is proof that both liberals and conservatives have some birth defect type of brain damage and are off at the ends of the curve… maybe that explains politics these days… and perhaps those in the middle with undamaged minds are the populists/nativists… that might explain Trump and the death of “who else are they going to vote for” cackling.

  296. @SFG
    The original argument was whether there was a distinction between a good, nontyrannical, (gentile) Left focusing on class cooperation, and a bad, tyrannical ( Jewish) left focusing on class conflict.

    I think tyrants are tyrants, and come in all ethnicities (the difference between Hitler and Shaka Zulu is one of opportunity and access to industrial machinery, and the main thing keeping Israelis from making lampshades out of the Palestinians in a few decades may well be the need to keep their liberal American brethren happy), but they often do believe in their ideology, while not hesitating to bend the rules a bit to preserve their own power (Stalin comes to mind).

    I also think you have tyrants on the left and on the right. That doesn't mean the differences between left and right don't matter--Texas is not like Sweden--just that authoritarian personality types exist on both sides, and gravitate to political parties where they can impose their will. So you tend to see them in Stalinist groups on the left and fascist groups on the right, just like they tend to avoid more moderate groups on both sides.

    I further think most left groups are going to rely on ginning up the proles against the capitalists--the question is how far they go, and how many bodies they leave in their wake. I don't recall any huge Danish purges of capitalists, but the French certainly killed a lot of aristocrats. Violence can have as much to do with historical factors as with ideology as well--the original French revolutionaries wanted a constitutional monarchy, for example.

    The original argument was whether there was a distinction between a good, nontyrannical, (gentile) Left focusing on class cooperation, and a bad, tyrannical ( Jewish) left focusing on class conflict.

    No, the “original argument” was about whether we needed a “left” to oppose “inequality”, and my point was that it depends on what you mean by “left”.

  297. One really cannot logically argue with women about what is best for her. Study how to pass a shit test and this will become clear. I will add that a big missing piece of the university cultural revolution is Gay men’s love of bitchy, nasty, and outright cruel women. Seriously, half the art they produce and consume is about encouraging and enjoying this. From crude reality shows of women screaming at and insulting each other (which even Andrew Sullivan commented on), to cult favorites like, well, Mean Girls, DUFF and Mommy Dearest (watching youtube videos of Gay men enthusing over and recreating scenes from this tacky film of child abuse is hilariously instructive)…The compliment de jour is “fierce” after all.

  298. @Thagomizer
    I think you're confusing liking sports with being good at sports. There is an overlap -- people born in the first few months of the year tend to consider themselves sporty because the can beat other kids in their classes.. But there are major exceptions.

    It's anecdotal, but I knew a few girls from El Salvador who were super sporty and into soccer and cross country.

    They were also awful. Their small frames and short limbs let other girls dominate them after a bit of training.

    I also remember reading about an early Central American game played with rubber balls that was traditionally co-ed.

    So considering the general body types, and the fact that Mexico stole the fattest country crown from the USA, top female athletes probably won't come from Mexico.

    I think you’re confusing liking sports with being good at sports. There is an overlap — people born in the first few months of the year tend to consider themselves sporty because the can beat other kids in their classes.

    That’s a European thing. We don’t use the same physical year in the US.

  299. @Rifleman

    Of course, most of that talent has been deployed over the millennia against their rivals in the sexual marketplace, other females (although little brothers and henpecked husbands have been victims too).
     
    So poor pathetic White guys are now victims of:

    black guys

    muslims

    illegal mexicans

    feminists

    cultural Marxists

    and now.......................little girls!!!

    ‘So poor pathetic White guys are now victims of:”

    Said by the guy whose screen name is “Rifleman”.

    Why not just “Phallic-symbol-man”, Chuck Connors?

  300. @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote:

    Do you understand how discourse even works?
     
    Ummm..... Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do "discourse," at least not knowingly.

    They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not "discourse."

    No, I am not an illiterate who does not know the word "discourse": I have a Ph.D. from Stanford -- I know all sorts of polysyllabic words. I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, "Do you understand how discourse even works?"

    But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.

    Dave

    “But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.”

    I have to assume you’re right. I have never taken Corvinus seriously. Who would?

  301. @Natfin
    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don't give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I'm guessing revenge porn, dick pics and "smile more, honey" just exists in the figment of women's imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don’t give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I’m guessing revenge porn, dick pics and “smile more, honey” just exists in the figment of women’s imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!

    The emasculating of men hasn’t ended at all, quite obviously, so it wouldn’t have ended with your “self-respecting, successful women” not giving a shit about “Steve Sailer-men.” I, as a woman, would take Steve Sailer and “Steve Sailer-men” over an SJW type without thinking twice about it. What woman truly wants a weak man who allows himself to be bossed around, is led by politically correct demagogues, and doesn’t have the brains to see what’s happening to Western civilization — or the ‘nads to want to do something about it? There is not much sexier than brains, and it’s conservative men who have them. I’d take “a Steve Sailer-man” over an idiot Brad Pitt every time.

    Contrary to your apparent belief, there are lots of conservative women out there. You don’t hear much from us because the people who control the channels of culture don’t want you to. But if you’d head out of your gentrified, hipster neighborhood and take a look around, you’ll see that we are legion.

    All that said, as someone who’s deal with customer service, I really loathe that “Smile, honey” routine. It’s not a “Steve Sailer-man” phenomenon, however. At least not in my experience. Far from it! And while women typically don’t engage in revenge porn, they’re definitely the types to key cars, harass a guy at work so he gets fired, engage in domestic violence and get away with it, lie about rape, lie about their husbands molesting their kids if they want custody, and do a huge slew of other nasty-ass things. And dick pics? I bet that for every dick pic out there, there’s a picture of some naked chick making with the duck face. Get real, man.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @SFG
    Thanks for reminding me why I'm still single. ;)

    (And kudos for calling out your own gender.)
  302. @Hail

    at root, leftists don’t care
     
    This is a question of semantics. What you are describing are nihilists. Much of the energy behind today's leftism may be nihilism, but must it be so? it all comes back to what we mean when we say "the Left"...

    “Much of the energy behind today’s leftism may be nihilism, but must it be so?”

    Fundmentally, yes.

  303. @Andrew
    @unpc dowunder

    "Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc."

    No you aren't. My daughter's elite level lacrosse team to is 16 blondes, 3 redheads, and 3 brunettes. No girls with black hair.

    They are 15 year odds, so this isn't hair dye.

    Lacrosse is definitely one of the blonder sports, for both sexes.

  304. @Anon7
    "It would be interesting to study how big a price females pay down the road in lack of romantic satisfaction due to being encouraged to psychologically emasculate the boys around them."

    I saw this happening to my son in elementary school.

    Probably zero, if they all do it. Younger women will just go to whatever extreme needed to get banged by the alphas they really want. When their looks are mostly gone, they'll settle for some guy who will support the alpha's children, change diapers, cook dinner, etc. there's always some guy who'll do it. Or, just demand that society provide free support, free daycare, free divorce porn, free vibrators, etc.

    Females hate men, deep down; it's biological, and deeper than emotion. If they're not trained to do otherwise, they'll let it out.

    Ultimately, the only price will come in the fall of Western Civ, the result of a failure to get boys to participate and a failure to find and nurture the exceptional boys who provide the real advances. Didn't I just see an article about two cute girls who went to ISIS, only to be murdered?

    nurture the exceptional boys who provide the real advances

    Very key point. The remote outliers are the ones that carry us forward.

  305. @Rifleman

    Of course, most of that talent has been deployed over the millennia against their rivals in the sexual marketplace, other females (although little brothers and henpecked husbands have been victims too).
     
    So poor pathetic White guys are now victims of:

    black guys

    muslims

    illegal mexicans

    feminists

    cultural Marxists

    and now.......................little girls!!!

    Trolling works better when you have a grain of truth.

    It is not that White guys are victimized by “little girls”. It is that our political enemies use the pretense of helping “little girls” to stifle debate; hide the truth; and extract more wealth from those who are creating it.

  306. Bless you, Tracy. Whether male or female, the sociopaths are out there. I suspect ideology (e. g., “all women are always permanent victims”, or the equivalent), plays some part in normalizing otherwise aberrant behaviors and attitudes among some women, and, likewise, I’ll guess most women shake off ideology after college.

    Yup, I’ve a few “women behaving badly” anecdotes from my own experience and others. You’ve listed them. I also have a pet hypothesis that the overeducated and underemployed male is among the least attractive of potential partners for women, regardless of appearance, social skills, etc. I have no idea if I’m right about that, or whether it means anything.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Most likely the overeducated and underemployed male has higher expectations due to the education, and gets more annoyed with what he gets than the undereducated and underemployed male.

    Though the bad-boy factor may help the undereducated guy too.
  307. @Anonymous
    That having a Democratic Party that cares more for such issues as LGBTQiA concerns & gun control nowadays than what lower class people actually care about such as good schools for their children, so-called 'right-to work' laws & minimum wage ordinances is as much as a result of the curtailing the ability of unions being able to be involved in the political process & the resultant inability for the party of JFK & LBJ to get their funding for working class folks as it is much the result of the Frankfurt School types taking over the DNC, which meant the democrats were now compelled to go somewhere else to get their funding, which eventually having to go so far as going to Wall Street to keep on keeping on. So as a result, the Democrats that do manage to make it to the White House happen to be corporatists in the vain of the Clintons & Obama(what happened to the promised change?). With that being said, it's amazing that even 50% of the electorate actually bothers to vote @ all, mostly in Presidential elections.

    Unions sort of squandered things. It would have helped if they had spent more time keeping workers in a reasonable range of productivity.

  308. “It would be interesting to study how big a price females pay down the road in lack of romantic satisfaction due to being encouraged to psychologically emasculate the boys around them.”……. the full price will be exacted shortly, and it won’t be peanuts.
    The way Europe is heading as a result of feminism and the race lobby, there are likely to be less truly masculine men around willing to defend women when the Muslim demographic attempt to impose Sharia.
    Hell mend the feminists and libtards who went along with this idiocy.
    This article resonated with me.
    I campaigned against PC for two decades, and I’d been invited to debate at several universities. What a waste of time, the uniformity of thought indicated the usual brainwashing and a consequent lack of spirit and individuality.
    I am uncompromising and very direct in my speech at these affairs, and although many were outraged, like Mr Haiydt, I often had some of the audience sidle up sheepishly to me afterwards and concede that they agreed with parts of my heresy.

  309. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Corvinus
    Myself--Girls are far more cruel than boys.

    Ok, what metrics are involved? How are you able to prove this generalization?

    Myself--A girl is not only allowed but encouraged to use her superior verbal and interpersonal skills to crush boys socially, but boys are not allowed to use their superior physical strength and power to do the same to girls. How is this a fair arrangement?

    So, are you suggesting that boys pound girls into submission??? Moreover, I think you’re giving too much credit to girls regarding their ability to use those skills you listed to “crush boys socially”.

    Harry--Spot on about the role of money and corporations. The left seems to have gotten itself a nice little ideological monopoly on being critical of those forces. How convenient.

    
Again, what evidence do you have that helps to prove this claim?

    Robert Rediger--They own education, including the media, and so they own your kids.

    Aren’t your portraying yourself as a “victim”? I thought only SJW’s label themselves in this manner.

    Robert Rediger--I bet you couldn’t find a normal man between 18 and 30 who wouldn’t see the value in Haidt’s piece. Nor could you find an honest woman who wouldn’t agree.

    I’m not saying there isn’t value, I’m saying what else besides his own observations does he offer into evidence?

    Robert Rediger--Haidt’s on his way to being a voice of a generation and you’re stuck touting flawed studies about how brain science supposedly proves that ‘liberals’ are more rational than ‘conservatives.’

    Ok, in what specific ways are the studies I cited “flawed”? How does your statement even muster for analysis?

    Radical Centrist--My theory on this is that both political tribes in america are primarily the product of two separate propaganda campaigns by the elite in america...

    

Ok, what evidence do you have to lend credibility to your theory? Who are these “elites”? What are backgrounds behind these “propaganda campaigns”?

    SFG--You’ve also got the fact that misogyny and misandry are natural responses to a low position in the sexual market–and since there are limited supplies of partners, someone will *always* be at the bottom.

    Assuming that today’s men are even aware of this so-called “sexual market” or designate amongst their peers or competitors these artificial markers.

    Aren’t your portraying yourself as a “victim”? I thought only SJW’s label themselves in this manner

    Everyone is a victim sometimes and nobody is a victim always. See, complexity isn’t that hard!

    Ok, in what specific ways are the studies I cited “flawed”? How does your statement even muster for analysis?

    I told you in my answer when I placed quote marks around ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ A lazy effort at labelling by them which rather discredits the whole study, don’t you think? Or do you actually believe, grandpa, that politics is all about American blue versus American red?

    My point was subtly made but not that subtly!

  310. @Reg Cæsar
    How many Representatives and Electors have the first seven given to the last three since 1972?

    Speaking of Electors, Pearce is one-third of a triumvirate of Electoral College abolitionists, along with Lawrence Longley and the late James Michener. They had egg on their face in 2001, when their long-standing prediction that Americans would never accept a "wrong" result in the EC.

    In retrospect, that was quite dumb of them. Half of Americans don't vote, and (almost) half of the rest voted for the winner. That leaves only a quarter who would be angry.

    Speaking of Electors, Pearce is one-third of a triumvirate of Electoral College abolitionists, along with Lawrence Longley and the late James Michener. They had egg on their face in 2001, when their long-standing prediction that Americans would never accept a “wrong” result in the EC.

    Despicable to abolish the Electoral College!
    But as far as accepting goes, George Bush governed more liberally than he intended to due to him losing the popular vote and the vote counting dispute in Florida that went on for a month. He felt he had a paper thin mandate. BUT…If not for the last minute release of George Bush’s drunk driving in Maine in 1976, he would have easily won Florida and the US popular vote count. This poisoning the well release took place the weekend before Election Tuesday, 2000. My take is Democrat dirty tricks made this happen.

    This is the 1976 Maine police document recording the arrest of George W. Bush for driving under the influence of alcohol. Bush, who was 30 at the time,was popped over the Labor Day weekend near his family’s Kennebunkport summer home. Bush pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor DUI charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driving privileges briefly revoked in the state of Maine. The arrest record card was released November 2 by Kennebunkport police. The Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles also released this summary of Bush’s DUI conviction. (2 pages)
    (via the Smoking Gun)

    http://www.newser.com/story/197116/tennis-star-tells-how-w-bush-got-dui-on-beer-bender.html

  311. @JackOH
    Bless you, Tracy. Whether male or female, the sociopaths are out there. I suspect ideology (e. g., "all women are always permanent victims", or the equivalent), plays some part in normalizing otherwise aberrant behaviors and attitudes among some women, and, likewise, I'll guess most women shake off ideology after college.

    Yup, I've a few "women behaving badly" anecdotes from my own experience and others. You've listed them. I also have a pet hypothesis that the overeducated and underemployed male is among the least attractive of potential partners for women, regardless of appearance, social skills, etc. I have no idea if I'm right about that, or whether it means anything.

    Most likely the overeducated and underemployed male has higher expectations due to the education, and gets more annoyed with what he gets than the undereducated and underemployed male.

    Though the bad-boy factor may help the undereducated guy too.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    Yeah, I think you're right that the obvious explanation probably nails most of it. The educated, onetime upmarket guy who's been down-sized, divorced, and bankrupted into prole-hood may find upmarket women out of reach. The same guy may find downmarket women out of reach because his education and manner puts them off.

    Very occasionally I've seen upmarket women condescending to a downmarket guy, occasionally black, a combo of bad boy and puppy dog. I can only surmise what was going on, but the sight of that can be startling.
  312. @Tracy

    For Steve Sailer-men, the emasculating of men began and ended with the fact that self-respecting, successful women don’t give a shit about Steve Sailer-men, and that lack of attention drives the Steve Sailer-men crazy.

    You have to be an idiot or just Steve Sailer to believe that 0% of men feel free around women. I’m guessing revenge porn, dick pics and “smile more, honey” just exists in the figment of women’s imaginations. On the other hand, some women tell men to shut up. The humanity!
     
    The emasculating of men hasn't ended at all, quite obviously, so it wouldn't have ended with your "self-respecting, successful women" not giving a shit about "Steve Sailer-men." I, as a woman, would take Steve Sailer and "Steve Sailer-men" over an SJW type without thinking twice about it. What woman truly wants a weak man who allows himself to be bossed around, is led by politically correct demagogues, and doesn't have the brains to see what's happening to Western civilization -- or the 'nads to want to do something about it? There is not much sexier than brains, and it's conservative men who have them. I'd take "a Steve Sailer-man" over an idiot Brad Pitt every time.

    Contrary to your apparent belief, there are lots of conservative women out there. You don't hear much from us because the people who control the channels of culture don't want you to. But if you'd head out of your gentrified, hipster neighborhood and take a look around, you'll see that we are legion.

    All that said, as someone who's deal with customer service, I really loathe that "Smile, honey" routine. It's not a "Steve Sailer-man" phenomenon, however. At least not in my experience. Far from it! And while women typically don't engage in revenge porn, they're definitely the types to key cars, harass a guy at work so he gets fired, engage in domestic violence and get away with it, lie about rape, lie about their husbands molesting their kids if they want custody, and do a huge slew of other nasty-ass things. And dick pics? I bet that for every dick pic out there, there's a picture of some naked chick making with the duck face. Get real, man.

    Thanks for reminding me why I’m still single. 😉

    (And kudos for calling out your own gender.)

    • Replies: @SFG
    Addendum: certainly not all women are sociopaths, or even most. But as a guy who's not too quick on the social uptake, I'm a great target.
  313. @Steve Sailer
    I read a PJ O'Rourke article once that mentioned how few blonds he saw in Stockholm on a visit in February. I then went outside in downtown Chicago in July and saw a lot of blonds. There's a lot of seasonality to hair color among white people.

    I’ve read that there’s a lot of dyed hair in Sweden, blond to brunette. Brunettes are less an attractor for the Muzzie rape gangs.

  314. @SFG
    Most likely the overeducated and underemployed male has higher expectations due to the education, and gets more annoyed with what he gets than the undereducated and underemployed male.

    Though the bad-boy factor may help the undereducated guy too.

    Yeah, I think you’re right that the obvious explanation probably nails most of it. The educated, onetime upmarket guy who’s been down-sized, divorced, and bankrupted into prole-hood may find upmarket women out of reach. The same guy may find downmarket women out of reach because his education and manner puts them off.

    Very occasionally I’ve seen upmarket women condescending to a downmarket guy, occasionally black, a combo of bad boy and puppy dog. I can only surmise what was going on, but the sight of that can be startling.

  315. @JLoHo
    I think all the female blaming of the far-right blogs is an attempt by men to feel like they are making a difference without attacking the real troublemakers.

    I'm a woman of Gen X or whatnot and I don't remember the boys ever being bullied. The only people who bullied me to be politically liberal were the non-white girls.

    I've never had a problem with fellow blondes...anywhere around the globe.

    Instead of saying 'Girls or Women' I would like to know what racial/ethnic type of 'Women/Girls' are we specifically discussing?

    I mean if your going to try to be all race conscious around a girl who could conceivably pass as hispanic/arab/jewish then well...you deserve what you get!

    It's so much easier to sit around talking about the shortcomings of modern day women then actually you know worry about what the people running Goldman Sachs are up to or where Soros is going to strike next.

    Deep down inside you guys are freaking out about the women because you know you can't do anything about Soros.

    This is what being powerless feels like.

    Coincidentally I am reading a three month old Financial Times review of a four volume Italian novel series of female friendship:

    “People who don’t see (Elena) Ferrante’s genius are those who can’t face her uncomfortable truths: that woman’s friendships are as much about hatred as love; that our projections determine our stories as much as any fact; that we carry our origins, indelibly, to our graves.”

    The rest of the review, by a woman, mostly just recaps the plot.

  316. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Can anyone here ever specifically offer exact metrics?

    Do you know how to ride a bicycle? If so, can you provide exact rules about how to ride a bicycle, providing exact metrics about when and how to shift your weight, exact rules down to every last detail? Can you provide these rules good enough so someone can ride a bicycle, instantly, without practice, just by following your rules? Do you follow such rules for everything you do on a bike, or just “ride a bike”? Can you completely specify the rules for riding a bike? How about other things?

    Probably not. The world is a complex place in which experience and a discriminating eye is often required. It’s a fallacy of number to say that you don’t know anything unless you can precisely measure it; sometimes you don’t even know it exists. (My pardon, Mr. Thomson.)

  317. He gave his talk at an elite private high school that may be representative of the liberal elite, but isn’t representative of the country as a whole. When I was in a regular diverse public high school in the mid 2000s I didn’t see much female bullying of boys. And I haven’t seen much of that since I graduated. From my experiences girls and women tend to be less aggressive, more empathetic and easier to get along with. And if you have a daughter in public school chances are she will hear lewd comments and be aggressively hit on (by non-white boys as well).

    On the subject of white male emasculation, I think the real problem is the soft lives white men live today. I think that has had a much bigger impact on white male masculinity than feminist ideology. In the past many jobs required tough physical labor and many white boys and men got outside and played sports. But today a lot fewer jobs require tough physical labor and white boys and men spend a lot of time playing video games, watching television, searching the Internet, and updating their status on social media.

  318. @SFG
    Thanks for reminding me why I'm still single. ;)

    (And kudos for calling out your own gender.)

    Addendum: certainly not all women are sociopaths, or even most. But as a guy who’s not too quick on the social uptake, I’m a great target.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I’m a great target
     
    Only so long as you allow yourself to be.
  319. @SFG
    Addendum: certainly not all women are sociopaths, or even most. But as a guy who's not too quick on the social uptake, I'm a great target.

    I’m a great target

    Only so long as you allow yourself to be.

  320. @SFG
    'Left-wing' means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful--women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

    'Working class' isn't really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality--indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs--what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

    But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class--well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

    There's a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

    A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality

    No, I think it’s easy to agree with this.

  321. @Anonymous
    To the administrator of this site:

    Can you not ban Corvinus? Some of the comments are very informative, and it's annoying having these quality thoughts broken up by someone deliberately attempting to derail things. Everything the man says is so utterly childish and flimsy is adds nothing to the discussion, and actually takes away from the discussion if better-informed commenters feel the need to address him.

    Brave soul willing to get the crowd behind a ban and semi prove the point of article he he he
    Class must be in session

  322. These private school wussy boys don’t understand yet that allowing yourself to be emasculated and silenced by girls doesn’t get you anywhere romantically. Eventually, they’ll understand. The boy that always speaks up and that everyone gets mad at? Guarantee he’s one of the first to lose his virginity in that school.

  323. @SFG
    Sure, but they can wreck society while they're at it.

    There's also a more subtle problem. Historically, the left was the guardian of free speech (yes, really). If they now decide free speech is only good when it favors minorities, women, and LGBTCBY (you can actually find Jews on both sides of this issue), the right is obviously going to counterattack by going after blasphemy like it's 1799, and we're going to have a ridiculous situation where there are hate-speech laws against insulting blacks *and* Christians. (Read up on the 'food disparagement' laws of the Midwest if you want to see one of the ridiculous things the right is capable of.)

    And another old Anglo-Saxon freedom will be lost.

    Interestingly in Hungary the holocaust denial law was accepted by the right only on condition that the law would punish denial of the crimes of communism. Similarly swastikas are illegal but so are the sickle and hammer and the red star (except as part of a foreign flag or coat of arms, which makes it even more ridiculous).

  324. @SFG
    It's got over 100 comments, only 20 or so of which are from me.

    I'd like to see Sailer write a book that isn't about Obama. He's made a lot of interesting insights over the years, and Barry's gone in a year. I mean, Steve, we know you have to make a living, and books about how bad Obama are sell copies, but...

    It now has over 300 and yours weren’t among the worst, in fact for some reason I only replied to you.

  325. @SFG
    I'd love to, I'm just afraid of winding up dead by one of my new friends when my ancestry comes out...

    The rest of you probably should go ahead, though. The country needs you...

    I’m just afraid of winding up dead by one of my new friends when my ancestry comes out…

    It’s a bit paranoid fear, but you could pull a Professor Gottfried and simultaneously support Israel and Kevin MacDonald (or, as Dr. Gottfried actually did, only a subset of MacDonald’s theories while defending his right to express the rest). Israel could always be there for you, and, to be honest, I don’t think it’s healthy to reject half of your heritage. Be proud of Jewish achievement but acknowledge Jewish vices and past sins without obsessing about them too much. Just as I think for Germans there’s a golden middle between holocaust denial and full-blown self-hatred, similarly I think there should be a golden middle for Jews. You shouldn’t always apologise for what Jews did or are doing, nor should you hate a tribe which is yours on your parents’ side, but there’s no reason to deny that a lot of bad things were done by Jews or, indeed, is being done at this very moment.

  326. @PhysicistDave
    SFG wrote:

    You can’t simply group everyone you don’t like on the left into a single group–a lot of these people hated each other.
     
    Hitler had Röhm and Strasser murdered. That does not mean they were not all Nazis.

    Quite commonly, the most hated enemies are members of the same political group. Really, what was the difference between Stalin and Trotsky except that Stalin wanted Stalin in charge and Trotsky wanted Trotsky in charge?

    Dave

    Röhm or either Strasser would never have dreamt of the holocaust, or probably even of starting a major European war. They (especially the Strassers) were more interested in some socialist-type revolution than in external conquest or racial war. Otto Strasser even worked with Jews before joining Hitler’s party and after leaving it in exile and after returning from exile.

    Saying “they were all Nazis” is quite meaningless.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    reiner Tor wrote to me:

    Röhm or either Strasser would never have dreamt of the holocaust, or probably even of starting a major European war.
     
    Well... perhaps you are right on that. But neither objected very strenuously to Hitler's anti-seimitism, did they? (An honest question: I don't know.)

    reiner Tor also wrote to me:

    Saying “they were all Nazis” is quite meaningless.
     
    Weren't they all members of the NSDAP? And isn't "Nazi" just a shorthand for NSDAP?

    Dave
    , @5371
    In reality neither of them accepted the Versailles borders of Germany for a moment, so general war would have always been a possibility, and so would its consequences.
  327. Robert Rediger…

    “Everyone is a victim sometimes and nobody is a victim always. See, complexity isn’t that hard!”

    I would offer this advice to the various posters here.

    “I told you in my answer when I placed quote marks around ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ A lazy effort at labelling by them which rather discredits the whole study, don’t you think?”

    First, each study operationally defines “conservative” and “liberal”. Second, people generally know what is and what is not a “conservative” and a “liberal”, as evident by this very blog. Third, in order for ANY study to be discredited, one has to submit evidence as to HOW the study fails to measure up considering it was peer reviewed. You honestly believe the studies I listed are automatically flawed because the investigators were “lazy”? That is your “proof”?

    “Or do you actually believe, grandpa, that politics is all about American blue versus American red?”

    Are you even remotely aware of what site you are commenting on? Wow, just wow.

    Physicist Dave…

    “Ummm….. Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do “discourse,” at least not knowingly. They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not “discourse.”

    You, of all people given your supposed credentials, ought to know better. People here are offering up positions, they are attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic. They are assuredly engaging in discourse.

    “I have a Ph.D. from Stanford — I know all sorts of polysyllabic words.”



    Good for you.

    “I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, “Do you understand how discourse even works?”

    Actually, it’s a fair statement for me to make, considering a number of a number of people here make generalizations and, when questioned, double down with more generalizations.

    “But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.”

    Try me. Ask me a serious question. No, let me ask you several. What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved? Do “white” people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding who they associate with, who they date, who they marry, who they procreate with? Because this topic is extremely prevalent on this fine blog, and it would be intellectually satisfying if a person here would even just try to respond to these inquiries.

    Anonymous…

    “The world is a complex place in which experience and a discriminating eye is often required.”

    
Tell that to the posters here who constantly bombard us with statements that certain people are are “cuckservatives”, are “anti-white”, are “pro-Jew”, are “anti-male”, are “civilized”, are “savage”, etc. What do those statements actually mean?

    “If so, can you provide exact rules about how to ride a bicycle, providing exact metrics about when and how to shift your weight, exact rules down to every last detail…”

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    See, what you are describing is a PHYSICAL activity, one in which there are specific “rules” in place. One can actually “measure” how well a person rides a bicycle. When people here talk about “anti-white” or “civilized”, there are a myriad of SOCIAL factors involved. I am trying to ascertain what are those particular factors, since efforts to “measure” them are rife with confirmation bias.

    Jay Igaboo…

    “The way Europe is heading as a result of feminism and the race lobby, there are likely to be less truly masculine men around willing to defend women when the Muslim demographic attempt to impose Sharia.”

    So, having been invited to debate at several universities regarding the scourge of PC, do you not find it ironic that you are offering a fake name? I mean, would not a “truly masculine man” not hide behind a facade, that one would be willing to practice what you preach by using a handle befitting of your status? Furthermore, are not some traditional Christian men and those on the manospherists also imposing their own brand of “Sharia law” by insisting on virginal women who stay at home, cook, clean, take car of the kids, and refrain from having a career, similar to that wonderful decade known as the 1950’s?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    You, of all people given your supposed credentials, ought to know better. People here are offering up positions, they are attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic. They are assuredly engaging in discourse.
     
    Hmmm.... I "of all people," eh?

    I am trying to be gentle, Corvinus, but the way you try to "discourse" here is most assuredly not how the overwhelming majority of highly intelligent, educated people I have known communicate. I have, incidentally, known a number of Nobel laureates: not a one tried to "discourse" as you do.

    Of course, it is true that in a literal dictionary definition of "discourse," everyone here is engaged in "discourse." But, that makes it especially silly for you to have made the comment to another poster, which started your and my exchange, "Do you understand how discourse even works?"

    Of course, that person does! As is shown by the fact that he was indeed conversing with you.

    You are playing an obnoxiously arrogant game here: In the literal sense of discourse, of course everyone here is engaged in discourse. And, in that literal sense, your question to the other poster was idiotic: of course that person clearly does understand how discourse works in the simple dictionary sense.

    But, we all know that you were trying to invoke a more sophisticated sense of the word "discourse," in which you wish to imply that the other poster did not understand how "discourse" really works.

    In technical terms, you are engaged in the "fallacy of equivocation." To put it in plain English, you are trying to have it both ways.

    I do not think anyone here fails to see what you are doing. What I am curious about is why you are doing it, since it seems to be fooling no one.

    And, frankly, people who play this sort of game tend to be perceived by intelligent people as arrogant, pretentious fools.

    Dave
    , @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Try me. Ask me a serious question. No, let me ask you several. What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved? Do “white” people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding who they associate with, who they date, who they marry, who they procreate with?
     
    As far as I can tell, those questions relate to nothing I have posted here. And, quite frankly, I find them boring.

    And, I am pretty sure they are not "serious questions."
    , @This Is Our Home
    g.

    Regardless, understanding of the mind - brain relationship is not high so any study that says anything which isn't pretty broad can be taken with a pinch of salt.

    , @PhysicistDave
    Has anyone else actually read the (unintentionally funny) guide on how to ride a bike that Corvinus linked to? I.e.,

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle
     
    It boils down to: take it slow (but not too slow, because it is harder to keep a slow bike balanced); wear a helmet; and expect to fall a lot.

    All good advice, of course: but the emphasis should be on expect to fall a lot.

    What really makes it funny, of course, is that almost everyone learns to ride a bike before they can absorb a manual like this!

    Somehow, I do not think our friend Corvinus has any experience at all with AI or robots or successfully teaching human beings (much less "metrics," etc.) if he takes the wikihow page seriously as actually teaching people how to ride a bike!

    You fall, you get back on, you fall, you get back on...
  328. Patriarchy: Due Back Soon…

  329. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    “One year, Uncle So-and-So dropping n-bombs before we even reached the table. Another year, Dad’s Coworker X openly wishing “Monica [Lewinsky] had taken a big chomping bite.” ” – Fake.

  330. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “What do those statements actually mean?”

    I think the people writing here actually do know what they mean. They just can’t articulate it, because it’s not a form of knowledge that can be “metricified”. It’s like asking someone to express their knowledge of the face of a particular friend in identifiable metrics, for instance a descriptive paragraph, a list of numbers, or a completely accurate description that anyone else can hear and use to immediately identify their friend. A computer might be able to do it (or it might not, it’s not an easy problem). Humans can recognize faces very fast, but they can’t do so from a “metrified” description in the general case, in particular in the “softer” and more complex problem areas.

    People know it when they see it.

    “…“If so, can you provide exact rules about how to ride a bicycle, providing exact metrics about when and how to shift your weight, exact rules down to every last detail…”

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    See, what you are describing is a PHYSICAL activity, one in which there are specific “rules” in place. One can actually “measure” how well a person rides a bicycle. When people here talk about “anti-white” or “civilized”, there are a myriad of SOCIAL factors involved. I am trying to ascertain what are those particular factors, since efforts to “measure” them are rife with confirmation bias. …”

    But look at the first rule at that link:

    http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    “…Find a safe place to practice.”

    This isn’t a list that encapsulates the knowledge of how to ride a bicycle. It’s not a list that we can get and then can jump on a bike and follow and immediately ride a bike. It’s a list describing how to learn to ride a bike. The whole point is that a person can learn to ride a bike for themselves, but then they can’t tell you the skill of riding a bike. They can’t tell you what they learned. All they can tell you is how to learn for yourself. Yes, it’s a physical process, but it’s likely that similar learning to deal with complex dynamic patterns is common. People can’t describe it any more than they can tell you what they “learned” when then learned to ride a bike.

    Bikers, suffers, skateboarders have all sorts of vocabulary, like the posters here. If you asked the bikers, etc., what they mean, a lot of them can probably give a good hand-waving description. But they can’t give you measurable objective metrics for the entire skill. They engage in “hanger-flying”. True, objective metrics can be developed and be applied in these areas (as in trying to teach a robot to ride a bike or in judging a competition). But the average kid riding a bike just rides a bike, he can’t describe how he does it. It’s a learned skill.

    Many people on this blogsite probably have learned skills about the society they live in. Just because they can’t articulate it doesn’t mean they don’t know it, any more than the kid riding a bike doesn’t know things like exactly at what speed he shifts gears or whatever. He’s an expert. Experts often don’t follow rules, they just know.

  331. @Romanian
    Guys, what are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/25/i_fcked_a_republican_on_thanksgiving/

    This leaves me confused.

    Bullshit of the highest order, and/or Yet Another Proof of Poe’s Law.

  332. @Clyde
    I remember that. pix
    "Denton, a well-regarded engineer, had been named this spring in a series of articles examining UC management compensation. She had been criticized for an expensive university-funded renovation on her campus home, and for obtaining a UC administrative job for Kalonji."

    Lesbians with money love owning multiple properties, also many are realtors. Ellen DeGeneres and girlfriend are always buying and selling properties near Hollywood and the lowest price I have seen was 20 million with the highest at 42 million iirc.
    "ellen degeneres new house 2014 Ellen DeGeneres new $40 million dollar mansion is insane! It sits on 2.3 acres, and the main house is over 13,000 square....."

    Indeed, it seems a female failing. My own dear (very non-lez) wife has constant fantasies of This Property or That Property… it’s really her version of porn.

  333. @Corvinus
    Robert Rediger...

    “Everyone is a victim sometimes and nobody is a victim always. See, complexity isn’t that hard!”

    I would offer this advice to the various posters here.

    “I told you in my answer when I placed quote marks around ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ A lazy effort at labelling by them which rather discredits the whole study, don’t you think?”

    First, each study operationally defines “conservative” and “liberal”. Second, people generally know what is and what is not a “conservative” and a “liberal”, as evident by this very blog. Third, in order for ANY study to be discredited, one has to submit evidence as to HOW the study fails to measure up considering it was peer reviewed. You honestly believe the studies I listed are automatically flawed because the investigators were “lazy”? That is your “proof”?

    “Or do you actually believe, grandpa, that politics is all about American blue versus American red?”

    Are you even remotely aware of what site you are commenting on? Wow, just wow.


    Physicist Dave...

    “Ummm….. Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do “discourse,” at least not knowingly. They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not “discourse.”

    You, of all people given your supposed credentials, ought to know better. People here are offering up positions, they are attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic. They are assuredly engaging in discourse.

    “I have a Ph.D. from Stanford — I know all sorts of polysyllabic words.”



    Good for you.

    “I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, “Do you understand how discourse even works?”

    Actually, it’s a fair statement for me to make, considering a number of a number of people here make generalizations and, when questioned, double down with more generalizations.

    “But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.”

    Try me. Ask me a serious question. No, let me ask you several. What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved? Do “white” people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding who they associate with, who they date, who they marry, who they procreate with? Because this topic is extremely prevalent on this fine blog, and it would be intellectually satisfying if a person here would even just try to respond to these inquiries.

    Anonymous...

    "The world is a complex place in which experience and a discriminating eye is often required."

    
Tell that to the posters here who constantly bombard us with statements that certain people are are “cuckservatives”, are “anti-white”, are “pro-Jew”, are “anti-male”, are “civilized”, are “savage”, etc. What do those statements actually mean?

    “If so, can you provide exact rules about how to ride a bicycle, providing exact metrics about when and how to shift your weight, exact rules down to every last detail…”

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    See, what you are describing is a PHYSICAL activity, one in which there are specific “rules” in place. One can actually “measure” how well a person rides a bicycle. When people here talk about “anti-white” or “civilized”, there are a myriad of SOCIAL factors involved. I am trying to ascertain what are those particular factors, since efforts to “measure” them are rife with confirmation bias.


    Jay Igaboo...

    "The way Europe is heading as a result of feminism and the race lobby, there are likely to be less truly masculine men around willing to defend women when the Muslim demographic attempt to impose Sharia."

    So, having been invited to debate at several universities regarding the scourge of PC, do you not find it ironic that you are offering a fake name? I mean, would not a “truly masculine man” not hide behind a facade, that one would be willing to practice what you preach by using a handle befitting of your status? Furthermore, are not some traditional Christian men and those on the manospherists also imposing their own brand of “Sharia law” by insisting on virginal women who stay at home, cook, clean, take car of the kids, and refrain from having a career, similar to that wonderful decade known as the 1950’s?

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    You, of all people given your supposed credentials, ought to know better. People here are offering up positions, they are attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic. They are assuredly engaging in discourse.

    Hmmm…. I “of all people,” eh?

    I am trying to be gentle, Corvinus, but the way you try to “discourse” here is most assuredly not how the overwhelming majority of highly intelligent, educated people I have known communicate. I have, incidentally, known a number of Nobel laureates: not a one tried to “discourse” as you do.

    Of course, it is true that in a literal dictionary definition of “discourse,” everyone here is engaged in “discourse.” But, that makes it especially silly for you to have made the comment to another poster, which started your and my exchange, “Do you understand how discourse even works?”

    Of course, that person does! As is shown by the fact that he was indeed conversing with you.

    You are playing an obnoxiously arrogant game here: In the literal sense of discourse, of course everyone here is engaged in discourse. And, in that literal sense, your question to the other poster was idiotic: of course that person clearly does understand how discourse works in the simple dictionary sense.

    But, we all know that you were trying to invoke a more sophisticated sense of the word “discourse,” in which you wish to imply that the other poster did not understand how “discourse” really works.

    In technical terms, you are engaged in the “fallacy of equivocation.” To put it in plain English, you are trying to have it both ways.

    I do not think anyone here fails to see what you are doing. What I am curious about is why you are doing it, since it seems to be fooling no one.

    And, frankly, people who play this sort of game tend to be perceived by intelligent people as arrogant, pretentious fools.

    Dave

  334. @Corvinus
    Robert Rediger...

    “Everyone is a victim sometimes and nobody is a victim always. See, complexity isn’t that hard!”

    I would offer this advice to the various posters here.

    “I told you in my answer when I placed quote marks around ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ A lazy effort at labelling by them which rather discredits the whole study, don’t you think?”

    First, each study operationally defines “conservative” and “liberal”. Second, people generally know what is and what is not a “conservative” and a “liberal”, as evident by this very blog. Third, in order for ANY study to be discredited, one has to submit evidence as to HOW the study fails to measure up considering it was peer reviewed. You honestly believe the studies I listed are automatically flawed because the investigators were “lazy”? That is your “proof”?

    “Or do you actually believe, grandpa, that politics is all about American blue versus American red?”

    Are you even remotely aware of what site you are commenting on? Wow, just wow.


    Physicist Dave...

    “Ummm….. Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do “discourse,” at least not knowingly. They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not “discourse.”

    You, of all people given your supposed credentials, ought to know better. People here are offering up positions, they are attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic. They are assuredly engaging in discourse.

    “I have a Ph.D. from Stanford — I know all sorts of polysyllabic words.”



    Good for you.

    “I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, “Do you understand how discourse even works?”

    Actually, it’s a fair statement for me to make, considering a number of a number of people here make generalizations and, when questioned, double down with more generalizations.

    “But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.”

    Try me. Ask me a serious question. No, let me ask you several. What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved? Do “white” people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding who they associate with, who they date, who they marry, who they procreate with? Because this topic is extremely prevalent on this fine blog, and it would be intellectually satisfying if a person here would even just try to respond to these inquiries.

    Anonymous...

    "The world is a complex place in which experience and a discriminating eye is often required."

    
Tell that to the posters here who constantly bombard us with statements that certain people are are “cuckservatives”, are “anti-white”, are “pro-Jew”, are “anti-male”, are “civilized”, are “savage”, etc. What do those statements actually mean?

    “If so, can you provide exact rules about how to ride a bicycle, providing exact metrics about when and how to shift your weight, exact rules down to every last detail…”

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    See, what you are describing is a PHYSICAL activity, one in which there are specific “rules” in place. One can actually “measure” how well a person rides a bicycle. When people here talk about “anti-white” or “civilized”, there are a myriad of SOCIAL factors involved. I am trying to ascertain what are those particular factors, since efforts to “measure” them are rife with confirmation bias.


    Jay Igaboo...

    "The way Europe is heading as a result of feminism and the race lobby, there are likely to be less truly masculine men around willing to defend women when the Muslim demographic attempt to impose Sharia."

    So, having been invited to debate at several universities regarding the scourge of PC, do you not find it ironic that you are offering a fake name? I mean, would not a “truly masculine man” not hide behind a facade, that one would be willing to practice what you preach by using a handle befitting of your status? Furthermore, are not some traditional Christian men and those on the manospherists also imposing their own brand of “Sharia law” by insisting on virginal women who stay at home, cook, clean, take car of the kids, and refrain from having a career, similar to that wonderful decade known as the 1950’s?

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Try me. Ask me a serious question. No, let me ask you several. What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved? Do “white” people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding who they associate with, who they date, who they marry, who they procreate with?

    As far as I can tell, those questions relate to nothing I have posted here. And, quite frankly, I find them boring.

    And, I am pretty sure they are not “serious questions.”

  335. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:
    @Corvinus
    Robert Rediger...

    “Everyone is a victim sometimes and nobody is a victim always. See, complexity isn’t that hard!”

    I would offer this advice to the various posters here.

    “I told you in my answer when I placed quote marks around ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ A lazy effort at labelling by them which rather discredits the whole study, don’t you think?”

    First, each study operationally defines “conservative” and “liberal”. Second, people generally know what is and what is not a “conservative” and a “liberal”, as evident by this very blog. Third, in order for ANY study to be discredited, one has to submit evidence as to HOW the study fails to measure up considering it was peer reviewed. You honestly believe the studies I listed are automatically flawed because the investigators were “lazy”? That is your “proof”?

    “Or do you actually believe, grandpa, that politics is all about American blue versus American red?”

    Are you even remotely aware of what site you are commenting on? Wow, just wow.


    Physicist Dave...

    “Ummm….. Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do “discourse,” at least not knowingly. They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not “discourse.”

    You, of all people given your supposed credentials, ought to know better. People here are offering up positions, they are attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic. They are assuredly engaging in discourse.

    “I have a Ph.D. from Stanford — I know all sorts of polysyllabic words.”



    Good for you.

    “I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, “Do you understand how discourse even works?”

    Actually, it’s a fair statement for me to make, considering a number of a number of people here make generalizations and, when questioned, double down with more generalizations.

    “But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.”

    Try me. Ask me a serious question. No, let me ask you several. What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved? Do “white” people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding who they associate with, who they date, who they marry, who they procreate with? Because this topic is extremely prevalent on this fine blog, and it would be intellectually satisfying if a person here would even just try to respond to these inquiries.

    Anonymous...

    "The world is a complex place in which experience and a discriminating eye is often required."

    
Tell that to the posters here who constantly bombard us with statements that certain people are are “cuckservatives”, are “anti-white”, are “pro-Jew”, are “anti-male”, are “civilized”, are “savage”, etc. What do those statements actually mean?

    “If so, can you provide exact rules about how to ride a bicycle, providing exact metrics about when and how to shift your weight, exact rules down to every last detail…”

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    See, what you are describing is a PHYSICAL activity, one in which there are specific “rules” in place. One can actually “measure” how well a person rides a bicycle. When people here talk about “anti-white” or “civilized”, there are a myriad of SOCIAL factors involved. I am trying to ascertain what are those particular factors, since efforts to “measure” them are rife with confirmation bias.


    Jay Igaboo...

    "The way Europe is heading as a result of feminism and the race lobby, there are likely to be less truly masculine men around willing to defend women when the Muslim demographic attempt to impose Sharia."

    So, having been invited to debate at several universities regarding the scourge of PC, do you not find it ironic that you are offering a fake name? I mean, would not a “truly masculine man” not hide behind a facade, that one would be willing to practice what you preach by using a handle befitting of your status? Furthermore, are not some traditional Christian men and those on the manospherists also imposing their own brand of “Sharia law” by insisting on virginal women who stay at home, cook, clean, take car of the kids, and refrain from having a career, similar to that wonderful decade known as the 1950’s?

    g.

    Regardless, understanding of the mind – brain relationship is not high so any study that says anything which isn’t pretty broad can be taken with a pinch of salt.

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Sorry something thing went wrong. I meant, in the first sentence, to ask which one of the studies at the link you are referring to?

    Did you even read your own link or just post it because it confirmed your nonsense prejudices?

  336. @This Is Our Home
    g.

    Regardless, understanding of the mind - brain relationship is not high so any study that says anything which isn't pretty broad can be taken with a pinch of salt.

    Sorry something thing went wrong. I meant, in the first sentence, to ask which one of the studies at the link you are referring to?

    Did you even read your own link or just post it because it confirmed your nonsense prejudices?

  337. So one of the longest comment threads ever, where 15% of posts are about hair color, particularly its lighter, more striking variants, with even Steve himself pitching in a few observations, and this is the time commenter JEFFERSON chooses NOT a to show up?

  338. Anonymous…


    Person A–Everyone in every university is taught that whites are evil and hateful and that males are evil and hateful. No exceptions.
    Person B–But I attend Purdue and have not been taught this concept.
Person A–You’re wrong, I know it when I see it.

    
See how ridiculous is this “conversation”.

    “I think the people writing here actually do know what they mean. They just can’t articulate it, because it’s not a form of knowledge that can be “metricified”.”

    That’s patently false. Metrics are a concrete way of defining knowledge. A person may articulate a fact. When called out by someone as to what that fact means, he or she is required to offer specifics, i.e. standards, as to how they arrived at that fact. When some of the fine posters here make vague statements as to what is “white” and “anti-white” as facts, it is incumbent upon those individuals to provide a foundation for clarity.

    “The whole point is that a person can learn to ride a bike for themselves, but then they can’t tell you the skill of riding a bike.”

    
Absolutely one is able to express how one is able to ride a bike…if they are posed that particular question.

    “Bikers, suffers, skateboarders have all sorts of vocabulary, like the posters here…But they can’t give you measurable objective metrics for the entire skill.”



    When you ask a skateboarder what is an “ollie”, they are able to be exact in their definition, its execution, and its application. Why? Because in competitions, they will be judged by those physical standards. Of course, the evaluator may be subjective in how they score the overall performance, but the objective criteria as to what constitutes each skill is in place. The performer knows exactly what they must do to earn the score for each skill.

    “But the average kid riding a bike just rides a bike, he can’t describe how he does it. It’s a learned skill.”

    That’s absurd. Depending on their age, of course, a kid is able to explain how they got on their bike, how they put their feet to the pedals, how they properly balanced their body, how they moved their feet on the pedals, and how they steered. These things I listed are observable, defined criteria as how one rides a bike. They may be worded differently by different people, but the method is exact. Certainly during the teaching process, a person is going to go over this method over and over with their child as the “knowledge” piece and then demonstrate over and over with their child as the “skill” piece. Both work in concert.

    “Humans can recognize faces very fast, but they can’t do so from a “metrified” description in the general case, in particular in the “softer” and more complex problem areas.”

    If a person is indeed knowledgeable about the subject, and are asked about its particulars, he or she is able to delineate the complexities. Otherwise, they lack the “knowledge” they claim to possess.

Moreover, using YOUR logic, whenever an SJW says a person’s action is “racist” or “sexist”, regardless of how egregiously in error is their thought process, he or she actually knows what they mean. They can’t articulate it, because they know it when they see it.

    PhysicistDave…

    “I am trying to be gentle, Corvinus, but the way you try to “discourse” here is most assuredly not how the overwhelming majority of highly intelligent, educated people I have known communicate.”



    Appeal to authority. There are many ways to skin a cat.

    “I have, incidentally, known a number of Nobel laureates: not a one tried to “discourse” as you do.”

    Appeal to authority. People have their unique discussion methods. On this blog, I question people’s thought process since they tend to make overblown generalizations and draw vague conclusions. I actually seek to understand WHY they believe in what they do. There is no act or facade here.

    “But, that makes it especially silly for you to have made the comment to another poster, which started your and my exchange, “Do you understand how discourse even works?””

    Again, when some people here make wild statements without evidence, the question is a fair one to ask.

    “You are playing an obnoxiously arrogant game here…”

    I’m not the one listing my credentials.

    “But, we all know that you were trying to invoke a more sophisticated sense of the word “discourse,” in which you wish to imply that the other poster did not understand how “discourse” really works.”

    Well, if that person is not supporting their claims with clear reasons and relevant evident, they are not engaging in discourse.

    “And, frankly, people who play this sort of game tend to be perceived by intelligent people as arrogant, pretentious fools.”

    No more arrogant or pretentious as yourself, or SFG, or Ben Tillman, or Jefferson, or…

    “As far as I can tell, those questions relate to nothing I have posted here. And, quite frankly, I find them boring.”

    Indeed, you have not posed those questions. Now, you may find them “boring”, but to a number of posters here, they are anything but “boring”. To them, they are absolutely serious questions.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to Anonymous:

    That’s patently false. Metrics are a concrete way of defining knowledge. A person may articulate a fact.
     
    Y'know, Corvinus young fella, I have worked in academic research at a DOE lab, in private industry, in the military-industrial complex, etc. And not once did I have a need for a "metric." Not once.

    Real people, ordinary Americans, engineers, natural scientists, the Nobel laureates I have known, just do not talk this way.

    We are all being real polite to you here, seeing as how you seem to function in a special way mentally, but still...

    Corvinus also wrote to Anonymous:


    
Absolutely one is able to express how one is able to ride a bike…if they are posed that particular question.
     
    Really??? Is that how you learned to ride a bike -- by someone expressing to you verbally how to ride a bike??? Really???? Because if you are, you are the first human being I have ever heard of who learned it that way. Everyone I know learned by falling off, getting back on, falling off, and so on until they "got the hang of it." If you actually learned to ride a bike through verbal explanations, you really are a more unique human being than I had even guessed.

    Corvinus wrote to me:


    Appeal to authority...

    Appeal to authority...

     

    Well, you see, Corvinus, I am trying to do what is nowadays called an "intervention" here and you are just not choosing to cooperate. That is not good.

    Just a hint: there is nothing per se wrong with an appeal to authority: authorities are often right. It depends. I bet that if you had a brain tumor, you would do a whole lot of appealing to authority! The question is: is the authority legitimate?

    Since you are talking about the correct way to carry on an intelligent conversation, yeah, I think Nobel laureates in natural science might indeed be good authorities on that.

    Corvinus also wrote to me:


    I’m not the one listing my credentials.
     
    And, I feel sorry for your lack of credentials to list. I really do. Credentials are good because credibility is good. Verstehen?

    Corvinus also wrote to me:


    Well, if that person is not supporting their claims with clear reasons and relevant evident [sic], they are not engaging in discourse.
     
    Actually, as you pointed our earlier, in a literal dictionary meaning of "discourse," yes, they are engaging in discourse.

    But, you have an idea of "discourse" in your head to which you wish the rest of us to conform, and, Corvinus, I'll put this in colloquial English, we just ain't gonna do it.

    Contrary to your opinion, most people on this planet do not feel morally obligated to provide you with what you consider "clear reasons and relevant evident [sic]." If you are nice to us, we might offer you "clear reasons and relevant evident.[sic]," but then again we just may not have the time or inclination to do so.

    It's up to us. Not you.

    You need to learn that you are a very unpleasant person, and unpleasant people often find that others do not accommodate their desires.

    I would think you would have learned that by now, but perhaps you are even younger than I had thought.

    Maybe if you tell us more about your background, your education (or lack thereof), etc. we can better help you with this problem you have of thinking that other people will satisfy your desire to engage in what you define as "discourse."

    Really, Corvinus, I want to help. Really.

    Dave

  339. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    That’s patently false. Metrics are a concrete way of defining knowledge.

    No, you are the one in error, significantly so. You are doomed to failure if you take this approach to knowledge of complex subjects. Sure you can give me a metric as to when water freezes. You can’t give me a metric that tells me the skill of riding a bike, or recognizing a given individual’s face, or telling when someone I just saw is about to mug me.

    What you are trying to do is sometimes called “physics envy”. It’s the modern equivalent of the old line about “if I had enough information, I could predict everything”. You can’t, even in principle, due to the mathematics of chaos and complexity. One of the big lessons of the last 40 years or so of computer science is that what we can know and predict (what we can solve) is bounded. And yet we have to live in a complex world.

    Take a look at why classic rules-based AI failed. There was a period when AI concentrated on “knowledge-bases” and “knowledge-engineering”. Building expert systems was all about discovering the metrics and rules that you are talking about.

    What the AI researchers found was that rules and metrics are for beginners. You carefully learn and carefully follow rules when you first start to drive a car. But when you become expert at a task, you don’t even know the rules you use. Experts can’t explain the rules they know to a “knowledge-engineer”, any more than a chess Grand Master can tell you “here are the rules and metrics to play chess at grand master level”. They can try to tell you rules, but then it is always a case of “oh, yeah, but not this time, because…”

    Expert systems do work well in some cases, such as medical procedures or piloting a plane, where checklists can be automated. But simple things humans often do well, such as riding a bike, are hard. (Walking robots are still rare.) And riding a bike is just a simple physical skill. Humans have lots of social skills that apparently require reasonably complete mental models of the world. In other words, things just get harder. It’s surprisingly easy for problems to become “AI-complete”.

    (Computers can beat humans at chess today using rules-based approaches, but that’s due to the power of computers today and decades of effort. Humans don’t play chess that way.)

    A good bit of the so-called Big Data research of today is motivated by trying to tackle problems where classic approaches–let’s discover the metrics and rules–don’t apply well. In some cases you can automatically develop decision trees that do have rules. It’s nice to be able to inspect the rules, but even there you are often dealing with “1.375? What’s so magical about that?”. But in a lot of cases–most neural networks–even when you develop something that works (say, recognizes a face) you don’t know why it works. You can’t identify the metric in the neural net that makes it work.

  340. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Mean Women Bullshitters in Tech

    Mean people move ahead in business beyond their actual ability by tearing down the people around them.

    *** If such a person is a man, you can be blunt with them and call them out in public (or private). *** Men can’t do this to Lady Bullshitters in public or private. Corporate “rules” prevent this.

    So women can claim any absurd aggressive bullshit, proving their superiority over everyone else. Example: “We use the highest possible professional standards” during a job interview. You can’t even ask Lady Bullshitter what standards are used, you bad Patriarchal person.

    Lady Bullshitters shut down opponents, but based only on public derision, not through quality ideas. They always get away with it. It’s the style of the age.

    Lady Bullshitters move ahead, but in a manner that is actually harmful to everything around them. Suppressing the rest of an organization for your own success is obviously NOT A GOOD THING.

    What is lost by a free pass for Lady Bullshitters can’t even be determined, as a large part of the workforce (Men) withdraws their participation, their potential contributions lost forever.

    Try discussing this in any organization. If you are a man, it is better to just scale back your effort, rather than address your typical bullshitters.

    I’ve SEEN and HEARD what I have described.

    Consider this when you look at tech leaders who want to move into politics, whether they are men or women.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    I feel your pain. I worked around a female (definitely not ladylike, which, BTW, is still viewed as a compliment by many) BSer and saw her demoralize a lot of people until she imploded. People cheered when she bolted.
    Finding out about such toxic people prior to hiring on can be a challenge but is doable.
  341. @advancedatheist
    Richard Spencer has talked in some podcast appearances about how the white bourgeois class has acted against white people's interests in general. Traditionally Western societies had aristocracies to put a check on the greed of merchants, bankers and capitalists, and this had the effect of maintaining white identity; but then aristocracies lost the social and cultural wars of the Enlightenment, and their influence went into decline in the following egalitarian age. Now the commercial elite, at least in the U.S., can do pretty much whatever it wants, though it might take a few election cycles and some strategic investments to get its way.

    The aristocrats did not consistently have the interests of poor commoner co-ethnics/co-nationalists at heart. The modern jet-set aristo has no interest in poor commoners at all. Spencer, being American, has little experience of them.

  342. A very good article. I subbed at Berkeley High quite often for a few years.

    One day, I was talking to some of the young guys about how to get invited to the Playboy Mansion. I forget how it came up, but I knew enough not to initiate such conversations. In any case, my advice consisted of telling them to set up some kind of club, vote to give Hugh Hefner an award, and that, as a result of that, they stood some chance of getting invited to the mansion.

    Mostly, this was facetious. They were under 18 and this was not about to happen.

    But, what did happen was that, about two-thirds of the way through, I got a bad feeling as if the young women in the room were listening in, and, not just for their enjoyment. I felt watched as if I could get reported on for…what?

    As they filed out, one of the young men who had taken a particular liking to me (I was popular there as a sub) told me flat-out that the girls simply didn’t want the boys discussing sex at all…

    This was in the late ’90s.

    Sounds as if it has gotten worse.

  343. “What you are trying to do is sometimes called “physics envy”. It’s the modern equivalent of the old line about “if I had enough information, I could predict everything.”

    
Strawman. You assume I am making and made this argument and proceed to craft a position explaining how I’m error.

    I’m merely pointing out that when an individual says that another person is “anti-white”, I want specifics as to what they mean, rather than the vague reference to “well, I know it when I see it”.

    You stated that a child is unable HOW TO DESCRIBE the skill of riding a bicycle since it’s learned. I gave you specific metrics as to how a person is able to articulate that process. Regarding facial recognition, there are metrics involved.

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

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

    Face biometrics processes the unique shape, pattern, and positioning of facial features. Therein lies a challenge–over time, the human face tends to change with the appearance, such as a beard or wrinkles. Therefore, machine learning is employed to stimulate human interpretation of faces and adapt to anticipated or unanticipated changes. In other words, the program employs algorithms. Gait biometrics are the coordinated, cyclic combination of movements that result in human locomotion, which is aimed at recognizing individuals by the way they walk. Now, studies performed on sheep and goats have yielded compelling evidence for the use of facial cues in both identification and recognition of emotional states, enabling scientists to investigate general principles of how the brain is organized to distinguish between large subsets of highly homogeneous faces. In other words, metrics are involved in this research.

    “But when you become expert at a task, you don’t even know the rules you use.”

    A person who is an expert at efficiently shooting a basketball thoroughly understands how and why they are the expert, employing statistics and key metrics.

    http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2014-SSAC-Quantifying-Shot-Quality-in-the-NBA.pdf

  344. @Anonymous
    Mean Women Bullshitters in Tech

    Mean people move ahead in business beyond their actual ability by tearing down the people around them.

    *** If such a person is a man, you can be blunt with them and call them out in public (or private). *** Men can't do this to Lady Bullshitters in public or private. Corporate "rules" prevent this.

    So women can claim any absurd aggressive bullshit, proving their superiority over everyone else. Example: "We use the highest possible professional standards" during a job interview. You can't even ask Lady Bullshitter what standards are used, you bad Patriarchal person.

    Lady Bullshitters shut down opponents, but based only on public derision, not through quality ideas. They always get away with it. It's the style of the age.

    Lady Bullshitters move ahead, but in a manner that is actually harmful to everything around them. Suppressing the rest of an organization for your own success is obviously NOT A GOOD THING.

    What is lost by a free pass for Lady Bullshitters can't even be determined, as a large part of the workforce (Men) withdraws their participation, their potential contributions lost forever.

    Try discussing this in any organization. If you are a man, it is better to just scale back your effort, rather than address your typical bullshitters.

    I've SEEN and HEARD what I have described.

    Consider this when you look at tech leaders who want to move into politics, whether they are men or women.

    I feel your pain. I worked around a female (definitely not ladylike, which, BTW, is still viewed as a compliment by many) BSer and saw her demoralize a lot of people until she imploded. People cheered when she bolted.
    Finding out about such toxic people prior to hiring on can be a challenge but is doable.

  345. I want specifics as to what they mean, rather than the vague reference to “well, I know it when I see it”.

    Y

  346. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…I want specifics as to what they mean, rather than the vague reference to “well, I know it when I see it”…

    You are doomed to never get what you want, because that’s not how intelligence works. In reference to complex phenomena, that’s not how science works. Good scientists need to learn to tolerate ambiguity, in context.

    Even if people wanted to give you exactly what you asked for, they can’t. They don’t know the exact specifics of what they know. But they do “know it when they see it”. (That’s a famous line from the Supreme Court, if you are not familiar with it. Why do you think it was said?)

    You assume I am making and made this argument

    No, I assumed you are engaging in “physics envy” because of the old saying to the effect that “if you can’t measure it, you can’t understand it”. In physics you can define metrics objectively. You are begging for accurate metrics. When true mathematical complexity rears its head, you often can’t get what you want. It doesn’t matter how much you want it or how obviously beneficial it would be. It’s not a matter of opinion. As far as is known, you just can’t get there from here. It’s kind of like a fuzzy version of the speed of light.

    I gave you specific metrics as to how a person is able to articulate that process.

    No, that’s a description of how to learn to ride a bike. It’s not the knowledge itself. Riding a bike is a learned skill, like “knowing it when you see it”. If you have all the metrics, write a computer program to enable a robot to ride a bike. Use only the rules in that description.

    Regarding facial recognition, there are metrics involved.

    There are metrics involved, but you may not even know what they are. Even when you develop an algorithm that works, you might not know what the key metrics are. For instance, consider this line: “…machine learning is employed to stimulate human interpretation of faces and adapt to anticipated or unanticipated changes…” Machine learning is one of the tools that has been developed to try to attack these sort of problems. The problems that humans can do easily, but we can’t develop direct algorithms to instruct a computer. The attraction of machine learning is that you don’t need to understand the metrics. Instead you “train” a general algorithm by exposing it to large amounts of correctly classified data. (Yippe! No programming!) Internally, in a very distributed and multi-dimensional form, a metric has been devised by the algorithm to correctly partition the so-called hyperspace (“is that Joe or Bob?”). But you cannot extract that metric and assign it to making any one decision. You don’t know the metric, because it’s not a single number, it’s a much more complex structure, perhaps easily too complex to hold in the human mind.

    As I mentioned before, a core aspect of some neural network algorithms is that when they work, you can’t tell why. Just because we have the algorithm doesn’t mean we understand all the metrics associated with it. (Indeed, metrics might be different in different sub-domains of the problem.)

    Training a machine learning algorithm probably resembles what humans do when they learn complex social things. Just like we can’t tell exactly what the metrics are when we are looking at the data underlying a trained machine learning algorithm, people can’t tell you the metrics they have learned. You are asking a meaningless question, because people don’t work that way. Brains don’t work that way.

    A person who is an expert at efficiently shooting a basketball thoroughly understands how and why they are the expert, employing statistics and key metrics…

    Do this experiment. Walk up to a good basketball player and ask them. Record what they say. Then walk up to another and ask them. Compare their answers. Then see if your basketball game is any better. I know nothing about basketball, but I bet good basketball players don’t “know”. They just “do”. They are not thinking about metrics, they are playing basketball. They are “doing it when they see it”.

    “…“But when you become expert at a task, you don’t even know the rules you use.”…

    This is one of the important findings of the field of AI (sometimes called “old-fashioned AI”) that was active from maybe the mid-60s to mid-80s. This is a strong and robust finding. (No one’s ever found a way around the problem.) If you are interested in when and where things like rules and metrics fail, read up on it. It probably does have implications for how much of the world can be subject to legal rules, for instance.

    (Tangentially, the people who study computational logic sometimes analyze the text of large laws, like the HIPA health/privacy laws. What they usually find is that any large law is inconsistent with itself. Rule-based systems are hard to get right.)

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    anonymous,

    You did a fine job concisely explaining the elements of AI to Corvinus.

    Somehow, I do not think it is going to help.

    Dave
  347. @Corvinus
    Anonymous...


    Person A--Everyone in every university is taught that whites are evil and hateful and that males are evil and hateful. No exceptions.
    Person B--But I attend Purdue and have not been taught this concept.
Person A--You’re wrong, I know it when I see it.

    
See how ridiculous is this “conversation”.

    “I think the people writing here actually do know what they mean. They just can’t articulate it, because it’s not a form of knowledge that can be “metricified”.”

    That’s patently false. Metrics are a concrete way of defining knowledge. A person may articulate a fact. When called out by someone as to what that fact means, he or she is required to offer specifics, i.e. standards, as to how they arrived at that fact. When some of the fine posters here make vague statements as to what is “white” and “anti-white” as facts, it is incumbent upon those individuals to provide a foundation for clarity.

    “The whole point is that a person can learn to ride a bike for themselves, but then they can’t tell you the skill of riding a bike.”

    
Absolutely one is able to express how one is able to ride a bike...if they are posed that particular question.

    “Bikers, suffers, skateboarders have all sorts of vocabulary, like the posters here...But they can’t give you measurable objective metrics for the entire skill.”



    When you ask a skateboarder what is an “ollie”, they are able to be exact in their definition, its execution, and its application. Why? Because in competitions, they will be judged by those physical standards. Of course, the evaluator may be subjective in how they score the overall performance, but the objective criteria as to what constitutes each skill is in place. The performer knows exactly what they must do to earn the score for each skill.

    “But the average kid riding a bike just rides a bike, he can’t describe how he does it. It’s a learned skill.”

    That’s absurd. Depending on their age, of course, a kid is able to explain how they got on their bike, how they put their feet to the pedals, how they properly balanced their body, how they moved their feet on the pedals, and how they steered. These things I listed are observable, defined criteria as how one rides a bike. They may be worded differently by different people, but the method is exact. Certainly during the teaching process, a person is going to go over this method over and over with their child as the “knowledge” piece and then demonstrate over and over with their child as the “skill” piece. Both work in concert.

    “Humans can recognize faces very fast, but they can’t do so from a “metrified” description in the general case, in particular in the “softer” and more complex problem areas.”

    If a person is indeed knowledgeable about the subject, and are asked about its particulars, he or she is able to delineate the complexities. Otherwise, they lack the “knowledge” they claim to possess.

Moreover, using YOUR logic, whenever an SJW says a person’s action is “racist” or “sexist”, regardless of how egregiously in error is their thought process, he or she actually knows what they mean. They can’t articulate it, because they know it when they see it.

    PhysicistDave...

    “I am trying to be gentle, Corvinus, but the way you try to “discourse” here is most assuredly not how the overwhelming majority of highly intelligent, educated people I have known communicate.”



    Appeal to authority. There are many ways to skin a cat.

    “I have, incidentally, known a number of Nobel laureates: not a one tried to “discourse” as you do.”

    Appeal to authority. People have their unique discussion methods. On this blog, I question people’s thought process since they tend to make overblown generalizations and draw vague conclusions. I actually seek to understand WHY they believe in what they do. There is no act or facade here.

    “But, that makes it especially silly for you to have made the comment to another poster, which started your and my exchange, “Do you understand how discourse even works?””

    Again, when some people here make wild statements without evidence, the question is a fair one to ask.

    “You are playing an obnoxiously arrogant game here...”

    I’m not the one listing my credentials.

    “But, we all know that you were trying to invoke a more sophisticated sense of the word “discourse,” in which you wish to imply that the other poster did not understand how “discourse” really works.”

    Well, if that person is not supporting their claims with clear reasons and relevant evident, they are not engaging in discourse.

    “And, frankly, people who play this sort of game tend to be perceived by intelligent people as arrogant, pretentious fools.”

    No more arrogant or pretentious as yourself, or SFG, or Ben Tillman, or Jefferson, or...

    “As far as I can tell, those questions relate to nothing I have posted here. And, quite frankly, I find them boring.”

    Indeed, you have not posed those questions. Now, you may find them “boring”, but to a number of posters here, they are anything but “boring”. To them, they are absolutely serious questions.

    Corvinus wrote to Anonymous:

    That’s patently false. Metrics are a concrete way of defining knowledge. A person may articulate a fact.

    Y’know, Corvinus young fella, I have worked in academic research at a DOE lab, in private industry, in the military-industrial complex, etc. And not once did I have a need for a “metric.” Not once.

    Real people, ordinary Americans, engineers, natural scientists, the Nobel laureates I have known, just do not talk this way.

    We are all being real polite to you here, seeing as how you seem to function in a special way mentally, but still…

    Corvinus also wrote to Anonymous:

    
Absolutely one is able to express how one is able to ride a bike…if they are posed that particular question.

    Really??? Is that how you learned to ride a bike — by someone expressing to you verbally how to ride a bike??? Really???? Because if you are, you are the first human being I have ever heard of who learned it that way. Everyone I know learned by falling off, getting back on, falling off, and so on until they “got the hang of it.” If you actually learned to ride a bike through verbal explanations, you really are a more unique human being than I had even guessed.

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Appeal to authority…

    Appeal to authority…

    Well, you see, Corvinus, I am trying to do what is nowadays called an “intervention” here and you are just not choosing to cooperate. That is not good.

    Just a hint: there is nothing per se wrong with an appeal to authority: authorities are often right. It depends. I bet that if you had a brain tumor, you would do a whole lot of appealing to authority! The question is: is the authority legitimate?

    Since you are talking about the correct way to carry on an intelligent conversation, yeah, I think Nobel laureates in natural science might indeed be good authorities on that.

    Corvinus also wrote to me:

    I’m not the one listing my credentials.

    And, I feel sorry for your lack of credentials to list. I really do. Credentials are good because credibility is good. Verstehen?

    Corvinus also wrote to me:

    Well, if that person is not supporting their claims with clear reasons and relevant evident [sic], they are not engaging in discourse.

    Actually, as you pointed our earlier, in a literal dictionary meaning of “discourse,” yes, they are engaging in discourse.

    But, you have an idea of “discourse” in your head to which you wish the rest of us to conform, and, Corvinus, I’ll put this in colloquial English, we just ain’t gonna do it.

    Contrary to your opinion, most people on this planet do not feel morally obligated to provide you with what you consider “clear reasons and relevant evident [sic].” If you are nice to us, we might offer you “clear reasons and relevant evident.[sic],” but then again we just may not have the time or inclination to do so.

    It’s up to us. Not you.

    You need to learn that you are a very unpleasant person, and unpleasant people often find that others do not accommodate their desires.

    I would think you would have learned that by now, but perhaps you are even younger than I had thought.

    Maybe if you tell us more about your background, your education (or lack thereof), etc. we can better help you with this problem you have of thinking that other people will satisfy your desire to engage in what you define as “discourse.”

    Really, Corvinus, I want to help. Really.

    Dave

  348. @anonymous
    "...I want specifics as to what they mean, rather than the vague reference to “well, I know it when I see it”...

    You are doomed to never get what you want, because that's not how intelligence works. In reference to complex phenomena, that's not how science works. Good scientists need to learn to tolerate ambiguity, in context.

    Even if people wanted to give you exactly what you asked for, they can't. They don't know the exact specifics of what they know. But they do "know it when they see it". (That's a famous line from the Supreme Court, if you are not familiar with it. Why do you think it was said?)

    You assume I am making and made this argument

    No, I assumed you are engaging in "physics envy" because of the old saying to the effect that "if you can't measure it, you can't understand it". In physics you can define metrics objectively. You are begging for accurate metrics. When true mathematical complexity rears its head, you often can't get what you want. It doesn't matter how much you want it or how obviously beneficial it would be. It's not a matter of opinion. As far as is known, you just can't get there from here. It's kind of like a fuzzy version of the speed of light.

    I gave you specific metrics as to how a person is able to articulate that process.

    No, that's a description of how to learn to ride a bike. It's not the knowledge itself. Riding a bike is a learned skill, like "knowing it when you see it". If you have all the metrics, write a computer program to enable a robot to ride a bike. Use only the rules in that description.

    Regarding facial recognition, there are metrics involved.

    There are metrics involved, but you may not even know what they are. Even when you develop an algorithm that works, you might not know what the key metrics are. For instance, consider this line: "...machine learning is employed to stimulate human interpretation of faces and adapt to anticipated or unanticipated changes..." Machine learning is one of the tools that has been developed to try to attack these sort of problems. The problems that humans can do easily, but we can't develop direct algorithms to instruct a computer. The attraction of machine learning is that you don't need to understand the metrics. Instead you "train" a general algorithm by exposing it to large amounts of correctly classified data. (Yippe! No programming!) Internally, in a very distributed and multi-dimensional form, a metric has been devised by the algorithm to correctly partition the so-called hyperspace ("is that Joe or Bob?"). But you cannot extract that metric and assign it to making any one decision. You don't know the metric, because it's not a single number, it's a much more complex structure, perhaps easily too complex to hold in the human mind.

    As I mentioned before, a core aspect of some neural network algorithms is that when they work, you can't tell why. Just because we have the algorithm doesn't mean we understand all the metrics associated with it. (Indeed, metrics might be different in different sub-domains of the problem.)

    Training a machine learning algorithm probably resembles what humans do when they learn complex social things. Just like we can't tell exactly what the metrics are when we are looking at the data underlying a trained machine learning algorithm, people can't tell you the metrics they have learned. You are asking a meaningless question, because people don't work that way. Brains don't work that way.


    A person who is an expert at efficiently shooting a basketball thoroughly understands how and why they are the expert, employing statistics and key metrics...

    Do this experiment. Walk up to a good basketball player and ask them. Record what they say. Then walk up to another and ask them. Compare their answers. Then see if your basketball game is any better. I know nothing about basketball, but I bet good basketball players don't "know". They just "do". They are not thinking about metrics, they are playing basketball. They are "doing it when they see it".

    "...“But when you become expert at a task, you don’t even know the rules you use.”...

    This is one of the important findings of the field of AI (sometimes called "old-fashioned AI") that was active from maybe the mid-60s to mid-80s. This is a strong and robust finding. (No one's ever found a way around the problem.) If you are interested in when and where things like rules and metrics fail, read up on it. It probably does have implications for how much of the world can be subject to legal rules, for instance.

    (Tangentially, the people who study computational logic sometimes analyze the text of large laws, like the HIPA health/privacy laws. What they usually find is that any large law is inconsistent with itself. Rule-based systems are hard to get right.)

    anonymous,

    You did a fine job concisely explaining the elements of AI to Corvinus.

    Somehow, I do not think it is going to help.

    Dave

  349. @reiner Tor
    Röhm or either Strasser would never have dreamt of the holocaust, or probably even of starting a major European war. They (especially the Strassers) were more interested in some socialist-type revolution than in external conquest or racial war. Otto Strasser even worked with Jews before joining Hitler's party and after leaving it in exile and after returning from exile.

    Saying "they were all Nazis" is quite meaningless.

    reiner Tor wrote to me:

    Röhm or either Strasser would never have dreamt of the holocaust, or probably even of starting a major European war.

    Well… perhaps you are right on that. But neither objected very strenuously to Hitler’s anti-seimitism, did they? (An honest question: I don’t know.)

    reiner Tor also wrote to me:

    Saying “they were all Nazis” is quite meaningless.

    Weren’t they all members of the NSDAP? And isn’t “Nazi” just a shorthand for NSDAP?

    Dave

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Well… perhaps you are right on that. But neither objected very strenuously to Hitler’s anti-seimitism, did they? (An honest question: I don’t know.)
     
    The usual phrasing of an honest question is something like:

    But did either of them object strenuously to Hitler's anti-semitism?

    rather than how you phrased it which assumes the truth of first clause.
  350. @Corvinus
    Robert Rediger...

    “Everyone is a victim sometimes and nobody is a victim always. See, complexity isn’t that hard!”

    I would offer this advice to the various posters here.

    “I told you in my answer when I placed quote marks around ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal.’ A lazy effort at labelling by them which rather discredits the whole study, don’t you think?”

    First, each study operationally defines “conservative” and “liberal”. Second, people generally know what is and what is not a “conservative” and a “liberal”, as evident by this very blog. Third, in order for ANY study to be discredited, one has to submit evidence as to HOW the study fails to measure up considering it was peer reviewed. You honestly believe the studies I listed are automatically flawed because the investigators were “lazy”? That is your “proof”?

    “Or do you actually believe, grandpa, that politics is all about American blue versus American red?”

    Are you even remotely aware of what site you are commenting on? Wow, just wow.


    Physicist Dave...

    “Ummm….. Corvinus, I do not quite know how to break this to you, but, no, most people here, indeed most Americans, do not do “discourse,” at least not knowingly. They talk, they chat, they debate, but they do not “discourse.”

    You, of all people given your supposed credentials, ought to know better. People here are offering up positions, they are attempting to speak authoritatively on a topic. They are assuredly engaging in discourse.

    “I have a Ph.D. from Stanford — I know all sorts of polysyllabic words.”



    Good for you.

    “I also know that even most highly educated people are not likely to take a dude seriously who asks, “Do you understand how discourse even works?”

    Actually, it’s a fair statement for me to make, considering a number of a number of people here make generalizations and, when questioned, double down with more generalizations.

    “But, maybe you have other goals than being taken seriously.”

    Try me. Ask me a serious question. No, let me ask you several. What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved? Do “white” people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding who they associate with, who they date, who they marry, who they procreate with? Because this topic is extremely prevalent on this fine blog, and it would be intellectually satisfying if a person here would even just try to respond to these inquiries.

    Anonymous...

    "The world is a complex place in which experience and a discriminating eye is often required."

    
Tell that to the posters here who constantly bombard us with statements that certain people are are “cuckservatives”, are “anti-white”, are “pro-Jew”, are “anti-male”, are “civilized”, are “savage”, etc. What do those statements actually mean?

    “If so, can you provide exact rules about how to ride a bicycle, providing exact metrics about when and how to shift your weight, exact rules down to every last detail…”

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    See, what you are describing is a PHYSICAL activity, one in which there are specific “rules” in place. One can actually “measure” how well a person rides a bicycle. When people here talk about “anti-white” or “civilized”, there are a myriad of SOCIAL factors involved. I am trying to ascertain what are those particular factors, since efforts to “measure” them are rife with confirmation bias.


    Jay Igaboo...

    "The way Europe is heading as a result of feminism and the race lobby, there are likely to be less truly masculine men around willing to defend women when the Muslim demographic attempt to impose Sharia."

    So, having been invited to debate at several universities regarding the scourge of PC, do you not find it ironic that you are offering a fake name? I mean, would not a “truly masculine man” not hide behind a facade, that one would be willing to practice what you preach by using a handle befitting of your status? Furthermore, are not some traditional Christian men and those on the manospherists also imposing their own brand of “Sharia law” by insisting on virginal women who stay at home, cook, clean, take car of the kids, and refrain from having a career, similar to that wonderful decade known as the 1950’s?

    Has anyone else actually read the (unintentionally funny) guide on how to ride a bike that Corvinus linked to? I.e.,

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle

    It boils down to: take it slow (but not too slow, because it is harder to keep a slow bike balanced); wear a helmet; and expect to fall a lot.

    All good advice, of course: but the emphasis should be on expect to fall a lot.

    What really makes it funny, of course, is that almost everyone learns to ride a bike before they can absorb a manual like this!

    Somehow, I do not think our friend Corvinus has any experience at all with AI or robots or successfully teaching human beings (much less “metrics,” etc.) if he takes the wikihow page seriously as actually teaching people how to ride a bike!

    You fall, you get back on, you fall, you get back on…

    • Replies: @JSM
    Best way to teach a kid to ride a bike: Take him and the bike to a park with a long grassy hill. Have the kid climb on and start peddling *UPHILL* while you balance from the back. When he's peddling hard -- but going forward rather slowly because it's uphill -- tell him to keep peddling, and let go. He'll fall over but since it's grassy and he's going slow, he'll either be not hurt badly or even maybe have time to catch himself by putting down a foot. Repeat about six times --voila, balance!
    Kid can learn to ride a bike in an afternoon this way, no training wheels and no skinned knees.
  351. @reiner Tor
    Röhm or either Strasser would never have dreamt of the holocaust, or probably even of starting a major European war. They (especially the Strassers) were more interested in some socialist-type revolution than in external conquest or racial war. Otto Strasser even worked with Jews before joining Hitler's party and after leaving it in exile and after returning from exile.

    Saying "they were all Nazis" is quite meaningless.

    In reality neither of them accepted the Versailles borders of Germany for a moment, so general war would have always been a possibility, and so would its consequences.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Because the English and - to a much smaller extent - even the French accepted that the Versailles treaty was too punitive, they eventually came around to accept the following:

    1) German rearmament
    2) Anschuss (which was already a redrawing of borders)
    3) redrawing of the German-Czech border

    They probably would have allowed the redrawing of the Polish borders as well, if Hitler hadn't broken his word on Bohemia previously.

    In any event, it's not likely that the Strasser brothers wanted to risk war or create a huge empire from the Atlantic to the Ural. Therefore, it's very likely that there would've been no Second World War. Let alone the holocaust, which was not an inevitable consequence of the war itself.
  352. @PhysicistDave
    Has anyone else actually read the (unintentionally funny) guide on how to ride a bike that Corvinus linked to? I.e.,

    Here you go. http://www.wikihow.com/Ride-a-Bicycle
     
    It boils down to: take it slow (but not too slow, because it is harder to keep a slow bike balanced); wear a helmet; and expect to fall a lot.

    All good advice, of course: but the emphasis should be on expect to fall a lot.

    What really makes it funny, of course, is that almost everyone learns to ride a bike before they can absorb a manual like this!

    Somehow, I do not think our friend Corvinus has any experience at all with AI or robots or successfully teaching human beings (much less "metrics," etc.) if he takes the wikihow page seriously as actually teaching people how to ride a bike!

    You fall, you get back on, you fall, you get back on...

    Best way to teach a kid to ride a bike: Take him and the bike to a park with a long grassy hill. Have the kid climb on and start peddling *UPHILL* while you balance from the back. When he’s peddling hard — but going forward rather slowly because it’s uphill — tell him to keep peddling, and let go. He’ll fall over but since it’s grassy and he’s going slow, he’ll either be not hurt badly or even maybe have time to catch himself by putting down a foot. Repeat about six times –voila, balance!
    Kid can learn to ride a bike in an afternoon this way, no training wheels and no skinned knees.

  353. Meanwhile, in related feminist news:

    Toronto Zoo briefly closes baboon exhibit after matriarch’s death sparks violent power struggle

    After the matriarch died last year, a vicious battle erupted among the female baboons at the Toronto Zoo for her throne that endured for months, prompting a brief closure of the exhibit and providing a fascinating glimpse into the animals’ behaviour…

    The exhibit was closed for several days because “there were some injuries that we thought best to keep them at the back because our visiting public don’t know baboon behaviour,” said Maria Franke, the curator of mammals at the zoo.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-zoo-briefly-closes-baboon-exhibit-after-death-of-matriarch-sparks-violent-power-struggle/article27521914/

    Yes, there is much about baboon behavior that is shrouded in mystery.

  354. Robert Rediger…

    “Did you even read your own link or just post it because it confirmed your nonsense prejudices?”

    You’re going to have to ask Anonymous. Because in the end the results from the study are completely accurate. Why? I know it when I see it. Now, on a more serious note, why do you reject the conclusions of the researchers?

    Anonymous—

    “Good scientists need to learn to tolerate ambiguity, in context.”

    When some posters here define “white” or “anti-white” or “white interests”, they come across as THE authority. There is NO ambiguity. There is NO discrepancy. Therefore, I am seeking clarity and clarification. A cardiologist may recommend a procedure to a not straightforward situation—benefits and costs must be weighed for the patient. The treatment may not actually work. But in this particular situation, the symptoms and treatment are measurable. Likewise, a person during discourse is obligated to offer particulars as to what a word means. Claiming “they know it when they see it” without certainty or exactness of meaning in language jeopardizes fruitful discussion.

    “They don’t know the exact specifics of what they know. But they do “know it when they see it”.

    I am well aware of that historical line in reference to something that has discrepancies in its application (obscenity). However, the Justices in the Miller case offered standards as to what constitutes obscenity, regardless if those objective criteria is subjectively applied. There is a foundational piece in place.

    “You are begging for accurate metrics.”

    (Sign) I am actually requesting criteria regarding for something; in this case, what is “white” and what is “anti-white”. When a white person states that any white person is not “white” unless they completely favor “white interests”, without specifying what is “white” or “white interests”, then their entire argument is rendered incoherent. There must be a fundamental starting point as to what those terms are based on.

    
Again, using YOUR logic, whenever a woman cries “rape” or a minority yells “racist”, and a person questions their reasoning, each person merely has to say “Well, I know it when I see it”.
    Do you want to go by this standard of subjectivity? In essence, there are NO applicable standards. THINK about what you’re saying—if A engages in Y, then is deemed X by B, A is unable to even call into question that thought process or that label because the definition of X by B is generally based on on B’s predispositions and biases, that any and all definitions of specific terms are muddled beyond comprehension. B can merely state “Because I know it when I see it”.

    “No, that’s a description of how to learn to ride a bike.”

    Again, you stated that a child is unable HOW TO DESCRIBE the skill of riding a bicycle since it’s learned. I gave you specific metrics as to how a person is able to articulate that process.

    Physicist Dave…

    “Y’know, Corvinus young fella, I have worked in academic research at a DOE lab, in private industry, in the military-industrial complex, etc. And not once did I have a need for a “metric.” Not once.”

    I never asked about your credentials.

    “Real people, ordinary Americans, engineers, natural scientists, the Nobel laureates I have known, just do not talk this way.”

    I gave an earlier example of how the NBA uses metrics. General managers of professional baseball teams are getting on board with this approach in their scouting departments. The specific metric that has prevailed since World War II among certain economists is the dollar value of a country’s economic output, expressed first as gross national product, later as gross domestic product. Real people DO talk this way.

    “If you actually learned to ride a bike through verbal explanations, you really are a more unique human being than I had even guessed.”

A person is able to learn how to ride a bike through explanations of that process AND by physically doing it. Both work together in harmony. Young lads see a bike and wonder how does it work. A person tells them the different parts and how they function. That is the explanation part. Then they actually try the skill of riding it. And they practice. Eventually, they mastered the skill of riding the bike, and are able to explain to someone else how they ride that bike and how well they ride that bike using certain standards as expressed by an expert.

    “Just a hint: there is nothing per se wrong with an appeal to authority: authorities are often right. It depends.”

    
You’re right, it depends. Apparently, those who claim they know what is considered “anti-white” thoughts and actions are authorities on the subject. Because they know it when they see it.

    “Since you are talking about the correct way to carry on an intelligent conversation…”

    Actually, I am talking about how to engage in discourse, by which there are numerous ways to carry out that objective. I never directly stated nor implied there is a “correct way”.

    “If you are nice to us, we might offer you “clear reasons and relevant evident.[sic],” but then again we just may not have the time or inclination to do so.”

    Not all opinions are equal, some are more valid in their sourcing of evidence. Therefore, when people fail to offer the requisite proof, their assertions lack substance. Think about it…millions of white people are “not white”, as designated by those who are “truly white”, because those white people supposedly do not take “white interests” into account. Should there not be any specifics as to what they mean? Should there not be accountability on a person’s part for making shit up merely because “they know it when they see it”? That is exactly why metrics, a method of measuring something, is most appropriate under this specific circumstance. What criteria is involved regarding “truly white (or black)”, “non-white (or white)”, and “white interests (or black interests)”? What are the key performance indicators? I’m just trying to keep up with the race baiting demonstrated with equal ferocity by the left and the right.

    “You need to learn that you are a very unpleasant person, and unpleasant people often find that others do not accommodate their desires.”

    That usually means that a person lacks the intellectual wherewithal to engage in discourse. Why? I know it when I see it. Hey, don’t blame me, put the onus on Anonymous. I am just employing his/her logic. I suppose you believe I am “unpleasant” because after your brief encounter with me on the Internet, you just “know it when you see it” and are able to factually state my character. Which, on its face, is absolutely ridiculous. It’s on you, not on me.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    The specific metric that has prevailed since World War II among certain economists is the dollar value of a country’s economic output, expressed first as gross national product, later as gross domestic product. Real people DO talk this way.
     
    I did try to make clear that I was talking about intelligent people!

    To be serious, I actually have known a number of economists (I considered majoring in econ and actually had an offer to do a postdoc in econ), and, no, most economists most of the time do not constantly use terms like "metrics," as you do. Even if, for the sake of argument, we count economists as real people, no, that does not explain you.

    The point I am trying to get across to you, youngster, is that you communicate in a very arrogant, bureaucratic, precious, officious manner and that this is very, very offputting to most people, including, I would guess, based on my own experience, most economists.

    Corvinus also wrote to me:


    I never asked about your credentials.
     
    No, you didn't, but I generously volunteered the information anyway. I, however, am asking about your credentials (or lack thereof) because I think this would go a long ways towards helping you with the behavioral problem you suffer from.

    Corvinus also wrote:


    

A person is able to learn how to ride a bike through explanations of that process AND by physically doing it. Both work together in harmony. Young lads see a bike and wonder how does it work. A person tells them the different parts and how they function. That is the explanation part. Then they actually try the skill of riding it.
     
    Well, that is not how anyone I know learned to ride a bike: certainly not with the sort of talk about metrics and so on that you have engaged in and want others to engage in!

    Corvinus also wrote:


    Actually, I am talking about how to engage in discourse...
     
    Everyone here is quite satisfied with how they engage in "discourse," except you keep trying to convince all of us we should be doing it differently. A task at which you have evidently failed.

    Corvinus also wrote:


    Think about it…millions of white people are “not white”, as designated by those who are “truly white”
     
    No, I am not going to "think about it": you are really obsessed about this "truly white" thing (and of course someone obsessed by race like yourself is usually called a _________ ). It just does not interest me. I really, really, really do not and never have cared about who is "truly white."

    Corvinus also wrote:


    That usually means that a person lacks the intellectual wherewithal to engage in discourse.
     
    Except you keep admitting that all of us are in fact "engaging in discourse" but you just do not like how we are doing it! You are really weird in how you keep equivocating on this word "discourse," really weird.

    Corvinus also wrote:


    I suppose you believe I am “unpleasant” because after your brief encounter with me on the Internet, you just “know it when you see it” and are able to factually state my character. Which, on its face, is absolutely ridiculous.
     
    Nope, I think you are unpleasant because you are intentionally behaving in a very bizarre and obnoxious manner. I am, though, curious as to why. I suspect that it is either because of educational abuse (i.e., you majored in some subject that taught you that such behavior is a good thing) or some sort of ego trip (i.e., you are trying to convince yourself that you are superior to everyone here).

    So, it would be nice if you would tell us all your approximate age, educational background (degrees and majors), profession, etc., so that we could better understand why you behave this way and perhaps try to help you.

    But we cannot make you do this any more than you can make anyone here "discourse" in the way you would like.

    C'est la vie.

    Dave

  355. This is why more and more of us have stopped dating American women and look for wives abroad. They have not been subject to decades of leftist propaganda and don’t hate men.

  356. @Corvinus
    Robert Rediger…

    “Did you even read your own link or just post it because it confirmed your nonsense prejudices?”

    You’re going to have to ask Anonymous. Because in the end the results from the study are completely accurate. Why? I know it when I see it. Now, on a more serious note, why do you reject the conclusions of the researchers?

    Anonymous—

    “Good scientists need to learn to tolerate ambiguity, in context.”

    When some posters here define “white” or “anti-white” or “white interests”, they come across as THE authority. There is NO ambiguity. There is NO discrepancy. Therefore, I am seeking clarity and clarification. A cardiologist may recommend a procedure to a not straightforward situation—benefits and costs must be weighed for the patient. The treatment may not actually work. But in this particular situation, the symptoms and treatment are measurable. Likewise, a person during discourse is obligated to offer particulars as to what a word means. Claiming “they know it when they see it” without certainty or exactness of meaning in language jeopardizes fruitful discussion.

    “They don’t know the exact specifics of what they know. But they do “know it when they see it”.

    I am well aware of that historical line in reference to something that has discrepancies in its application (obscenity). However, the Justices in the Miller case offered standards as to what constitutes obscenity, regardless if those objective criteria is subjectively applied. There is a foundational piece in place.

    “You are begging for accurate metrics.”

    (Sign) I am actually requesting criteria regarding for something; in this case, what is “white” and what is “anti-white”. When a white person states that any white person is not “white” unless they completely favor “white interests”, without specifying what is “white” or “white interests”, then their entire argument is rendered incoherent. There must be a fundamental starting point as to what those terms are based on.

    
Again, using YOUR logic, whenever a woman cries “rape” or a minority yells “racist”, and a person questions their reasoning, each person merely has to say “Well, I know it when I see it”.
    Do you want to go by this standard of subjectivity? In essence, there are NO applicable standards. THINK about what you’re saying—if A engages in Y, then is deemed X by B, A is unable to even call into question that thought process or that label because the definition of X by B is generally based on on B’s predispositions and biases, that any and all definitions of specific terms are muddled beyond comprehension. B can merely state “Because I know it when I see it”.


    “No, that’s a description of how to learn to ride a bike.”

    Again, you stated that a child is unable HOW TO DESCRIBE the skill of riding a bicycle since it’s learned. I gave you specific metrics as to how a person is able to articulate that process.


    Physicist Dave…

    “Y’know, Corvinus young fella, I have worked in academic research at a DOE lab, in private industry, in the military-industrial complex, etc. And not once did I have a need for a “metric.” Not once.”

    I never asked about your credentials.

    “Real people, ordinary Americans, engineers, natural scientists, the Nobel laureates I have known, just do not talk this way.”

    I gave an earlier example of how the NBA uses metrics. General managers of professional baseball teams are getting on board with this approach in their scouting departments. The specific metric that has prevailed since World War II among certain economists is the dollar value of a country’s economic output, expressed first as gross national product, later as gross domestic product. Real people DO talk this way.

    “If you actually learned to ride a bike through verbal explanations, you really are a more unique human being than I had even guessed.”

A person is able to learn how to ride a bike through explanations of that process AND by physically doing it. Both work together in harmony. Young lads see a bike and wonder how does it work. A person tells them the different parts and how they function. That is the explanation part. Then they actually try the skill of riding it. And they practice. Eventually, they mastered the skill of riding the bike, and are able to explain to someone else how they ride that bike and how well they ride that bike using certain standards as expressed by an expert.

    “Just a hint: there is nothing per se wrong with an appeal to authority: authorities are often right. It depends.”

    
You’re right, it depends. Apparently, those who claim they know what is considered “anti-white” thoughts and actions are authorities on the subject. Because they know it when they see it.

    “Since you are talking about the correct way to carry on an intelligent conversation…”

    Actually, I am talking about how to engage in discourse, by which there are numerous ways to carry out that objective. I never directly stated nor implied there is a “correct way”.

    “If you are nice to us, we might offer you “clear reasons and relevant evident.[sic],” but then again we just may not have the time or inclination to do so.”

    Not all opinions are equal, some are more valid in their sourcing of evidence. Therefore, when people fail to offer the requisite proof, their assertions lack substance. Think about it…millions of white people are “not white”, as designated by those who are “truly white”, because those white people supposedly do not take “white interests” into account. Should there not be any specifics as to what they mean? Should there not be accountability on a person’s part for making shit up merely because “they know it when they see it”? That is exactly why metrics, a method of measuring something, is most appropriate under this specific circumstance. What criteria is involved regarding “truly white (or black)”, “non-white (or white)”, and “white interests (or black interests)”? What are the key performance indicators? I’m just trying to keep up with the race baiting demonstrated with equal ferocity by the left and the right.

    “You need to learn that you are a very unpleasant person, and unpleasant people often find that others do not accommodate their desires.”

    That usually means that a person lacks the intellectual wherewithal to engage in discourse. Why? I know it when I see it. Hey, don’t blame me, put the onus on Anonymous. I am just employing his/her logic. I suppose you believe I am “unpleasant” because after your brief encounter with me on the Internet, you just “know it when you see it” and are able to factually state my character. Which, on its face, is absolutely ridiculous. It’s on you, not on me.

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    The specific metric that has prevailed since World War II among certain economists is the dollar value of a country’s economic output, expressed first as gross national product, later as gross domestic product. Real people DO talk this way.

    I did try to make clear that I was talking about intelligent people!

    To be serious, I actually have known a number of economists (I considered majoring in econ and actually had an offer to do a postdoc in econ), and, no, most economists most of the time do not constantly use terms like “metrics,” as you do. Even if, for the sake of argument, we count economists as real people, no, that does not explain you.

    The point I am trying to get across to you, youngster, is that you communicate in a very arrogant, bureaucratic, precious, officious manner and that this is very, very offputting to most people, including, I would guess, based on my own experience, most economists.

    Corvinus also wrote to me:

    I never asked about your credentials.

    No, you didn’t, but I generously volunteered the information anyway. I, however, am asking about your credentials (or lack thereof) because I think this would go a long ways towards helping you with the behavioral problem you suffer from.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    

A person is able to learn how to ride a bike through explanations of that process AND by physically doing it. Both work together in harmony. Young lads see a bike and wonder how does it work. A person tells them the different parts and how they function. That is the explanation part. Then they actually try the skill of riding it.

    Well, that is not how anyone I know learned to ride a bike: certainly not with the sort of talk about metrics and so on that you have engaged in and want others to engage in!

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Actually, I am talking about how to engage in discourse…

    Everyone here is quite satisfied with how they engage in “discourse,” except you keep trying to convince all of us we should be doing it differently. A task at which you have evidently failed.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Think about it…millions of white people are “not white”, as designated by those who are “truly white”

    No, I am not going to “think about it”: you are really obsessed about this “truly white” thing (and of course someone obsessed by race like yourself is usually called a _________ ). It just does not interest me. I really, really, really do not and never have cared about who is “truly white.”

    Corvinus also wrote:

    That usually means that a person lacks the intellectual wherewithal to engage in discourse.

    Except you keep admitting that all of us are in fact “engaging in discourse” but you just do not like how we are doing it! You are really weird in how you keep equivocating on this word “discourse,” really weird.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    I suppose you believe I am “unpleasant” because after your brief encounter with me on the Internet, you just “know it when you see it” and are able to factually state my character. Which, on its face, is absolutely ridiculous.

    Nope, I think you are unpleasant because you are intentionally behaving in a very bizarre and obnoxious manner. I am, though, curious as to why. I suspect that it is either because of educational abuse (i.e., you majored in some subject that taught you that such behavior is a good thing) or some sort of ego trip (i.e., you are trying to convince yourself that you are superior to everyone here).

    So, it would be nice if you would tell us all your approximate age, educational background (degrees and majors), profession, etc., so that we could better understand why you behave this way and perhaps try to help you.

    But we cannot make you do this any more than you can make anyone here “discourse” in the way you would like.

    C’est la vie.

    Dave

  357. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Again, you stated that a child is unable HOW TO DESCRIBE the skill of riding a bicycle since it’s learned. I gave you specific metrics as to how a person is able to articulate that process.”

    No, you’ve been avoiding addressing the point, perhaps deliberately. It’s probably a common way you argue, since you seem to repeat yourself a lot.

    (Sign) I am actually requesting criteria regarding for something; in this case, what is “white” and what is “anti-white”

    Trying to figure out how to game the criteria, eh? That’s another way to avoid addressing actual issues, I suppose. When you can’t argue about the issue at hand, you can argue about the criteria for arguing.

    Good luck and all that.

  358. Physicist Dave…

    Since you are now engaging in rhetoric, I will likewise. Dialectic conversation with you, unfortunately, is moot.

    “The point I am trying to get across to you, youngster, is that you communicate in a very arrogant, bureaucratic, precious, officious manner and that this is very, very offputting to most people, including, I would guess, based on my own experience, most economists.”

    Look in the mirror first.

    “no, most economists most of the time do not constantly use terms like “metrics,” as you do”.

    Based on YOUR experiences. A mere Google search involving “economists talk about metrics” shows otherwise.

    “I, however, am asking about your credentials (or lack thereof) because I think this would go a long ways towards helping you with the behavioral problem you suffer from.”

    Amazing how you are able to make a clinical diagnosis without the requisite background information. Next you’ll tell me you were on the board of the APA!

    “Everyone here is quite satisfied with how they engage in “discourse,” except you keep trying to convince all of us we should be doing it differently.”

    I am requesting that those people who make claims to back them up with evidence and who use generalized terms to clarify what they mean.

    “No, I am not going to “think about it”: you are really obsessed about this “truly white” thing.”

    Are you a newbie to this blog? Do you even pay close attention to the posters here? I’m merely playing catch-up to this “truly white” thing.

    “You are really weird in how you keep equivocating on this word “discourse,” really weird.”

    There is nothing observably “weird” about using the correct term.

    “Except you keep admitting that all of us are in fact “engaging in discourse” but you just do not like how we are doing it!”



    Not “we”, “some”.

    Anonymous…

    “No, you’ve been avoiding addressing the point, perhaps deliberately.”

    
I have been addressing your points systematically and purposely.

    “Trying to figure out how to game the criteria, eh?”



    No, I am simply asking FOR criteria.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Since you are now engaging in rhetoric, I will likewise. Dialectic conversation with you, unfortunately, is moot.
     
    Moot? No, impossible. I've never done "dialectic conversation" in my life. Against my religion. I thought you'd have grasped that by now.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    A mere Google search involving “economists talk about metrics” shows otherwise.
     
    And, I just got over 100,000 hits googling "economists" and "BDSM." That does not mean this is a major topic of conversation among economists: it just means there are a bunch of webpages that happen to mention the word "economists" and "BDSM" on the same page.

    I've actually known a number of economists: not a one of them tried to engage in "discourse" or "dialectic conversation" the way you are doing here. (Incidentally, the phrase “economists talk about metrics” actually only brings up two hits: I think you're spoofing us, Corvinus!)

    Corvinus also wrote to me:

    Are you a newbie to this blog? Do you even pay close attention to the posters here? I’m merely playing catch-up to this “truly white” thing.
     
    No, not a newbie: I've been here for years and years, long before Steve moved over to unz.com, and long before you were here (unless you were using a different screen name way back when). And, based on my enormously greater sample size compared to yours, no, I do not notice that everyone here is obsessed with this "truly white" thing. In fact, the only poster I have noticed who is obsessed with "truly white" is... you! I honestly think that this is because you truly are a racist.

    It is of course quite possible that there are one or two other people who share your incredible racist obsession and that I have just ignored them. After all, I would have ignored you, except for the fact that you exhibit a psychopathology that intrigues me.

    Corvinus wrote to anonymous:

    No, I am simply asking FOR criteria.
     
    Well, the only people who still have the patience to talk to you seem to be "anonymous" and myself, and obviously neither off us is interested in giving you "criteria" for this "truly white" racist obsession that has possessed you. As I said, I am only conversing with you as part of my long-term studies in psychopathology.

    I don't even know what you have in mind by "truly white" and it is certainly not a phrase I am accustomed to hearing.

    So, since this "truly white" thing seems to be your personal obsession, and not a concern of anyone else still in the conversation, why don't you tell us what your criteria for "truly white" are. Might help us better understand your problem.

    And, Corvinus, we would really like to help.

    Dave
  359. @Leftist conservative
    that strategy of making females into pseudo-males also pays off for rich investors--more aggressive females are more likely to be able to better compete against males in the workforce...thus increasing the supply of labor and consumers, depressing wage, increasing sales, increasing the GDP and economic growth. Makes the rich richer. But that's just a coincidence. Because there is no way that anything important in america has anything to do with economics or corporate profits. America is not like that.

    Please don’t forget that one of the primary roles of women in the workforce is to eliminate competition from lower level males. The women who are hired via AA to fill slots will never seriously compete with or challenge higher management, and in fact their affirmative action status often means unyielding loyalty to whatever upper level (often male) patronage may have gotten them the job. In my company, this seems to explain almost all human resources personnel I encounter.

    All in all, I think your comments on this thread and elsewhere are spot on. Following the money will almost never lead to wrong. I spend all day at a company where personal greed and cronyism are justified as good business.

  360. @Corvinus
    Physicist Dave...

    Since you are now engaging in rhetoric, I will likewise. Dialectic conversation with you, unfortunately, is moot.

    “The point I am trying to get across to you, youngster, is that you communicate in a very arrogant, bureaucratic, precious, officious manner and that this is very, very offputting to most people, including, I would guess, based on my own experience, most economists.”

    Look in the mirror first.

    “no, most economists most of the time do not constantly use terms like “metrics,” as you do”.

    Based on YOUR experiences. A mere Google search involving “economists talk about metrics” shows otherwise.

    “I, however, am asking about your credentials (or lack thereof) because I think this would go a long ways towards helping you with the behavioral problem you suffer from.”

    Amazing how you are able to make a clinical diagnosis without the requisite background information. Next you’ll tell me you were on the board of the APA!

    “Everyone here is quite satisfied with how they engage in “discourse,” except you keep trying to convince all of us we should be doing it differently.”

    I am requesting that those people who make claims to back them up with evidence and who use generalized terms to clarify what they mean.

    “No, I am not going to “think about it”: you are really obsessed about this “truly white” thing.”

    Are you a newbie to this blog? Do you even pay close attention to the posters here? I’m merely playing catch-up to this “truly white” thing.

    “You are really weird in how you keep equivocating on this word “discourse,” really weird.”

    There is nothing observably "weird" about using the correct term.

    “Except you keep admitting that all of us are in fact “engaging in discourse” but you just do not like how we are doing it!”



    Not “we”, “some”.

    Anonymous...

    “No, you’ve been avoiding addressing the point, perhaps deliberately.”

    
I have been addressing your points systematically and purposely.

    “Trying to figure out how to game the criteria, eh?”



    No, I am simply asking FOR criteria.

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Since you are now engaging in rhetoric, I will likewise. Dialectic conversation with you, unfortunately, is moot.

    Moot? No, impossible. I’ve never done “dialectic conversation” in my life. Against my religion. I thought you’d have grasped that by now.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    A mere Google search involving “economists talk about metrics” shows otherwise.

    And, I just got over 100,000 hits googling “economists” and “BDSM.” That does not mean this is a major topic of conversation among economists: it just means there are a bunch of webpages that happen to mention the word “economists” and “BDSM” on the same page.

    I’ve actually known a number of economists: not a one of them tried to engage in “discourse” or “dialectic conversation” the way you are doing here. (Incidentally, the phrase “economists talk about metrics” actually only brings up two hits: I think you’re spoofing us, Corvinus!)

    Corvinus also wrote to me:

    Are you a newbie to this blog? Do you even pay close attention to the posters here? I’m merely playing catch-up to this “truly white” thing.

    No, not a newbie: I’ve been here for years and years, long before Steve moved over to unz.com, and long before you were here (unless you were using a different screen name way back when). And, based on my enormously greater sample size compared to yours, no, I do not notice that everyone here is obsessed with this “truly white” thing. In fact, the only poster I have noticed who is obsessed with “truly white” is… you! I honestly think that this is because you truly are a racist.

    It is of course quite possible that there are one or two other people who share your incredible racist obsession and that I have just ignored them. After all, I would have ignored you, except for the fact that you exhibit a psychopathology that intrigues me.

    Corvinus wrote to anonymous:

    No, I am simply asking FOR criteria.

    Well, the only people who still have the patience to talk to you seem to be “anonymous” and myself, and obviously neither off us is interested in giving you “criteria” for this “truly white” racist obsession that has possessed you. As I said, I am only conversing with you as part of my long-term studies in psychopathology.

    I don’t even know what you have in mind by “truly white” and it is certainly not a phrase I am accustomed to hearing.

    So, since this “truly white” thing seems to be your personal obsession, and not a concern of anyone else still in the conversation, why don’t you tell us what your criteria for “truly white” are. Might help us better understand your problem.

    And, Corvinus, we would really like to help.

    Dave

  361. @unpc downunder
    It's interesting that many American teen movies tend to portray blonde females as nasty and sophisticated, and brunettes as nice but naive girls from humble backgrounds. In reality it often tends to be the opposite - blondes are more likely to be homely "dog girls" and brunettes are urbane, "cat girls."

    Also, I am the only person to notice that among whites blonde females tend to be better at sports than brunettes. Perhaps this is just a British and Australian thing, but there tends to be a disporportionately high percentage of blonde females into hockey, soccer, cricket, surfing, skiing etc.

    Being outdoors in sunlight tends to lighten hair, and quite a lot of people have hair that darkens during winter and brightens during summer as a result.

  362. ‘I’ve never done “dialectic conversation” in my life.”

    I’m not surprised.

    “I’ve actually known a number of economists: not a one of them tried to engage in “discourse” or “dialectic conversation” the way you are doing here.”

    Discourse –> written or spoken communication or debate.

    Dialectic conversation –> Discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments

    People you have known engage in these actions. Just because I use these terms compared to other words that YOU prefer or personally think are “better” or believe do not “fit” does not mean I am wrong or insane or weird or anything. The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.

    “And, based on my enormously greater sample size compared to yours, no, I do not notice that everyone here is obsessed with this “truly white” thing.”

I wouldn’t expect you to admit you’re wrong.

    “So, since this “truly white” thing seems to be your personal obsession…”

    It’s an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do.

    “And, Corvinus, we would really like to help.”

    No, thanks.

    “As I said, I am only conversing with you as part of my long-term studies in psychopathology.”

    You need more than an Internet conversation to make that clinical judgement.

    The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.

    Are we done here?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Discourse –> written or spoken communication or debate.
     
    Yes, Corvinus, we all know the dictionary definition of the word "discourse." The problem is that you keep insisting that multiple people here do not know how to engage in discourse, even though, as you yourself have pointed out, they are indeed engaging in "discourse" by the dictionary definition.

    You are playing very, very dishonest games. And, there is always an underlying psychological reason for that.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    You need more than an Internet conversation to make that clinical judgement.
     
    Of course: as I said earlier, we need to know, for example, what you majored in, what your degrees are, etc.: it seems very likely, though not certain, that your problems are the result of educational malpractice: I honestly think that you, with the support of your psychiatrist, of course, may have a good lawsuit against one or more educational institution you have attended.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Are we done here?
     
    Well, as I keep saying, you are still showing what Freud called "resistance": you are not giving us the information you need to give us so that we can help you.

    So, no, I would say you are nowhere near the end of your course of treatment.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.
     
    Freudian resistance, Corvinus. Freudian resistance.

    When you are ready, we are here to help.

    Dave
    , @PhysicistDave
    Corvinus wrote to me:

    [Dave] “So, since this “truly white” thing seems to be your personal obsession…”

    [Corvinus] It’s an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do.
     

    No, Corvinus, I know that you are intelligent enough that if you had truly had "an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do," you would not have been posting things such as:

    What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved?
     
    You know and I know that, when you first started behaving like this, you were most assuredly not engaging in behavior that would elicit answers that would satisfy "an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do." You knew your behavior would simply antagonize people, not get them to explain what they thought.

    And after anonymous and I pointed out to you in detail that this sort of behavior would not elicit serious answers from anyone, you certainly knew this was not an effective way to find our why people believe as they do. You need to face your real motivations.

    The first step in dealing with your personal demons, Corvinus, is to start being honest with yourself.

    As the Bard said, "To thine own self be true..."

    Remember: we are here to help.

    Dave

  363. @5371
    In reality neither of them accepted the Versailles borders of Germany for a moment, so general war would have always been a possibility, and so would its consequences.

    Because the English and – to a much smaller extent – even the French accepted that the Versailles treaty was too punitive, they eventually came around to accept the following:

    1) German rearmament
    2) Anschuss (which was already a redrawing of borders)
    3) redrawing of the German-Czech border

    They probably would have allowed the redrawing of the Polish borders as well, if Hitler hadn’t broken his word on Bohemia previously.

    In any event, it’s not likely that the Strasser brothers wanted to risk war or create a huge empire from the Atlantic to the Ural. Therefore, it’s very likely that there would’ve been no Second World War. Let alone the holocaust, which was not an inevitable consequence of the war itself.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Anschluss.
  364. @reiner Tor
    Because the English and - to a much smaller extent - even the French accepted that the Versailles treaty was too punitive, they eventually came around to accept the following:

    1) German rearmament
    2) Anschuss (which was already a redrawing of borders)
    3) redrawing of the German-Czech border

    They probably would have allowed the redrawing of the Polish borders as well, if Hitler hadn't broken his word on Bohemia previously.

    In any event, it's not likely that the Strasser brothers wanted to risk war or create a huge empire from the Atlantic to the Ural. Therefore, it's very likely that there would've been no Second World War. Let alone the holocaust, which was not an inevitable consequence of the war itself.

    Anschluss.

  365. @Corvinus
    ‘I’ve never done “dialectic conversation” in my life.”

    I’m not surprised.

    “I’ve actually known a number of economists: not a one of them tried to engage in “discourse” or “dialectic conversation” the way you are doing here.”

    Discourse --> written or spoken communication or debate.

    Dialectic conversation --> Discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments

    People you have known engage in these actions. Just because I use these terms compared to other words that YOU prefer or personally think are "better" or believe do not "fit" does not mean I am wrong or insane or weird or anything. The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.

    “And, based on my enormously greater sample size compared to yours, no, I do not notice that everyone here is obsessed with this “truly white” thing.”

I wouldn’t expect you to admit you’re wrong.

    “So, since this “truly white” thing seems to be your personal obsession...”

    It’s an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do.

    “And, Corvinus, we would really like to help.”

    No, thanks.

    “As I said, I am only conversing with you as part of my long-term studies in psychopathology.”

    You need more than an Internet conversation to make that clinical judgement.

    The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.

    Are we done here?

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    Discourse –> written or spoken communication or debate.

    Yes, Corvinus, we all know the dictionary definition of the word “discourse.” The problem is that you keep insisting that multiple people here do not know how to engage in discourse, even though, as you yourself have pointed out, they are indeed engaging in “discourse” by the dictionary definition.

    You are playing very, very dishonest games. And, there is always an underlying psychological reason for that.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    You need more than an Internet conversation to make that clinical judgement.

    Of course: as I said earlier, we need to know, for example, what you majored in, what your degrees are, etc.: it seems very likely, though not certain, that your problems are the result of educational malpractice: I honestly think that you, with the support of your psychiatrist, of course, may have a good lawsuit against one or more educational institution you have attended.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    Are we done here?

    Well, as I keep saying, you are still showing what Freud called “resistance”: you are not giving us the information you need to give us so that we can help you.

    So, no, I would say you are nowhere near the end of your course of treatment.

    Corvinus also wrote:

    The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.

    Freudian resistance, Corvinus. Freudian resistance.

    When you are ready, we are here to help.

    Dave

  366. @Corvinus
    ‘I’ve never done “dialectic conversation” in my life.”

    I’m not surprised.

    “I’ve actually known a number of economists: not a one of them tried to engage in “discourse” or “dialectic conversation” the way you are doing here.”

    Discourse --> written or spoken communication or debate.

    Dialectic conversation --> Discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments

    People you have known engage in these actions. Just because I use these terms compared to other words that YOU prefer or personally think are "better" or believe do not "fit" does not mean I am wrong or insane or weird or anything. The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.

    “And, based on my enormously greater sample size compared to yours, no, I do not notice that everyone here is obsessed with this “truly white” thing.”

I wouldn’t expect you to admit you’re wrong.

    “So, since this “truly white” thing seems to be your personal obsession...”

    It’s an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do.

    “And, Corvinus, we would really like to help.”

    No, thanks.

    “As I said, I am only conversing with you as part of my long-term studies in psychopathology.”

    You need more than an Internet conversation to make that clinical judgement.

    The train is fine, Dave, the train is fine.

    Are we done here?

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    [Dave] “So, since this “truly white” thing seems to be your personal obsession…”

    [Corvinus] It’s an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do.

    No, Corvinus, I know that you are intelligent enough that if you had truly had “an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do,” you would not have been posting things such as:

    What is the definition of “white”? What metrics are involved?

    You know and I know that, when you first started behaving like this, you were most assuredly not engaging in behavior that would elicit answers that would satisfy “an interest in finding out why people believe in the things they do.” You knew your behavior would simply antagonize people, not get them to explain what they thought.

    And after anonymous and I pointed out to you in detail that this sort of behavior would not elicit serious answers from anyone, you certainly knew this was not an effective way to find our why people believe as they do. You need to face your real motivations.

    The first step in dealing with your personal demons, Corvinus, is to start being honest with yourself.

    As the Bard said, “To thine own self be true…”

    Remember: we are here to help.

    Dave

  367. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @PhysicistDave
    reiner Tor wrote to me:

    Röhm or either Strasser would never have dreamt of the holocaust, or probably even of starting a major European war.
     
    Well... perhaps you are right on that. But neither objected very strenuously to Hitler's anti-seimitism, did they? (An honest question: I don't know.)

    reiner Tor also wrote to me:

    Saying “they were all Nazis” is quite meaningless.
     
    Weren't they all members of the NSDAP? And isn't "Nazi" just a shorthand for NSDAP?

    Dave

    Well… perhaps you are right on that. But neither objected very strenuously to Hitler’s anti-seimitism, did they? (An honest question: I don’t know.)

    The usual phrasing of an honest question is something like:

    But did either of them object strenuously to Hitler’s anti-semitism?

    rather than how you phrased it which assumes the truth of first clause.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Fourth doorman wrote to me:

    The usual phrasing of an honest question is something like:

    But did either of them object strenuously to Hitler’s anti-semitism?

    rather than how you phrased it which assumes the truth of first clause.
     
    The silly season has plainly arrived! I was just indicating what I think to be the case, but indicating that I was open to finding out that I was wrong. To not reveal what I was pretty sure was the case would've been weird.
  368. Physicist Dave

    It is awkward for you to ask me for personal information on a blog, then play amateur psychologist and label me as having a mental illness, while providing your background without me even asking about your alleged credentials, and finally culminate with “I’m here to help”.

    Listen, I will continue to engage in discourse in the manner I want to. Feel free to discuss matters how you want to. I certainly do not need or others approval.

    Have the last word if you must…

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Cirvinus wrote to me:

    It is awkward for you to ask me for personal information on a blog, then play amateur psychologist and label me as having a mental illness, while providing your background without me even asking about your alleged credentials, and finally culminate with “I’m here to help”.
     
    Oh,. not awkward at all, I assure you! Quite relaxing, in fact.

    To put it bluntly, Corvinus, you were bizarrely rude to others earlier in this thread. You have been extremely dishonest, alternately insisting that others are engaging in "discourse," then denouncing them for not knowing how to engage in "discourse."

    When various people (not just me) have tried di0plomatically to point out to you your extraordinary rudeness and dishonesty, you just got nastier.

    There is nothing wrong with asking someone what their field of expertise is, what degrees they hold, etc., especially when that person is, as you have repeatedly done, denigrating others suggesting that they are not up to your intellectual standards. I can ask you: no one is forcing you to answer. But your coyness in not answering does indeed speak volumes.

    You are a bad person, Corvinus. But, I remain convinced that you have become a bad person because of things that have happened to you, quite probably educational malpractice, and I also remain convinced that you can be helped by ordinary people willing to help you... if and when you come to realize that something is very, very wrong with you.

    Think about it. Perhaps someday... well, you know we are here to help.

    All the best,

    Dave
  369. @The most deplorable one

    Well… perhaps you are right on that. But neither objected very strenuously to Hitler’s anti-seimitism, did they? (An honest question: I don’t know.)
     
    The usual phrasing of an honest question is something like:

    But did either of them object strenuously to Hitler's anti-semitism?

    rather than how you phrased it which assumes the truth of first clause.

    Fourth doorman wrote to me:

    The usual phrasing of an honest question is something like:

    But did either of them object strenuously to Hitler’s anti-semitism?

    rather than how you phrased it which assumes the truth of first clause.

    The silly season has plainly arrived! I was just indicating what I think to be the case, but indicating that I was open to finding out that I was wrong. To not reveal what I was pretty sure was the case would’ve been weird.

  370. @Corvinus
    Physicist Dave

    It is awkward for you to ask me for personal information on a blog, then play amateur psychologist and label me as having a mental illness, while providing your background without me even asking about your alleged credentials, and finally culminate with "I'm here to help".

    Listen, I will continue to engage in discourse in the manner I want to. Feel free to discuss matters how you want to. I certainly do not need or others approval.

    Have the last word if you must...

    Cirvinus wrote to me:

    It is awkward for you to ask me for personal information on a blog, then play amateur psychologist and label me as having a mental illness, while providing your background without me even asking about your alleged credentials, and finally culminate with “I’m here to help”.

    Oh,. not awkward at all, I assure you! Quite relaxing, in fact.

    To put it bluntly, Corvinus, you were bizarrely rude to others earlier in this thread. You have been extremely dishonest, alternately insisting that others are engaging in “discourse,” then denouncing them for not knowing how to engage in “discourse.”

    When various people (not just me) have tried di0plomatically to point out to you your extraordinary rudeness and dishonesty, you just got nastier.

    There is nothing wrong with asking someone what their field of expertise is, what degrees they hold, etc., especially when that person is, as you have repeatedly done, denigrating others suggesting that they are not up to your intellectual standards. I can ask you: no one is forcing you to answer. But your coyness in not answering does indeed speak volumes.

    You are a bad person, Corvinus. But, I remain convinced that you have become a bad person because of things that have happened to you, quite probably educational malpractice, and I also remain convinced that you can be helped by ordinary people willing to help you… if and when you come to realize that something is very, very wrong with you.

    Think about it. Perhaps someday… well, you know we are here to help.

    All the best,

    Dave

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2