www.unz.com

Show post

Tobias Langdon #transphobia #wingnut #racist #pratt #dunning-kruger unz.com

image

Sex and race are, to the left, mere social constructs, abstract systems of delusion and injustice that can be overturned by human will and social engineering. It follows, then, that leftists will support and celebrate men who reject the social construct of sex and claim to be women. And leftists do support and celebrate such men.

Triumph of the Trannies

It also follows that leftists will support and celebrate Whites who reject the social construct of race and claim to be Blacks. But leftists don’t support and celebrate such Whites. Quite the contrary. While Bruce Jenner, a man claiming to be a woman, is worshipped and rewarded, Rachel Dolezal, a White claiming to be a Black, is ridiculed and punished. Steve Sailer and others have drawn attention to this contradiction, but I don’t think they’ve properly explained it.

Why do leftists cheer when men cross the border between the sexes, but jeer when Whites try to cross the border between the races?

I pose those questions deliberately in that form to draw out the links between the left’s love of transgenderism and the left’s love of open borders. The Jewish libertarian Murray Rothbard (1926–95) described this aspect of leftist ideology very well in this passage of an otherwise long-winded and boring essay:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. (Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Modern Age, Fall 1973)

Rothbard was right in general about leftism, but failed to explain that highly significant exception: why does the “exercise of human will” allow Bruce Jenner and others to become women, but not allow Rachel Dolezal and others to become Blacks?

Sex and race are both aspects of reality, but the left believes that only one of those aspects “can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.” Why so? I would explain it by supplementing Rothbard’s explanation. Yes, he’s right when he says the left have a magical belief in the reality-transforming power of “human will,” but he doesn’t discuss what happens when there is a clash of wills.

The high and the low

Let’s look at transgenderism first. Men like Bruce Jenner and Jonathan Yaniv (pictured) have “willed” that men can become women and must enjoy unrestricted access to all female spaces. At the same time, some women — the so-called Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists or TERFs — have “willed” that men can’t become women and must keep out of female spaces. There is a clash of wills that is settled, for the Left, by the status of the opposing sides. In leftist eyes, the men have higher status than the women, which is why the men’s will prevails and the women’s will is rejected. But hold on, you might be thinking: How can the men have higher status than the women in leftist eyes? It’s easy: the transgender men have cleverly aligned themselves not with men in general, who are indeed of lower status than women, but with homosexual men, who are of higher status than women.

Trangendered men are part of the “LBGTQ+ community,” which lifts them above women in the leftist hierarchy. Take Jonathan Yaniv, the perverted and probably Jewish male, who claims to be a woman and has been suing female cosmeticians in Canada for refusing to wax his fully intact male genitals. If Yaniv spoke the truth, he would admit that he is a heterosexual male who seeks perverted sexual pleasure by passing himself off as a woman and receiving Brazilian waxes or entering female toilets to share tampon tips with under-age girls, etc. Obviously, then, Yaniv can’t admit the truth. Heterosexual men are wicked in leftist eyes and are well below women in the leftist hierarchy. Heterosexual men definitely cannot pass themselves off as women in pursuit of perverted sexual thrills.

Actual authentic lesbians

Yaniv and other “trans-women” must therefore align themselves with homosexuals to pass leftist purity-tests. As trans-women they claim to be members of a sexual minority, which triggers the leftist love of minority-worship. Indeed, Yaniv and some others go further than simply claiming to be women: they claim to be actual authentic lesbians. A pinned tweet at Yaniv’s Twitter account states that he is “One proud lesbian. I’ll never give up fighting for human rights equality. #LGBTQoftwitter.” Yaniv isn’t a lesbian, of course. Real lesbians — that is, real women who are sexually attracted to other real women — quite rightly reject fake lesbians like him, so the fake lesbians exploit leftist ideology again and accuse real lesbians of bigotry and hate.

Feminism has the concept of the “glass ceiling,” whereby women are unjustly prevented by sexist men from reaching the highest positions in politics, business and academia. Inspired by this, the fake lesbians have invented the concept of the “cotton ceiling,” whereby men like Yaniv are unjustly prevented by real lesbians from removing the underwear of said lesbians and having sex with them. Here is a trans-lesbian activist lecturing a sceptical TERF (i.e. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist for those not up on the latest jargon) on the injustices of the cotton ceiling:

Trans women are female. When our female-ness and womanhood is denied, as you keep doing repeatedly, that is transphobic and transmisogynist. As I said earlier, all people’s desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women’s bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people’s desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

The comparison to what cis males say also makes no sense. What trans women are saying is that we are women, and thus should be considered women sexually, and thus be considered viable partners for women who are attracted to women. What cis males are saying is that queer women shouldn’t be exclusively attracted to women, which is completely different. (The Cotton Ceiling? Really?, Femonade blog, 13th March 2012)

It’s not “completely different,” of course. In both cases, people with penises are “saying” (and willing) that real lesbians should have sex with them. In both cases, real lesbians would be encountering the male genitals of real men. But the trans-activist believes in an act of verbal transubstantiation whereby a trans-lesbian possesses a “female penis” that, despite all appearances, is “completely different” to the nasty and objectionable penis of a “cis male.”

Aspects of religious psychology

I use the term “transubstantiation” deliberately. It’s a term from Catholic theology that refers to the supernatural process whereby wafers and wine transform into the flesh and blood of Christ during the celebration of Holy Eucharist by a priest. No physical or scientific test can detect this transformation, and to all appearances the wafers and wine remain unchanged. But traditionalist Catholics will insist that the wafers and wine are now truly Christ’s flesh and blood. If you disagree, you’re probably safe nowadays, but you wouldn’t have been in the past. It was very unwise to openly deny, let alone ridicule, transubstantiation in Catholic nations during the Middle Ages. And disagreements over the concept were central to the murderous hatreds of the Reformation. Those who believed in transubstantiation got very angry when it was denied.

This anger, which is part of the odium theologicum, is an important aspect of religious psychology, whether overt or covert — leftism can in fact be explained as a mutation of Christianity and Judaism. Overt and covert religions gain power by demanding belief in things that defy everyday reality, because such belief is difficult and requires a greater emotional investment. When we invest more in a belief, we have more incentive to protect it more strongly. And it is precisely because concepts like transubstantiation and the “female penis” are absurd that they are powerful. When we have an emotional investment in something we can’t prove, we react strongly when it is denied or ridiculed. That applies even more when we ourselves are subconsciously aware or afraid that our beliefs are baseless or false. Crushing external heresies can be a way of stilling internal doubts.

The “female penis” vs the “unisex brain”

And so religion and other forms of ideology can gain power by their contradictions and absurdities. However, in the clash between transgenderism and feminism, both sides believe in absurdities: the trannies insist on the concept of the female penis, just as the feminists insist on the concept of the “unisex brain,” namely, that there is no genuine difference between male and female brains. These two concepts are both biologically absurd: there is no such thing as a female penis, but there is such a thing as a female brain. However, if transgenderism and feminism are both powered by absurdities, why have trannies been winning the battle over the TERFs? Well, it’s partly because the trannies have the bigger, and therefore better, absurdities. For example, the “female penis” is an obvious absurdity, the “unisex brain” is much less so. Penises are out in the open, after all, whereas brains are hidden behind the skull.

And there is a continuum between a typically male brain and a typically female brain that doesn’t exist between male genitals and female genitals in the vast majority of cases. The psychological differences between men and women are a question of averages and tendencies, but the physical differences are generally stark and obvious (inter-sex individuals are rare). A certain group of trannies also have the stronger male will-to-power and love of battle, which is another reason they are winning the battle with lesbians. All this explains why the left supports and celebrates trannies as they cross the border between male and female. As a sexual minority, they have higher status than ordinary women. As a novel and exhibitionist sexual minority, they also have higher status than lesbians, who also have less will-to-power.

Better than Black

Indeed, as I pointed out in “Power to the Perverts!,” transgenderism has allowed some White heterosexual men to leap above the Black-Jewish lesbian feminist Linda Bellos in the leftist hierarchy. The White men are “transgender” and Bellos, although Black, is a TERF. In current leftism, transgender trumps TERF. Leftists therefore support the border-abolishing White men and not the border-erecting Black woman.

However, leftists would instantly support Bellos if those White men were claiming to be Black rather than female. Leftists want the border between male and female abolished, but not the border between Black and White. Why so? Again I would argue that higher and lower status settle the clash of wills. Rachel Dolezal “willed” that she was Black, while Blacks “willed” that she wasn’t. Dolezal was trying to abolish a border, Blacks were trying to maintain one, so a naïve reading of leftism would say that leftists should support “trans-racialists” like Dolezal just as they support transgenderists like Bruce Jenner. But leftists didn’t support Dolezal, and Blacks easily won the battle of wills. The border between Black and White stayed up, and Dolezal was ridiculed and punished, despite being more convincing as a Black than most transgenderists ever are as women.

{Submitter’s note: Langdon rants on and on… see the source link if you’re really interested about the rest of it}

Show post

Bill P #wingnut #racist unz.com

[Quote is two comments from the same thread, link is to the earlier comment]

About fifteen years ago, I got ahold of this remarkable little book titled I was an NKVD Agent by Anatoli Granovsky, who defected to the West in 1946. Other than its lack of a plot, it reads like a spy novel, so I don’t know how much of it is true, but it was published in 1962, so it has some relevance here.

One of Granovsky’s potential missions following the Soviet victory in WWII was to infiltrate the West. He was to use two angles: one of which was to seduce women of high social standing who were active in social justice (e.g. feminism, civil rights, etc.); the other was to be a fake priest/minister.

So according to Granovsky, the top tier of Soviet intelligence had already identified the ministry, the sexual revolution and civil rights as key weaknesses to be exploited by communists by the end of WWII. This would explain a lot.

I strongly suspect that MLK was indeed handled by the KGB, probably not only through Levison but others as well. I doubt he was personally aware of it, but a man like that doesn’t need to be — he’s most useful just stirring up trouble with his sermons, sleeping around and not asking questions about where the money comes from.

Conservatives now (shamefully) often claim King as one of their own, so this is still important. King’s false Christianity also has to be exposed as fraud. Why was a Jewish communist (who prominently defended Julius and Ethel Rosenberg) writing sermons for a Christian pastor, anyway? To spread the good news about Christ? Give me a break…

For those of us who had to endure MLK day rallies and indoctrination sessions in grade school, and hated them, this is vindicating.

Before we Americans can move forward with a truly just, truly Christian solution to racial strife in our country, this fake Christian state cult of MLK has to be banished.

Show post

Bill P #racist unz.com

Yes, AGW is the latest deus ex machina for the messianically inclined Russian people, who are typically helpless on their own. I’m sure they believe it will solve all their problems and lead to a world of limitless vodka and girls in tight skirts and high heels. There should be an Orthodox Christian global warming Jesus wandering through a methane-emitting birch forest, but there probably already is and the rest of the world simply hasn’t been paying attention.

Siberia should have made the Russians rich long ago, but the problem is that it is under the control of Russians. If it had been available to American settlement, the expanse would be thriving with lumber mills, gas wells and technologically advanced institutions, and the population would be much higher. Down-on-their-luck Americans would be driving tanker trucks across the taiga, wildcatting, selling burgers to the workers and building highways. Instead there are ballistic missile behemoths lumbering on dirt roads through the forests while stunted, alcoholic Asiatic peasants scratch a living out of the frozen swamps and rivers that only flow half the year, scraping the riverbanks for fossil mammoth tusks and shooting beavers.

Tell me I’m wrong.

Show post

Lance Welton #racist unz.com

Perhaps Surprisingly, Indians REALLY Aren’t That Intelligent (On Average)

India is a confusing place. It is able to send hordes of extremely intelligent and highly-motivated scientists to the USA, yet its city centres are so chaotic that tourists have to pay street urchins to throw themselves into the road just so that they can cross it. The land of the Hindus is pursuing its own space program, yet vast areas of the country lack electricity, running water, and even people who can read. What does this say about Indian IQ?

The late J. Philippe Rushton gave an answer to this question back in 2007: Indians Aren’t That Intelligent (On Average). But much more evidence has since been developed.

A country’s average IQ is a massively important predictor of national accomplishment and national average living standards, as Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen showed in their seminal 2012 book Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences, as well as in their earlier book IQ and the Wealth of Nations.

For a few years now a German psychologist trained in political science called David Becker has been tracking down and collating every possible source that might permit assessment of any nation’s IQ. The young researcher, who is based at Chemnitz Technical University in East Germany (the city was known as Karl-Marx-Stadt under Communism) places all his research online so that those who criticise national IQ data can easily have their criticisms refuted. He clearly presents his methodology, in a way which Lynn did not, so that critics can see precisely what’s he’s done, how he’s done it and why: samples are rated for reliability, for example.

On this basis, Becker has also recalculated all of Richard Lynn’s much-denounced National IQs. Significantly, his calculations strongly correlate with Lynn’s—see the results at ViewOnIQ.org.

As part of this project, Becker has also updated and recalculated the Indian IQ, the most recent known study of which was published in 2015 [Gender Performance on Intelligence Quotient Test among Medical Students in a Government Medical College, By B. Uppu et al., IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 2015]

Incredibly, considering all of the “Raj from The Big Bang Theory” types populating science departments at America’s top universities, Becker’s meta-analysis of 11 studies revises the Indian average IQ downwards. Lynn and Vanhanen calculated it to be 82.2, but Becker has found it to be a mere 76.24.

How can a country with an IQ only six points above that of Sub-Saharan Africa churn out scientists of such high calibre and even begin to take people into space?

The answer: it is not merely in the geographical sense that India is a subcontinent—defined as a large mass of land separated by mountains from the rest of the continent. It is also continent-like in terms of its population.

India and China both contain over a billion people, but in China those people are overwhelmingly of one ethnicity, Han, and speak one language, Mandarin. The situation in India could hardly be more different.

The national languages are Hindi and (still) English. However, there are at least 780 distinct languages spoken in India, with most—though not all—of these languages being associated with a distinct ethnic group, rather as is the case with languages in Europe. Around 78% of Indians, and especially those in the north, speak Indo-Aryan languages that are distantly related to English, such as Hindi (41% of India’s population), Bengali (8%), and Gujarati(4.4%). Most of rest, particularly those in the South, speak Dravidian languages, such as Telegu (7.1%), Tamil (5.9%) and Kannada (3.6%). Some even speak language “isolates” unrelated to any other known language.(See Wikipedia’s List of languages by number of native speakers in India.)

There are also about 225,000 Anglo-Indians—down from some 2 million at independence in 1947. These are native English speakers, and usually Christian, ultimately descended from a union between an English colonial and a (usually female) Indian. Over the centuries, Anglo-Indians have married each other, effectively creating an ethnic group .

India is divided into 29 states and 7 territories, many of these states are named after their dominant ethnic group and its language. And, crucially, there seem to be exceptional IQ differences between these states, paralleling the way in which southern India is rich and northern India is poor.

Richard Lynn and Indian psychologist Prateek Yadav explored differences in intelligence between Indian states in a study published in the leading journal Intelligence in 2015. [Differences in cognitive ability, per capita income, infant mortality, fertility and latitude across the states of India, By Richard Lynn & Prateek Yadav, Intelligence, 2015]. Drawing upon data from all 29 states plus 4 territories, they found a very clear pattern.

Southern India is markedly more intelligent than northern India; the correlation between latitude and their test of cognitive ability being -0.43. Even more significantly, coastal India is more intelligent than inland India, the correlation between closeness to coast and average intelligence being -0.60.

The most intelligent (on average) area is a territory called Daman and Dui, two islands that were part of Portugal’s historic Goa colony, seized by India in 1961. (American pundit Dinesh D’Souza is descended from Goanese converts to Catholicism). Unfortunately, the authors do not calculate IQ scores, merely presenting average scores on standardized school tests. These islands are followed, in average score, by Kerala, a southern coastal state. The least intelligent, and also poorest, India state is Bihar, an inland northern state, close to Bangladesh.

Helpfully, Lynn and Yadav tested a host of other variables, meaning they were able to reasonably hypothesize as to the causes of these differences. A key factor: Islam. Around 20% of India’s population is Muslim and the Muslims overwhelmingly live in the north. Indeed, the Muslims were politically dominant in northern India—building the Taj Mahal and other such achievements—until the British fully took control in the nineteenth century.

The correlation between the percentage of Muslims in a state and its intelligence was -0.32. The authors propose that a likely reason is inbreeding. Hindus tend not to marry cousins, but Muslims tend strongly to marry their cousins. Cousin marriage elevates the probability of double doses of mutant genes, meaning that the brain works less well, so intelligences starts to fall. The more inbreeding there is in a nation the lower its IQ tends to be [Inbreeding depression and IQ in a study of 72 countries, by Michael A. Woodley, Intelligence, 2009]

Coastal India, they suggest, is more intelligent because there will have been greater breeding with European traders. This is most obvious when we consider that the most intelligent part of India is two islands which were run by Portugal until 1961. (American pundit Dinesh D’Souza is descended from Goanese converts to Catholicism). We would also expect that ambitious and intelligent Indians born in the interior would be likely to migrate to the wealthy coastal towns. Intelligence predicts migration, as the eminent intelligence researcher Arthur Jensen noted in his 1998 book The g Factor.

It is perhaps no coincidence that the only Indian citizen to win a Nobel Prize in the hard sciences—Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman (right)who took the Physics prize in 1930—was a Tamil from Madras. Madras is (where else?) on the southern coast.

It is India’s ethnic diversity which explains why it displays extremes: intellectual brilliance yet grinding poverty. This may be a problem for India, in that it is the population’s average intelligence—which predicts so much about the fate of nations. With its low average IQ, India is corrupt, unfair, and shambolic.

This is perhaps why so many highly intelligent Indians are desperate to come to the West—probably reducing India’s average IQ even further in the process, but certainly not improving the GOP’s chances.

Show post

Lance Welton #racist unz.com

Dysgenics and Low Creativity: Why China Can’t Save Civilization

It’s possible to derive some comfort from contemplating the Chinese. Sure, unless something radical is done, Western civilization is going to collapse due to the most intelligent women having the fewest children and massive IQ (and highly fertile) immigration from the Third World [See At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What It Means for the Future, By Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie] but surely civilization will be preserved by the Chinese. Unfortunately, research is showing that this is just wishful thinking.

Thus the leading IQ researcher Professor Richard Lynn actually proclaimed in his book Dysgenics that China’s one child policy—introduced in 1979 and abolished in 2015—was the saviour of civilization. The strongly cultural desire in China for a boy and the abortion of female fetuses, meant that by the late-1990s, young males massively out-numbered females in China, showed Lynn. The females would naturally be attracted to the wealthiest and most educated males, as these males would be able to provide the optimum lifestyle for them and, anyway, females tend to sexually select for status because doing so, under evolutionary conditions, ensured the survival of their offspring [Women marry up, By Edward Dutton, In T. Shackleford, & V. Shackleford-Weeks,Encyclopaedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, Springer, 2018]. The inevitable result, argued Lynn: less intelligent Chinese men would fail to breed, as intelligence robustly predicts wealth and status and is about 80% genetic. In addition, the ability to pay the fines for breaking the One-Child law would allow the wealthy, and thus more intelligent, to have more than one child. As such, concluded Lynn China must have “eugenic fertility” and it is to China that the “torch of civilization” will pass. [Richard Lynn: “Eugenics and Dysgenics: A Promise Denied”, YouTube, at 42 minutes]

Unfortunately, this is not what research by a young Chinese psychologist has found. In a study published in 2016 in the leading journal Intelligence, Mingrui Wang presented some shocking—and counter-intuitive—findings. Even despite the one child policy, there is dysgenic fertility in China. [Evidence of Dysgenic Fertility in China, by Mingrui Wang et al, Intelligence, July-August 2016]

The Chinese researcher and his team explored the relationship between intelligence, education-level and fertility, using a large sample from the China Family Panel dataset, which is highly representative of the Chinese population. They found that among the cohort born between 1951 and 1970, the correlation between general intelligence and fertility was -0.1, very similar to that found in Western countries.

Between 1986 and the year 2000, the Chinese lost 0.31 IQ points per decade and between 1971 and the year 2000, the Chinese lost 0.75 IQ points.

The researchers also discovered that education level is negatively associated with fertility in China. And the negative correlation between fertility and both IQ and education level is stronger among females than males.

In other words, though the Chinese have an average IQ of 105 according to Richard Lynn, and despite their introduction of the One-Child policy, they are suffering precisely the same process as the West. The most intelligent females are not selecting for the most intelligent Chinese males or, indeed, any males. As in the West, they are dedicating themselves to their education and then their careers, meaning they are simply failing to pass on their genes at all.

In addition, the strong cultural tradition in China—especially in the low IQ countryside – of desiring sons rather than daughters, leading to selective abortion, is dual-edged. The more intelligent Chinese, living in the cities, are more likely to content themselves with having a daughter. And the more intelligent she is, the more likely she is to have no children, leading to the elimination of her (intelligent) parents’ genes. It is possible that this phenomenon could even be sufficiently strong to undermine any indirect benefits to IQ which may have been wrought by the one child policy.

Slightly less intelligent women are spending all of their twenties dedicated to their careers, only have children in their thirties and not having very many. The least intelligent Chinese women—too low in IQ and impulsive to use contraception—are, it would seem, having excess children even despite the fines and the risk of heavy-handed Communist Party officials (illegally) trying to compel them to have abortions []. Perhaps their husbands see the fines as a price worth paying if it ensures that they get a son.

In addition, the one child policy never even applied to China’s non-Han ethnic minorities. These groups are overwhelmingly rural-dwelling and they have lower IQ than the Han. The more Han a Chinese region is then the smarter it is [Differences in intelligence across the 31 regions of China and their economic and demographic correlates, By Richard Lynn & Helen Cheng, Intelligence, 2013]. For example, the average IQ of Tibetans in 92 [I Q and Mathematics Ability of Tibetans and Han Chinese, By Richard Lynn, Mankind Quarterly], meaning their IQ is almost 15 points lower than that of the Han, similar to that of Greece or Romania. [Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences, By Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, Ulster Institute for Social Research, 2012]

This decline is made all the more perilous due to research, led by a Japanese psychologist called Kenya Kura, which has shown that Northeast Asians are genetically less intellectually creative than Europeans. [Why do Northeast Asians Win So Few Nobel Prizes?, By Kenya Kura et al., Comprehensive Psychology, 4: 2015] Northeast Asians, compared to Europeans, have higher gene frequencies of polymorphisms which make people collectivist, socially anxious, and fearful of anything novel. Kura and his team argue that this is adaptation to a particular ecology, where it is vital to stay in a tightly-bonded group.

However, they note that scientific innovators tend to combine very high IQ with an optimally low level of collectivism, low social anxiety and low fearfulness of the new. In other words, they have high “Openness-Intellec t”, as psychologists term this trait. This psychological profile means that they can think outside the box and don’t care about the offence to vested interests which their new idea will almost certainly result in.

This is why, maintains Kura, it is the West that generated the Industrial Revolution, rather than more intelligent Northeast Asians. The West is indeed the Goldilocks Zone for genius.

“The torch of civilization” may well pass to China, but it will continue to get dimmer and dimmer and very little new fuel will be added to it. The torch’s bearer will slide into an increasingly authoritarian dictatorship—as happens to relatively low IQ societies—and the light of civilization will go out, unless it can somehow be passed to a society that is still under eugenic fertility.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

That happened to me. My own mother made excuses for my adulterous ex. It sounds pretty awful, but I came out of that suspecting that she had done something similar.

It’s a shame, because I always thought she was better than the skank-ho single mommies of so many of my childhood friends from back in the 80s.

The worst part as a guy was thinking of all the opportunities I passed up in order to be a faithful husband. The beautiful women – better-looking than my wife – that I turned down in order to be a “good man.”

In retrospect, I’m actually glad I acted honorably, but my respect for women as equals was totally shattered. And that’s a good thing. What foolishness ever possessed me to think of women in that way? The only thing I can think of that justifies it is that my father was a morally deranged man, and I had no good standard by which to measure men aside from Jesus Christ, who is divine after all.

There is really no excuse for a wanton woman, except for the desire that burns in her loins. Let’s just be honest about that and call it as it is. In that case a man who cheats is as blameless as the “unhappy” young wife, and let us treat them equally.

Then maybe there will be as much fear on the part of the woman as the man, and divorce will be less common as there is no advantage either way.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

It’s so obvious to me that this is the real problem with social media, but a lot of people don’t get it. Did they forget what being young was like or what?

No screen can replace physical intimacy.

There are also the Obama era crazy sex rules, which come from the lesbian lobby. Then there’s obesity, the skewed sex ratio in colleges, and Asian girls who siphon off a lot of white guys’ sexual energy.

It’s no wonder lots of women are going crazy in college.

Commenters here are overanalyzing the issue, as usual. Nature, God – whatever you want to call it – has designed us as we are for a reason. One thing young women have been designed for, and quite well if I do say so myself, is sex. If they are denied the opportunity to fulfill their natural role it’s going to cause all sorts of problems.

And no, I don’t mean wanton, promiscuous sex, but rather good old fashioned knock-her-up because you can’t get enough of her sex.

If most girls that age were properly serviced on a regular basis I can guarantee that this neurotic trend would disappear tomorrow. Because I am not a misogynist, I hope this comes to pass. We’d all be happier if young women got the sex they need.

As for the lesbos, well, they’re not really that important in the grand scheme, are they? Maybe we should reevaluate their place in university administration, because they aren’t actually necessary, they probably do more harm than good, and most women don’t even like them.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Maybe the problem is that colleges are mostly female and young people are not having sex as much as they used to.

If you have a large body of young women who are not getting any on a regular basis it’s going to be a troubled environment.

This is what happens when you put a bunch of lesbians in charge.

Show post

AnotherDad #racist unz.com

It’s easy to mock this sort of leftist lunacy, now in “Confederate!” form.

But of course the GOP is the party of–and Trump appeals to–married white gentiles. The closer you are demographically to being a (private sector employed) married white gentile, the more likely you are to be a Trump voter.

Rather the big lie here is that the “who whom” is precisely the reverse of what she claims.

His supporters hark back to an 1860s fantasy of white male dominance. But the Confederacy won’t win in the long run

In the 158th year of the American civil war, also known as 2018, the Confederacy continues its recent resurgence. Its victims include black people, of course, but also immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women who want to exercise jurisdiction over their bodies.

The desire–demand!–for dominance here is not white men wanting to dominate “black people” and “immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women”, but the reverse!

“Black people” and “immigrants, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, trans people, gay people and women” are demanding the right to dominate white guys–make white guys work for them and give them their white guy stuff.

They–the “coalition of the fringes” are the “slave power”, trying to enslave white men. Trump’s appeal to us evil white guys is essentially that we can be left alone, live our lives as free men and not be looted and abused by the fringes.

The way you can prove this is who is demanding what from whom? Or who is willing to separate form whom?

This is the acid test that i was attempting to flush out in the previous Zero Ammendment comment thread:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-zeroth-amendment-explicated/#comment-2607940

And the distinction between the whines of “oppression” from the fringes and actually slavery in the earlier comment:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-zeroth-amendment-explicated/#comment-2607227

~~

This “who-whom” dependency issue is why i think raising the “separate nations” question is quite powerful and needs to be done by Trump and nationalists repeatedly.

Given the open treason and hatred (for white gentiles) that is now routine on the pages of the NYT, i’d be more than happy to split America right now. (We aren’t one nation, when “elites” openly spew out there desire to see the nation’s actual core population dispossesed.)

Let’s have all the Hillary voters group up in their areas–i’ll happily move if that’s necessary. They can have their rainbow hued, open-borders, “nation of immigrants”, hands-up-don’t-shoot, gender fluid utopia. I’m actually not dependent on them and don’t need them whatsoever.

We Trump voters can then have our regular old American nation. We’ll farm our fields, build our houses, tractors, trucks, cars, airplanes, drill for oil and gas (and do solar and nukes) and live our lives and get along just fine … in fact better! without being looted by the fringes.

Mention “separate nations” and the resulting screams of anguish will tell you who is actually intent on looting whom.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Witchcraft was popular during the Reagan presidency as well. I was privy to it at the time because I was a young boy and the women engaged in it, including a former nun who taught me in fourth grade, deemed me and my friends inconsequential. The “witches” used to have seances at my friend’s divorced single mother’s house.

I think it’s just a normal part of female spirituality. It’s institutionalized in Korea, and probably Mexico, too.

If men have their own, countervailing organizations, things are balanced out. The problem here is that we don’t, and a lot of contemporary Anglo men stubbornly ignore the fact that this is a problem.

As much as I respect and admire certain women, such as Ann Coulter and Mollie Hemingway, we men have to have our own woman-free institutions not only for rational discourse, but peace of mind as well.

Show post

John Derbyshire #racist unz.com

The first thing to be said about this is that of course Harvard does discriminate against Asian-Americans. Ron Unz crunched the numbers j ust five years ago over at The American Conservative in a brilliant piece titled “The Myth of American Meritocracy” [November 28, 2012] You can also find the essay in Ron’s book of that title.

The centerpiece of Ron’s essay: a killer graph comparing the steady rise from 1990 to 2011 of the Asian-American college-age population with the dead-flat proportions of Asian-American admittances to Ivy League schools, held down firmly in a tight band between thirteen and eighteen percent.

Of course they are discriminating. Who doesn’t know it?

Needless to say, I’m going to take a much darker view. East Asians have higher mean IQ than whites, and of course far higher than mestizos and blacks. They especially excel at disciplines needing visuo-spatial skills. IQ aside, it seems likely they also have higher proportions of the personality characteristics that suit a person to high intellectual endeavor.

If Harvard and other high-prestige universities practice color-blind admissions, therefore, Asian-Americans will be way over-represented, and way-way over-represented in fields like math and computer science.

Think of the kind of resentment, anger, and bitterness that blacks feel when they see other races succeeding more than they do. Wouldn’t color-blind admissions just add a new layer of resentment in American society—with whites (known as “Americans” until the 1965 Immigration Act) watching Asians flood into the Ivies, displacing them?

Immigration patriots in the early 20th century strove to keep out East Asian immigrants, not because they “hated” them, as the infantile language of our current discourse would tell you, or because they thought them an inferior race, but because they feared mass immigration of East Asians would produce an overclass, generating discontent and resentment among legacy Americans.

I’m sure she would respond with a stream of race-denialist blather. “There are no innate differences between the races,” she’d protest. “That’s a horrible thing to suggest! We just need the right social policies. Fix the schools! Save the black family! …”

We’ve heard it all a thousand times. Race denialism is state dogma in the 21st-century West. No one with a gig writing op-eds for the New York Post is going to turn race-realist.

Unfortunately, race-realism is true and race-denialism is a lie. That being the case, we have to choose between two evils: unfairness in college admissions, or higher levels of social discord.

To date we have chosen Door Number One. Are we quite sure that wasn’t the better choice—the lesser of two evils?

If you go to a doctor with a bacterial infection—an infected blister perhaps—he can give you an antibiotic, and you’ll be cured. If you go to him with a broken leg, he’ll get it set for you, and soon you’ll be playing tennis again. Doctors can fix things and cure things.

If, however, you go to the doctor with arthritis, or diabetes, or a leukemia like the one I have, he can’t fix it, he can’t cure it. What he can do is manage it: set you up so that the pain and inconvenience are the least possible. We can’t cure those conditions, but we can manage them, minimizing the trouble they cause us.


America’s race problem is like that. There’s no cure, although the race denialists breezily assure us there is. We can’t fix the schools to produce equal racial outcomes. God knows, we’ve been trying for decades, with essentially zero results. W e can’t make whites as smart as East Asians; Mother Nature’s standing in the way.

What we can do—what we do do—is manage the situation, to keep social discord at a minimum. Race quotas in college admissions is one aspect of that management. It works pretty well.

There: I just said it again. We’ve foolishly, heedlessly made a mess for ourselves with these decades of mass immigration.

Now there are two things we have to do:

One: We have to manage the mess as best we can.

Two: We have to stop making it worse.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

She didn’t cry out, make a scene or even tell her friends that night. The “he covered my mouth” part is the feeble lie – the fig leaf so to speak – that allows her and her supporters to claim that her allegation, if something resembling it actually happened, constitutes assault. But it is a transparent fabrication, because she says that she got out and said nothing.

Maybe, and more likely in my view, Kavanaugh rejected her advances, or never noticed her in the first place. Women can and often do concoct fantasies about the objects of their desire ravishing them, and they often sound a lot like this Kavanaugh story. A common theme is that the man uses force, but the force does not rise to the level used in actual rapes. For example, “he took me in his strong arms, and looked into my eyes with a passionate gaze; I felt my ability to resist slipping away as he removed my blouse, I would have cried out to preserve my honor, but he placed his hand over my mouth” instead of “he grabbed me by my throat and threatened to kill me if I made a sound, my eyes were wide open in terror, I tried to scream but he squeezed so hard I couldn’t make a sound and it felt like my eyes would pop out of my head, then after stunning me with a blow to the face, he displayed a knife and told me to shut up and take my clothes off or he’d gut me like a fish.”

Show post

Je Suis Omar Mateen #racist unz.com

Ha, it’ll never happen. To forge strong alliances with Mexico City’s surrounding villages and towns, Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortes ordered several of his men to marry the local savages. The savages were ecstatic about marrying these handsome white bearded men from the East, which their religion prophesied were gods come to rule over them, but the conquistadors were not happy about it. Though he sired several children with the local savages, Cortes himself married only Spanish senoritas.

Diversity (((TM))) is for reprrlelnt deplorables, not the high-born castes.

Show post

Jason Liu #sexist unz.com

"I once stayed for a few weeks in an apartment complex in the Boston area that had a large number of well-dressed but extremely skinny teenaged girls with supercilious expressions. I finally figured out that one floor of the building was home to a residential treatment center for anorexia."

In other words kids are stupid and should have decisions made for them by their parents. Not always, just most of the time. Long live paternalism.

PS tumblr is turning your daughter into a tranny

Show post

Steve Sailer #fundie unz.com

Snowpiercer is a sci-fi allegory directed by Joon-ho Bong in English with a mostly American cast.

Chris Evans of Captain America plays a rebel who looks just like Christian Bale, who fights his way to meeting the Dictator of the World, who is played by a very American actor. (I saw it without knowing who he would be, so I won’t mention his name here.)

A couple of South Korean performers steal the show, however, as a father-daughter pair of genius drug addicts.

Bong’s 2006 movie The Host holds the South Korean record for most tickets sold and this one set a national record for biggest opening weekend.

Set in 2031, 17 years after an attempt to arrest global warming has caused the Ultimate Ice Age, the only survivors are the passengers on board a train powered by a perpetual motion engine that allows it to roar around the snowy world nonstop.

Why does the train zoom endlessly around the frozen world instead of going some place well-insulated and staying there?

Perhaps for reasons of cinematic influence: Snowpiercer is reminiscent of another foreign-directed American movie star film about a train in a cold climate, 1985's R unaway Train, directed by Andrei Konchalovsky with Jon Voight and Eric Roberts earning Oscar nominations playing tough guys. And it recalls Wong Kar-Wai’s gorgeous sci-fi erotic daydream about a round-the-world train, 2046.

But most sci-fi movies are about doing things that, while difficult, sound, prima facie, like fun: fly like Superman, travel through time, visit planets around other stars, etc. Then the spoilsports explain why you can’t do that, but you willingly suspend disbelief because it would be cool to have a laser gun or whatever. In contrast, traveling nonstop around a dead world on a train forever is both impossible and seems like a pointless ordeal, so the movie hasn’t been very appealing outside of South Korea.

The movie starts out among the poor in the ultra-crowded last carriages, where everybody dresses like the slightly grotesque nice people in Road Warrior. Evans leads the impoverished rebels into the first class carriages run by the dictator’s emissary Tilda Swinton. These appear to have been borrowed from Brazil: somebody should add up how much influence Evelyn Waugh has had on science fiction.

A remarkable fraction of big budget movies these days are obsessed with themes of either Malthusianism, Darwinism, or eugenics, or all three. In Snowpiercer, the Dictator of the World apologizes at the end that he hasn’t had time for eugenics yet, so I guessed most of the Big Reveal at the end about an hour beforehand.

Then there’s a second surprise ending that I didn’t guess, but only because this one is pretty stupid. In the end, two individuals from races at the different ends of Rushton’s continuum go off to start a new human race presumably cleansed of racial division.

Is it a good movie? Snowpiercer has some cool elements, but the lack of even an attempt to justify rationally why it takes place on a train puts a lot of stress on the style to make up for the lack of sense, and it doesn’t quite have enough visual chops to pull that off. A movie entirely about moving from the caboose to the locomotive will be by nature linear and segmented, kind of like a submarine movie. That’s a challenge that sometimes inspires directors, but not quite enough in Bong’s case.

P.S., I think I figured out why this going around the world on a train movie was a giant hit in South Korea but not, so far, in the rest of the world: South Korea is a three-sided peninsula and the fourth side is mined.

In other words, you can’t go very far on any train that starts in South Korea. You can’t even get to North Korea, and that breaks the hearts of Koreans. The rail system is claustrophobic, so traveling around the world on a train sounds cool.

Show post

Bill P #racist unz.com

These elite republican pundits need to spend more time with proles. They seem to think that being supplicating will increase the share of the minority vote.

This is exactly backward. Republicans who are unapologetic, tough and practical – while also fair – will get more respect from all but the elite minorities. For example, cracking down on illegal immigration will be more popular with Hispanic voters than open borders. Why people can’t understand that a Texan roofer named Jorge might not be happy about a couple million Central Americans suddenly showing up just confounds me. And as for black voters, you aren’t going to outdemocrat the democrats, so appeal to the types who have their lives together and dislike the BLM punks. They need a reason to vote Republican, and if you just imitate the democrats with racial platitudes there is no reason.

Pandering will get Republicans nowhere. It will have diminishing returns for democrats as well. Now that minorities have more of their own candidates to choose from, why vote for some supplicating white sad sack?

The way forward for Republicans is to be unapologetic Americans. That includes being unapologetic about race, culture, religion, etc. You don’t gain admirers by grovelling. Especially not among your typical working class minorities.

Now the elite minorities are another story. They have assimilated to white elite norms of contempt for non-elite white Americans. Most of them are fully onboard with the new Morgenthau Plan for non-progressive white America. It’s a shame but it is what it is, and there’s probably not much that can be done about it besides clamping down on immigration from Asia and letting the Sarah Jeong’s of this world have it with both barrels.

And speaking of her, that fine lady is now Ross Douthat’ s esteemed colleague. Mr. Douthat, always ready to condemn any hint of something inoffensive and normal such as white solidarity, hasn’t made a peep about Jeong’s racial trash-talking. Her employment at the Times is only going to make him look more like a hypocrite than he already does. I mean, you could make excuses for Charles Blow, but not an ungrateful little snake like her. So every time he gets on his high horse about racism, people are going to know he works for a paper that endorses racial hatred of whites.

That can’t be a very comfortable position to be in for Ross.

Show post

Bill P #racist unz.com

Obviously it’s easy for the nonwhites, because they clearly like moving to white countries, neighborhoods, school districts, etc.

I don’t see much evidence of the reverse happening except in tiny numbers (there are more Chinese in my hometown of Seattle than there are white Americans in all of China). And despite the tiny numbers of whites in China, a very vocal contingent of Chinese still throws fits about it.

So no, I don’t think I learned what it’s like to be a nonwhite in white society during my stay in China, because it’s obviously far more comfortable than being white over there. This is why I’m certain that most long-term expats must really like and appreciate China. You’d have to to put up with it for that long, or else you’d have to be getting paid a whole lot of money for living there.

As for the Sinicization issue, I live near Vancouver BC now, and it has definitely Sinicized. So have parts of California. It is not a welcome development to most Anglos when they find their children priced out of their cities and shoved out of the universities they built.

Show post

Lance Welton #sexist unz.com

Since the beginning of the “Me, too!” movement, “patriarchy”—and the very idea that females prefer to be feminine—is under attack as never before. The Swedish capital Stockholm has banned ads that portray female stereotypes [Stockholm bans “sexist” and “degrading” adverts from public spaces, By Sara Malm, Daily Mail, 13 June 2018]. An Austrian museum about James Bond will cut out “sexist” aspects of the movie series about the Alpha male and his assorted scantily-dressed Bond girls [Not Licensed to Offend, By Tim Walker, Guardian, June 11, 2018]. On Father’s Day, fathers were supposed to receive “feminist” gifts, to undermine the patriarchal undertones of the celebration [9 Feminist Father’s Day 2017 Gifts For The Dad Who Believes In Equality, By Lindsay Mack, Romper, 7 June 2017, ].

But if a theory recently presented by two female researchers from Britain is correct, then patriarchy only evolved because of the male need to give women what they wanted, females are literally evolved to like and accept the patriarchal system, and, by implication, we’d have no civilization if it hadn’t developed.

...

Grant and Montrose argued that patriarchy is, therefore, entirely understandable in evolutionary terms. In China, women’s feet were bound so they couldn’t run away and have affairs. In the Islamic world, women are concealed in public so that no potential cuckolder can be attracted to them. Religions render these traditions—as well as general obedience to the male will—as the desire of the gods, making it even more likely to be obeyed.

And females who fail to obey risk severe punishment, including simply being killed to restore the families’ honour. There are, the authors report, about 300 honour killings in Pakistan annually, with sentences being very lenient compared to those for other murders. In the Middle East, women are killed for actual or alleged adultery, for refusing arranged marriage, for not being virgins when they get married and for being raped, as this implies that they were not being chaperoned by a male relative as mandated. Most societies give daughters far less freedom than sons. Not only are daughters worth more—in the sense that their child will definitely be your grandchild—but we’ve been selected to control them.

The fascinating result of this, argue the authors, is that females are literally evolutionarily selected to accept patriarchy. Those who refuse to have their feet bound, or be circumcised so they can’t enjoy sex, will not be able to get married and so won’t pass on their genes. Such refusal to obey the rules also elevates the likelihood that they’ll be ostracised—in societies where laws make it very hard to be an independent female—or directly killed. Grant and Montrose argue that abortion is particularly problematic in patriarchal societies because it allows women far too much control over themselves.

What this system means is that males—trusting that their investment in the female and her offspring will be worth it—can afford to be less violent, less jealous and more cooperative. They will invest more of their energy in looking after their children, making these children less short-term oriented, able to create stronger social bonds, and likely to be more cooperative.

And so a civilization will duly be able to develop.

This is a compelling theory and the authors also present some clear ways that future researchers can test it: Cuckoldry rates should be lower, and fertility higher, in more patriarchal societies and fundamentalist sub-cultures; the more fundamentalist and patriarchal a society the faster growing its population will be, as women will have no control over their bodies and no option but motherhood; and patriarchy will be stronger in polygamous systems, like Islam, because there will be more women for a husband to control.

Anecdotally, at least, this all these seems to be the case.

So, reducing these findings down to their basics, patriarchy is a result of the evolved psychology and physiology of females. Its development has, in turn, pushed females, for biological reasons, towards being more accepting of patriarchy.

Could it be that the rise in “feminism” is not just due to the collapse of patriarchy but, more profoundly, due to weakened Darwinian selection, due to the less harsh life created by the Industrial Revolution? (See Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations, By Michael Woodley of Menie et al., Evolutionary Psychological Science, June 2017).

This would mean more “mutant genes” not being removed through high child mortality or spinsterhood for “undesirable” women, such as those which might make people challenge patriarchy?

The authors insist “It’s a Man’s World” but it only became that way due to the power women have over men to force them to bend to their evolved desires for investment and status, as evidence of the ability to invest in resources in their children.

“It’s a Man’s World”—and it’s Women’s Fault?

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Ms. Jeong’s behavior can be partly explained by the peculiarities of Korean culture. Korean women are accustomed to being dominated by men. Not patronized, condescended to or exploited, but straight up dominated.

Men who don’t behave as expected are subjected to what Roissy would call “shit tests,” which involve insults, deprecation both subtle and overt, and psychological emasculation. Korean women even go after their sons in this manner, which goes some way toward explaining the volcanic rage that has led a number of young Korean men to go on shooting rampages.

My bet is that Ms. Jeong has had some intense but dysfunctional relationships with white men that have left her cultural expectations unfulfilled. The problem being that Western men don’t dominate so much as they patronize women, which to Koreans is weird and aggravating.

Her response has been to hurl insults at white men in order to goad them into a properly wrathful and dominant attitude toward her. This is to be expected from Korean women. The only way to get them to stop is to give in and treat them like a doormat.

It sounds worse to Westerners than it really is. For the most part it involves ritual submission; one Korean woman I worked with in China proudly described how she washed her husband’s feet every day when he came home from work. I found this puzzling, but she insisted that she really enjoyed serving him in this manner, and I didn’t detect any hint of resentment in her expression, but rather the opposite.

There is a darker side, however; apparently wife-beating is common among Koreans, but they take that in stride and most agree that it is usually due to wifely misbehavior or rebelliousness.

So, as academics would say, one should view Ms. Jeong’s outbursts “through the lens” of her native culture and try to sympathize. All she really wants, after all, is for the objects of her affection to treat her the way a proper Korean lady ought to be treated.

Show post

Jus Sayin #fundie unz.com

I saw the movie last night. It was idiotic and annoying but the visuals are gorgeous. The local movie critic loved it, of course, because overtly it’s completely anti-white and pro-underclass; an extended, Marxist “five-minute hate. It’s hard to capture the blunt crudity of the movie on these issues.

Far more interesting to me were the multiple levels on which the movie plays out: A jaded, disingenuous synopsis of the first level might be: Crazed global-warming fanatics create a permanent ice age that desolates the planet. A brilliant, white, European, scientist-entrepeneur devises an advanced technology to save a small remnant of humanity. He is charitable enough to save some prole scum and non-Europeans, even though they contribute almost nothing to this survival system. This salvaged lumpen-proletariat eventually revolts against their limited share in the rewards provided to more productive persons. The result is a bloody apocylapse that destroys all humanity except two lumpen proles who will soon be eaten by a polar bear because they have zero Darwinian fitness.

The second level plays out as a mindless, racist scream of hatred against the white race, engineers, entrepeneurs, and ecenomically productive persons in general. The script writers’ and director’s intent seems to be to diminish the humanity of all these persons compared to the underclass in economically developed countries and non-whites everywhere. As an example, the brutal massacre by axe, knife, and club of a classroom of young white children and their pregnant, young school teacher is played for laughs (even more effectively than the machine gunning of a fat woman during the “five-minute hate” in Orwell’s 1984).

On the third level, although it appears unintentional in this case, something happens reminiscent of what Steve Sailer has noticed in another recent movie, Elysium. The white-baiting message that seems to be the primary intent of the movie’s makers is overwhelmed by the overt message of the first level (see paragraph two above) and the grotesque nastiness of the second level, e.g., the school room massacre.

I saw this movie at the Coolidge Corner Theater in Brookline, Massachusetts. The audience was composed of the usual, mostly white and Asian, ultra-progressive crowd of local college students, aging hippies, and new class progressives that tends to frequent this theater, salted with a large dose of sci-fi lovers. The audience reaction was very subdued and most left the theater with rather thoughtful miens. My distinct impression was that recent events on our border, instigated by our current third-world leadership, may have made this particular crowd aware that white self-hatred is not a good long-term strategy for preserving one’s current standard of living, freedom, and survivability.

Show post

Anonymous #racist unz.com

“I find that only extremely insecure caucasians cling to this utterly asinine canard[East Asians uncreative conformists], in the face of such a plethora of evidence to the contrary.”

I think there something in it, without wanting to go too far.

After all here we are talking about it on the internet (invented by who?) on using computers (invented by who) regarding a movie (film invented by who) set on a train (invented by who) . And we’re doing it in English which may well have had a little white input somewhere in its development. Still, you Asian guys feel free to chip in at any point because rehashing assorted movie tropes do top all that of course.

Show post

Priss Factor #racist unz.com

(About the movie Snowpiercer)

This having been made by a Korean, shouldn’t the train have crashed, with the captain telling everyone to stay put while and he and the crew make it out to safety?

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

[Quote across two comments]

A college degree is the new dowry. I work with a lot of high-income blue collar guys (Todd Palin types), and the gender pay gap in this social class is enormous. While the men, given enough seniority and the willingness to put in the hours, can easily make six figures a year, the women don’t even come close unless they run successful businesses (some do but it’s rare). You’d think that might induce women to stick around, but due to family law it has the opposite effect.

Say you’re a 27-year-old woman who doesn’t have a college degree and your likewise non-degreed husband is a firefighter. Or he could be a railroader, a mariner, heavy equipment operator, cop, etc. The husband is raking in the dough by the time he’s in his thirties, and you’ve got a couple kids with him. You could get a job in an office making $12/hr, but why bother? Your husband is making significantly more than most guys with 4-year degrees, so there’s no point.

This builds up an enormous inequality in income vs. assets due to “community property” laws. What this does is incentivize the seizure of these assets on the part of the partner with less income. Without working a day, you can get a house, half of retirement savings, and enough monthly maintenance and child support to avoid working for years. It’s a very attractive prospect for a lot of young women, who resent being tied down to one man. It’s really like winning the lottery, as the overall payout frequently runs into the mid six figures.

For the degreed woman, on the other hand, there’s the expectation that she’ll be working too, especially because she has good income potential. Therefore there’s far less incentive to make a break for it, because the assets and debts/mortgages – and even child custody – will be split more or less equally because she has a job and an income. In other words, she doesn’t “win” anything. Her victory is as likely as not to be pyrrhic.

This is the true value of a college education for girls in the upper middle class. It essentially makes them marriageable (i.e safe bets) to men who have good income and employment potential. It provides some insurance that she will not fly the coop while the man is still rising in his career, because she knows she stands little to gain from doing so.

It’s all about incentives.

...

The salient aspect of divorce law is that it is empirically overwhelmingly true that divorced women are much, much more likely to see their economic well being fall than men until they remarry, because divorce moves the spouses closer to not equally sharing resources, because women on average earn less than men, and because two households are more expensive than one.

But, on the other hand, the best predictor of divorce is that the wife earns more than the husband and is not financially dependent upon him. From a modeling perspective, the closest match to reality is to view divorce as a decision made almost entirely by wives.

So this suggests that women act against their own and their children’s interests at alarmingly high rates when empowered to do so. Who would have thought?

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Yeah, young whites are already getting out of cities and forming their own communities. Gentrification is too expensive for them, especially if they want to have kids.

Some of them are starting or trying to start intentional communities, and coming up with all sorts of complicated schemes to try to ensure they live with like-minded people.

Personally, I think a lot of them are naive and highly unlikely to succeed, but I sympathize.

The real key to successful communities is not the communes the idealistic ones tend to envision, but rather old fashioned fraternally organized, faith-based communities, AKA patriarchy.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

Once it’s gone, what you call “uniformity” is gone forever. And who could call Korea “uniform” except for someone who has contempt for all distinct cultures? Neither the religion, the people, nor the intellectual heritage of Korea is uniform. But it is “Korean, ” and that still means something.

Would you prefer it’s replaced with some “hodgepodge” as Obama recently called the US? Multiculturalism is drab and ugly in practice. I prefer to see different things in different places, and not just geographical features and plants. The idea of a world in which everyone is some indiscriminate shade and character is a nightmare. I have no idea why some people revel in that. Is it hatred, envy or a twisted aesthetic? I can’t tell.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

There’s no real comparison here. Chinese imperial tests were usually heavily biased culturally to an extent the old SAT never was. There was also affirmative action dating from at least the Yuan dynasty, and not long after that neoconfucianism held a stranglehold on Chinese higher education. In fact, for much of the history of the imperial exams the reality was more like what we have today in the US, where people passed based on their ideological orthodoxy.

I’d bet that Chinese rebels had a far more legitimate grievance than your typical contemporary American gynobot academic placeholder. And anyway, who would care if these upper middle class womyn raised a ruckus? It wouldn’t be the Taiping Rebellion or anything close to it.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Actually, no, I don’t think so. Not so many lesbos row, because it’s an exclusive sport that requires very high physical and psychological “wholesomeness” (genetic fitness in fact). I couldn’t stick with it myself because I don’t have the temperament. However, I will say that during that brief period of my life in which I lived with that extreme discipline I was healthier and got more done every day than I ever had before or since. But honestly it held no appeal aside from the feeling of being in extremely good shape. As someone who had played a lot of skill sports, I felt a certain degree of contempt for the discipline. In retrospect, that explains a lot about my life and personality.

Rowers are among the most stable and “solid” athletes of all, and have an amazing ability to sacrifice for the greater good without complaining (you know what I mean if you’ve ever finished a 2,000 meter race at full throttle — you feel like you’re about to expire toward the end). And what do they get for their effort? A ribbon or medal and the feeling of having been part of a team effort, and little else, and that’s enough for them. None of those hunter/killer rewards you get from striking someone out, putting a ball in the net, slamming a dunk or laying out some chump with a well-placed hit.

Lesbians generally don’t have that psychology. The women I’ve known who were elite rowers were like goddesses in their feminine physicality, and on top of it they were well-behaved and had a naturally holistic, communal and sacrificial attitude. Definitely not lesbian-like.

The only problem with female rowers is that they often end up somewhat beefier than most women, but that’s a relatively minor flaw all things considered. Doesn’t bother me so long as it’s in the right places.

Lesbians tend to excel in sports where the competition is personal and individual. Unlike normal women, lesbians thrill to the kill. And unlike men, they are deceptive by nature. Not a good combination.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

[Quote is two back-to-back comments]

Yes it does. One of the most important factors in resisting a concussion is muscular strength. Same with preventing injury in all sorts of other situations. Of course, there’s a tradeoff with higher mass, because heavier people fall harder and so on, but all else being equal strength absolutely does contribute to durability.

As an example, a young woman in Seattle was recently struck in the head and knocked out cold — by an egg!

I’ve been hit in the face with a line drive, kicked in the head, punched on the skull or in the face a number of times and the only thing that knocked me out was smashing my head into and breaking a car’s windshield in an accident that probably would have killed me if I’d been a woman. For the record, I was pretty strong when these things happened, but not out of the ordinary for a young, physically active guy trained in sports.

Women are much, much weaker than men. If you hit a normal man and a normal woman with equal force, it’s going to hurt the woman a lot more — this is something everyone should know by at least the age of twelve. I refused to play sports with girls past a certain age, because there was just no contest at all, and if I played as I would with a man they’d end up in the hospital.

Another thing that is too often left out of this debate is that men are not just stronger than women, but better in virtually every single measure of physical ability. So if there’s a woman who’s a freak of nature and able to outlift 90% of men, chances are that when compared to other men at her strength level she’ll be lacking in other measures of fitness such as speed, endurance, heat tolerance, agility, etc. When you consider the statistical likelihood of a woman being as good as an elite man at every single one of these measures the idea of a woman being a Navy Seal becomes laughable. I doubt there is one single woman on earth who could perform at the level of the average US elite special forces soldier in all his tasks. And no, trannies don’t count.

...

What a load of bullshit. My uncle’s a former top gun Navy F-14 pilot, and he was highly skeptical of women flying fighter planes from the beginning, so he opposed the clearance of the first female F-14 pilot to fly. His and other pilots’ objections were ignored, and she promptly crashed her plane into the side of an aircraft carrier, killing herself and the rio and destroying millions of dollars of equipment if I recall correctly.

Men don’t have “twisted emotions bouncing around inside [their] heads” — it’s just that they don’t want to have to go to war alongside people who do.

Show post

JSM #sexist unz.com

Gents, let me explain something to you. In 1974, Congress passed and Gerald Ford signed “Equal Credit Opportunity Act.” Supposedly to “stop discriminating against women in getting credit.” “How terrible that a married woman can’t have credit in her own name” blah blah blah. Prior to ECOA, to qualify a married couple for a mortgage, a bank could only consider the husband’s income, because it’s common sense that, even if the wife is working now, when the kids show up, she’ll be a stay at home mom, so we can’t write loans for 30 years for income that won’t continue that long.

So, when Congress (more men than women, you’ll note) in its infinite wisdom of bowing to feminist pressures, decided to make it so that the wife’s income could be considered under ECOA, that very act is what has utterly destroyed the American family.

As my dad (a home builder) pointed out at the time, all this will do is drive up housing prices. Because, since a couple CAN borrow more now, the sellers will demand more money. And, as we see, that’s EXACTLY what’s happened. Such that, nowadays a family can NOT buy a house in most cases unless the wife works too to pay the mortgage.

But, a full time job and full time motherhood are just incompatible. It’s just too hard. And since houses in neighborhoods with “good schools” (i.e., safe, i.e., White) cost so much that the wife has to work to make the payment and since motherhood and full time work are too hard to do at the same time, American women either don’t have kids (cuz they’re NOT gonna put em in bad, i.e., minority, schools) or have to leave kids in daycare, where godknowswhat will happen to them.

So, decry the feminists, by all means. But let’s heap the requisite share of opprobrium upon the MEN in Congress (only 16 of the 535 members of Congress were women in the 93rd Congress) who are, in actual FACT, the ones responsible for the single most destructive act against Affordable Family Formation that’s ever occurred.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

Those are fighting words. The Latin Americans already have citizenship in another country. Most Trump voters do not.

As for this sudden sympathy for families being broken up by courts, geez, I think the democrats should shut up before people start pointing out that they do it to American people all the time. Including totally innocent people who haven’t even been accused of a crime.

Show post

Steve Sailer #fundie unz.com

Oh, yeah, around 1965 a bright young fifth grader named Steve Jobs informed his adoptive parents that he was sick of getting bullied by lowbrow nonwhites at his public school and they must move to a better school district. They scraped together every penny they had and bought a house in Cupertino. There Steve Jobs had a classmate name Wozniak, who had an older brother named Steve Wozniak.

What did Wozniak and Jobs ever do for anybody (other than more or less invent the personal computer)?

Is the world better off with more Detroits where girls outscore boys in math or with more Cupertinos where the Wozniaks and Jobs outscore the girls in math?

Show post

Steve Sailer #fundie unz.com

One reason there are such a microscopic number of blacks at Stuyvesant is because the handful who could ace the test are more likely to accept a $40k per year scholarship to bring diversity to elite private schools like Dalton. You’d be crazy to send your kid to Stuyvesant to hang out with and compete against Asian immigrant grinds if, for the same price, your child could be the Cool Black Friend of the scions of America’s ruling class at a Manhattan prep school that rich white families are desperate to get into.

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Lucky you. I have attraction to adventurous, mercurial types. I have paid dearly for that, but it’s been quite a ride.

I wish I preferred level-headed nice girls, but they bore me, and I don’t treat them as well as I ought to.

But ultimately I think good fatherhood, i.e. benevolent patriarchy, is more important to children’s development than whether or not their mothers are supermoms, which most women are not.

By working to destroy patriarchy, feminists have done more harm to children than anyone else in our society (both meanings of that sentence are true). If people don’t believe me when I say that, I tell them to look up the sexual assault stats for daughters of single moms vs. daughters who live with their bio dads. The figures are very instructive. People who know them should be outraged by feminists and the judges who indulge them.

There are of course scores of other measures that prove my point, but the above may be the most salient to women who might otherwise agree with witches like the lesbian who wrote the WaPo screed (and who actually have a conscience).

Show post

Bill P #sexist unz.com

Women can play all they want in the life sciences and humanities, but there has to a male-only space in these disciplines.

It may be the case that women on the balance have higher verbal skills (although the SAT seems to suggest otherwise), but that doesn’t matter given their deficiencies in other areas, especially objectivity.

There are lots of smart women out there, but they’re often the biggest offenders in academia, and lots of other areas, too. A woman’s higher IQ just makes her a more formidable opponent of reason, which is an enormous drain on one’s time and mental health.

As sympathetic as I am (at times) to bright women, I actually grew up with them and live with them to this day, and it is no bed of roses let me tell you. Sometimes, guys just need a break to think about things. This is how material progress occurs. Without male-only spaces this will not happen.

Women can rail against “the patriarchy” all they want, but its existence only proves that men need safe spaces, too. The destruction of these male organizations and societies goes a long way to explain the precipitous decline in civil society and male achievement.

Charles Murray should explore this angle, but he prefers to pile onto hard-pressed men and praise the great achievements of the women who live in the mediocre, non-productive communities they create and prefer when given the whip hand over the local men.

Show post

Peter Frost #racist unz.com

To some degree, sedentary Amerindians were already "pre-adapted" by their earlier heritage as hunter-gatherers in temperate/sub-Arctic environments (which require planning over a yearly cycle).

It may be significant that the pace of cultural change seems to have been faster in eastern North America than in Mesoamerica, and faster still at the northern end (i.e., among the Iroquois). It looks as if advanced sedentary societies tend to arise at lower latitudes but are then overtaken by faster developing societies at higher latitudes.

This may tie in with the correlation between cranial capacity and latitude, even among Amerindians. Northern hunter-gatherers tend to evolve the highest cranial capacities because hunting distances are longer and require greater storage of spatiotemporal information. When these same hunter-gatherers become sedentary and agricultural, they have more potential for further cultural evolution.

Show post

Thomm #fundie unz.com

Note that there are far more women freebie seekers than man, and that the men are the ones who, for the most part, look like actual Native Americans.

But the fact that white women flock to this type of identity is partly due to the low quality of bottom 20% white men (the WN losers). They are the ones who drive white women into non-white identities.

Show post

Bill P #racist unz.com

A large proportion of what you hear from the left these days would indeed be considered inciting racial hatred if you applied their own standards in an objective way. I can’t even listen to NPR anymore without the feeling that many of the hosts would be happy to have me genocided.

Ultimately, I think that’s what’s going to happen: some group of whites is going to be slaughtered somewhere. Probably in South Africa or some similar area.

Show post

Bill P #racist unz.com

Who does Rothman think is going to do the “wet work” for him this time? At least the Bolsheviks had impressive numbers of Balts, Caucasians and various other tough, smart white ethnics on their side.

What do their equivalents in the US have? Mexicans and blacks? Private school antifa white kids whose fathers would sacrifice a testicle to keep out of harm’s way?

Maybe this explains Masha Gessen’s love of Chechens. But there must be another explanation for her support for bringing in the world’s most murderous white people, right?

These types are why we need to provide both moral and material support to Jews like this guy. [Link to Wikipedia article on Ze'ev Jabotinsky]

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

I support the Mexicans. I got gentrified out of my blue urban neighborhood for knocking up my wife before 30, which you just do not do in Seattle these days. Most of the mothers were older than I was at the local kids’ park, and you should have seen the fathers — they all looked like grandpas.

This rentier urban economy has to stop somewhere. If the hipster SJWs are the ones who have to pay for it, all the better. Let them taste what I had to deal with when I was a little kid dodging rocks and hostile dogs as a little white boy in a crappy urban neighborhood. Maybe they’ll experience a belated awakening.

...

In Seattle, Mexicans have little to nothing to do with it. Jeff Bezos and his minions, OTOH…

So yes, I would fully support Mexicans protesting against Bezos’s pod people. I’d even chip in for signs and tiki torches.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

[Bill Price at his peak "spiritual but not religious"]

As an aside, it gives me some ambivalent feelings about the decline of Christianity in the US. On the one hand, I’m worried about the accompanying shattering of communal norms, but on the other maybe we’ll be free to be ourselves again. But if you think about it, being ourselves might not be such a bowl of cherries if you take the past into account.

Either way, it’s a pleasure to have the historical perspective you offer here. If I could add anything, perhaps in the broader picture sometimes we lose sight of the ancient things hidden in our little communities and families. There’s still witchcraft, magic and the warp and weft of fate pulling us this way and that, and sometimes it seems that all the world is a winter night with only the hearth to illuminate the darkness. Maybe that’s how the Greeks felt as they kept the flame alive at Delphi.

In my mind, at least, it’s a metaphor for the embers of the faith in life itself that characterizes womankind. But you’re right: only a fool would believe it could be absent in a surviving people.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

Being able to not worry about surveillance is a privilege (really a status marker) of sorts, so those who are “paranoid” are signaling lower status. But often they have good reason to be paranoid. Not only – or primarily – because of law enforcement, but also because of the taxman and other assorted busybodies.

There’s a town in the next county inhabited largely by tarheels, who arrived during the Depression for the timber jobs, and they’re notoriously averse to outside attention. I was driving through the backwoods around there a couple weeks ago taking in the beautiful scenery, which in addition to the peaks and glaciers included a mother bear and her cubs and a herd of elk, and I saw some chickens running around in a yard. I remarked to my local friend that those were gamecocks rather than your typical utility chicken, and he informed me that cock fighting was big in the area. I asked whether it was Mexicans, and he said “no, it’s the tarheels.” He added that there were some places those who weren’t from the town knew to avoid, because “if you go in you might not come out.” Later, when I saw a ruined building on a big concrete lot through the woods my friend told me that it had been a mandatory weigh station for logging trucks until someone blew it up with dynamite.

Of course, he added that it’s all changing these days, because everyone’s losing community and local character due to the information age. He sounded as though he preferred the old, paranoid edgy past to the Brave New World growing up around us. I think I do, too.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

This “we’re only hurting Canada!” cry from the left is either disingenuous or stupid. Canada, like the US, is a net steel importer.

So when the Canadians sell us steel, where do you think they make up the deficit in domestic supply? I can tell you:

Chinese steel is shipped directly from Tianjin to the Port of Vancouver. So it doesn’t really matter whether the Canadians are selling us domestically produced steel (probably produced from Chinese import billet anyway) or simply turning the Chinese produced steel over and selling it directly to US consumers. They are effectively middlemen in either case, and middlemen we certainly don’t need.

Because of this kind of practice, the 25% tariff has to be across the board.

It’s sad for me here in the Pac. NW just a short drive from Vancouver to see trainloads of raw materials heading north to Canadian ports to be shipped to China, only to see them returning as value added products like steel and finished lumber. We aren’t even getting the benefit of the port jobs that handle the coal — it all goes up to Roberts Bank near the Tsawassen ferry terminal, less than a mile north of the border. Americans are really getting screwed by these deals, and what do we get in return? Overvalued tech companies that offer us lousy entertainment and “social media” at the expense of our privacy and real communities.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

Part of our problem regarding human rights is that the Christian concept of the community has been debased.

I have become convinced that freedom of religion was, in its time, considered sufficient for ensuring communal freedom in the United States. To British settlers and early Americans, the church was the community. I don’t think anyone who knows American history can honestly argue against that point. However, in recent times this fact of American life, which was always taken for granted until only a few decades ago, has been largely eradicated.

Thus we are left only with individual rights, which are inconsequential to an organization with a monopoly on force, e.g. the ATF and FBI in 1993 during the Waco siege.

When Christians no longer have the right to form their own communities according to their own principles, they are rendered impotent and defenseless.

Freedom of religion is essential in that there is ultimately no rational basis for human rights or liberty. As was made clear in the founding documents of the United States, our rights are God-given, and not subject to repeal based on sophistry or the declamations of prophet killers or would-be deicides.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

I can guarantee you that this cable is only one of many – hundreds if not thousands – along these lines, so the effect from this particular one is not that important as it’s simply a part of a larger concerted effort.

The effect of this effort is pretty much the same as it is here in the US when these people organize to get what they want. First, they start hectoring people through their various forms of leverage, and in the beginning the people resist a bit, but through persistence you eventually arrive at little liberal power centers staffed by utter degenerates, moral midgets, misfits and assorted others who detest the native population.

After some time you have a budding San Francisco in some place like Prague or Riga, and the poor rubes never know what hit them.

It’s not really so great for America, because while we gain some allies among the muck, it makes us look kind of disgusting to the natives, much as big city liberal politicians tend to disgust flyover Americans.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

US State dept. bullying of Eastern Europeans – particularly compliant, obedient ones like Estonians and Latvians – was commonplace during the Bush and Obama regimes. They pushed homosexuality, diversity, tolerance — all the usual stuff. This included upbraiding the natives for not being nice enough to the Russians who invaded them in the 40s.

The US embassy even went to the trouble of helping organize gay pride marches in these countries.

Also, ambassadors typically hailed from a particular ethnic group that doesn’t happen to like Eastern Europeans very much. It’s pretty amazing the amount of abuse these people put up with from State, but perhaps that’s the point of power: you use it when and where you can.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

[Bolding added, when you hate fat people so much that you consider it a mark against feeding the poor]

Sorry Bill. Not quite right. The 10% tithing does not go towards welfare at all.
The welfare program comes from a system we have where we are expected to fast for two meals a month, and pool that money to help the poor. Unlike taxes, we literally sacrifice our meals to feed others. The recipients of this assistance know that they are quite literally having others go hungry to help them out. While there are still abusers and freeloaders, of course, I think this cuts down substantially on the sense of entitlement I often see in tax-based government welfare programs.

Don’t get me wrong though — there is no public shaming or the like in the program. The congregation is unaware of who is receiving the funds, aside from a couple of trusted volunteers that are in the know in administrating the funds (which are fully audited as well, of course, to prevent abuses).

The program works quite well, and my son once did an analysis of data on hunger in the US that indicated that if this “skip two meals once a month to help others” program were deployed nationally, it could end hunger in the US.

Thanks for the info. So there’s actually a separate “tax” beyond the 10% tithing, which comes out to roughly what? I know Mormons know how to eat on the cheap (so do I; I have been known to visit the bulk aisles at Winco from time to time), so the cost of two meals could vary considerably.

Also, what about the hard cases? Say you have someone who just sleeps in until noon every day, spends the rest on social media and blows her child support check on frivolous entertainment and sexy clothes, yet still has an pharaonic sense of entitlement. This is actually a pretty common profile, BTW. How do you deal with her?

As to your son’s idea, I’m sure he’s correct. Skipping two meals a month would more than eliminate hunger in the US. However, it would have another less desirable consequence: it would exacerbate the class difference in obesity rates by making the middle class and above thinner while making the underclass even fatter.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

It’s really quite simple:

Mormon welfare (among other expenses) is paid for with a 10% flat tax on earnings (tithing). It is also administered by elders who apply Mormon moral tests to recipients.

You don’t get much welfare for being a single mother whose baby-daddy is in prison for gang-related activities. Nor do you get it for being an adulteress, a layabout or an addict.

Therefore, Mormons who have it together can afford more kids, even if they are working class. Since having it together is correlated with rational decisionmaking ability, it is correlated with IQ.

Traditional Christianity used to be the same. The New Testament makes it clear that if you don’t behave yourself, do your fair share of work and make the right choices you’re out of the community.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

This isn’t just a problem in politics. Look at media and academia, where there has been a concerted effort to marginalize straight white males of Christian heritage born after 1965 or so since at least the late 80s.

The only younger white guys who make it big now are sycophants like Ross Douthat and Rod Dreher or sociopaths who hate their own kind like Kevin Williamson. The rest of us have been banished from the “conversation.”

On the positive side, this creates an enormous vacuum that can and will be filled by those with a decidedly different agenda. Unfortunately, it’s going to be a big struggle for most of us to find the time and funds to make ourselves heard, but we’ll get there eventually.

Show post

Bill P #fundie unz.com

Mormons have a flat tax that provides community welfare. Obviously, those with more resources can afford more children. If the welfare is distributed on moral grounds, as I suspect it is, as opposed to pure “need” (e.g. single mothers, adulteresses, addicts, criminals, etc.) then it would be all the more eugenic.

Traditional Christianity is highly eugenic as well, but this element has been eliminated by progressives, who demand Marxist forms of redistribution that fail to take moral behavior into account.

I live in a working class white region with lots of Mormons. Mormons are, by origin, working class whites. Their religion and social hierarchy are cleverly designed to improve the station and quality of working class people, and I’ve seen it work in real time. However, their unfortunate prohibitions and the science fiction origins of the religion are a bit of an impediment to conversion, to put it mildly.