RSS
In the comment section responding to my essay “Hooking Up,” I found a reference to an article called “All the Single Ladies” by journalist Rob Henderson. I am grateful—it is a fascinating piece for any observer of the contemporary sexual scene. The gist is that women in the world of higher education are having extreme difficulty finding suitable mates due to their numerical predominance on campuses. Just as my own writings have described, a situation has developed where too many women are chasing too few men. But Henderson’s article will find more favor with many readers since it expresses strong sympathy for the ladies’ predicament—and perhaps not so much for the men. A deflater of female pretentions must swim against a strong current originating in the male protective instinct. Skeptical as my observation of female behavior have made me, however, I do not actually enjoy seeing women lonely and miserable. The coeds described in Henderson’s article have never done me any harm, and I would like to help a few of them understand the situation in which they find themselves. That situation has been a long time in the making, however, and clarifying it will require a somewhat lengthy argument.
Henderson’s Article
Let us begin with a brief summary of the main points Henderson makes in “All the Single Ladies.” He begins by noting that “women, on average, prefer educated men.” Two of the strongest predictors of how many responses a man’s online dating profile receives are years of formal education and income. A controlled experiment holding all other factors constant found that women were 91 percent more likely to hit the “like” button for a man with a master’s degree than a bachelor’s. In that minority of marriages where the wife has enjoyed more formal education than her husband, the husband almost always (93 percent of the time) earns more money. If a man trails a woman in both education and income, his chances of finding acceptance from her approach zero. Men looking for a woman, on the other hand, care far less about either education or real or potential earnings.
From the point of view of economic rationality, a highly credentialed, high-earning woman should have less need of finding those same traits in a husband. But women’s sexual instinct does not obey the principle of economic rationality: the more a woman has achieved herself, the greater the stress she places on finding a mate of higher achievement still. This means, of course, that the dramatic expansion in academic and professional opportunities for women in recent decades has led to proportionately massive female loneliness and sexual frustration.
There are 5.5 million college-educated women between the ages of 22 and 29 in America today vs. only 4.1 million men. That translates into four women for every three men in this dating pool, or an excess of 1.4 million women. The resulting competition for scarce men leads to bad behavior among the men on campus, who find themselves able to pursue short-term relationships and sexual variety. Women at institutions of higher education will often engage in sex with such men simply for the chance to be in their company, but they do not necessarily enjoy it very much. Indeed, in what may sound like a paradox, women actually have more sex rather than less in environments where they outnumber men: it just tends to be lousy sex.
On STEM-heavy campuses like Caltech men still outnumber women and continue to court them by seeking to demonstrate commitment. But such campuses are getting rarer. A girl from heavily female-dominant Sarah Lawrence College is quoted as saying: “One of my friends was dumped by a guy after they’d been hooking up for less than a week. When he broke up with her, the guy actually used the word ‘market’—like the ‘market’ for him was just too good.”
This is, of course, the sort of thing that drives the editors at Chronicles into a frenzy. But women press their advantage in the battle of the sexes just as strongly as men wherever conditions permit. It is not a matter of these men being fiends: a whole system of perverse incentives has somehow arisen, and correcting it is going to require more than simply denouncing or punishing men. Indeed, traditional morality placed less emphasis on exhorting men not to accept sex in such situations than on commanding women not to provide it. That Sarah Lawrence coed simply learned the hard way why this used to be done.
Feminism is big on campuses where women outnumber men. The men cannot be relied on, so women respond by trying to become “strong and independent,” as the cliché runs: in Henderson’s words, they seek to “reduce their social, economic and political dependence on men.” In societies with an excess of men, on the other hand, the men are more interested in trying to adapt themselves to women. The men are dependable, so women depend on them. The author does note one supposed drawback, however: “women in such societies were more likely to be cast in stereotypical gender roles.”
Later in the article, the author broadens his scope from the campus to the wider society. Here there exists no shortage of men: as of 2022, there were 1.048 boys born for every girl in the United States. As parents used to assure their romantically forlorn offspring: “For every girl there is a boy.” Off campus we find plenty of unattached young men; the difficulty is that the frustrated coeds described above would never consider them as possible mates due to their lack of education or earning power. What are these young men doing with themselves?
Most are working, of course. But unfortunately, a growing number are unemployed or underemployed: “among never-married adults, for every 100 women, there are only 84 employed men. If all employed men were suddenly taken, every sixth woman would be partner-less.” And what do young men who are neither working nor in higher education do with their abundant free time? Mostly, they play video games. To a lesser but still worrisome extent, they view pornography. Average hours worked by men aged 21-30 declined by 12 percent between 2000 and 2015, and leisure increased proportionally. Around 75 percent of this leisure time is accounted for by gaming, which has become very big business. Young men are naturally interested in fighting and sex. Video games give them a risk-free virtual experience of combat, and can even provide a sense of accomplishment as players gradually improve their skills (although the skills are of little value outside the games themselves). And of course, porn offers fake sex. Both provide phony satisfaction of needs men have inherited from our evolutionary past, and so can be highly addictive for men with little else to do. Surveys of self-reported happiness indicate that at least when they are younger, these men are fairly content. As Henderson cautiously notes, however, such substitutes are unlikely to carry them through life.
So we have some college men gaining status and gathering harems while many noncollege men must console themselves with fake fighting and fake sex. “All the Single Ladies” closes by making a point I have been hammering away at for nearly twenty years now:
In a deregulated market, power laws dominate. At no point in history have all men in a given society been equally desirable. Today, though, the disparity between men is particularly pronounced. And the gap shows no sign of slowing or closing.
The reader of my recent essay “Hooking Up” will see that this description of contemporary sexual dysfunction partially overlaps with my own. The main differences are that I talk about what happens on campus, stressing the hierarchy of attractiveness (which for men includes status), whereas Henderson emphasizes campus sex ratios and the status and behavioral contrasts between men on and off campus.
My Response Part One: The Corruption of the Educational Status Hierarchy
As I see it, the major flaw in Henderson’s portrait of contemporary sexual mores is his disregard of a drastic equivocation contained in the term “education”—one with a strong bearing on its relation to status, and hence men’s sexual attractiveness. I understand education to refer primarily to three sorts of things: 1) the acquisition of knowledge and skills, 2) the training and sharpening of the mind both for its own sake and for the pursuit of external ends, and 3) the transmission of a cultural patrimony to the rising generation of a specific people.
Education involves these goals at all levels, from the primary instruction offered to all normal children to the higher education traditionally provided only to the most promising young adults. The shift in the content of education from the primary to the tertiary level can be explained not only by the natural growth of the human mind as it approaches adulthood but also partly in terms of psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Human beings’ most basic needs are physiological: food, warmth, sleep, and the like. When these have been satisfied, people go on to seek safety, then relations with their fellow human beings, then esteem and a sense of accomplishment. Once they have satisfied all these needs, they can concern themselves with higher yet more nebulous ambitions such as creativity, reaching one’s full potential, or self-actualization. Maslow’s hierarchy runs from needs that are urgent for all men yet concrete and well-defined, to immaterial and vague goals that are not particularly urgent for most of us most of the time. It is often represented as a pyramid, with a broad base gradually narrowing as one moves toward the upper levels. In healthy societies, the very peak of Maslow’s pyramid is so small that it is possible to name many of the men occupying it: names like Goethe, Pascal, Da Vinci, Leibniz, and Mozart.
Higher education is an elite enterprise concerned mainly with matters fairly high up Maslow’s pyramid, though the men occupied with it are not normally those at the very top. The character and quality of the higher education a nation provides for its young elites says much about it and is one of the best measures of its advancement.
We inhabitants of the West are living through a late phase of our culture, in a society gone flabby from prolonged prosperity. A leading characteristic of such phases is that Maslow’s pyramid becomes top-heavy: too many people are working on self-realization and not enough are growing turnips. Everyone forgets about the necessities of life to focus on luxuries. This results in an evolutionary mismatch. We are adapted to an environment where most people spend most of their time securing basic needs, and relatively little on creativity and trying to reach their full potential. When large numbers of people naturally suited to growing food and providing security are drafted into the world of higher education instead, strange things start to happen there, and the nature of education itself is inevitably and profoundly altered.
How does this process operate? The philosopher Alisdair MacIntyre once drew a contrast between practices and institutions: practices are forms of human activity that provide social benefits, and institutions are human organizations created to foster, protect, and perpetuate such practices. For example, medicine is a practice which combats illness, thus extending and improving human lives. But medical practice would be unable to flourish for long without being embodied in institutions: primarily hospitals, but also including research laboratories, medical schools, etc.
The point at which MacIntyre was driving is that there exist ends or goods proper to practices themselves and ends proper to the institutions established to foster the practices—and these two sets of ends are not identical. They may even conflict. For example, the end pursued by the practice of medicine is the combatting of illness. Hospitals are set up to foster this practice. Yet those in charge of hospitals eventually and almost inevitably start making decisions with a view not so much to the quality of medicine being practiced there as to what is good for the hospital itself. Marble flooring might be installed, e.g., or a public relations campaign staged to increase institutional prestige and attract external funding—but without necessarily contributing anything to the curing of patients.
Many examples could be cited of how what is good for institutions may be given priority over the needs of the practices they were established to foster, but the principle aim of institutions considered as such is usually growth. The bigger the hospital becomes, the more people it can employ and the greater the rewards available to them. Examples of absurdly unjustified institutional growth are easy to find. Here is just one: in 1914, fewer than 4400 men administered the Royal British Navy, the largest in the world; by 1967, over 33,000 men were being paid to administer a Navy that had largely ceased to exist. This did nothing for British Naval power, obviously, but it benefited the administrators themselves.
Education is obviously an important human practice in the sense intended by MacIntyre. The goods or ends it pursues are mainly the three already stated: the acquisition of knowledge, the improvement of the mind, and the transmission of a cultural patrimony. The great European universities were established during the Middle Ages as places where a few men could cultivate rational debate, be trained in canon law, and study the works of Aristotle. The first scholars often literally did not have a roof to protect them from the rain. Gradually, universities acquired better physical endowments, but for centuries academic life remained the preserve of a small minority. In early America one had to demonstrate mastery of Greek and Latin before being admitted to a college. As late as 1910, only six percent of Americans graduated from secondary school, to say nothing of higher studies.
The first seven decades of the twentieth century witnessed reckless, headlong growth in educational institutions. This required drawing in students ever lower down the hierarchy of natural gifts. First attendance and then completion of secondary school became nearly universal. Then, following the Second World War and the GI Bill, tertiary institutions simply exploded. By 1975, 27 percent of men and 22.5 percent of women were earning bachelor’s degrees (up from 7.5 percent and 5 percent respectively on the eve of the war).
Enrollment plateaued soon after because a minimum IQ of about 115 was still considered necessary for a young person to derive much benefit from a college education. But even that weak standard has been eroding in recent years. A recent meta-analysis found that while the average American undergraduate in 1960 had an IQ of 120, the figure has now sunk to 102, equal to that of the average white American. There is no longer anything “higher” about higher education. Obviously, instruction has had to shift accordingly. As the late columnist Joe Sobran famously quipped: “In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high schools to teaching Remedial English in college.”
Worthwhile learning has been replaced in part by frivolous classes in basket weaving, but often the new substitutes are worse than any frivolity: the students are indoctrinated in pernicious ideological fixations such as antiracism, feminism, post-colonial theory, etc. A powerful factor favoring this shift is precisely the lower intelligence of undergraduates. The ideological courses are far simpler in content that genuine academic study and almost impossible to do badly in unless a student is reckless enough to dispute the ideas presented. Why should a mediocre student risk his grade point average trying to master formal logic, particle physics, or the history of the Protestant Reformation when he can take oppression studies and get an easy “A”?
The scholarship produced by academics has gone through a similar change. This may have begun in schools of education, where young doctoral candidates have long occupied themselves with such weighty matters as the best way to arrange tables and chairs in an elementary school lunch cafeteria. But the nonsense has spread throughout the humanities and social sciences, and is now threatening STEM education.
Evolutionary psychologist Ed Dutton recently did a short video on a completely unremarkable young female academic who just received a doctorate from Cambridge University with a dissertation entitled Olfactory Ethics: The Politics of Smell in Modern and Contemporary Prose. According to Dutton, the
thesis shows how literature registers the importance of olfactory discourse, the language of smell and the olfactory imagination it creates, in structuring our social world. The broad aim is to offer an intersectional and wide-ranging study of olfactory oppression.
Essentially, what the young lady did was read some feminist novels by Virginia Woolf, note all the passages referring to odors, and then fit them into a ready-made interpretive scheme built around the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.
I have not read her dissertation, so it is just possible I am being unfair—although I doubt it. It hardly matters, however, for I only mention this young woman as a convenient example. Whatever the qualities of her work, most academic dissertations are now every bit as pointless and absurd as what I have just described. This particular thesis achieved notoriety only because the author bragged about her accomplishment online and was met with gales of scorn from the general public. Dutton claims that hers is far from the worst dissertation he has heard about. For comparison he mentions Dr. Desiree Odom’s A Multiple Marginalized Intersectional Black Lesbian Leader: A Critical Feminist Autoethnographic Narrative. In plain English, this woman wrote a doctoral thesis on herself.
Some legitimate and worthwhile learning and scholarship still goes on within universities, but it is under threat due to a kind of Gresham’s Law of the intellect whereby bad scholarship drives out good. In sum, the utopian attempt to extend the benefits of higher education to the general public has led to a catastrophic decline in the practice of education itself. And we must bear in mind that the very attempt was only made possible by the unexampled material prosperity of America and other Western nations, i.e., their success at securing the more urgent needs farther down Maslow’s pyramid.
My Response Part Two: The Effect of Corrupt Status Hierarchies on Female Hypergamy
I could go on at much greater length denouncing the absurd, grotesque, surreal levels of corruption plaguing Western institutions of higher learning, but I bite my tongue to return to the point from which we set out, viz., Rob Henderson’s article “All the Single Ladies” and its touching portrayal of the loneliness of contemporary women who cannot find sufficiently educated men.
These sound like extraordinary ladies, and quite unlike any I ever knew or dated. Do they find men’s stock of knowledge and ideas insufficient to stimulate their own constantly buzzing intellects? Have male minds not been honed to enough razor sharpness to spot logical fallacies a mile off? Do the lady’s suitors have an insufficient appreciation of the fundamental principles upon which Western Civilization is based? Might an ability to parse Cicero help? How about solving differential equations, or explaining competing theories about why the industrial revolution occurred at the place and time it did? The poor fellows are certainly going to have to bone up before they can hope to become worthy of such exalted female minds!
Coming back down to earth, it is obvious Henderson is using the term “education” not in its proper sense—relating to the genuine practice of higher education—but with exclusive reference to contemporary institutions of “education.” And these are scandalously corrupt. The young women are “educated” only in the sense that they have demonstrated proficiency at negotiating a credentialing process that serves to protect a status hierarchy that has lost all mooring to the practice of higher education universities were originally meant to foster and promote. Those best able to rise within such a hierarchy turn out to be idle young women adept at chattering about olfactory oppression. (Competent women scholars obviously exist, but any survey of the contemporary academy would surely reveal that the remaining serious scholars are disproportionately male while the fakes are disproportionately female.)
Most of the noncollege young men these women despise—the 84 percent who are employed, in any case—do not engage in such chatter because they are too busy fixing leaks, delivering cargo on time, stringing electrical wire, repairing engines, hurrying to accident sites, putting out fires, preventing dusky barbarians from cutting our throats, bringing life-sustaining foods to market, and generally keeping the world around us running. They are operating competently toward the lower end of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as most men have had to do throughout history. And they are the only reason Western Civilization has not already collapsed entirely. The travesties of scholarship produced within the contemporary academy, by contrast, never benefit anyone apart from the mandarins who produce them. It is simply obvious that an electrician, carpenter, or auto mechanic is more valuable to the world than an olfactory racism “scholar.”
Why are women more successful than men at climbing today’s corrupt academic status ladder? In considerable part for the same reason they are better at knitting sweaters: they have a higher tolerance for monotonous, repetitive work of a sedentary kind. To spend his peak physical years culling examples of olfactory racism from the novels of Virginia Woolf and then—worse—to compose a long, formal dissertation on the subject would amount to positive torture for many young men, something I think does our sex credit. I myself had difficulty with restlessness in graduate school, which I dealt with through long walks and other physical exercise. I kept slogging away at the academic task because I was fascinated by big, serious, consequential philosophical ideas. But I could never have done the same for the sake of most of what gets “studied” in the contemporary academy.
Dutton mentions the probability that our newly minted olfactory racism scholarette has received public funding. Again, the particular case hardly matters—the point is that most young women in the academy benefit from such funding. This means working men have had a portion of their earnings confiscated to allow her to peruse Virgina Woolf novels and grind out empty verbiage about oppression. It is a crying injustice that should not be tolerated one minute longer. Yet in return for such support, the young lady looks down her snout at the men funding her! They are simply not “educated” enough to be worthy of her consideration.
What explains such women’s limitless faith in the objective validity of academic credentials? In part, their own mediocre intelligence and the limits precisely of their education in the authentic sense. Learning and acquired mental acuity are goods difficult to appreciate except by those who already have them in significant measure themselves. It is hard to judge uphill on education because people by definition cannot know what they do not know. Dull and untrained minds cannot have a proper sense of what they are lacking. All they can judge by is externalities—such as academic credentials. Any fool can see a degree hanging on someone’s wall in a way he cannot so easily see the benefit a gifted mind has derived from, for example, extended immersion in the Latin classics. Hence we find women in the tragicomic situation Henderson describes: lonely and miserable even as they reject legions of men on the basis of meaningless credentials. And we are asked to believe they do so because they value education. I feel myself crashing into the limits of the English language’s capacity for expressing contempt.
The relation of the genuine life of the mind to today’s corrupt academy might be illuminated by comparison with the ancient Christian doctrine of the church invisible. Christians believe the church derives from God himself, yet this presents an obvious problem. God is perfect, while the church is made up entirely of imperfect, sinful men (wise theologians admit that ecclesia semper reformanda – “the church is always in need of reform”). The explanation of this apparent paradox is found in the distinction between the church visible and the church invisible. Normally when men refer to the church, they have the everyday, visible church in mind. But this human institution is less important than the true, invisible church responsible for the work of salvation, and whose composition is known to God alone. The invisible church somehow exists within the visible, but is never identical to it. Obviously, the decay of genuine learning within a corrupt academy is analogous to a near-throttling of the invisible church by the visible.
If you give an uneducated (in the proper sense) person an educational credential, he—or more to the point, she—will accept it unquestioningly as a proof of her own real accomplishment. Dutton reports that the young olfactory racism expert weathered the storm of public scorn directed at her successfully. He even quotes her as saying, “I’m fine, I’m quite pleased that I’ve upset these basement-dwelling incels.” It does not occur to her that the incels may only be incels because thousands of academic spinsters like herself are ludicrously deluded as to the value of their own attainments.
In short, the corruption of our educational institutions has produced a status-mirage that women are unable to see through, one which condemns both themselves and men to childlessness—though not necessarily depriving the women of polygynous sex with men above them in the outward status hierarchy.
In addition to the mediocrity of their minds and the modesty of their attainments, women in the academy may have difficulty seeing through the corrupt status hierarchies in which they are enmeshed simply because they are women. As I wrote in a recent essay, the sex generally consists of “impressionable conformists with a powerful need for social approval.” Status hierarchies are produced by men, as Napoleon knew (“Les femmes n’ont pas de rang”). Women rarely consider them critically; they accept them as given, and all their instincts concerning the “attractiveness” of men operate downstream from there. If a society is healthy, its status hierarchy embodies sound values, and female hypergamy functions as a spur to worthwhile male achievement. If a society is sick—we get what we see in Henderson’s article.
A Valuable Historical and Literary Parallel
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote a wonderful story reflecting how an impressionable female mind functions within a different sick society marked by an equally distorted educational status hierarchy: early Soviet Russia. It is called Nastenka, and can be found in English translation in the collection Apricot Jam (the relevant narrative begins on p. 91). The story presents numerous suggestive analogies with the decadence and corruption of the contemporary West as described in this essay. Let us have a look.
Just before the revolution, Nastenka enrolls in “a classical high school, one of the best in Moscow.” It survives unchanged well into the 1920s because at that period the Bolsheviks have more pressing matters than educational policy to worry about. The young heroine becomes fascinated with the imaginative literature of the nineteenth century. “It was an entire, enormous, organic world, more vivid than the reality that flowed around her.” At first, she simply enjoys the direct experience of reading, but gradually her teacher, a cultivated lady who received her education under the old regime, reveals to her the possibility of going deeper:
She learned to look at books in a new way—not just to live with the characters, but to live constantly with the author. How did he regard his characters? Was he the sole master of their lives, or where they independent of them? How did he organize this scene or that, and what words and phrases did he use in doing so?
Gradually Nastenka conceives the ambition of sharing her love of literature with the rising generation by becoming a teacher.
At age sixteen, one year before graduation, her family moves and she is thrust into an unfamiliar environment. At her new school “she couldn’t recognize the literature of the past in what was now being laid out before her in lectures.”
Though they did acknowledge, in passing, the musicality of Pushkin’s poetry (but never mentioned the transparent clarity of his perception of the world), they insistently pointed out that he expressed the mindset and ideology of the mid-level landowners during the incipient crisis of Russian feudalism. [The playwright] Ostrovsky reflected the decay of the feudal, serf-owning system and its displacement by developing industrial capitalism.
Nastenka pores over the new Soviet literature textbook produced by some communist ideologue named Kogan, where she learns how “all these Onegins and Bolkonskys” (characters in Pushkin and Tolstoy respectively) are our class enemies. She quietly thinks: “That may be so, yet they certainly knew how to love in those days!” But she cannot bring herself to question the overall validity of what she is being taught: “There was no way to maintain a sustained argument against Kogan. He couldn’t have constructed all these many things on utter nonsense. Surely there was a genuine historical and social basis for them? . . . Surely they weren’t built on thin air?” She begins to feel a mixture of confusion and boredom that contrasts sharply with the enthusiasm for literature that initially inspired her choice of career.
Her boredom vanishes temporarily when she meets a charismatic young man named Shurik, overflowing with ideas that he expresses with extreme confidence. As we all know, women love confident men: “How did Shurik know all these things? When had he found the time to soak it all up?” The reader quickly perceives—although Nastenka herself never does—the reason for Shurik’s self-assurance. He is a communist militant who follows the party line unswervingly. He knows exactly what he is supposed to say about everything under the sun. Nastenka drinks up his every word, and a romance begins. But soon he is pressing her to consummate the relationship, and something inside her tells her that, at the very least, it is not yet time. Concerning early Soviet manhood in general, she reflects: “None of them could understand the slow, gradual development of feelings.”
So Shurik breaks off with her and demonstratively ignores her for the rest of the time they are in class together. Soon he is called to Moscow and a no doubt successful rise within the official status hierarchy of the Soviet literary world. Nastenka is left broken-hearted. The reader understands—as she herself does not—that she has barely avoided a spiritual landmine.
Time passes and Nastenka, now addressed at Anastasia Dmitrievna, is put in charge of a class: “At long last, her dream had come true [and] she could pour into [her students’] heads all the things she had preserved from this great and good literature” (as well as “make sure these little boys become decent men, not like the ones today”).
One day she is handed a new literature textbook meant to guide her own teaching. In it a major Soviet author is quoted as stating: “It is entirely natural that workers’ and peasants’ power is crushing its enemies like lice.” She wonders, “How could you possibly present that to the children?” Yet this writer is “a Russian classic, and an authority respected across the globe, so how could your wretched little mind challenge him?”
By this time the Soviet curriculum is tightly controlled. She makes the best of things, teaching “all these production and Five-Year Plan works with the same dedication that she felt to her own sacred cause of literature.” On her own time, however, she organizes an after-school literary circle for a dozen or so of her best students where she “takes them through the best of the nineteenth century, things that weren’t included on the syllabus.” But word gets out and she is ordered to stop. “Enough harping on the classics! It distracts the students from life.”
Nastenka’s fate is the tragedy of a promising young female mind stunted due to an inability to trust its own healthy instincts and question what it receives from a corrupt authority. She senses the gulf separating the great literature she learned to love in her youth from the Marxist rubbish she is forced to impart, but never breaks through to clear insight about her situation. Perhaps most fascinatingly, she dimly perceives that this cultural decline bears some relation to the contrast between the men of her own time who insist on getting straight down to business with women and the Onegins and Bolkonskys who “certainly knew how to love in those days.”
So in general, as I said, women accept the authorities and status hierarchies that they find in place. This is probably because authority and status are essentially male concerns. Les femmes n’ont pas de rang—women are never going to tear down corrupt hierarchies for us, nor is it reasonable for men to blame them for being as nature made them. Their sexual instincts will function properly again once we have replaced rotten hierarchies with sound ones in better accord with the nature of things and a proper sense of values. When we do, we shall never again have female olfactory racism scholarettes turning up their noses at hardworking men.
What, Then, Must We Do?
Some years ago I came across an amusing article about a fire breaking out in an office building. What was amusing was the reaction of the female employees. Firemen, as everyone knows, do not enjoy the very highest status within our society, despite the dangerous and life-saving nature of their work. But every dog has its day, and even firemen come into their own when a fire breaks out. Under such circumstances, there is no time for discussion or persuasion. Everyone who knows what’s good for him must do exactly as the firemen direct, including the corporate CEO. You do not give firemen any backtalk while a fire is raging. For a brief moment, they are at the top of the status hierarchy.
Well, these corporate “career girls” were practically swooning. Once out of the building and in safety, they began marveling to one another how manly those guys were. This was virility the likes of which they had never known. It was the first time in their whole lonely, miserable lives that any man had put them in their place, and they were simply beside themselves. It was better than Love’s Sweet Fury.
It would be interesting to know whether any of these women went on the internet afterwards to seek dates with firemen. I doubt it. Most firemen are not terribly “educated,” and often earn less than the ass-sitting female paper-pushers they rescue. Perhaps if women had to spend several post-pubertal years being continually rescued from burning buildings, we could foster a baby-boom. Instead, of course, America’s fire departments are busy replacing firemen with firewomen. (When a large part of Los Angeles recently burned down, it emerged that the three persons in charge of the fire department were all lesbians.) So those rescued women probably went back to their sterile lives as soon as the building reopened. What a pity.
So what can we do? It is tempting to say we must raise the status of young men. But the solution to the problem described in Henderson’s article is surely not for policemen, farmers, and plumbers to get post-doctoral fellowships in feminist theory. If we cannot make female hypergamy function correctly once again by raising the status of men, all that remains is . . . to lower that of women. In effect, this is what briefly occurred in that burning office building. And the women just loved it.
Feminists, like broken clocks giving the right time twice a day, have described how women under “patriarchy” eroticize and derive pleasure from their own oppression, meaning their exclusion from the male status hierarchy. They are correct. The reader who wishes to observe how women might be made happier once men finally work up the gumption to deprive them of status is advised to watch my favorite Italian movie, Swept Away (1974; avoid Madonna’s 2002 remake). It was made by a woman—and could only have been made by a woman. Meanwhile, clueless male traditionalists offer nothing but laments that women are no longer being placed upon sufficiently high pedestals, unaware that their excessively elevated status is now the principal factor in their loneliness and sexual frustration. Watch the movie!
Sex is not simply something that happens in people’s bedrooms. It structures the whole of society. Societies that are badly out of order sexually, as ours is, can expect to experience sexual dysfunction and a potentially catastrophic decline in fertility. Women need men’s love, but to get it they need to respect men. (For men to respect women is also nice, but not as essential—although discussed ad nauseam.) Women have traded love for status, a properly male concern, and they are deeply unhappy. This is because they are not getting the love they need, neither from the men above them in the status hierarchy who can go from hookup to hookup nor, even more obviously, from the lower-status men their inborn instincts virtually compel them to reject. And it does not matter that these men are not actually unworthy of them. For women, all that matters is the outward status hierarchy.
Another point to consider: Henderson asks only how the ladies might find worthy men, not how men might find worthy wives. But what would the average academic spinster really have to offer a man who must go out every day and accomplish challenging tasks in the real world? She probably cannot cook, since grad students live on frozen entrees and takeout. Can she clean, decorate, grow a vegetable garden, or do anything else that might make his home a comforting and pleasant place? Assembling snippets from Virginia Woolf just doesn’t cut it.
So far I have spoken only of the 84 percent of non-college men who are employed. Henderson himself passes rapidly over this larger group to discuss the 16 percent who are stuck playing video games and watching pornography. Obviously, their long-term happiness and self-respect as well as the good of society demands that some useful work be found for them to perform. Fortunately, there is always valuable work to be done in this world; it is just a matter of suiting the tasks to the men. But this is a complex economic problem I have no special qualifications for addressing. One thing I would not recommend most of these young men do is enroll in college, where they can expect to be demeaned and resented. Leave the campuses to the purple-haired women’s studies majors who organize slut marches.
Proper employment will take care of most of the video game addiction from which these young men suffer. There remains the question of pornography. Being by temperament more analyst than moralist, I have been reluctant to address this question. Moreover, I long assumed that even a fairly mediocre woman could be counted upon to win out over lifeless images in the heart of any normal young man. I am no longer so sure.
Let us look at just a few of the advantages pornography enjoys from the point of view of Henderson’s unemployed and underemployed young men:
- Pornography cannot divorce them and clean out their bank accounts with the armed backing of the state.
- While porn cannot give them children, it also cannot take their children away from them. Pornography has never denounced any man to Child Protective Services as an abuser.
- Pornography does not despise any man for having failed to earn an academic credential in oppression studies, does not call his masculinity “toxic,” does not condemn him for the natural sexual urges he cannot help: in sum, does not indulge in the endless litany of complaints about men heard from contemporary women.
- Porn is cheap. Wives cost a lot of money, especially when they are carrying and nursing babies, whereas making porn requires only a camera and a slut. Not being a capital-intensive industry, the end user can find a nearly limitless ocean of it online for free.
- Perhaps not least important, you do not actually have to pay attention to pornography. If forced to choose between keeping either porn or a pretentious female racism “scholar” under my roof, I would unhesitatingly choose the porn since I could always stuff it in a drawer and ignore it—something that cannot be done with a woman.
I can only conclude that these young men are behaving rationally in preferring pornography to the available women. If I were God or possessed a magic wand, I would (after finding them gainful employment) provide these men with sweet, loving, grateful young wives capable of creating homes for them and bearing and rearing decent children. But I am not hiding any stash of such women from anyone. I really do not know where they are to be found. If someone were able to solve this problem, I suspect the plague of pornography would largely take care of itself. Any eventual legislation to outlaw it would provide no more than the coup de grace.
This article originally appeared at Counter-Currents and is posted here with permission of the author.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
The whole culture is changing too quickly for humans to respond, the fast forward is pushed on everything now, humans in modern society are like the Tassie Devil of looney Tunes fame spinning out of control.
Another question we should also be asking is how many people are too many?. Why is where we live decided by money? Why isn’t it decided by peoples work hours, number of children they have, noise they make? Why do I have to live in an overcrowded place when I haven’t overbred?
Money is a poor decider on who gets what.
Those that control the money aren’t deserving of the status power and control they exert.
The whole question of how we live must be re-examined in a crowded world.
Dear author of this article, education is a narrow path in life. Wisdom however is always needed . These two elements are very different in discernment of life. You can be highly educated and the same time not adapted to normal life. This is why educated women think they are above uneducated men, and many turns lesbian in the process because they have been shaped to think they are better.
Pornography is only a way of escaping reality of breakdown between men and women.
I see most of young women these days behaving like alpha male so who will want them?
Do not blame men.
Overlong article, too focused on America. Prof Dutton would have done much better in a shorter compass.
The collapse of the American economy is imminent, and, with it, the grotesque, obscene “academic” system it nourishes. As things stand, millions of dullards are pushed through fake degrees, get heavily in debt and do jobs which they could have done at 16 or 18 at the end of it. Soon even those jobs will go, and the flow of dullards will drop to a trickle, and the whole system implodes.
Unsurprisingly, most of the dullards are female. One thing not mentioned by Rodger Dodger is that males are much more likely to do financial cost-benefit analysis, even if of a rudimentary kind. This is happening even in the professions, as Steve Sailer has repeatedly mentioned with regard to Medicine. There are now markedly more female medical graduates being produced each year in America than men. Men do the sums and calculate that the amount of money they can earn as doctors will never compensate for the money they will have spent paying for their medical education. So they concentrate on more lucrative professions.
The women who graduate as medical doctors are largely supported through their education by parents, particularly fathers, husbands and boyfriends. They’re not any type of independent woman.
Obviously, this situation can’t last much longer. Post-collapse America won’t be in any position to pay for grossly bloated “medical education”. Study will be shorter and cheaper. The same will apply to the other professions, too.
The fundamental problem is, then as now, education doesn’t make you smarter, but that’s the lie being sold so we’re inundated with credentialed cretins with some of the worst cases of Dunning Kruger you’ll ever find, and to compound the problem, this delusion has become completely wrapped up in their very identity.
There’s nothing men can do about this, and any attempt to do so could be existentially threatening.
6,500 words, and ONLY THIS ONE typo! A near-miracle!
One of the most illuminating articles that I have ever read in my life. (I, too, caught the lone typo. Careful self-editing is one mark of a genuine scholar.)
As examples of the farce of uneducated credentialism, look at three prominent Black female lawyers recently or currently in the mainstream media: Fanni Willis (Fulton County, GA, D.A.), Letitia James (NY Attorney General), or Jasmine Crockett (Representative from Texas). And who’s the Supreme Court “Justice” who wore the seashell necklace to the Inauguration? Ketani Jackson. (I think Jefferson would have laughed out loud.)
It’s not really a race thing, though. Senator Gillibrand (NY) seems to have convinced herself that the Equal Rights Amendment is in the Constitution. It isn’t.
If Lightning Bolt Ben is watching from his seat of honor in Hades, he can at least finally know that we haven’t “kept” his Republic. He will doubtless recall the words of the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus: “Everything passes; nothing remains.”
The only cure I can see for our civilizational dilemma is societal collapse, if collapse can be deemed a “cure”.
Roger Devlin is yet a ways from understanding what is really going on with young men & women & sexual relations in the West. He needs to spend a couple of months lurking and reading the sexual relations threads on 4chan /pol/, where the ‘incel’ males describe modern sex relations with vivid accuracy.
Young women, feeling entitled as princesses during ages 15-30, are having lots of sex but mostly in ‘soft harems’, with an extremely narrow small group of male ‘chads’, and this is now based mostly on physical appearance / sexiness. The ‘status’ thing is somewhat in play as part of sexiness, but not so central because women in this age are more oriented to ‘fun’, 500 boyfriends in a row, rather than ‘finding a true love partner to marry’.
Then, in ages 30 plus, as women ‘hit the wall’ with less physical appeal, they start to become massively miserable, as they want to ‘settle down’, but the ‘chads’ they think they deserve, are elusive for older, 500-past-boyfriends femoids. The tall, rich, sexy male, limited in number, tends to wife up instead with a barely-past-teens girl from the small group savvy enough to seize the time of youth to land him.
Women over 40, angry that the ‘chad they deserve’ is not to be found, are miserable, either hating the ‘beta’ who agreed to marry them, or staying lonely. Bitter old bitches then are a gushing fount of destructive force that doesn’t stop wrecking society. The societal engineers, you-know-who, who promoted ‘feminism’, divorce court financial rape, etc., in fact knew this would happen, the perfect wrecking ball to ruin white society.
In short, feminism and ‘women’s equal rights’ essentially destroys good relationships, families, and ultimately civilisation itself. The half-child female mind pursues what ‘feels good’ in youth, doesn’t bond with a husband, and pursues the cycle of chad-soft-harem-sex, followed by post-wall resentful bitterness with either the ‘2nd string beta’ marriage, and its often-following divorce, or heading toward death alone.
Through crisis or authoritarianism, a soft patriarchy can be sometimes restored and women can be shamed / feel compelled to marry young, so that most males can once again keep a loyal wife, things can possibly go back into balance, but a ‘reversal of feminism’ is not to be expected.
Oxford scholar J D Unwin had much of this figured out in 1934 – his reseach found that feminism and women’s rights had been tried numerous times in thousands of years, ancient Sumeria, ancient Rome etc, and every time without failure ended in civilisational catastrophe
You don’t understand the situation. The Wachowski bro/sis Jews hate breeders, men, the male principle. There is a Great Replacement, they are pushing it.
Where are the native born male doctors? The mafia minded med schools don’t want them. They’d prefer foreigners with 10,000 year liar cultures and timid, go along female docs. All the better for pushing their human hacking final solution notavax.
Nonsense. The fastest thing we could do would be to institute all boy schools with heterosexual male principals.
The cat ladies need more males in college. They wouldn’t be so miserable and frustrated as they are.
There is moreover a huge male cultural divide between college males and good ole boys. College boys ‘know’ that women are their equals and seek a partnership marriage while good ole boys ‘know’ that women are childish, won’t let them drive their trucks, and don’t trust them further than they can throw them.
Seems like collapse is the only cure. Clearing out the detritus and letting nature sort out the winners will accomplish what intellectual endeavor will never do.
A few years ago a recently hired acquaintance teaching in a mid-tier state university EE department (who graduated from a top-tier EE college) tells me how before the semester started his department had a mandatory meeting with HR. Angry Black Woman marches in, telling them the department needs to come up with ways to make their curriculum more ‘inclusive’, and demands to know why there are so few women, and no blacks or other minorities enrolled?
New Prof tells HR woman that there are plenty of minorities signed up. But they are Asian, and somehow ‘don’t count’.
He tells her that he would love to have more women in the program, but what can he do if they don’t sign up? He reminds HR that most of his course material is mathematics related, then asks how he is supposed to make that ‘more inclusive’?
HR black woman is getting triggered, and from across the table department chair gives him ‘the stare’. He realizes he needs to shut up. After the meeting, the department head tells prof that the best thing for him, as a newer employee, would be to just sit and nod. Don’t say anything. Don’t make trouble for himself.
To assuage HR, the department creates a ‘make work’ course called Minority Engineering in History, or some such thing. A course allowing non-majors to ‘satisfy’ one of the general science electives. Covering great engineering inventions like the SuperSoaker ™ along with probably a section about those black ladies who did the maffs for NASA, allowing the country to walk on the moon.
Video Link
Yes, everyone know dem wicked wimmins is responsible for all the world’s troubles, coz all that icky scary blood that comes out of them, makes everything unclean (scream here like a little girl, or a horrified homosexual).
Sun Ra, loved them. First reaction (each time), OMG where did these mentally ill homeless guys get these instruments? Then, pulled in by the music, OMG, these guys are geniuses!
“Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch
Of the ranged empire fall.”
Antony and Cleopatra, Act I, scene 1
Mr. Devlin undermines his thesis by revealing his own educational background.
In the city where I live rich young people attend a prestigious, astronomically expensive private university. Everyone else attends a ‘community college.’
Forty years ago I was invited to attend a science awards program at the prestigious school. Of the fourteen or so students who received awards, twelve were girls. The problem Mr. Devlin examines is of long standing.
Cut to the chase. Here’s my prescription for returning education (and sexual relations) to sanity.
Problem solved.
(Does Mr. Devlin have skin in the game?)
I certainly feel empathy for young men today, their choices seem to be sluts, coal burners, or the perpetually angry. Part of the problem of course is the effect of feminism on society, one sure fire way to ruin a nation. The other problem is that a lot of boys today have no male roll models. Who? Rappers, atheletes, thugs? Too many children are growing up with no male roll models in their lives, the problem isn’t “toxic masculinity”, the problem is a lack of masculinity. Single mothers, female daycare providers, female teachers, a boy has never had a chance to become a real man because of feminism and thug culture. I’m sure that this was the plan all along, what better way to destroy a perceived competitor on the world stage than by ruining their culture with feminism and debauchery. Look at the decline of the west in particular. I don’t see a way to correct this problem other than a complete implosion. When survival is on the line there is no room for “rights” or “gender studies”. At that point men will be men or they won’t survive, and women will be happy to be protected by a real man. Grow your own food, animal husbandry, basic carpentry, and small communities of like minded people with zero tolerance for bullshit and usury. Take your pick, a return to normalcy or this obscene world which has been imposed on us.
For many, Ra came across as a nutball. But beneath the surface, the guy had a lot of meat. Using the Kangz thing for his ‘myth’, he was grounded in ways that didn’t sit well with the black ‘establishment’ (those on the lib plantation).
Encouraged blacks to be more self-sufficient; get off drugs and welfare. That the big problem with black kids is they’ve been brought up on the word ‘freedom’, when they should be brought up on the idea of ‘discipline’.
Despite the overabundance of women in colleges, they’re still yammering about the wage gap. That concept has largely been debunked, but even if it were possible to equalize the total emoluments paid to men and women, there would be a status gap.
For example, I had a cousin who married young. Eventually, she made her way through college and a couple of graduate degrees, though not in anything lucrative. Her husband, however, never went to college. He did highly skilled labor and had plenty of overtime. He earned far more money than she ever did, but oh dear, she was ashamed of him at faculty functions.
Men suffer from a double whammy. To be attractive to women, they not only have to make big bucks, they have to do so without getting dirt under their fingernails. Now I’m hearing about women who refuse to associate with men whose politics are less than progressive. One more hoop to jump through. Small wonder that MGTOW (men going their own way) is growing in popularity. Granted, if all men went their own way, society would collapse, but it’s headed in that direction anyway. Why sacrifice yourself trying to prop up the moribund? Women and children first? Nope, every man for himself.
As the US economy implodes, most of the fake jobs staffed by females will evaporate. There simply will not be enough money to pay females to sit around in affirmative action jobs doing nothing all day.
A very interesting and intelligent post. I do however suggest another angle to this. I suggest that a major issue has been the attack on the working class by the rich, using excessive immigration combined with outsourcing to crush labor, especially blue-collar labor. If people can’t earn a decent living and support a family as meatpackers or janitors etc.etc., they have no choice but to get ‘educated’ and ‘credentialed’ and try to move up into the white-collar world, even if there aren’t enough white collar jobs, and even if they are not well suited to that work.
As Adam Smith pointed out, the economic value of a commodity has nothing to do with its intrinsic utility, but only with the relative balance of supply and demand for it. There is no reason that blue-collar jobs can’t pay a decent wage, it is only that the rich have used third-world poverty to effectively flood the labor market and crush wages (and jack up rents and asset prices).
I have a child who is a fairly senior engineer at a Fortune 500 company, and the spouse is about as high-end a medical professional as you can get without an MD. They are easily in the top 10 percent of the working class, and with their combined incomes they had to wait until they were in their 30’s to finally afford a small house – a house that 60 years ago had been easily afforded by the single salary of a bus driver. That was not inevitable, that was by design.
Peter Turchin writes about an “overproduction of elites,” but I would see it as more an overproduction of non-elites, forcing the non-elites to all try and desperately crawl over each other climbing the ladder up before they drown.
Let young men of average ability find it easy to earn a living and support a family on just their single salary without a b*llshit degree, and I think a lot of this pathology would go away. Oh, but that would cost people like Elon Musk profits, and as he so colorfully said, he will ‘F*ck you in the face’ before he allows that to happen.
Because most groids are shitheads and I’m getting pissed at pandering to all these alien-outlanders living in our Western Culture…Here’s another one: Alex Wong, the Chinese Deputy National Security Advisor appointed by President Trump, who is at the center of the Signalgate scandal, is married to U.S. Attorney Candice Chiu Wong, a Chinese Woman who was one of the key attorneys involved in PROSECUTING J6ers. What the F-ck are orientals doing in our Western governments where they are not from, meaning our Western Civilization? Plus you notice how these turds take our Western Sir names i.e. Alex, Candice. Give me a break with these turds…Such parasitism never came my way before…
I’m not quite sure how Prof. Devlin “undermines his thesis” by revealing his “extended immersion in the Latin classics”.
The study of Latin and Greek was part of the curriculum of European universities for centuries. That’s how Copernicus and Newton were able to reach a wide audience of European scholars: by writing their books in Latin. What’s Newton’s Magnum Opus? Principia Mathematica.
Samuel Johnson once held a public discussion in Paris with a Polish cardinal. Johnson knew no Polish; the cardinal knew no English. Solution: Latin. And the audience could follow along.
Only a fool would now require knowledge of Latin as a prerequisite for admission to Caltech. Those days are gone. I am not choking back tears; if I had a bright son or daughter I would encourage him to study Mandarin. Things change.
But those who fancy the “Classics” of little value are sorely mistaken. The Ancients were lousy scientists for the most part, but their writings on man and society are worthy of investigation by even our brightest minds. Knowing Greek didn’t do Sigmund Freud any harm. It doesn’t seem to have done Devlin any harm.
You believe that violent radical Zionist Trump supporters should be allowed to roam free?
But did it do him any good?
The tenor of Mr. Devlin’s article is in praise of the man who works with his hands. When he mentions his own study of ‘consequential philosophical ideas’ and ‘Latin classics,’ most men would consider that he had placed himself in the same class as the ‘scholarette’ who wrote a dissertation associating olfaction with oppression. I share that view.
Sixty-eight years ago, as a high school freshman, I began a four semester course of Latin with the same grandiose notion of superior intellect that Devlin seems to suggest.
By the time you reach my age you tend to be brutally honest with yourself. Choosing Latin rather than Spanish was a mistake. What good did Latin do me? For years I remembered the opening line of Virgil’s Aeneid. Now I remember nothing at all. Did Latin ‘train’ my mind? I can’t see that it did.
I’ve studied several languages and am fluent in two and relatively fluent in another. I love language. It has enabled me to enjoy the great, unique literature of Germany and France. But is ‘enjoyment’ a significant goal of existence?
As for ‘consequential philosophical ideas’ I agree with Wittgenstein. There are no philosophical problems. To imagine that there are is to misunderstood the nature of language.
I guarantee that 99% of the Trump supporters are not Zionist Hulkamania! Most of them probably don’t give a shit about jews. Also that was not my point I was making. So don’t try to twist things around and play semantics with me because I’ll run circles around you with that claptrap. Try that leftist shit with somebody else because it won’t work with me. Also I said son we have Asiatics, Africans, Muslims who have no common culture, traditions, heritage living with us. Since you don’t understand history, geography, language, dress, customers, traditions and the way they evolved from place to place and culture to culture. So tell me what did a china man have in common with a 17 century English man , or Italian, or Pole? As far as being Western and its peoples history nothing. So go play that crap with someone else…
The weakness of this essay: It goes too much over well-worn terrain, covered extensively even by the very same author (F. Roger Devlin) back to the mid-2000s.
Let me ask: What is the purpose of this essay?
The author says it’s a response to an essay by a Rob Henderson (a half-Korean, half-Hispanic “hapa”; as a young child dumped onto the USA to be raised by a White foster family in the 1990s). That Ron Henderson essay, done in a kind of pop-middlebrow style, is titled “All the Single Ladies.” It is not linked to, but can be found here: https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/all-the-single-ladies
Towards the beginning of his own essay, Dr Devlin says:
He makes little pretense of continuing to address White women. Was the line just a cute throwaway early in the essay?
Dr Devlin ventures here, at times, but only meekly, into prescriptive territory. When he does so, I find it entirely too shallow, indirect, or thin for my liking. Here is one case of what may be indirect prescription:
And:
Dr Devlin then has a section titled “What, Then, Must We Do?” He does not answer his own question, though, instead engaging in more “riffing” on his familiar topics. It is not a useful conclusion section to this essay. It feels like the final five-hundred words, or even one-thousand words, have been cut off. Sadly, the “missing” part would be the most-interesting or useful of all.
Given how long Dr Devlin has been observing these things — I believe from the 1980s to 2020s, and publishing between the mid-2000s and mid-2020s — it would be useful to include specific time-relevant updates to the lay of the land, as he sees it.
I recall now, for example, a whole lot of fluffy big-talk from certain quarters about how the Corona-Panic of 2020 would indirectly lead to a return to healthy White relationships of family-centric nature, by, for one, encouraging “work from home” allowing careerist White women to raise children on the side, or some similar theories. From the perspective of 2025, it doesn’t appear this happened.
Heh. I think I will look into taking some college coursework again.
You probably found it easier to learn the foreign languages that you speak because of your previous study of Latin.
ST. DUNSTAN’S ACADEMY
‘Crescat Scientia Vita Excolatur’
Philosophy 410: Final Exam
1. “There are no philosophical problems.”
Justify your statement. (60%)
2. “Is ‘enjoyment’ a significant goal of existence?”
Yes or no? Justify your answer. (40%).
(You may ask for another booklet if you run out of space to write your answers.)
nigguh u olde
no you fucking oven dodger you need to learn how to mine coal and harvest timber.
True, but that was the USA of the 1950’s. It was by no means a normal time – and it’s really gone for good.
The US’ industrial competitors were in ruins after WW2 and the (European American) US was at that point the world’s unrivalled industrial, export and financial power (US dollar).
Now we’re back to normal times and the prizes as usual are going to countries that lead in manufacturing, technology, education and national development strategies.
While the US youth 1968 was at Woodstock discovering Peace, Love and Counter-culture, South Korea was (with great difficulty) educating their population, raising capital, gaining technological skills and developing industry.
Read General Park Chun Hee’s ” The Country The Revolution And I” 1962, Hollym Corporation Publishers, Seoul, Korea. That’s 1962.
From the referred to article: Rob Henderson’s, “All the Single Ladies”
Here he’s saying it. it’s a successful relationship between a man and a woman, establishing a home and becoming part of a family.
So it’s entirely legitimate to remove any factors that work against it. For example LGBT, de-industrialization, ruinous healthcare and education costs, elite looting in general, garbage media/entertainment and mass low cost worker immigration.
The first step would be to state clearly that the US is the national homeland of citizens in 1965 (and their descendents). Only they have political power. Everyone else is welcome to stay if they pay their taxes and don’t break the law. But remove their passports and replace them with long term residence permits. Just the logical thing to do.
A food for thought, perhaps:
Isn’t that the M.O. of the most of the…..ahm….”alternative”?
Isn’t almost all of it just “managing emotions” of certain social (sub)groups?
And, the most important question: isn’t that, really, what the most of the audience TRULLY wants?
Romans figured it ages ago:
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Naahhh….We are so much smarter, more advanced, simply better than those people.
Yeah….
My 2 cents:
We must change the society.
Good news (sort of): we can’t.
So, because we can’t, what worked in the normal world (women, men, relationship, sex, marriage, kids..blah…blah….) does NOT work in the Clown World anymore. Worse: what worked for, say, men of my generation would, should they try the same, destroy the men of this one. I can see it all over the place where I live.
So, young men today have to find their own ways. People of my generation trying to…help/educate…younger generation should, most of the time, just keep their mouths shut.
A young man trying to do what I did when was his age is taking a risk I wouldn’t do if I were his age.
Or, if I were to become young again and start again, I’d NEVER repeat what I did.
Oh, BTW, I’been married to the same woman for around 40 years now and we have children doing quite O.K.
My wife and I sometimes talk about the topic and we came to conclusion, some time ago, that we don’t belong to this world as far as that topic is concerned. Some of our friend too.
The point is: we who’ve had all that working so well for us shouldn’t lecture young men today. DIFFERENT times.
I could with my own salary support my wife (not working) and kids (being with mother, NOT in kindergarten), with ease. A young man in the exactly same setup today (including the job I’ll omit for obvious reasons) can’t.
More importantly, I could be a man then. Behave in a certain way. Set the example for my sons. Today such behaviour would mean loss of job, problems with the law and most likely prison time. Divorce too. Etc.
We change the system we get the things back to normal 3 months after that re this topic, tops.
All the rest is blathering.
As for young men reading this: I feel for you guys. Nothing to say to help you, though. The system is set against you. Except: be smart. Be CAREFUL.
Any civilization that has given women “rights,” specifically access to traditionally male power and professions, disintegrates within three generations. Civilization becomes feminized and is weak before the onslaught of masculine societies on the fringes. We see this happening in Europe in real time, with the displacement of the indigenous Europeans by Muslims. Another symptom is the social acceptance of homosexuality and the transexual phenomenon. Any civilization in the past that has demonstrated this sort of decadence has never recovered.
Read The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival by Sir John Glubb. Camille Paglia has also written about this.
We are living the last days of the West. Nothing will save it.
The author of this elaborate piece hasn’t focused on a very important point…Many women have college degrees in totally useless subjects and have few real world, in demand, skills …and especially in IT, they are often given makework, where they mainly have to stay out of the way of the men who actually write code and create the structure to use it in….Many work in personnel, where they create fences against hiring men who might actually have useful ideas, or otherwise shake things up…No man worth his spit will have anything to do with such drones….and the same women often aren’t much interested in starting a family, another deal killer….
“Any eventual legislation to outlaw it would provide no more than the coup de grace”.
It is like saying legislation to outlaw Jews. Pornography is Jews and Jews is pornography.
I don’t know whether to laugh or shake my head (for the umpteenth time).
Of course not, they are entirely blameless for the fetid shit show of the modern era even though they created it over centuries and still control the reigns of power.
Pro tip: Stop bitching about women and pick up a MIRROR…for once in your life. Then, take responsibility.
But if you went to trade school and mastered a trade in 10 to 15 years , or maybe became a Superintendent or PM , building million dollar projects or structures ,we are still not considered Educated. Even in Europe , they want to see a University diploma when working management in the Construction Industry. Fuck Non Functioning Education – most people coming out of schools can’t walk right into a job that requires them to preform on their own – even doctors have to work on the job for years before they are ” Doctors”. Todays education is programming for – soaking up more propaganda and dumbing down individualism -lol but true.
I read this article word for word, and luxuriated in the experience. I’m really quite tired of commenters who start off sniping at this or that article by calling it “overlong.” Why you attempt to contrast Devlin with his friend Dutton is odd too, since Ed is quite capable of speaking and writing at great length, and if you were fatigued by the wit and detail of this essay then doubtless you will find some of Dutton fatiguing too.
Then you complain for some non sequitur reason that this is “too focused on America”, even though the olfactory doctoress is British and there is nothing here which does not apply equally well across the English-speaking world and no doubt much of the rest of the present “West.” Then you hop along your own hobbyhorse, medical doctors, which is fine and all but if all you needed to do were to put in your five cents on that then you could have done so without the pointless dismissiveness at the start.
There is too much focus, imho, on female education levels. A College degree has less importance for Men than it does for Women. Men look for Wife material in different areas than education degrees or her paycheck. The Feminists just refuse to acknowledge two critical advantages Men have over Women. One, once a female reaches age 29, for the first time Single Women outnumber Single Men. And the disparity grows from age 29. This means Women MUST stop making demands on Men and START competing with other Women for Men. Second, Men have a complete Right to ask whatever female they want out on a Date. This means that MEN get to decide what they want in a wife NOT Women swallowing the Entitlement propaganda Feminism brainwashes Women with. Another fact: Men will ALWAYS value nice looking females over the Plain Jane women. And when these College Females have a $120k student loan, that is a HUGE negative.
Virgil isn’t the one who shrank, you did.
Going back to your original comment, you yourself saw “STEM” undermined by feminism, so the chief prop of the Sailerite anti-Humanities bigotry already is denied by your witness. In your second you condescend to faux populism, falsely implying Devlin besmirches the dignity of simple men doing their work, while hypocritically pretending you don’t support the idea of intellectual hierarchy. You make fun of him for extolling Cicero, wanly admit your declining proclivity (or intellectual fitness) for Virgil, and at last gasp out a snitty appeal to the nihilism of Wittgenstein (another Jew you might charge with getting too little good from his Greek) in defense of your tedious mental desuetude. As if the Working Man will cheer you on for citing Wittgenstein!
“As for young men reading this: I feel for you guys. Nothing to say to help you, though.”
Maybe I can help you. Consider marrying an Asian(NE)-American woman. That’s if you can get one. Again, maybe I can help. What these women who had married a Caucasian man had sought was “egalitarian knighthood.” (Yes, Wife of Bath’s Tale. There’s that stupid, 60s, Great Books stuff).
But if you can somehow relocate your life, move to Nebraska, join a church, meet your mate.
One typo?
I only read 1 paragraph, but hit on this blunder:
…skeptical as my observation of female behavior have made me…
observationS …have made me?
or
observation has made me.
“all that remains is . . . to lower that of women. In effect, this is what briefly occurred in that burning office building. And the women just loved it.”
This is exactly what happens in the movie Barbie. Ken introduces patriarchy and the women seem much happier. Barbie returns and they all snap out of it. They are back to being powerful and independent but seem much less happy.
This isn’t a recommendation for the movie. Watch Elmer Gantry instead.
The situation between men without academic titles and women endowed therewith is analogous to commoners/aristocrats in ancient times. Further exacerbated by the dynamics of neo-liberal economics, the outcome is a society as miserable as it is ridiculous
It isn’t just ‘higher education’, which is filled with a lot of midwit women working in unimportant junk academic disciplines.
But this general phenomenon is so obvious it is taken for granted and seldom stated openly: women marry ‘up’, i.e. they prefer taller, masculine men of higher SES (level of education, income) — the whole ‘manosphere’ arose because a great many men decided to call bullshit on what women performatively say, e.g. they just want a sensitive man blah blah, as opposed to the male qualities and behavior they reinforce with their sexual choices.
A hypothetical: a male doctor marrying a female nurse is almost a stereotype — but you could probably scour the country and not find a single instance where a female doctor has married a male nurse.
Not long ago I saw a white woman say that the more she thought about it, arranged marriages made sense because they helped diffident, higher IQ men of unremarkable appearance find partners, whereas they would otherwise too often lose out in the sexual marketplace (while Quantavious sires a dozen kids out of wedlock).
This is a very important topic, because as I’ve said several times, it is a developing societal catastrophe: in the not too distant future, women will be 60% of college grads — huge numbers of these generally more intelligent women will simply not find suitable partners — both marriage and birth rates will fall further.
Let’s talk to the fundamental truth.
If all the men in the World got together and decided to mine all the Iron ore, smelt it into bars and plates to make cages with bars, hinges and locks, then put every woman on the planet in those cages, we men of the World can do it without a doubt.
Then, we would offer women a simple deal. Get pregnant, carry to term and nurse. In return we will keep you fed and warm, otherwise, starve and freeze to death.
But we the men of the World, do not do that, we think about it individually when our woman becomes unreasonable, especially if we own a basement. Again we just don’t do it. Why?
Because we are the benevolent sex. Yes, we are the sex that is wired to sleep through a baby’s night crying, yet wake up at the rustling of leaves on a calm winded night. Then we pick up the bat and go roving the thresholds while our woman sleeps through it. We are the ones who never ask a woman we love how much she makes a year. We are the romantic men who must worship women at the alter of St. Valentine, yet no reciprocal day is set aside by women for us men.
Having had intimate relationships with Asian, European and American women. I am here to tell you the truth. The women with the worst reputation as wives, in the world, are American women.
It was a mystery to me why American college women students disrespected college men students. The mystery was uncovered when a senior English widow, who had been married to an American man for 40 years, gave me a plausible explanation. She concluded that American women do not respect their men because they never had to depend on them to defend the homeland. She added, if we could have force fed our guys testosterone during the Battle of Britain, we would have done it. As an American, you can see this truth, in general, in how Southern women, whose granfathers defended their grandmothers against the “Yankee invaders”, have a higher regard for men than Northern women.
The relative prosperity of the Western woman has wrongly convinced her that whatever her actions are, in a relationship with a man, they have no adverse consequences. It is a fact that young men don’t want to marry, to end up “loosing half of my shit.” Laws are being written to right the imbalances created by inconsequential Feminism. Laws are written to mandate paternity tests at birth. New laws are proposed that if a poor woman married a rich man, she shouldn’t be entitled to have his money after two years of marriage. She should go back to being “free” and poor once more. With women being 80% of those who instigate divorces, new laws are starting to allow the one who breaks the family commitment to leave the family home on their own and pay child support. If she’s bored and wishes to become a “swinger”, then fine, be a “swinger” on your own and don’t drag your children over your unbridled desires and the pathologies resulting from your feminism. The body of data shows children of single fathers are better disciplined and better adjusted to carry responsibilities.
Western women need to sit down and take a talking to and come to realize, they are lost without men and thet are NOT, are NOT the creators of life. You are the Sustainers of Life and that requires commitment and patience. The men shouldn’t be expected to sit around changing diapers and making formula. They are expected to be out in the storm reconnecting broken high powered lines for days on end. In case any woman thinks she is a giver of life, look at this hypothetical. Let us say humanity is almost extinct and we have a hundred men and one woman, how many babies would we have in one year? Now, if we had a hundred women and one man left, how many babies do we have at the end of one year? At least 75 babies and probably a very exhausted man because of all the additional infrastructure and food required to sustain the new population.
I admit, many modern women and feminist men will loose their shit reading my truthful rant, but they need to realize and acknowledge the imbalances created by the Feminist cunts.
Ladies, don’t forget to watch the Survival series and remember, we men gladly put our lives at risk so you can live. It is wired in us.
Shouldn’t that one aspect of our awesome manhood cause you to shutup, think and show respect? As for me and, a few, no a great deal of my friends, we would settle for your silence alone, it gives us a false sense that you are thinking and hopefully coming to a conclusion.
Just think of how big of an Atlas shrug is generated by the utterly unconscious phrase “we don’t need men.”
You don’t have to go to college to find dicky lickers.
The essays I have seen by Dutton in UR have been concise and of reasonable length. Devlin’s articles, even when he was writing for Vdare, tended to be bloated and overlong. I am not familiar with all of Dutton’s work, so you may be right in your claim. I am only familiar with the works of Dutton and Devlin that I have come across, and I call it as I see it.
The American college system is not typical of the West – however you define it – in general. In particular, American students typically stay on “campus” and benefit from a very generous student loan system. In Italy, Spain and most of Europe, undergraduates typically stay at home – their parents’ home – and student loans are restricted or unavailable.
This has certain beneficial consequences. Fewer young people go to university. Staying at home reduces costs markedly and debt is much less of a problem. Also, most universities have to cut their cloth by the number of students they can recruit from their local region, since students generally use public transport to commute.
This puts restraints on attempts by Universities to push dullards through fake degrees in large numbers, as is the case in America. There is little incentive for them to do so, as they can’t recruit sufficient numbers. Indeed, the costs of tertiary education mean that there is a bias by students for practical or more traditional studies.
Those parts of the West that have followed the American model have been afflicted with the same problem. Admittedly, few UK students stay at University Halls of Residence. The UK had a small University system with no student loans. From the early 1990s onwards a very generous system was instated. The percentage of the age cohort (18-25 year olds) studying degree courses went up from 18% in 1991 to nearly 50% in 2022.
The results are very obvious, from the Cambridge bodysniffer to the proliferation of fake degrees. Dutton – in a concise article, outlining his research – concluded that many of these “degrees” would require an IQ of only 85 to pass them. Academic debasement continues apace. Despite the massive increase in student numbers, and the consequent reduction of group IQ, the number of 1st Class degrees exploded, from 7% in 1997 to 26% in 2017. It is much higher now.
Western academia is in dire trouble. In America, UK and a number of other countries, the maggots have eaten all the apple. The system is irreformable. Collapse and destruction are necessary. Some European systems are in much better shape and may survive the deluge when it comes. Time will tell.
“money”
To the point. As much valid as to AI(finance hocus pocus of free quantfying being the imposition layer).
The percentage of the age cohort (18-25 year olds) studying degree courses went up from 18% in 1991 to nearly 50% in 2022.
That should read 13% in 1991
A near fourfold increase.
Devlin is apparently emersed in some form of sexual frustration. Understandable.By some outlooks,we all are. Too bad for Humans.
A repidly evolving/declining economy,the transformation of the landscape is in play.
The trend towards single unmarried life is now a popular subject.
Others have expressed fear and remorse that so many young persons are….ughhh!….not having sex!!Needs to be 2.3 times a week!!! (Coinciding with an ideal number of children per couple…)
And not having babies.. Perhaps the response is similar to wildlife patterns whereby reproduction drops in the face of habitat deterioriation.
This is all driven by a certain reality; Too bad humans are not wired such that the act of Coitus is in fact quite unenjoyable, employed only,solely to make a baby.
Abundant experience with women has taught me that most of them can rationalize any sort of harmful behavior that they are responsible for. Their emotions, not truth nor reality, are the center of their lives. This being the case, there can be no solution for all of today’s young men.
However, any fellow who is willing to accept that there is much validity in the Myers-Briggs classification of personality could improve his odds of finding the “sweet, loving, grateful young” wife by focusing his dating efforts on the ESFJ and (especially) ISFJ types. He could study the Myers-Briggs descriptions of those types and devise his own practicum for informally testing women. When he has found someone who passed his informal, real-life tests, he could induce them to fill out a Myers-Briggs questionnaire to confirm their ESFJ or ISFJ status.
I was not clever enough at 25 to have conceived of this procedure then, but subconscious common sense allowed me to find an ISFJ. I daily feel grateful for having found someone so giving and dedicated, and for having avoided being trapped by one of my first several girlfriends who were either narcissistic, hobbled by neuroses, chemically addicted, or insufficiently intelligent.
I suggest that a technological fix will be attempted before the culture is reformed. Consider the development of humanoid robots which is proceeding quickly. There is the subset of these robots that is constructed with bodies to imitate humans and efforts to generate AI which mimic human emotion.
Perhaps young men of no particular status will at some point simply buy a female impersonating robot with whom to keep company? It seems perfectly reasonable. The same may be true for the females as well. Then both sides can go their own ways and ignore the other. Cheaper, perhaps, than a hot outcome to the sexual wars.
Educated men on average prefer women who:
– aren’t slags,
– aren’t PITAs,
– are pleasant to look at,
– are trustworthy.
Given that the great majority of Western women, educated or not, don’t meet those basic four criteria, they have to settle for men whose urge to perpetuate their genes is greater than their intellect.
Well assorted couples are a joy to see. Unfortunately, they are an endangered species and it isn’t the men’s fault.
We could continue on this vein for hours. The thrill of a superior, highly-cultivated education is what makes for refined, well-balanced, ambitious and rational human superiority. Great soldiers and generals were often Greek and Latin scholars—I am now thinking of Enoch Powell….
Here, I must disagree with you. The study of Latin makes a mind absolutely primed and well-trained for any further study of any nature. It also shows respect for the greatness of the Western tradition—with which copycat Asia, with all due respect, cannot compare.
Not that lousy, really. It was Christopher Columbus, who, in reading Aristotle who in turn had studied Pythagoras, came to understand the spherical nature of earth and thereof set his mind to the pursuit of exploration and discovery. Among other things, the ancient art of celestial navigation stupefies scientists to this day.
It takes a very cynical, perverted mind to write the following. Clearly someone who reads too much A. Anglin:
What young men need, and what has always done a world of good when it was still in force here in Paradise, is the Military Year once required of a patriotic nation. Not a “draft” but a military training year, highly disciplined, no class, no color, no ingrained social hierarchies, none of it–just pure, rigorous, awful-wonderful mental and physical discipline.
The hubby of Exile in Paradise, whose family of Generals would not let him escape such service, credits it with lifelong clarity, strength of attitude, and moral standards. He saw criminally-prone young men turn into absolutely excellent individuals as a result of this.
There are oceans of women like this, far more than you realize, but they are turned off by the kind of idiot who sees pornography as some kind of rational escape within a decadent society. The very best women are well-educated, conservative, feminine, highly attractive girls who “defend men” and usually were once the shy, introspective girl turned lovely beauty. Miss Exile here is just like this. It is ridiculous to denigrate an excellent education–every father wants this for his daughter, you included. You are looking in the wrong place for your type of woman because you are in the wrong place mentally, emotionally and otherwise.
I disagree with the quoted statement. I think the reason women are “more successful” is the social aspect that has taken over, not only the academic institutions, but the very strata of society it occupies. For anyone working in these environments that require a “college education”, success is as much about being “emotionally intelligent” as it is about IQ. You have to engage in a panoply of social events such as birthday, farewell, and general celebratory occasions and social events for one reason or another. You will notice that women engage in these most furiously and with emphatic enthusiasm at prospect of being able to discuss what they will bring to the office potluck at which they will discuss their latest vacation plans or what she and her “partner” were up to last weekend or will be doing next weekend. You have to engage in inane chats about innocuous topics all day with people you are around simply because you are pursuing credentials, or securing resources in the form of a paycheck. When men dominated the space, everyone knew we were there to provide for others or fulfill the goals of education mentioned early in the article. Now with the goal of self-actualization in polite society, we are in these educational and office spaces to spiritually fulfill ourselves, not survive.
–
How ironic then, that the pathetic author, typed up nearly 7000 words and only produced frivolous, clap-trap drivel and pretentious nonsense, finally succeeding in stating nothing insightful or original.
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
–
LOL!! There’s a post that offers a good window into why women are marrying less (thus fewer kids being born). Who wants that? ^^^
It’s a delusional, self-serving screed from a guy who believes himself “benevolent”.
In fact, the lack of Mr Nobody assigning ANY responsibility to men for making marriage/family work evidences that he has no clue and no accountability. Like a large portion of the other relics on UR.
Where does one find and identify such an excellent education for females, Mr.Exile? Pray tell.
Oh? I thought the ovens weren’t real?
When I was a student at uni nobody cared about any of this crap. The girls weren’t impressed by sporty “chad” types or rich guys. It was the druggies, freaks and radicals who got the women. Everyone was just looking for fun and nobody cared about some future career. Going to rock concerts and anti-war demos was what it was all about, and picking up a general education from reading shoplifted books and intellectual conversations with your friends.
The tough rugby guys used to get totally drunk after matches and dance naked on table tops in the pub singing sexist songs. Which girl could possibly want to be with them? And if these tough guys tried to get heavy with some long haired freak, the freak would flash a knife or a gun with a smile and have them back off while impressing the girls. If a freak did get beaten up by these sporty types, he’d just bring his biker friends from the “Satan’s Slaves” or whatever crew and they’d sort out the “chads” with chains and iron bars.
There was literally a protest against exams. I remember entering the sports hall sized room for the final exams and it was full. Everybody sat down at their desks and then suddenly the hall emptied and most of the students walked out leaving a leaflet saying “don’t grade me, I’m not an egg”. Then during the degree ceremony they’d gather around heckling and shouting abuse at the “penguins” dressed up for the ceremony. Most of those who left without a degree seemed to do well later on. How different it all was. But just a few years later it all changed.
Well, it was the pre-digital analogue age. Life was so simple then. You learned to read, got a book and leafed through the pages. And nobody would refuse a conversation because they were glued to some electronic screen, especially not any pretty woman in your vicinity. The digital revolution ruined social interactions and they’re just going to get worse. The utopian analogue age is dead and gone, over, kaput. The hellish digital age with its unreal virtuality took over and the flat screen now dictates your life, brainwashing you, controlling you, telling you whatever, if you believe it or not, as your brain swims in an ocean of ever-present anthropogenically generated electromagnetic waves. The word “natural” is losing all meaning, other than in the health food store, as they usher in AI, robots, transhumanism, and all kinds of synthetic and genetic engineered products and treatments, not to mention totally unatural lifestyles as you wait for that perfect robotic sex doll that will be indistinguishable from the real thing in every way. I guess this is the world you will get whether you like it or not. But in my uni days we only read about such a world in the sci-fi novels we used to devour with relish. Now that world is here, and as dystopian as the most imaginative authors could have predicted.
But I guess there is a plus to this digital post-modern world. The internet has showns us many things that we didn’t know and shattered the illusions of our youth. I remember attending a Mensa lecture in London in the early 70s at which both Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark spoke to a full hall, and I can still remember as they both walked down the isle past me. It took the Internet to tell me that these heroes were utter scum, one a rapist and the other a pedophile, and that I should have spat on them instead of admired them. Such is life. But did Theo Adirno write all those Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and numerous other rock bands’ songs? Jimmy Saville sure was the worst of the worst pedophiles raping handicapped kids. Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs, Michel Foucault and so many other heroes of those freaks of my uni days were also filthy pedophiles. Arthur Koestler, a notorious serial rapist. And so it goes. Now how about the private sexual lives of Freddy Mercury, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant and many more?
There’s a lot of truth in this post. It evidences an ongoing problem which is that it takes a female to point out the problems, issues or shortcomings with males regarding relationships.
Just read all these comments here and across many, many threads on UR and other sites — you’ll find zero guys who take any responsibility for basically anything that is troubled or failing. It’s some sort of congenital, psychological problem with them — the lack of accountability.
And, yes, porn is the scourge of humanity. It has warped male minds but, because of what I just described — most of them refuse to realize and acknowledge that. Nope, it’s just easier to blame women for everything. So very, very lame…
The result of technological advances is that most people do nothing all day. That is only going to increase. They are not going to lose these jobs, because there are no others. At one time the MMT people were pushing a ‘job guarantee’ … a minimum-wage job for anyone who wanted/needed it. That is, a real job. That was considered too radical to ever be introduced (although there were a lot of good economic reasons for it), but we have now jumped clear over that to the guaranteed basic income … for doing nothing. That is coming believe me. Can humans exist like that? I don’t know, maybe.
Speaking for yourself … of course. By the way, what you wrote is pretty damn pretentious.
Handy phrases at the end of the pre-graduation coursework.
Paper or plastic?
Would you like fries with that?
Room for cream?
Handy shopping tips, after post-grad matriculation.
Find the Wall aisle, buy cat toys, box wine, frozen entrées for one.
Articles like this, and the readers’ comments, I find hilarious. Our ancestors laid the foundation of our civilization and its benefits by recognizing two truths:
(1) Race, and genetics, matter. The aboriginal who lives in Alice Springs is different in genetics and temperament from the White student in Ohio. This difference in genetics is the result of different environments in which their ancestors lived, and results in different societies and civilizations.
(2) There is a natural, and favorable, division of labor between the sexes. Men explore, conquer, build and maintain civilization in its present, while women nurture and grow civilization for the future.
All of what we enjoy is based on these two realities — and we are destroying our civilization because we refuse to acknowledge these truths as our ancestors did.
Example of a entitled man-child.
Driving on a country road.
Gets a flat tire.
Female companion asks Can you fix it?
He replies smugly, while waving his phone, I’ll just call a guy to come fix it.
Then realizes no cell service.
Has to open the trunk and try to figure out how to get at the jack.
All without getting his pink popped-collar polo shirt dirty, or his hands? At least he took off the yellow sweater draped around his shoulders. Fortunately for both, someone drove by, saw their plight, and did the deed.
Now try that in the dark.
” Aeneadum genetrix , hominum divomque voluptas , alma Venus…”
” Suave, mari magno turbantibus aequora ventis, e terra magnum alterius spectare laborem …” . ” …nil posse creari de nilo … “.
Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.
Who can write such beauty these days ?
“For comparison he mentions Dr. Desiree Odom’s A Multiple Marginalized Intersectional Black Lesbian Leader: A Critical Feminist Autoethnographic Narrative. In plain English, this woman wrote a doctoral thesis on herself.”
With that high level of education, the woman is certainly qualified to pick cotton–cotton picking must have a back-breaking occupation which required a lot of stamina and also savvy to avoid dangers associated with picking prickly cotton and not to mention long hours in heat, lack of proper nutrition, demanding overseers as well as occasional whipping and at times, after a hard day’s work, de rigueur whoring to satisfy the insatiable sexual appetite of the massa.
Or is she?
NO, we in the West are in the terminal phase of Jewish Clownworld, which at its nucleus, is their invention of finance capitalism (FC) and its attendant wanton materialism. Everything post 1600AD (roughly when FC took over in Amsterdam) has been clowned, and that includes the enlightenment.
Corporatocracy, or rule by corporations and finance capital are in the same Venn Diagram. Corporate banks, and their stock owners, get to hypothecate the national credit and turn the population into debtors. So, the real ruling order is credit creators (the stock owners) and the finance markets, which use the credit created by the private banking corporations. The debt instruments are held by the creditor class, and they demand “women” or any other work unit to perform and make the expanding debt claims perform. They may also demand invasion of new workers, such as is happening to the West.
This finance capital action turns the population into both debt slaves and materialists. Basically we have become the Jew. Judeo Christian religion was invented, to then become mute on this, as the original meaning of Christianity knew that sin=debt. Judeo Christianity debt as sin has been erased from conscious… purposefully. Again, if it is not clear, all of the original meanings in all the languages at the time of Christ were that debt is sin, and specifically, the creditor class which held the debts – were in a sin relationship with civilization. That knowledge was inverted with Judeo -Christianity, and especially Paul who invented original sin, and made Jesus a burnt offering. In short order, the Jubilee (clean slate where debt and credit are balanced) was overturned. Judeo-Christian’s are in actual sin, but don’t know it, the Jew has blinded them with false doctrine.
You have to start with the money first, and then everything is downstream of that. If your civilization was clowned with FC, then women are going to be monetized to pay debts. It is that simple. Once that happens you enter into inevitable and terminal decline.
There is only one western civilization that overturned finance capitalism, became industrial capitalist, and then dealt with their then catastrophic baby bust.
But, we cannot look at them because you know …. Hitler! Oy Vey!
https://www.unz.com/mhudson/soros-and-china-the-vocabulary-of-neoliberal-diplomacy-in-todays-new-cold-war/#comment-4904172
I wrote the above back in 2021. Maybe an AI will scrape it and understand the import? Average normies, probably not.
The first three paragraphs are still accurate, and reality has not changed.
Modern industrialized countries are in population decline. Why? Because when “women” become work units for labor; they see their value as substitute men, and not as a woman.
Finance Capitalism wants a labor unit at a low price, and one aspect of Neo-Liberalism is to convince women to enter the workforce, and eschew the hard unmonetized work of child bearing and rearing.
China’s industrial capitalism has not advanced to the stage where women are sent home, and housing prices are held down, to then allow family formation.
Germany built housing for women; they removed housing as a speculative investment, and transformed it into a social good. Then they transformed women’s labor from being monetized in a factory setting, and instead gave them loans that would cancel for each child born (effectively debt free money). Women were removed from industry and sent to the home-life. Germany also concentrated on white goods, such as appliances, so that women’s home labor would be reduced. Children were held up as a civilizational requirement, and women were to bear this cost.
Imprtantly, to eliminate finance from being the hidden string puller, they introduced (secretly) sovereign money such as Oeffabills and Mefobills. The predations of corporate finance were reigned in with the 1933 dividend act, which limited corporations to 6% profits. Anything above 6%, could not be paid out to stock holders, but had to be re-invested in newer equipment, or some sort of improvement. If the corporate owners couldn’t do that, they were forced to buy government bonds. Greed was thus limited.
There is a class of people (mostly Jews?) who become money sick, where there is no loss of wants. They will monetize children and women to satisfy their sordid desire for gain and virtue signaling. These types of people are on the sociopathic spectrum, and are now the hidden string pullers of our current clown-show. FC encourages and promotes this sociopathy, which is why FC is the nucleus of Clownworld.
Do you see any moves in any western countries to return women back to the home-life, to remove them from becoming monetized for finance gains? Do we really need women to be pushing around power point documents and giving their boss BJ’s, or do we need them in their own paid-for home, married to a single male provider? The male provider, who has his labor value improved year on year with new investment capital into modern industry.
It will be up to industrial capitalist, national socialist China, to show the West the error of their ways. Most western people are chuckle-heads and cannot understand something up until their last desperate minute. I’m American, I know this and see it first hand. And frankly, I see no movement on China’s part to demonetize women like NSDAP did. China will have to do it eventually, but they are not desperate yet, still having a surplus rural population.
This website still has a long ways to go before understanding the black pill, and modern dating dynamics lol.
That is something a boomer will never understand.
Education is the reason for demographic collapse?
You’re just starting to scratch the service.
When women are surveyed by dating app companies they pretty much state the mass of men using them are phenotypically unattractive.
10% of the men are getting 90% of the women.
No mention of social media? No mention of the booming sex work industry, specifically with Only Fans?
Dating is Darwinian. It’s no different than modern economics and monopolism. You have a handful of winners, and everybody else loses.
If god does exist, he designed a hell of a system to give every man desires for an attractive feminine woman, and only gave a small fraction of those men the ability to attract one.
I’m a nihilist though. I don’t believe in love. What love is to me is a drug. Nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain. It is what we would call lust.
And once that dissipates so does the “marriage/relationship” or whatever you want to call it.
Thus endeth the further reading. You will make a great and popular preacher: your Mother’s day sermons will be attended by every female church member.
“The gist is that women in the world of higher education are having extreme difficulty finding suitable mates due to their numerical predominance on campuses. Just as my own writings have described, a situation has developed where too many women are chasing too few men. ”
And this of course, is not correct. There are plenty of suitable men, but there are a couple two tree factors to consider:
1. The male % of college attendees has been purposely driven down for over 50 years. the men who do remain, are largely effeminate, or non white. As data from dating apps reveals, white men are the most desirable demographic among available males.
2. The large number of feminist minded women don’t even understand their own conundrum, and it’s compounded by the fact that they have been led to believe that they are each a super smart entitled snowflake princess who is never wrong and knows everything: Feminist women desire masculine men, but since they are glib feminists, they hate almost all of them because there are almost no masculine men who share the same feminist ideology that these women do. Further, feminist women are bored, uninterested in, and simply not stimulated/challenged by effeminate, feminist minded males because… they are effeminate, feminist minded males. These simps are too thirsty, too agreeable, too weak. The frustrated feminist cannot reconcile her foolish worldview with her natural desires.
3. Most real men aren’t on college campuses, they are in the trades and on jobsites.
4. Lastly, female hypergamy has exploded into an out of control blight on society. Women have all been led to believe by film and Cosmo magazine that they are each worthy of a Brad Pitt/Tom Brady/Firestone heir. So they wait in eternal, barren hope of his arrival while turning their noses up at perfectly suitable men who are still plenty available.
It looks like you were making some good points.
However, you choose to write a book, so I quit reading
I’m in the construction field, and the facts are the tradesman are more intelligent than the engineers with a degree, even with all the rampant drug and alcohol abuse in the field.
This has been expressed to us by the general contractors many times.
I can’t tell you how many tradesman I’ve witnessed make engineers look foolish on the job.
I noticed the film Swept Away got a mention in the article. I want to note, I am an aficionado of the art of the capsule review. The best one I ever saw was for the film Battle of the Gargantuas, The review was “two gargantuas meet and engage in destructive battle.”
Then there was my own capsule review of Swept Away. “Two obnoxious people, one rich and one poor are marooned on a desert isle.”
Education does however, prove that you are trainable and receptive to programming.
This is an asset in engineering, as there is lots to learn from in the past in terms of theory, problem solving procedures, and of course applying all that to hands-on.
In non-stem vocations, these are negative aspects that result in not just lonely women, but women weaponized against society, highly paid and motivated.
There is also a certain persistence displayed that employers want. In my electrical engineering program, term 7 was notorious and everyone (adults) said, “tell your wife and your boss to leave you alone for 4 months.” They weren’t kidding. Labs for 40+ hours per week just in the PC interface course. Luckily I worked part time and was young.
Vivid rhetoric. You must have been reading Jim Goad.
I think technology is the factor that is wreaking havoc with personal relationships but that’s only based on my own experience, by that I mean the electronic world that I’m typing in right now is where most (many?) of us spend way too much time today …. not in the real physical world …. in the electronic world we’re not at any specific location …. our actual physical surrounding don’t exist, i.e. are not a factor, the people around us are not a factor …. we live in cyberspace …. which is not conducive to forming romantic or even personal relationships …
The author is ignoring sex dolls with mobility and AI. These are getting better by the day and already have physical responses to sexual activity. Combine this with pleasant conversation and a link to DeepSeek and you have the perfect companion.
The also come now warmed to 98.6F, so there’s no need to hustle women at any level of achievement.
LOL, typical female always counter argues with no logic or even consciousness. I know logic and consciousness are not a big part of your average DNA.
So, prove me wrong and give me one example of men being the reason for family/work not working, when Feminists are the ones more interested in having a career and a cat rather than having a child, yet your name is “The Real World.”
Go away with your silly bother.
PS. give your cat a hug for me.
Doing away with 7th/8th grade shop class for the boys and home economics for the girls has been the root cause of many failures in our society.
Interesting that before 1945, marriage and birth rates in Japan were extremely high.
Japan had a complex masculine-oriented society and males were expected to be “manly”. At the same time, Japanese females had a strong, rich, and traditional feminine culture.
After WW2, American “culture” including feminism was fostered onto the Japanese. Today Japanese society is a mess. Men have been feminized and women masculinized, The result is a lack of dating, marriage, and children. Young Japanese men stay in their parents basements watching porn and playing fantasy games and are terrified and incapable of dating.
6 million years of evolution in primate sexual behavior has been suddenly upended with new liberal ideas about the roles of men vs. women. But, unfortunately, our genes have not changed. The mismatch between our 6-milliom yr genetic sexual programming and our 100-yr old feminist/leftists/Marxist ideology is causing problems.
American white women tend to be narcissistic and remarkably unintelligent for the high regard in which they hold themselves. Since they are too narcissistic to take responsibility for their own bad choices in life, they blame men. The culture, for its part, has turned on young White men. In a society such as ours, White men are generally reviled and face institutional and/or systemic discrimination in employment. The primary and secondary school education system draws invidious distinctions between young boys and females and favors the latter over the former. The public school system literally abuses our sons and is dominated by females who want to boss someone else’s son around all day and get paid handsomely for the privilege. The mis-education system of the United States literally spiritually emasculates our sons and tells them “acting male” is bad and that they will only get somewhere in life if they do what women tell them to do. Those young men who are fortunate enough to find work in government or education invariably have to act like women, and embrace what women embrace, to have any chance at career success.
Then we have the peculiar specimen above who has made a life out of blaming men instead of looking in the mirror. Women want a world that favors them in hiring, promotion, education, and in family law courts. They want a world in which men must serve women or face significant penalties. In fact, millions of American womyn raise their sons to serve women. Eventually, men will rebel against their malefactors. To a White woman in our society, any arrangement that benefits her more than a man is a just arrangement. That extends to dating, sex, family relationships, and financial arrangements. Our culture tells our sons how stupid they are, hates any White man who shows any kind of assertiveness or fire in the belly (at least in the corporate or professional world) and does not like White men who act with confidence and agency. I could go on and on, but I don’t have the time to do so. This fetid White female pig above has lived a life of privilege, almost as privileged as a Jew. She and her kind need to be shipped to Gaza and left to the tender mating rituals of IOF soldiers when they spot a tender Palestinian lass of only 5 or 6. For the sake of the world, we probably do need fewer White women in it. Keep taking that clot shot, ladies! That’ll show the old man!
So true. I remember my mother, in 1970, bought a brand new house for $25,000. My dad didn’t work, but mom worked at a major grocery chain as a “Meat Wrapper” – hard work and 3 kids and a husband that did not work.
I remember them talking about their $205 a month mortgage payment, but it was doable. It was in a very nice rural area, would be considered a rambler but had cedar walls inside. Really nice place to grow up.
A few years ago I looked that home up on Realtor, and it had recently sold for about $800K.
Today, no working class person could buy that from their wages from working in the meat department of a store.
I can’t help but think that a similar process to that observed by John C. Calhoun in his Universe 25 mouse utopia experiments is taking place among mankind, as birth rates are falling everywhere worldwide.
Fantastic to see Mefobills back commenting.
Good article!
A stable society probably is structured piramidali
10% higher class
20% middle class
30% lower middle class
40% working class
with education given properly. It is a nonsense to give higher education to someone not capable to handle it.
But the intermediary cause rests in modernity which is the root cause for vulgarization (popularization) and “democratic approach” to institutions not fit for this. Education is an example in this sens.
Thank you for this article.
This certainly brings into focus, an event I encountered some years ago. Some fellow ‘practitioners’ (mechanics all and our only higher education was learning to make planes fly) came from out of town and wanted to go to a popular bar scene in a big city, so I took them.
Spending money on drinks with potential hook ups, the laughter, hollow chatter and all those efforts in pursuit of the ‘fruit of the passions’, I patiently watched as each of them pivoted from one prospect to another (most of them were married, so this surprised me). Being the designated driver, I patiently sat at the table alone and watched as these events unfolded. The behaviors are entertaining. Suddenly, a beautiful woman ‘dressed to the nines’ approaches me, hands me a business card, and after a brief exchange of weather talk, leaves. I was confused. I had pursued nothing, and yet…
Never seeking beyond the basic needs (I never liked luxury, I prefer pick up trucks) I spent my 25 years a mechanic simply mastering my ‘practice’ with no desire to ‘climb the food chain’. (The higher up you go, the closer they move you to the exit door, as it is said). So, in my mind, I thought: What could a woman of this stature possibly want with a humble mechanic? I thought for certain that once she knew all the details, she would have looked elsewhere. Surprisingly she didn’t.
As time progressed, I learned she had spent her entire youth, 20’s, through 40’s ‘climbing the ladder’ in pursuit of corporate success, and she was indeed very successful. She had finally ‘made it’, and good for her. Had the huge home in the best neighborhood, the cars, clothes and all the ‘finery’ that comes with it. She had outdone all her competitors. But she had never married. My feeling then was that she was ‘settling’ for less, as she couldn’t find someone in her age range who knew that they wanted to “….marry right now, have at least four kids….right now.”
Though I assumed she was “settling” for a less, I was willing to go along with it, until…..One Saturday morning I went to help her fix some things on her house. While having coffee in the kitchen, she promptly corrected me on my speech: “you mean seen instead of saw!?”
I could take the fact that she was highly educated, had an unfulfilled need (family), and made a lot more money than I did. But, in my ‘5 year out vision’, I saw I may only be miserable if I had to endure constant refinements to language or any other reminders of my ‘lack of higher education’. I foresaw that after the kids arrived , I would summarily be tossed.
Though my fellow practitioners thought I was stupid to pass up such an ‘opportunity’, I decided I would rather live my life in peace. I never went back. While it could’ve been my hesitance based on what had yet to occur, the blood stained axe in the garage might have been a contributor to my decision (supposedly it was a Halloween prop, but I thought those were supposed to plastic)……but I digress.
/pol is a limited hang-out, an ongoing psyop/guidance/manipulation operation. Perhaps a decade ago it was real but now, it’s astroturfed and siloed. So enjoy it, but know you’re being fed a very specific diet.
Growing turnips can be and is self-realization in no small degree if one is fully involved from start to finish in one’s own garden plot.
https://www.zerohedge.com/precious-metals/states-work-make-gold-and-silver-alternative-currencies-us-dollar
“In 1971, you could buy a house for $20,000 in Salt Lake, or 563 ounces of gold,” Ivory said. “Today, the average house is pushing $600,000, but with 563 ounces of gold you can buy more than three houses.
“Houses aren’t more expensive; they’re less expensive than ever on a fixed standard,” he said. “But our dollar has become this illusory standard where we’ve got unelected people deciding what the inflation rate is, which means how much of our money they’re going to take every year.”
Absolutely none of this happened ever. This is pure cope. Intellectual hippies flashing knives and guns, terrifying the jocks 😅 Stop ffs.
It is called Assortive Mating
Women go to College to meet men of right attributes but now outnumber men so are in a mess
I went to an all-male College which later went Co-ed and now all alumni bulletins show women with a few token men. It is as if it is now a female college
While intelligent women are attractive educated women can be a turn-off. They are programmed and not very worldly.
By Jones, you’ve invalidated the author’s entire thesis! Amazing work oy your part.
You mention women who have spread their legs for 50 to 500 men. There’s something that needs to be said here.
Vaginas are biomes. In healthy ones, aerobic bacteria dominate. In unhealthy ones, anaerobic do. The number of partners is positively correlated with domination by bad stinky, anaerobic bacteria. As are all STD’s and the frequency of infertility.
So if a woman has had many partners chances are her twat is infected with bad critters, smells bad and is infertile to boot. No wonder so many 40 year olds resort to fertility drugs or artificial means of fertilization.
So, ladies. The Feminist zipless-fuck movement sold you a bill of goods. There are no behaviors which have no consequences.
And men! Your instincts were right in preferring if not virgins, then at least women with less experience and fewer partners in her past.
As seen in the article below, the presence of anaerobic bacteria varies—not surprisingly–by race. Obesity is a factor as well. As is a proclivity for anal sex. So White men; if you are turned off by fat, black women shaking their ass in our collective faces it is probably because you know, instinctively, that her crotch stinks to high heaven etc. etc. In other words, there is a very real, biologically imperative reason for your disgust that has nothing to do with racism per se.
From the National Library of Medicine, PubMed Central
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6743080/
Yep.
Well, maybe skipping the “filling the test” would be a good idea. Providing
has been well thought out and executed.
But, there is a simple question a modern young man has to answer first. To himself.
For a woman to be attractive to you, what do you, REALLY, find more important:
1. Her appearance.
2. Her personality. Character in particular.
Only after, REALLY, getting the correct answer to that question he could try your, IMHO quite sound, advice.
Hehehe….now, what do you think, what’s the percentage of young men willing to, REALLY, prioritize the second over the first, in the Clown World.
Just a thought.
So he can buy and consume goods and services?
Ah, I tried that, 1969, with draftees from the NYC area and a training cadre from an army that had done nothing since the Korean War. Let’s say that the only difference between them and the “armed mob” in Vietnam was that they were not armed. Same in the advanced schools, including Ranger school.
Granted, the US Army pulled itself together after the Vietnam debacle. It has since fallen apart again during the Afghanistan fiasco and debacle.
My point? “Military” is not “magic”. The underlying nature of the society is reflected in the military, not the other way around.
I can’t even remember how many tires I have changed for stranded folks fitting that nearly exact scenario. It’s why I keep a floor jack and a cordless impact in the truck bed. LOL.
I am surprised that a man as thoughtful as Mr Devlin has such a narrow, and actually wrong, conception of what it takes to be at the pinnacle of the Maslow hierarchy of needs. It is not about wordly success. That comes lower down. My dear old stepfather was no less “being all he could be” than some famous writer or composer when he was quietly fishing, or looking after a hungry stray cat that had, one day, wandered into his shed. Indeed, wasn’t Mozart living in poverty much of the time? Perhaps he wasn’t “being all he could be”, anyway.
I.e. they consume most of the resources/goods/services?
LOL at the graph which says “Invincible men” instead of “Invisible men”. You couldn’t make it up.
Won’t be crowded much longer according to the few honest MDs/Researchers who know what is going on in post Cvirus/Cvirus Vx world as to TurboCancers, Heart ailments etc.– it’s amazing how well the Mainslime Media has hidden this but the numbers now are so monstrous cracks are appearing even there…at some point the flood gushes out…population implosion
Spot on.
Devlin hit the nail on the head with this article and the proof is in all the caterwauling you can observe from the many frothing old feminists and nu-male castrati.
Because white men enable them, let them, provide for them etc!
Almost no Americans realize that uncontrolled immigration destroyed the middle class and stable, affordable families by destroying inexpensive land and housing.
America’s population in 1945 was 40% of what it is now. In 1945, land was dirt cheap (except the centers of a few major cities). New houses were only 3 to 6 times the gross annual salary of a blue collar worker lacking a high school diploma.
As unlimited immigration doubled our population, suddenly there was no longer empty land — every acre was being used for something. Likewise, building materials and construction costs exploded in price, due to depletion of raw products (timber), bureaucracy, environmental and infrastructure costs and urban gridlock (think of the cost to build anything in NYC or California).
In Calif you can’t build ANYWHERE without spending several millions of Dollars and years of paperwork.
So, it is now impossible for young blue collar families to own their own home or have children in many areas. Of course you can still build relatively cheaply out in some depressed rural areas such as interior Mississippi and Alabama. But in 1945 you could buy a brand new 4-bd home with a big fenced yard a mile from the beach in Calif.
Note that in 1945 a family of 5 was affordable with only the man working. Today both the husband and wife work and yet are unable to afford a home or children.
Massive uncontrolled immigration destroyed the middle class by eliminating cheap housing.
What difference does that make?
Because European men spoilt/spoil them rotten!
Ie created by the male Feminist cunts/dicks?
Because white men enable them, let them, provide for them etc!
There were freaks and there were hippies and they weren’t the same, although there was overlap. But even the hippies weren’t as peaceful as you think. Manson’s Family were a kind of hippies. The use of drugs meant that many of these people were connected with the criminal community, biker gangs, anarchists, etc. The general term was “the underground” and even rock music went by that name.
What do women do when men stop enabling them/providing for them?
It’s becoming increasingly important to look back into the mid 70’s when corporate America decided to pack up and leave relocating to China and other third world countries. At the same time the “Me Generation” boomers were told to accept the new reality of race-to-the- bottom-wages, job openings that didn’t correspond to advanced formal education, to sooth our hopelessness with psychedelic music, drugs and culture, to encourage women to take the “Pill” rather than start a family they and their spouses could ill afford to support. This cultural and economic breakdown was a direct result of deliberate deconstruction by our wealthy classes i.e.,Rockefeller brothers and their ilk. The most influential and moneyed class pushed for women’s lib so as to collect taxes from both sexes. The Boomers gradually accepted this horrid manipulation(s) from above in the vague hope of at least preserving what wealth their parents had acquired. But the capitalist need to expand and project their enterprises globally, their desire to crush organized labor, their fear of a rising upper middle class, all came to a disastrous end for our western Occident and U.S. citizenry. Well it seems that on the surface of a technocratic, conjured civil society the movers and shakers got their wish of doubling income tax sources while not paying a penny themselves.
Corporate migration to the third world has created new and powerful enemies on an economic and military level, at the same time U.S. demography was destined to resemble Japan’s. The childless couple, the damage done to societal infrastructure had to be rectified by importing “nuclear families” from the southern hemisphere. This alone created a glaring and egregious rifts in categories of annual income where there wasn’t one before aka when the USA manufactured finished products and not financialized or militarized every damn thing…
Today, working mothers find it extremely difficult to provide emotional and educational support for their children, the Supermom was a disaster waiting to happen. The greater number of wealthy middle classes and blue collar unionized labor class(es) created in the 1950’s and beyond have vanished, leaving in it’s wake a few top end (often called the 1%’ers) bureaucrats, technocrats, and military establishment figures. Today a huge underclass of poor and large families are the direct result of no public oversight of corporate migration or huge throngs of immigrant movements. This pretzel twisting of a society was again, inspired and orchestrated once again, by the five Rockefeller brothers and their ilk, leaving Americans busted, broken, with a new underclass of emotionally and physically starved children. An artificially and improperly planned social engineering plot, all done by our cultural and economic manipulators. It comes to light, albeit way too late, their plan for America’s future-and elsewhere in the western Occident.
The rise of porn is symptomatic of an economically and educationally unbalanced society. Extremes can be found largely due to over-education, surfeit living styles and a lack of religious or humanistic belief system to guide the individual. In either case unhappiness looms limitless, don’t you know? haven’t you heard? god is dead…really?
So, it has come to pass that the Boomer Rock Stars e.g.,Roger Waters their fans and adherents have finally sobered up enough to see with crystal clarity, the destructive inner workings of Corporate Enterprise. To wit, their rapacity found in Chinese sweat shops, daily riots in rural and urban in that country, assembly line employees jumping out of factory windows (a spate of Wall Street brokers recently taking the high rise leap too), the deliberate environmental deregulation in Indonesia, India, China, Taiwan-now suffering in one way or another from the global expansion of monopoly capitalism. Clean water and air? who needs it, divorce rates lower than fifty percent? who needs it, stable middle class? who needs it? dope free Boomers and beyond, who needs it, global peace? who needs it. eh.. It should be obvious to everyone that true and democratic leadership cannot be found in the billionaire class, corporate CEOs, technocrats, military heroes or for that matter former bankers! Gawd help us…
In short, it’s time for a tabula rasa especially in the West. A return to social democracy. It starts with a complete and thorough voter rebellion. An end to the two party system and a call not to vote- at all during the next election cycle. The BDS concept must continue to expand far beyond Israel and by every avenue possible. Folks, its got to be grassroots representation next time (if there is a next time) or nothing. Feudal oligarchy can be stopped. This has been the historical truth, shown to us time and time again. Bloodletting is not required only a determination to change the current system.
You dodged a bullet for sure.
A bit more detail than I’d normally like, but everyone has their own writing style.
I don’t know, but the working class guys I associate with all do, or did, fine with the ladies. I know many fireman here in NY, they make good money and several have juggled women from the wealthy to the projects. Of the 8 guys I was closest to as a kid that went into the trades, all married and had kids, 4 divorced but one got back together. None of us ever had trouble finding a wife. My sister-in-law has a masters, her husband dropped out of college after one semester, married over 20 uears. I know an iron worker married to nurses, and a laborer married to a psychiatrist. In the end, it’s the young man’s personality, not his income. The older guys I know that never married usually had different girlfriends over the years, a few just liked hookers, but I can’t think of anyone who couldn’t meet a female because he lacked a college degree.
I spent many hours talking to architects and engineers from Alaska to Florida to Ukraine and they always made time for me because they knew I was extremely experienced. The biggest problem I had was dealing with inexperienced women engineers who wouldn’t listen to someone who has been on the job for decades like myself – one actually cost me a job because of her stupidity and ego – up in Alaskan Arctic.
Thanks a lot for your comment.
I am reminded of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who executed a battle manoeuver at Gettysburg that he had learned from his study of Roman military history. (It worked.) The Romans were good at that stuff.
I am further reminded of Eratosthenes of Samos, who calculated the circumference of the Earth to within 10% of its currently-accepted value centuries before Julius Caesar, using good old geometry. The Chinese were very clever fellows, but they just weren’t “into” geometry, so they didn’t know the size of our planet, whereas the Europeans did. The Greeks studied it for its own sake because it appealed to their aesthetic sense and their rationality.
Every time I see a Fox reporter reporting from the Capitol Rotundra I get a nano-thrill from seeing the perfection of the proportion and form of the classical architectural elements. The Houses of Parliament in Westminster, cluttered with neo-medieval doodads, simply cannot compare.
In a classical education, starting with Greek and Latin. Literature, History, with conservative professors. A year or two in Europe. It makes for a sense of beauty and critical reasoning and awareness of the tragedies of history but also the great individuals–the great men– of history. This creates maturity, respect for men, knowledge of how the world works and how it does not, and the powerful role of the feminine female.
And I am a She not a “Mr.”
Ha this exact thing happened to my sister some 25+ years ago. Dating a rich Arab. SHE changed the tire! (Daddy’s girl after all) I told her to skid him, though Id never met the guy.
The one time my sister listened to me. Now she’s married to an electrician/ linesman, they’ve got promising white kids and not spoiled brat retards.
Men, you have to change the tire. It’s not hard. Girls can do it.
There is this very popular theory along the lines that all the girls are chasing the attractive top ten per cent of the boys and the remaining ninety per cent of men are therefore involuntarily celibate, but I listened to a youtube video the other day that said the real reason there is less sexual activity these days is simply because people aren’t getting married at the same rate that they did in the past, and married people have more sex.
And mixing with low iq black trash that built nothing ,,, gee what could go wrong cuck
Plenty of black guys are plowing all your White daughters, wives, ex-wives because you can’t f and have a small dick. So what are you blathering about cuck.
Thanks very much. I was eating when I read that.
The most important analysis is this: exposing your daughter to high (potentially) earning cock meat.
I’ve had many mothers and a few men admit the whole point of sending their slits to uni is the hope they will coerce cock to marry them. Not a one of these trash niggers has figured a way for the same result that wouldn’t burden the new family with 150K of her debt. Not. A. One.
I can think of, and have observed several ways for the same result w/o the crippling debt.
Anywho, whitey is fucking dumb and letting your retarded wife run your life – results in suboptimal returns. It’s an ironclad and historical truth.
Another worthless screed not worth reading after the first clueless sentence.
It truly is no wonder more women graduate college today (incl medical and law schools) and aren’t as interested in marrying. Because too many 21st century males are unmotivated, constantly whining, refuse to take responsibility and view themselves as victims. Who the hell wants that?
A couple of Mack trucks could be driven through your enormous blind spots. Next….
Your comment/observations are a rare bit of reality on this thread.
Most of the boys, literally, on UR don’t have the maturity or humility to look at themselves and figure-out what they lack or don’t understand about adult relationships. It’s just constant devolution into blaming the other party (women, in this case). The way children do.
Yes, of course, people of all types and circumstances form relationships, marry and have kids. Same as it ever was. Maybe some of the bros here will consider your words whereas females stating the same thing would be instantly dismissed. Smh…
Thank you for continuing to prove my point. It makes my day when a dude (cluelessly) does that -which happens to be quite often.
Pro tip: Take responsibility for your life and stop whining.
What is female hypergamy?
Does the author of this piece define “female hypergamy” anywhere?
If so, I missed it.
Please point this out to me—or, better, just supply the definition.
Thanks!
https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/F.%20Roger%20Devlin%20-%20Sexual%20Utopia%20in%20Power%20-%20The%20Feminist%20Revolt%20Against%20Civilization.pdf
Pages 22, 41, 42 and 58.
Most resources, goods and services are consumed by the public but in that special way such that they pay too much with excess profits funneled to elite corporate owners. They can do that if their kleptocracy controls politics, the legal system and the media.
Some of the commenters here get it, others don’t. The whole thing boils down to dating apps and social media. A whole heck of a lot of out of touch boomers on here who have no idea what’s going on out there in the cultural landscape. Also, a lot of non-critical thinking women.
I couldn’t get past half the article, with all due respects to this author, as the author absurdly assumes men should give a damn what women think about anything beyond home life. So, let these miseducated white women bring it on— the total annihilation of white men—which will entail hell on earth for them. And, just asking, what sort of man beyond limp-wristed beta males like Tim “tampon” Waltz gives a shit what women think?
You get it. A lot of others don’t. Your comment is dead on about what’s going on.
Typical woman, must have the last word and when nothing else works, she comes back with some clueless bullshit trying to bully by shaming. Oh, it doesn’t work on men any longer sweetheart, because feminist are proven to be unnatural women who have lost their instinct and gave up their reason for their existence. In other words, you’re not all that, crying on the net because men are ignoring you.
Listen, it is not men’s fault that women nearing forty and above, with a large body count, have a glorious career but no family in their future, just a cat.
Really? I mean, ok, I get it, don’t bother with the harpies, save yourself. But you wouldn’t let the children get b on the boat first?!! Why do you hate little boys?
Fascinating – I had never heard of the Mefobill before reading this post. Thank you friend.
Hilariously, Wikipedia tries to portray the Mefobill as some kind of accounting trick pulled by le ebil nazis in order to “re-arm”, but even their short hit-piece cannot completely obscure the fact that it was, in effect, a sovereign government-issued debt-free currency. And it completely transformed German society in a few short years.
Imagine what our World might look like if we ever decide to throw off the imaginary shackles of jewish debt-slavery…
Well, I just thought, “once and done”. I wanted to provide irrefutable proof. I’d read a number of other sites which gave the same information. I just thought it was interesting and appropriate. Not everyone will click on links.
He roasted you beautifully, but you sniveled a lame response which proved his point. Beautiful!
Sieg Heil!
Sovereign money channels toward a target, something like aiming a firehose. I like to ask my fellow brainwashed Americans, “Did the Colonials ever use their bill system to fund the Atlantic slave trade?”
Of course they have no understanding, as virtually all Americans have been clowned, just like what the Wikipedia piece is attempting. The Atlantic slave trade was a business plan, hatched in the international (Jewish owned or converted) finance markets of London and Amsterdam.
But, you know .. whitey evil in a neat turn around propaganda trick.
As you probably know, the ships were always full. On the outbound leg – full of rum, hemp, and timber. On the inbound leg, full of negroes. The negroes were especially dropped off in the Caribbean to grow sugar, to make rum… rinse and repeat. The debt instruments hypothecated in London and Amsterdam were made to perform, and as interest wants to grow exponentially, then… More slaves, More ships, fill the west of the Americas up with negroes… we are ok here in our gated communities in London. Parasites.
Both Oeffabills and Mefobills were identical to the bill system introduced in Mass. Bay by John Winthrop, but with a twist.
When a Mefobill was discounted (redeemed) the interest on it fluxed outward, to the holder. The Reichsbank paid the holder face value plus interest.
The interest did not drain the money supply, it put more back in. So it was debt free, that channeled, and not into sordid gain taking, but into the commons and industry. It was industrial capitalism, invented in the Colonies. It was also in alignment with the teachings of Frederick List, who transmitted the American System to the Kaiser. Hitler resurrected the system, but he wasn’t the inventor – it already existed in German monetary history.
Catastrophically, the U.S. was hoaxed in a split ticket election in 1912, funded by the usual suspects. The revolutionary war was actually an economic battle between industrial capitalism, invented in the colonies, and finance capitalism which had taken over London, especially by 1694.
Currency act of 1764 demonetized colonial script, which was the sovereign money spun out of the bills of credit. In the case of Mass Bay, it was pine tree shillings. This then caused a depression, the real reason for the war.
Germany was also monetarily attacked, especially in the hyperinflation. The usual characters tried to take over and dispossess Germans from their lands and history. Russia in the 90’s , same gambit.
The bad guys won the world wars, and the American people fought on the wrong side, and against their founding.
Heh. How old are you? It’s been called HR for 40 years or more. ;-} I don’t like the new term any more than you do.
I agree with you though, and as for your point about Personnel, Peak Stupidity had a series about the HR ladies – it’s not too favorable either:
Human Resources – scourge of the Big-Biz world
HR – scourge of the business world – Part 2 – HR on the job
HR – scourge of the business world – Exhibit A – Toby Flenderson
HR – scourge of the business world – Part 3
Excerpt from Part 2 (these are old posts – what was “PC” is now Wokeness):
LOL
Without our blacks to make us great, America would have been a third-world continent like Africa.
This sort of imposed belief in a fake-reality is how nations and cultures are destroyed.
Two words: George Floyd (aka Saint Fentanyl).
Great comment, O.N.! (I ran out of [Agree]s.)
Don’t mind “The Real World”. She’s a resident feminist who doesn’t want to know the real world.
Years ago a Christian blogger I used to occasionally read made a compelling case for slut shaming. He pointed out that slut shaming was effective not only because women were the gatekeepers of sex, but due to the very nature of sex dynamics. If society were to shame a handful of alpha chads into quitting the sexual marketplace, the remaining alphas would swoop in and take the place (and women) of the departed ones. Hence promiscuity will endure as a now smaller number of alphas will share the same number of women. However, if a bunch of women were shamed into quitting the sexual marketplace and starting families with that boring programmer, then promiscuity would actually decline.
The Muslims of course are renowned for keeping their women in line, but the Chinese have an interesting approach as well. The Chinese elites don’t give women any freebies which then forces them to compete against men in a harsh economic environment – something which women can’t do. Hence Chinese women don’t spend their fertile years playing musical cocks like white women. Instead, they prioritize finding a reliable provider or risk spending their lives navigating an unforgiving economic landscape all alone. In many ways, white women’s terrible behavior is subsidized by the state.
Sir John Glubb wrote The Fate Of Empires, which noticed the tendency of empires to pass through a number of stages, including prosperity, before collapsing after about 250 years.
https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
After collapse, rebuilding occurs, but in a different place. The one exception is the Roman Republic, which ran its course and was then replaced by the Roman Empire. Arguably the decisive factor in this continuity was Augustus’ Julian Laws, which encouraged marriage and procreation, and criminalized adultery. Comparison with Unwin’s work, and with Devlin’s article, suggest that this is exactly what we need – but there is no chance whatsoever that such legislation could be enacted in a democracy. In other words, democracy can never be self-sustaining because people will not vote to outlaw their vices, even if these are socially destructive.
True that!
The real problem is that white men make such terrible friends. They are utterly incapable of cooperating with each other because they’re competitively focused–an utterly idiotic thing to do considering the immigrant men coming in are on the same page. You cannot beat group strategy with individual effort. Tripling down on muh effortmaxxing will never compensate for such an obvious social failure. Women pick up on this immediately because they’re extremely intuitive about the social dynamics of power. They know who’s winning and who’s losing. That’s all muh hypergamy really is–social standing. It’s not about how much money you make, what silly suit dress up job you have, or what car you drive. It’s about how well you can conduct yourself socially. And protip; if you have no friends then it means you absolutely suck at this. Women notice. But I get it coz white “men” absolutely suck at being your mate. It’s all a toxic cycle, but I feel zero sympathy for white men. In fact, I can even dig up a modicum of sympathy for these dumb white feminist hoes before I could find a single damn to give these disloyal white men with defective communal instincts and the survival instincts of a dodo bird.
6 word sentence Affirmative action discrimination against White men
Created, enforcement agencies created, reaffirmed, by the highest elitist White men in the country Presidents Kennedy Johnson and Nixon and the 100 percent White man satanic Supreme Court
March 6 1961. EO 10925
March 8 1971 Griggs vs Duke Power
Just ten years and two days is all it took for the most elite and powerful White men in America to turn White men into the lowest caste in the affirmative action caste hierarchy
And the White men of unz are only interested in anti abortion and Who Killed Kennedy the race traitor puppet of anti White Jews who began affirmative action 7 weeks after he became president Jew Arthur Goldberg whom Kennedy appointed to the satanic supremes wrote EO 10925 Kennedy joyously signed it.
It was White men legalized discrimination against other White men .
Kaiser vs Weber 1979 was just a mopping up operation.
That might be why companies got rid of real offices and set up the cubicle farms so the HR witches could monitor racist expressions. Alleged reason was to save space. Real reason was to keep The Eye of Sauron and Big Brother On Everyone
White men destroyed other White men
Ah, yes: yet another macho-muchacho (muchacha?) eructing wisdom like Señor Steroids, Wes Watson von Queequeg:
Video Link
NB: Beware “tough guys” (and “fierce wimmin”) who mock wounded guys as whiners. The maligners themselves are often the most pampered twats in both known and unknown universes, wear masks to hide their own real selves, and stuff odd things in their hidden closets. In truth, they’re the reason feminism succeeds.
TRWs routinely talk out of their cornchutes. They see men as expendable: emotionless robots to the manure pile born…existing only to serve others.
Of course, TRW males willingly serve Vag. Given beer, monitors to watch The Game on, and occasional parceled-out poon and, well, they’re happy as Pigs-In-Poop: pipsqueaks indeed.
In truth, they’ll eagerly eat a mile of female stool just to see where it comes from. Naturally, being male averse, they ignore inconvenient misandric facts like…
Females living longer than men:
1900: 2 years
1980: 8 years
2025: 5.3
Office on Women’s Health (HHS): well-funded since 1991
Office on Men’s Health (HHS): non-existent
skyrocketing male suicide rates
demoralized boys failing in school
females cultivating irresponsibility and aversion to accountability
male deaths-on-the-job increasing to Mt. Everest levels
Gents being the overwhelming occupants of military cemeteries world-wide
All-male colleges (Williams, Harvard, Princeton) gone
All-female colleges (Mt. Holyoke, Bryn Mawr, Wellesley, Barnard) thriving
Boys Club: gone
Girls, Inc.: thriving
Boy Scouts: gone
Girl Scouts: thriving
GymIt: coed
Healthworks (owner of GymIt): single-sex, female-only
Marriage: “What’s his is theirs, what’s hers is hers!”
International Women’s Day: universally lauded and observed
International Men’s Day: uncelebrated (and on the same day as World Toilet Day: fact!)
Women’s History Month: a much touted annual event
Men’s History Month: non-existent
Divorce instigators: 70% female
Child-custody awardees 2017: 80% female
Child-supporters orders: given almost exclusively to men
Breast cancer funding 2022: $580.6M (42,211 deaths)
Prostate cancer funding 2022: $280.5 (33,363 deaths) should have been $458.9M to be “equal”
DV initiated by females in hetero couples: 50%
Battered-women shelters: as common as McDonald’s
Battered-men shelters: as rare as hen’s teeth
B-b-but TRW says men “have all the power” and s/he/it is an honorable entity. Et tu, Brutè?
Ie socialism?
Do the elite corporate owners consume most of the resources?
What does the state produce?
Surely not a high percentage. Those prioritizing character over appearance and superficial charm would likely be INTJ’s, or youngsters whose fathers are similarly serious and proactive.
Tough titties, kitties!
Why should men be the only ones forced to change “with the times”? Let women finally pay the cost for their benefits, too. Let them handle trade-offs like adults must.
Plus why should men care how women “feel”? Females don’t give a wet fart about the “lonely” and “sexually-frustrated” males they exploit via OnlyWhores and other T&A poon-for-profit endeavors.
Whenever I hear bints blubbering about trannies winning in “female sports,” I remind them:
“You effing thots bragged for the past 6o years that you were not only equal to men, but better. You demanded parity and got your wish good and hard. So enjoy it. You now get to compete fully and openly with males.
And not whorish behavior by women?
Also, how is sex between consenting equals “bad”?
Plus why disempower the female halves of “double-backed beasts”? Do adult bints lack agency?
Again, how is that “bad”?
And if bad, why so only for males?
Bwahahahaha! How effing condescending and naive!
It reminds me of an old Second City TV skit. A harried Willy Loman-like sales shlub walks up to his house after a sales trip, hearing motorcycles roaring off. He spots his wife, disheveled and distraught, standing on the porch looking longingly in the distance.
Concerned, he runs to comfort her.
Holding her, he implores: “What happened, Honey? You look a mess! Are you hurt?”
With a barely-veiled smile, she replies: “Don’t worry, Dear. I’m fine. A motorcycle gang stopped by, but only wanted sex. And that’s all I gave ’em.”
How does F. Roger know?
Also, imagine saying that men, able to savor 5-star Michelin meals nightly, nevertheless say they’re “lousy”!
The author needs to stop coddling sluts, acting all in loco parentis. He also needs to ignore what women say, and watch what they do.
But Augustus’ cultural reforms totally failed. Lucky for Rome there was no other serious competitor. It was able to trundle along another few centuries.
Yes, it’s pretty clear we will soon be wiped out by AI. But if we don’t, IVF, artificial wombs (don’t even need this with surrogacy) will end pair-bonding. A man who wants kids only has to get clones and engineered eggs from a lab. They’ll still require care so for that low IQ but baby loving creatures will be needed.
Like in occupations, mankind is becoming more biologically specialized.
. Resources gatherers (if not cornered by AI).
. Egg producers (if not cloned, engineered, created de Novo).
. Wombs (if no artificial wombs develop).
. Nannies (if no robot nannies).
These are the new sexes of mankind. Man and woman is done.
Subsidized by the State in some ways. It would be more accurate to say it is supported by the prevailing institutional culture (both public and private) which favors and heavily supports woe-mons.
Exactly,
when education been ‘marketized’ by the usual suspect, the nation will head for failure.
College degrees doesn’t mean shxt now, most of the gen-z don’t have a life-support skill, not willing to get down, but dreaming of ‘go up’
That’s the issue
Thank you for this assessment of where we are in 2025. It started in the 90s that i noticed CHANGE in the Relationships between Men and Women. In Germany the ultimate Man Hating Woman is Alice Schwarzer, a ugly Bitch no Man would ever want to touch. Hence the Frutstration. It’s a character that is now called Feminazi on the intl. social media.
The Slogan of these Feminazi is : A woman needs a Man like a Fish needs a Bicycle ! Your article highlights why and how we got here:
In my Generation (born 1048) Girls where hunting Boys and Boys where hunting Girls. This was in a pretty balanced Sex Enviroment. Than the great Freedom came in form of the anti baby pill. Now we all could have as much sex without fearing the consequences. Both Girls and Boys enjoyed that new found Freedom.
The next bigger change came with the increase of disposable income/wealth. Marriage disappeared as an option rapidly and many girls did not want to have Babies.
Next came the ultimate destruction. Woman chased men normally to obtain wealth and status provided the men. Men on the other hand chased women because of them being sexually attractive.
The Creators Plug and Socket Construction worked until that desire disappeared in pure Egoism. I live in Cambodia where most young people … until now married pretty young and have between 1-3 children, mostly girls. Contrary to this the Generation of young Cambodian Girls now have no plans to marry or even have a boyfriend. Their best friend now is a smart phone, mostly loaded with Facebook or Tiktok. They don’t even know what a Browser is.
Another Factor that played a vital role in the development was the UN’s global Program : WOMAN are POWERFULL . As if that was ever a question ! Women regulary outsmarted men in most of the History using the Weapons of a Woman………..Charme , Sex.
All of the above developments lead to where we are now; Japan, Germany and most of the western world face a de-population in their own societies so they have to import Migrants to survive economically……………….ending up in destroying their own culture etc.
We live in a world of cycles. Porsperity followed by Ignorance, Downfall , War and Reset. Nothing really changed.
I just told you they don’t. They hold most of the money (claim on resources) that effectively reduces the resources that the public per capita can afford.
It’s the modern form of serfdom with a 0.01% Globalist billionaire aristocracy (plutocracy).
Well, you bought into that lie if not the others. “have to”. Yeah, you’ve been told.
We suppose that women are hard wired to look for a good heterosexual relationship (family/children) because it’s also the hard wired source of human happiness and a stable society.
They can complain all they want about competing for scarce high status men, but they themselves have removed half the higher status men (the university places the previous went to men and their professional careers).
They have time to reflect on EQUITY in their unhappy spinsterhood.
Just can’t stop the whining and endless prattling, I see.
Forever boys…
Carry-on, no one reads it anyway,
No, she just remains amazed at how dense the dialed-out relics on the UR continue to be. They will die that way, no doubt.
Yet more males who struggle to adapt to an always changing world and are easily confused by it. They can’t be reasoned with so, an aware person just laughs or shakes their head.
What’s funny (or sad, depending on your POV), is one commenter claims only 10% of males are able to attract females. Not only is that not true, he doesn’t state why he thinks that’s the case or why other males are so lame they can’t figure-out how to make themselves more marketable.
So, yes, DENSENESS is a primary handicap incl how you’ll deny that it is – thereby proving the point. Smh…
That was indeed a different time. 400 years later, the printing press changed EVERYTHING.
OK, one never expects to hear from
CambodiaerrrKampuchea, no, Cambodia again. Thanks.I do agree completely with Commentator Mike on his correction. The immigration invasion has been a huge loss for the Western countries, both culturally and economically. That’s a load of hooey you swallowed regarding bringing in immigrants to help the economy. Japan is doing just fine… for now. (I mean unless/until they give in to the Globalists.)
I don’t think the world that we have now is something anyone ought to give up and adapt to. It takes men to fight for a decent world. We’ve done it before… hence the trend away from cave dwelling and decorative cave drawings.
I tend to agree with your point about that 10% claim. OTOH, I’m not in that scene now, thankfully.
The chance is probably high, for two reasons, one of which some might find less believable than the other.
The perhaps less-believable reason (to some) is that many men also possess good character.
The plainly evident reason is that most men find most women to be physically attractive. The woman of higher character is probably also good-looking enough.
Women still find validation in academia. Men long ago learned that it is largely an overpriced degree mill that seeks to destroy western civilization and the nuclear family. Men can earn good livings in the trades but women want men with the status that education confers to them. If women were honest, they would seek and find the “educated men” they crave in the coffee houses and bars where the overeducated and underemployed men toil as bartenders and baristas.
Women cannot reconcile their economic advancement with inborn hypergamic instinct. So they must go after men from the one per cent while telling the rest of the world there are “no good men”. Women will learn that when you are the high earner, you are the stabilizing force in the household. Seeking it through hypergamy is chasing phantoms.
Men cannot validate that which demonizes them as academia does. That leaves them to date women from other cultures that don’t hate men. For this, they are lampooned as exploitative perverts. Note, when women practice sex tourism, it is liberation as seen in the films “How Stella Got Her Groove Back” and “Shirley Valentine”. When men do it, it is perversion.
If you are a woman from a culture where femicide exists, egalitarian North American men look pretty good. Hypergamy rules always.
Feminism has lied by telling women that their natural pursuit of emotional security in relationships is just the patriarchy writ large. Even Germaine Greer admits that eschewing parenthood has left her feeling deeply empty and cheated. As mundane as it seems, we are largely driven by our reproductive instincts. Men have always known this. Women will have to find out the hard way by having a generation of them pretend that their emotional/biological selves are a social construct as they become lonely, bitter cat ladies.
I’d say if you are under 40 and willing to give it a go, another language def. helps to resettle overseas,
But if you are over 50 and about to retire, and purely using it for enjoy literature, prbly wouldn’t do that much benefit.
I speak ok Mandarin Chinese, and I can’t stress how it brought me closer to Chinese and no doubt, the benefit of my small business,
the downside of course,
when you sit there reading/relaxing, you over hear all those Chinese Karen’s gossips and nonsense
According to the Google-Ngram American-English corpus, the crossover-point for “HR/Human Resources > Personnel” was:
1996.
See here, for the century-long trend-lines, to zoom-in, or to tinker as desired: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=personnel+department%2CHR+department%2CHuman+Resources+department&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en-US&smoothing=0
The 1996 crossover is for general usage. (Ngram is a database of total word-appearances in a large sample of books, novels, magazines, etc., pegged to publication-year.) If limiting to uses by/in trend-setting companies, the crossover-point must’ve been earlier.
Maybe the keenest of linguistic-political observers in the late 1980s were able, already then, to guess that the (then-)relatively-new term “Human Resources” would imminently displace “Personnel.” Displace and re-place, such that “HR” would be the one familiar to children being born about that time (ca. late 1980s, early 1990s). If so, they’d have been right. HR (the term and the thing) is a story of the mid-1980s to late-1990s, give or take.
The movie Office Space (produced in 1998; released in early 1999), is a cultural artifact from the immediate period after the rise of Human Resources (the term, and the thing; without getting too specific). That movie might fairly be called a cultural commentary or satire on the HR-ification of that which is called “work,” symbolized by the rise of the term Human Resources in the preceding ten to twenty years (1980s and 1990s). The young-male protagonists, there in the late 1990s, would actually have known no other world of professional-work but one of HR. Office Space was a protest against HR.
The tv-show The Office, of the mid-2000s to early 2010s, had plenty of satire of and commentary on HR, a decade more water under the bridge after Office Space by which time HR was more mature and self-confident and becoming outright culturally powerful.
I quote from Peak Stupidity, “HR, Scourge of the Business World, Part II” (April 2018):
It is not at all surprising to see this kind of commentary from 2018. You wouldn’t likely see it, not in this kind of way, in 1978 or 1988 or even 1998 yet. (2008, maybe.) It’s fair to say there is a correlation between the rise of “HR, the term” and “HR, the thing.” This is certainly also tied to the concept of Femininization of institutions, which is, I think, the main topic of Dr Devlin’s latest essay (i.e., this one; “Decadence, the Corruption of Status Hierarchies, & Female Hypergamy,” March 2025).
________
A few more interesting findings from the Ngram graph:
(1.) the “Human Resources” curve only emerges in the early 1970s — one would guess, from this graph-data, that the term “Human Resources” was coined at that time, in the feel-good, buzzwordy, leave-the-past-behind spirit of the 1970s;
(2.) It was not until the mid-1980s that Human Resources (the term; and perhaps the thing itself) really begin its unstoppable rise. That after existing for ten to fifteen years in a semi-ghettoized condition;
(3.) The term “HR department” lags behind its non-acronym parent-form considerably. “HR department” only becomes truly competitive with “Human Resources department” in the mid-2000s (yes, it’s true there are huge numbers of uses of just “HR” but we cannot search for that);
(4.) There is an “HR department”>”Human Resources department” crossover-point: The year 2020! The year to be remembered forever for Panic and Lockdowns. Symbolic. Poetically perfect. (I won’t over-explain the connection I see between HR and the year 2020. One either gets it or doesn’t.)
Spot-on and well done.
And yet you’re unable to refute anything he said, aren’t you?
Don Trumpleone – 1
The Real World – 0
I’m in awe, Cloudwalker. Mandarin Chinese! I can’t imagine tackling that. A friend studied it and told me a little about it. Intonation, the up and down of the voice, carrying meaning… what a weird concept. I think I hear it when I hear Chinese conversing. I’ve never heard Chinese well enough to learn if their vowels and consonants are similar to ours. It amazes me that Chinese studying here are able to learn English as well as they do.
Was just talking about this with a half Thai/half American. He was pointing out the ridiculous way that Western men socialize. They get together at bars and jab and sneer at each other. Each one trying to outdo the other. To rank himself higher. Particularly the English stand out in these cruel bully games (They will, of course, claim they are witty to the point of genius but in reality they are petty bullies)
Thais of course do not engage in this ritualized social S&M.
What’s to refute? One has to read the incessant whining and inaccurate prattling first. But, there’s no point in doing so when someone evidences at the start that they are clueless and unreasonable. Skip…the rest is just more drivel.
Next….
No, resources are used to mass-produce goods/services or they are consumed by the masses.
The billionaires don’t consume most of the resources, they organize the mass production of goods/services in order for the masses to consume them.
” Young Japanese men stay in their parents basements watching porn and playing fantasy games and are terrified and incapable of dating.”
Most Japanese live in apartments hence they don’t have basements. The world is not the United States.
This IS our world – that is the point. The denialism is strong in many and so is the dreamy idea of society moving backwards. It’s complete nonsense engaged in by guys who think the world ever was like the comic books they loved so much.
There are no superheroes – they are a fiction. A great deal of history, as we understand it, is inaccurate and lacking. Because guess who wrote it? They won’t admit their mistakes and their constant penchant for violence and destruction.
But, real history is riddled with all of that plus epic levels of killing ^^^ (as well as the achievements). Real history also evidences that women had far more achievements than the writers of our inaccurate/lacking history would chronicle. Quite easily threatened, they are. It’s sad, a drag on society and they should do better – it’s men that hold other men back in that regard. My term: relics….is very apt.
“All of the above developments lead to where we are now; Japan, Germany and most of the western world face a de-population in their own societies so they have to import Migrants to survive economically……”
You’ve swallowed the propaganda pill, importing migrants has nothing to do with helping western countries to survive economically. It’s only government and big business that want this to happen. Governments want third world immigrants because they can be programmed to vote for the party that let them in and big business wants them because it enables them to bust unions and pay lower wages.
That really applies more to you than anyone else, doesn’t it?
Are you at all capable of engaging in reasoned argument? Or do you prefer to stick with your usual tawdry intellectual mud wrestling?
I know what no nonsense is, because I was there. I imagine you were too, but you are too stuck on Feminism to turn back to the truth of human nature.
No, I was never a reader of comic books. Nowadays, they are called “graphic novels”, I’ve found out.
>women will be 60% of college grads
Data from the NCES for the academic year 2020-21 (seems to be the most recent available):
Degrees conferred by race/ethnicity and sex
Women received 63% of associate’s, 59% of bachelor’s, 65% of master’s, and 59% of doctoral degrees (also includes professional degrees: doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc) — this imbalance is likely to grow, as is the fraction of these higher achieving women, mostly more intelligent white women, who will never marry or have children.
Graph at the link:
X/Emil Kirkegaard
Radical racial egalitarianism and gender equality, including the devolution of the natural, complementary roles of men and women in society, are destroying the West — the latter is doing great psychological harm to women.
Hello, Mr. Hail. Thanks for digging into this. My experience was hearing that a friend of mine’s Dad worked in the Personnel office at a big company in town. This was at the end of the 1970s. I worked in an office job in the late 1980s in which that group was called Human Resources. Thankfully, at that point, the talk out of them was just about when paychecks come and filling out that form for Death & Dismemberment Insurance. (Dismemberment? I had to ask about that …)
So this aligns reasonably well with what you wrote. The material in the books and magazines (depending on how much was from the novels) may be expected to be behind the times, I guess.
Yes, Office Space contained great commentary on the world of HR-oppressed employees. In The Office (my favorite), except for trips over to NYC, it was just the one guy Toby. Great stuff!
Video Link
.
This kind of harmless talk will get you sent to corporate HR these days:
Video Link
.
PS: That almost 7 y/o typo is now fixed. Thanks.
Very, uhhh, interesting. The one takeaway point for me is that The Vaginal Microbiome would be a great name for a band.
I’ll tell you a good one already taken. That was The Dishonorable Discharge.
.
.
.
.
.
Full band name was The Dishonorable Discharge (of Mike Hunt). That was the name Chrissy Hynde used before they became The Pretenders. We had some clever people back then, huh?
My Gawd, how old are you? You were there for most of human history? Amazing.
Then, you well-know — there aren’t superheroes. Only flawed people, as always. So, why do you run away from addressing all of the violence, destruction and killing your bros are responsible for? All of that heinousness easily equals, and may surpass, their building achievements.
Step-up, let’s discuss that…it’s long overdue to do so. What say you about the amount of it historically and that it, still, continues on?
I haven’t read the entire thread….so much of it is bogus.
But, if you’ll point me to a couple of posts (by #) that actually contain “reasoned argument”….not MADE-UP scenarios by those with giant blind spots and self-serving interests…I’d be happy to debate.
And which women are desperately eager to participate in, as witnessed by the number of women who demand to be admitted to combat roles in the military.
And why do you run away from all the violence, destruction and killing for which your gender is responsible?
You commented on a thread without bothering to read it all?
Stick to your intellectual mud-wrestling.
I’m not running away from that. I want the end of the Feminist anti-Human-Nature program foisted upon us to ruin American and other Western society. I’m not running from that either, just trying to help squash that bullshit.
I don’t remember the time before it was around, but I remember a time when it hadn’t really taken full hold yet. Men & Women, different yet highly compatible – what a concept! (Pretty foreign to you though.)
So, you’ve got nothing and can’t point to any. Color me not shocked — both that they don’t exist and that you won’t acknowledge that.
A perfect case of projection. ^^^ Congratulations, such as it is.
Chinese is a hideous ugly language.
You should here them when they shout or are angry. Like the propaganda ads for the military at the beginning of all movies in theatres.
Thai and Lao, those are nice languages. And Hmong sounds like birds singing at times.
I think you mean the tradesmen are more experienced or practical—it is highly unlikely that they have higher IQs than engineers.
Rob Henderson is an inexperienced Tradcon and as such he is blind to the fact that hypergamy has TWO sides—beta bux and alpha fux.
What that means is they want BOTH sides fulfilled as highly as possible but all the Tradcons talk about is the status or beta bux side because they are very uncomfortable with the reality of female sexuality.
Men with daughters are specifically clueless on these topics because they can’t imagine their precious girl fucking a stranger she met while drunk at the bar, so they only speak of hypergamy in the status context.
Women want to fuck hot guys. They will marry the hot guys who also have high status but these men are very rare and if they’re smart, they’re playing the field and not tying themselves down.
When women approach 30, they subconsciously realize they aren’t going to land a man they are sexually attracted to so they settle for a Nice Guy who thinks he won the lottery. After several years and kids she has gotten what she wants from the dupe and if she is still thin and pretty is able to score a more masculine man at work.
This is a very common story.
“A stable society probably is structured piramidali
10% higher class
20% middle class
30% lower middle class
40% working class”
These days it’s more like
10% higher class
10% middle class
30% lower middle class
30% working class
20% unemployable
“My point? “Military” is not “magic”. The underlying nature of the society is reflected in the military, not the other way around.”
I believe that the draft and service in the armed forces was a huge part of the “melting pot”. If nothing else, after being drafted and serving in the military a person could be expected to speak English and might have developed some affinity towards the country they served, unlike the “cultural diversity” found in todays society.
Another American servile weakling, pathologically unable to criticise women or hold them to account.
America is a matriarchy – the men are subserviant slaves to female sexuality and validation. This is obvious to any man who has travelled.
How on earth a normal man feels sorry for promiscuous campus women is beyond my comprehension. Boo fucking hoo – you’re all getting dicked by the same guy.
Also, he assumes that the small percentage of studs who rattle all the women are bad at sex. This is idioitic. More experience translates to more quality.
Lastly, American females barely qualify as women by international standards. They are chubby, stupid, lack social skills, can’t cook and are not known for being good in bed.
The solution for the US is either Sharia law – or simply watch the passport bros go out into the world and pickup Latinas and Asian women.
…or any other parameter of rationality, for that matter.
Thanks for that. I sometimes give it second thoughts, but that’s what happens with ‘rose colored glasses’
This alone tells me she viewed you merely as a means to an end.
Considering women’s hypergamous nature, don’t you think that the first and last of these facts were nothing but a recipe for future disaster? They’re a guarantee that your name would have eventually appeared on a divorce petition.
You would have been tossed, and she would have “traded up.” And you can be damn sure she’d have had you sign a pre-nup.
It’s natural to give your decision second thoughts. But I’m sure your instincts at the time were sound.
You still doubt yourself? Spare a thought to where you’d be now if you’d been wiped out in a divorce. Better yet, take a look at your friends who HAVE been zeroed out in divorce court.
The real problem is that white men make such terrible friends. They are utterly incapable of cooperating with each other because they’re competitively focused–an utterly idiotic thing to do considering the immigrant men coming in are on the same page.
Have you seen a photo of a libertarian convention? It’s like 98% White men.
It doesn’t seem that non-Whites are as certain that the world is merely an individualist battleground of resources where you compete against your neighbors at all costs. Immigrants seem comfortable working together and building social networks…..which simply makes sense.
You cannot beat group strategy with individual effort. Tripling down on muh effortmaxxing will never compensate for such an obvious social failure.
You make some fair points but I don’t think it is social failure.
White men in America have more of a One True Gospel problem.
They latch on to some conservative/libertarian/Christian denomination/Freemason belief system and believe strongly it is the One True Way that everyone should adopt. Any criticisms must be from The Bad Ones that can’t see the truth. That leads to a lot of judgement of non-followers.
White men are more prone to this than any other group. Anglos more than Italians and Irish. It leads to more revolutionary ideas but in practice can be really annoying.
A lot of those systems promote individualism over cooperation. That individualism gets tied to American myths of the unencumbered individual. It’s the lone cowboy mentality.
I also wouldn’t say that White men are worse than any other group for friendship. I don’t know where you live but most people in America don’t make for great friends and as such it can take time to find some decent ones. Too many Americans are self-conscious from mass media and have a hard time simply being themselves.
Women pick up on this immediately because they’re extremely intuitive about the social dynamics of power.
I think there is some truth to this statement. I think a lot of White women view the average White man as a sap for buying into individualism while non-White groups work together. It doesn’t help with the “nice guy” persona that a lot of White guys have a hard time shedding. Modern “feel-good” forms of protestant Christianity combined with race-denial individualistic ideologies like conservatism can turn White men into doormats that are unappealing to women.
Men and women are biologically different but their roles in every aspect of life complement each other and that is the best way to continue our existence.
Another overlong article that fails to mention the worldwide population bubble. (At least another commenter pointed it out.) This site is so boring.
Females are blesscursed with a sex drive. Before the pill, satisfying it meant getting pregnant and babies. Also need for hard toil for livelihoods and patriarchal property laws meant it was imperative for females to select wisely. So even in spite of their drive females will choose wisely. Now females can earn money, use the pill, satiate the sex drive. The situation with males was simpler, toil hard, make barren plots bloom, get a reliable faithful wife who give the minimum of headaches. It still remains the same for males. Granted there were always undesirable males and females. The modern female now has a problem, finding a partner who will tolerate her, with her intolerable attitude, sexual mores, unreliability, and gives the maximum of headaches, looks down upon her partner. The average male also has a problem, he is short of intellect, not sophisticated, in effect projecting his boorishness as a defensive mechanism. Here we are talking of two minorities. The K-strategist female (look up r/K strategy), who abhors promiscuity, is intelligent in choosing the best provider and provider (paternal investment in parenting) and gives the least headache. The other minority is competent men (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein#The_Competent_Man ). Having said all that, it is the female sex drive combined with female maternal drive that continues the propagation of the species. So any combination is possible. Having said that (second time) if current social conditions prevail for a long time, children of competent men and K-strategist female will constitute a higher proportion of humanity, as both parents’ investment in parenting and unbroken household will ensure children of such union will survive and prosper.
Correct. And with a good part of lower middle class (and even working class) doing denatured meaningless jobs.
Video Link
Video Link
Elmer:
You are a socially perceptive man who has much of value to say. I imagine you as a very intelligent electrician or plumber or something. This is most emphatically not intended as a snotty, “elitist” insult.
Your long and interesting post was difficult to read. I had to force myself to get to the bottom, despite my sincere interest in learning your point of view. Please take this as friendly criticism and please don’t feel hurt.
Interesting points, thanks for sharing.
In summary: women want socioeconomic equality but aren’t romantically interested in equals.
“Of the 8 guys I was closest to as a kid that went into the trades, all married and had kids, 4 divorced but one got back together.”
This.
Sure you’re able to marry if you really wish to. Doesn’t mean these types of marriages are optimal. Marriages where the wife is of higher socioeconomic status are notoriously volatile and prone to infidelity and divorce; as you yourself have demonstrated above.
Also….the sons that come out of these unions tend to be highly passive, insecure and socially awkward/stunted, and do struggle academically. The daughters tend to be masculine overachievers. Often times the sisters do much better in school and professionally than their brothers.
The biggest losers and weedheads in school almost always had professional mothers. The most stable figures virtually always tended to be raised by stay-at-home mothers.
“Women received 63% of associate’s, 59% of bachelor’s, 65% of master’s, and 59% of doctoral degrees (also includes professional degrees: doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc) — this imbalance is likely to grow, as is the fraction of these higher achieving women, mostly more intelligent white women, who will never marry or have children.”
Bad stuff. In egalitarian societies highly educated women tend not to procreate. Education strongly correlates with IQ…particularly in the case of STEM. IQ is also highly genetically determined. Creating the ironic situation wherein increased current education for women will result in lower general IQ in the future.
Another negative side effect of increased formal education for females is that it works as a disincentive for men to get into blue collar work. Producing yet again an ironic situation wherein relatively well paid work is shunned because of low status associated with those jobs.
What is wrong with seashell necklaces?
I do not see anything wrong with the thesis Olfactory Ethics. To write it, the author had to read and analyze many books in English literature. She explains: “My thesis studies how certain authors of the past century used smell in literature to indicate social hostilities, such as prejudice and exploitation. It also connects this to our real-world understanding of the role the sense plays in society.”
We did not know that she rejects working class men.
Does anyone know what that means? I guess we could start with how likely they are to go for the bachelor’s: say 20%. What’s 91% more than that?
Maybe I should be asking: If bachelor’s is 2%, is 91% more than that 93%?
But then I remembered to ask AI. Copilot e say:
The phrase “91 percent more likely” means an increase relative to the original likelihood, rather than simply adding 91% to the original percentage.
All of those immigrants are heavily subsidized by the federal government. Those men are not getting ahead because of their social cooperation. Were they not socializing properly in the shitholes they came from? And if they were, why didn’t their societies become world beaters?
That’s ok. War is coming. When the government conscripts your asses to go fight Russia, you will learn what your ancestors learned.
You are saying that homosexual people should be socially scared of being, or appearing, or being suspected of being, homosexual, as to marry and procreate, living a life of dissociation and pretence (with what that entails for their soul — sorry for using “soul”, what to you may sound as profanity), and that in order to raise childbirth rates.