The good news is that Spookerbowl ratings were way down this year, so a growing number of Whites* are getting the message that their nation’s corporatized bonding rituals are corrupted by anti-White animus and not worth supporting any more.
*Hispanics don’t much like football, so the NFL will have a hard time capturing the drunk driver market, but the drop in ratings is most likely caused by Whites fleeing rather than by a sudden exodus of hispanics who were never big fans of concussionball.
PS By my count about half of the commercials had mixed race couples (mostly BM-WW). (((They’re))) not gonna let up on the gas unless forced to surrender the steering wheel, eh?
Memos exposing Deep State (FBI/DOJ/Obama/Clinton) treason are everywhere lately, and each with more redactions than the previous one. Obviously, there is a lot of ass-covering going on, and enough high ranking swamp creatures seemingly hold the belief that the government doesn’t really answer to the American people, so the people shouldn’t be privy to classified information about the Deep State’s corruption and subversion of democracy. “Bend over and take it, soyim”, is the prevailing attitude of the arrogant pricks running America into the ground.
America is in the Redacted Republic stage of decline, just before we become a Late Republic.
A Redacted Republic is marked by elites scurrying like rats to hide from the sunlight. When things get really bad it’ll be the gallows of the Late Republic they’ll try to avoid (usually by throwing other elites under the bus).
Jack Random asks,
Wait they are scurrying? Based on Comey’s response [ed: Comey feigned a cavalier “That’s it?” reply to the Memo] I thought it was “Yeah I broke the law, suck it we are invincible!” And this is a guy the deep state has already held out to be burned…not a lot of fear I see.
It’s common for prey animals to puff their chests and fluff their fur when cornered. It’s a last ditch desperation ploy to avoid the tooth and claw by mimicking the strength and confidence of a larger, more fearsome beast. But their predator is President Trump, so this move won’t work.
But the deeper insight to have here is that there is already no functional difference between a FBI Special Agent, a CNN commentator, or, for that matter, a New York Times op-ed author, a professor of political science, a public school district administrator and a SEIU organizer.
Cull The Globohomo Establishment. It’s the only way to be sure.
***
In completely related news, the central figure — Carter Page — that the FBI claims was the impetus for getting a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and transition team was an FBI employee in 2016 before he was a Russian spy in 2017.
From a reader: “Worse, Page was employed by the FBI in March of ’16, and was used to obtain the FISA Warrant by the FBI in October of ’16.”
Right.
The Swamp is about to be drained bigly.
This is unbelievable banana republic corruption in the executive branch agencies. It almost looks as if the FBI used one of their agents (Page) to entrap Trump by assigning him to worm his way into his campaign.
I speculated on Twatter’s replacement that the infamous Deep-State-Exposed Memo would contain the following revelations:
1. mccabe sat on thecunt emails on huma laptop
2. secret society is real
3. lynch-comey-strzok collusion to exculpate thecunt in her email crime
4. FISA warrant issued from baseless evidence, sources and payment parties withheld by FBI from FISC judges
5. conclusion: fbi-doj-gaymulatto-thecunt conspiracy to influence election and subvert democracy
From what I’ve read of the publicly released memo, I was right on at least points 2, 4 and 5; thecunt loyalists in the FBI, DOJ, and gay mulatto admin spied on a political opponent using baseless “evidence” gathered by a firm hired by the DNC and by former British spy Steele who was being paid by the FBI for his services. The upcoming IG report should prove me right on points 1 and 3. (Rumor has it McCabe will be the one to sing for his freedom.)
That’s nothing less than the politicization of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies; a massive act of collusion between a presidential candidate and various unaccountable deep state actors in our three-letter agencies to spy on her opponent in the hopes of affecting an election outcome, or of undermining an incoming administration.
Bigger than Watergate would be an understatement. This is the Mother of All Political Scandals.
Others agree:
The entire “Russian collusion” hoax narrative is a political hit job by thecunt and her Stalinist lackeys in the Creep State. Is it time to officially declare the US a banana republic? Or are we Ingsoc now?
Via @Volbeck, “The FBI cries out in pain as it spies on you.”
Gummy Worm Comey is such an arrogant prick. Glad to see him get BTFO here, in the most shivvy manner possible (calling Phoney Comey what he is: a hillary hit man and treasonous eel).
The Hill reports the FISA memo is a “deep state bombshell”:
The Nunes memo is out, and it is a stunning rebuke of the prevailing Democrat narrative on Trump-Russia collusion. It shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that extreme abuses of authority and bad faith were instrumental in getting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to approve a counterintelligence warrant that circumvents normal 4th Amendment processes for an American citizen.
[…]
There can no longer be any doubt — oppo research was used to weaponize the intelligence collection process on behalf of one American political party against the other during a presidential election.
[…]
Their motivation for such an abuse appears to be that some or all of them shared the feelings of Steele, a British national, who according to the memo told the FBI he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” The preponderance of the evidence now shows us Steele was not the only one who felt this way.
[…]
But we now have clear evidence that yes, Trump associates were targets of intelligence surveillance, using a flimsy partisan pretext that only makes sense if those advancing it from the corridors of government power were filled with a judgment-clouding hatred for all things Trump.
#CullTheDeepState
This seems like an appropriate time to quote Scripture at Comey,
But justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” Amos 5:24
Here’s some news you can rue: 40% of all US births are to single moms, a 700% increase since 1960, (although the rate does appear to have peaked in the last few years….we’ll see if it holds (it won’t if the US de-Whitening continues apace)).
The Social Capital Project, spearheaded by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), decided to investigate why single motherhood has become more common in the last two generations. Since 1960, America’s single motherhood rate has risen from 5 percent to 40 percent in absolute terms—a 700 percent increase in under 60 years.
Too short of a time period for this trend to be the result of genetic disposition alone. Genes may be involved (in that there could be genes which make a woman more or less monogamously inclined), but given the rapid increase in single mommery it’s reasonable to conclude that deep and broad social changes have exerted the greater influence, either by directly altering behavior through a suite of incentives and disincentives, or by providing reinforcing stimuli to genetic triggers that switch on or off depending on environmental inputs.
The report offers explanations for the rise in single mommery that reiterate most of what I’ve written on the topic: namely, female economic independence, State welfare as Daddy substitute, the Pill, and male economic stagnation are the big incentives fueling the increase, largely through the mechanism of reducing the number of fertile-age married women.
To review, the past 60 years have seen more unmarried women and more of them engaged in sexual activity, leading more of them to become pregnant, even as fewer married women today get pregnant or give birth. Shotgun marriage has declined, and over the past 40 years declining rates of unintended pregnancy among unmarried women and rising acceptability of unwed childbearing have led to fewer abortions. Rising unwed pregnancies, declining shotgun marriage, and falling abortion produced more unwed births. All of those trends increased the share of births to unmarried women.
How important were each of these changes in raising the share of births that occur to unmarried women? We can roughly simulate counterfactual scenarios in which some factors changed as they actually did while others are kept at their early 1960s levels. In Figure 14, the top line shows the estimated increase in the share of births that were to unwed mothers from the early 1960s to the late 2000s, an increase from 8 percent to 43 percent. Many people might be inclined to see this rise and attribute it to an increase in pregnancy among single women. But the next line down indicates that this factor is a minor one. It shows that the share of births to unwed mothers would still have risen to 36 percent if the nonmarital pregnancy rate had stayed as low as it was in the early 1960s while everything else changed—the share of women who were married, marital pregnancy rates, marital abortion rates, nonmarital abortion rates, and shotgun marriage rates.
Emphasis mine. The factors driving the massive increase in single mommery are primarily exogenous, ie independent of the single woman pregnancy rate.
In fact, the fall in the marital pregnancy rate appears to be a more important factor; if that rate had remained at its high early-1960s level while everything else changed (including the nonmarital pregnancy rate), the share of births to unwed mothers would have risen only to 32 percent.
Fewer marriages, more later-in-life enfeebled-egg marriages together decrease the marital pregnancy rate. (The marital abortion rate is very low.)
The decline in shotgun marriage has been a bigger factor than changes in either nonmarital or marital pregnancy rates taken individually (and about as important as changes in both taken together).
Shotgun marriage — basically, a woman’s family persuading the father to “man up” and marry the woman he knocked up before she gives unwed birth to the shame of her family — is a lot less common today because severed social bonds which used to make the threat of public shame palpable, and cultural changes in how single momhood is viewed (from less to more positively), have reduced the urgency to provide a conception with the imprimatur of marriage.
The biggest single factor in raising the share of births that were to unwed mothers seems to be the decline in marriage, which has expanded the pool of potential unwed mothers. Had the share of women ages 15-44 who were married stayed at its early-1960s level while everything else changed, just 24 percent of births would have been to single mothers in the late 2000s. The decline in marriage primarily reflects an increase in never-married women rather than divorced or widowed women (not shown).
This is basically the “I don’t need no man, I’m an empowered careerist shrike” phenomenon, which, as you will read, created a premarital sexual market feedback loop encouraging men to demand sex from women without offering marriage in exchange.
The report authors conclude that the cause of the rise in single mommery is NOT primarily a consequence of negative economic trends. Instead, they blame affluence for weakened family stability.
Affluence brought a proliferation of novel ways to enjoy leisure time and fed a growing pay-off to enrolling in higher education. Marrying early, having children early, staying in unfulfilling marriages, and having large families became more costly relative to the available alternative ways to achieve fulfillment, whether through pursuit of a humanities Ph.D. or sexual gratification.41 The result was an increase in the pool of single people and a decline in marital birth rates.
At the same time that women began to demand more educational and economic opportunities, rising affluence facilitated the expansion of the two-earner family. The introduction of more and more labor-saving home appliances and types of processed food reduced the amount of time necessary for housework. As family incomes rose, more and more couples could afford paid child care, meals outside the home, and other services that replaced the considerable work housewives had traditionally undertaken.
Rising affluence also was responsible for the development of reliable contraception. The pill, in particular, allowed women to control their own fertility and facilitated family planning around career considerations. This new ability greatly increased the appeal to women of professional pursuits.
Executive Mommery: Affluence and technology decoupled sex from marriage.
Affluence and technological development facilitated the decoupling of sex and marriage, which increased nonmarital sexual activity and elevated unwed pregnancy rates. Penicillin brought an end to the syphilis crisis that regulated sexual activity through much of the first half of the twentieth century. The pill provided a way to dramatically reduce the chance of an unintended pregnancy. And abortion became safer, fueling rising demand for legal abortion services that culminated in the Roe decision.
As nonmarital sex became safer and its consequences less severe, more single men and women became sexually active. This trend became self-reinforcing. Normative regulation of sexual activity among single men and women loosened. In 1969, 68 percent of American adults agreed that pre-marital sexual relations were wrong. Just four years later in 1973, that number had dropped to 47 percent, a decline of nearly one-third, and as of 2016, only 33 percent agreed that sex between an unmarried man and woman is wrong. What is more, pressure increased on ambivalent single women to engage in sex in order to win and maintain the affection of romantic partners and potential husbands.
When women no longer needed marriage (because women were economically and reproductively self-sufficient), men no longer needed to barter marriage for sex. Now where have you read that before? Oh yeah…..HERE.
As we have seen, despite advances in birth control (or, paradoxically, because of those advances), more sexual activity led to higher rates of unwed pregnancy. While wider use of more effective birth control might have been expected to reduce pregnancy rates, it may be that the greater availability of contraception itself increased sexual activity.
Steve Sailer has made this same point about abortion; paradoxically, the increasing availability of cheap, effective abortion incentivized increased sexual activity, because it’s human nature to do risky stuff if we believe operators are standing by to protect us from the consequences of our risk-taking.
Regardless of the reasons behind this increase, not all sexually active couples used effective methods of birth control or used them consistently. Many couples, in the pre-pill past, would have been poor contraceptors but were not sexually active. But as nonmarital sex became more common, their reproductive fates became more tied to their ability to prevent sexual intercourse from leading to pregnancy. In this regard, relatively disadvantaged women suffered disproportionate consequences from the more general changes in societal norms around nonmarital sex.
Noblesse malice. Or: culture norms matter.
The availability of the pill and legal abortion also affected shotgun marriage, which further contributed to the rise in unwed childbearing. Previously, single women could expect a promise of marriage from their boyfriends in the event of pregnancy. Men, after all, generally would have to make a promise of marriage in any other relationship. But over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, given the diminished risk of unintended pregnancy, more and more single women were open to sex without a marriage promise. That weakened the bargaining power of single women who preferred not to engage in sex without the promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.
Sluts are a chaste woman’s worst enemy. The feminist movement against “slut shaming” is the revolt of less attractive women who can’t compete with prettier women able to convince men to hold out for marriage without the women giving away the bore store.
Further, the availability of effective contraception and abortion may have led many men (and their friends and family) to reason that since women have a degree of control over whether they get pregnant or choose to carry a pregnancy to term, a man who impregnates a single woman is not obliged to marry her.
Feedback loops, I see them. AKA it takes two to tango. AKA men and women don’t exist in a sex-differentiated vacuum.
Finally, affluence also made it more affordable to be a single mother relative to the era before World War II. Socioeconomically advantaged women could better afford to raise children on one income, sometimes with child support from their former partner. Disadvantaged women could draw on an expanded federal safety net that reflected the rising wealth of American taxpayers. That safety net afforded a fairly meager lifestyle on its own, but in combination with their own earnings and assistance from family, friends, and partners, women could increasingly make it work (especially if they had only known an impoverished living standard themselves growing up).
However, the particular way that American safety nets were designed often disincentivized women from marrying or staying married, since benefits were generally even less generous to two-parent families. That led to increases in unwed childbearing too.
There is a contingent of tradcon-ish righties who balk at the idea that the State and the social norming of working women create disincentives for women to marry; but here we are, data in hand showing exactly that.
The report authors conclude that male economic fortunes aren’t the main cause of the decreasing marriage rate (and subsequent rise in the single mommery rate). However, I note that the authors make the critical analysis error of ignoring the reality and impact of female hypergamy. This is a very common flaw in these studies, but it’s a critical flaw because women don’t judge the status of men in absolute terms; women judge the marriageability (the bux) and romantic worth (the fux) of men relative to other men AND relative TO WOMEN. Read on to see what I mean.
The idea that affluence is behind the rising share of births to unwed mothers may sound strange to those who hold a more negative view of the American economy. The prevailing wisdom is that unwed childbearing has been driven by the deteriorating position of male workers. Poor, working- and middle-class men, it is claimed, have seen lower pay over time, reflecting globalization, deindustrialization, and automation. The weak labor market has driven an increasing number of men out of the labor force entirely. Thus, some reason that the reduction in the share of potential male partners who women consider “marriageable,” combined with a persisting value placed on motherhood, explains why women have increasingly chosen to have children without getting married.
There are a number of problems with this position, however. For starters, most of the trends discussed above that have contributed to a rising unwed birth share began or began to accelerate in the 1960s. Nonmarital birth rates were rising in the 1940s and 1950s, and perhaps earlier. The increase in the unwed birth share itself started in the 1950s and accelerated beginning in the 1960s. In other words, these trends generally extend back at least to the “Golden Age” of twentieth-century America—when productivity and wage growth were much stronger than after the 1960s, and when household incomes were rising faster in the bottom half of the income distribution than above it.
Second, rather than seeing declines in pay, men have generally seen flat or modestly rising compensation since the 1960s. That certainly has been a disappointment compared with the strong wage growth of the 1950s and 1960s, but it remains the case that men are mostly doing at least as well as their 1960s counterparts, and so it is unclear why they should seem less marriageable than in the past.
I’ll clear it up for the authors: Hypergamy. As women have seen their career prospects and personal incomes rise, economically stagnating men have been hardest hit by women’s innate desire for higher status mates. A working class man is a catch for a jobless single woman, but he brings nothing to a working woman who already has her basic needs met. And as women rise occupationally and financially, their attraction for higher status men than themselves rises along with their own economic status. This leads to working women choosing men based on non-provider mate value cues, or choosing to drop out of the marriage hunt altogether.
Oh, and obesity. Can’t forget female obesity, which is a big (heh) driver of the low marriage rate. Men don’t want to marry fat chicks. There are more fat chicks since 1960. Ergo, there are fewer marriages.
(Fat men are less of an obstacle to marriage because women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s physiques as men put on women’s physiques.)
Third, to the extent that men’s labor market outcomes have worsened, this could reflect the increase in unwed childbearing rather than the former causing the latter. Research finds that married men have better labor market outcomes than single men, even accounting for the fact that they may be more marriageable.
Genetic confounds.
If partners, families, and society writ large have come to accept single parenthood, it is likely that their expectations of nonresident fathers have diminished as well, which could have reduced the effort those men put into optimizing their economic status.
I’ve mentioned this before: working women disincentivize male resource provision (there are those sexual market feedback loops again), and the corollary to that is economically vulnerable women incentivize male resource provision.
This may be particularly true in disadvantaged communities where single parenthood is common. Alternatively, the legal or moral obligation to pay child support may lead some absent fathers to avoid the formal labor market and rely on family, friends, informal work, and the underground economy.
When the State gets involved in the family formation racket, bad outcomes usually ensue.
Even the “marriageable man” hypothesis ultimately presumes a baseline level of affluence that, historically speaking, is a recent phenomenon. The argument that because men are less marriageable, women are delaying or foregoing marriage but still choosing to have children presumes that many women are able to afford single motherhood. If not for increased female earnings potential relative to the past or a more generous government safety net, it would matter little if men became less marriageable. Women would be unable to afford single motherhood, and rather than seeing rising unwed childbearing we would simply see reduced childbearing.
Ensuring the economic self-sufficiency of women has created the single mom crisis.
Social phenomena are complicated and have multiple causes, but our read of the evidence—and we are by no means alone—is that negative economic trends explain little of the overall rise in unwed childbearing. Instead, we think it is more likely that, as with other worsening aspects of our associational life, rising family instability primarily reflects societal affluence, which reduced marriage and marital childbearing, increased divorce and nonmarital sexual activity and pregnancy, and reduced shotgun marriage.
Mass scaled society is creating a gynarchy (defined by me as a society organized around the primacy of women and their needs, and characterized by social chaos). The Gynarchy is a synonym for Africa. That’s where we’re heading….the blight side of history.
This does not mean we should lament rising affluence. There is no reason we must choose between having healthier families and communities or having stronger economic growth. Indeed, it is possible to imagine a future in which rising affluence will allow more women and men alike to work less and less and spend more time with children, families, friends, neighbors, and fellow congregants.
On this subject, I’m a pessimist. Good times create…and all that. First, there’s the loss of purpose that accompanies the Automated Life. This hits men especially hard, because men, unlike women, don’t primarily get their sense of purpose from raising children and chatting up the neighbors hoping for gossipy dirt. Men get their purpose from work, from achievement, and (yes) from sexual conquest.
Second, there’s the matriarchal nature of “workless” societies in which men are rendered superfluous as resource providers for women and children. This is guaranteed to encourage cock carouseling, alpha fux beta bux, delayed marriage and spinsterhood, and low fertility rate. The end result of affluence will be more time with oneself, rather than with children, family, or friends.
But to date, we have tended to spend additional wealth to pursue individual and personal priorities. That has eroded our associational life—including the stability of our families, especially among disadvantaged families who have enjoyed the fruits of rising affluence less than others have. Continuing to make the same choices with our ever-higher purchasing power threatens to diminish the quality of life for rich and poor alike.
A reader asks, “if the single mom babies are White, maybe it’s not so bad”. I reply: In the short term, sure, not so bad. Single mom White babies >>>>> married mom nonWhite babies. But over the long haul, in a timeline that gene-culture co-evolution can have an impact on behavior by cementing into the code of life a new suite of traits, it’s bad.
And it’s an irrefutable fact that the bastard spawn of single moms do worse in life on just about every measurable outcome than do the kids of married moms. Whether the cause is genetic or social, doesn’t much matter. As long as you can set your watch to the predictability of a single mom sprogson huffing paint under an overpass or sprogdaughter mudsharking by age 14, it’s in the interest of society to keep a lid on the single mommery rate.
The risk of allowing our affluence to normalize a high rate of single mommery is evident: If in the fullness of time our 40% single mom rate metastasizes, there will be YUGE downstream consequences and emanating penumbras from what would amount to the wholesale destruction of the Eurasian family structure that has existed for millennia. Each generation laboring under a grossly high single mom rate will slowly inch the character of our women away from K-selected Euro monogamy and toward r-selected African polygyny/polyandry. What starts as a social selection pressure eventually ends as a genetic selection effect.
PS As usual for current sociological research, from what I can tell none of the data and analysis was controlled for race. Maybe I should expect this glaring oversight from a cucked Utahn like Mike Lee, but the days when everybody ignores the racial elephant in the room are over.
***
I just noticed the stock photo that the National Economics Editorial used as a banner for their single mom story is this:
You CAN find all-White couples and families in the media, as long as the story is about something dysfunctional, like single momhood or volcuckery. White privilege, everyone!
Audacious E rightly rebukes sometimes too-far-out-of-the-box thinker Agnostic for his assertion that race doesn’t matter in politics nearly as much as patronage matters.
The least insightful way to analyze politics is focusing on race and ethnicity.
There are several points that need addressing, so here it goes.
Agnostic:
California is one of the states where Democrats win the presidential vote even among white voters only.
California’s whites are pretty evenly split politically. Bush won them by 4 points, McCain lost them by 6 points, Romney won them by 8 points, and Trump lost them by 5 points.
The reason California is settling into a deeper and deeper blue hue is revealed not by the figures from the last four presidential elections that are circled in red and blue but by those that are circled in green:
The Original Audacious then displays graphs showing CA’s White population falling in 2004 from 65% to 48% in 2016.
A white California would still be a politically competitive California. A non-white California–just like a non-white anywhere–is not.
Race matters. And it matters more as a country gets more multiracial, aggravating existing human impulses to regroup along racial kin lines against the rising threats from invading and aggrandizing competitor tribes.
Audacious notes that Whites are more ideologically and politically flexible than nonWhites, but that the shift of CA’s Whites to the Far Left has been driven at its source by massive race churn.
That’s not to dismiss changes in the composition of the white population. White Californians were more right-leaning a couple of generations ago because the Mexican migration into the state, the ignoring of proposition 187, and the subsequent immigrant deluge propped up the top, swelled the ranks of the bottom, and pushed out the middle. The non-white bottom welfared their way out of regulations and zoning restrictions and plastic bag taxes while the top gladly accepted these nuisance expenses in return for uncontested dominion over some of the most prized real estate in the hemisphere.
As I’ve been predicting (and which imo unfolding events are proving true), Whites will become less politically flexible as their share of the total US population shrinks. That is, Whites will be pushed into a tribal identity by the forces of nonWhite tribalism, as a survival mechanism.
Audacious also takes Agnostic to task for over-emphasizing the influence of patronage networks in elections.
Agnostic also puts too much emphasis on the shifting of various industries that putatively drive white voting patterns, namely finance, tech, and the media, for Democrats and agriculture, natural resources, and the military for Republicans. A glaring problem with this template for understanding electoral trends is that Vermont, which contains none of the Democrat industries and a couple of the Republican ones, has the most Democrat-voting whites in the country (save for the Imperial Capital itself).
If industry told the whole story, we’d expect Vermont and West Virginia to vote the same way. Hardly anything could be further from the truth. The American Nations–that is, ethnicity–matters more.
A surefire way to make intraWhite ethnicity matter LESS is to flood the country with nonWhites. Watch for future politicians abandoning the framing of their issues in terms that appeal to this or that White voter bloc, and instead to frame issues along more starkly race-based concerns.
Contemporary California is still mostly the country’s future rather than the country’s present. It’s certainly not the country’s past. In beating Carter by 10 points in the popular vote and 440 votes in the Electoral College, Ronald Reagan garnered 56% of the white vote. In losing to Clinton by 2 points in the popular vote and winning by ‘just’ 77 votes in the Electoral College, Trump garnered 58% of the white vote.
Yes, in his first landslide victory, Reagan performed worse among whites than Trump did in his relatively narrow Electoral College win in 2016.
Wow. Says it all.
The shift is virtually entirely attributable to the growth in the Hispanic (and to a lesser extent, Asian) population(s) over that period of time. In 1980, Hispanics and Asians comprised 2% of the electorate. The November before last, they made up 15%. What a difference a generation–and a disastrous 1986 immigration bill–makes!
I recall reading a news item recently which claimed Reagan’s biggest regret was signing off on the 1986 amnesty. The man knew. And as usual Reagan-idolizing NeverTrump cuckservatives are BTFO.
The takeaway is that the Democrat nomination now runs through non-whites, and specifically through blacks. Blacks vote nearly monolithically, not just in general elections but also in primaries. White Democrats will not vote overwhelmingly against the candidate blacks have chosen. If they did, it would signal a drastic change in the American landscape.
This is the civilization-saving question of the era: will leftie Whites continue voting in (by proxy or intentionally) their nonWhite dispossessors out of virtue shrieking spite for BadWhites, or will they begin to align, however tentatively at first, with rightist Whites into an implicitly White voting bloc capable of preserving Heritage America from being overrun and scattered to the winds by the Swarth Swarm?
A race replacement pogrom that occurs sufficiently quickly, I predict, will provoke the drastic change in White voting behavior suggested by AE’s warning.
In the “A Test Of Your Game: The Lonesome Threesome” post, readers stepped up and provided myriad solutions, some effective some not so much, to the problem of a girl devoting more of her attention to her phone than to her date.
I promised I would recap the best responses, so here they are in no particular order of pickup artistry or date management skill.
Many readers suggests that our meek beta male being upstaged by an iPhag should “flirt with the cute girl behind the counter”.
This is basically Dread Game, and it works because it taps into women’s irresistible need to be with men whom other women want to be with, and their fear of losing those kind of men to other women. It’s a perfectly fine catch-all answer, but it’s neither immediate nor direct (given that it relies on a cute girl being present who will accept your flirtations and banter with you in front of your date), so a lot has to be in place for it to have the desired effect on your date.
***
Many other readers opted for a more aggressive response — variations on the pimp hand, ultimatums, leaving her with a huge check, grabbing her phone and passing it to a stranger/tossing it in the trash/shoving it under your crotch, buying a donut and placing it on her head while saying “a crown fit for a princess”, pulling a Stone Cold Steve Austin move (hi, whorefinder), taking a dump in front of her, etc etc — which, while personally satisfying, aren’t good Game. Use only if you want to go home smiling without her.
A general rule is that the best responses to a iPhag whore will be from a place of amused mastery rather than anger or butthurtiness.
***
“Ghost” was the most frequent suggestion.
This is an understandable reaction, and probably the best bet for men who lack the skill to jump-start a bad date but don’t like being so publicly humiliated by a woman. As a reader wrote, ““Just get up and walk out” is a perfectly good option if you already failed hard enough for it to end up like this.”
Ghosting is easy and time-saving, and there’s a small chance it refocuses the girl’s attention after the fact. However, there are better resolutions with much higher odds of closing the deal. Imagine you have time to burn and love a challenge, and you can see why ghosting isn’t an inviting option.
CH Maxim #92: Almost every bad date scenario is salvageable.
It’s just a question of how much effort you’re willing to spend to turn it around, (which itself is a question of how many plates you have concurrently spinning).
***
Sentient has one of the best variations on the “take her phone away from her” theme:
“Cool phone!!! Let me see…
Put in pocket.
As I was saying…”
Yes I’ve done it. Solid move. If she balks tell her “it’s grown up time”.
You’re living dangerously once you make a #MeToo move on a girl’s phone, so be prepared for her to bitch you out or scream and alert any nearby white knights. Mostly I liked Sentient’s response for the line “it’s grown up time”.
***
A Student of the Game,
Take a photo of her and text it to her with the caption, “I’m about to walk out on this shitty date.”
Haha. That’s funny-aggressive, which is better than just aggressive.
***
Schockenheimer,
“Hey! Eyes up here, not on my dick pic.”
“What?”
“Put your porn away.”
Frame locked in. Banter away…
Funny, jerkish, assumes the sale. “You can stop pretending to look at your phone while checking out my crotch.” Good stuff.
***
Steve Silver,
Stand up. Grab her phone. Start dancing whilst making a Snapchat story. Go take selfies with other ppl at the restaurant. Say, “okay okay, you can have your phone back.” Start to hand it to her, “but not yet.” Make another snap of you thrusting your pelvis into the phone. “Ok, here you go.” Start to hand her the phone, but as she puts her hand out, pull the phone back, lick it, then hand it to her.
You can’t go wrong with “children’s games” Game, (because women are in fact overgrown children).
***
Phelps gets ahed of me and suggests the table-turning response that I prefer,
Move my chair around to her side to read over her shoulder, giving jerkboy commentary the entire time.
If she tries to playfully hide it, wrestle with her to see. If she gets pissy, leave.
I did this once with a girl…
“hmm interesting….haven’t met too many girls who browse Playgirl on their phones….”
***
Anonymous, similar to the above,
“Are you googling what to say when your nervous on a first date with a hunk?”
I would’ve said “serial killer” instead of “hunk” for the xxxtra lulz (and tingles).
***
O Patriarca writes,
It begins way before the video. First he should take his hands off his vagina, and learn to sit like a man and not like a neutered lap dog.
True.
I’d throw crumbs or pieces of napkin at her if I was feeling playful. Dripped in saliva for extra fun.
Playfulness is a guaranteed winner.
I actually don’t mind when my woman is on the phone. Gives some respite from the chatterbox, one can just survey the room and think about my own stuff.
This is fine when with a girlfriend, not so much when on a first or second date.
***
Hawk has a good comment about calibrating your response to the type of girl who’s with you and the type of reaction you expect to provoke in her,
The ability to correct the behavior is proportional to the frame you can hold.
Butt hurt: order everything on the menu and leave for her to pay. She’ll look down on you failing the shit test.
Ghost: walkout and say nothing. More neutral but won’t be able to generate tingles.
Tease: variations on taking the phone away and playfully negging her. Thus combines physical and verbal. The taking of the phone is an alpha male entitled response but the verbal play has to be THOT appropriate. The more she’s acting like a brat the more kid sister is your response. The more she’s acting like a bitch, the meaner and more ZFG is your response.
Nuclear: grab phone and point at your own groin and yell: “does this have a wide angle lens?” Audience laughs and social proof is gained. She’ll blush and look at your groin. Seed planted in her mind.
LOL at the Nuclear Frame option. This is a great general insight about Game that applies to all situations, not just iPhagged first dates. Jerkboy Game and assholery should be tailored to the bitchiness of the girl; a real bitch deserves…no, NEEDS….a real asshole to make her feel anything other than boredom and inflated self-regard. Less bitchy but equally annoying girls will respond better to playfulness and teasing.
***
One other table-turner I do is a tried and true Game stand-by: I’ll text her a big, beautiful, “8===D~~~”. She’ll get the idea, and either put her phone away and play nice or act pissed that I invaded her iPhag space, (which would be my cue to leave without saying goodbye, satisfied that I avoided further entanglement with a yuge kunt).
There’s no question women need occasional reassurances from the men in their lives that they are
a. still attractive
b. still attractive compared to Jenna down the block
c. still attractive to that guy who lives with them
Reassuring women amounts to assuaging their fear that their looks are fading or that they can’t aesthetically compete with prettier women.
(Reassuring a man is mostly about complimenting his competence and leadership.)
Beta Reassurance Game is the largest hamster pellet you’ll feed to your LTR girls. A pet peeve of mine is when haters of any stripe caricature this blog as a dopey frat bro listicle of cringeworthy pickup lines. These haters are the finger-in-ears ignoramus equivalents of leftoids whose political insight starts and ends at HURRFLE DURRFLE ORANGE HITLER DRUMPPHPHHH.
The edgy pickup stuff that drives tradcons crazy — the negs, the DQs, the compliance tests, the teasing, the DHVs — is frontloaded in a courtship. This is the stuff that makes women curious about a man and willing to bed him. But as a relationship progresses and deepens (whether with a girlfriend or wife or mistress or Thai ladyboy), the kinder, gentler strategies come to the fore, helping to assuage a lover that she isn’t going to be tossed aside like yesterday’s trash.
This means occasionally, infrequently, reminding your girl of her beauty and feminine charms. There’s an effective way to do this without sounding like a slobbering supplicating soydicked betaphag.
A line I use to this end is,
“You’ll always be better looking than me, baby.”
A man should never stop angling for relationship hand, and that goes double for those times he has to show a little vulnerability and acquiescence to his woman’s needs. You want to be that sexy jerkboy she fell in love with instead of the uxorious male that most men morph into once cozily confined in a relationship.
My M.O. is that I never totally abandon my cad soul to take the easy peasy path of suckup sap. Any woman with me gets daily reminders, big and small, of my essential nature. The sack-saving subtext of that leetle bit of flattery I wrote above accomplishes my goal. One, it’s not a backhanded compliment (even if I were the ugliest man on earth, I’m still punching above my weight). Two, if we grow old together (chick crack tacit vow) I’ll never catch up to her looks so she will always own the lust in my heart. Three, it has juuust enough ambiguity to zap her with a drive-by tingle (“but HOW MUCH better looking?”, she thinks to herself).
Most importantly, the line isn’t more than superficially self-deprecating. All women know on an instinctive level that looks don’t matter as much to men’s romantic and relationship success, so a lover telling his girl that she’s better looking than himself isn’t self-incriminating nearly as much as suggested by the overt meaning of his compliment. In other words, the compliment is equal parts true, sexy, reassuring, and attitudinally alpha.
1:43PM Eastern Time; Tuesday, January 20th, 2018: Some lady calling in to the Rush Limbaugh show, just said she thinks the shitlibs are living in a bubble, just like the Truman Show.
1:45PM: Rush re-iterates, “this Truman Show environment you’re talking about…”
Reader Abc123 has a Game question about girls texting at predictable times of day,
First time posting here. What does it mean if a girl never replies to you, waits a day and texts you at a specific hour. I’m noticing a pattern here. For example:
I text or initiate
she replies 10:12 am I reply later on in the day then 24 hrs later her reply is at 10:22 am or same exact time.
I met this girl during the day she opened me and we sparked up a convo, during our convo she got all chipper and asked to exchange numbers
Ive only interacted with her via text twice to say hi etc and to meet up. She texted me saying she couldn’t said she’s free to meet up Thursday and if that good for me. Am I being gamed?
Maybe. Girls have their own text strategies (and courtship strategies in general), so never assume girls are unaware of their machinations. However, girls who date a lot tend to fall into habits of mind, such as texting at a particular time each day (so they can text all their suitors at once)….take that for what it is. My advice? Ignore her games. Don’t breathe life into your suspicions because the last impression you want to leave is one of a butthurt man over-analyzing her actions.
