Replacement and Lackanookie

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

So, hey, can we talk? About that whole race replacement thing that the left thinks it’s doing?

Yesterday I got instantly salty at a commenter, (granted a new one, and I’m a bit paranoid right now for reasons) and realized it was because I hadn’t unpacked things in the text that I kind of need to, so we’re all on the same page.

Understand, I’m still possibly wrong — again, the whole crystal ball being on the blink thing. In fact, it’s never been not on the blink — but I don’t throw things out without thinking about them, and when I think about them it’s rarely a trivial amount. I just don’t always explain. And also the last couple of weeks have involved a lot of night-staring-at-the-ceiling which makes me testy and not very clear. (And no, I don’t know why.)

First, why I don’t like doing a deep dive into this: It’s the perfect leftist Kafka trap. It is, yes, something they’re trying to do and have been trying since the sixties (more subtly, via skewing our immigration policy) because their prophet, Gramsci, told them that people who can tan are perfect, natural Marxists. (Not especially. And yeah, I can tan. When I go near the sun, which I haven’t recently.) However, to talk about it, you get dragged into racial discussions in Leftist terms. Which, because all the leftist terms and assumptions are enormously racist (it’s like they can’t help themselves. It’s the whole Marxist people as widgets) then allows them to call US racists. For using their terms and definitions.

Avoiding that takes an awful lot of unpacking. And the unpacking can get profoundly weird.

So, first, the vexed question of race. Race, at least as Americans see it, is the purest bullshit. Actually, race, as most humans see it, is the purest bullshit. In the US this is just more so, and with a swirl of more shit on top brought on by the government wanting to know your “race” and the left filling your head with shit about race and protected and victim groups for the last sixty years give or take.

There’s a lot of shit there, in fact, but no matter how much you dig, there is no pony at the bottom.

Now, like most of you who went to school when there was still a class called anthropology and not the utter shit (yeah, it’s the word of the day. Roll with it. Put galoshes on first) of “social studies” which as far as I can tell translates to “Marxist indoc”, I learned there were three races: Caucasian, Negro and Asian. From that there were any number of subraces.  Oh, Amerindians were considered I THINK — but please, it’s been fifty years — a sub-race of Asian. Or perhaps Caucasian. Who the heck knows at this point? Indians (dot) on the other hand were solidly Caucasian.

This was bullshit, of course. Though the definitions in your head are bullshit too.

The definitions in the head of the people around me were even crazier. There was a lot of talk — and poemifying — on the “Portuguese race.” Look, bring a microscope. Find me a “Portuguese race.” The country is the reservoir tip at the end of Europe, and everything and everyone in humanity left a deposit. The same applies to the “English race,” btw, with little wheels. Sure, Anglo-Saxon, because they were preserved in amber and never consorted with anyone else.

Now, race is not visible under the microscope, unless you’re looking for diseases that are characteristic of certain groups. And even then, ladies, gentlemen, and platypuses, those diseases are mostly the result of extreme inbreeding and often appear in other groups, randomly and no one is sure why.

Sure, sure, there are certain genes the movements of which we’re getting better at tracking, but in the end when your 23andme says that you are 50% French what they mean is that of the people they test, 50% of your genes appear predominantly in France. They’re getting “better” with testing historical skeletons (which explains my fondness for axes. Don’t ask. Apparently some things breed true over a thousand years or so) and with deep-DNA studies that trace the movement of humans throughout pre-history and history.

But mostly races are a visual thing. You look at someone and you “know.” Except what you “know” varies from culture to culture and people to people.

Put a Norwegian (at least pre-Middle-Eastern immigration) next to a Zulu and there’s an obvious difference, but in the middle there’s a vast sea of “I know them when I see them” and a lot of it is… Oh, wow, I’m so proud as you’re all chanting it at home. Yep. “Bullshit!”

Like most of you — by a hair. We have lots of kiddies reading this. I approve — I was taught the old theory of how races came about. That too is bullshit. No, we don’t know the details of how much bullshit it is, but the things like Negro (look, dudes, I don’t care what it sounds like. That was the word for the race back when. DEAL) hair being the way it is to provide protection from the sun? Just-so-Darwinist stories.

The last time I did any reading about how visually/physically distinct races came to be the whole Darwinist “just so” of “Blue eyes emerged during the ice-age because they’re best in low-light situations” thing was not just in doubt, but in deep, deep doubt.

Mind you, that book also seemed to think there simply wasn’t enough time for distinct races to emerge, but I wonder if they had heard of the Siberian fox experiment, so I’ll dismiss that.

And yes, I read stuff like that. I have to, because I create fictional worlds, and I have to figure out how these things came to be so I can see if they make sense in my world.

If I had a guess most of the visually and physically distinct “racial” characteristics are the result of what other human sub-species we absorbed in which region. And inbreeding. There’s only one thing humans like better than screwing everything that moves (or even waves in the wind) and that’s screwing their close family. Over and over and over. Shrug.

But until we know a heck of a lot more about genetics — and even then, maybe — the emergence of visually and physically distinct “races” will remain a phantom, dancing at the end of the dark corridor of pre-history.

Now add to that that people can be trained to identify sub-groups as different races when no such thing makes any sense from the POV of races. And that the visual distinctions thus learned can slice very fine indeed.

I remember during the Bosnian war people from the US saying that they really couldn’t tell the difference between the combatant factions. But they could. Oh they could. In the same way, when I lived in Portugal, I could tell someone from the South by looks. This despite the fact that Portugal had been a country for over 1000 years and that on a recent visit, I found myself by accident (I rarely watch TV on purpose) in front of the TV, watching a national gymnastics team competition and thinking the entire group of girls from all over the country looked like sisters, or perhaps cousins at “worst”. Because that’s how homogeneous the whole country is. Oh, and I could do a parlor trick. Being from a country where we got a lot of tourists, I could tell you with an amazing degree of certainty, which COUNTRY the tourists came from on sight, before hearing them. For a while after coming to the US I could guess the predominant make up of people I met by country. Like, you know “your ancestors are primarily Spanish, with a bit of Greek.” Eh. Parlor trick. I’ve lost it since.

Americans on the other hand — Americans born and raised here — see race in places that no one else sees it, and in ways no one else sees it. It reminds me of the Far Side cartoon showing the penguin bathrooms with “only they know the difference.” Let’s face it, in a world where Meghan Markle is black, anything is possible, and I’m probably a svelte blond.

When I came over in the 90s I was amazed at the number of people who thought I was from south of the border, in the Americas, including Mexico, which pardon me is not the same genotype at all. But that was because I didn’t realize the US government was engaged in the charming experiment of creating a new race ex-nihilo, by defining Latin/Hispanic as a separate ethnic group.

Perhaps that’s not what they thought they were doing — who knows, with government — and they do say in the paperwork that it’s a cultural not racial group. But people are simple, and once the group existed, they started seeing it. And nine times out of ten people look at me and go “Latin.” More importantly, they do that to my kids (unless younger son has let his hair grow, and then it depends on how far he lets it grow. Or older son… Let’s say during an apartment-hunt in the not best part of a town, we realized after a long day that everyone had been visually identifying him as black, despite poke-straight hair.) And when it comes to my kids, it can’t be by body language. More importantly, my kids, looking at their childhood pictures, recently, informed me they looked “ethnic as sh*t.” Shrug. They look human to me. Most of the time. (Exceptions made for moments I came into their shared bathroom and found them peeing for distance and style.)

So, race is a phantom, and the ability to tell a race on sight, or even the definition of “race” changes and has changed even during my own lifetime, much less over the centuries. The characteristics that go with each race? Even more so. I found this out by reading old books. Did you know that black people were presumed to be compulsive gamblers? No? Neither did I. The stereotype had changed.

And because some or a few of you will bring up IQ and other such bullshit, which is even more bullshit than race. IQ results by race are bullshit, because IQ is highly dependent on socio-economic conditions, nutrition and conditioning. As in, if you present someone who’s never taken a multiple choice test with a multiple choice IQ test they’ll do worse than those who’ve been taking them since they were 10. And nutrition… Let’s say that in real terms of survival, people who are starved in childhood are often left with cognitive deficiencies. BUT on top of all that layer the fact, please, that a lot of the IQ tests “of Africans” bruited about were taken by the apartheid regime of South Africa, for the purpose of proving Africans were inferior. Consider some selection might have (almost certainly did) take place. And the fact we don’t know what IQ is for.

Yeah, Africa is a rank mess. But it is a rank mess because it is where our ancestors were kicked out of over time. Stop staring at me. For “our ancestors” I mean not racial, or not really. I mean the people on this blog. We’re odd. Goats among sheep. There’s a high chance our ancestors were too. (It’s…. transmissible, somehow.) Africa was an ideal environment for early humans, and all those who were weak or disturbed the pattern got kicked out over millennia. What that left behind was not an environment devoid of goats as such. We still get those out of Africa: the ones who don’t fit in, the ones who want more. But what it left behind was an unbreakable system of tribal cohesion. Many tribes. Africa is a mess because it’s a collection of crab buckets. Very successful crab buckets. It has nothing — or very little — to do with race, and a lot to do with the fact that this is the default state of the human species: Little tribes that hate every other tribe around them.

And yeah, the independent “decolonized” countries of Africa are a mess too — we’ll get to that in a moment, because absolutely this is the left’s definition of “decolonization”: a Marxist spoils system based on race. — but that’s because we left behind our most lethal colonial export: Marxism. It makes all the tribal stuff worse, and destroys any hope of modern, functional civilization. To make it worse, we’ve infested their institutions of learning, and take their brightest and educate them in our equally infested ones. Yeah. It ain’t pretty.

Anyway, so much for race. There are genetic human characteristics that go with physical characteristics, but, because of rats in head, we aren’t really studying them. Because we can’t trust you zanies not to run out and say, kill all redheads because that will diminish violence. Or something. Perhaps in a world without WWII these links are better known. If we find a parallel world, we’ll ask. BUT the characteristics, to the extent some have been accidentally found are much much finer than “dark skin, short time preference.” (That btw seems to be a characteristic, in the US at least, of Welfare, because it wasn’t like that before from what we can tell.) As far as we can tell it’s the sort of thing that would make the physiognomists of old happy. Stuff like “Long fingers means likely good with mathematics.” (No, not that I know. I just PFAed, because even though some of those characteristics have been found, they’re hard to track down, probably deliberately.)

Also, I don’t care what your 23 and me tells you (remember, it mostly goes off recent populations/movements) let me assure you that you are a complete and thorough mutt. All of us are. Because there’s only one thing we humans like more than sleeping with our relatives, and that’s sleeping with…. everything. Remember there used to be many human subspecies (and how that came about I leave you to contemplate in your free time, given that even pre-historic humans seemed to travel everywhere, and so isolation doesn’t explain it. If you say “Different colony ships” I’ll make you write a book, though) and now there is one human race. What happened to the others? Well, we ate them and f*cked them. I’ll leave you to work out percentages.

That process, and the fact that for probably much of our time in pre-history there were visually distinct tribes (in some amount) over the ridge probably accounts for our ability to magnify characteristics into “whole different race” even when “only they can tell the difference” because humans are also cheerful cannibals, usually of “the other tribe” so it is, as our oldest fairytales tell us, for a child to know if he/she is among a tribe that will eat him/her.

So much for race as it really is a “construct.” And if you tell the left that, you’ll get the reeeing to end all reeing. They are absolutely convinced that sex — a thing with observable characteristics all the way from the microscopic to, well, naked inspection — is a construct, but race, a thing that is defined differently and seen differently at different times and places, is immutable, locked in forever, will never change. Set in stone.

And what they mean by race, btw, is more and more JUST skin color. By this magic, Kamala Harris, a woman of almost pure Caucasian ancestry is suddenly “black.” (Ah. I have more African features. And again, given some time in the sun, like in Spring when I’m gardening, I’m at least as dark.) And Palestinians, the dregs of the Middle East, which in turn is solidly Caucasian, Mediterranean sub-race, (waves in I should know) are “brown” and therefore an untouchable minority. Oh, and Hispanics are also brown, and — the left assures me — must have Indian admixture (arches eyebrow and challenges the bright lights to find Hispania on an ancient map.) And therefore we can’t stop them coming over the border because that would be racissssssss. Like we’d be less upset if ancient Vikings were pouring over the border. (Though I could finally get a decent ax. Also, pardon me, I need to go do the ritual to banish a plot bunny. D*mn it. I thought I’d fumigated my office.)

To the left there are whites, blacks and browns. Nothing else matters. Oh, and that dictates every characteristic of your behavior and attitudes. Hence, anything that allows you to be successful in modern society is white supremacy. And encouraging Welfare-pets (many of them, increasingly, not even vaguely brown) to loot and terrorize is “decolonization.”

To understand the left and what they’re trying to replace with what, you have to understand three things:

First, they view everything in terms of groups and group success or failure, and because they believe creation is impossible (you know, they’re not aliens. They’re fairies) they believe that the way groups rise and fall is through theft and oppression of each other. In other words, Marxism. A deeply broken model of reality.

Second, their predominant grouping of humans is by skin color. I don’t know what they do with edge cases like me. (Oh, actually I do, when they have full rein. I just rather not think about it. Mass graves.) In their head, they’ve made whites — and by that they mean mostly Northern Europeans, unless they need to throw all Mediterraneans in too, to make their crazy theories work — uber-colonizers, and basically the sin-eaters of humanity. If something is bad, they blame “whites.” Considering that some of their idiots think there was no rape in the Americas before Europeans landed, it’s a bad variety of crazy. (If we get a time machine, let’s strangle Gramsci in his crib, just in case.) BUT the most important thing to understand is that there’s no individuality or free will. Groups act as the definition of the group. This is how AOC could think that Amerindians, oh, pardon me, Native Americans could come out of the reservations to teach us to respect the environment. They just know. Anyone with Amerindian blood is born with an innate knowledge of how to use every part of a buffalo or pray to the great spirit or whatever the comic-book noble savages of the early twentieth century could do. (Give me a minute. I need to tell the Mathematician to enlighten me on how to take care of the environment, due to his percentage of Amerindian. It should be worth it!) Which leads us to the next point:

3 – It’s not that they don’t know history. By and large they know what happened. Sort of. At least they know what happened to vast numbers of people fighting and moving around.
What they’re missing is cultural distinctiveness or individual influence.
In other words, it’s all skin color. All of it. (This is why they think Kwanza is an “African” holiday. They’re virgin of knowledge there’s more than one sub-race/linguistic divide/and probably the most diverse (truly, not in their meaning) cultures on planet Earth in Africa. Thinking all of Africa has the same “values” is like thinking Germans and Portuguese will behave exactly the same. (Sorry. just shot coffee out of my nose picturing that. Took a moment to clean up.))

Okay, now that we’re set up. The left’s Gramscian delusions got a shot in the arm in the sixties, when a lot of the countries in Africa “decolonized” violently and instituted Marxist dictatorships of various kinds. See, dark people were natural communists! Now to bring that here! And therefore they set an immigration policy that favors Africans, and after that various people who can tan, in the hopes that by population replacing, they’d get their wonderful Marxist paradise.

What they were missing (not an exhaustive list) was that a) Marxism was a colonial import from Europe. b) it was particularly strong in Africa, because Russia was in the process of colonizing Africa under cover of so called “decolonization.” i.e. a lot of the independence movements were financed/supported/taught by the USSR. (Colonization is debatable, in this case. Although Russians sent “experts” and Cuban cannon fodder, I don’t think they ever moved in in numbers. Cannibalization might be a better term. You see, communist countries need to steal from other, more functional societies to survive, and Russia gorged itself on Africa, as China has been doing more recently.) c)that in practical application, on the ground, Marxism was often a cover for much deeper tribal conflict and domination that had been going on for a long time. This, btw, made the whole thing far worse, more violent, and infinitely less productive. Since the left confuses destruction with “ushering in utopia” this was to the good, for them.

Anyway, over the last, oh, 40 years, Africa has eaten itself by “decolonizing” but really “being eaten by the Marxist mind virus” which lent cover to tribal genocide and also destroyed what there was of functional society in the continent. The left looks at such horrors as Rhodesia, or what happened to South African farmers and rubs its hands.

You have to understand: at heart they’re enormous racists. I mean, that’s obvious from thinking that kin color means character and philosophy, right? But what I mean is, they really believe that whites are superior. (Whatever your definition of white.) They also believe that other races, ultimately destroy everything and need superior whites to “lead” them. Hence the constant harangues on “raising consciousness” etc. Their argument with “white supremacy” as they view it, aka the propagation of functional behaviors, is that we “racissss” think that it can be demanded of all races. I.e. their problem is that we try to make them poor darkies behave like “us” and look down on them when they don’t. Them poor darkies are like chilluns, you see, and we should just give them make-work and show-positions (like president of Harvard, say) and then the enlightened whites — the left — do all the work behind the scenes and look after them poor blighted darkies.

Excuse me, I need to go rinse my fingers in alcohol after typing that. But it is observably the left’s view. Look how they excuse poor Academic performance or outright stupidity and still try to raise people to positions of supposed command because they tan. No non-racists would push forward total wastes of space as Claudine Gay or Kamala Harris. And let’s not forget Karina Jean-Pierre, whose main qualifications to be the voice of the white house are being somewhat tan, and a lesbian. (And almost as stupid as Kamala Harris.)

Anyway, so the left in the sixties conceived the amiable idea of replacing “white” in the US with dark skinned people, with the idea that inevitably, in the dialectic of history (gag, splurch) they’d kill most of the whites, leaving only the enlightened ones (the left) to “lead them.” (You have to understand that the left aims for feudalism, more or less.)

This was happening too slowly for their tastes. (They’ve had more success in spreading dark-skinned genes with tech visas, but that’s something else, and something for later.) And they’re old. And they have been waiting for the glorious end state of Marxist revolution a long time. So now, they’ve just opened the border, to achieve their glorious population replacement FASTER.

I don’t, honestly, know whether importing mostly military age males was design or accident. Or yes.

I mean, yes, I can see their little reptilian minds (minds shrink on Marxism, and become very simple) focused on all these “fighting men” who can take out Americans if they get upitty. The left is stupid enough to view this as the end-run on the fact we refuse to give up our guns. (Thank you, Founders, for your foresightedness on the second amendment.) It won’t work, because– never mind. Later. But I can see them thinking it would.

On the other hand, immigration usually is a thing of working age males. Particularly the sort of immigration they’re encouraging, which is economic migration. Look, I should know this. Over his working life, grandad worked in Brazil, Venezuela and South Africa. Grandma stayed home and raised the kids. (Every time he visited, they had another kid, so…) And in the village, when I was growing up, most of the working men worked for at least some time in … at the time usually France or, more rarely, Germany. Most of the time they came back with enough money to build a house and start a business. Their wives never left. Only like 10% of them ever “sent for” the family. And those might never come back, or come back at retirement, with or without their kids in tow. This is the model still in people’s heads, leading to people asking me, when I visit, when I will “return” and why in heaven’s name did I let my sons marry “outside the race.” (They miss that my husband is not Portuguese, or it doesn’t matter. I’m not sure. Also, my mom put it best when she finally told one of her friends that my husband would be more likely to retire in Portugal than I, and that I’d become “wholly American” — like it was some kind of a disease. LOL.)

So, this is to an extent normal. But it’s not that normal in the US, where a lot of the previous flows of immigrants were either whole families, or males who sent for their families after a time and more often than not settled her, or their kids did.

It’s just…. I’m almost sure that the left hasn’t thought about this in conjunction with their “population replacement” scheme. Right now they’re just seeing “fighters” and “illegal voters” and nothing else.

And yeah, the commenter yesterday — and another one, one of my old-time friends — said that males can do it, by impregnating all the women, or something. And yeah “this is the mechanism of Western Civilization.”

Look, the left can have their illusions — and their sexual fetishes — but you’re not REQUIRED to buy into them, even if you went to the same schools.

Yes, most of civilization; most of human history to be honest, is the result of conquering males impregnating conquered females.

The scenes of horror almost for sure played upon a vast number of all of our ancestresses went something like this: in the dark of night, invaders arrive, outside the village and attack. They kill every man over the age of three (or sometimes every man down to infants. They might or might not kill the elderly women.) And then they impregnate every female. The psychological mechanisms for this are as old as time. Women will turn on a dime to “fall in love” or at least attach to the conqueror (being hypergamic is a survival value) and the civilization conquered will survive only in female-genetics, some words, and maybe the odd tale or two.

Right. That much is true. But if you don’t see the difference between that and what is actually happening, you have leftist blinders on. 

Not only haven’t the invited invaders killed every man, it’s unlikely to happen without… well, their being squashed like bugs.

Yes, there’s any number of criminality and nonsense, but you know, that’s because they’re recruiting from various groups from communists to militant Muslims. And there’s a vast Cartel presence. But the ur-scenario that destroyed many sub-populations throughout pre-history and history is just not there.

Two other things to consider: if you say “but they have testosterone, unlike our soyboys and they will–“

Coughs into hand. The cough might sound like “bullshit”. The decline in testosterone in male populations is WORLD WIDE. No. Look at that again. The decline is world wide. Which is why it’s inexplicable. I can understand cultural trends in the west making males less virile, through some kind of mechanism. But it’s world wide. And yes, viable sperm production is down worldwide as well.

If I had to guess, I’d guess that not playing as much physically in childhood, but sitting in front of screens, which, yes, is a worldwide phenomenon save for maybe tribes in deepest Amazon (Have they been tested?) leads to lowered testosterone and sperm production. But it could be anything else, including the fact we are as a whole fatter worldwide, and fat is a feminizing “organ” as it produces female hormones. (No, for real. Though it’s more like ‘pseudo female hormones’.) But that’s a guess. See “unexplained.”

What you’re confusing for “masculinity” is “unruliness” but women in the third world behave like that too. It has more to do with instability and “lack of rule of law” than anything else.

Women are hypergamic. Women in the west are still hypergamic. And while the PUA and such think this correlates to primitive brain functions — and it does in certain women. Usually the ones more inclined to the one night stand lifestyle — the truth is in the west women tend to look for leftist men — or men who make leftist mouth noises — for a reason. Because leftism has inserted itself in the west as a “conquering culture” and therefore gives off powerful and success vibes. Remember all the women fainting over Obama, who is at best (AT BEST) as someone here put it “a skinny closet-case”? It wasn’t race. It was giving off the “conquering leftist male” vibe. Because that’s how f*cked our society is by the Marxist virus. This also led to men of beta inclinations swooning over his pant crease. (Rolls eyes.) That is the real unconscious attraction.

Most of the men coming in are the product of the last twenty years of relative plenty abroad. Yes, some of them come to work and make money while also getting welfare. But the drift I get from various “victim profiles” is that a lot of them came over because they thought they would do nothing and get a lot of money and adulation. What is due to them, you know, since we somehow did them wrong, as their Marxist education taught them.

They tan, sure, but they’re no more ready to make it in American society than our men and boys are. And let me tell you, I’ve talked of this before, but the last 20 to 30 years, we’ve morphed into a society that destroys men. And boys. The Marxist certainty that all males are evil, because throughout history women were “oppressed” (mostly through being weaker, and also being the child bearers, but never mind) has done a number on society.

Increasingly, we’re a society that doesn’t appreciate men and/or boys and pushes them out of everything we can, leaving them with no place, no role, and no ability to earn money or raise a family.

In practical fact, it’s not QUITE that bad. Kids are finding their place, but it takes longer, since all the mechanisms are designed to sideline men. So around thirty or forty, they’re finally starting a family. BUT–

But, like the reduction of testosterone, the surplus males with no role is also a world-wide phenomenon.

The reasons are different: from the ability to choose by sex BEFORE birth and selective abortions in highly chauvinistic cultures; to Islamic cultures, which always marry all available women to successful older men, and one successful older man will marry several women, young men are surplus to requirements all over the world.

Add to that mechanization making the need for big, strong men less in manual professions and therefore manual professions less well paid… and the fact most of these cultures are still extremely chauvinistic and worship the male archetype of the PHYSICAL conqueror to whom every woman defers.

Which takes us on an interesting side-spur — bear with me. I know this is already too long, but it links to what is likely to happen with the current invasion, if anything — of the events in Israel on October 7th. That particular bit of nightmare fuel connects very deeply with the history of mankind, because it is a replay of those scenes of our pre-history. The conquering males come in and claim their place with unimaginable violence.

Except…. Except they killed everyone. Killing men and children and babies is more or less normal, but they raped AND KILLED the women.

A friend looking at it, said it was mostly lackanookie. These men had never got any and in fact knew they couldn’t keep what they got. Therefore they killed the women in an orgy of wantonness, because they hated what they couldn’t keep.

To an extent we saw this, kind of, with Amerindians attacking frontier settlements. But only to an extent. They took mostly children and teen girls, and killed adult women. Though they might take some adult women, if they looked meek enough, and beat them into submission as much as possible, etc. I wonder if that was because adult pioneer women had proven dangerous, but that’s speculation. Note the “braves” of the Amerindian tribes were often kicked out to form raiding parties that were all-male. So there was strong lackanookie there, as well.

I won’t point out that there is strong lacknookie among our young men, too. Or more important, lack of sane women that they can marry and build a family with. This is thanks to Marxist indoctrination of our girls in school (Marxism. Is there anything it can’t make into shit?) It’s a minor miracle that “violence against women” is as low as it is. And again, most men are finding their way, but late, and limpingly. And women start getting saner — as a friend told me, and at the time I didn’t believe him. I’m sorry, you were right — around 27. Not ideal for reproduction, but not bad.

Here’s the thing, though: The men they have sent over: and at this time we’re very much in recruitment and sending over from farther afield, mostly China and Africa, are, besides being wholly unprepared to survive in a tech society, the ones they wanted out of their homelands, because they’re useless, crazy with lackanookie, utterly without prospects or hope.

If you’re going “oh, shit.” congratulations. You win the golden shovel. Yes, there’s going to be trouble. Lots of it. There already is, in terms of increased criminality. And how it plays out, only G-d knows.

Ultimately there will be deportations, I think. Probably in vast quantities, and hopefully not on visual-identification or a lot of American born and bred, and absolutely integrated young men (and women) will go too.

BUT the American population is armed, which is something most of the incoming aren’t used to. More importantly, Americans don’t react as they’ll expect, which… yeah, will make things worse, but also make it less likely we’ll see a lot of incidents like what happened in Israel on 10/7. I think even one of those, in large numbers, that can’t be covered up, will cause a convulsion none of us wants.

And replacement? Bah. Not unless they find a way to grow babies in vats. As far as racial replacement, the left’s project has been more successful in ways they didn’t and probably still don’t realize were even happening: American men importing foreign brides. For some reason, a lot of these seem to be Asian. So, there’s that. Though to be fair, Asians are something the left doesn’t know what to do with.

True America is soaking up everyone’s surplus, purposeless males right now. And because this is one thing I agree with Pope Che on, right now we have a massive problem with youth unemployment. Specifically youth MALE unemployment (Which Pope Che won’t say.) That’s what’s happening. We’re getting all the sons that parents hope will somehow become successes here, and send money home.

The problem being we’re ALSO a society profoundly hostile to males.

So… there will be an increase in gang warfare, a swelling of welfare ranks (already happened. In fact, I think the ranks are mostly replenished from abroad) one or two — maybe — bright stars who rise above all the conditioning and expectations to make a success of themselves.

But mostly? A vast number of rudderless males with nowhere to go and serious lackonookie.

Dangerous, scary, unstable, and a problem that will unfortunately probably solve itself. And give our ideological enemies a chance to point at our “massive” prison population as a “failure of capitalism.”

What won’t happen is population replacement. Or the left’s adorable little fantasy of all the dark people rising up and killing all the white people as happened in Africa. (Some bright bulbs expected this to happen when Obama became president. They expected black supremacy. (Pinches bridge of nose.)) Because those are stupid fantasies based on seeing history but understanding nothing. Which is a good thing. I mean, top down plans for vast amounts of people never work, but imagine if they were slightly more competent how much trouble they’d be.

For the rest? It’s going to get rough. Really rough. Hold on to the sides of the boat and teach the children well. All the children. Ignore the left’s (mentally handicapped) definition of race. Teach them all well. Make them Americans.

We will survive this.

375 thoughts on “Replacement and Lackanookie”

  1. What’s sad about this “replacement” idea is that we’ve heard it before (at least those of us who know history).

    Around the late “1800’s” and early “1900’s” there was a big Immigration boom in the US.

    The “Problem” was that the immigrants weren’t the “proper races”.

    No, they weren’t Blacks or “Latinos”, they were Eastern Europeans and/or Non-Protestants.

    The screams were that if those people weren’t stopped, they would “replace” True Americans and otherwise “Change America”.

    Now the Left uses the same language of those bigots but believes that “Replacing White Americans/America” Is a Good Thing.

    It sometimes sounds like the Left wants a Race War because they “imagine” that “their side” would win.

    Sarah’s correct that the Left’s “Replacement” idea won’t work.

    But of course, the earlier “Replacement” idea didn’t happen because America took in those “not proper people” and made them Americans. :grin:

    Liked by 2 people

      1. My grandfather was disinherited in the 1930’s for marrying my grandmother who was Irish. The red hair must have given her away…

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Which is why the Dems keep finding racist examples of it to support their “History and Tradition” examples of historical American gun control laws.

        :P

        Liked by 1 person

        1. A a recent quip by a SheetDonk was words to the effect that “if a black man shows up at a gun range, Republicans will favor gun control”.

          Not hardly. Take off the hood, Donk. It is cutting off the oxygen to your brain.

          No black man was ever lynched when he stood with Mister Colt or Mister Winchester. Thus, Donks love of gun control.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I always support gun control. Keep the finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Never point it at anything you don’t mean to destroy. Don’t point at people in social situations. Make sure you know what is behind what you are pointing at. Keep it under control. :)

            Liked by 2 people

          2. There are a ton of memes mocking that one. Very similar, usually has the NPC-type bleating “NOooooo…. you’re supposed to be RACIST!1!!” and so on while a pair of folks or small group of people go off to the range to practice. ;-)

            Liked by 1 person

          3. A a recent quip by a SheetDonk was words to the effect that “if a black man shows up at a gun range, Republicans will favor gun control”.

            –
            “Why do you say that? It’s a lie, and it’s stupid, so why do you keep repeating it?”

            Liked by 1 person

    3. “America took in those “not proper people” and made them Americans. ”

      And they’ve spent the last 60+ years systematically breaking that process.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Immigration is one of the areas I find myself way outside the Republican mainstream, probably because I’m the child of immigrants and Irish ones at that. You know, the dirty, lazy, drunken, slipshod, papists taking the jobs of true blue ‘Mercans.

    Just a note, there’s been an awful lot of noise about the Chinese coming over the border and how they’re a fifth column and all that. It’s possible, but it’s waaay more likely that they’re economic migrants like the vast majority coming over.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Agreed on the Chinese, and I’ve made the same argument here in the past. The bits of news I hear about China are looking really bad.

      Liked by 2 people

        1. And with the fact that under the 1 child policy there was a fair bit of sex selection (some of it likely in the 4th trimester) the Chinese population is out of balance by sex and that leads to (you guessed it) Lackanookie. So no work prospects and slim chance of “getting Lucky” (Hey Chinese women want to marry up too!!!) the surplus males head for the hills, or more likely for our Mexican border.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Unsurprising. In many cultures (especially Asian ones but pretty common throughout much of the world ) the sons and grandsons are the “social security” old age support for parents and grandparents. The daughters/granddaughters move to their husbands line. So with only a daughter the parents and grandparents have no safety net for their old age. It is a life or death problem for them. There is also the continuation of the family name which is important, but eating and housing are right there at the top of the Maslovian hierarchy.

              Liked by 1 person

    2. RE Lackanookie here in the US –

      A couple of items – while I haven’t used them myself, what I’ve been hearing is that the vast majority of women on the US dating apps are toxic. I’ve heard as many as 80%, though I don’t know the basis of that number. They’re bad. And there’s been at least one woman who went undercover on an app to investigate, and came to the same conclusion.

      Now keep in mind that a lot of women aren’t on the apps. I’ve been hearing about 4:1 ratios of men to women on them, which means a lot of women aren’t using them. But the ones that are happen to be predominantly toxic. I’ll add that I think the gender skew encourages bad behavior. But that’s an argument for another time.

      Item 2 – For a while now I’ve heard of “being red-pilled” as a description of lefties who turned conservative after being smacked in the face either by reality, or fellow lefty bad behavior. But now I’m starting to see the term being used to describe American single males who have completely given up on trying to date American women due to repeated bad behavior by the women they’ve gone out with.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I noticed the term red-pilled being used in the context of dating/marriage before I saw it used in the context of political thought.

        The two main exhibits touted the sexual “Red Pill” being the overall low quality of people in the dating world due to the cultural changes of the last three/four generations in the west and the increased possible risk of greater financial/emotional damage due to a relationship failure/corruption.

        Add in much greater exposure and awareness due to the internet. Social media which broadened PUA and MGTOW sub-cultures among men, toxic behaviors among women. Not only was this technology a “player” and “ho” amplifier, but also pumped the “Alphabet Mafia” exposure to cult levels.

        So you ended with larger numbers of men that either use women as temporary sexual partners or just opt out and live in “the box with screens” with lotion and tissues on their desks. Just the male version of “All the good ones are taken…”

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Three nieces met their spouses on dating apps (technically a 4th niece did too, but after 3 years their relationship fell apart, before marriage). Guess they were the 20% not crazy? Son and the 5th niece refuse to use dating apps.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If you want to get really technical, then 4th niece didn’t meet her spouse on a dating app as they never did get married. But that’s just pedantry. The far more important point, in my mind, is that they were together for three years without making a lifetime commitment to each other (which is usually called “getting married”). People often undervalue the importance of commitment in long-term relationships: it’s what helps you keep going when you hit a rough patch. Many people think “Oh, it’s just a piece of paper, we don’t need it, we’re committed to each other.” But there’s something about standing up there in front of lots of people who know you, and swearing to stay together for life, that helps people put their relationship first, above their own desires, when they hit the small (or even medium-sized) problems that all relationships go through from time to time.

            Case in point, my cousin. She was together with her man for nearly two decades, if I recall, and they had two children. Nearly every jurisdiction in existence would call their relationship a “common-law marriage”, because they certainly looked no different than a married couple. And yet, just a couple years ago, they split up, which was devastating to her. I’m not privy to all the details, but one of the issues was that he wanted to move to $BIG_CITY for his job, and she didn’t want to leave $MEDIUM_TOWN because the kids were far happier there than they would be in $BIG_CITY. I’m sure there were other issues lurking under the surface, as that alone seems like a bad reason to blow up a long-term relationship, but that’s the only issue I’ve been told about. But the thing is, while she may have felt just as committed to the relationship as if they had actually gotten married, apparently he didn’t, because he was willing to abandon her and the kids in order to pursue career advancement.

            Now, I’m not saying the same never happens to married couples: the scenario where a man divorces his first wife and gets remarried (to the woman that he’d been secretly cheating on his wife with for a while) is common enough that it gets joked about with the old “trading her in for a newer model” line. Women do it too; there’s no shortage of people of both sexes who fail to take their wedding vows (or any oaths, for that matter) seriously. But whatever the divorce numbers are in any given year, the percentages of cohabiting-without-marriage relationships that split up are greater, nearly every time. Because, again, that commitment tends to help couples stay together when they’re going through a rough patch.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. True. Fourth niece didn’t find her spouse on a dating app. OTOH they had talked marriage. In fact had been planning it, him pushing more than her. They were planning on buying a house and had been looking. Her job has her regularly traveling to Europe for work, multiple places, with time to explore afterwards. He joined her at least two of those times. In fact the reason he even had a passport. Then he decided he needed to roam for work and be free. Haven’t seen him since he pulled this. But have seen her. She was blindsided. Absolutely devastated. IDK if it means anything, but it was his friends that took her in (rented her a room) when she made him break the lease on their apartment. She is now looking for her own apartment.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. At a pre-marriage retreat, a priest gave a very good non-religious reason for why people who “shack up” before marriage tend to fail more than the ones who don’t. And yes, the answer is sex—but not necessarily the way you’d think.

              The upshot is that a lot of couples fall back on sex as a way to make up after arguments, which has two problems. The first is that the sex doesn’t address the reason for the argument, it just smothers it with endorphins. The second is that, like many other things in life, the quality of the sex varies with time, so if you’re using it to “solve” your problems and it’s not mind-blowingly good, the problems feel worse.

              When couples react strongly to “minor” issues, they’re actually reacting to major issues that haven’t been addressed, often ever.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. When couples react strongly to “minor” issues, they’re actually reacting to major issues that haven’t been addressed, often ever.

                Which a lot of folks miss– or flat out were anti-taught, since a lot of the “Get down to what is really important” stuff has a list of acceptable problems, and MASSIVE pressure to stick to them.

                Look at the mockery ladled out for “doesn’t take out the trash,” rather than trying to identify if they’re trying to describe a systematic problem.

                Like

          2. $SPOUSE and I met long before a dating app was a thing, but we did the mid-90s thing of “going to a dating-specific event”. Unknown number of times for her, 3 times for me. The organizer of the events also had a sideline of Eastern European Women for the Silicon Valley geeks who didn’t have success with the women at the events. (I preferred “Made in America”. Got, mostly. $SPOUSE was born Canadian, moved to the States as a little.) I found the mail-order bride thing a bit creepy and never looked into details.

            We both met at Event #1, and I talked and danced with her and her toxic friend, but being a shy Odd, I didn’t try for a date. I went to Event #2, hoping to see her there (I think she had mentioned that she was likely to come back sporadically), and when we met again at #3, I asked for a date and things blossemed. (I’d been seeing a therapist after a nasty hit of depression, partly due to my being shy/not dealing well with rejection. There might have been some gentle encouragement from the therapist about trying again after Event #2.) We never went back to the events after that.

            We dated for 7 years before deciding to marry. At 6 years, she was laid off from her long term employer, and I asked her to move in with me. At 7 years, I got layoff notice from my long term employer, and we decided to marry. We already had the “poorer” and the “for worse” (including a few-week breakup where we still kept talking). So far, so good at 22 years. We did miss out on kids, but we’re cheering on a couple of nieces (with husbands and kids).

            Like

            1. We already had the “poorer” and the “for worse” (including a few-week breakup where we still kept talking). So far, so good at 22 years. We did miss out on kids, but we’re cheering on a couple of nieces (with husbands and kids).
              ………………………….

              We started out in “for poorer” category. Seriously, we had to borrow money (from parents) to be able to go to work in early ’79. Learned early what a non-existing credit rating meant. For worse? Not really. But then we were acquaintances, hung out in the same group, long before we had our pairs outing, let alone started dating seriously. We were engaged in 4 months of dating (late August), married 4 months later (mid-December), at first post college job 3 months after that (mid-March).

              Like

              1. Given Evil Rob’s family history, “for worse” is going to be health-related. Though I will say, at one point I was going through his health conditions (several on the mental health end, like he was seeing if he could get an ADHD diagnosis and the end result was “we can’t really tell because of the anxiety,”) to a neighbor, and she said, “That must be hard for you.”

                And my response was, “For me? He’s the one that has to deal with being that way!” So… maybe I’m not noticing the “for worse” too badly, heh.

                Like

                1. For worse is going to be health related too.

                  Might have come close when hubby was transferred Randle WA for work and we didn’t move the household (hubby was absolutely against moving). Since I wasn’t working when all this came down we didn’t have a choice. Figured at minimum 28 months until retirement. While I did get a job 4 months after the transfer, not enough to come close to cover our bills without his income (though it did stop the savings drainage). It wasn’t that we were apart, exactly. It was how we were each putting up with the separation. See we knew a couple who’d been forced into similar part time separation. He worked for a RV dealership that only had local locations 8 months of the year. The other 4 months Nov – February, to keep his job, he had to work out of more temperate locations. She did not work out of the home, and was high maintenance. I swear, she couldn’t make any decisions or do anything on her own without him. Not, not allowed to. Could not. Me? I was not going to be that way. Hubby OTOH thought that meant we didn’t need him. No. He was 500 miles (ish) away.

                  Solved that. Called him at 3 AM (was in a panic), because a facet had blown after a freeze and I couldn’t get the water turned off. Knew where the off valve was. Couldn’t get it turned. Went to the neighbors for help (wasn’t that fun at 3 AM), he couldn’t get it turned off either. Called hubby. Of coarse the question was “what can I do from up here?” Eventually the 3 of us, with a help of a flashlight, figured out, instead of the standard turn top, there was a lever that pulled up to turn the dang thing off (little bit buried, not visible in the dark). Lesson learned on both sides. Happens again? Well hubby is retired. He and son can figure out how EWEB changed it (new smart meters). I am out of the “handle things on my own”. We did come to a pattern that worked for both of us and got over the minor crisis. The other couple? Divorced.

                  (It isn’t like other couples aren’t separated because of work. Plus we had the advantage that he was home every Friday night. If a scout campout weekend, then he drove up, including backpacking in, either late Friday, or early Saturday. But we hadn’t planned on this happening. When it did, we didn’t discuss any ramifications.)

                  Like

                  1. We were briefly separated two other times too. First when he went to work at a different company. But I was moving down to be with him, then he got recalled, so we stayed put. Second was the transfer to Eugene. I still had to finish up the CC programming classes I’d started, so we delayed the move till June. Not the only family to do so. Just the only one that didn’t delay because of the kids school. Again. Home every weekend. Or I joined him on the weekend (rental house hunting, not trivial with 4 cats and a German Shepard).

                    Like

      2. My dating experience via apps has been…instructive on how bad things can get.
        There’s that old joke about men and women being rated 1 through 10 on the basis of appearance. Somebody did a study and the scientists had men and women go through photos on the basis of attractiveness and would they want to date them or not.
        Guys usually were willing to date girls at the 6 and above levels.
        Girls were willing to date boys only at the 8 and above level.
        Considering that I’m probably a 6 or 6.5 in appearance…

        Like

        1. I think part of the issue on the apps is the gender imbalance. Women have a much broader pool to choose from, so they’re able to be more selective, which reinforces their belief that they can land the best guys if they just maintain the standards that they’ve set. I mean, a typical woman on an app usually has a ridiculous number of guys trying to get in touch with her. So she must be super amazing, right?

          And from what I’ve been hearing, the standards are called “6-6-6”. Six feet tall, six digit salary, and at least six inches below the waist (if you catch my drift). There are apparently a lot of women on the apps that refuse to even look at a guy if he doesn’t have all three.

          Which is fine if you’re a guy and you do have all three. But if you have all three, that means that you’re in high demand. And if you’re in high demand but are still single, that means that you’re probably not really serious about looking for a relationship, or are toxic yourself. And if the latter, that’s going to further screw up the women who try to date you. And, yeah…

          Or at least that’s my suspicion on the matter.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Mine as well.
            It doesn’t “help” that in most social contexts, if women don’t get the 6-6-6, they’re being seen as “settling” and are shunned.
            (I might be a little bitter, after my dating “experiences.” Long story.)

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Yeah, I’ve seen multiple instances of female influencers on Tik Tok (none of whom appear to be great catches themselves, based on the dozen or so seconds of them that I’ve seen) talking about how important it is for a woman to keep to her standards, and not settle for anything less. And that would be fine if the standards being pushed were realistic.

              But usually they’re not.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. If you run the numbers (only so many men make 6 figures or are 6 feet tall or have enough time to spend in the gym to maintain a 6 pack let alone all together) they’re filtering to a “top” 1% or less of men in terms of what they want. What they never seem to do is take a look and see if they are top 1% or less of women in terms of what men want.

                This, of course, is men’s fault.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Of course they’re all top 1%. 😋

                  I’ll also add that I’ve seen evidence to suggest that many women think a six-figure salary is a lot more common than it actually is, particularly for those men still in their 20s.

                  Like

                  1. When we married, I had the better income. But after 37 years, the main reason we’re able to travel, do volunteer work and be generally comfortable is due mostly to his willingness to work hard and take (reasonable) risks. The overly demanding young women are missing out on some real bargains, (and real happiness).

                    Liked by 1 person

                    2. When we first started out we had exactly the same job at the same pay rate and terms. The difference between our earnings our first 3 years, is hubby worked more overtime. Later there was a period that my salary was higher than his salary. To match it he had to work 80 hours/month overtime. Not difficult if the job he was assigned to was 6 AM – 6 PM or 7 PM – 5 PM with a Saturday or two. But we wanted him on the 7 AM – 3 PM assignments so he could coach and be available for weekend campouts. Selfish, I know.

                      Like

                  2. “Every computer *American programmer starts with a six figure salary.”

                    Um? Really?

                    “Every computer *American programmer eventually gets a six figure salary.”

                    Um? Again, Really? Seriously?

                    To be clear. Spent 35 years in the business. Never once made six figures. Can’t be the only one. Even if I’d worked another 11 years, I wouldn’t have made that kind of money. Who I worked for. Plus: Location, Location, Location. I know that.

                    ((*)) To eliminate the HB1 imports.

                    Like

                2. LOL…pretty much why I am not looking. Physical appearance takes me off anyone’s list so they never figure out what else I have to offer…

                  Like

              2. The only standards you should be strict on are the emotional and attitude ones. You find someone who is caring, thoughtful, principled, and who FITS YOUR PERSONALITY, you grab on tight and keep them.

                Physical fades. Attitude stays.

                Liked by 1 person

        2. I learned early that my thoughts about appearance changed. A guy might be a 2 (I’ve met a few) but if he knew how to dance that moved up the scale several notches. Other things move the scale as well, and several of my sisters have talked about the same phenomenon. Physicality is only a piece of the puzzle.

          Being asked to judge on appearance only skews the results something fierce. Now, if each picture was accompanied by a short bio or list of interests, that might make a difference.

          Liked by 1 person

      3. Dating sites are completely toxic to women who are marriage minded. Toxic men wanting one night stands. Toxic men that decide to harass you because you have traditional values and goals and they decide to berate you for apparently the flaws of their ex girlfriend. Guys that berate you for being Prolife or not a leftist.

        I constantly meet lots of marriage minded women at church, and church social events. I understand that online dating seems safer to men, but there are a whole bunch of women that just can’t handle the harassment and opt out.

        Also, I know two men, who married foreign women with the idea that foreign women are conservative. And both have ended up with only a single child at the wife’s demand, and she cancels their vote every election. No matter where a women is from you need to check to see if she is on the same page about your values, life goals, and world view. One of the men in question told me he regretted that none of his traditions and culture would be passed on to the next generation.

        This is not to say that one can’t find lovely foreign women, but don’t assume what her values or life goals are.

        Myself, since 18 Ive always wanted to get married have between 3-5 kids, and homeschooling the kids has been a must, Ive been politically conservative leaning towards libertarian since 4th grade, I’ve been wanting to get engaged to get married since I was 18, and ready to get married immediately since I graduated undergraduate school. I’m a conservative pro-life Catholic and I’ve barely ever been dated.

        Almost all the guys that have dated me seriously have been leftists, they have recriminated me for my religious values and politics.

        I have a preference for nerdy guys that read, I need someone who will marry me and my 2000 science fiction novels ( this has actually been an issue)(but super conservative, I’m only looking for a guy who waited for me or, at least, that wishes he’d waited for me, since I’ve been waiting for him)

        And I’m just too old for most guys to even consider if they want a family, and not wanting to raise a family together is a dealbreaker for me. So I’m afraid that I may be alone forever and that G-d has decided that I’m just supposed to be a sorrowing women.

        I don’t worry at all about the future of the people of These United States, the people who are having children are all pretty much conservative, the future of America is going to be Pro-life Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Traditional Mormons, just by birth rate. I constantly meet young people married and starting families at our church.

        Also, 95% of the Hispanics I know from Church voted for Trump. Which I think means by leftist logic that they spontaneously became white?

        Sorry It’s been a bad Holiday.

        Like

        1. I would think that modern communication methods alone will deal with most harassment, including blocking. That sort of attitude by men is not new by any means, but there are better means for dealing with them these days than there used to be.

          And as far as marrying foreign women is concerned, vetting always applies regardless of where the woman is from. A man forgets that at his peril. The point is that lots of American men have had repeated bad experiences with Western women. That’s why we see a term -red-pilled – being used to describe the situation. These aren’t just “She won’t put out when I paid for dinner” complaints, either.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I always wanted to meet my husband at church, in my hobbies (reading science fiction), or at school or work. I only even tried online dating starting at 39. The dating scene is terrible in that age range. I’m really bad at online communication. If anyone has noticed my spotty and incoherent anti-socialist rants and then months of silence. I have attracted covert narcissists repeatedly in my adult life. And I really truly want to be married and raising children with a husband that loves me, shares my core values (christian) , my world view (politics), and my life goals (homeschooling and homesteading).

            I give just about any guy that wants to talk to me a chance, there are really not that many even willing to talk to me at my age. When my credit card number got stolen last year. I didn’t renew the five dating sites I was on, I just couldn’t handle guys that were willing to talk to me.

            And I know that there are very toxic women on the dating sites. I was suggesting meeting people in real life where presumedly they share your religious values or political values. I know any number of women in their early thirties who won’t go on online dating that are only encounterable at church or the grocery store.

            Just remember that almost all women are attracted to conservative male behavior. So all the conservative men are being chased by all the women, both left and right. Don’t be fooled by what the lefty women say about what they want.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. I have a very Catholic friend who I asked to be my youngest’s godmother, on the theory that she’d be close by and all, and what happened? She got on a Catholic dating site and met and married a guy from Peru, where they now live.

          (To show how right he was for her, I just think back to how he looked at her at the wedding. Yeah, that was definitely a love match.)

          But anyway. She ended up with a guy from Peru, so she had to go pretty far afield.

          Liked by 1 person

        4. Dating sites are the worst for both sexes. For men, the ones that experiment there and are marriage minded and do want kids (I was one), tend to run very far away from them.

          I wanted kids in my thirties. Yes, homeschooled and all. Now past that desire, too old and effectively done with dating and all. A lot of men younger than me are at that point.

          In their twenties.

          We’re more alike than different, the two sexes. The differences are what make each other interesting, alluring, and delightful. But I will point out one very important thing that just makes sense to me.

          When women go bad, men go right after them. Guys will do a lot of stupid stuff, dangerous, and sometimes even amazing- just to impress women. When that doesn’t work, men tend to get lost.

          Without each other to steady ourselves, men tend to turn inward and shut away the world, I think. There’s no point in planning for a future beyond our own lives (children). There’s no stability of having another person closely bonded. There’s no reason to either not take any risks (no one to risk for), or no reason to avoid risks, because the world ends with their deaths, so why not live a little?

          If you’re not a drinker and go to church, churches (and visiting other churches when you travel is not a bad idea) might be the best bet. There are still good men out there. Good women, too.

          Only problem is, the good ones tend to be recognized as such and someone snaps them up but quick. Can’t even blame them. Humans are made to pair up like that.

          Luck to you in your search. Don’t give up. I don’t much believe in instant soul mates- but you can become one to another, if you work at it.

          Like

        7. Toxic men who have five different profiles, all with different information but the same picture. Multiple personalities, arrested for gun running, no-show on dates, doesn’t date women who are “too smart,” 1/2 + 7 rule, etc.

          I just dropped the sites after a while. Not sure I could adjust to another person’s habits at this point.

          Like

    3. If you think the Republican mainstream is to be anti-immigration, then you’re falling for the lie the legacy media has been pushing. While there are some Republicans who are anti-immigration of any kind, AFAICT they’re a small minority. The position that’s in the Republican mainstream is being opposed to trespassing (which is usually called “illegal immigration” but I find that “trespassing” is a far more accurate term and is much harder for the media to confuse people about).

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Preach it Brother Robin. All of my ancestors (including the rather apocryphal Native Americans, can’t find them 8 Gens back on the side where they are alleged to be) are immigrants. Truthfully ALL residents of anywhere on this planet short the Olduvai gorge (or Mt Ararat depending on your favorite theory) are imports. The issue is that the ones coming in breaking the law offend the conservatives. The Brahamandarins pretend this is universal hate for immigrants by changing the terminology one of their favorite ploys. Admittedly the rules for immigration for the US were basically you get here you’re in up to about the late 19th century. A variety of changes occur and by the early 1920’s the rules are far more extensive. Conservatives are more on the Lawful (in the Michael Moorcock/ D&D alignment way) and consider that if the first thing you do on entering the country is to break one or more laws you’re probably a poor candidate for our society.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Actually the rules were pretty strict, the exceptions focusing around ability to care for yourself, mental capacity, and physical health. Problems in any of those areas (even after the fact, until you applied for citizenship) and you got bundled right back onto the boat.

          Now we could add a criminal record to the list.

          These were standard points of entry, the land “ports” being much harder to police.

          The people I feel sorry for are those who followed the rules. Applications for legal immigration are currently 5 years behind, if I remember correctly. Trespassers are taking precedence.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. A note on ancestry records, check if folks teleported.

          I’ve got a few ancestors that, if you organize the claimed records in a timeline, ping-ponged across the country with really incredible speed, especially if you look at things like having given birth all in the same place….

          (Pretty sure what actually happened was, ahem, records of convenience, and/or folks “filling in the blanks” and auto-filling what is most common in the area they died, rather than the person’s history.)

          Liked by 1 person

          1. And birth was often registered when convenient and later changed when dates were realized to be wrong (or were inconvenient for some reason.

            In my case the alleged “Native American” was supposed to be on my paternal grandmothers line. the Ancestor was traditionally a Mohawk woman of potentially some importance. I thought this cool as young child but found it dubious when I got to High school. This is because those relatives were upstate New York and most of the Iroquois Nation and especially the Mohawks took a powder to Canada as they had stayed true to their oath to the English monarchy and were solidly personna non grata even early in the revolutionary war. Looking further as an adult I do note some of the ancestors from that line are French Canadians so maybe? but they came here in late 19th century and in regular working folk being Native American (even in part) was NOT not a source of pride. and being from the sticks in Quebec information is rather scarce.

            Liked by 2 people

    4. My beloved’s maternal grandparents emigrated from France, while the paternal great-grandparents came back from Nova Scotia. Both of us would rather see legal immigration, but he’s quite willing to help anyone who works hard, pays taxes and wants to get legal – in short, shows they want ro be Americans. Which probably explains why so many of his clients were named Patel.

      Like

    5. What do we even know about Republican mainstream, or any other American mainstream? Not clear to me that the various information games haven’t concealed that pretty well.

      PRC security services are going to try to run people as assets, and some people are in America because they are sick of dealing with the PRC bureaucracies.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Re: sitting in front of screens decreasing testosterone, I vaguely recall reading about studies that showed hard exercise (lots of muscle use, e.g. weightlifting or working outdoor jobs) increasing testosterone. So it’s not so much that screens decrease T, but rather that those people sitting in front of screens aren’t doing the T-increasing activities any longer. Some still do, but not in nearly the numbers from a hundred years ago, hence the overall decrease in testosterone worldwide: because increasing wealth has led to lots more indoor jobs where you sit in front of screens all day.

    Come to think of it, this might be the only way in which the “good times create weak men” thing is actually true. Increasing wealth leads to fewer men working jobs that naturally build muscle, so the overall trend is towards less muscle mass across the male population, because fewer of them are throwing hay bales around all day. And while many do go to the gym, it’s not in the same numbers.

    Liked by 2 people

    2. Also as our Hostess noted previously fat tends to exude estrogen like hormones that affect testosterone (and sperm) production. If you’re doing heavy physical labor on limited diet you’re pretty much going to be FAR leaner than say a dude like me that sat indoors in front of terminals/computers for 40 years and got fed well and on a regular basis. It is especially critical near puberty, Even old asthmatic chubby here played outdoors FAR more than any of the male peers to my daughters did. This is even before we start to look at potential contaminants that might accelerate the decline.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. “The decline in testosterone in male populations is WORLD WIDE. No. Look at that again. The decline is world wide. Which is why it’s inexplicable.”

    This is also true of obesity in lab rats. You know, the most closely monitored animals in the world. Which is why I give credence to the idea that water contaminants (including birth control, mental health meds, and a helping of pesticides) is partly responsible. Corroborating evidence is that the highest levels of obesity in a population tend to be at the ends of watersheds, a much higher correlation than that of altitude.

    I don’t think that’s the entire reason for the worldwide decline in testosterone (as Robin Munn says, lack of exercise is a pretty strong factor there), but I’m sure female hormones in the water doesn’t help.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I believe hormones in the water and the residue of artificial hormones from birth control residing in mother’s bodies at time of conception may also contribute to the rise of same sex attraction as well.

      Sure there is grooming going on, but it isn’t the whole cause I would bet. Groomers pick their targets with care. They have a larger population from which to choose.

      Like

        1. If you teach women for sixty years men are brutes, other women start to look good, same with men, if for sixty years you created screaming harpies out of females, men will look elsewhere. And never forget how trendy something is affects the simple (Marxist) minded.

          Liked by 1 person

          2. Social contagion is a thing.

            As an example, I’ve seen a number of autism youtubers changing their opinion on self-diagnosis. Getting an official diagnosis can be difficult or expensive for someone who actually is autistic. Thus, the only viable option for a lot of people to understand their own issues and figure out how to handle them is doing a lot of research and coming to their own conclusions. Well and good. But then you get folk jumping on the bandwagon because it’s trendy and because it gets them attention. This muddies the waters considerably. You’ve got people who have done considerable research on the subject coming to conclusions (and I’ve seen a number of studies where “self-diagnosed” folk get the same results as diagnosed folk that are different from allistic folk so there’s at least some validity to the self-diagnosis). But then you’ve got people who sometimes do some things that are considered “autistic”* and call themselves such even though they’re not. But, they see claiming to be autistic as a way to get attention so…social contagion.

            *You can’t take just one or two traits in isolation and consider that a diagnosis. Most everything that’s an “autistic trait” is something that lots of people do on occasion. It takes a larger pattern to make a valid diagnosis. Just like everybody is sad sometimes (or if they’re not, they’ve got _real_ problems) but that doesn’t mean that everybody has depression.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. There is also the problem that it can be hard to disentangle “autistic on the spectrum” from “complex PTSD symptoms due to being raised in a crazy family”. With “AND” being an option.

              My two cents, for what that’s worth.

              Liked by 1 person

                  1. And I used autism because 1) I’m a bit more familiar with it than with some other things and 2) I’ve seen a number of autistic advocates going from “self-diagnosis is entirely valid based on the way an autistic person would research the matter and come to the conclusion” to “oh, social contagion is a thing and non-autistic people might actually do half-assed research and come to conclusions that give them attention”.

                    Liked by 2 people

                    1. Yep. Entirely reasonable. I say the whole “is it autism and/or cPTSD” more in a spirit of faceplanting my keyboard than anything else. Because both views are not wrong – autistics tend to Do The Research and come to “okay this does/does not fit” whereas non-autistics… like to go with a crowd. Any crowd. Sigh.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    3. My eldest is on the autism spectrum (very much on the mainstreamed end.) My other two are not. Or, as I like to put it, my eldest flaps his hands because he’s on the spectrum, and my youngest does because he’s not. (For a long time, that was OBVIOUSLY how you showed excitement, right?)

                      Like

                    5. Also have an official diagnosis. I can see both sides of the issue. An autistic person is likely to do the deep dive such that their self-diagnosis is accurate. The problem is that non-autistic people are likely to grab a couple of traits and presume beyond the evidence.

                      Add in that getting an official diagnosis can be difficult or expensive for folk–insurance did not cover mine, for instance, but I was able to pay for it out of pocket–something that can be a challenge for a lot of people. And in countries with “national health care” getting the referral can be a near impossible obstacle itself, followed by absolutely outrageous waiting lists to get the assessment. The result makes things…complicated.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    6. There was a big shove of “autistic” for basically social security fraud in the late 90s and I think early 2000s, it was causing issues with the Navy getting technicians when I was in. (One of our lunch table discussions in the Geek Group– ie, High Functioning Spectrum social group, probably don’t need any help branch– was how long it was going to take for them to make it so it was an automatic waiver, or if they’d just keep going until stuff crashed and complain a lot.)

                      It appears to still be used to have an excuse to warehouse kids, kind of like how ADD/ADHD got famous for being abused similarly.

                      So, having an official diagnosis doesn’t actually mean you have any symptoms beyond “a teacher thought you were an ass.”

                      (Had a psychiatrist rather delicately ask me if I was familiar with the autistic tendency to have difficulty with social cues and some other traits. She didn’t like when I explained that was part of why I am usually quiet and watching folks for some time before I get involved, if allowed.)

                      Like

                    7. They insisted younger son was autistic. He MIGHT be. I think he’s just ragingly quiet ADD. I.E. he spaces, doesn’t run in circles. He did have terrible sensory issues, but so did I. The psychologist who evaluated him for sensory issues said he was almost anti-autistic, i.e. very social.
                      BUT his pre-school teacher wanted to put him in special ed and said he was incapable of learning.

                      Like

                    8. said he was incapable of learning.

                      And this kind of infantilizing of people on the spectrum (based on the idea that they thought he was autistic–whether he is or not–is particularly annoying. Almost as annoying is the belief that autistic folk must have some kind of savant talent.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    9. well, Marshall, and again I don’t THINK he’s autistic. The rest of the family pings more “on the spectrum” than he does would be bad if he got diagnosed as autistic, LOL because he has a savant talent for patterns/math. Like…. bizarre. I don’t even know how he does it, but it’s bizarre to watch. The results were coming in in 22 and he was spitting out the impossibilities and improbabilities in real time, and I wish I had recorded it, because when he said it it was obvious, but I can’t even remember.
                      He was speaking like an auctioneer.
                      Eh.

                      Like

                    11. About the only reason I would doubt the validity of your diagnosis, from knowing you online, is that you seem to function acceptably well.

                      (IE, the definition of “causes serious quality of life issues/is unable to live in normal society.”)

                      Depending on situation, diagnosis can matter only as much as it helps you find functional coping methods.

                      Like

                    12. Masking is a thing. The way I describe it:

                      I have a knee issue. My doctor believes (prior to MRI) that it’s a torn meniscus. I generally walk with a limp, usually wear a reinforced brace, and sometimes use a cane. Now, I can eschew the brace and cane and force myself to walk normally, even run a bit. However, doing so hurts more and does damage that I pay for later.

                      Masking is the same thing on the emotional level. Scripting, forcing eye contact, accepting that people are just going to assume that “selective mutism” is just you being rude and snubbing them, and so on. It uses up “spoons” at a tremendous rate, but you can do it and look more or less “normal” at least for limited times.

                      Incidentally, the specific diagnosis is “Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level One, what used to be called Asbergers” (per the psychologist).

                      And as I dug into it, it explained a lot about my life growing up (and thank any gods there be that I didn’t get a diagnosis as a kid when it was still under DSM-II and considered a form of schizophrenia and treated with hallucinogens and things like electric shock therapy).

                      Liked by 1 person

                    13. Yep, that’s useful information!

                      In contrast, my mom taught us about “masks”, which are a way to interact with people– you find part of yourself, and play that up, to be polite because it makes things more comfortable for the other person if they know what to expect.

                      Which is a non-diagnosis coping mechanism which doesn’t involve burning through spoons too fast.

                      (The removal of a formal and mostly agreed on pattern called “manners” is, I swear, a major contributor to the explosion in autism diagnosis. Thank goodness they started being clearer about “like Asperger’s” vs “locked-in.”)

                      Liked by 1 person

                    14. And I have now shared more here than I have shared in a public forum since the diagnosis. I don’t try to hide it but I usually don’t make a big deal out of it either.

                      Like

                    15. :e-hug:

                      Thank you for that level of trust, FWIW.

                      The Huns are a really good source for life hacks for this kind of stuff, exactly Because folks will (carefully) talk about stuff they hit when growing up, or now.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    16. That and if you’ve been officially diagnosed with autism it can make employment a little tricky. No employer wants to have to make accomodations. Even if all you might ask for would be “please let me work with my back to the wall so there’s one direction people can’t sneak up on me when I’m concentrating”.

                      So if you’re officially diagnosed, and they find out, a lot of people will find some reason you “aren’t a good fit to hire”.

                      Like

                    17. My boss said “what accommodations do you need” and it so happens that my job is, by itself (small company, quiet environment, generally work by myself) is a pretty good accomodation. The main thing is allowing me to use my particular stims at work.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    18. Even if all you might ask for would be “please let me work with my back to the wall so there’s one direction people can’t sneak up on me when I’m concentrating”.
                      ……………………

                      All you have to do is scream, when this happens. Only takes once or twice. Disrupting an entire room of other programmers. I don’t have a diagnosis, official or otherwise. I’ve worked with others who I suspect are on the spectrum. I think this is the reason why the R&D engineering department got their own cubical room separated by a conference room when the office was built at one of my jobs. We even got tall cubical walls (no other department got them, not even HR). Also why we didn’t get grief when most of us oriented our desks within the cubicle to facing the entrance. Meant cables weren’t tucked away neatly. Tough. Any other orientation put our backs to the cubical entrance while working. Didn’t get to keep that, it all changed when the company got bought out. Still had the high walls, in cube-vile, until almost the end, then were stuck with the low walls, and fixed desk locations, like everyone else. I was always on edge. Almost a relief to eventually get cut during the last bit before full court bankruptcy.

                      Like

                    20. Point. Luckily closest I’ve ever been to clients is the telephone. Interestingly enough I can concentrate hard enough that ringing sent me (metaphorically) to the ceiling.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    22. I’ve never been diagnosed and don’t think I am on the spectrum or ADD. I have worked directly with clients, internal clients who needed me to do things. That sets up a different dynamic than general public. I’ve done two type of jobs, programming (and design), and log scaling. Former I know I’ve done right because programs are kind of neutral. They work or they don’t. I am (was? retired, but innate, don’t think it goes away) good at discovering what clients need and delivering it. Not because I’m good conversationally (at least not good in groups, one on one in correct setting, yes). I’ve known programmers who couldn’t do that. Brilliant programmers, but knowing what clients needed, or how to figure that out? Not so much. I’ve had to fight the same programmers to get what was needed (involved embedded lower level programming, which I am not the best at. Would eventually figure it out. But they whipped it out in nothing flat.) My other, post college, job? Not being chummy with clients was how one stayed out of jail. Might measure or deduct to their favor. Not kidding. Called “conflict of interest”.

                      Liked by 1 person

                  2. of course. But again, very hard to nail down. EVEN for professionals.
                    It took me till 57 and older son yelling at me, to realize that I’m ADD as F. I thought it was a kid thing only, being part of it. The other part is how do you know? It’s you. You’ve always been like this.
                    I’m still working on “ADD is not a moral failing” because I tend to attribute ADD behavior to laziness or lack of will power, or–

                    Like

                    1. Or a history of concussion(s)?

                      Knock it off. Getting one’s head busted is not a moral failing. Adapt what you can. Accept what you cannot. Advance your happiness.

                      You have only -one- Judge to face, and I have heard Good News that Forgiveness is for the asking by the Repentant. (Grin) Good News indeed for me. I am a mess.

                      Might have gotten my head busted a few times, too. Oy vey.

                      Like

                    2. well…. if I’d done what Jim Baen ordered me to do, and worn a bicycle helmet everywhere, including the shower, it would have saved me that last concussion.

                      Like

                    3. Funny thing is my sister is ADD and I’m autistic and occasionally these traits in the other sibling drive us absolutely mad.

                      Like

                    6. I’m not unsteady. I might need it, maybe, but that’s probably 10 years in the future. My parents still don’t need it.
                      My problem is what dad has: sudden inexplicable blood pressure drops, so I’m fine, then I’m passed out on the floor. Started the year I turned 40, so on track with dad. We’ve both been taken to the hospital, nothing found. Except low sodium? So we’re both ordered to eat salty food once a day. Olives is what I do, if I remember.
                      Anyway as we age we also get sudden blood pressure SPIKES. Unpredictable. So, this explains why dad’s ancestresses (the ancestors died young because they all smoked from their teens) died usually at advanced age by dropping from a stroke. Which…. well, I hope I’m that lucky? Go about your normal way, then dead before you hit the ground.
                      BUT at any rate, other than make sure you don’t fall behind a door that opens that way (Dad. It was a saga. they butchered that doorway to get in) it is what it is. I haven’t done this in…. 7 years. So, I’m about due again, dang it.

                      Like

                    7. Apple watch or Samsung watch (depending on which smart phone you have) both have fall detection settings. Mom has the Apple watch that is set to call each of us (daughters) in turn, then finally 911 if none of us answer. So far she’s had to cancel the response at least twice when she semi-fell down while in process of sitting. Worried her a bit on the “false” trigger, until we caught the pattern. More reassuring that it did trigger. She was falling. Not a controlled fall. But falling into something that caught her.

                      Only negative on either is the watches lousy battery life. Even reported only a little over 24 hours between charges. Mom gets closer to 48 hours because we force deleted apps that were on her phone that initially installed on the Apple watch during setup. She’s never using Nook, Kindle, banking, shopping, or airline, etc., apps on her watch. Seriously? Also turn off Wifi (which won’t stay off) because watch doesn’t need access to wifi, just the bluetooth connection to the phone.

                      Like

                2. Ooo yes so much.

                  Most of my family tree I can identify falls under one flavor or another of “not quite right” at best.

                  …The saner ones seem to have been the lawyers. If that doesn’t send a cold chill down your spine….

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. LOL. Lawyers, doctors, engineers and Jesuits, and you have my family tree covered. Though mostly doctors and engineers. This writing thing by being artistic dips into the only ancestor who was a successful sculptor/singer (and other things. The man had issues.)

                    Liked by 1 person

    2. Agreed. The human body has to have a weight regulating system. Otherwise it wouldn’t pin so tightly to a specific range when one does not focus on weight control.

      Something is breaking it, and I don’t think we know what.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. And because the US is weird and tech heavy, I wonder just how many of the lacknoodle are going to end up just getting themselves AI girlfriends and essentially checking out of the whole thing instead of going 10/7?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Probably a lot. But also I suspect a lot will voluntarily go back when money/girls don’t fall in their laps. A lot will end up in the rest of the Americas where the “pirate life” is more easily obtained. And a lot will end up in jail or die. All more likely than 10/7, btw, which requires coordination.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Expect it to show up in the next console generation. Windows 12 already has neural engine requirements, and given Cyberpunk 2077 is already R rated, this is absolutely going to show up in at least one AAA open world game in the next 5 years. If only as a mods.

        Like

      3. They already are.
        Just for the distaff side.
        (Shrug) I can’t get deodorant in any of the local pharmacies without walking past suggestively shaped (and waterproof!) “personal massagers”.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yeah. The modern sex toys argument is amusing. Certain women shriek that men will replace them with sex bots, but get offended when men point out that those same women already have largely done the same with the much less sophisticated stuff that’s already on the market for women.

          Like

    3. That’s a cause for concern. And given the AI chatbot ads that I’ve seen, coupled with the reaction when one AI chatbot was changed in ways that affected it’s “adult” interactions, I think there’s a solid argument to be made for that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The trend in AI if for smaller and more local runtime packages. You may need a cluster of H100’s to train the model, but the model itself can be run on much more modest hardware, either desktop or even phone level.

        Like

        1. Yes, there are a large number of chatbot phone apps these days. And while the basic app requires training elsewhere, the post-install versions appear to adapt to their user over time

          Liked by 1 person

      1. Non-AI porn won’t pretend to care about you. And it won’t sext with you, and adapt the sexting as it learns your preferences over time.

        Porn is impersonal. A chatbot seems to care about you

        Like

        1. SI is sufficient for porn purposes. There was an SI “therapist” conversation program developed in the mid 60s, called ELIZA.

          Would not surprise me at all if someone has already modded something like it for smut-chat.

          Like

            1. “If you’re leaving scorch marks you need a bigger gun.”

              …or maybe I’m using a different list of Rules/Maxims. ;-)

              Like

  6. It’s a bit strange how little influence on the world Minotaurs (and other bovines or bovine-like creatures) have, considering the copious amount of BS in the world and its institutions. Then, unlike all too many professors, I/we only produce BS from one end.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. There’s only one thing humans like better than screwing everything that moves (or even waves in the wind) and that’s screwing their close family. Over and over and over. Shrug.
    But enough about the Habsburgs!

    Sorry, couldn’t pass it up.

    Like

        2. We don’t know who my Dad’s biological father is. I thought it amusing when he did a DNA test and it looks like his grandmother’s biological father (not her mother’s husband) is the brother of his father’s grandmother.

          Even more entertaining, these families are across the country from each other and no hint that they ever left their respective areas.

          Like

            1. In this case at least two trips, by two different family members separated by three generations to the same podunk little town in the middle of nowhere, with no visible connection…

              Like

              1. Yah never know.
                Look, for a while about… 40 years ago, people from all over the world would show up at my parent’s door, in the middle of nowhere, with no connection. The connection being they were relatives of someone I’d met abroad. Or friends. BUT you’d never find that out even now, lest alone in 100 years.

                Like

        1. Sometimes there’s no real reason for a trait to become widespread -to- universal in a population. Sometimes it’s just random chance and genetic drift.

          Liked by 1 person

      4. In the historically-rooted Crusader Kings video game series, Zoroastrian dynasties are happiest if the new ruler has Divine Marriages. That’s when he marries his sisters… and his newly widowed mother.

        Like

  8. You know, going down that list Sarah just made reminds me of Greece and Italy. Those two nations are famous in the European Union for being the countries where people do -everything- in cash to avoid the taxes, because they are crushing and ridiculous.

    I recall reading that Italy has a laptop tax. You must display a sticker on your laptop to prove you have paid said tax. So of course there was a thriving trade in fake stickers.

    Illegal immigration is -destroying- the Canadian healthcare system. If you go to any hospital in Toronto right now it is easily possible that there will be zero native-born Canadians in it, neither staff nor patients. The native-born doctors and nurses have been taking early retirement for many years now, a phenomenon that rocketed up during Covid. Doctors and nurses quit in -amazing- numbers for all the reasons one would expect. From jab mandates to obviously fake medical guidelines, they walked away.

    This is but one socialist structure in our socialist nation where the legit people are walking out. Leaving the cretins, crooks and deviants to run it.

    Legit businesses and workers are fleeing in many fields. Engineers, medical, oil men, foresters, even weed growers and similar. Checking out and going to the USA or Europe.

    But you know what’s booming? Money laundering. In real estate and in retail, money laundering is HUGE. Canada turns out to be one of the biggest laundry services in the world. You got illegal dough you need laundered through the international banking system, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are happy to help.

    And why is this? Two reasons, the first and most obvious being corruption at all levels of government, but the second is immigration. The huge influx of people coupled with the flight of legitimate business from Canada means that the only growth possible is illegitimate business.

    The only buck you can make is the one where you circumvent government on the sly. Which, perversely, means the death of the government. The harder they clamp down, the more the illegal market expands.

    “Oh, there’s a laptop tax? Fire up the printer Guido, we gonna make some tax stickers.”

    Meaning, mass illegal immigration is the kiss of death for the socialists and their central planning. It’ll be fun watching them be hoist on their own petard.

    Like

  9. Them revenuers never learn.

    There are more ways to hide a still than there are folks to find ’em

    Like

    2. And way too many places to hide the odd revenuer… There are places that it is just not worth it to go if you;re pare of the ATF .

      Like

  10. FWIW, when I was in elementary school, we were taught there were 3 races also — negro/black, caucasian/white, and mongoloid/yellow. The natives of the American continent(s?) were called “red” for their color, but still considered to be caucasian for all other intents and purposes, despite that not making any sense.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Darwinians are so hilarious. I remember the theory that Africans are black because that way they won’t sunburn, and Northern Europeans are white because it allows them to absorb more of the limited light, or something. OK, then why are South Americans in the same tropical climates brown instead of black, and why are American Indians who live in the very similar climate to Northern Europeans red? Shut up, they explained.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Are the climates of North America and Northern Europe really so similar? Northern Europe is much, much further north than most of the U.S. (meaning the “limited light” problem is much more acute in Europe), as well as having a much more mild temperature range due to the Atlantic currents.

        Not that I think the simple “Just So Story” version of evolution works here, but even if it did, I don’t think we’d necessarily expect the Amerindians and the non-Mediterranean Europeans to end up in the same place.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. The Inuit are also a lot more recent imports into that area than Northern Europeans into theirs. And they started from different “stock”.

            People, both for and against the idea, tend to oversimplify evolutionary pressures and the results thereof.

            Like

        2. They didn’t start from the same place. Europeans interbred with Neanderthals, and Asians interbred with Denisovans. The Americas were initially settled from northeast Asia by way of the Bering Strait.

          Like

              1. Okay, that’s odd then. I was reading an article on Covid variants and their interaction with immune systems and I would swear their information was that there was about 1-5% Neanderthal over in East Asia as well, but some of them were different Neanderthal genes than found in Europe.

                Like

                1. That’s truly bizarre. Because no. In fact, almost no Neanderthal. Unless they are the creative people who consider Israel “Asia” (Israel having one of the higher concentrations of Neanderthal genes.)
                  But honestly? I consider ALL Covid research bullshit until proven differently. I don’t know what was there, at this point, but whatever it was wasn’t what they portrayed. And any post-hoc research is probably attempts at ass-covering.

                  Liked by 1 person

                2. That’s the Denisovan admixture. Sometime between 350,000 and 300,000 years ago there was a migration out of Africa. Some turned left and wound up in Europe (Neanderthals); some turned right and wound up around Mongolia (Denisovans). Geographical and genetic isolation led to them developing into two different but still distantly related sub-species over the next few hundred thousand years until ‘modern’ humans migrated out of Africa and made contact with both groups.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. I know about the Denisovans, yes. But there have been researchers from at least 2014 on looking at there also being identifiable Neanderthal genes, especially in East Asia.

                    I’m willing to believe that research is still up for debate on which are which, specifically. But there’s more than one paper out there separating the two and stating they are both in the East Asian genomes.

                    Like

                    4. “I may be wrong, but I’m not unsure” is common. Politicians, leftists and academics (BIRM) tend to add “And I’ll shout you down if you provide evidence which contradicts me!”

                      Like

      2. Because there’s a path dependence to evolution. Once a population loses a trait because it’s no longer in an environment where that trait is useful it can’t just regain the trait if it moves back to the original environment. There needs to be a new mutation that creates a new trait that can be selected for.

        Then there’s the fact that Amerinds have only been living in tropical environments for a few thousand years.

        Like

      4. A few have replied with what I call the infinite monkey logic. If Darwinian evolution doesn’t make sense, just apply the pixie dust of an unfathomable time span, and anything can happen. It’s the equivalent of, “a miracle happens here.” Just wait a few hundred million years and the fish become dinosaurs. Then wait a few hundred million more and dinosaurs become birds.

        Just to be clear, my objections to Darwinian evolution are not religious. God could have created the universe any way he wanted to, including Darwinian evolution. Humans gonna’ be human, and we frequently fall into Calvin’s dad territory, where what we don’t know we make up instead of admitting in the annoying manner of my childhood priests, “It’s a mystery.”

        Like

  11. Damn Sarah, I have so much to say, but I’m laughing my ass off, and I’m only half-way through. Now excuse me while I clean up all that water I spit out all over my desk.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. I have absolutely no sympathy for the idea that not getting laid (or not being able to get laid) causes men to behave badly.

    In fact, the idea causes such an upwelling of visceral and furious contempt that trying to express it would involve incoherent ranting and the copious use of unpronounceable symbols.

    If you have no lawful way to vent your desires, Find. Something. Useful. To do. With your energy.
    If you can’t find something, invent it.

    You don’t go around causing trouble for other people. You don’t go around raping and/or killing other people. You don’t go around robbing other people. You don’t go around destroying other people’s stuff, just because you’re horny.

    … but what do I know? I’m not a man.

    It’s not like a middle-aged, childless spinster would know anything about unfulfillable desires and how to deal with them constructively. /heavy sarcasm

    /rant

    Like

    1. It’s different for men. They need a way to channel it.
      As a lot of women who go on testosterone are finding IT REALLY is worse for men. the impulse control thing. And when you have nothing to look forward to in the way of channeling it, it drives weaker men insane.
      NO ONE IS HOLDING THIS UP AS A MODEL or saying it’s all of them. But not all men are made of steel, you know?

      Like

      1. Some time back I read an article by a woman who had to go on some sort of testosterone treatment. She noted that she started wanting to have sex with every single man she saw. It could be an ugly man just walking past her house, and she still felt the urge to jump his bones. And note that she was (presumably happily) married.

        Needless to say, the experience was eye-opening for her.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. IT REALLY is worse for men. the impulse control thing.

        I have no reason to doubt the truth of this.

        But multiple hundred-millions of single incel western and (probably far-eastern) men manage it. What excuses everyone else from being expected to meet that standard?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Sure. NOTHING does, I’m noting what will happen. Men without HOPE of ever getting a family/woman can and do go feral.
          Look, its like this HOW ARE YOU TO GOING TO PREVENT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM FROM DOING SO?
          You’re falling for the “if only every one.” Men without hope of a family break. Some break violently. By increasing the number of men in that situation, you increase the percentage that will go feral.
          Can you see it now? It wasn’t condoning, just observing.
          It’s an observed fact of population demographics and behavior, NOT a prescription.

          Like

          1. My wife has often commented that cultures that practice polygamy end up violent. It’s not just the middle-eastern cultures of today; the Mormons of the 19th century, back when polygamy was common among their members (and, if I understand correctly, nearly universal among their leadership) were also a far more violent culture than Mormons are today. (I won’t go into the history here as I don’t know it very well, but there are some fascinating books on the subject). The common factor, she thinks (and I agree), is that when the most successful men in the culture marry three or four wives, that leaves two or three men with no hope of getting wives. And so those cultures tend to recruit those men into their version of an army, and point them at whoever they consider to be an enemy. Those young men, in turn, see some of their friends succeeding in battle and getting rewarded with marriage, and so they’re highly motivated to join in whatever battles their culture wants them to fight.

            Like

            2. . . . The problem with your thesis is that, in the Mormon community, there was not a large surplus of men in the first generation. They were killed off by mobs, and the widows/unmarried dependents were taken in by those with the means to care for them. The men of that generation were more violent because they had to be – they WERE the frontier, there was no one to play police for settlers (that the Mormons trusted). Also, excepting a few memorable instances and personalities, the Mormon pioneers were generally not aggressors.

              Now in the second and third generations your thesis might hold, except polygamy was, it’s estimated, only 25-30% of all Mormon marriages in the 1800s, and also most of those were two wives, not four or more. There were, of course, exceptions, but I’m descended from one of those relationships. It is well-documented that he had two wives, no more. 26 children from two women was enough to care for, it seems.

              Most of the church’s male membership in the 19th century did not want or seek out polygamous marriages – also well-documented. They sent their young men on church missions to Polynesia, Europe, Africa, etc. – with no language training, that was enough adventure for anyone. Since they knew they’d likely marry once they returned (the ‘returned missionary’ title is still a huge boost to young men’s prospects in church culture), there was very little violence within the Mormon communities, and in fact they had a remarkably respectful relationship with the natives (this does not hold true when non-Mormons and the government got involved).

              I’m not saying you’re wrong, necessarily, in your suppositions, only that my ancestors found ways to mitigate the violent effects of their lifestyle choices. Since the practice of polygamy was ended in 1890, there were only about three generations directly affected. It may well have gone as you predict had there been a fourth or fifth generation.

              Like

            3. Not just the Mormons. Entire west as it was being settled. How many men per woman? A widow had no problem enticing a man. A widower? Harder. There is a reason European men voluntarily integrated into the native tribes, whether the couple lived with the tribe or not. Not so much European women into the tribes, unless originally forced to.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. No, I understand that you are describing, not prescribing.

            Today, I just don’t feel like being understanding of the people behind those men, who think that the best solution to their problem-men is to offload them on us.

            Like

        2. Look, you’re doing “Teach men not to rape.” Men are not a single-brain multi-body organism. Most men don’t rape. Most men don’t murder. They develop other pathologies in response to the utter lack of hope.
          BUT most men are not all the men. You increase the number of desperate men, you increase the number who will be a big problem.

          Like

          1. It’s a numbers game. If, say one 99.99% of men can handle being single with no prospects of sex, let alone love and marriage, without “going postal” that means that for every 10,000 who are in that situation, you’ll have one who doesn’t. One million in that position means 100 not handling it. Ten million gives you a thousand.

            And while 99.99% is a pretty damn good overall record and the 0.01% who don’t handle things well are not excused by the situation, nevertheless, the more people in the situation, the more people who will deal with it badly.

            Like

            1. There’s also another issue. Just because men aren’t reacting violently doesn’t mean that the lack of opportunity for sex isn’t affecting them in other ways. It’s known that men tend to be more ambitious when they think they have opportunities with the other sex. Take that away, and men are more or less content to make just enough money to sit in their apartment that only has a couch, a TV, and a video game console. If men don’t react violently, they tend to shut down if they believe the opportunity to pursue the other sex isn’t available to them.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Seems like that would be a survival adaptation in the hundreds of thousands of years of low and scarce human population. When the only people one ever met were maybe two or three hunter-gatherer bands of 10-20 people each, if you struck out with the very few available females and went bananas, your band would just kick you out and a leopard would eat you one night.

                More survivable to turn into the flint-knapping-obsessed single guy and continue to have someone to watch your back, and hey, maybe a mammoth wold fall one one of the lucky ones leaving a widow that thought flint knappers are hot.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. Autocorrect goes on strike now? Just when I stopped rpoof erading my comments?

                  You know, sexbots that are as infuriating and unpredictable as autocorrect will be the real thing that kicks off the Butlerian Juhad.

                  Like

                2. It’s not a survival adaptation, as both responses are still very common. Rather, it’s probably a mix of personality and culture.

                  Like

          2. Most men don’t think that impalement should be the proper punishment for rape. I do. Punishment should fit the crime. Also, they should be dead.

            But yes, men do develop other pathologies when faced with utter lack of hope (different kind of hope there, I think). Women do, too. It’s a human thing.

            Like

    2. It’s a problem of impulse control and/or a display of power. Usually cultural or lower IQ, sometimes due to no or low consequences for the prep.

      Like

    3. Testosterone explains much.

      Very, very few women come anywhere near male average for “Fight me!”. It’s why no mixed gender MMA exists as competition. A 125 pound male is going to -destroy- a 225 pound female (if you can find 225 of female muscle that can fight.) Even assuming superior skillet for the female, the male can simply endure more damage, and will have a huge advantage in aggression/fight-me.

      Watching the behavior of my fellow Infantrymen was … instructive. There is darn good reason Patton said a man that won’t f### won’t fight. The whole Infantry culture is designed to weaponize temporarily frustrated young men. (Arguably, all military culture of any value)

      In the early 1940s, sailors at Pearl Harbor, prior to deploying to sea duty, would visit the various brothels surrounding the base.

      Lines often exceeded multiple blocks, hours on end. The girls rarely spent 15 minutes per man. Often just 5. For 8-12 hours.

      Most women cannot comprehend such. Most new enlisted going to war understand just enough to get in line.

      Testosterone in action.

      Also why so may mixed gender units about to deploy suddenly find most of the girls doing “swell”.

      Testosterone.

      Like

      1. Ex-division surgeon here. At deployment time, pregnant women’s urine is a salable commodity (frequently failing to be confirmed by serum testing.) Then the single mothers’ child care plans collapse.

        Like

        2. Ex-division PA here, can confirm. Also frustrating as hell to all us female-types who just wanted to do our jobs but were assumed to be the same sort of dirtbags until proven otherwise.

          Like

          1. Oh, and much worse now that they have extended both the non-deployability time and the time to meet fitness standards to a full year after giving birth. You have females that can spend a whole career neither deploying nor passing a PT test if she’s willing to get pregnant once every 2 years or so, which isn’t even particularly close together from a family-spacing perspective. And if you don’t believe someone will be willing to do that, I have some Soldiers with 5 kids to introduce you to. And since it would be discrimination to use that as a reason to not allow folks to go to school or be promoted…

            Liked by 1 person

    4. I have absolutely no sympathy for the idea that not getting laid (or not being able to get laid) causes men to behave badly.

      The framing seems… incomplete, although memorable. (OK, I find it somehow both morbid and twee at the same time. It’s not the lack fo )

      I think it’s more that cultural limiting of family formation as THE only possible positive path, combined with “more is better”, combined with effectively blocking that path, that is resulting in this mess. (Plus the whole failure to understand restraint and glorification of brutality.)

      Sort of like the women who go nuts when they are not allowed in the bounds of what is acceptable to form a family even of the found/work with kids sort — you’ve met the ones who go utterly nuts, right? Usually busy being destructive as heck to those who do have kids, or set out to destroy everyone else to be exactly as miserable as they are?

      It’s a cultural design failure. Part of why “The West” has success is because we have a lot of different routes to success– and why America does the best of all, at least those parts that aren’t busy trying to blow that success up.

      Being a guy who works with his hands is as honorable as being a technician is as honorable as being a CEO is as honorable as being a dad is as honorable as being a monk….except for where these rats in the head idiots are trying to break it.

      They seem to have started with the notion that women aren’t successful unless they’re successful in the mode of a very limited type of man, and usually via being an ass at that.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The framing seems… incomplete, although memorable

        Yes, well… Since we were speaking of frustration that leads to failure of impulse control and things that make people break… upon further reflection, it was a comment I should have kept in my head.

        That’s the problem with public conversations by text. Everyone gets to see you blow up stupidly and comment on it days after you’ve calmed down.

        Like

        1. :ehug:

          Does it help to know I’m still stomping down on a lecture on human dignity and the lack of it involved in reduction to “nookie”?

          (And NO, I am NOT going to do it as a guest post, because it commits the unforgivable sin– IT IS BORING!)

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You have my sympathy, having to stomp on a lecture like that.

            Pity about the boring… sounds like the kind of thing a bunch of people desperately need to hear.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. The thing is, sex is maybe the visible thing with an obvious or frequent connection.

            But, it is maybe like looking a generation or two back and correlating college degrees to success. Something that was frequently associated with certain patterns of success, but it is not like you would make everyone successful by issuing diplomas to everyone. People absolutely could be successful without the fancy college training, and there were/are other careers that could be very high earning.

            One, men and women can both have stability or other mental health issues.

            Two, emotional investment is a wee bit relevant to weighting of long term choices. Non-kid emotional investments can be abstract, and perhaps harder to develop/sustain, but they do exist.

            Three, human relationships are actually pretty important for most people, and romance is just one category of those.

            Some ideologies are very bad for romantic relationships, but those are probably also very bad for the other human relationships as well.

            There are non-marriage, non-own-kids way to stabilize one’s problem mindset, but ATM, my current bit of insomnia and lack of forward motion is not the best testimony. On the other hand, functioned well enough to have two pretty productive days so far this year, so a big improvement over some years ago and some of the dark mental places I crawled out of.

            Like

            1. Two, emotional investment is a wee bit relevant to weighting of long term choices. Non-kid emotional investments can be abstract, and perhaps harder to develop/sustain, but they do exist.

              And should be promoted, and honored.

              On the other hand, functioned well enough to have two pretty productive days so far this year, so a big improvement over some years ago and some of the dark mental places I crawled out of.

              GOOD.

              I want you to be around, got it?

              Like

    5. Agreed. As another middle-aged, childless spinster, I am fortunate to have lots of nieces and nephews to adore.

      Like

  13. Every time he visited, they had another kid, so…
    …………………

    My paternal grandparents. Grandpa was a civil engineer, so he was gone on projects throughout the west, for long stretches of time. Two children, 2 to 3 years apart, then an 8 year gap, another two children, 2 to 3 years apart, another 8 year gap, then the last 2, two years apart. Guess when his projects were “closer to home” :-) :-) :-) Three of the projects I am familiar with are Hwy 38, between Drain and Elkton, especially the current tunnel. Stretches of Oregon Hwy 101, north of Florence, and part of the Alaskan Canadian highway. At least those are the ones grandma has mentioned (grandpa died when I was 2).

    Liked by 1 person

        2. Chuckle Chuckle

          “Hybrid Vigor” isn’t a Thing, not as most people talk about it.

          Yes, in some cases, a Hybrid may inherit the “good genetics” from both parents and thus being “genetically superior” to its parents.

          But in other cases, a Hybrid inherits the “bad genetics” from both parents, thus being “genetically inferior” to its parents. Note, several years ago I read of a conversation between some London beauty and a very intelligent London gentleman. She suggested that they have a child because “with her beauty and his intelligence, the child would go far.” His response was that “the child might have his beauty and her intelligence and thus the child would have a hard time in life”. :lol:

          More often, the genetics the Hybrid inherits are a mixed bag and there’s not much “difference” between the Hybrid and its parents.

          Like

            1. True, but I read a Fantasy Series by Norton and Lackey where the “Hybrids” of Elves & Humans were all superior to their Elf & Human parents.

              Like

              2. Frankly, the elves in that series were so messed up that I couldn’t figure out how they hadn’t gone extinct. Adding any other genetics into that particular pool could only have improved matters.

                Like

                1. Was that the one where the elves all kept humans as sex-slaves but absolutely refused to breed with them, except, y’know, accidents and/or harem politics happen, so there were a bunch of half-elves out in the desert hanging with the dragons?

                  Like

              4. Countered neatly by Weber’s Bahzell series, where the half-elven “Purple Lords” only THOUGHT they were superior…. 8-)

                Like

          2. What we refer to as hybrid vigor is more often simply a removal or adjustment of inbreeding depression. When a plant has been bred back to itself for 60 generations, that influx of new blood temporarily creates offspring that are stronger–not necessarily better.

            I am currently running into this with chickens. The hybrids between inbred varieties are growing much faster than expected.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. Hybrid crops are produced by crossing two incredibly inbred strains and then culling the 99+% of the crossbreeds that don’t exhibit the desired traits. Not something you’re supposed to do with people. Paging Dr. Mengele!

          Liked by 1 person

  15. Another terrifying message the left is adopting is the idea that “the Islamic terrorists have a point.” This one is going to go real real bad and some of the “refugees” may join in. They are playing with red hot fire with their coddling of the “new” Palestinian “victims.” This is one of those black swans and it’s flying low right now.

    Liked by 2 people

    2. It’s not new. Violent criminals have been ‘victims’ since…well, since early in the 0bama years, at least. It’s just being extended to another group. Plus, of course, the more violent they are, the greater their ‘victimhood’ must be, right?
      ———————————
      The Democrats trust violent criminals and terrorists with guns more than they trust you.

      Like

      1. The movie “Men at Work” mocked the mindset back in 1990, and I recall the trope being invoked as far back as I can remember (the Carter years).

        Like

          3. I recall John Cleese a few years ago describing how he took a look about and realized (with sadness) he no longer recognized his own country. Turns out spending a lifetime poking holes in the fabric of society can weaken it considerably. It didn’t help that Python was so very good at that. Brits (and people around the world) laughed away at the destruction of England.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Monty Python didn’t poke any holes in British society; they just pointed the holes out and ridiculed them.
              ———————————
              “‘E must be a king!”
              “‘Ow d’yer know that?”
              “‘E ‘asn’t got shit all over ‘im!”

              Like

      2. “Plus, of course, the more violent they are, the greater their ‘victimhood’ must be, right?”

        Just so long as they’re not…

        lowers voice to a whisper

        INCELS!

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “The Democrats trust violent criminals and terrorists with guns more than they trust you.”

        That’s because they think their security is equal to the random madmen. They know you can get to them, probably without breathing hard.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. The original communists were mass murderers, and considered being punished for ordinary retail violent felony a great oppression.

        Two of the major traits are 1) rejection of peace consensus/agreement 2) claiming wrongful treatment when it comes to any negative action directed their way.

        Oppression was both their excuse for denying any obligation to reciprocate civilized or peaceful behavior, as well as how they guilt tripped the just in a bid to escape the punishments that their actions had earned.

        Like

    3. The left rationalize that their savagery is a direct result of their anger and oppression. The more savage Islamists act, the more thats “proof” Israeli oppression drove them to that savagery. Somehow I doubt if they were facing mass violence from angry conservatives who despised leftists for ruining everything they would blame themselves for driving their enemies to it.

      Like

  16. The problem is that we’ve had at least two or three generations of Communist/Socialist rats at our cultural roots.
    We need rat-catchers and accepting that we’ll be up to our eyeballs in dead rats for a while until all the problems are solved.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. “ American men importing foreign brides. For some reason, a lot of these seem to be Asian. So, there’s that. Though to be fair, Asians are something the left doesn’t know what to do with.”

    So, totally anecdotally, which subgroup under “Asians” seems to matter quite a bit. Phillipina ladies making happy couples with ‘mercun guys, often with the guy post an acrimonious divorce, seems to be a thing.
    I’ve known a fair number of mixed culture couples where she’s Vietnamese, but this might be more an artifact of the post-1975 diaspora more than current wife-sourcing.
    Never encountered any mixed culture couples where she was from Japan, or from Korea, though I am told those can work.
    China seems to be a harder one. Even in the second and third generation from mainland China there seems to be a very large amount of brand loyalty. The few that married outside the brand seem to anecdotally do the marriage crash and burn thing more than the stay-in-brand-China couples. Or maybe they keep things quiet better when a in-brand marriage hits the rocks?
    And note along the penguins line, Han Chinese is verily a brand unto itself.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It really depends on the culture. The Philippines were part of the US for a while, and I suspect some of our culture rubbed off on them. Plus, nearly everyone speaks English there, which means that there isn’t as much of a language barrier.

      From what I’ve heard, guys who go to Vietnam looking for a bride tend to run into problems. The younger women tend to be more respectful toward their parents, who typically don’t want their daughter marrying a man who’s likely to take her out of the country. That’s less of an issue for the older unmarried women… but they also usually graduated from school before teaching English became widespread. And Vietnamese is not an easy language to learn. So there’s a language barrier.

      I would imagine that the vast majority of marriage-able Vietnamese women stateside are descendants of refugees from the end of the war.

      Like

    2. Ah. My brother, who served a church mission in the Philippines, was aggressively propositioned OFTEN by Filipinas. They love Americans culturally, and the women want white babies.
      He called those American men who married or cohabitated with the Filipinas ‘dirty Joes’ or ‘filthy Joes’, depending on the respective ages of the man and the woman, and was pretty disgusted with the practice.

      Like

        1. Agreed. If the relationship works, and both partners are genuinely happy, then more power to them. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if there are a lot that don’t meet that criteria.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That’s not limited to those marriages. A lot of marriages in general don’t meet that criteria. Considering what I see around me, even the couples who stay married, well, available evidence suggests that most don’t.

            Like

        2. According to my brother, there was an undeniable imbalance in happiness between most of the Joes and their paramours, as many of them had been essentially sold off for a monthly stipend for the family or similar. Too often, it wasn’t consensual or romantic, it was a business transaction.

          I’m not saying there aren’t ever happy marriages between Filipinas and American Joes (I know of at least one), I’m just saying that disproportionately, it was a case of money talks and desperation wins over morals.

          Like

            1. Both sides of the relationship can be a potential problem due to the money pretty much anywhere in the world. You can even run into the “husband is a wallet with legs” issue here in the US.

              Money distorts a lot of things, unfortunately. Paul’s admonition regarding the love of it should never be forgotten.

              Like

              1. When we bought our engagement ring (in Portugal) I could tell the lady thought Dan was just a tourist, and we’d known each other five minutes or so, and she was really doubtful. She didn’t say anything, but I could read her.
                Well, you know, the years passed and I gained weight (mostly thyroid issue, and yes, working on it, but–) and the original ring broke, so 10 years ago we went in search of an anniversary ring to replace it (Gold jewelry is just cheaper in Portugal. The workmanship part is cheaper) and we ended up in the little shop. The lady’s husband had died, but she was still holding the fort.
                As we were picking a ring, she suddenly gets this wide smile and goes “You made it. I remember you! I wondered if you’d make it.”
                So we told her we’d made it, and sons in college, and– She was really pleased and I decided not to ruin the myth in her mind by telling her when we bought that ring we’d known each other for 5 years, been neighbors for a year in the US, and had a ton of friends in common.
                Salutes in the direction of the Late great Dave Drake: The story is just cooler the other way. (As he’d say.)

                Like

                2. :-)

                  My original ring didn’t break, but the diamond was lost out of the setting. Hubby got me my current wedding band for our 10th anniversary (decorative, gold, no diamonds this time). He probably should have just downsized his (because of what he did for work, he didn’t wear his. Too many stories of slips, rings caught and lost fingers.)faZ` I don’t have a lot of jewelry. But what I have I wear 24/7.

                  Liked by 1 person

            2. Oh yeah, he definitely saw that too. My brother had a contract marriage proposed by a Filipina in which the woman wanted two white babies and he’d be a ‘kept man’, and I’m sure there were even sleazier propositions by others that he turned down and didn’t mention judging by the look on his face when he told me. There are bad actors on both sides, for sure. Again, not saying there can never be a happy marriage between cultures (I’ve seen more than a few, not least in my own extended family), just that it can end up as another form of the forced marriages that the OP mentioned.

              Like

          2. One of my brothers-in-law has a second marriage to a Filipina lady. But to make things weird, they originally met while she was working in Israel.

            Definitely a far happier marriage than his first, and she’s still working. For Carharts, of all places. Tiny little Filipina lady selling heavy-duty work gear to oil workers.

            Like

    3. As a single anecdote, my uncle married a Japanese woman and as far as I know (we didn’t see them very often) the marriage was successful. At least, it survived until he didn’t, rather than ending in divorce.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. When I was growing up, we had family friends that were a Canadian husband, and his Japanese wife. I’m not sure whether she was from Japan, or Hawaii, though.

        They were happily married for their entire lives.

        Like

  18. “as someone here put it “a skinny closet-case”?”

    Whoo! waves hands in recognition

    The whole “lots of military -aged men crossing the border, the ‘Rats are planinng to use them to oppress us and anyone who disagrees” is a popular concern right now. Mathew Bracken, who’s opinion I respect, talks alot about it. I don’t think the fear is entirely unfounded, but the fact is, you could probably get a lot of these illegal men into an army with promise of citizenship and salary (and off the record plunder and women), and as Bracken points out: they don’t know or care about the constitution, if their lefty masters tell them to do warrantless searches and illegal gun seizing they’ll obey. But once they face actual danger in the face of armed resistance and America becomes a dangerous violent place in the next civil war they’ll melt away in desertions and go home. They’re here for the good easy life, and the elites will be naked without them.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I just keep going back to the thought that if someone tries something like October 7th, millions of Americans are going to say “Finally, a legitimate target for my aggression!” and then the shooting starts.

        Like

    2. I’ve seen a similar argument, combining the large purchases of firearms and ammunition by various US agencies, turning those over to the mil-aged illegals, and calling them an army. I suspect that a well-armed mob could do a lot of damage for a while, but after some encounters with armed natives, would try to find easier pickings. (See blue areas of the country.)

      If TPTB are trying to subjugate the populace, the mob would gravitate to the areas already “tamed” (waggles hand, “untaming” would be part of the process), and would likely drift away from the harder areas. I can’t see the mob acting as an army, not after serious resistance.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Blue areas of the country? Heck no. They’d head to Mexico and many of them keep going, like a reverse case of peristalsis. This is what the idiots in Mexico don’t see coming, but I do. You see, even blue areas in the US have a lot of people who are armed on the QT. And not inclined to bow.

        Like

        1. I figure they’d try to “do what we were told”, and get bloodied in the Red areas, then try the Blue (those that didn’t already try looting there; see the sophisticated WiFi*/Cell jamming burglaries in upscale areas of Detroit Metro**) until the backlash started to hurt.

          Then bugout, and Mexico gets the survivors until that gets too hot for them.

          ((*)) The WiFi enabled security devices have a major vulnerability. Who’da guessed? #Rolleyes
          ((**)) Apparently done by smallish groups from South America. I’ve heard of Venezuela as a major source of them.

          Like

          1. I suspect enough will bug out, on the word of what happened, that Mexico and everything south will get scoured. And since flying back to Africa and China etc. will out of reach, a lot end up permanently resettled South of the border.
            Which is why I say this “let them through” policy is retarded FOR MEXICO. But hey, Mexico. When have they had non-retarded politicians?

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Mexico’s federal government has way less control of the country then most people realize. One can seriously argue that it teeters on the verge of being a failed state.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Installing a decoy fake “landline” wire junction in an obvious place, while camouflaging the real one is useful. Setting an alarm on the dummy wire is amusing. (snip …. HOOOOOORRRRRRNNNNNN!!!) Do -not- run 220v through the dummy wire. No no no.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. I’m not sure how much of the “blue” is high fraud. Yes, people come up with all sorts of reasons that psychologically cities are blue. But I really wonder how much is just one reason: It’s easier to fraud in a large city.

            Like

                1. One would think Eugene is “gun free” blue based on the news. One would be wrong. Our boating accidents don’t count, as technically we aren’t city proper (yet, for all that PTB keep trying). In comparison, I know of people who live in the city proper that make our former stash look like we weren’t half trying. Not necessarily conservative leaning either. Although the more recent owners were shocked at how hard it was to go buy that second firearm, let alone the first. “What? Have to do this again? Just filled out this paperwork!” Every. Single. Time.

                  Like

      2. I can assure you that it takes quite a bit more than “Here is a rifle and a shirt” to make a cohesive functional military unit. Without that foming-up, and suitable leadership, the mob wont stand against the foe.

        Counterpoint, many Americans are surprisingly good at forming pick-up teams.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You can’t even march in formation without practice and someone who knows how teaching you. It doesn’t take long true, a matter of weeks not days, but you throw in different languages in the mix and you get cluster….. of immense proportions. Not just different languages but different dialects will throw you off. You have to be trained and then have senior leadership to be an effective force in the field or fleet.
          You can’t just change the signs and hope for the best, it don’t work that way.

          Like

          1. Different languages, foreign racism (Foreigners are often racist about other foreigners, and the shades of color cut very thin indeed, etc) and what you have is a mess.

            Like

    1. No one said race doesn’t exist. I’m saying it is not a simple thing, and the way it’s understood it’s simply not true.
      And no, no “please read” there are a ton of these, none of which stand up to real genetics. Mostly because the only people who did extensive research on genetics have been motivated racists for obvious reasons. Because no one has wanted to touch it.
      So, no. I’ve read a bunch of those. All had holes you could walk a mac truck through. Unless it were things like “certain races will be more lactose intolerant” well, no shit sherlock, but interesting.
      The rest is nonsense. And the American idea of race is PARTICULARLY nonsense. The name for American blacks, genetically speaking is “Caucasian.”

      Like

      1. I’m not saying that a lot of people who talk about race aren’t racists. Of course they are. But the author of that book is not a racist in any meaningful way, as far as I could determine by reading it. He was very uncomfortable with the conclusions he came to from his research, thus the name of the book, “A Troublesome Inheritance”.

        Like

        1. Again, I have read a lot of those. They have holes you could drive a mack truck through. All of them. Sorry. Yeah, people inherit things, but they’re WEIRD things. Even IQ has like 50 different components that are inheritable, but the whole package? pah.

          Like

          1. So what accounts for the Ashkenazi dominance in science and technology, e.g., 0.2% of the world population accounting for ~25% of the Nobel science prizes?

            Like

            1. Inbreeding. LOTS of inbreeding. It has a ton of bad side effects, but it can concentrate a good trait of a good stock. That’s not race. That’s “extended family inbreeding.” Mom’s family has a lot of the same effects, for the same reasons.
              However it’s NOT all genetic. They’re a middleman minority, who could not own land most places, and had to work with what could be grabbed and fled with if needed.
              So the culture and early upbringing reinforce the drive to intellectual pursuits. And let me tell you, as someone who has no gift for languages — I’ve seen it, I don’t got it — and ended up knowing seven most of them fluently once upon a time: A will to do something and an insane amount of work will do a lot. Oh. And family connections in certain fields so you start learning really early.
              Geesh. Seriously. That is the case you’re going to throw at me? This is not serious thinking. This is ridiculous special pleading.
              Character traits and occupations and even intelligence aren’t inheritable. PARTS of them are. But those parts are also worked upon by environment. Outside the extremes, most adopted children’s IQ end up matching the ADOPTIVE parents for a reason.
              Look, IQ is not a single thing. It’s the ability to solve certain problems at a certain speed. And even then it has components. I got into Mensa on a test that had no visual component. Throw in a visual component and it will drag the whole thing down. But more than that, even the “ability to solve problems” has components. Logical thinking, sure, but also the ability to quickly interpret the problem correctly and then to apply logic to it, and then to organize your thoughts in an acceptable format, and to do it all fast enough to score points. You could inherit one of those, but none of the others, for instance. Or most of them, but be so hoplessly dyslexic you can’t formulate the answer. (This came close to younger son before 10.) Or– A hundred of these things. Environment will act upon those. If you come from a high-fluence family, you will be trained early in using words, so even if like my younger son, you’re the enemy of all verbal expression, you’ll reach your teens arguing fluently, even if you sometimes make up a word or cross two completely unrelated words. If he’d been raised in a family where people didn’t talk much or have massive vocabularies, his verbal ability would probably be close to non-existent.
              BTW this is why IQ is not an absolute measure of anything, much less genetics (particularly over a large area where the culture might be antithetical to whatever the characteristic is. Like American black culture currently being antithetical to book learning) BUT it is a good predictor of college success.
              Look, believing that professions or a tendency to do this or that are genetic is a thing of the left who are now convinced even languages are genetic, so expecting someone to learn and use English is “racist” and “white supremacist.”
              Do not accept their terms. Their terms lead to genocide, whether they come from the left or the right.
              PS – components of character are inherited, same as in animals, say. While Older Son cleaning up the departmental honors in Chemistry, and our going to the ceremony made me uncomfortable, because ALL the top performers had a German last name, except son and another young man (whose mom was German, and dad Hispanic) and because the main characteristic of a good chemist is minute attention to detail, note that son is 1/12th German, but 1/2 Portuguese (grosso modo) and no one ever accused the Portuguese of having a crazy love of detail. And the other guy was something like 1/2 Panamanian, which I think is a ditto on no love of detail.
              OTOH son’s father is a mathematician (And 1/6 German, more or less) which a profession demanding attention to detail. And descended from Anglo-Irish bankers, who also tended to mind every quarter penny. And he trained the kids in programing which also demands that.
              So, genetic? Who knows? Because see, even in the US remains of the culture pass on. And families have cultures. Ours is bimodal, since I can’t be organized to save my life. BUT both the boys modeled self-organization from dad.
              Again “but this shows over generations” is not an argument. Simply because humans aren’t widgets, and it’s impossible to separate genetics and culture.
              Do we need a ton more research in that? Yep, yep we do. Unfortunately until the crazy left shuts up, we can’t do it. Because they will take EVERYTHING as an order for eugenic cleansing of a sort or another.

              Like

            2. 3000+ years of family reinforcement of “Use the brain He gave you” will show results, even for a 100 IQ “average” Joe.

              Like

      2. waves I say race does not exist. Not as it is currently used, defined, spindled, and spun today by almost everyone that uses the term.

        I get what you’re saying though, and agree. There’s a LOT of bullshit masquerading in lab coats and a lot of brain-dead “ideas” that are the product of publish or perish. Sifting through the oceans of brain-poo is tiring.

        Like

      3. I’ll save you the read. I read the free section on A, and essentially what he says for the most part echoes your post above. The discomfort is entirely on behalf of his readers and what they will think, since he says flat out that the conclusions fly in the face of both “research” paid for by politics and entrenched academia.

        He apparently has the same reasons for the research not being done as you do.

        There are holes and discrepancies. Whether they would be addressed later, I don’t know, and I don’t have enough interest to pay to find out.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Unknown. There’s probably stuff later on. I can only say what was in the part I read.

            He said that politicized research and academia are at fault in not getting the truth about race out there (genetic race, not skin color), went over a small amount of genetic information and a great deal of political race history. A LOT about eugenics, some of which was new to me. He addressed IQ tests and how they were weaponized to make some races look inferior, and so on. I saw hints of “USA bad,” but not enough to raise any red flags.

            No real hints as to what his conclusions might be, and the simplified race triangle (Caucasian, Negroid, Mongaloid) might have been an attempt to dumb it down for his readers.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. TBF the politicization of IQ tests is annoying. Because it stopped companies and colleges using them. And for that they’re really useful. They predict success in academia and in a certain type of business. This says NOTHING about IQ OVER ALL or of course people’s worthiness as people. Much less a whole races.
              But they were given in Africa to people who weren’t prepared to take them (no experience of tests/classroom/etc.) And then our idiot left decided they were “racist.” And therefore–
              Note that yes, they yield different results. If you stop indoctrinating 14% of Americans with the idea they are “African” (negligible amounts, mostly, and African isn’t a race) and therefore everyone is against them, and that learning is a “White” thing, then the IQ results and the job and school results won’t be lopsided.
              Sigh. I feel like someone preaching in the desert, I swear.

              Like

    2. BTW technically and by genetic difference, there are about 20 or more “races” in Africa. All read to Americans as “black.” Which is what I’m saying. “Race” as used for political purposes is bullshit. CULTURE does matter, but race? BAH.

      Like

      1. I read about an American caucasian guy, working in subsaharan Africa, being asked by a local if he was black. Surprised, he said no, why did they ask, and the African local said they had Americans coming there all the time telling them they were black, and they all looked white to the locals.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. OK, I apologize, it’s probably there and enormously clever and everyone else gets it, but I must be slower than usual today: I am not getting the well groomed fellow up top with the cards flying around as the image for this post.

    I’ll waive him holding the hand of cards in his left hand backwards as “Forget it Jake. It’s AI”, but what’s the idea?

    Like

      1. Okay, that works. I was leaning towards stacking the deck, or dealing a new hand of voters, or wow, it must take a lot of upkeep time staring at himself in the mirror to keep his beard that neat, so, basically, flailing about. Thanks.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. This is only the second time I have ever seen anyone remember the Amerindian tactics. I
    have done it for a long time, one of the PowerLineBlog numbskulls finally remembered/remarked about the 1862 Massacres by the Indians (Dakotas I think) of Minnesotan settlers. Lots killed; similar tactics. I read about in in American Heritage magazine when I was 10 or so back in 1962. I’ve been reading PowerLineBlog for years and they never ever mentioned the 1862 massacres. (If you want to keep liking American Indians DON’T read about them!)
    OK. Race AND Color. Three generally, Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Problems immediately creep in. Indians (Red-Dot, not Casino Indians, as the late Jerry Doyle once put it)
    speak a language that is obviously the Ur-Source of the Indo-European languages–but their skins are (usually) much darker. Hence the Idea of Color. But Race and Color don’t come about until relatively modern time of the period of mass governments–i.e. “Democracy”, Of course back when rule was aristocratic (when governing England was an intense game played by maybe four thousand people at most, for instance) darker-skinned empires were very powerful and fierce Moorish warriors were feared and respected adversaries as literature had then them. So White Supremacy may be a construct of popular rule; if I were a college professor with graduate students I’d have them looking at India today because they have something suspiciously like a Hindu/Hindi Supremacy similar to White Supremacy idea. I’d also have the ones from Japan looking at how Japanese regard the Ainu People. The Ainu are maybe 1% of the population but they appear VERY different from the rest of Japan–they’re usually classed as Caucasians, Preliminary research on the Japanese-Ainu “concept” has uncovered Japanese folk legends that the Ainu interbred with bears which was why the Ainu were larger than the rest of the Japanese population.
    Food For Thought. I should have done something more with my history degree.
    Lastly, for The Great Replacement Theory: Black people already here are ALSO being replaced! And this isn’t the First Time this has been done.
    Back when some right-wing think tank was sending out pocket copies of our 1787 Constitution with its amendments I read it completely for the first time in years. Oh, I’ve looked up relevant sections before–but not the whole thing. I’m reading along and suddenly I’m reading a date and then I remember what it is–the only date in the entire Constitution and it’s in there TWICE: “on the First Day of March in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight”.
    Yes, the famous ban on Congress’ abolishing the importation of slaves. (Turns out they “cheated” and enacted legislation near the end of January 1808 to take effect March 1, gambling that by the time anyone had filed suit against the law March 1st would have passed. No one sued.)
    But this means before then plantation owners worked their slaves to death and then bought new ones! THE ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT. Then after March 1, 1808 no more Replacement– you have to grow/breed your own slaves! Someone ought to write a book. Incidentally this also means all native Blacks come from Old Families as their ancestors had to have been brought here by March 1, 1808 to have been legal.

    Like

    1. This is very interesting. Please put in paragraphs next time.
      One quibble. There is no record of US slave owners working slaves to death en masse or singly. NONE. I mean it might have happened here and there, but no. That happened in the Caribbean, not here..

      Like

      1. Sarah, WPDE makes putting in paragraphs harder. In the word processing era business correspondence, the standard I’ve always encountered is to leave a blank line between them instead of an indent…. which the current mutation of WPDE yanks out.

        Like

      2. The deeper in the South you went, the shorter the lifespan of field slaves. Brutal labor in brutal heat and humidity. (It wasn’t great for Massa, neither, but slaves had it -much-worse.) Plus the whole “What, exactly, does one do with a slave too old to work?” Some folks were as thoughtful about slaves as they were of dogs. And folks still treat dogs like shit. Ask any cop with significant experience. (OMG, nevermind, dont.)

        Washington and Lee were noted for well-treating their slaves. They were -not- typical.

        Like

        1. Sure. But seriously, people have done the numbers on this. There are records. They didn’t kill slaves with work. Short lifespans, sure. The deep south wasn’t kind to anyone pre-air contitioning and antibiotics.
          BUT people have done the work on how many slaves were bought where and no, they weren’t worked to death. Again, not saying they were well treated. JUST NOT WORKED TO DEATH, partly because big investment. And they were worked to death in the caribean, because sugar crops apparently made that more lucrative.
          Also, coordinated “Kill all slaves with work in the next two months” is not unlikely. It’s bloody impossible.

          Like

            1. Precisely. Again, until air-conditioning and anti-biotics, it was a harsh environment.
              The comparison would be slaves and poh white trash. And frankly, just from reading books of the time period, slaves might have had a slight edge. Because, again, expensive, so you tried to keep them alive. While no one cared if poor white trash lived or died.
              Again, what I’m saying is the whole crazy idea of “We’re going to kill all the slaves with work so we can import all new ones” doesn’t pass the laugh test.
              That’s the equivalent of saying “Okay, I’m going to drive all my expensive car collection into the ground so I can buy new ones.” Or worse “I’m going to destroy all my expensive farm machinery, then buy new that has to be modified for my purposes.” Because that’s the other point: There was a learning period. A large one. And a number of slaves — I bet you — died shortly after sale, because new environment and new viruses let alone the psychological effects of slavery and–
              Yeah. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. Particularly based on when a federal order was passed versus went into effect. (There is always a lag in going into effect on any stoppage on import. Which is what this was, even if morally repugnant. You can’t stop processes mid point on a dropped word.)

              Like

              1. We worked at a church camp a couple of years ago. It started life as an antebellum hotel/refuge for Louisianans who could afford to travel to Tennesee after a yellow fever outbreak in New Orleans killed several thousand people. (Can’t remember if it was 6,000 or 8,000). That sort of raised eyebrows, because that sort of city death rate doesn’t get mentioned in the history books.

                Like

                1. Wasn’t just New Orleans; Memphis TN got hit in the same wave, but unless you went to Memphis museums, you didn’t hear much if anything about it.

                  Like

          2. Slaves are capital. Workers not so much. Oddly enough (cough) there was quite a large Irish population in the south before the war doing the more dangerous work for wages. Catching cotton bails in the holds of ships in New Orleans e.g., When freed slaves started working for wages the Irish immigrants moved on. Sure, it’s more complicated than that, but it happened.

            Working slaves to death is really, really stupid economically. Then again, slavery is really, really stupid economically since you’re tying up capital in low productivity assets. You got it in the ancient world because slaves were the only productive asset outside land and there were war captives and debtors to exploit.

            Like

            1. The Industrial Revolution was the death knell of slavery. Well, slavery for economic reasons, at least. Machines are far more productive than slaves, and only idiots would put resentful slaves to running complex, expensive powered machinery. Machine operators have to be educated, too, which would make the slaves even more resentful.

              Slavery for reasons of prestige, or self-indulgence, though, that’s still with us.

              Liked by 1 person

              2. Try explaining to an oh-so-virtuous modern youth that concept, that the reason we don’t have slaves is because we have clothes washers and electric stoves. They’ll scoff, but maybe they’ll change their tune if you require them to hand-wash all the dishes. :D

                Liked by 1 person

                1. change their tune if you require them to hand-wash all the dishes.
                  ………………

                  Hand-wash dishes is nothing, in a home with running hot/cold water (my folks didn’t have a dishwasher until I was in college). Have them out where there is no running water. Where they have to filter the water, heat it over a gas stove (really mean make it a wood fire). Where they have to use the bucket plunger method for clean cloths. Which is better than what either of my grandmothers had when they were first married. Paternal grandmother might have had access to a wringer washer. I’ve used one of those. Better than plunger and bucket or wash board and basin. Not by much. Heck I even dislike taking laundry to a laundromat when the appliances fail and have to be replaced. Was a PIA when the washer failed, so took to mom’s or sister’s to use their washer, then dry at home. Or when the reverse happened.

                  Like

                  1. I don’t have a dishwasher now. Drives me nuts, but somehow none of the apartments that I’ve rented have ever had a working one. I think my current apartment had one before I moved in. There’s what looks like a pipe sticking out of the wall at the right height to connect to something, and it’s in a suspiciously large gap next to the oven. Plus there’s curled up linoleum there, which suggests water damage (it was like that when I moved in). But currently there’s no dishwasher.

                    Would make my life a lot easier if I had one, but that’s the way it’s been ever since I moved out of my parents’ house. And since I’m in an apartment, I’m not going to spend the money for one.

                    Like

                    1. When we were in our first rental we bought a portable one. It hooked up to the sink for water and draining. When we bought our first home, the portable one went with us. Ours was newer than what was in the house, so we pulled that one and put in the portable one. It was a full size dishwasher. Now I suspect there are smaller versions that can be put on counters. But I don’t know.

                      Like

              1. It opened up another source of wealth beyond land. Before industrialization, there wasn’t anything else to do with your capital, which there wasn’t much of. industrialization allowed for compound growth. Further, slave labor is just not very productive and and only really works in manual agriculture, One could say the cotton gin expanded slavery — one would be wrong, but one could say it —. The tractor effectively ended it.

                Liked by 1 person

                1. That second paragraph: yep. Which is why the reparations advocates saying America wouldn’t exist without slave labor and its wealth need to take a powder. America is rich because of free people’s labor. Slavery probably retarded the whole thing. (Also, if they’d stayed in Africa, their ancestors who were African, at least, which weren’t all of them, they’d still have been enslaved. Unless they’d been sacrificed/killed for fun. Pfui.)

                  Like

                  1. Speaking of free labor, see if you can find news about what’s going in Germany at the moment. Looks as though the workers and the peasants have decided to rebel, in a small way, against their Marxism light overlords. When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?

                    For some reason, it’s difficult to find any news on the Marxism light overlord’s “news” outlets, it not fitting the narrative and all, though that may change.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. The Marxists are looking at banning those parties. ‘You can vote socialism in, you generally have to shoot your way out of it’. Someone else’s quote.

                      Like

              2. That, yes. And modern conveniences also helped on the later end. Most people really don’t like doing laundry, or dishes, or any number of repetitive chores, yet we have all these devices that take an all-day slog and turn it into five minutes of loading and then pressing a button.

                Liked by 1 person

  22. Looks like video games won’t be a refuge much longer.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12917329/Police-launch-investigation-kind-virtual-rape-metaverse.html

    “Police are investigating the first case of rape in the metaverse after a child was ‘attacked’ in a virtual reality video game.

    The girl under the age of 16 is said to have been left distraught after her avatar – her digital character – was gang raped by the online strangers.

    The headset-wearing victim did not suffer any injuries as there was no physical attack.

    But officers said she suffered the same psychological and emotional trauma as someone who has been raped in the real world as the ‘VR’ experience is designed to be completely immersive.”

    Of course we need to be able to prosecute this, so we need jurisdiction world wide….

    Like

      1. Sarah, the one thing you could hope to avoid by ducking into “a screen-lined room with lotion and tissues” was a false #MeToo accusation with no actual physical evidence possible. No longer.

        Like

    2. Paging Jason Cordova. (though that was set in a fully immersive virtual reality and included other crimes to those trapped in VR) someone else had that in a storyline.

      Like

      1. That would require an acknowledgement of Official Victim Group members having agency and choice….. at which point the whole victimology racket falls apart.

        Like

  23. To go back to the discussion of online dating.

    Only 9% of respondents to a Pew survey had used the apps in the last year. Only 30% had ever used them. (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/)

    Thus, most people are not meeting their spouses through online dating services. Louise Perry has pointed out that dating app companies have incentives to keep people using the apps, rather than settling down. Please don’t assert “all women want this…” on a basis of observed behavior on the apps. 70% of people have never used the apps.

    I suspect that the app companies invest effort in spreading the idea that “everyone” is meeting their mate through their apps. It can’t be true.

    It’s also an open question to me as to how many of the interactions on the apps are actually bots, used to keep people engaged. Think of the Ashley Madison hack. It is also depressing, from the reporting on that hack, how basic the “female” chatbots.

    Our younger generation is starting to pair off. As far as I know, most of them met their significant others in real life.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The best way to meet someone compatible is to do the things you like to do in decently large groups. I mean, that at least gives you a chance of finding someone who likes doing the same things, for pete’s sake.

      (nevermind that I’m a huge hypocrite for saying that, seeing as I met my husband in college, not through activities. My brother met his wife swing dancing.)

      Like

      1. I met hubby through a college school club. Then we were part of a sub-group from that club than gathered socially. Which partly evolved because a few of us were too young to continue to the bars for pool and darts after meetings. Not that the others didn’t drink (I didn’t) given a chance, just, like me they got carded every single time they tried bars. Like I’ve mentioned in another post (somewhere here) hubby and I knew each other a little almost 4 years before we started dating. If I’d taken him home as my boyfriend when we first met, it would not have gone well. He is just short of 5 years older than I am. When we first met, I was 17 (would have been 4 weeks short of 18, but still, not good).

        Like

    2. Not only are the numbers low, but – as I noted above – there’s a heavy imbalance between men and women who use the apps. So if 9% of the population is using them, it’s probably more like roughly 14% of men, and 4% of women.

      Like

  24. Good grief – I am way, way behind and it’s only two posts!

    As for the actual posts – the author (our host) is right on. The comments make thinking about it all even more “productive” and cause one to think in different ways.

    One observation from the cranky old codger here: The “replacements” have no clue as to what they could run into. Sort of like a SF story where the ship lands, colony gets established and it’s a new Eden for all. Then the once every 100 year cycle starts and every think in your environment is trying to kill you. If… and it is a very, very big if, the “replacements” try physical organized violence the reaction will be historic and beyond the worst nightmare of anyone.

    Ask the military types (most likely won’t get an answer) the reaction of that quiet guy who did three tours and his brother who did one and their old uncle who did ‘Nam won’t be letters to the editor or calls to the city council. I would predict that a reaction would also be fairly brief but very intense and those not initially destroyed would be trying to out run each other to return from where ever they came from. Thus, the terrible rolling results for Mexico and all south of America.

    An additional factor TPTB have not considered with all the crazy rats in their heads is a part of these “replacements” will have started to assimilate and won’t go along but will rather ‘join up’ with the response.

    Eh, maybe not – I can hope and pray that social, political and economic shifts are enough to move the overall country back to a more sane life and to avoid any major conflict. There will still be some conflict but maybe more moderate.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Trump looks to be completely cleared on page 112 of the transcript. Not even a massage. He doesn’t seem to be on the list at all, but there are still a few names not yet released and SDNY might be f’cking around with that.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. If they could have brought down Trump using Epstein they would have done it long ago, even if they had lose some of their own to friendly fire.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If they could have brought down Trump using Epstein they would have done it long ago, even if they had lose some of their own to friendly fire.
            ……………………

            No kidding.

            We’d have heard about it, again, and again, and again, and again, and then some more. If there had been so much of an innocent whiff, they would have spun, weaved, and spun, up the lie, until it was truth. They tried with Trump baring Epstein from Mari Largo and other Trump properties with Trump protecting Trump organization employees.

            I’m surprised PTB didn’t take that and blow the incident into why Trump didn’t turn Epstein in then. Though pretty sure being obnoxiously persistent harassment, not accepting “no, means no, and get lost”, is the same as what happened on the island. Plus, while young, not sure the Trump employee was underage.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. IIRC, it’s been mentioned here that Trump ensured a police report was filed over the incident that got Epstein banned from Mar a Lago. So if Epstein didn’t spend time in prison as a result of it, the fault definitely wasn’t with Trump.

              As for the rest – yes. Given how much play the picture of Trump and Epstein got in the press, there definitely would have been a leak if Trump’s name had been on Epstein’s flight list.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. it’s been mentioned here that Trump ensured a police report was filed over the incident that got Epstein banned from Mar a Lago. So if Epstein didn’t spend time in prison as a result of it, the fault definitely wasn’t with Trump.
                …………………

                Not surprised. Epstein was on the “Protect, or else, don’t touch” list. After all no one wanted to be Epsteined before when it was just Clintoncide.

                Like

      2. On the other hand…

        Q. Did Jeffrey ever talk to you about Bill Clinton?
        A. He said one time that Clinton liked them young, referring to girls.

        Like

  27. Black Dog is hitting very hard today, because of genes I inherited from my father. All this crap about race that’s been swirling around the past few years, I hate it so much. Maybe I’m looking at the past from the filter of childhood nostalgia but the left has fucked with race so much and made it so much worse in the name of making it “better” that I have to wonder if they did it on purpose as pat of some sinister plot. Ya know how Dylann Roof got started? The appalling propaganda campaign to turn Trayvon Martin from the guy who was shot in self defense by the man who he was brutally assaulting into an innocent martyr for racism, angered him and he went down a dark path from there. How many Dylann Roofs were created by the media for George Floyd?

    Liked by 1 person

  28. There’s us, and then there’s not us. And you can set the goal posts for the difference anywhere you want. And I guarantee you that politicians and bureaucrats set the goal posts where ever it gets them the biggest return in wealth and power.
    Always.
    Which is where all this racism, ethnicism, religisism?, and demands for reparations come into play. It’s a con game, a scam to steal money from the people who don’t know any better.

    I like people who are honestly polite to me, and try to reciprocate. I absolutely detest people who pretend to be nice, and then stab you in the back. Et tu, Brute’?

    Like

  30. If I had a guess most of the visually and physically distinct “racial” characteristics are the result of what other human sub-species we absorbed in which region. And inbreeding.

    Genetic bottlenecking, founder effect, raiding-for-brides, and lack of long range transport. Oh, and random mutation to tack on to founder effect, of course.

    Genetic bottlenecking is a sharply reduced amount of genetic variability in the local breeding population over an extended period of time. Founder effect is the same thing of a sort, but more severe, and can be limited to as much as one. Usually, one GUY.

    You have geographically isolated populations over a long enough period, genetic drift will cause some diversion. Couple that with the above two effects, and you can get some visually distinct differences in the long view of generations, but it is cruel in the extreme.

    A great many of those “geographically isolated” populations had a grim history. Life before modern medicine was quite often brutal. Folks lived damned close to the bone. Little things could be the difference between starvation and life for another year, or just plain old death.

    The “curly hair to protect from the sun” and blue eyes thing is poppycock. It don’t work that way. Microevolution over a veeeeeeery long period is, just, possible. What’s microevolution?

    Doesn’t speciate. That means, the two visually different populations can still breed. But! It’s enough to have, I dunno, bright blue skinned people if there’s a founder effect/genetic bottleneck going on, and the population doesn’t get any new DNA for several hundreds or thousands of generations.

    Isolated population plus founder effect or genetic bottleneck plus a long, long, long time will get you variation. A really, really, stupidly, humongously long time will even get you speciation.

    Let’s say that in real terms of survival, people who are starved in childhood are often left with cognitive deficiencies.

    VEGANS. And vegetarians. Yes, really. Seriously. Without the proper nutrition in childhood, which includes meat proteins, you can very well get dumb kids. At least, dumber than they’d have been if they at some bacon every now and again.

    It takes a lot to get recognizable effects, but do you really want your kid to be even 3% dumber?

    Also, I don’t care what your 23 and me tells you (remember, it mostly goes off recent populations/movements) let me assure you that you are a complete and thorough mutt. All of us are.

    Um. I get what you are saying, and I agree. But the pedant anthropologist in me wants to point out that the human race (there’s only one, and that’s all of us!) is so amazingly shriveled in our genetic diversity that inbreeding is VERY dangerous to us as a species. Such that every single culture on Earth since we have any record for has taboos against it.

    Yes, caveats exist for tiny subsets of populations. Nobility and such nonsense. Not talking about that.

    Mutts are very genetically diverse. Nearly every other complex species is. Cats and dog siblings can breed with nearly no issue, saving they were the result of a lot of inbreeding to get a specific result. We’re worse than mutts, in that way.

    (Though I could finally get a decent ax. Also, pardon me, I need to go do the ritual to banish a plot bunny. D*mn it. I thought I’d fumigated my office.)

    War ax, not bearded? Wait, I’m not restoring any more axes. Nope.

    But a good, solid hand axe without a beard, weighted well, on a solid shaft makes for a lovely little weapon. Swings a bit like a bat, but with enough weight at the end that whatever you hit is going to feel it.

    Still prefer a good spear, but for close work the ax is a damned solid choice.

    This is how AOC could think that Amerindians, oh, pardon me, Native Americans could come out of the reservations to teach us to respect the environment. They just know. Anyone with Amerindian blood is born with an innate knowledge of how to use every part of a buffalo or pray to the great spirit or whatever the comic-book noble savages of the early twentieth century could do. (Give me a minute. I need to tell the Mathematician to enlighten me on how to take care of the environment, due to his percentage of Amerindian. It should be worth it!)

    I had to be taught how to clean a kill properly. I feel robbed by my genetics!

    This was happening too slowly for their tastes. (They’ve had more success in spreading dark-skinned genes with tech visas, but that’s something else, and something for later.) And they’re old. And they have been waiting for the glorious end state of Marxist revolution a long time. So now, they’ve just opened the border, to achieve their glorious population replacement FASTER.

    In practical fact, it’s not QUITE that bad. Kids are finding their place, but it takes longer, since all the mechanisms are designed to sideline men. So around thirty or forty, they’re finally starting a family. BUT–
    But, like the reduction of testosterone, the surplus males with no role is also a world-wide phenomenon.

    They were feeling that their favored minions of old (the blacks and the blue collar workers) weren’t getting the job done, or were defecting to the other side (many as they grew more wealthy into the middle class did so). So they looked to replace their voting base with a newer, cheaper, imported version.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.