Economic Game Theory Support For Male Relationship Coyness

A reader with an active mind sends along his proposition, based on the principles of economic game theory, that men should never pursue relationships, even if they ultimately want a relationship or benefit from a relationship.

Conclusion: a man should only pursue commitment-free sex, even if he benefits from a relationship. This is especially true if he approaches or chases.

The famous Pascal Wager suggests everyone should believe in God since atheism costs the same as faith, but only believers share in upside. Technically, this sort of approach is known as game theory, which is ironic since we’re talking about game. In economics and politics, game theory is used to make decisions with uncertain information.

In a simple world, a guy has a partner, or he doesn’t and he’s looking for commitment or he’s not. Therefore, he’s faced with decision A, B, C, or D. These decisions roughly correspond to what the seduction community calls frames.

Based on conventional wisdom, a woman should prefer a guy with decision A, over a guy with decision B, over a guy with decision C, over a guy with a decision D. Guy A is a single guy looking to be a family man, what more can women want? Guy B, C, D all seem like players, but at least guy B will give her the comfort of a relationship, or said differently, going from one alpha to another. There’s no apparent upside to guy D.

That said, if each guy adopts the above frame, what does it say about each man’s dating outlook?

• guy A: he’s offering commitment, which means he expects less attractive choices in the future (girl conclusion: he should aim lower than me)
• guy B: he is incapable of commitment
• guy C: he expects to at least date girls like me, yet it is uncertain if he can date anyone better than me
• guy D: he’s been preselected, and it is certain his current girl is better than me (girl conclusion: I’m not in his league)

Guy B is an interesting case, but I don’t rate him highly since guy B communicates to the woman he’s incapable of commitment, which I think reduces his long-term upside. Women want to extract commitment from a worthy man, but she knows she can’t get it from guy B. That said, he’s better than desperate guy A.

I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with chasing or approaching if the guy only has sex on his mind. It seems chasing becomes counter-productive when a relationship is the goal. It’s not clear what this framework says about direct vs indirect game, but it would seem guy D would naturally communicates via indirect game whereas guy C would have the option of direct or indirect game. I would also think guy D is limited to don’t chase game.

• guy C: indirect or direct game; chase or don’t chase game
• guy D: indirect only; don’t chase game only

If guy D is the highest value guy, the only way you’ll look like him is if you use a combination of indirect-don’t chase game. That said, guy C will have a higher notch count. Guy D will be able to do more with his girls than guy C will, physically and emotionally.

You can also simulate a “seek no commitment” outlook by treating the woman poorly.

An excellent analysis which backs up not only the personal observations and experiences of your humble Chateau hosts, but also the science which is slowly unraveling the mystery of why the most marketable chicks dig aloof jerks.

You could call this economic game theory analysis Relationship Coyness Game. The female analogue of male relationship coyness game is sexual coyness game. A man should be as insufferably, exquisitely coy about his relationship intentions as the typical woman is insufferably, exquisitely coy about her sexual intentions. A man who follows this protocol brings balance to the force; a man who jettisons his duty to answer female sexual coyness with equal relationship coyness is a feeble manboob who has made love more often to couch creases than to women.

If this game theoretic analysis has merit, then the indirect approach with muted intentions coupled with a studied aloofness to furthering the progress of any resulting relationship is the ideal strategy for most men who wish to make themselves as desirable as possible to the maximum number of high value (read: hot) women, given the constraints placed on them by their objective status or genetic endowment and the availability of any serious male competition.

And, in support of the game theory take on seduction, the women I have dated who have been the most exasperatingly, head over heels, obsessed with me have been those women I dragged my feet with the most. In contrast, the women I went out of my way to assure them of my relationship intentions were those women who perplexingly (to me, at the time) assumed the role of the foot-dragging man.

If you, as a man of stout penis, DO NOT seek a relationship, you gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you tell women that you are interested in a relationship, or if you behave as if your goal is a committed relationship. You are better off aligning your behavior with your true intentions.

If you, as a man of stout heart, DO seek a relationship, you STILL gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you act with the intention of committing long-term to the women you wish to bed. You are better off behaving exactly as the no-commitment-man above, and basically concealing your relationship intentions. This strategy will invoke a paradox of the female mind, wherein any relationship is more likely to develop under auspices of uncertainty and male coyness that are so thrilling to women’s senses and so fulfilling to women’s hypergamous desires for high(er) value mates.

Best case scenario for men who can’t help but fawn over women with promises of commitment and marriage is that their supplication will not push the girl away. But neither will it draw her much closer, at least not during the critical beginning stages of the dating trajectory. The most likely scenario is that she will come to devalue the man who readily promises the one treasure he has to offer at his disposal: male commitment. And once he is devalued in her mind, it’s a few short hamster rationalizations to suffering the indignity of getting his niceguy ass dumped for being “too nice”.

So far, so good. But… I think where this game theoretic analysis breaks down is at the extremes. For instance, a man who is much higher value than the woman he wishes to meet, or the woman he is already fucking, can afford to liberally promise vows of commitment. His revealed commitment intentions will allay a lower value woman’s feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, a woman in such an arrangement feels no exigency to “chase” an aloof man as practical proof of his alpha male worth, because the higher status of her partner is so obvious to her. Of course, this just begs the question of why a high value man would bother settling for dating much lower value women. I guess some guys don’t mind lower quality sex if it means zero headaches and drama.

I wonder what mood-affiliated economist Cheap Chalupas thinks of all this? And then I wonder why I love taunting that guy so much.

Read Full Post »

Girls Asking Generalissimo Heartiste To Rate Their Looks

This commune of cosseted corporeal delights gets its fair share of female readers emailing the proprietors with requests (nay, more like demands) to rank them on a 1 to 10 beauty scale. Photos are included, along with promises that all info will be kept private (naturally). The proprietors abide the second request, but rarely the first, because it is quite obvious that what these women seek they already know, and are simply fishing for a little of the ol’ ultrastroking of their egos by the lead pack animal with fur of woven gold and claws stained with mortal triumph.

A recent example of the genre appeared in the Inbox of Consummation, and, as is usual in these cases, the woman in the photo is quite fetching, a solid 8. She too, asked for privacy, so I will not reveal any details here, except to say she is younger than lawyercunt age and was eager to leverage her looks for a family and babies before it was too late, evidencing a feeling of deadly urgency not often observed in women so young which she acquired, so she says, through reading this blog. She valued the opinion of the Rectory’s Grandmaster, and wished to know if a “lesser alpha” was within her purview.

Yes, you slinky pantherette, you can get a lesser alpha if you put your heart to it.

The overwhelming majority of these “rank me” emails feature women sitting comfortably above the 7 and above looks rating. I can only remember two who were otherwise; one girl was a 6 and the other was frolicking dangerously close to the soul-burning fires of a 4 or 5 rating. A lopsided number of them are 8s and higher.

Why would only good-looking women email for reassurances of their good looks? If women were really oblivious to their sexual market values, you’d expect to see a more even distribution from women at all points of the looks scale searching for unbiased third party opinions.

The premise is, of course, all wrong. Women are VERY AWARE of their SMVs, both absolute and relative, and that is why ugly women rarely ask for opinions on their looks: even the nicest niceboi would be hard-pressed to sufficiently conceal his discomfort at having to gently fib to a mastodon that she really looks like a Venus. And women are quite skilled at picking up subtexts and subcommunications and subsubmeanings within submeanings telegraphed through body language and quivering supplicating voice.

The same reason fugs avoid tempting the sizzling light of judgment is the reason hot babes welcome it: the latter love reminding themselves how hot they are by provoking reactions from men (betas) eager to feed their womanly need. Unless you are running an online presence and don’t go out of your way to meet such women IRL, you’d best follow the hallowed prescription to avoid giving attractive women the ego boosts they crave if you don’t want to be chucked into the boring manboob discount bin.

The other interesting angle to all this is the question of why, when the world is full of men with nearly universal tastes in women, do some hot women feel compelled to coax unnecessary flattery from an ASCII ghost? The answer to that, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Read Full Post »

Stealing Bait From Women Fishing For Compliments

Fishing for compliments is mostly a woman thing. ON AVERAGE, of course, ON AVERAGE. Men rarely engage in the activity; even very insecure men are loathe to fish for compliments. It’s such a transparently unmanly endeavor that the noodliest manboobs wince at the thought of begging like a chick for self-esteem boosts.

The kinds of women who make it obvious that they are fishing for compliments generally fall in three main camps:

1. Hot babes who live and die by continual positive feedback on either their beauty (from aloof men they like) or their personality/smarts (from women and men who only recognize them for their beauty.)

2. Aging beauties who need reassurances in the face of their impending expiration.

3. Women in relationships who are feeling anxiety that their men are losing interest in them.

There are plenty of other types, but these three predominate. A once-hot woman nearing 35, in an unmarried relationship with an alpha male with options who checks out other women all the time, is the equivalent of fishing for sharks in a backyard pool with chunks of seal flesh as bait. She is a fisher of flattery.

Knowing this, you can capitalize on this natural womanly compulsion for your own benefit. (You can also make yourself less attractive.)

The beta male spies a woman fishing for a compliment, and he frantically chomps down, happily letting himself be reeled into the boat. She catches him, sees what a runty specimen he is, and uses him as bait to catch bigger fish. The beta male feels the hook dig deep into his side and wonders why he is suffering such torment for giving the fisher of flattery what she wanted.

The alpha male spies a woman fishing for flattery, and he circles the bait, taking small nibbles from it without ever biting down on the hook. She tries to reel him in, but he is elusive. She now wants this fish so badly she dumps the whole bucket of beta fish chum in the water hoping to lure him closer to the boat where she can net him. But he is slippery, and toys with her by gleefully breaching the water just out of her reach.

You, the reader, would like to know how to nibble at a woman fishing for compliments that does not result in your demise or her abandoning the water to fish another day. There is no one way to successfully dance with a woman seeking approval via utilization of a plump, poisoned enticement, but there are easily-remembered short cuts. One which has worked for me over the years is a simple one-word response:

“Sure.”

As in:

Woman Being Womanly: “Don’t you think this skirt is a cute look on me?”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

Or:

Woman Being Womanly: “I bet I could make you forget about her.”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

Or:

Womanly Being Womanly: “I’m the best you’ll ever get.”

Mischievous Fishie: “Sure.”

The key here is the tone of your voice; neither sarcastic nor earnest. You want that “sure” to sound closer to an ambiguously sincere reflection bordering on a taunt, slightly higher pitched, and girded with a hint of joviality.

You want her wondering what it is you’re thinking. She has dropped bait, and she’s not quite sure you’re on the hook. But neither is she sure you’ve raced away from her hook.

This works because women love two characteristics about men: unpredictability and ambiguity. The woman who can’t readily predict or decipher your reaction, or the meaning of your words, is the woman who will make her desire more predictable and less ambiguous to you. She does not want your hostility or your sycophancy, both of which are as predictable as sunrises. She wants your mystery.

Read Full Post »

Using Women’s Beta Blacklisting Words Against Them

Women love to cavalierly toss out all-purpose smears like “creeper” and “stalker” to ear tag the beta males solemnly grazing around them who rumble a little too close to the edge of their pen enclosures, because a punchy insult is always preferable to a more articulate rationale for describing the ways in which the innocuous characteristics of the beta male are so dismaying and unattractive to women, the sex, if you will ponder, which prides itself on its wellspring of compassion.

Interestingly, this reflexive psychological burp of women can be retrofitted by the cunning womanizer as a tool to disarm women’s natural defenses against putting out too easily, or feeling regret for having put out too easily.

Reader walawala recounts a text exchange which demonstrates this inverse psychology tactic:

just had a text exchange with a girl I just banged last night by maintaining frame…

Me: cab driver just spit a loogie into a roll of toilet paper

Her: thanks for sharing

Me: keep change lah

Her: I just googled you and found a story you were quoted in

Me: u cyber stalker

There was a danger here that walawala would get sucked into this girl’s frame when she opened that can of worms about googling him. His response was classic frame control: “u cyber stalker”. (Note alluringly aloof lack of punctuation.) By using one of her natural womanly words of exclusion against her, he effectively put her in the defensive crouch, where she is tempted into qualifying herself to him. Most women, because their modernist Western egos are so rapaciously overinflated, cannot resist this temptation.

A very quick and dirty way to break a girl’s frame, or reinstitute the primacy of your frame, is to accuse her of being a creep or a stalker. Women respond viscerally to these accusations because they are intimately familiar with the power of these slanders to utterly castrate beta males and render them harmless environmental accoutrements. The last thing you want is women categorizing you as a harmless accoutrement. And sometimes, the only way to avoid that is to give them a taste of their own exhilarating medicine.

Read Full Post »

Thanks, Suffrage!

New meme over the starboard bow, courtesy of yours truly.

In case you didn’t get the message, the meme is a celebration of female suffrage and the wondrous blessings it has bestowed upon the United States of America. Thank you, ladies, for bringing freedom, freedom, and even more freedom to the most forgotten among us, and for shitting shining your light of moral rectitude on the poor benighted souls who wallow in ignorance. America is a better nation today for the collected contributions of your wisdom.

Read Full Post »

Intermittent Love

Providing evidence ♥♥♥YET AGAIN♥♥♥ for another Chateau Heartiste maxim, a study has come out which finds that women love men who parcel their displays of love unpredictably (h/t: reader George).

I Heart Unpredictable Love

TO love is to suffer; to be happy is to love. So must one suffer to be happy? This syllogism won’t win any prizes in logic, but it accurately describes a curious paradox of human behavior: the allure of unpredictable romantic partners. […]

This kind of amorous attachment is like gambling — except that the currency is affection and sex. The key is that the reward is unanticipated, which makes it particularly powerful and alluring to our brains.

To understand why, consider what happens in the brain when people are given rewards under two different conditions: predicted and unpredicted. The psychiatrist Gregory Berns did just that in a study in which subjects were given fruit juice and water, both naturally pleasurable rewards, while scanning their brains with an M.R.I. During part of each session, subjects received water and fruit juice at random intervals; during another part, the water and juice were administered every 10 seconds.

Professor Berns discovered that the water and juice elicited greater activation in the brain’s reward circuit when the reward was unanticipated than when it was delivered in a predictable fashion. The pattern held true whether the reward was water or fruit juice — even though most subjects claimed a clear preference.

When the reward circuit fires, it also tells the brain something like, “Pay attention and remember this experience because it’s important.” This circuit releases dopamine when stimulated, which, if it reaches a critical level, conveys a sense of pleasure.

Intermittent rewards are far more powerful a bonding agent than predictable rewards. This is why aloof and inscrutable men are so intoxicating to women — they are like the unanticipated glasses of water and juice. You want to keep a woman on her toes by showering her with your loving lovingness in a very haphazard fashion, what pickup artists like to call hot/cold/hot/cold. The more astute readers will notice that the hot/cold/hot/cold routine is frequently and instinctively deployed by women when they are in the early stages of dating a new man, and need to test him for alpha male congruence. You, as the hopeful womanizer, should know from reading this blog that adopting the psychological tricks of women for your own nefarious ends is quite a potent weapon in the battlefield known as the sexual market.

This blog long ago discussed the relevance of intermittently rewarding women for good behavior and promptly punishing women for bad behavior.

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

The article about the study goes on to discuss why people are attracted to intermittent rewards.

The reason this happens is simple. The brain’s reward circuit has evolved over millions of years to enable us to recognize and extract various rewards from our environment that are critical to our survival, like food and a suitable sexual mate. Unlike predictable stimuli, unanticipated stimuli can tell us things about the world that we don’t yet know. And because they serve as a signal that a big reward might be close by, it is advantageous that novel stimuli command our attention.

Which brings us to inconstant love. It turns out that human love and attachment are, like the fruit juice in Professor Berns’s experiment, natural reinforcers that can activate your reward pathway. The anthropologist Helen Fisher studied a group of 17 people in the grip of intense romantic love and found that an image of their beloved strongly activated the reward circuit.

If you are involved with someone who is unpredictably loving, you might not like it very much — but your reward circuit is sure going to notice the capricious behavior and give you information that might conflict with what you believe consciously is in your best interest.

Indeed, you may not even be aware of your own reward circuit’s activity. One of the curious things that Professor Berns found was that most of his subjects couldn’t tell the difference between the predictable or unpredictable condition in which the reward was given.

Since unpredictable rewards cause more dopamine release than predictable ones and more dopamine means more pleasure, one implication of this study is that people experience more pleasure with unpredictable rewards than with predictable ones — but they may not be consciously aware of this fact.

Poon Commandment VI… CONFIRMED. By science! Oh, and by real-world experience.

By the way, the fact that people aren’t consciously aware of the pleasure-giving power of intermittent love goes a long way to explaining why women can’t adequately tap into their true desires and explain them without resorting to pretty lie generating hamsterisms. They simply might not be cognizant of the primal emotional machinations fueling their tingles.

Not just that, but there was essentially no relationship between the subjects’ stated preferences and the observed activity in their reward circuit. This suggests that our reward pathways may not only be activated without our recognition, but perhaps even in ways that are contrary to what we think we prefer.

Did science unintentionally uncover more evidence for the existence of the rationalization hamster? Why yes, yes I believe it did! Proof that you should watch what women do, not listen to what they say, about matters of love.

These data might explain, in part, the paradox of people who complain constantly about their unreliable lovers, but keep coming back to them, time and again.

Science discovers that chicks dig aloof and indifferent jerks. Feminists disengage from scissoring to console each other with an uninterrupted stream of feelgood bullshit.

Science: 1. Game: 1. Chateau Heartiste: 1. Love: 1. Game denialists and haters and feminists: 0.

I feed your unfathomably bitter tears to my Galactus-sized ego. Yum.

Read Full Post »

Why Single White Women Vote Overwhelmingly For Democrats

I left this comment over at GL Piggy’s, on a post about election predictions. I think it is worth reprinting here (with additional commentary) because of its timeliness.

PA: “In reality, young white women’s pro-Obama leanings are a factor of their feminine/nurturer pity for a omegas for which “poor blacks,” “inner city single moms” and other such are a stand-in in their minds.”

There is this. In actuality, I think it is a confluence of three psychological factors that pushes a huge majority of single white women into the arms of Dem pols. (Single NAM women follow the gibsmedat principle almost exclusively.)

1. As PA states, women have an inborn disposition toward nurturance, and the pity is strong in them. I think women get off a little on feeling pity and sympathy for others, and feeling needed by the less fortunate. This is why so many women flock to work in the human despair services fields, like nursing or teaching. Married women also have this nurturance instinct, but it is redirected to their own families, which turns their moral focus inward to the center ring of the concentric rings of genetic distance and moral regard. This in effect makes them more GOP friendly (and more sane from a societal perspective), and we see this reflected in the polls.

2. As Whiskey states (well, speaking on the record, as *I* originally stated), single women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote. You would probably not be surprised to learn that not only do single white SWPL chicks just automatically ASSUME everyone in their social circle is an Obama cultist (yours truly gets a pass because CHARMING BASTARD), the first thing that pops in their heads when you ask them why they’re voting for Obama is usually something along the lines of “Romney wants to take away my birth control”. Yeah, these are educated women saying this. Thanks suffrage!

The fact is, marriage advocacy (and earlier marriage) is bad for young women’s sexual market value leverage, (but good for older married women’s SMV leverage who, it should be noted, were the original pro-monogamy constituents and advocates). A party that embodies the single and seeking alpha cock in the city lifestyle will appeal to them. The party which is perceived (facts don’t really matter in politics) as pushing women to settle down early with a reliable company man and start popping out future video gamers is anathema to the single, economically self-sufficient, white woman sensibility.

3. Finally, and perhaps most saliently, single white women see Big Daddy State as a beta provider husband substitute. This has nothing to do with pity for the downtrodden masses and everything to do with “how much money and services I can redirect my way with an assist from the white knight contingent”. The single white woman who delays family formation finds herself battling her ancient subterranean limbic rhythms which always and everywhere guide her to seek out potential mates who could provide resources for her and her children, particularly when she is burdened by pregnancy and mostly unable (at least as would have been the case in the ancestral environment) to fully provide for herself. The single white woman, lacking the beta provider hubby (ironically, mostly by her own hand) seeks to fill his absence with the alternative — the looming Big Man tribal leader, which in modern America is the federal government, and its shaman is Obama. Women are naturally redistributionist because women are naturally self-aggrandizing and self-entitled, as befits their higher reproductive worth. And, more controversially, a very bad man like myself would say that women are naturally comfortable in quasi-harem arrangements, which is what the single woman concubine-government alpha provider relationship amounts to. And just like an alpha provider/protector, the government is very good at forcibly extracting tribute from the beta male masses.

On this last factor, the American growth industry of single moms is certainly pushing the country in a more redistributionist direction, because no demographic outside of blacks, gays and Hispanics is more generally and reliably pro-government handout than the single mom with kids to feed and no dad around to help out.

Alert the media! The stereotypes are true! Sanitization Protocol… activated.

In effect, Big Government is at once the alpha male tribal leader and the beta provider sucker who happily assumes the cuckold role as step-father to the single mom’s cadbaggage.

Now, the final, and most emotionally laden, variable in this equation is the black man angle. Both sides in this long-running debate have their points. My take from ground-level recon is that the people claiming single white women love alpha black men are overstating their case, and the people claiming single white women would never think of hooking up with “lower class, less accomplished, thug” black men are overstating theirs. White women do find plenty of black men physically exciting. And smarter white women do hesitate to date black men because of a very reasonable fear that, should a warpling issue from the union (this is always in the back of women’s minds, despite the easy availability of contraceptives), the black man will be less likely than the white man to stick around and care for her in her time of need.

As far as a I can tell, contra white nationalist hopes and dreams, single white women have ZERO concept of loyalty for their white men. Try to explain to your typical single white woman about the importance of loyalty to her men and of the idea of genetically preserving the white race’s unique winning attributes, and you may as well be a Martian spurting goo all over her. Now, in practice, one could argue that unmarried white women exercise a de facto loyalty to their men, because most white chicks date white men, and studies have shown that white women are the most resistant to dating outside their race. But how long will this hold? Census data points to a slow but inexorable increase in out-marrying and out-dating by white women (and white men). If there is some subconscious racial loyalty or primal preference acting to steer the tingles of single white women (and I believe there is), it is showing signs of withering under a coordinated cultural assault that has made even broaching the topic the equivalent of condemning oneself to the social gulag.

Btw, from a tingles-first perspective, a lot of white women thought Bill Clinton was way sexier than they currently think of Barack Obama’s sex appeal. This isn’t a looks or race thing… Bill just had more sensual, oozing charm than Barry. Chicks dig charming mofos.

Barring total collapse, I don’t see this trend:

…ending anytime soon. (Nice battering ram arms, Fluke.) So you may as well recline poolside, while the pool is still filled with water and chlorinated.

PS My election prediction:

It’s a toss-up, so I won’t bother picking a winner. I predict the popular vote and electoral college vote will split, with all that entails (yay, riots!)

I will confidently predict that most of the demographic vote ratios will remain roughly the same as they have for the past few election cycles.

Single white women will vote 60-40 Obama.
Single moms will vote 75-25 Obama.
Blacks will vote 98-2 Obama.
Hispanics of Amerindian ancestry will vote 65-35 Obama.
Asian-Americans will vote 70-30 Obama.
Ruling class elites will vote 70-30 Obama.
Libertarians will vote 70-30 Obama (such independent free-thinkers, those libertarians!).
Self-professed feminists will prove their non-conformist bona fides by voting 100-0 Obama.
Single beta males will vote 55-45 Romney (still beta, still white knighting).
Married white men will vote 80-20 Romney (this shift will be bigger than polls are currently projecting).
Married white women will vote 55-45 Romney.
Pickup artists will not vote. They got better things to do.

A lot of white men and white married couples are going to break for Romney, but the social and racial and familial demographics of the country are moving with such force in the opposite direction that the white man vote, no matter how consolidated, is going to eventually get swamped by the undertow and rendered irrelevant for many, many election cycles to come (assuming there will continue to be a country in existence that is capable of holding elections). When the white man “wakes up” to this fact, I predict secession movements will sprout up all around the country, descaling the nation to more socially and tribally congenial entities. But most of us reading this will be dead by that time. And it will be too late, regardless. In the meantime, expect populism to rise again, and tariffs to become the talk of the townhall. A billion Chinese is a lot of surplus cheap labor to churn through before wages equilibrate. There will be blood in the interim.

Read Full Post »