Archive for the ‘Self-aggrandizement’ Category

4Chan pranksters, or a le 56%er subsidiary of 4Chan, trolled the Chaimstream Media bigly today, which wasn’t hard to do because the media is desperately eager to add more grist to its anti-White Narrative mill. The troll involved “confirming” for the ADL and ABCNews that the Florida shooter, Nikolas de Jesus Cruz, was a member of a local White Nationalist group.

(((Media mavens))) including ostensibly conservative outlets like Drudge were all-too-gleeful to slap “FL SHOOTER IS A WHITE SOOOOPREEEMACISS” ledes on their webhovels based on the flimsiest uncorroborated claims. Nothing excites the media pharisee more than WN culpability, which is normally why it’s so easy to troll them with Fake Stories about WN “terrorism”. When even a tepid White self-awareness threatens to crash the curated national discourse, media tribal affinity quickly overrides any intratribal ideological differences. Drudge is not exempt from this schul rule.

Too bad for the information gatekeepers the story of Cruz’s connection to a WN militia group turned out to be a lie cooked up by some mischievous larkweb goons. Andrew Anglin sums up the timeline,

Summary is that someone wrote on 4chan that Cruz was a member of the group then the ADL called the group and they said he was.

For teh lulz.

Then the ADL ordered the media to report it as fact. And they did, because the media always does whatever the ADL tells them to do without asking any questions.

It really makes the media and the ADL look both ridiculous and bloodthirsty.

It was well played.

Troll, set, match. And police confirm the hoax: “there are no known ties between Cruz and a White Nationalist group”. ADL/Soros/GaystreamMedia BTFO…again. OY VEY will the media ever learn? (Answer: not until they’re culled of their excess leftoids.)

As much as I relish the opportunity to watch how hysterical fancyboy Drudge walks back from this troll job* (does his crack team of sleuths have a reverse red alarm?), I don’t think the upside of the troll outweighs the downside.

(*The latest is that Drudge removed the white supremacist lede entirely. No retraction, just a quiet redaction. Darn. I was hoping for a more hysterical backpedal.)

Anglin thinks this is a win for the White Side of the Force. I’m not sure anymore that these trolling antics work as intended (i.e., rapidly and unmistakably discrediting the media in the eyes of normies). And I’m not the only one sympathetic to the goals of subversive autistes who is beginning to doubt the effectiveness of rapid response chan-right trolling.

Trolling the media only works if there’s a good chance of coercing the media into humiliating retractions. But we’re deep into Clown World, where the media prints lies and avoids truths and refuses responsibility for either. It’s the old “a lie makes it around the world before the truth gets its boots on” aphorism, except there’s no longer any bother with putting on the boots.

Proving my skepticism on cue, my shitlib friends are crowing (yes, crowing) about the “news” that Cruz was a “White Supremacist”. The revelation that it was a con job by a limelight hound in FL hasn’t yet, nor will it ever, penetrate shitlib blocklike skulls.

It doesn’t matter if you successfully trolled the media into an embarrassing position of running with Fake News if the media is big enough and powerful enough to suppress or ignore the consequences of their gullibility. It’s about winning and power and crushing enemies, and if the media and its shakedown surrogates like the ADL can run with a fake troll story to hurt their enemy — White Gentile men — without feeling any pressure to retract the story (or to retract it weeks later in tiny fine print that normies will never read), then they’ll do it.


btw, after the shooting I predicted this about the killer’s motives,

When the dust settles and the kippahs have floated back onto their owners’ heads, i predict it will come out that the Cruz shooting was mentally ill omega male rage over a girl who rejected him.

Looks like I was close to the mark. Via:

Cruz had been suspended from the school from fighting his ex girlfriend’s new boyfriend and was depressed and having girl problems at the time of the shooting.

Underneath every male teenager mass shooter raised by a single mom is the broken heart of an omega male incel with a crooked face betraying a high mutational load inheritance. AKA a le 56%er.

Read Full Post »

We may have reached the apotheosis of cat ladydom. A couple photographed themselves as the “mom” gave “birth” to a kitten.

This would be mildly amusing if these two were actually poking fun of the cat lady culture, instead of implicitly poking fun of “breeders” as this type is wont to call people who have human children. But no, they’re not kidding around about their embrace of the cat lady/cat lad lifestyle. Proof:

But one couple who recently [adopted a kitten] decided to let the world know about their furry new family member in the most unforgettable way. […]

Photographer Lucy Schultz and her partner, Steven, don’t have any kids of their own…

WOMB, there it isn’t. Looking at her, it’s not as if she’s got years left to contemplate having a real child. The clock on her egg factory is set to expire. Maybe they can psyche themselves up for the coming regimen of IVF treatments (using a buck’s sperm) by fondly looking back at these photos for encouragement.

And he looks like he’s about one tofu niblet away from his testicles burrowing back under his fupa.

“I’d been talking about doing a kitten announcement shoot when I was finally ready to adopt for over a year,” Schultz told The Dodo. “I just wanted to celebrate my cat adoption milestone as it’s something I’ve looked forward to for such a long time.”

It took her a year to decide to adopt a fucking cat? How many years will it take her to decide on the real thing? No wonder these shitlib Whites are going extinct at a rapid clip.

Schultz enlisted the help of her colleague, photographer Elizabeth Woods-Darby. The two have worked together documenting human births…

A woman’s maternal instinct has to be pathologically underdeveloped if she photographs human births as a career and still doesn’t feel the urge herself.

The photo shoot is certainly comical, but there’s nothing insincere about how much love they have for their new pet.

Two minutes after they die (from toxoplasma gondii complications), this cat would be gutting them and slurping up the pools of blood.

Hilarity aside, Schultz hopes it might inspire others to grow their own families with a pet in need of love:

“My message to everyone who is digging these photos is to check out your local shelter, consider volunteering or become a foster home and consider adopting one of the amazing homeless pets out there!”

This is how the world ends, not with a bang but a whisker.

Read Full Post »

A former FBI agent exposes the machinery of the Deep State which helps explain how so many American institutions become left-wing over time. It’s insightful, inasmuch as it’s crucial to know HOW we got to where we are, so that we can figure out a remedy.

Former FBI Agent Jonathan Gilliam: Bureau’s Top Brass Climb Ladder by Ideology, Not Merit

“Go in and think like a liberal” was the advice two FBI agents gave Jonathan Gilliam prior to his taking an FBI entrance exam. […]

Gilliam, a retired Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent, spoke of left-wing political corruption across the federal government, specifically identifying the CIA and FBI.

Gilliam recalled that two FBI agents advised him to “think like a liberal” during his FBI entrance exam. “I was told by two FBI agents that did not know each other –  I was told, ‘Do not go in and take that test as though you are thinking like a SEAL.’ In other words, ‘If this happened, this is the way it should be done because this is the way a team works, and this is the way an investigation should be carried out.’ They said, ‘Don’t do that, you’ll fail. Go in and think like a liberal.’ And that’s what I did, and I passed.”

Think like a liberal: “My grandson says he wishes he had brown eyes and brown skin! Please clap.”

The FBI’s entrance exam illustrated how leftists use ideological filtering tools preferencing ideological fellow travelers, said Gilliam.

“These tests are written to recruit a certain type of person,” said Gilliam. “So what you end up having when you do that is, you’re gonna have – the CIA has the same problem, where it’s not that they have individuals bringing a skill set to the table; it’s that they’re bringing an ideology to the table that those that wrote the test want them to have.”

“The people who are like-minded, the people that get along are going to be the ones that stay there,” added Gilliam. “They’re not going to recruit people who don’t do what they do, who don’t think like they do.”

This explains why the various bureaucracies are so top-heavy with leftoids while the rank and file are less ideological — the striver leftoids are the only ones getting promoted by the smug leftoids already in charge.

Right wingers imo are simply more principled — or maybe more likable — than are Leftoids. The distinction shows up most clearly in employment practices, where righties seem to be constitutionally averse to ideology litmus tests to boost their ranks with those who share their worldview. Leftists otoh not only have no problem screening people for ideological conformity, they revel in it. They make it company policy. They set out to destroy those who depart from their ideology, no matter how small the particular point of disagreement.

(Ironically, the smaller the point of disagreement, the more viciously the leftoid will lash out and accuse you of heresy. It’s really best to let it all hang out if you’re gonna disagree with a leftoid; you gain nothing by pussyfooting around the disagreement, and the leftoid will be driven to impotent catatonia and perhaps even submission if you disagree fundamentally and unapologetically.)

The “deep state” network of leftists, said Gilliam, extends across various federal bureaucracies. He advised President Donald Trump to cleanse federal bureaucracies of politically corrupt leftists.

The Chateau Word of the Year is….CULL. As in, #CullTheMedia, #CullTheFBI, #CulltheDeepState, #CullAcademia, #CullAdInfinitum. There’s a lot of institutional culling of leftoids to do, and so little time remaining to do it before it’s impossible. We aren’t gonna change hearts and minds, but we can change personnel.

Culling can be accomplished many ways. There’s physical culling. Mass firings and what-not. (I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader what “what-not” means, and when the time would be right for its use.) There’s preemptive culling. This would involve altering recruitment and promotion requirements and exams to rid them of ideological filtering. There’s legalistic culling. Expanding anti-discrimination civil rights laws to include political or ideological affiliation would be an example of that. Finally, there’s passive culling, which would be creating work environments hostile to liberals by, say, mandating a physical assessment day heavy on the tests of strength, or requiring attendance to a “Western Canon” seminar for every Diversity Seminar a company requires for its employees.

President Trump, I know you’re reading. CULL. Remember this word. Drop it in your next tweet. I’d appreciate the shout-out.

“If you want to see the deep state, this is what you’re looking at,” said Gilliam. “It’s not just the FBI. It’s not just the DOJ. It’s also the State Department. It’s the IRS. It’s the DOD. It’s the VA. You want to look across the board and look and all of these.”

Bataan death march through the institutions.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in the FBI is just about the FBI,” said Gilliam. “What we’re seeing … is that this is a slice of the bigger picture. Right now, the president has the greatest time that he’s probably going to have in his presidency to pull back and unleash either another special counsel or a team of investigators to go in and clean up these upper echelons [of federal bureaucracies].”

I’m not a prayerful man, but I’ll say a prayer for Trump. His enemy is numerous, entrenched, and determined.

“You can call them deep state. You can call them globalists. I often call them communists,” said Gilliam of left-wing federal bureaucrat careerists.

The commie slur never goes out of style.

Ideological alignment allows otherwise disconnected people across federal bureaucracies to cooperate absent conspiracy, said Gilliam, using terrorist networks as an illustration of this phenomenon.

It’s a literal leftoid hivemind. They all think alike, so they proceed to the same goal without explicit direction. Such radical and independent thinkers, they are!

“You know how terrorist cells work. They have a financial group that raises money, you have planners, you have people who build the bombs, and you have people that carry the operation out,” said Gilliam. “They may never meet those people, but they belong to the same ideology.”

Inadvertently (perhaps), Gilliam has also addressed the JQ.

The Globohomo Ministry of Propaganda, like its bureaucratic brethren in various state agencies, won’t change from within. Change has to be forced on it from without, and that necessarily means CLEANING SHOP of all the leftoid freaks that currently run the show.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can chin-rub for ages over the nature of our national dissolution but the crux of the issue is that there are too many leftoids in positions of power. Remove them, and many of our problems go away with them.

Read Full Post »

“Nixon loyalists bugged a Dem hotel room.”


“Obama/Clinton loyalists in the FBI and DOJ bugged a political opponent’s phones, rooms, cars, hotels, toilets for months on false pretext.”



The Left is principled; it just happens to be that their animating principle is the acquisition of power (and the attendant humiliation of its enemies that power allows). Hypocrisy and contradictions are useful tools to get them what they want: destruction of exclusionary normalcy.

This is why the media — wholly owned and staffed by leftoids with few exceptions — are ignoring, suppressing, or spinning news of the biggest political scandal in American history: the collusion of a former president, presidential candidate, the FBI, and DOJ to spy on a political opponent and subvert the will of the American people. The vast majority of media whores are TRUE BELIEVERS in leftoid transnational progressivism. This is why nearly all the gaystream media outlets aren’t furiously digging for information into the growing FBI-DOJ-obama-clinton scheme to influence an election. Fame and fortune are there for the taking, but loyalty to their egos and their grip on power over the anti-White Narrative matters more to them.

Thus, we see every day evidence of their self-serving doublespeak:

The mask is off, leftoids. The battlefield is cleared of your obfuscation. Now we fight.

Read Full Post »

This news report exposing the inhumane treatment of Whole Foods employees since Baron Bezos bought the SWPL chain is further evidence that we live in a new age of robber barons using their monopolistic bargaining power to basically run slave labor sweatshops here on American soil as well as abroad.

The popular Texas-based niche grocery chain was bought by Amazon last year for a hefty $13.7 billion price tag, but employees are ruing the day the online retailer made the purchase, according to Business Insider (BI).

Employees feel hard pressed by the new policies Bezos’s management team put in place at Whole Foods. The pressure put upon them by updated stocking procedures and “pop quizzes” is causing some to have “nightmares” about work.

“I wake up in the middle of the night from nightmares,” a Whole Foods staffer told BI. “The stress has created such a tense working environment. Seeing someone cry at work is becoming normal.”

One of the problems for employees is the new order to shelf (OTS) stocking system put in place by Amazon bosses. The system is apparently breaking down morale.

According to Amazon, OTS is geared to deliver smaller amounts of product to stores in order to keep it fresh and to help the company track inventory better. But OTS requires employees to stock shelves far more often and to keep a closer eye on stockroom supplies to prevent shortages.


Multiple employees said these tests had “crushed” morale in stores because workers are terrified of getting “walked” and missing some small detail.

“You are so concerned about passing this military-like test that you actually start to lose your department’s operational conditions,” an employee said.

Another worker explained: “We think of it as punishment. They think of it as a way to correct errors.”

Remember when the Left used to advocate for the working man and against Big Business? Yeah, I don’t either. It’s been so long all I know of the Left is that they’re globalist bug-shills for MegaTech, international finance, and race replacement. In the Left’s collective consciousness, allying with predatory billionaire monopolists is worth it to stick the knife deeper in Whitey’s back.

But given that leftoids LOVE LOVE LOVE our modren day capitalist oligarchs because the omnipotent fat cats can be counted on to stream anti-White poz 24/7 into the eyeballs of Heritage America and to fund open borders advocacy NGOs, it’s full speed ahead with the violations of workers’ rights and basic humanity. “WTF I love robber barons now!”

The Left isn’t unprincipled; its core principle is power, by any hypocritical contradiction necessary. We won’t crush the Left by reminding them that they once, a long time ago, championed the oppressed worker. They’ll just shrug that off with a snarky riposte fed to them by John Oliver and carry on virtue shrieking until their enemies are silenced and their livelihoods destroyed. The Left will only be crushed by crushing them….ousting them from power.

The Left hasn’t forgotten that open borders means in practice population churn, social disintegration, consumerist escape, rapacious multibillionaires importing scabs to displace American workers and gut their wages, and rapacious multimillionaire politicians importing ringers to displace American voters and gut their electoral power.

The Left hasn’t forgotten that open borders amounts to greedy fat cat CEOs running an arbitrage scheme on American native workers in which the former have all the leverage provided by millions of third world peasants willing to work for pennies in bezosian slave labor camps while the latter have to bend over and accept rock bottom wages, shitty workplace conditions, and low morale.

They haven’t forgotten any of it.

They have chosen to ignore it.

In service to their overarching desire to snuff out White Heritage America and morally preen on its smoldering ruin.

Still, BI also learned that with [Bezos’] OTS system, Whole Foods might be on track to saving $300 million in costs by 2020.

Cheer up, SWPL shitlibs, with those cost savings you can afford a Whole Foods artisanal cheese block as you scurry out the store trying not to look any of the employees in the eye.

Read Full Post »

Memos exposing Deep State (FBI/DOJ/Obama/Clinton) treason are everywhere lately, and each with more redactions than the previous one. Obviously, there is a lot of ass-covering going on, and enough high ranking swamp creatures seemingly hold the belief that the government doesn’t really answer to the American people, so the people shouldn’t be privy to classified information about the Deep State’s corruption and subversion of democracy. “Bend over and take it, soyim”, is the prevailing attitude of the arrogant pricks running America into the ground.

America is in the Redacted Republic stage of decline, just before we become a Late Republic.

A Redacted Republic is marked by elites scurrying like rats to hide from the sunlight. When things get really bad it’ll be the gallows of the Late Republic they’ll try to avoid (usually by throwing other elites under the bus).

Jack Random asks,

Wait they are scurrying? Based on Comey’s response [ed: Comey feigned a cavalier “That’s it?” reply to the Memo] I thought it was “Yeah I broke the law, suck it we are invincible!” And this is a guy the deep state has already held out to be burned…not a lot of fear I see.

It’s common for prey animals to puff their chests and fluff their fur when cornered. It’s a last ditch desperation ploy to avoid the tooth and claw by mimicking the strength and confidence of a larger, more fearsome beast. But their predator is President Trump, so this move won’t work.

Via, a primer on just how deep the Deep Rot goes,

But the deeper insight to have here is that there is already no functional difference between a FBI Special Agent, a CNN commentator, or, for that matter, a New York Times op-ed author, a professor of political science, a public school district administrator and a SEIU organizer.

Cull The Globohomo Establishment. It’s the only way to be sure.


In completely related news, the central figure — Carter Page — that the FBI claims was the impetus for getting a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and transition team was an FBI employee in 2016 before he was a Russian spy in 2017.

From a reader: “Worse, Page was employed by the FBI in March of ’16, and was used to obtain the FISA Warrant by the FBI in October of ’16.”


The Swamp is about to be drained bigly.

This is unbelievable banana republic corruption in the executive branch agencies. It almost looks as if the FBI used one of their agents (Page) to entrap Trump by assigning him to worm his way into his campaign.

Read Full Post »

Here’s some news you can rue: 40% of all US births are to single moms, a 700% increase since 1960, (although the rate does appear to have peaked in the last few years….we’ll see if it holds (it won’t if the US de-Whitening continues apace)).

The Social Capital Project, spearheaded by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), decided to investigate why single motherhood has become more common in the last two generations. Since 1960, America’s single motherhood rate has risen from 5 percent to 40 percent in absolute terms—a 700 percent increase in under 60 years.

Too short of a time period for this trend to be the result of genetic disposition alone. Genes may be involved (in that there could be genes which make a woman more or less monogamously inclined), but given the rapid increase in single mommery it’s reasonable to conclude that deep and broad social changes have exerted the greater influence, either by directly altering behavior through a suite of incentives and disincentives, or by providing reinforcing stimuli to genetic triggers that switch on or off depending on environmental inputs.

The report offers explanations for the rise in single mommery that reiterate most of what I’ve written on the topic: namely, female economic independence, State welfare as Daddy substitute, the Pill, and male economic stagnation are the big incentives fueling the increase, largely through the mechanism of reducing the number of fertile-age married women.

To review, the past 60 years have seen more unmarried women and more of them engaged in sexual activity, leading more of them to become pregnant, even as fewer married women today get pregnant or give birth. Shotgun marriage has declined, and over the past 40 years declining rates of unintended pregnancy among unmarried women and rising acceptability of unwed childbearing have led to fewer abortions. Rising unwed pregnancies, declining shotgun marriage, and falling abortion produced more unwed births. All of those trends increased the share of births to unmarried women.

How important were each of these changes in raising the share of births that occur to unmarried women? We can roughly simulate counterfactual scenarios in which some factors changed as they actually did while others are kept at their early 1960s levels. In Figure 14, the top line shows the estimated increase in the share of births that were to unwed mothers from the early 1960s to the late 2000s, an increase from 8 percent to 43 percent. Many people might be inclined to see this rise and attribute it to an increase in pregnancy among single women. But the next line down indicates that this factor is a minor one. It shows that the share of births to unwed mothers would still have risen to 36 percent if the nonmarital pregnancy rate had stayed as low as it was in the early 1960s while everything else changed—the share of women who were married, marital pregnancy rates, marital abortion rates, nonmarital abortion rates, and shotgun marriage rates.

Emphasis mine. The factors driving the massive increase in single mommery are primarily exogenous, ie independent of the single woman pregnancy rate.

In fact, the fall in the marital pregnancy rate appears to be a more important factor; if that rate had remained at its high early-1960s level while everything else changed (including the nonmarital pregnancy rate), the share of births to unwed mothers would have risen only to 32 percent.

Fewer marriages, more later-in-life enfeebled-egg marriages together decrease the marital pregnancy rate. (The marital abortion rate is very low.)

The decline in shotgun marriage has been a bigger factor than changes in either nonmarital or marital pregnancy rates taken individually (and about as important as changes in both taken together).

Shotgun marriage — basically, a woman’s family persuading the father to “man up” and marry the woman he knocked up before she gives unwed birth to the shame of her family — is a lot less common today because severed social bonds which used to make the threat of public shame palpable, and cultural changes in how single momhood is viewed (from less to more positively), have reduced the urgency to provide a conception with the imprimatur of marriage.

The biggest single factor in raising the share of births that were to unwed mothers seems to be the decline in marriage, which has expanded the pool of potential unwed mothers. Had the share of women ages 15-44 who were married stayed at its early-1960s level while everything else changed, just 24 percent of births would have been to single mothers in the late 2000s. The decline in marriage primarily reflects an increase in never-married women rather than divorced or widowed women (not shown).

This is basically the “I don’t need no man, I’m an empowered careerist shrike” phenomenon, which, as you will read, created a premarital sexual market feedback loop encouraging men to demand sex from women without offering marriage in exchange.

The report authors conclude that the cause of the rise in single mommery is NOT primarily a consequence of negative economic trends. Instead, they blame affluence for weakened family stability.

Affluence brought a proliferation of novel ways to enjoy leisure time and fed a growing pay-off to enrolling in higher education. Marrying early, having children early, staying in unfulfilling marriages, and having large families became more costly relative to the available alternative ways to achieve fulfillment, whether through pursuit of a humanities Ph.D. or sexual gratification.41 The result was an increase in the pool of single people and a decline in marital birth rates.

At the same time that women began to demand more educational and economic opportunities, rising affluence facilitated the expansion of the two-earner family. The introduction of more and more labor-saving home appliances and types of processed food reduced the amount of time necessary for housework. As family incomes rose, more and more couples could afford paid child care, meals outside the home, and other services that replaced the considerable work housewives had traditionally undertaken.

Rising affluence also was responsible for the development of reliable contraception. The pill, in particular, allowed women to control their own fertility and facilitated family planning around career considerations. This new ability greatly increased the appeal to women of professional pursuits.

Executive Mommery: Affluence and technology decoupled sex from marriage.

Affluence and technological development facilitated the decoupling of sex and marriage, which increased nonmarital sexual activity and elevated unwed pregnancy rates. Penicillin brought an end to the syphilis crisis that regulated sexual activity through much of the first half of the twentieth century. The pill provided a way to dramatically reduce the chance of an unintended pregnancy. And abortion became safer, fueling rising demand for legal abortion services that culminated in the Roe decision.

As nonmarital sex became safer and its consequences less severe, more single men and women became sexually active. This trend became self-reinforcing. Normative regulation of sexual activity among single men and women loosened. In 1969, 68 percent of American adults agreed that pre-marital sexual relations were wrong. Just four years later in 1973, that number had dropped to 47 percent, a decline of nearly one-third, and as of 2016, only 33 percent agreed that sex between an unmarried man and woman is wrong. What is more, pressure increased on ambivalent single women to engage in sex in order to win and maintain the affection of romantic partners and potential husbands.

When women no longer needed marriage (because women were economically and reproductively self-sufficient), men no longer needed to barter marriage for sex. Now where have you read that before? Oh yeah…..HERE.

As we have seen, despite advances in birth control (or, paradoxically, because of those advances), more sexual activity led to higher rates of unwed pregnancy. While wider use of more effective birth control might have been expected to reduce pregnancy rates, it may be that the greater availability of contraception itself increased sexual activity.

Steve Sailer has made this same point about abortion; paradoxically, the increasing availability of cheap, effective abortion incentivized increased sexual activity, because it’s human nature to do risky stuff if we believe operators are standing by to protect us from the consequences of our risk-taking.

Regardless of the reasons behind this increase, not all sexually active couples used effective methods of birth control or used them consistently. Many couples, in the pre-pill past, would have been poor contraceptors but were not sexually active. But as nonmarital sex became more common, their reproductive fates became more tied to their ability to prevent sexual intercourse from leading to pregnancy. In this regard, relatively disadvantaged women suffered disproportionate consequences from the more general changes in societal norms around nonmarital sex.

Noblesse malice. Or: culture norms matter.

The availability of the pill and legal abortion also affected shotgun marriage, which further contributed to the rise in unwed childbearing. Previously, single women could expect a promise of marriage from their boyfriends in the event of pregnancy. Men, after all, generally would have to make a promise of marriage in any other relationship. But over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, given the diminished risk of unintended pregnancy, more and more single women were open to sex without a marriage promise. That weakened the bargaining power of single women who preferred not to engage in sex without the promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.

Sluts are a chaste woman’s worst enemy. The feminist movement against “slut shaming” is the revolt of less attractive women who can’t compete with prettier women able to convince men to hold out for marriage without the women giving away the bore store.

Further, the availability of effective contraception and abortion may have led many men (and their friends and family) to reason that since women have a degree of control over whether they get pregnant or choose to carry a pregnancy to term, a man who impregnates a single woman is not obliged to marry her.

Feedback loops, I see them. AKA it takes two to tango. AKA men and women don’t exist in a sex-differentiated vacuum.

Finally, affluence also made it more affordable to be a single mother relative to the era before World War II. Socioeconomically advantaged women could better afford to raise children on one income, sometimes with child support from their former partner. Disadvantaged women could draw on an expanded federal safety net that reflected the rising wealth of American taxpayers. That safety net afforded a fairly meager lifestyle on its own, but in combination with their own earnings and assistance from family, friends, and partners, women could increasingly make it work (especially if they had only known an impoverished living standard themselves growing up).

However, the particular way that American safety nets were designed often disincentivized women from marrying or staying married, since benefits were generally even less generous to two-parent families. That led to increases in unwed childbearing too.

There is a contingent of tradcon-ish righties who balk at the idea that the State and the social norming of working women create disincentives for women to marry; but here we are, data in hand showing exactly that.

The report authors conclude that male economic fortunes aren’t the main cause of the decreasing marriage rate (and subsequent rise in the single mommery rate). However, I note that the authors make the critical analysis error of ignoring the reality and impact of female hypergamy. This is a very common flaw in these studies, but it’s a critical flaw because women don’t judge the status of men in absolute terms; women judge the marriageability (the bux) and romantic worth (the fux) of men relative to other men AND relative TO WOMEN. Read on to see what I mean.

The idea that affluence is behind the rising share of births to unwed mothers may sound strange to those who hold a more negative view of the American economy. The prevailing wisdom is that unwed childbearing has been driven by the deteriorating position of male workers. Poor, working- and middle-class men, it is claimed, have seen lower pay over time, reflecting globalization, deindustrialization, and automation. The weak labor market has driven an increasing number of men out of the labor force entirely. Thus, some reason that the reduction in the share of potential male partners who women consider “marriageable,” combined with a persisting value placed on motherhood, explains why women have increasingly chosen to have children without getting married.

There are a number of problems with this position, however. For starters, most of the trends discussed above that have contributed to a rising unwed birth share began or began to accelerate in the 1960s. Nonmarital birth rates were rising in the 1940s and 1950s, and perhaps earlier. The increase in the unwed birth share itself started in the 1950s and accelerated beginning in the 1960s. In other words, these trends generally extend back at least to the “Golden Age” of twentieth-century America—when productivity and wage growth were much stronger than after the 1960s, and when household incomes were rising faster in the bottom half of the income distribution than above it.

Second, rather than seeing declines in pay, men have generally seen flat or modestly rising compensation since the 1960s. That certainly has been a disappointment compared with the strong wage growth of the 1950s and 1960s, but it remains the case that men are mostly doing at least as well as their 1960s counterparts, and so it is unclear why they should seem less marriageable than in the past.

I’ll clear it up for the authors: Hypergamy. As women have seen their career prospects and personal incomes rise, economically stagnating men have been hardest hit by women’s innate desire for higher status mates. A working class man is a catch for a jobless single woman, but he brings nothing to a working woman who already has her basic needs met. And as women rise occupationally and financially, their attraction for higher status men than themselves rises along with their own economic status. This leads to working women choosing men based on non-provider mate value cues, or choosing to drop out of the marriage hunt altogether.

Oh, and obesity. Can’t forget female obesity, which is a big (heh) driver of the low marriage rate. Men don’t want to marry fat chicks. There are more fat chicks since 1960. Ergo, there are fewer marriages.

(Fat men are less of an obstacle to marriage because women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s physiques as men put on women’s physiques.)

Third, to the extent that men’s labor market outcomes have worsened, this could reflect the increase in unwed childbearing rather than the former causing the latter. Research finds that married men have better labor market outcomes than single men, even accounting for the fact that they may be more marriageable.

Genetic confounds.

If partners, families, and society writ large have come to accept single parenthood, it is likely that their expectations of nonresident fathers have diminished as well, which could have reduced the effort those men put into optimizing their economic status.

I’ve mentioned this before: working women disincentivize male resource provision (there are those sexual market feedback loops again), and the corollary to that is economically vulnerable women incentivize male resource provision.

This may be particularly true in disadvantaged communities where single parenthood is common. Alternatively, the legal or moral obligation to pay child support may lead some absent fathers to avoid the formal labor market and rely on family, friends, informal work, and the underground economy.

When the State gets involved in the family formation racket, bad outcomes usually ensue.

Even the “marriageable man” hypothesis ultimately presumes a baseline level of affluence that, historically speaking, is a recent phenomenon. The argument that because men are less marriageable, women are delaying or foregoing marriage but still choosing to have children presumes that many women are able to afford single motherhood. If not for increased female earnings potential relative to the past or a more generous government safety net, it would matter little if men became less marriageable. Women would be unable to afford single motherhood, and rather than seeing rising unwed childbearing we would simply see reduced childbearing.

Ensuring the economic self-sufficiency of women has created the single mom crisis.

Social phenomena are complicated and have multiple causes, but our read of the evidence—and we are by no means alone—is that negative economic trends explain little of the overall rise in unwed childbearing. Instead, we think it is more likely that, as with other worsening aspects of our associational life, rising family instability primarily reflects societal affluence, which reduced marriage and marital childbearing, increased divorce and nonmarital sexual activity and pregnancy, and reduced shotgun marriage.

Mass scaled society is creating a gynarchy (defined by me as a society organized around the primacy of women and their needs, and characterized by social chaos). The Gynarchy is a synonym for Africa. That’s where we’re heading….the blight side of history.

This does not mean we should lament rising affluence. There is no reason we must choose between having healthier families and communities or having stronger economic growth. Indeed, it is possible to imagine a future in which rising affluence will allow more women and men alike to work less and less and spend more time with children, families, friends, neighbors, and fellow congregants.

On this subject, I’m a pessimist. Good times create…and all that. First, there’s the loss of purpose that accompanies the Automated Life. This hits men especially hard, because men, unlike women, don’t primarily get their sense of purpose from raising children and chatting up the neighbors hoping for gossipy dirt. Men get their purpose from work, from achievement, and (yes) from sexual conquest.

Second, there’s the matriarchal nature of “workless” societies in which men are rendered superfluous as resource providers for women and children. This is guaranteed to encourage cock carouseling, alpha fux beta bux, delayed marriage and spinsterhood, and low fertility rate. The end result of affluence will be more time with oneself, rather than with children, family, or friends.

But to date, we have tended to spend additional wealth to pursue individual and personal priorities. That has eroded our associational life—including the stability of our families, especially among disadvantaged families who have enjoyed the fruits of rising affluence less than others have. Continuing to make the same choices with our ever-higher purchasing power threatens to diminish the quality of life for rich and poor alike.

A reader asks, “if the single mom babies are White, maybe it’s not so bad”. I reply: In the short term, sure, not so bad. Single mom White babies >>>>> married mom nonWhite babies. But over the long haul, in a timeline that gene-culture co-evolution can have an impact on behavior by cementing into the code of life a new suite of traits, it’s bad.

And it’s an irrefutable fact that the bastard spawn of single moms do worse in life on just about every measurable outcome than do the kids of married moms. Whether the cause is genetic or social, doesn’t much matter. As long as you can set your watch to the predictability of a single mom sprogson huffing paint under an overpass or sprogdaughter mudsharking by age 14, it’s in the interest of society to keep a lid on the single mommery rate.

The risk of allowing our affluence to normalize a high rate of single mommery is evident: If in the fullness of time our 40% single mom rate metastasizes, there will be YUGE downstream consequences and emanating penumbras from what would amount to the wholesale destruction of the Eurasian family structure that has existed for millennia. Each generation laboring under a grossly high single mom rate will slowly inch the character of our women away from K-selected Euro monogamy and toward r-selected African polygyny/polyandry. What starts as a social selection pressure eventually ends as a genetic selection effect.

PS As usual for current sociological research, from what I can tell none of the data and analysis was controlled for race. Maybe I should expect this glaring oversight from a cucked Utahn like Mike Lee, but the days when everybody ignores the racial elephant in the room are over.


I just noticed the stock photo that the National Economics Editorial used as a banner for their single mom story is this:

You CAN find all-White couples and families in the media, as long as the story is about something dysfunctional, like single momhood or volcuckery. White privilege, everyone!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: