UK Training Ukrainian Partisans, Biodigital Surveillance is Here, China's Social Credit System Explained, Germany Further Reduced to US Satrapy, Stanford's Sugar Babies
Be careful what you wish for! More tears are said for answered prayers than for unanswered ones.
The real corruption is to be found with the do-gooders, the idealists and the well-meaning...no weapons except mission-statements, values and PR...no war except passive-aggression and endless meetings...and the broads would have degrees in human rights law. The money, however, would be plentiful of course.
Do you think for a state to exist with a modicum of social order, digitization is inevitable? Can social credit systems be used to foster a environment that creates the grounds for more families? I know China is ramping up its efforts of raising its birth rates by reigning in on single women in cities. Of course there's mass digitization in America and Canada, but its not wielded for the purpose of creating a family friendly environment, quite the opposite.
Look at what's happening in Iran. If you are a country that's apart of the axis of resistance to liberal universalism, protecting your population from the internet of the West seems paramount. America doesn't need to do 80s style regime change when they can brainwash your children abroad with liberal ideals via social media.
The US has been talking about using Starlink to break into Iran’s national internet. I don’t know nearly enough about the technology to comment on this further but national or regional internets seem inevitable now as a bulwark against US tech dominance. Tech dorks like Balaji Srinivasan with their ideas like dispersed network states simply don’t understand how the world works in practice and what states will do the shore up sovereignty.
This. Going further than “cesspool” comparison, what internet has become is what Niccolo has talked about in his previous post. In reality, I feel that aside from once or twice a week reacting to the Substack notification, the whole internet experience has became obsolete for me in any way other than using it as a utility. I’m old enough to remember the original promise and excitement of internet as a platform, about everything that technology should’ve fixed for us and it basically turned into a turd we live today. I never thought, though, it would turn into something one has to actively work on in effort to limit the damage. Limit the exposure, limit the impact of it on yours and the lives of people you care about. I built my career in tech companies and am genuinely thinking about a way to raise my kids outside of the confines it now provides.
Absolutely, although I think this time there are a few differences. Arguably any other large technological advancement, as inevitable as it looks now, did leave some space to opting out. What we see now makes any alternative almost entirely unworkable: cash only, burner phones, CCTV avoidance. And whether or not you provide the iris scan voluntarily, someone will take good enough photo of it with 100 megapixel that it won’t matter. It starts with surveillance - ends when all that data starts being used in a way much more sinister than guiding your shopping or political preferences.
So the USA is so keen on preventing any single power from dominating Eurasia that its aggression will force its enemies into a single alliance that dominates Eurasia. I guess if that happens, then it was inevitable either way.
What interests me is the anti-nuclear stance of the West, which I now clearly see probably originates in the United States. Obviously, if America starts building nuke plants, the rest of the West will want to build them, too. But if all of the American allies reach energy self-sufficiency via nuclear power, they're no longer dependent on American energy exports. So the USA cannot build nuke plants at home for fear of seeing them crop up in places that it wants to be dependent.
Destroy hydrocarbons? No way. It is about depressing the price of selected hydrocarbon assets for the benefit of potential purchasers with deep pockets and long-term ambitions. It resembles the relationship between idealistic philanthropists, FIRE and the urban arsonists.
The model worked in England since the Middle Ages. Well enough for export. They do not call it the Anglosphere for nothing.
The post-reduction deplorables may well become the much-patronised yokels whose folk-ways will get rehabilitated as ethnic chic. The red baseball cap may yet become the leisure wear for the grandchildren of the current generation of Silicon Valley disruptors and NGO activists. In her old age Greta Thunberg will get tormented by the strains of country music.
The USA is not building any nuclear plants. It cannot allow them to be built, or else everybody ELSE will want nuke plants, and there goes dependency on American energy.
Oddly enough, it seems that we're letting Japan get away with it. I wonder why, though? Perhaps the American elites are thinking this:
1. We're not afraid that anybody will emulate the Japanese. If the USA builds nuke plants, other countries will follow suit, but Japan won't have that effect.
2. We don't need Japan to be dependent on our energy because we don't doubt their loyalty. They're sufficiently frightened of China to want us around.
I was under the impression that the US nuclear plants are aging and increasingly unsafe. The licenses for their operation have been extended. Westinghouse and others are unwilling to invest in new nuclear infrastructure because of perceived political risk.
When the time comes the Russians will rebuild the US nuclear infrastructure. They have the capacity to do so. This will repay favours of old: US engineers and geologists played a very big role in the Soviet oil industry in the 20s and 30s. The father of the Koch brothers made his fortune (lost to Standard Oil) under Stalin.
No, we aren't. The real forward motion looks like it's in "transitionals" like biogas... Which can allow Big Ag to enter into the energy production business. Even that, is honestly, a big wild card.
Stock prices for uranium mining/nuke plant stuff skyrocketing over the last calendar year don't factor as reflective of future trends. It's my understanding that it's hard to profit from nuclear power generation... And smart money realizes that as the natives here get less "complex", they will just be hugely dangerous liabilities. I see a lot of this as a fad that's captured young rich adults and the very online who aren't sold on renewables, but can't lose face by appearing to submit to Halliburton.
Oh, what is up with this weird about-face on cold fusion all of a sudden? LOL
Britain just cannot accept its diminished place in the world, just another nation state albeit a large one.
As for their organising of the new Gladio, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Not that they would not try. Here comes the controversial part - UK Deep State ran death squads in Ulster in 1970s & 1980s. Loyalist militants could never create viable big bombs but in one year, bombs in Dublin twice, and in border towns and villages saw multiple deaths, and a decision by southern govt to actively repress republicans...they got the message. Of course loyalist planted the bombs but could not have made them. This is at last being discussed in South. Survivor of ambush of band called Miami, presumed dead, said their bus was stopped by Ulster Defence Regiment checkpoint and while playing dead he heard a British officer accent giving orders. Google Nairac, Glennane Gang, Billy Wright, Pat Finucane lawyer, RUC collusion with Loyalists etc. This s**t is second nature to them.
It never seems to occur that Islamic militants could be funded and armed by Russia and infiltrated into UK. The post Sinn Fein IRA is gathering recruits but not arms due to US, Libya pipeline being closed off. Maybe a few Javelins would come in handy, or manpads? With Anglo empire it is all tactics, little thought of blowback.
Gladio is a never-ending source of revelations, isn't it? My understanding is that towards the end the UK was beginning to win in the North after they began targeting the families of Sinn Fein leaders. The pressure came off when the Yanks got Tony Blair to go soft and agree to the Anglo-Irish treaty. Not that I want to be nasty or to take sides, but if Dublin actively repressed nationalists in response to the Brits organising a few bombings, then the UK initiative worked at least on a short term basis.
Since we are on the subject, do you think that the IRA really killed Mountbatten? My hunch is that he was killed by the Brits or the Yanks when they concluded that he may have been blackmailed into espionage on behalf of the Soviets (M. was the perfect target for blackmail, given his sexuality, and he was perfectly placed to hand over state secrets when he was commander in chief in the Far East). My operating assumption is that the Cambridge spies bull-shit was used to cover up the hunt for the really serious traitors.
I very much doubt that the Russians are arming Islamic militants...that is MI6 and CIA territory. In North Africa Russia supports the Algerians and, presumably, the remains of Gadaffi's support base.
There in a school of thought that the IRA was riddled with informers (our national curse/shame in all ages) and were able to take out those opposed to the McGuinness/Adams peace/politics faction. The most prominent was Scappaticci, the IRA head of internal security, ideally placed to denounce top operators opposed to McG/Adams policy. His codename was Stakeknife. There is a strong idea lately that Mountbatten was attracted to very very young males, and was doubly subject to blackmail. Young Irish writer David Burke apparently claims he can link him to Kincora Boys Home scandal. His killing was an fascinating case as it is accepted that PIRA decided early on that any action v Royals would be disastrous for them. But he was still pretty live in intelligence as an eminence grise despite his age. Thomas McMahon of IRA was convicted in Dublin on involvement in his killing. So on balance Provos did it. Yep, the Brits scared our govt into Draconian measures on foot of bombings in Republic, it worked. No matter what is said, terror often works. When PIRA shifted to commercial targets in London e.g. Baltic Exchange, Canary Wharf, it produced a stasis where Blair could step in and say it's time. PIRA was looking for a credible way out, Clinton was interested, Dublin was interested. Stars aligned.
My suspicions re Mountbatten relate to the fact that a) Stalin got his hands on Churchill's plan for a post-war invasion (can't have been too many on the distribution list for that one), b) the Royals were intimately connected to the UK intelligence services, c) the Royal Household was actively penetrated by the Soviets (Blunt), d) the Soviets got their hands on copies of the correspondence between the Royals and several of their cousins in Hesse-Darmstadt (Blunt's work) and this alone could have been used to blackmail M., e) M. was undeniably blackmailable on sexual grounds, f) the counter-intelligence people were closing in during the 70s when they could have used the intrigues against Harold Wilson to smoke M. out (when MI5/6 offered M. the regency during a hypothetical coup).
Killing M. would have been an easy decision, no different from Airey Neave, Aldo Moro and a few others. In my (perhaps paranoid) world-view the natural suspects for any assassination are the friends/allies.
Positive ID isn’t a problem, unless you’re a spy or criminal. Scores of your characteristics are arcane, but not a problem. We all use our own scoring systems to choose friends, business associates, foods, entertainment, and every other thing we do. The problems arise when tyrants in government or powerful corporations use those scores to attack us. As Reagan taught, government is the problem, not the solution. We can avoid or resist getting the formal identifications and scores, but they happen below the covers whether we participate or not. The solution is demanding government that treats everyone fairly, not constructing new mechanisms to abuse us. It won’t end with IDs. Constant vigilance is the price of liberty.
Do you have a bank account? Passport? Use a credit card? We're constantly ID'd. Not a problem for legitimate purpose. ID is like guns or cars or 2x4s or anything else, not a problem until it gets misused.
"We all use our own scoring systems to choose friends, business associates, foods, entertainment, and every other thing we do."
Yes, when I met my wife and my best friends I entered all their attributes into the handy 36-line spreadsheet I carry with me everywhere, so I could score them all on everything from height to scent to how loudly they laugh at my jokes. I have also informed them I will be regrading them on an annual basis and they could be replaced if I meet someone else who exceeeds their scores.
Slapping a subjective number on everyone and everything is the price of liberty!
I think psychiatrists call that anal retention. But even with less obsessive methods, we do all keep a mental spreadsheet of our relationships. But our purposes are usually less pernicious than government. The problem isn't what we collect, but why.
The same privacy laws and restrictions on government, corporations and persons need to be applied to digital tools, they are only tools.
As far as the collection, harvesting of information and big data - in addition to privacy laws we have the 4th Amendment, 5th, and 13th Amendment concerning these matters. Just as the 2d Amendment doesn’t just apply to muskets and swords - new ways of spying do not change our rights.
Already has been collected and already being abused. The only useful countermeasure is managing the government closely. We tend to ignore government and become surprised when they abuse us. That's pretty much inevitable if we leave them to their own devices. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
We don't have those here, and my goal is to make sure we never do. But if I get swatted, my inclination is to swat back. But liberty can have much higher costs than a little swatting. Often does.
thanks for answering my question! I think that the purpose of the social credit system is more or less the same, but certainly we do not have the type of punishments for a low credit score in the West (yet). Though of course the inability to acquire a car and a home can lead to a de facto travel ban, school ban, reduced employment prospects, increased scrutiny and, yes, even public shaming. I suppose the real question is to what degree the Chinese state enforces its system, whether it's easy to get around, etc. For some aspects of the biodigital surveillance regime in Canada, for example the vaccine passports, these were easy to get around without any repercussions if you were a bit motivated/
I went to a fairly conservative Catholic college in the USA. The message board for alums that I used to frequent has gone full Blue Anon. Any deviation is met with an avalanche of browbeaters. Once I fairly innocently and jokingly posted a NY Times article that indicated the fears of violence in South Africa related to Zuma's arrest were unfounded. This was funny because a few hours after the article was posted mass riots broke out.
By the reaction of the other posters you'd have thought I linked a video of myself butchering a kitten.
This made me wonder, Darren Beattie style, whether selective schools' message boards are fertile place for paid regime influencers to be operating.
Paid influencers work the proles, the elite-adjacent police each other. The status anxieties over luxury beliefs are strong enough to guarantee vigorous enforcement without the cost of paying influencers a penny.
A half-way enterprising alum should develop a business model in which people pay to police themselves and each other. Whoever can do this will join the 1%.
Can you imagine the kids of tomorrow looking up social media archives and watching old videos of mommy or grandma making some cash as Sugar Babies?
Or taking a DNA test and using a special software program to investigate biodigital surveillance archives and identifying likely fathers (who may or may not have transitioned into mothers)?
Or what happens when the kids at school download an old video of a class mate's mommy or grandma and use the imagery to create an avatar? Throw in the availability of interactive intimate clothing (digital fetish-wear) connected to the internet and it could get truly brutal. Oversexed trolls and social media hacking...what could go wrong? Things were simpler when kids looked up rude words in the dictionary.
Back in April, at the suggestion of some random guy I met at a happy hour, I tried signing up for seeking.com (the most popular sugar daddy site). My goal was essentially information gathering.
EDIT: To be clear, I was not signing up to this site to find dates. I signed up for this site to message random women on the site and ask them about their experiences on the site, out of morbid curiousity. During my time on the site, I went on dates with two women. Both of whom I was upfront about not being a sugar daddy, and neither of whom I gave any money. Both of them didn't go anywhere
On the site, I messaged a bunch of women and just asked them about their experiences. What I found was so shocking that it prompted me to start attending a church.
In short:
* A shockingly large percentage of zoomer women (possibly as high as 5% in my city) have tried this at least once. To put concrete numbers on it, there's about ~1200 profiles, active in the last year, under the age of 30, in my city. My city has about ~30,000 women in that age bracket.
* The women are sociopathic about it and are motivated by making assloads of money. "Pay my rent for me" is widely considered to be the _minimum_ that you pay a girl.
* There is no expectation of exclusivity and a large majority of the women are open about "non-monogamy" or "no strings attached". This means that she is likely getting her rent paid by several different men at the same time. We're talking like at least 5 grand a month for any women taking the site seriously
* A lot of them seem to think they can get that money for purely platonic relationships. I can't tell if they're serious, or if this is just part of the doublethink that they do so they don't have to think of themselves as prostitutes. However, I point blank asked two women about this and they both aggressively insisted that there's lots of men on the site who are totally fine with paying for a purely platonic relationship
* A lot of them don't care about prostituting themselves, and see it as no-big-deal easy money. Most of them seem legitimately unaware that this behaviour will sabotage their long term serious relationship prospects, and the ones with more self-awareness about it just plan to lie to any future partners.
* Maybe 30-50% of the local escorts listed on tryst, slixa, etc., are also on seeking and using it to drum up prostitution business.
* There is no stigma whatsoever to doing this, to the point that women will actively encourage their friends to try it. They seem to treat it about the same way that girls treated getting a nose piercing, when I was in highschool, like it's a milestone that literally everyone tries at some point in their lives.
* The women all absolutely hate their sugar daddies. They don't respect them, and they mock them behind their backs for "being so pathetic they have to pay for sex". They see nothing morally wrong with blatantly lying to these men. They see nothing morally wrong with pretending they're exclusive. They see nothing wrong with overtly abusing or taking advantage of the men they're seeing. They see nothing wrong with trying to withhold sex and renege on their deals after they get the money. Their attitude is almost like "well if this dude is stupid enough to believe my lies, he deserves lies"
* A bunch of women on these sites appear to be doing it not for the money, and not for the relationships, but purely as social clout for bragging, eg "I'm so hot, there's 50 guys who will pay a thousand bucks just to spend the night with me, right now".
* Ironically, a large majority of the women on these sites seem to put zero effort into it. They'll post one or two shitty pictures they took in their bathrooms, write a one-sentence profile of boilerplate, and act like this entitles them to a six figure income. Basically the same thing you see on Tinder, except Tinder doesn't come with an expectation that you'll give her several hundred dollars cash in an envelope when you show up for the date
* The women on this site for the most part seem to have absolutely no idea what their own SMVs are. There's just about zero correlation between physical attractiveness and the amount of money they expect. You've got pudgy mid 5/10s acting like insufferable hot girls, and mind-blowingly beautiful 10/10s who, at least from their profiles, seem like nice, sweet women.
* A very large number of the women on that site are also active on other dating sites, and they don't draw a meaningful distinction between 'sugar dating' and 'regular dating'. In practice, this means that a lot of these women are approaching tinder/etc with the same attitude. The next time you get ghosted on Tinder, remember that she probably ghosted you for a guy who will pay $500 ppm (pay-per-meet)
The overwhelming impression I got from this experiment is that the current generation of 20-something women have, across the board, fully internalized both a) that their only value to society is as a sex object/prostitute; and b) that this is the only value they'll ever need. These people have been turned into toxic sociopaths incapable of having health, loving, mutually supportive relationships. They have dramatically inflated ideas of their own sexual market value, and absurdly unrealistic standards.
I don't know what massive social failure has caused this state of affairs, but it is an extremely big problem
For many, maybe most, it is just a further extension of the fact that reality is now routinely mediated, rather than experienced directly. The physical remoteness of the social media Sugar Babies ensures that any social failure or emotional harm can be terminated immediately by pressing a button. This establishes a reassuring degree of control, albeit at the expense of intimacy and realism. So there is a degree of convenience and emotional safety of a sort.
We will do, say, or pay just about anything, lie, grovel, cheat, steal, build and/or destroy, endure any burden or humiliation (even up to getting a job, a haircut and taking a shower), in the hopes of scoring some sweet young tail.
I've thought a lot about that but the short answer is "I don't know". I didn't look at any male profiles, so all I have to go on is generalizing my own experience (dangerous on a good day) and the handful of things women told me about other men on that site.
One thing that was immediately noteworthy is how much attention I got on that site. I posted one real photo (the same photo that gets zero likes on all the other apps), filled out a generic two-sentence profile (something about going to raves I think), and honestly answered the questions about net worth
(I have been a software engineer for 12 years, and after getting lucky on some startup stocks I've done fairly well for myself. Prior to covid destroying the world economy, my net worth was high six figures).
On that site, I would receive anywhere from about 1 to 6 new messages per day. That is, women taking initiative and messaging me. Almost all of these women were attractive. Many of them were women I would ignore, because they were obvious spammers or because they couldn't use proper grammar or because they just weren't as good as the others messaging me. I got the sense that this is how women experience apps like Tinder, and that gave a weird clarity to some other things.
But the thing is, I'm not particularly attractive, I'm not particularly cool, and amongst my white-collar professional friends I'm one of the least successful people I know. It doesn't make sense to me that I would get so much attention on a site like that after putting in zero effort. So I conclude two possibilities:
1) There are very few _actually_ rich people on that site, and most of the men on that site are like shitty douchebag bros who get a $5k bonus and try to pretend to be rich until it runs out;
or, more likely, 2) There's actually more women than men on this site.
(2) is consistent with the reactions I got when telling people about this experiment IRL. Most of the women I've told have been kind of aloof and neutral about the whole thing. Most of the men I've told were shocked and surprised and insisted they would never do such a thing. But who knows. I have no sense of relative gender balance on this site, and a lot of this is speculation
I would not be surprised in the slightest if most of the guys on this site are scumbags, but my gut check is that all of the dynamics on this site are being driven by women, with men opportunistically coming along to pay for their needs to be met
Several years ago (7 or 8 I guess) I read that Italians decided (at some point) in order to escape the stigma of prostitution the only appropriate/acceptable gifts for a man to give his lover are books. I really wish I could find the reference to this but I’ve been looking and haven’t managed to find it again. As a general policy it seems sound.
That seems weird. Why would there be any stigma in giving a woman flowers, jewelry or perfume or in a woman receiving them? If the Italians of all people have become this joylessly puritanical, there is no hope left. We are living in a world fast being drained of charm and delight.
It has to be seen in connection with the rest of the related internet. Instagram, TikTok and Twitch provide a highway that leads to OnlyFans, Fansly and Seeking. There's just a massive network of sites/apps now that serve to generate male attention and then to steer it to monetization venues. It's very large now, and it has grown to be that way with almost no discussion or scrutiny because discussing this kind of thing generally makes people uncomfortable for various reasons.
The women aren't lying when they say that many men will pay $$$ without expecting much in return. This is also the case with the other monetization sites, like OnlyFans and what have you. As the Stanford Sugar Babies article points out, sexting itself (just text, no photos/video chat or anything like that) is very lucrative in itself, and plenty of OnlyFans sites don't have any actual porn (meaning nudity) on them, but are quite successful at securing substantial sums from men for slightly racier material than is permitted on Instagram that occupies a kind of grey zone between that, on the one hand, and nudity/porn, on the other.
In any case, I think the question raised by Niccolo is the right one -- what does this say about men? Men are the ones fueling this. If there were not the demand from men for all of this stuff, women wouldn't be doing it and wouldn't be able to do it. In the context of an internet that is saturated with "free" porn, it isn't sexual titillation the men are seeking. It's some kind of pseudo-connection, clearly, even if its strictly virtual or "platonic" or what have you, depending on the site. Men are ... in trouble currently, I think. The problem, however, is that it is very hard to see this as anything other than a self-inflicted wound -- even if that is only partially true, and there are many other factors at play (and I think there are), it's just a hard-sell to anyone that it's anything worth anyone being concerned about from the perspective of the men involved.
People are generally more receptive to taking a critical view of these kinds of things from a perspective that centers abuse of women, but if the perspective is on women abusing men who are kind of lining up to be abused ... well, I don't think you get much uptake on that culturally, either from men or from women, and that's regardless of political/social "orientation" or creed.
Covid took what was happening and floored the gas. When everything became virtual, even a platonic relationship with an e-girl became desirable when no one could make any connections at all.
Something that happened during covid that I think is incredibly insidious and under-discussed is the strategic partnership that the Biden administration made with dating apps.
Every single dating app has a whole bunch of covid-specific stuff in it, and they did this directly at the request of the government. Everything from 'covid dating preferences' (which admit "meet outside" and "meet virtually" but don't even have an option for "meet in person like a normal date"), vaccine badges, all that kind of stuff.
As far as I'm concerned, what happened was pure evil. First, the government forced lockdowns on us, which made it impossible to meet people or find relationships, except via apps on the internet. Then, they pulled connections on those apps to make those apps force covid stuff on us, and to aggressively exert social pressure for us to conform.
The net result is that the United States Government essentially said "you don't get to find love unless you get the vax first". The government is weaponizing fundamental human relationships in order to coerce and enforce us into compliance with domestic policy. This is the most evil thing I've ever seen
The physical presence or witness of another is essential, and still people can physically have sex and it be basically masturbatory (this includes heterosexual intercourse), the preference of more and more of us today to be removed from any possibility of relatedness is a display of nihilistic retreat and cowardice. It's not that we have forgotten, we actively thwart experience which bares the potential for new life. I'm not only referring to children.
It is an extension of the general retreat from the physical and the real. As the world becomes colder and nastier people retreat into the dematerialised world of social media and the internet. In the future only the privileged will have real lives, the rest will live in pods and will have virtual lives. Cyber communities, families of avatars, e-sexuality. It is very sad.
A significantly larger fraction want to do it, but don't out of social pressure
An even more significantly larger fraction wouldn't ever do it, but essentially approach all other social media apps in the same way.
I hate this, and I wish I could escape it, but it's been like this in every social and physical location I've experienced in my entire adult life and at this point when someone tells me of a place where it's not like this, I just assume they're bs'ing me
"To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are things."
—Andrea Dworkin
The left has gone too far.
Late to the party (family is visiting) and missed one hell of a comment section! Wanted to throw this Dworkin quote in here though.
These women were raised this way by their mothers and the culture, the internet is merely a powerful tool.
Porn as we know it goes back to the Warren Court, for history nerds. Earl Warren said he’d kill anyone who showed his daughter the pictures he was looking at, then they released this Demon onto the General population.
When communities tried to ban it locally the courts stopped them.
This is the price of being law abiding. Part of the price.
Add Divorce, family courts, HR, and many other ills to the price.
There’s none so privileged in our world and society as children raised the old way. None.
Its such an ultimate rebellion nowadays to have some of these traditional values or whatever you want to call them. There used to be more of a "just so" attitude about these things because people had some acceptance of the stability and containment that the patriarchal family provided. I agree that it's a privilege to be raised this way in the world today and it made me a bit more hopeful having it put that way. Hopefully enough children will be raised in the old way and it will be obvious the new age Scooby Doo crew wound up miserable and half insane by their 50's and should not be emulated.
Your final sentence strikes me as acute. Social goods are as carefully rationed as economic ones. Late imperial Panem is getting very Roman in a peculiarly ugly way.
Roman law made a careful distinction between the children of the free and the servile. Corrupting the former was a serious criminal offence, doing so to the latter was not an offence, it was practically expected. The fact that the regime now makes it a point of policy to celebrate the corruption of the children of the many, while those regime members who can do so move heaven and earth to shield their own kids says rather a lot. And you are more likely to find old fashioned approaches amongst the elite than anywhere else, with the exception of marginal religious groups and other fringe-dwellers. Safety (like privacy) is a caste-marker.
After writing that, I realized that humans, as described in this thread, have become like bees. Only the queens have baby bees. The rest are workers and drones.
No wonder we are moving so rapidly into the WEF plan for a global hive mind.
What we are seeing is a reversion to norms/expectations before the era of mass prosperity. The financial stability necessary for family formation and fecundity is no longer available to an increasing proportion of the population. The regime will source future workers from overseas, thereby saving itself the cost of managing the economy to serve the interests of working families. The population being replaced locally will increasingly be drawn from the privileged orders.
The regime also correctly perceives that there are advantages in ensuring that the children that the sub-elite do have are raised with maximal exposure to both family fragility and regime-compliant interventions by teachers, family and community services and social workers. The future helots will be steered into the dysfunctions and sub-optimal behaviours that are suitable for their station.
Insightful comment and I missed one hell of a comments section! Wanted to throw this in:
"To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are things."
—Andrea Dworkin
The (liberal) left has gone too far. Society has been re-engineered to turn women’s sexuality into an industry. Whether it is women prostituting themselves independently or being pimped by organizations like OnlyFans, women’s bodies have been commodified.
> There's just a massive network of sites/apps now that serve to generate male attention and then to steer it to monetization venues.
This is one of the saddest elements of all to me. An entire generation of women have been systematically trained to think of themselves as commercial products. I don't think it's farfetched to say that these women are no longer capable of healthy relationships with people, because they've been trained to see all of these relationships as instrumental channels to acquire money.
> In any case, I think the question raised by Niccolo is the right one -- what does this say about men? Men are the ones fueling this. If there were not the demand from men for all of this stuff, women wouldn't be doing it and wouldn't be able to do it.
I agree that this is true in a sense, but I lay the blame at women (or, if we're being very precise, the specific subset of men that have trained them to act this way). I didn't engage with men on the site so I don't have as much data on them. But the handful of men I've met (outside of the site) who have gone on those sites have all said the same thing: "I make two hundred thousand dollars a year working at $TECH_COMPANY, and I haven't been on a date in five years. I'm tired of getting ghosted on okcupid, why not leverage the one thing I'm good at (making money) to help me out?"
The attitude is very much a "I hate this, I wish it wasn't like this, but this is the only way I will ever acquire female attention". Yes, it is true that if men stopped paying for this, women would stop acting this way. But, at least from the perspective of the men I know, they don't have alternatives. The women doing these things could stop and find dates / hookups / relationships / marriages like tomorrow, if they wanted to.
To be clear, when I signed up for this site, I was not trying to find dates, and I was quite upfront about that. I am not interested in any kind of relationship like you're describing, for exactly the reasons you're describing!
> People are generally more receptive to taking a critical view of these kinds of things from a perspective that centers abuse of women, but if the perspective is on women abusing men who are kind of lining up to be abused ... well, I don't think you get much uptake on that culturally, either from men or from women, and that's regardless of political/social "orientation" or creed.
I think it is broadly accurate to describe some of the behaviours (not all, because of the self-inflicted wound nature of the problem) on these sites as abusive towards men. But the problem is that one of the most important elements of the male gender role is strength, and if a man is 'abused' by a bunch of women on a website, he's seen as weak and undesireable. Which reduces his prospects for finding an actual date, and makes "just pay for it" a more desireable alternative. It's a self-reinforcing spiral
But, one of the most frustrating parts of witnessing this social trend is that I legitimately think it's abusive to women as well. They're all choosing to do it, and could stop tomorrow if they wanted to, so I'm not sympathetic. But it's very clear that these women are being gaslit by society into going down paths that they will regret later in life, once it's too late to change things, and this will cause them all kinds of future suffering.
The most Patriarchal societies in history sooner or later, or the most tolerant sooner or later, or the most matriarchal societies < <<<we are there now must sooner or later hold even women responsible, just as sometimes we must try and punish children as adults.
You are letting them off the hook, which is exactly how we got here.
Responsibility...the ultimate trigger word. The greatest taboo of sexual politics is that of the real role of women in patriarchal societies. Abusive relationships between mother and daughter in laws or the role of women in shaping male behaviour are inconceivably sensitive. Arabs and South Asians will (very privately and cautiously) occasionally acknowledge this, but Western feminists cannot.
Watching female spectators at a single boxing match is worth more than a four to six years of grad school studies in gender theory. Ditto a single look at the stats on the breakdown by gender of homicides who have killed small children. And whatever you do...never, ever, mention the depth of female support for you know who in the 30s and 40s.
The cause is simple: lifetime saturation in infotainment, now increasingly delivered via social media which enables people to become performers. Actors and actresses are often at risk of becoming unbalanced because they are involved in a psychic exchange with audiences that are present in their minds imaginatively. The immersion in the dematerialised but interactive experiences of social media enable a related form of unreal 'relationships' to form. The standard preoccupations about personal appearance, attraction, validation and recognition all come into play. This is not healthy.
I'd expect that clinicians would already be seeing some psychic trauma. This will build over time. Privacy and intimacy are integral to pair-bonding amongst primates. The collision of expectations shaped by infotainment and pornography, plus the social media e-whoring, with the realities of fertility, physical decay and the need for enduring emotional validation will be truly brutal.
Eventually, there will be a reaction but it may take half-a generation before any significant signs of this emerge. Organised religion will take on a new lustre and there will be a bifurcation between new reactionaries who value pair-bonding and fertility and the rest. The social value of women who have not e-whored themselves will surely rise.
It will probably happen fast and ugly Philip. Or not at all.
How did we get here and has it happened before, and how to fix?
In Ireland the Penal Laws destroyed the Father and so the nuclear family. The results are what Swift was on about in Modest Proposal.
Later - The Australian government forcibly married unmarried women off the boat on the docks.
We know most were Irish. I actually support this then and now, and would implement in America.
The Irish essentially rebuilt the family and the Father in America and Ireland by Draconian social pressures and some laws in the 19th century. The Irish were in the same situation with same results the Blacks are now, and the rest of us are falling.
🇺🇸Blacks began the 60s in a weaker position. Fell faster.
🇺🇸 now in USA- This is partially No fault Divorce, but mostly at the working class level its Welfare. The system mostly pays AFDC - aid for families with dependent children- which means Single moms. If the father remains in the House the AFDC is cut dramatically.
What this means is the poverty line is when welfare stops paying and the Father starts paying * , which is $60,000 or more.
This means the Father must earn $60,000 or more to be a better deal economically then not being in the house and being unmarried. > this is the effect of the Penal Laws with Carrot instead of sticks.
(The Irish Penal Laws for review stated no Irish Catholic could own more than 5 pounds, own a horse or donkey, or a sword, etc.
So the man can’t be a Father. )
In America this was done by carrot $$ not Stick, but the effects are the same.
The women of those times often did the same, without the Internet.
“Molly” until the 20th Century meant ☘️ Prostitute.
Had you told anyone in the 18th or 19th centuries the Irish would become known as good family men they would have laughed you out the door.
So yes folks its been done before, it was fixed before, it takes Force, Society, Government and God, Religion to fix the problem.
It takes men.
It takes a Belt perhaps.
(F--k you , we tried it your way).
Then it takes a modest amount of the above to maintain, and yes it takes a Patriarchy.
The long-term erosion of male earnings in real terms has obvious implications for family fragility. The children of the poor do not, as a rule, respect their parents...quite a sensitive issue in consumer-fixated societies and essential for understanding social/welfare policy and educational failure today.
Transforming the white working class along the same lines as the African-American would have been understood in a heartbeat by the early 20th c. socialists (whose memories are damned by economists and academics on account of their racism and chauvinsm). Today it is unmentionable, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Such problems led me to conclude long ago that my thinking on social policy was flawed...things need to be redefined. A problem imposes a cost or inconvenience for those who count, when it does so for those who don't it is not a problem, just a fact of life. Ergo the growing instability of family life in the West cannot be a problem at all, since the best people enjoy the security in which to successfully rear children. Needless to say, applying insights from Darwin or Malthus to such matters is never appreciated. I once worked directly for femocrats...I can assure you I understand these things viscerally across all dimensions, from the time series analysis of wages through to the examination of equity data. No one on the planet loathes social engineering the way I do.
One reason why Putin's Russia is a truly potent threat is that Russian policy is pro-social and pro-family. An economic model that is self-consciously hetero-normative and pro-natal is even more of an enemy than Marxism ever was. Its attraction to the middle classes across Asia and Latin America is inexhaustible, which is why State and CIA are pushing hard on gender fluidity and girl-power.
Just had a brief look at the stats. In 2021 the annual median male wage in the US is about $50,000. The kooks who fill up the social policy world are not allowed to do any damage unless the number crunchers have calculated the results to within a few decimal points, so the true aims and effects of welfare-financed social disruption would be perfectly understood at the top.
The US will either become a woke/soy hermit kingdom or it returns to a species of normality in order to compete industrially/militarily. To stay on top Turbo America will need engineers and physicists and competent mechanics in large numbers (sorry ladies). I suspect that there are weird, unacknowledged, currents of thought and feeling at work too and that the constituencies that could flip the regime extend across many sectors. I once read that ex-President Soetoro was a fan of THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE...this had me laughing. The aesthetics of the show suggested that the producers were aware of the appeal an ordered, high performing, society with a non-prole culture might hold, but the prospects for a Wakandan themed Reich (Soetoro's real world preferences) are very poor indeed. Reality is offensive, but it just won't go away.
The euthanasia of the New Deal will take a while to take effect, but the needle is already in and it will sting.
Brother, you are living in a fantasy world if you think “the current generation of 20-something women have, across the board” done this. Do you understand you are implying a majority of 20-something women? I will grant you some serious hyperbole, but I think you are off by orders of magnitude. If you had data that suggested there was a 3x rate of this from 10 years ago, for example, sure, I can buy that.
I'd agree that it certainly isn't a majority of women at any age, but I don't think this matters much.
It isn't a majority of women who participate in internet porn, either, but that doesn't mean that internet porn hasn't been massively influential on men, women, the dating and sex interfaces and the like. More women are participating in this "non-porn"-yet-lurid world than are participating in porn, for the obvious reason that it doesn't require of them what actual porn performance does, but my sense is that it isn't anything close to a majority that is participating. And it doesn't need to be for the behavior to cast a very wide influence on both sexes, and it is certainly doing that.
I see your concern, but I suggest you dial in the hyperbole since you clearly do not have any idea what the actual numbers are. "Your sense" may or may not bear any relation to how widespread any of this is, let alone be a good predictor of comparing the imagined populations of each category to each other.
Not trying to dismiss your concerns with an obsession for accuracy, but the way you are presenting this is very similar to how the legacy media sensationalizes things.
The failures will surely come in waves, some supersized. Personally, I am hoping that some public spirited soul in military intelligence will leak whatever it takes to bring the Big Guy (Biden) down but this isa long shot. If the Republicans go for impeachment, Biden will go for war to misdirect everyone.
The UK SAS are White Gurkhas serving the Turbo American Raj. The cult of special forces has very deep appeal across the Anglo-Saxon world because the Anglosphere lacks the capacity for large-scale heavy infantry warfare. Daring-do appeals to the Hollywood sensibility of the Western politicians, public and military leadership but I am certain that the Russians would have thought long and hard how to counter the next NATO/Ukrainian offensive.
The argument that NATO wants to strengthen the Ukrainians for the sake of negotiations is ridiculous. NATO has been 100% consistent in its unwillingness to facilitate/support negotiations of any sort. Bojo talked Zelenskiy out of implementing the peace deal with Russia negotiated in Istanbul.
The political economy of the Stanford Sugar Babies embodies the biopolitics of Leviathan/Cthulhu.
Social media enables the elite Sugar Babies to commercialise their sexuality and exploit men who cannot expect to form families of their own. The Sugar Babies will get pregnant with medical intervention at an advanced age or will adopt a child from the developing world. The psychic coarsening involved in e-whoring will fortify their feminist conviction that men are pigs. The men will help to form the sub-proletariat that will be replaced in time by further waves of replacement immigration. In Clown World even vice is fake, ghey and Woke.
There is a very good video talking about the so-called Chinese social credit system by Brian Berletic at the New Atlas channel on YT, which he says is not a single unified system but is rather piecemeal and applied often for what we call criminal behaviour, such as travelling on trains without a ticket etc.
China's "Social Credit Score System" - Fact or Fiction?
Thinking about it, I reckon that the collective elite in the West is projecting onto China their own tendency of what they would like to do to us, and that such a system may well come into effect here in the medium term.
I still feel that (and I say this with little knowledge of China at all) we have overestimated their strength. The 'Zero Covid' strategy has undoubtedly damaged them and there must be information trickling in from the West to show that our returning to 'normal' hasn't caused us all to drop dead in droves. Although the CCP must maintain face I do wonder if there is a gradual realisation amongst the Chinese that their rulers have got it seriously wrong.
The system you describe does indeed sound more likely - China has more then a billion citizens and even with modern processing power that is a vast number to control. Then again, I enjoyed the thrill of watching Minority Report, thinking that it would never happen. Now there are houses in my street covered in CCTV and with camera *doorbells* for God's sake.
all of them!
Hit the like button above to like this entry and use the share button to share this across social media.
Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so (be nice!), and please subscribe if you haven't done so already.
Wonder if the formal metric of getting [slightly] ratioed is a thing when it comes to substacks 🤔😉
If it doesn't exist right now, it will be someday. Some things are inevitable.
UK?
Oh, yea
OK
US has weapons inspectors to make sure no corruption happening 🤣
They’re Inspectors
Again I wish I were corrupt.
Sigh.
A romantic version of me redoing the glory days in Eastern Europe.
Weapons, War, Broads...money I suppose. Sigh.
Be careful what you wish for! More tears are said for answered prayers than for unanswered ones.
The real corruption is to be found with the do-gooders, the idealists and the well-meaning...no weapons except mission-statements, values and PR...no war except passive-aggression and endless meetings...and the broads would have degrees in human rights law. The money, however, would be plentiful of course.
Seriously;
My rule of war if I decide is reduce to resources conflict (IT ALWAYS IS) including land, political power which are resources.
Then fight on this sane, limited basis established and accordingly SANE gains and settlement is possible.
======
Any Do Gooders, reporters or NGOs will be warned to vanish or they will.
=====
The Sri Lankans beat the Tigers when they saw off the outsiders.
Very fast. Artillery works.
COIN doesn’t.
Do you think for a state to exist with a modicum of social order, digitization is inevitable? Can social credit systems be used to foster a environment that creates the grounds for more families? I know China is ramping up its efforts of raising its birth rates by reigning in on single women in cities. Of course there's mass digitization in America and Canada, but its not wielded for the purpose of creating a family friendly environment, quite the opposite.
Look at what's happening in Iran. If you are a country that's apart of the axis of resistance to liberal universalism, protecting your population from the internet of the West seems paramount. America doesn't need to do 80s style regime change when they can brainwash your children abroad with liberal ideals via social media.
National Internets have been predicted for some time now, with China leading the way.
I think both China and Hungary are on the cutting edge of this.
The US has been talking about using Starlink to break into Iran’s national internet. I don’t know nearly enough about the technology to comment on this further but national or regional internets seem inevitable now as a bulwark against US tech dominance. Tech dorks like Balaji Srinivasan with their ideas like dispersed network states simply don’t understand how the world works in practice and what states will do the shore up sovereignty.
Excellent point.
Absolutely
This. Going further than “cesspool” comparison, what internet has become is what Niccolo has talked about in his previous post. In reality, I feel that aside from once or twice a week reacting to the Substack notification, the whole internet experience has became obsolete for me in any way other than using it as a utility. I’m old enough to remember the original promise and excitement of internet as a platform, about everything that technology should’ve fixed for us and it basically turned into a turd we live today. I never thought, though, it would turn into something one has to actively work on in effort to limit the damage. Limit the exposure, limit the impact of it on yours and the lives of people you care about. I built my career in tech companies and am genuinely thinking about a way to raise my kids outside of the confines it now provides.
It's a tale as old as time: new tool is developed, people use it in different ways for their own purposes.
Absolutely, although I think this time there are a few differences. Arguably any other large technological advancement, as inevitable as it looks now, did leave some space to opting out. What we see now makes any alternative almost entirely unworkable: cash only, burner phones, CCTV avoidance. And whether or not you provide the iris scan voluntarily, someone will take good enough photo of it with 100 megapixel that it won’t matter. It starts with surveillance - ends when all that data starts being used in a way much more sinister than guiding your shopping or political preferences.
Need social credit system to punsh simping and E-ho's
based
So the USA is so keen on preventing any single power from dominating Eurasia that its aggression will force its enemies into a single alliance that dominates Eurasia. I guess if that happens, then it was inevitable either way.
What interests me is the anti-nuclear stance of the West, which I now clearly see probably originates in the United States. Obviously, if America starts building nuke plants, the rest of the West will want to build them, too. But if all of the American allies reach energy self-sufficiency via nuclear power, they're no longer dependent on American energy exports. So the USA cannot build nuke plants at home for fear of seeing them crop up in places that it wants to be dependent.
Hubris - https://niccolo.substack.com/p/hubris
Are we actually building any nuke plants? I see this as a conman’s trick to destroy hydrocarbons.
Destroy hydrocarbons? No way. It is about depressing the price of selected hydrocarbon assets for the benefit of potential purchasers with deep pockets and long-term ambitions. It resembles the relationship between idealistic philanthropists, FIRE and the urban arsonists.
Yes, I will clarify.
After the herd is culled that is we deplorables have our numbers reduced, there will be an explosion of the USA hydrocarbons industry.
Just as the Irish wool industry took off in the mid 19th century after some unfortunate events cleared the way for sheep 🐑.
The model worked in England since the Middle Ages. Well enough for export. They do not call it the Anglosphere for nothing.
The post-reduction deplorables may well become the much-patronised yokels whose folk-ways will get rehabilitated as ethnic chic. The red baseball cap may yet become the leisure wear for the grandchildren of the current generation of Silicon Valley disruptors and NGO activists. In her old age Greta Thunberg will get tormented by the strains of country music.
The USA is not building any nuclear plants. It cannot allow them to be built, or else everybody ELSE will want nuke plants, and there goes dependency on American energy.
Oddly enough, it seems that we're letting Japan get away with it. I wonder why, though? Perhaps the American elites are thinking this:
1. We're not afraid that anybody will emulate the Japanese. If the USA builds nuke plants, other countries will follow suit, but Japan won't have that effect.
2. We don't need Japan to be dependent on our energy because we don't doubt their loyalty. They're sufficiently frightened of China to want us around.
I was under the impression that the US nuclear plants are aging and increasingly unsafe. The licenses for their operation have been extended. Westinghouse and others are unwilling to invest in new nuclear infrastructure because of perceived political risk.
When the time comes the Russians will rebuild the US nuclear infrastructure. They have the capacity to do so. This will repay favours of old: US engineers and geologists played a very big role in the Soviet oil industry in the 20s and 30s. The father of the Koch brothers made his fortune (lost to Standard Oil) under Stalin.
No, we aren't. The real forward motion looks like it's in "transitionals" like biogas... Which can allow Big Ag to enter into the energy production business. Even that, is honestly, a big wild card.
Stock prices for uranium mining/nuke plant stuff skyrocketing over the last calendar year don't factor as reflective of future trends. It's my understanding that it's hard to profit from nuclear power generation... And smart money realizes that as the natives here get less "complex", they will just be hugely dangerous liabilities. I see a lot of this as a fad that's captured young rich adults and the very online who aren't sold on renewables, but can't lose face by appearing to submit to Halliburton.
Oh, what is up with this weird about-face on cold fusion all of a sudden? LOL
I think our boy Justin Hedges has no idea of the fire he is playing with.
Britain just cannot accept its diminished place in the world, just another nation state albeit a large one.
As for their organising of the new Gladio, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Not that they would not try. Here comes the controversial part - UK Deep State ran death squads in Ulster in 1970s & 1980s. Loyalist militants could never create viable big bombs but in one year, bombs in Dublin twice, and in border towns and villages saw multiple deaths, and a decision by southern govt to actively repress republicans...they got the message. Of course loyalist planted the bombs but could not have made them. This is at last being discussed in South. Survivor of ambush of band called Miami, presumed dead, said their bus was stopped by Ulster Defence Regiment checkpoint and while playing dead he heard a British officer accent giving orders. Google Nairac, Glennane Gang, Billy Wright, Pat Finucane lawyer, RUC collusion with Loyalists etc. This s**t is second nature to them.
It never seems to occur that Islamic militants could be funded and armed by Russia and infiltrated into UK. The post Sinn Fein IRA is gathering recruits but not arms due to US, Libya pipeline being closed off. Maybe a few Javelins would come in handy, or manpads? With Anglo empire it is all tactics, little thought of blowback.
we wuz kingz seems to be addictive, and like a famous rock star getting older and irrelevant, they never get over it
Gladio is a never-ending source of revelations, isn't it? My understanding is that towards the end the UK was beginning to win in the North after they began targeting the families of Sinn Fein leaders. The pressure came off when the Yanks got Tony Blair to go soft and agree to the Anglo-Irish treaty. Not that I want to be nasty or to take sides, but if Dublin actively repressed nationalists in response to the Brits organising a few bombings, then the UK initiative worked at least on a short term basis.
Since we are on the subject, do you think that the IRA really killed Mountbatten? My hunch is that he was killed by the Brits or the Yanks when they concluded that he may have been blackmailed into espionage on behalf of the Soviets (M. was the perfect target for blackmail, given his sexuality, and he was perfectly placed to hand over state secrets when he was commander in chief in the Far East). My operating assumption is that the Cambridge spies bull-shit was used to cover up the hunt for the really serious traitors.
I very much doubt that the Russians are arming Islamic militants...that is MI6 and CIA territory. In North Africa Russia supports the Algerians and, presumably, the remains of Gadaffi's support base.
There in a school of thought that the IRA was riddled with informers (our national curse/shame in all ages) and were able to take out those opposed to the McGuinness/Adams peace/politics faction. The most prominent was Scappaticci, the IRA head of internal security, ideally placed to denounce top operators opposed to McG/Adams policy. His codename was Stakeknife. There is a strong idea lately that Mountbatten was attracted to very very young males, and was doubly subject to blackmail. Young Irish writer David Burke apparently claims he can link him to Kincora Boys Home scandal. His killing was an fascinating case as it is accepted that PIRA decided early on that any action v Royals would be disastrous for them. But he was still pretty live in intelligence as an eminence grise despite his age. Thomas McMahon of IRA was convicted in Dublin on involvement in his killing. So on balance Provos did it. Yep, the Brits scared our govt into Draconian measures on foot of bombings in Republic, it worked. No matter what is said, terror often works. When PIRA shifted to commercial targets in London e.g. Baltic Exchange, Canary Wharf, it produced a stasis where Blair could step in and say it's time. PIRA was looking for a credible way out, Clinton was interested, Dublin was interested. Stars aligned.
My suspicions re Mountbatten relate to the fact that a) Stalin got his hands on Churchill's plan for a post-war invasion (can't have been too many on the distribution list for that one), b) the Royals were intimately connected to the UK intelligence services, c) the Royal Household was actively penetrated by the Soviets (Blunt), d) the Soviets got their hands on copies of the correspondence between the Royals and several of their cousins in Hesse-Darmstadt (Blunt's work) and this alone could have been used to blackmail M., e) M. was undeniably blackmailable on sexual grounds, f) the counter-intelligence people were closing in during the 70s when they could have used the intrigues against Harold Wilson to smoke M. out (when MI5/6 offered M. the regency during a hypothetical coup).
Killing M. would have been an easy decision, no different from Airey Neave, Aldo Moro and a few others. In my (perhaps paranoid) world-view the natural suspects for any assassination are the friends/allies.
Positive ID isn’t a problem, unless you’re a spy or criminal. Scores of your characteristics are arcane, but not a problem. We all use our own scoring systems to choose friends, business associates, foods, entertainment, and every other thing we do. The problems arise when tyrants in government or powerful corporations use those scores to attack us. As Reagan taught, government is the problem, not the solution. We can avoid or resist getting the formal identifications and scores, but they happen below the covers whether we participate or not. The solution is demanding government that treats everyone fairly, not constructing new mechanisms to abuse us. It won’t end with IDs. Constant vigilance is the price of liberty.
Are you serious or seriously signaling conformance?
Of course ID is a problem, unless you’re voting Democrat
Do you have a bank account? Passport? Use a credit card? We're constantly ID'd. Not a problem for legitimate purpose. ID is like guns or cars or 2x4s or anything else, not a problem until it gets misused.
Its grossly abused
"We all use our own scoring systems to choose friends, business associates, foods, entertainment, and every other thing we do."
Yes, when I met my wife and my best friends I entered all their attributes into the handy 36-line spreadsheet I carry with me everywhere, so I could score them all on everything from height to scent to how loudly they laugh at my jokes. I have also informed them I will be regrading them on an annual basis and they could be replaced if I meet someone else who exceeeds their scores.
Slapping a subjective number on everyone and everything is the price of liberty!
These people...exist... we have both met them ...
met them...and ran the other way!
I think psychiatrists call that anal retention. But even with less obsessive methods, we do all keep a mental spreadsheet of our relationships. But our purposes are usually less pernicious than government. The problem isn't what we collect, but why.
If collected will be abused.
The same privacy laws and restrictions on government, corporations and persons need to be applied to digital tools, they are only tools.
As far as the collection, harvesting of information and big data - in addition to privacy laws we have the 4th Amendment, 5th, and 13th Amendment concerning these matters. Just as the 2d Amendment doesn’t just apply to muskets and swords - new ways of spying do not change our rights.
Already has been collected and already being abused. The only useful countermeasure is managing the government closely. We tend to ignore government and become surprised when they abuse us. That's pretty much inevitable if we leave them to their own devices. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Getting swatted because your social credit score dipped too low after that totally yikers comment you made is the price of liberty
We don't have those here, and my goal is to make sure we never do. But if I get swatted, my inclination is to swat back. But liberty can have much higher costs than a little swatting. Often does.
thanks for answering my question! I think that the purpose of the social credit system is more or less the same, but certainly we do not have the type of punishments for a low credit score in the West (yet). Though of course the inability to acquire a car and a home can lead to a de facto travel ban, school ban, reduced employment prospects, increased scrutiny and, yes, even public shaming. I suppose the real question is to what degree the Chinese state enforces its system, whether it's easy to get around, etc. For some aspects of the biodigital surveillance regime in Canada, for example the vaccine passports, these were easy to get around without any repercussions if you were a bit motivated/
I went to a fairly conservative Catholic college in the USA. The message board for alums that I used to frequent has gone full Blue Anon. Any deviation is met with an avalanche of browbeaters. Once I fairly innocently and jokingly posted a NY Times article that indicated the fears of violence in South Africa related to Zuma's arrest were unfounded. This was funny because a few hours after the article was posted mass riots broke out.
By the reaction of the other posters you'd have thought I linked a video of myself butchering a kitten.
This made me wonder, Darren Beattie style, whether selective schools' message boards are fertile place for paid regime influencers to be operating.
Paid influencers work the proles, the elite-adjacent police each other. The status anxieties over luxury beliefs are strong enough to guarantee vigorous enforcement without the cost of paying influencers a penny.
A half-way enterprising alum should develop a business model in which people pay to police themselves and each other. Whoever can do this will join the 1%.
My take: your grand children are doomed
Can you imagine the kids of tomorrow looking up social media archives and watching old videos of mommy or grandma making some cash as Sugar Babies?
Or taking a DNA test and using a special software program to investigate biodigital surveillance archives and identifying likely fathers (who may or may not have transitioned into mothers)?
Or what happens when the kids at school download an old video of a class mate's mommy or grandma and use the imagery to create an avatar? Throw in the availability of interactive intimate clothing (digital fetish-wear) connected to the internet and it could get truly brutal. Oversexed trolls and social media hacking...what could go wrong? Things were simpler when kids looked up rude words in the dictionary.
There’s not gonna be that long.
Either we make it or no Grandchildren.
Back in April, at the suggestion of some random guy I met at a happy hour, I tried signing up for seeking.com (the most popular sugar daddy site). My goal was essentially information gathering.
EDIT: To be clear, I was not signing up to this site to find dates. I signed up for this site to message random women on the site and ask them about their experiences on the site, out of morbid curiousity. During my time on the site, I went on dates with two women. Both of whom I was upfront about not being a sugar daddy, and neither of whom I gave any money. Both of them didn't go anywhere
On the site, I messaged a bunch of women and just asked them about their experiences. What I found was so shocking that it prompted me to start attending a church.
In short:
* A shockingly large percentage of zoomer women (possibly as high as 5% in my city) have tried this at least once. To put concrete numbers on it, there's about ~1200 profiles, active in the last year, under the age of 30, in my city. My city has about ~30,000 women in that age bracket.
* The women are sociopathic about it and are motivated by making assloads of money. "Pay my rent for me" is widely considered to be the _minimum_ that you pay a girl.
* There is no expectation of exclusivity and a large majority of the women are open about "non-monogamy" or "no strings attached". This means that she is likely getting her rent paid by several different men at the same time. We're talking like at least 5 grand a month for any women taking the site seriously
* A lot of them seem to think they can get that money for purely platonic relationships. I can't tell if they're serious, or if this is just part of the doublethink that they do so they don't have to think of themselves as prostitutes. However, I point blank asked two women about this and they both aggressively insisted that there's lots of men on the site who are totally fine with paying for a purely platonic relationship
* A lot of them don't care about prostituting themselves, and see it as no-big-deal easy money. Most of them seem legitimately unaware that this behaviour will sabotage their long term serious relationship prospects, and the ones with more self-awareness about it just plan to lie to any future partners.
* Maybe 30-50% of the local escorts listed on tryst, slixa, etc., are also on seeking and using it to drum up prostitution business.
* There is no stigma whatsoever to doing this, to the point that women will actively encourage their friends to try it. They seem to treat it about the same way that girls treated getting a nose piercing, when I was in highschool, like it's a milestone that literally everyone tries at some point in their lives.
* The women all absolutely hate their sugar daddies. They don't respect them, and they mock them behind their backs for "being so pathetic they have to pay for sex". They see nothing morally wrong with blatantly lying to these men. They see nothing morally wrong with pretending they're exclusive. They see nothing wrong with overtly abusing or taking advantage of the men they're seeing. They see nothing wrong with trying to withhold sex and renege on their deals after they get the money. Their attitude is almost like "well if this dude is stupid enough to believe my lies, he deserves lies"
* A bunch of women on these sites appear to be doing it not for the money, and not for the relationships, but purely as social clout for bragging, eg "I'm so hot, there's 50 guys who will pay a thousand bucks just to spend the night with me, right now".
* Ironically, a large majority of the women on these sites seem to put zero effort into it. They'll post one or two shitty pictures they took in their bathrooms, write a one-sentence profile of boilerplate, and act like this entitles them to a six figure income. Basically the same thing you see on Tinder, except Tinder doesn't come with an expectation that you'll give her several hundred dollars cash in an envelope when you show up for the date
* The women on this site for the most part seem to have absolutely no idea what their own SMVs are. There's just about zero correlation between physical attractiveness and the amount of money they expect. You've got pudgy mid 5/10s acting like insufferable hot girls, and mind-blowingly beautiful 10/10s who, at least from their profiles, seem like nice, sweet women.
* A very large number of the women on that site are also active on other dating sites, and they don't draw a meaningful distinction between 'sugar dating' and 'regular dating'. In practice, this means that a lot of these women are approaching tinder/etc with the same attitude. The next time you get ghosted on Tinder, remember that she probably ghosted you for a guy who will pay $500 ppm (pay-per-meet)
The overwhelming impression I got from this experiment is that the current generation of 20-something women have, across the board, fully internalized both a) that their only value to society is as a sex object/prostitute; and b) that this is the only value they'll ever need. These people have been turned into toxic sociopaths incapable of having health, loving, mutually supportive relationships. They have dramatically inflated ideas of their own sexual market value, and absurdly unrealistic standards.
I don't know what massive social failure has caused this state of affairs, but it is an extremely big problem
Fascinating stuff. Thank you. What does this say about men?
For many, maybe most, it is just a further extension of the fact that reality is now routinely mediated, rather than experienced directly. The physical remoteness of the social media Sugar Babies ensures that any social failure or emotional harm can be terminated immediately by pressing a button. This establishes a reassuring degree of control, albeit at the expense of intimacy and realism. So there is a degree of convenience and emotional safety of a sort.
We will do, say, or pay just about anything, lie, grovel, cheat, steal, build and/or destroy, endure any burden or humiliation (even up to getting a job, a haircut and taking a shower), in the hopes of scoring some sweet young tail.
Breaking News!
I've thought a lot about that but the short answer is "I don't know". I didn't look at any male profiles, so all I have to go on is generalizing my own experience (dangerous on a good day) and the handful of things women told me about other men on that site.
One thing that was immediately noteworthy is how much attention I got on that site. I posted one real photo (the same photo that gets zero likes on all the other apps), filled out a generic two-sentence profile (something about going to raves I think), and honestly answered the questions about net worth
(I have been a software engineer for 12 years, and after getting lucky on some startup stocks I've done fairly well for myself. Prior to covid destroying the world economy, my net worth was high six figures).
On that site, I would receive anywhere from about 1 to 6 new messages per day. That is, women taking initiative and messaging me. Almost all of these women were attractive. Many of them were women I would ignore, because they were obvious spammers or because they couldn't use proper grammar or because they just weren't as good as the others messaging me. I got the sense that this is how women experience apps like Tinder, and that gave a weird clarity to some other things.
But the thing is, I'm not particularly attractive, I'm not particularly cool, and amongst my white-collar professional friends I'm one of the least successful people I know. It doesn't make sense to me that I would get so much attention on a site like that after putting in zero effort. So I conclude two possibilities:
1) There are very few _actually_ rich people on that site, and most of the men on that site are like shitty douchebag bros who get a $5k bonus and try to pretend to be rich until it runs out;
or, more likely, 2) There's actually more women than men on this site.
(2) is consistent with the reactions I got when telling people about this experiment IRL. Most of the women I've told have been kind of aloof and neutral about the whole thing. Most of the men I've told were shocked and surprised and insisted they would never do such a thing. But who knows. I have no sense of relative gender balance on this site, and a lot of this is speculation
I would not be surprised in the slightest if most of the guys on this site are scumbags, but my gut check is that all of the dynamics on this site are being driven by women, with men opportunistically coming along to pay for their needs to be met
Several years ago (7 or 8 I guess) I read that Italians decided (at some point) in order to escape the stigma of prostitution the only appropriate/acceptable gifts for a man to give his lover are books. I really wish I could find the reference to this but I’ve been looking and haven’t managed to find it again. As a general policy it seems sound.
That seems weird. Why would there be any stigma in giving a woman flowers, jewelry or perfume or in a woman receiving them? If the Italians of all people have become this joylessly puritanical, there is no hope left. We are living in a world fast being drained of charm and delight.
It has to be seen in connection with the rest of the related internet. Instagram, TikTok and Twitch provide a highway that leads to OnlyFans, Fansly and Seeking. There's just a massive network of sites/apps now that serve to generate male attention and then to steer it to monetization venues. It's very large now, and it has grown to be that way with almost no discussion or scrutiny because discussing this kind of thing generally makes people uncomfortable for various reasons.
The women aren't lying when they say that many men will pay $$$ without expecting much in return. This is also the case with the other monetization sites, like OnlyFans and what have you. As the Stanford Sugar Babies article points out, sexting itself (just text, no photos/video chat or anything like that) is very lucrative in itself, and plenty of OnlyFans sites don't have any actual porn (meaning nudity) on them, but are quite successful at securing substantial sums from men for slightly racier material than is permitted on Instagram that occupies a kind of grey zone between that, on the one hand, and nudity/porn, on the other.
In any case, I think the question raised by Niccolo is the right one -- what does this say about men? Men are the ones fueling this. If there were not the demand from men for all of this stuff, women wouldn't be doing it and wouldn't be able to do it. In the context of an internet that is saturated with "free" porn, it isn't sexual titillation the men are seeking. It's some kind of pseudo-connection, clearly, even if its strictly virtual or "platonic" or what have you, depending on the site. Men are ... in trouble currently, I think. The problem, however, is that it is very hard to see this as anything other than a self-inflicted wound -- even if that is only partially true, and there are many other factors at play (and I think there are), it's just a hard-sell to anyone that it's anything worth anyone being concerned about from the perspective of the men involved.
People are generally more receptive to taking a critical view of these kinds of things from a perspective that centers abuse of women, but if the perspective is on women abusing men who are kind of lining up to be abused ... well, I don't think you get much uptake on that culturally, either from men or from women, and that's regardless of political/social "orientation" or creed.
Solid post, thank you. Something is definitely broken.
Covid took what was happening and floored the gas. When everything became virtual, even a platonic relationship with an e-girl became desirable when no one could make any connections at all.
Something that happened during covid that I think is incredibly insidious and under-discussed is the strategic partnership that the Biden administration made with dating apps.
Every single dating app has a whole bunch of covid-specific stuff in it, and they did this directly at the request of the government. Everything from 'covid dating preferences' (which admit "meet outside" and "meet virtually" but don't even have an option for "meet in person like a normal date"), vaccine badges, all that kind of stuff.
As far as I'm concerned, what happened was pure evil. First, the government forced lockdowns on us, which made it impossible to meet people or find relationships, except via apps on the internet. Then, they pulled connections on those apps to make those apps force covid stuff on us, and to aggressively exert social pressure for us to conform.
The net result is that the United States Government essentially said "you don't get to find love unless you get the vax first". The government is weaponizing fundamental human relationships in order to coerce and enforce us into compliance with domestic policy. This is the most evil thing I've ever seen
The physical presence or witness of another is essential, and still people can physically have sex and it be basically masturbatory (this includes heterosexual intercourse), the preference of more and more of us today to be removed from any possibility of relatedness is a display of nihilistic retreat and cowardice. It's not that we have forgotten, we actively thwart experience which bares the potential for new life. I'm not only referring to children.
It is an extension of the general retreat from the physical and the real. As the world becomes colder and nastier people retreat into the dematerialised world of social media and the internet. In the future only the privileged will have real lives, the rest will live in pods and will have virtual lives. Cyber communities, families of avatars, e-sexuality. It is very sad.
Nic, are you taking at face value that some giant % of 20-something women are doing this? Please answer Y or N.
I take nothing at face value.
Good, because this is a spectacularly wild comment, without even knowing where Brendan Ross is. Maybe I misunderstood, but I reread it several times.
I wish I lived wherever you live.
I completely believe all of the following:
~5-10% of women under age 30 in my city do this
A significantly larger fraction want to do it, but don't out of social pressure
An even more significantly larger fraction wouldn't ever do it, but essentially approach all other social media apps in the same way.
I hate this, and I wish I could escape it, but it's been like this in every social and physical location I've experienced in my entire adult life and at this point when someone tells me of a place where it's not like this, I just assume they're bs'ing me
"To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are things."
—Andrea Dworkin
The left has gone too far.
Late to the party (family is visiting) and missed one hell of a comment section! Wanted to throw this Dworkin quote in here though.
Interesting to note that many feminists disaffected with current trends in culture are returning to Dworkin.
So are some righties like Ahmari
We stopped being men .
We liberated - abandoned- women.
These women were raised this way by their mothers and the culture, the internet is merely a powerful tool.
Porn as we know it goes back to the Warren Court, for history nerds. Earl Warren said he’d kill anyone who showed his daughter the pictures he was looking at, then they released this Demon onto the General population.
When communities tried to ban it locally the courts stopped them.
This is the price of being law abiding. Part of the price.
Add Divorce, family courts, HR, and many other ills to the price.
There’s none so privileged in our world and society as children raised the old way. None.
Its such an ultimate rebellion nowadays to have some of these traditional values or whatever you want to call them. There used to be more of a "just so" attitude about these things because people had some acceptance of the stability and containment that the patriarchal family provided. I agree that it's a privilege to be raised this way in the world today and it made me a bit more hopeful having it put that way. Hopefully enough children will be raised in the old way and it will be obvious the new age Scooby Doo crew wound up miserable and half insane by their 50's and should not be emulated.
Your final sentence strikes me as acute. Social goods are as carefully rationed as economic ones. Late imperial Panem is getting very Roman in a peculiarly ugly way.
Roman law made a careful distinction between the children of the free and the servile. Corrupting the former was a serious criminal offence, doing so to the latter was not an offence, it was practically expected. The fact that the regime now makes it a point of policy to celebrate the corruption of the children of the many, while those regime members who can do so move heaven and earth to shield their own kids says rather a lot. And you are more likely to find old fashioned approaches amongst the elite than anywhere else, with the exception of marginal religious groups and other fringe-dwellers. Safety (like privacy) is a caste-marker.
Babies?
Marriage?
After writing that, I realized that humans, as described in this thread, have become like bees. Only the queens have baby bees. The rest are workers and drones.
No wonder we are moving so rapidly into the WEF plan for a global hive mind.
I remembered the biblical phrase "Be fruitful and multiply," but didn't know where it appeared. So I looked it up.
It was Genesis 9.
> 1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Nine chapters into a long book. Didn't have to go very far.
So Noah had a flood.
We have a Great Reset.
What we are seeing is a reversion to norms/expectations before the era of mass prosperity. The financial stability necessary for family formation and fecundity is no longer available to an increasing proportion of the population. The regime will source future workers from overseas, thereby saving itself the cost of managing the economy to serve the interests of working families. The population being replaced locally will increasingly be drawn from the privileged orders.
The regime also correctly perceives that there are advantages in ensuring that the children that the sub-elite do have are raised with maximal exposure to both family fragility and regime-compliant interventions by teachers, family and community services and social workers. The future helots will be steered into the dysfunctions and sub-optimal behaviours that are suitable for their station.
Insightful comment and I missed one hell of a comments section! Wanted to throw this in:
"To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are things."
—Andrea Dworkin
The (liberal) left has gone too far. Society has been re-engineered to turn women’s sexuality into an industry. Whether it is women prostituting themselves independently or being pimped by organizations like OnlyFans, women’s bodies have been commodified.
Tell Andrea that’s how men have been seen for most of history.
She wanted equality, here it is...
💯🔥 Bookmarked for [inevitable] future reference 😇
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/saturday-commentary-and-review-104/comment/10250637
> There's just a massive network of sites/apps now that serve to generate male attention and then to steer it to monetization venues.
This is one of the saddest elements of all to me. An entire generation of women have been systematically trained to think of themselves as commercial products. I don't think it's farfetched to say that these women are no longer capable of healthy relationships with people, because they've been trained to see all of these relationships as instrumental channels to acquire money.
> In any case, I think the question raised by Niccolo is the right one -- what does this say about men? Men are the ones fueling this. If there were not the demand from men for all of this stuff, women wouldn't be doing it and wouldn't be able to do it.
I agree that this is true in a sense, but I lay the blame at women (or, if we're being very precise, the specific subset of men that have trained them to act this way). I didn't engage with men on the site so I don't have as much data on them. But the handful of men I've met (outside of the site) who have gone on those sites have all said the same thing: "I make two hundred thousand dollars a year working at $TECH_COMPANY, and I haven't been on a date in five years. I'm tired of getting ghosted on okcupid, why not leverage the one thing I'm good at (making money) to help me out?"
The attitude is very much a "I hate this, I wish it wasn't like this, but this is the only way I will ever acquire female attention". Yes, it is true that if men stopped paying for this, women would stop acting this way. But, at least from the perspective of the men I know, they don't have alternatives. The women doing these things could stop and find dates / hookups / relationships / marriages like tomorrow, if they wanted to.
To be clear, when I signed up for this site, I was not trying to find dates, and I was quite upfront about that. I am not interested in any kind of relationship like you're describing, for exactly the reasons you're describing!
> People are generally more receptive to taking a critical view of these kinds of things from a perspective that centers abuse of women, but if the perspective is on women abusing men who are kind of lining up to be abused ... well, I don't think you get much uptake on that culturally, either from men or from women, and that's regardless of political/social "orientation" or creed.
I think it is broadly accurate to describe some of the behaviours (not all, because of the self-inflicted wound nature of the problem) on these sites as abusive towards men. But the problem is that one of the most important elements of the male gender role is strength, and if a man is 'abused' by a bunch of women on a website, he's seen as weak and undesireable. Which reduces his prospects for finding an actual date, and makes "just pay for it" a more desireable alternative. It's a self-reinforcing spiral
But, one of the most frustrating parts of witnessing this social trend is that I legitimately think it's abusive to women as well. They're all choosing to do it, and could stop tomorrow if they wanted to, so I'm not sympathetic. But it's very clear that these women are being gaslit by society into going down paths that they will regret later in life, once it's too late to change things, and this will cause them all kinds of future suffering.
The women can accept responsibility. They did it.
The most Patriarchal societies in history sooner or later, or the most tolerant sooner or later, or the most matriarchal societies < <<<we are there now must sooner or later hold even women responsible, just as sometimes we must try and punish children as adults.
You are letting them off the hook, which is exactly how we got here.
Responsibility...the ultimate trigger word. The greatest taboo of sexual politics is that of the real role of women in patriarchal societies. Abusive relationships between mother and daughter in laws or the role of women in shaping male behaviour are inconceivably sensitive. Arabs and South Asians will (very privately and cautiously) occasionally acknowledge this, but Western feminists cannot.
Watching female spectators at a single boxing match is worth more than a four to six years of grad school studies in gender theory. Ditto a single look at the stats on the breakdown by gender of homicides who have killed small children. And whatever you do...never, ever, mention the depth of female support for you know who in the 30s and 40s.
The cause is simple: lifetime saturation in infotainment, now increasingly delivered via social media which enables people to become performers. Actors and actresses are often at risk of becoming unbalanced because they are involved in a psychic exchange with audiences that are present in their minds imaginatively. The immersion in the dematerialised but interactive experiences of social media enable a related form of unreal 'relationships' to form. The standard preoccupations about personal appearance, attraction, validation and recognition all come into play. This is not healthy.
I'd expect that clinicians would already be seeing some psychic trauma. This will build over time. Privacy and intimacy are integral to pair-bonding amongst primates. The collision of expectations shaped by infotainment and pornography, plus the social media e-whoring, with the realities of fertility, physical decay and the need for enduring emotional validation will be truly brutal.
Eventually, there will be a reaction but it may take half-a generation before any significant signs of this emerge. Organised religion will take on a new lustre and there will be a bifurcation between new reactionaries who value pair-bonding and fertility and the rest. The social value of women who have not e-whored themselves will surely rise.
It will probably happen fast and ugly Philip. Or not at all.
How did we get here and has it happened before, and how to fix?
In Ireland the Penal Laws destroyed the Father and so the nuclear family. The results are what Swift was on about in Modest Proposal.
Later - The Australian government forcibly married unmarried women off the boat on the docks.
We know most were Irish. I actually support this then and now, and would implement in America.
The Irish essentially rebuilt the family and the Father in America and Ireland by Draconian social pressures and some laws in the 19th century. The Irish were in the same situation with same results the Blacks are now, and the rest of us are falling.
🇺🇸Blacks began the 60s in a weaker position. Fell faster.
🇺🇸 now in USA- This is partially No fault Divorce, but mostly at the working class level its Welfare. The system mostly pays AFDC - aid for families with dependent children- which means Single moms. If the father remains in the House the AFDC is cut dramatically.
What this means is the poverty line is when welfare stops paying and the Father starts paying * , which is $60,000 or more.
This means the Father must earn $60,000 or more to be a better deal economically then not being in the house and being unmarried. > this is the effect of the Penal Laws with Carrot instead of sticks.
(The Irish Penal Laws for review stated no Irish Catholic could own more than 5 pounds, own a horse or donkey, or a sword, etc.
So the man can’t be a Father. )
In America this was done by carrot $$ not Stick, but the effects are the same.
The women of those times often did the same, without the Internet.
“Molly” until the 20th Century meant ☘️ Prostitute.
Had you told anyone in the 18th or 19th centuries the Irish would become known as good family men they would have laughed you out the door.
So yes folks its been done before, it was fixed before, it takes Force, Society, Government and God, Religion to fix the problem.
It takes men.
It takes a Belt perhaps.
(F--k you , we tried it your way).
Then it takes a modest amount of the above to maintain, and yes it takes a Patriarchy.
The long-term erosion of male earnings in real terms has obvious implications for family fragility. The children of the poor do not, as a rule, respect their parents...quite a sensitive issue in consumer-fixated societies and essential for understanding social/welfare policy and educational failure today.
Transforming the white working class along the same lines as the African-American would have been understood in a heartbeat by the early 20th c. socialists (whose memories are damned by economists and academics on account of their racism and chauvinsm). Today it is unmentionable, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Such problems led me to conclude long ago that my thinking on social policy was flawed...things need to be redefined. A problem imposes a cost or inconvenience for those who count, when it does so for those who don't it is not a problem, just a fact of life. Ergo the growing instability of family life in the West cannot be a problem at all, since the best people enjoy the security in which to successfully rear children. Needless to say, applying insights from Darwin or Malthus to such matters is never appreciated. I once worked directly for femocrats...I can assure you I understand these things viscerally across all dimensions, from the time series analysis of wages through to the examination of equity data. No one on the planet loathes social engineering the way I do.
One reason why Putin's Russia is a truly potent threat is that Russian policy is pro-social and pro-family. An economic model that is self-consciously hetero-normative and pro-natal is even more of an enemy than Marxism ever was. Its attraction to the middle classes across Asia and Latin America is inexhaustible, which is why State and CIA are pushing hard on gender fluidity and girl-power.
Just had a brief look at the stats. In 2021 the annual median male wage in the US is about $50,000. The kooks who fill up the social policy world are not allowed to do any damage unless the number crunchers have calculated the results to within a few decimal points, so the true aims and effects of welfare-financed social disruption would be perfectly understood at the top.
The US will either become a woke/soy hermit kingdom or it returns to a species of normality in order to compete industrially/militarily. To stay on top Turbo America will need engineers and physicists and competent mechanics in large numbers (sorry ladies). I suspect that there are weird, unacknowledged, currents of thought and feeling at work too and that the constituencies that could flip the regime extend across many sectors. I once read that ex-President Soetoro was a fan of THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE...this had me laughing. The aesthetics of the show suggested that the producers were aware of the appeal an ordered, high performing, society with a non-prole culture might hold, but the prospects for a Wakandan themed Reich (Soetoro's real world preferences) are very poor indeed. Reality is offensive, but it just won't go away.
The euthanasia of the New Deal will take a while to take effect, but the needle is already in and it will sting.
It's mediocrity to watch Man in High Castle and miss the Joke.
It's not a giant leap from Sugar Daddy to outright Findom.
Brother, you are living in a fantasy world if you think “the current generation of 20-something women have, across the board” done this. Do you understand you are implying a majority of 20-something women? I will grant you some serious hyperbole, but I think you are off by orders of magnitude. If you had data that suggested there was a 3x rate of this from 10 years ago, for example, sure, I can buy that.
I'd agree that it certainly isn't a majority of women at any age, but I don't think this matters much.
It isn't a majority of women who participate in internet porn, either, but that doesn't mean that internet porn hasn't been massively influential on men, women, the dating and sex interfaces and the like. More women are participating in this "non-porn"-yet-lurid world than are participating in porn, for the obvious reason that it doesn't require of them what actual porn performance does, but my sense is that it isn't anything close to a majority that is participating. And it doesn't need to be for the behavior to cast a very wide influence on both sexes, and it is certainly doing that.
I see your concern, but I suggest you dial in the hyperbole since you clearly do not have any idea what the actual numbers are. "Your sense" may or may not bear any relation to how widespread any of this is, let alone be a good predictor of comparing the imagined populations of each category to each other.
Not trying to dismiss your concerns with an obsession for accuracy, but the way you are presenting this is very similar to how the legacy media sensationalizes things.
I said what I meant and I mean what I say.
If you know where I can find a community of women who don't all just act like whores, I would love to find it. I've been looking for 15 years.
Correct, they aren’t.
Don’t walk amongst the lost, they like being lost.
Now, that’s *the* social service what you’ve done here! 🤩 Umptillion props to Chief Tchortist for thorough investigation & lustrously keen reporting 💖
It makes me really happy to find a fellow denizen of Underrail
We liberated the women.
That’s all it takes.
Roosh, call your office.
We 🇺🇸 are going to war with Russia 🇷🇺 and the leaks are sane people trying to stop it, they will probably fail.
The failures will surely come in waves, some supersized. Personally, I am hoping that some public spirited soul in military intelligence will leak whatever it takes to bring the Big Guy (Biden) down but this isa long shot. If the Republicans go for impeachment, Biden will go for war to misdirect everyone.
I’m now certain we have been marching towards Russia since Bosnia 1995.
The UK SAS are White Gurkhas serving the Turbo American Raj. The cult of special forces has very deep appeal across the Anglo-Saxon world because the Anglosphere lacks the capacity for large-scale heavy infantry warfare. Daring-do appeals to the Hollywood sensibility of the Western politicians, public and military leadership but I am certain that the Russians would have thought long and hard how to counter the next NATO/Ukrainian offensive.
The argument that NATO wants to strengthen the Ukrainians for the sake of negotiations is ridiculous. NATO has been 100% consistent in its unwillingness to facilitate/support negotiations of any sort. Bojo talked Zelenskiy out of implementing the peace deal with Russia negotiated in Istanbul.
The political economy of the Stanford Sugar Babies embodies the biopolitics of Leviathan/Cthulhu.
Social media enables the elite Sugar Babies to commercialise their sexuality and exploit men who cannot expect to form families of their own. The Sugar Babies will get pregnant with medical intervention at an advanced age or will adopt a child from the developing world. The psychic coarsening involved in e-whoring will fortify their feminist conviction that men are pigs. The men will help to form the sub-proletariat that will be replaced in time by further waves of replacement immigration. In Clown World even vice is fake, ghey and Woke.
Ho’s gotta Ho
There is a very good video talking about the so-called Chinese social credit system by Brian Berletic at the New Atlas channel on YT, which he says is not a single unified system but is rather piecemeal and applied often for what we call criminal behaviour, such as travelling on trains without a ticket etc.
China's "Social Credit Score System" - Fact or Fiction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYnZREu-Mk
Thinking about it, I reckon that the collective elite in the West is projecting onto China their own tendency of what they would like to do to us, and that such a system may well come into effect here in the medium term.
I still feel that (and I say this with little knowledge of China at all) we have overestimated their strength. The 'Zero Covid' strategy has undoubtedly damaged them and there must be information trickling in from the West to show that our returning to 'normal' hasn't caused us all to drop dead in droves. Although the CCP must maintain face I do wonder if there is a gradual realisation amongst the Chinese that their rulers have got it seriously wrong.
The system you describe does indeed sound more likely - China has more then a billion citizens and even with modern processing power that is a vast number to control. Then again, I enjoyed the thrill of watching Minority Report, thinking that it would never happen. Now there are houses in my street covered in CCTV and with camera *doorbells* for God's sake.