Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Subscribe to Journal

Thursday, February 17th 2011

9:50 AM

Why We Write (About HBD)

I am often asked, "Obsidian, why do you spend so much time talking about HBD? Why do you spend so much time arguing with HBDers?". Usually, these kind of questions are asked not necessarily in a dispassionate, curious sort of way, but more along exasperated lines; some of my readers think I have better things to write about; others think I focus on the HBDers because I've "run out" of interesting things to say, and so forth.

The reason(s) as to why I write (and will continue to do so) is rather simple, actually.

For one thing, it is my view that it is virtually impossible to be an American and NOT be fascinated with, even obsessed with and by, the issue of Race. America is perhaps the most racially diverse nation on the planet and in the history of human beings, and is rapidly changing along these lines as we speak. A big reason for our collective fascination/obsession about such things, is due to the founding ideals of our Republic - that, by recognizing and affirming our inalienable rights as human beings, we work toward a more Perfect Union.

But that rubs up against other notions, and here is where HBD - Human Bio-Diversity - comes into play. Strictly speaking, this merely refers to the ways in which human beings, be they individually or collectively, differ from each other; but such a term takes on a different meaning in what has become known in some circles as the "HBDsphere". There, the focus is quite a bit narrower; it has mostly to do with racial differences in intelligence and IQ, the argument being, that much of what we see in terms of human behavior, cultural norms and mores, human potential and accomplishment, is accounted for or explained along these lines.

Being an American, and following somewhat loosely the long line of tradition in Black American society as a "Race Man", I have as much interest in HBD as my arch nemeses do, though from different approaches and with a different focus. But there's another reason why I'm so interested in the topic, and it also has to do with my particular heritage as an African American.

And that is because the HBDers wish to take their perverted view of HBD, and to apply it to the public square; they wish their view of things along these lines, to inform public policy, which can and will have a direct impact on me, and that is something that I feel needs to be vociferously challenged. For example, Michael Levin, author of the book Why Race Matters, makes it quite clear that not only is racial profiling by the police a necessary practice in order to reduce crime, of which Black Males commit more of, but that it should be markedly increased. How does that square with the American ideals of individual rights, civil liberties and so forth? Levin doesn't quite answer, and neither do those who cotton to his views. Therefore, under Levin's rubrick, I too would be subject to unlawful searches and seizures, regardless as to my individual track record in terms of upholding the law.

What about Affirmative Action, another favorite topic of the HBD crowd. Per their arguments, AA gives unqualified or underqualified Black applicants elite college spaces and cushy job assignments over more deserving White (and some even argue, Asian) ones - even when it is clear that said Black applicants were indeed qualified. To the HBD set, the ONLY way AA can be seen, is through this lens; it simply isn't possible for real job and educational discrimination against Blacks, can exist in our time (even though we have all manner of proof to the contrary, such as the University of Chicago's Black name/White name study). Again, the assumption is that if a Black person has attended and graduated from an elite school or holds a prestigious position at a company or agency, or is in any other way successful in a "brain work" capacity, then the case is clear - he/she was an AA hire/admit, and only the kind of AA admit (read: un/underqualified) they're comfortable with discussing. (Of course, "affirmative action" that is "class-based" is something the HBDers can get behind - nor are they bothered in the least with naked nepotism. But of course, why should they, given that both of these things would benefit (poor and presumably, "deserving" White Males?) Which brings me to the next point...

The HBDers love to discuss IQ, especially as it relates to differing racial groups - in other words, comparing White and Black. For my part, I don't deny the possibility of differences along these lines - but so what? I say that because again, per our founding ideals, everyone is to be judged not on the basis of their group, but on their own individual merit. "Exactly!", says the HBDers - "that's what we've been saying all along!".

The problem with their sloganeering is, that for much of our country's history, African Americans have NOT been judged as individuals, but rather as one large group - and what the HBDers themselves propose, is nothing different, in actual practice. A good case in point is wrt the whole Race/IQ thing.

Assuming one buys the premise of the argument, one must also acknowledge that there is a segment of African Americans who are smarter on average than a larger segment of White Americans - but, short of giving out IQ tests and such, how are we to know a bright African American, from a more duller one, in everyday life? The short answer is, we don't - the HBDers' position (again, see Levin) is such that it will, by definition, toss all Blacks in the same boat, regardless as to documented cognitive ability or potential or track record of lawabiding behavior or adherence to middle class norms. Of course, the bulk and mass of HBDers won't honestly come clean about this, which leads me to the next point:

A major reason as to why I talk a goodly bit about HBDers, is because they are flatout hypocrites. They say that they want to be given their rightful place in the public square and to be heard, yet they practice the very same kinds of shutout tactics on their own blogs and websites and venues that they decry are being foisted on them by "leftists". They spend a tremendous amount of time bemoaning the ills of those born on the leftend of the Bell Curve, but refuse to address anything on the rightend of said curve. They say they want a real debate on the issues they wish to discuss and the positions they take, but they either punk out and/or shutdown anyone who actually takes them seriously about it.

The other day, I was asked by another commenter at a blog I frequent and even have on my blogroll, Chuck Ross, why am I so very interested in debating a bunch of nobodys and losers, especially given the fact that what they are talking about will never gain traction in the public square, nor in terms of public policy?-think again. Although he's known best for The Bell Curve, Charles Murray put out another work that dealt with what he saw as the failure of the public welfare system and was particularly concerned about the role African Americans played within it. The book was called Losing Ground - and it winded up playing a significant role in the Welfare Reform debate of the Clinton government of the 1990s. Welfare reform was indeed passed, and Charles Murray had a direct hand to play in that.

Now, one could argue as to whether that was good or bad - for what it's worth, both sides of the political aisle felt that Welfare Reform was a resounding success - all I'm saying is that those who think HBDers, and Murray definitely is one, can't or don't have any pull in the halls of political power, are fooling yourselves. They can and in some cases, most certainly do. And I think it is important to have concerned voices on the other side of the aisle that can bring a goodly bit of perspective, nuance and above all else, reason to the debate, on serious questions that may just effect all of us.

One of my bemoaners in this regard, is the founder of the Traditional Catholicism blog, Alte. Although she is of African American heritage, I think she would agree with me that she's more German than Black, both in terms of culture and appearance, and so I thought her recent registering of disdain at my frequent discussion of HBDers was quite interesting, especially in light of a recent and very interesting article she wrote. I say that because her adopted homeland is, right now as we speak, in the grips of a similar HBD discussion, with prominent German technocrat and politician-banker Thilo Sarrazin's book, "Germany Abolishes Itself". Despite efforts to quash the work, it has gone on to be a runaway bestseller in Germany, and has sparked all manner of real debate along HBD lines - in fact, I call it the German version of The Bell Curve, which is fitting, since Sarrazin borrowed a bit from that book itself, as well as many of that book's sources and ideas.

One of the big areas of focus for both Sarrazin's and Murray's books, is the notion that the dull are reproducing at a faster rate than the bright - and both books have no qualms about discussing measures directed at reducing the numbers of the former. But the latter book says virtually nothing about getting the brighter sections to reproduce more; Sarrazin's book, on the other hand, does, but only haltingly:

"In Chapter 8, “Demography and Population Policy,” Sarrazin brazenly violates the unwritten rules of the game of democracy. He writes of the “shift in the population structure towards one of less intelligent or uneducated groups.” In our society no one is allowed to think such a thing, much less to draw conclusions from it!

On page 375 Sarrazin even quotes this reviewer, who had written: “In the early 1970s a loose group of individuals who had thought seriously about the relationship between IQ and birth rate was able to influence social and educational policies in the GDR [German Democratic Republic—East Germany]. This group was also able to bring about a range of policy decisions that resulted in a qualitative population policy, even though that term was never used and there was never any public discussion of the issue. (In a democratic society, perhaps that’s the only possible way to achieve something in this field—that is, through cross party political consensus with minimal public discussion.)”

In 1996 J. Dorbritz and K. Schwarz published a table in the Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft (“Journal of Population Science”) showing that the portion of childless women in western Germany aged 30&3150;39 with technical skill certification was 31 percent, while the portion of childless women in this same age and educational group in the former GDR (eastern Germany) was only 5 percent. Similarly, the portion of childless women in western Germany aged 30&3150;39 with university degrees was 37 percent, but the portion of childless women in this same age and educational group in the former GDR was only 8 percent.

This shows that in the period 1970–1990 the German Democratic Republic was the only state in modern times that achieved an extraordinarily successful qualitative population policy and in which higher education for women was not a form of “birth control.” In the GDR the basis for this was an overarching consensus without public discussion—that is, precisely the opposite of what’s being kicked off with your book, Mr. Sarrazin! Such a thing has never happened in a democratic society because it’s contrary to its very nature."

That's right - Sarrazin is making the case, that prior to Germany's reunification and while East Germany was still under Communist rule, it was able to fashion a system where its bright Women bore babies at the height of their fertility. If what he says above is indeed the case, it would only buttress what I said a year ago - that the only way to get bright, White Women to have babies, is to strip them of their ability to choose their baby daddies, and under which circumstances to have said babies. This can only happen in a totalitarian state, like East Germany. Give Women the choice, and they choose not to have babies - at least not with Jeremy the STEM Guy, if they can help it. Yao Ming couldn't happen in today's Germany.

Perhaps Alte might've been cool with a kind of Stasi-inspired matchmaking system; I find it hard to believe any American (or modern day Western, for that matter) Women would go for it, however.

Oh, remember what I just said about about Murray's Losing Ground, and how it informed the Clinton government? Here's another snippet of the review of Sarrazin's Germany Abolishes Itself:

"In that regard, Sarrazin takes note of President Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform laws in the US. Perhaps, with this book, Sarrazin can help to achieve something similar in social policy in Germany, at least in the short run, with regard to immigration—at a time when government spending must be cut."

Need I say more? Well, just one thing - again, please notice the deafening silence, when it comes time for the HBDers to actually address their own baby dearth - and when they do, they sputter and stumble about, mumbling about "taxes" and "affordable family formation" and the like, but they never look dead in the eye at the implications of their own sacred cows. In our time - one from which there is no turning back, I might add - Women have the right to choose, who will or won't be, their baby daddies. And there is mounting evidence, that quite a few Women would rather hookup with the turkeybaster and go it alone, than to settle for Jeremy the STEM Guy. Perhaps that is for good reason - after all, there are limits to human potential in certain areas, for certain groups - and history has always recorded far fewer Men leaving behind genetic heirs, than Women.

Right?

And that, is why we write, about HBD.

Now adjourn your asses...

The Obsidian

30 comment(s).

Posted by dragnet:

"There have always been a percentage of guys who got nothing, even under the best of circumstances. This isn't likely to change."


Yes, and that's what I think some HBD-ers aren't getting. The OneSTDV's and other HBDers are voluntarily celibate now that women are "liberated" and they seem to think that reversing the social changes of the last 50 or years would remedy that. I'm skeptical---sure the nerds would've had an easier time getting married 50 years ago, but there would still be a lot of guys left without chairs when the music stopped, as has always been the case throughout history. These guys would be the HBDers.
Saturday, February 19th 2011 @ 11:00 PM

Posted by JLW:

I read with approval your comments regarding omega males (or, as you referred to them, the "Martys" of the world). I agree that no one has ever cared about the omegas. To paraphrase Churchill, never in the history of HBD have so many not cared about so many. Since Susan wasn't interested in talking about omegas, why don't you devote a post or two about the omegas of the world. Things like your definition of omega, where they come from, and what should they do. I'm basically looking for self-help articles for those folks who *will* remain alone forever. Tips on living, time budgeting, inspirational stories, coping strategies, recipes--that sort of thing. Sort of a "Men's Health" for absolute hermits and irrecoverable social
failures.

Have there been any such articles published here? Can someone provide
links?
Saturday, February 19th 2011 @ 3:57 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"What's the timeline on this final collapse for the USA?"

Why do you want a timeline?

"And what specifically, do you see happening insofar as the SMP is concerned?"

Come on, Obs. Seriously. Stop acting as if you were obtuse and clueless. Stop playing with me. You know fully well what will happen when the nanny state collapses. Women want two things in life: resources and children. When the nanny state fails to provide them with the former, their only option left will be to pair-bond with men and offer sex and motherhood in exchange for commitment and cash. Very simple.
Saturday, February 19th 2011 @ 12:07 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

Hollenhund,
Tell me, because I'm very curious:
What's the timeline on this final collapse for the USA? And what specifically, do you see happening insofar as the SMP is concerned? What will happen to the White Betas and White Women of marriageable age? Please enlighten me? Thanks!

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 10:37 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

Obs, I’m afraid you’re misreading our responses. What women – or white betas for that matter – want is immaterial. The tides of history don’t listen to the whims of the individual. It doesn’t matter what they want to go along with and what they don’t want to go along with. There will be no organized remedy for the current system to prevent its downfall. None. There’s no chance of legal or political reform to save the current system. Legal reform didn’t save the Roman Empire, the British Empire or the USSR. They kept making the same mistakes and following the same mindset until there was no solution left and thus they imploded.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 10:28 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

D: Well, no, but then I'm not coming at this out of a desire to help poor, angry, Game-less HBD nerds get laid. I'm concerned about what the current system is doing to society as a whole, and to men in general. And frankly, the black community is getting harmed by it much more than the white science nerd community.

O: Interesting you would mention that, since today's post takes up what you just said in a lot of ways. Check it out! As for your other comments above, YOU may not specifically have this focus in mind, but it is clear that this is the subtext of your fellow travelers, like Hollenhund, for example. Nor is he by no means alone - check out just about any major player in the HBDsphere, and this subtext will be readily apparent: Half Sigma, OneSTDV, Steve Sailer, you name it.

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 3:59 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Hi Deuce,
Replies below:

D: Feminists might see it that way, but it's objectively absurd. Nobody is advocating use of force. Reality always presents you with options and incentives. Having those incentives change is not a loss of agency. In fact, it's just the opposite. When my parents stopped subsidizing me, it was an increase in agency on my part, even if I lost a few options.

O: No - WOMEN, particularly those of a certain cohort, see it that way. Nor did I mention anything about the use of force, though to bring what you and Hollenhund and others are talking about, one can't take such an option off the table either. Nor are we talking about minors, or the parent-child relationship - we are talking about fellow American citizens, grownassed adults, who as it turns out, vote in larger numbers than do Menfolk. So, what was that about how you're gonna convice the bulk and mass of these Women to roll the clock back on their reproductive rights, choices and freedoms?

D: Well, uh, yes, it literally is. It literally is. Remember, we're talking about the definition of "totalitarian", and you used the term in a way that was very nearly the opposite of its actual meaning. By definition, a government that exerts more control over peoples' lives (including their income) is more totalitarian than one that exerts less.

O: But that's just the thing, D - it doesn't matter what you or I thinks. It only matters what WOMEN think, and I am telling you, that Women - especially those in the late teens-early 30s cohort - are simply not gonna go along with a rolling back of the clock to the June Clever era. Just. Not. Gonna. Happen. Moreover, a big reason as to why that won't happen, is because quiet as its kept, there are quite a few guys who won't go for it either. So, like I said, the incurable Betas are pretty much screwed...

D: Well, no, but then I'm not coming at this out of a desire to help poor, angry, Game-less HBD nerds get laid. I'm concerned about what the c
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 3:58 PM

Posted by The Deuce:

By that definition, paying taxes is a "government transfer of wealth".

Well, uh, yes, it literally is. It literally is. Remember, we're talking about the definition of "totalitarian", and you used the term in a way that was very nearly the opposite of its actual meaning. By definition, a government that exerts more control over peoples' lives (including their income) is more totalitarian than one that exerts less.

Maybe - but that still doesn't address what I said wrt the fairly large number of involuntarily celibate Betas that are for all intents "incurable" from a Game standpoint. Does it?

Well, no, but then I'm not coming at this out of a desire to help poor, angry, Game-less HBD nerds get laid. I'm concerned about what the current system is doing to society as a whole, and to men in general. And frankly, the black community is getting harmed by it much more than the white science nerd community.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 12:15 PM

Posted by The Deuce:

O:

"And that, is at the root as to why the Smart White folks are dying off. The only way to reverse the trend is to essentially strip these Women of their reproductive choices and agency?"

Feminists might see it that way, but it's objectively absurd. Nobody is advocating use of force. Reality always presents you with options and incentives. Having those incentives change is not a loss of agency. In fact, it's just the opposite. When my parents stopped subsidizing me, it was an increase in agency on my part, even if I lost a few options.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 12:03 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

"Um, no, it's simply accurate. The government transfers wealth, and it's not optional for the people from whom it is transferred. Calling a *lack* of massive government interference "totalitarianism" on the other hand, is a simple contradiction in terms."

O: By that definition, paying taxes is a "government transfer of wealth". LOL. You're beginning to sound like some kind of Ron Paul type.

"At the moment, yes. As the consequences of the current scheme continue to play out, who knows what the future holds? Even if the spending isn't abolished legislatively, it may well be abolished by the reality of national default."

O: Maybe - but that still doesn't address what I said wrt the fairly large number of involuntarily celibate Betas that are for all intents "incurable" from a Game standpoint. Does it?

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:58 AM

Posted by The Deuce:

Obsidian,
I think the notion of "forced wealth transfers" and the like is a much more tortured and hackneyed use of the English language than what I've said to be frank.

Um, no, it's simply accurate. The government transfers wealth, and it's not optional for the people from whom it is transferred. Calling a *lack* of massive government interference "totalitarianism" on the other hand, is a simple contradiction in terms.

"The bottomline here is that what you and H and others are proposing are just politically untenable. Period."

At the moment, yes. As the consequences of the current scheme continue to play out, who knows what the future holds? Even if the spending isn't abolished legislatively, it may well be abolished by the reality of national default.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:53 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

"What I meant is that women generally only go along with political propositions as long as feminists are making them. Otherwise they just sneer or ignore."

Noted, which brings me back to my question to you, H - what feminist is gonna propose the things you and certain others of the Manosphere propose? lease point her and/or them out to me?

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:41 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

"Where did I say otherwise? Besides, who cares? I'm not promoting political action. I've explained before that IMO legal reform that benefits men is politically untenable in the West."

Alright then - so how is this great gettin' up morning supposed to come about, again?

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:39 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

"You should direct this accusation at the snake oil salesmen of the Game industry, not the Manosphere. They are the ones who exaggerate the potential benefits of Game."

No argument there, for there is a heck of a lot to be said on this score, and I for one will indeed do my part in speaking to that in the weeks and months to come. Still though, the whole MGTOW thing notwithstanding, I honestly do not think the whole of our society has actually come to grips with what I am talking about here. I've been giving it some thought and may write something about it in the coming weeks.

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:34 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

What I meant is that women generally only go along with political propositions as long as feminists are making them. Otherwise they just sneer or ignore.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:33 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

"LOL, of course not. Again, where did I say otherwise? Women never do that unless it's feminists talking to them. They are conformists who follow the herd and adapt."

What feminist is going to come out in favor of rolling Roe v. Wade? With foregoing personal mate choice? With foregoing education and work/career? I'd like to see those quotes.

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:31 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

I'll go further: you'll have to implore the entire MSM to address this, because they are also treating this as a taboo subject. The men of the Manosphere appear to be much more realistic about the whole SMP.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:30 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"Simply put, there will be a considerable cohort of Men who will live out their lives as involuntary celibates. The community known as the Manosphere hasn't directly addressed this, and it needs to."

You should direct this accusation at the snake oil salesmen of the Game industry, not the Manosphere. They are the ones who exaggerate the potential benefits of Game.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:27 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"I mean, who is more likely to get the side eye out in modern day public by folk who could read our thoughts here, Duece - you and Hollenhund, or me?"

Where did I say otherwise? Besides, who cares? I'm not promoting political action. I've explained before that IMO legal reform that benefits men is politically untenable in the West.

"No Woman will go along with what you guys are proposing"

LOL, of course not. Again, where did I say otherwise? Women never do that unless it's feminists talking to them. They are conformists who follow the herd and adapt.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:25 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"
But that doesn't translate into a situation where everything goes back to the way it was back in the day either."

Of course not. History doesn't repeat itself with the same angle. My point is that the feminist New Girl Order is very expensive. It withers aways without the nanny state.

"I know YOU want it to"

No I don't. History has its course and individual decisions won't affect that. I think there's a lack of good options for most men since society will plunder them in one way or another. The patriarchy obviously isn't a bed of roses either. But at least it creates stable, prosperous societies.

"There have always been a percentage of guys who got nothing, even under the best of circumstances. This isn't likely to change."

Where did I say otherwise?
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:19 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

Duece,
I think the notion of "forced wealth transfers" and the like is a much more tortured and hackneyed use of the English language than what I've said to be frank. I mean, who is more likely to get the side eye out in modern day public by folk who could read our thoughts here, Duece - you and Hollenhund, or me? The bottomline here is that what you and H and others are proposing are just politically untenable. Period. No Woman will go along with what you guys are proposing, nor is it likely that even if a kind of Mad Max scenario happens, will that make it better for incurable Betas, of which there are more of in our time than in previous eras, for a number of reasons. Simply put, there will be a considerable cohort of Men who will live out their lives as involuntary celibates. The community known as the Manosphere hasn't directly addressed this, and it needs to. Honestly.

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 11:14 AM

Posted by The Deuce:

Hollenhund,

"When women aren't propped up by the state, they settle for Jeremy the (high-earning) STEM guy for lack of other options. As Alte correctly said: women start playing the hypergamy game when they cease being economically dependent on men. "

I'd put it differently. Women *always* play the hypergamy game no matter what. When the government doesn't subsidize them, their hypergamy drives them *towards* those guys (at least to some degree). When the government transfers their wealth to single women, it robs those guys of their status value, driving women *away* from them.

Obsidian,

"The welfare state and AA, taking both away, is very close to living in a totalitarian state, and if you don't believe that, just ask Women."

Sorry, O, but calling a *lack* of massive government-controlled confiscation and forced wealth transfers "totalitarian" is pure torture of the English language. If women think otherwise, then they're stupid.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 10:37 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

"Of course not. People normally don't sign up for economic decline and eventual collapse. Argentinians didn't sign up for the collapse of 2001. Russians didn't sign up for the financial crash of 1998 either. Eventually the welfare state becomes unsustainable and crashes."

But that doesn't translate into a situation where everything goes back to the way it was back in the day either. I know YOU want it to, but what I'm telling you is that is simply not gonna happen. There have always been a percentage of guys who got nothing, even under the best of circumstances. This isn't likely to change.

O.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 6:58 AM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"Simply put, no Woman would sign on for what you're talking about"

Of course not. People normally don't sign up for economic decline and eventual collapse. Argentinians didn't sign up for the collapse of 2001. Russians didn't sign up for the financial crash of 1998 either. Eventually the welfare state becomes unsustainable and crashes.

"modern Women don't need such guys anyway"

Modern women are living in highly complex and technologically advances societies, which require maximum investment from beta males to function. Women take this for granted while giving minimal incentives to men to invest in society.
Friday, February 18th 2011 @ 12:37 AM

Posted by Obsidian:

"Betas will always be plundered for resources and women will never have sex with them just for the sheer fun of it. In that you're right. I should add though that the current system is incapable of incentivizing betas to work to the fullest of their abilities."

O: It's a moot point, since today's modern Women don't need such guys anyway, and so long as all the things I mentioned are in place they will have no need or desire to think twice about giving nerdy Jeremy a play.

O.
Thursday, February 17th 2011 @ 11:21 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

"What they want is irrelevant. The tides of history don't change due to personal priorities. The current system is economically unsustainable and will collapse. This isn't the matter of choice. People always wanted to live the high life. It doesn't matter."

O: Yea, but that's the problem, such a thing is politically untenable because Women make up such a large apart of the electorate. Simply put, no Woman would sign on for what you're talking about, and no politician will step out there to advocate for this in light of that fact.

O.
Thursday, February 17th 2011 @ 11:18 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"But that's always been the case - right?"

Betas will always be plundered for resources and women will never have sex with them just for the sheer fun of it. In that you're right. I should add though that the current system is incapable of incentivizing betas to work to the fullest of their abilities.
Thursday, February 17th 2011 @ 11:11 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

"Yes, but Hollenhund that's just it - American Women WON'T WANT TO GO BACK to how it was back in the day."

What they want is irrelevant. The tides of history don't change due to personal priorities. The current system is economically unsustainable and will collapse. This isn't the matter of choice. People always wanted to live the high life. It doesn't matter.
Thursday, February 17th 2011 @ 11:08 PM

Posted by Obsidian:

Yes, but Hollenhund that's just it - American Women WON'T WANT TO GO BACK to how it was back in the day. They have expectations for themselves, which includes going to school, living in the big city, working that dream job and yes, having sex with Alphas. In order to bring about what you're talking about you would have to go a lot further than merely rolling back AA and welfare - you would have to take things back to about circa 1960 - before Roe v Wade, before the Pill, before No-Fault divorce, before Title IX, etc et al. Women wouldn't be able to work, not in any way we would recognize today. Things were able to work that way in East Germany and China because they were totalitarian states. It simply won't work here.

And since many of those nerdy betas CAN'T learn Game, they are basically screwed, pardon the pun. But that's always been the case - right?

O.
Thursday, February 17th 2011 @ 10:10 PM

Posted by Höllenhund:

It doesn't have to be rearranged for them. Women won't have the option of riding the cock carousel for 15 years with no AA or the welfare state. Average young women have been marrying betas for a long time before those existed and I somehow doubt that "American ideals of individual liberty, choice and freedom" were trampled underfoot as a result.
Thursday, February 17th 2011 @ 9:34 PM