Mailvox: why do white women choose black men?

The Spartan inquires:

Why is it that in my town, there is a lot of White Women hanging around Blacks. It seems that every Black man in this town has a white wife, white mistress, white girlfriend. Walk into the Salvation Army soup kitchen and every poor white trash woman (or her grandmother) is lugging around some mulatto child.

How does Game answer this? Should not every Beta White male go around in blackface and talk jive? If reproduction is about genes, and moving up the ladder, why are white women flocking to black men, especially on college campuses?

One can never be certain when attempting to ascertain the motivations behind the actions of others. Never forget some of the most important words of Ludwig von Mises from Human Action: “No dialectical artifice can spirit away the fact that man is driven by the aim to achieve certain ends…. We cannot approach our subject if we disregard the meaning which acting man attaches to the situation, i.e. the given state of affairs and to his own behavior with regard to this situation.”

The problem, of course, is that Man in general and women in particular are very seldom able to explain the actual reasons for their actions, they are much better at providing ex post facto rationalizations of them. But, I have made the following observations over time.

1. The media has been pushing multi-racial romance very, very hard for the last 12-15 years, specifically the white female-black male combination. (I would bet that there are at least 10x more WF-BM couples portrayed than BF-WM couples.) There is nary a commercial on television that does not include a token black man with a funky pseudo-afro at the party or a drama that does not feature a romance between a Handsome Black Man and an Open-Minded White Woman. This tends to have an effect on the class most susceptible to mass marketing, the 18-24 crowd, which also the only group without sufficient life experience to understand that the “racist” stereotypes they so enjoy opposing are based on statistical fact.

2. Black men tend to be more aggressive and forward than white men, on the average. They not only take a shotgun approach, but don’t tend to agonize much over being shot down. Possessing -1SD average IQs, they are less likely to be crippled by introspection and second-guessing than white and Asian men. Recall that Roissy has asserted that high intelligence is actually a handicap with regards to sexual status. Also, the observable black male disinclination for monogamous relationships dictates that a higher percentage of them will remain on the market regardless of their current relationship status.

3. Low rank white women tend to be overvalued by black men. The woman who can attract only white 3s is often able to attract black 7s. I know several black male-white female couples where the black man is significantly more attractive than the white woman. This phenomenon is also often seen in white male-Asian female couples. When a woman has the option to increase her sex rank simply by expanding the pool of acceptable men, it should come as no surprise that many elect to do so.

However, it is interesting to note that despite the race-mixing at the prole level, very little of it takes place among the marrying classes. Virtually no white women actually marry black men; even Asian marriages to white men are on the order of 2 percent of all Asian female marriages. As with most cultural degradations such as crime and illegitimacy, multi-racial non-marital relationships are for the lower classes while the shrinking middle and upper classes of all races remain homogenous.

So, on the basis of his email, I can conclude the Spartan’s town is an economically depressed one that is largely comprised of lower class whites with a large minority population. As far as the question about Game goes, the rule is to mimic whatever behavior is proven to be successful. If the Spartan is interested in overweight, peroxide-blonde 3s, he would probably be wise to imitate the behavior of those gentlemen who are presently attracting them.


Hotel privacy

In which I find myself in rare agreement with Megan Mcardle:

I travel a lot, and I’ve had housekeepers walk in on me in various states of undress, especially in hotels with turndown service (yes, yes, now that I’m a more seasoned traveler, I try to engage the chain or the deadbolt before I undress). Not a big deal for me, but I’m sure it could happen to a male traveler perfectly innocently. So could a wardrobe malfunction–the robes in many hotels are not exactly overgenerous, especially for the burgeoning middle-aged physique of a chairborne warrior.

Just last month, I was traveling and staying in a hotel. Despite the fact that I had not checked out yet, the door was locked, and checkout was not for another two hours, I heard housekeeping fumbling with the door as I stepped out of the bathroom fresh from a shower.

And even though I twice called out that I was in the room, the woman unlocked the door, opened it, and walked in on me, before apologizing and retreating in some disarray. I thought nothing of it at the time, but I have no doubt that had I been the one entering the locked room, many women would have considered it a case of sexual harassment and near rape. Especially since there was no “do not disturb” sign on the exterior doorknob.

“The door was locked… I even told him TWICE that the room was occupied, but he INSISTED on entering!”

I’m not attempting to defend DSK’s actions in any way, shape, or form, but it is downright ridiculous to insist that it is the women who are entering locked rooms are somehow the victims of the men they occasionally surprise. I’m not saying that there are no exhibitionists – male or female – staying at hotels whose behavior is objectionable, but I would be willing to be that the greater part of those who are surprised sans clothing are perfectly innocent hotel guests who are operating under the erroneous assumption that a locked door is sufficient to provide them with privacy.


The Ultimate Hunt can’t be far away

Mark Zuckerberg is challenging himself:

When he’s not too busy connecting people across the universe, Mark Zuckerberg is pursuing a new “personal challenge,” as he calls it. “The only meat I’m eating is from animals I’ve killed myself,” says the Facebook founder and CEO.

It’s an odd dietary direction for the 27-year-old Internet billionaire, but since he has taken to killing goats, pigs and chickens, “I’m eating a lot healthier foods. And I’ve learned a lot about sustainable farming and raising of animals,” he says. “It’s easy to take the food we eat for granted when we can eat good things every day.”

Zuckerberg’s new goal came to light, not surprisingly, on Facebook. On May 4, Zuckerberg posted a note to the 847 friends on his private page: “I just killed a pig and a goat.”

I give him five years before he’s hunting humans on his private island off the coast of Africa. In the meantime, he can a) attempt to best Tiger Woods’s off-course record, b) score all 249 stars in Guitar Hero Metallica, and c) dedicate himself to becoming the Ultimate Champion.


Corrupt like a senator

Public Enemy had it right. Congress is shamelessly crooked. This also explains why they behaved in such a shamelessly slavish manner towards Wall Street when their supposed masters, the American public, were vehemently against TARP and the bank bailouts:

An extensive study released Wednesday in the journal Business and Politics found that the investments of members of the House of Representatives outperformed those of the average investor by 55 basis points per month, or 6 percent annually, suggesting that lawmakers are taking advantage of inside information to fatten their stock portfolios.

“We find strong evidence that members of the House have some type of non-public information which they use for personal gain,” according to four academics who authored the study, “Abnormal Returns From the Common Stock Investments of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.”

To the frustration of open-government advocates, lawmakers and their staff members largely have immunity from laws barring trading on insider knowledge that have sent many a private corporate chieftain to prison.

It’s that last sentence that shows America is not only dead, but well into a state of rigor mortis. Congressman are not only breaking the law, they have openly declared themselves to be above the law as well. And they are getting away with it.


Why Vox Day is chick crack

Over at Alpha Game, Susan Walsh has posted about a recent scientific study which delineated certain aspects of male and female appeal for the opposite sex. The key summary, at least as it related to the post title, was provided by the headline of one article related to the study.

“Brooding, Proud Guys Score High on Sex Appeal”

As I mentioned in the comments to Susan’s post, this provided Spacebunny with no little amusement, given her observation that my tendency to brood is apparently on par with that of Heathcliff and Darcy. My protests that I merely engage in the moderate amount of contemplation that is necessary to anyone dwelling in this vale of tears were met with a) a burst of incredulous laughter, and b) an appeal to the dictionary: “to dwell on a subject or to meditate with morbid persistence”. Emphasis, it would appear, on the morbid….

(Full confession: I tend to think of “brooding” in the sense of incubating eggs rather than a gerund indicating contemplative activity, which in part accounted for my protest.)

As for the other part, well, I am informed that every so often, I am inclined to comport myself in a manner that is indicative of an inclination to consider myself in a rather favorable manner. I would merely point out that these things are relative and is not that I think so well of myself, only that I am so often given reason to think little of others.

In any case, this new scientodical expansion of scientage may help explain why women continue to email me and send me their pictures after expressing their outrage concerning my written opinions and threatening not to have sex with me. I’d like to say that it is hard being an intellectual sex symbol, (although let’s face it, the bar is an extraordinarily low one), but frankly, my dears, I don’t give a damn.


Godlessness is more than a-theism

One thing I always enjoy about atheists is the shameless way they perform the Atheist Dance. They are such hopelessly muddled thinkers that they constantly define and redefine words as it happens to suit them at the moment, not infrequently contradicting themselves multiple times in a single article, blog post, or book. An atheist will claim that there is absolutely nothing that can be determined about him by the mere fact of his atheism except for his non-belief in a creator God, then immediately turn around and insist that of course he doesn’t believe in the power of crystals or Noah’s Flood… because he is an atheist and therefore obviously doesn’t believe in anything insufficiently “proven” by science… except for historical events that a sufficient number of people believe to be true… except for those related to religion. And so forth.

The observation that most atheism is little more than a juvenile psychological disorder tends to be supported by the fact that left-wing politics are far more central to most atheists, including some of the most outspoken ones, than their “atheism”, whatever that might actually happen to be. Consider the Fowl Atheist’s recent statement that godless goals are progressive goals:

All the big shots in the secular organizations I’ve met seem like rather progressive individuals who would agree entirely with Watson’s [radically pro-abortion] position, and I’ve seen some published statements here and there that support such liberal (i.e., rational) causes as women’s rights and gay rights and equality in general, but otherwise, these particular civil rights issues seem more assumed than advocated by the major organizations — they certainly don’t oppose them. I can understand how a non-profit might have to tread carefully on political claims (they can’t come out and damn the Republican party, after all), but Watson has a point.

Maybe there should be more overt activism for civil rights in general, in addition to the more focused attention given to atheist/humanist issues. Freethought movements should be about human dignity and freedom in all domains, not just religion. We should own these issues; we need to be on the right side of history….

Of course, such a move would piss off the libertarian/conservative wing of the atheist movement, but I can’t see a down side to jettisoning them, anyway.

That’s fine with me. I’d quite pleased to have libertarian atheists and conservative atheists on my side; they are proof that godlessness is not completely antithetical to political sanity. And it is amusing that PZ thinks that murdering unborn children is “the right side of history”; I have absolutely no doubt that the atheists of the future will be denying that pro-abortion equalitarians were motivated by their atheism in much the same way that atheists today deny that rabidly murderous Communists were motivated by their atheism.

Calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to the German National Socialist Workers Party. The feminists and equalitarians have FAR more blood on their hands than the National Socialists ever did. Consider that in India, there are only 893 girls born for every 1,000 boys. In China, the girl/boy birth ratio is .855. And the more educated and wealthy a woman is, the more likely it is that she will murder her daughter.

“That decrease was even more marked in families where the mothers were wealthier and had 10 or more years of education compared with a poor and uneducated mothers – presumably because the wealthy are more easily able to obtain illegal abortions.”

In the name of progress and equality, up to 12 million Indian girls have been slaughtered in the last 30 years. This is not about human freedom and dignity, it is not “the right side of history”. It is nothing less than the greatest crime yet committed by humanity against itself. These progressive atheists and equalitarians will forever bear the curse of the hundreds of millions of innocents whose deaths they have not only demanded, but celebrated.


Cracks in the Euro

A Greek official finally admits the obvious:

Greece must take tough measures to deal with its debt crisis or it will have to return to the drachma, the EU’s Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki said on Wednesday. “I am forced to speak openly,” Damanaki was quoted as saying in a statement by the semi-official Athens News Agency. “Either we agree with our lenders to a programme of tough sacrifices … or we return to the drachma.”

I’m hoping Italy will return to the Lira, myself. I still have a few of them sitting around somewhere in the old filing cabinet. Anyhow, this “forced restructuring” is the only valid option since the ECB, the EU, and the bond-holding banks have repeatedly refused to cut Greece’s debts in a manner sufficient to permit repayment.


Homeschool or die vol. 7

If any other activity was this directly connected to increasing the teen mortality rate, it would be illegal:

Every two hours, a teenager in America takes his or her own life. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among youth, and the rate of teen suicide has roughly tripled since 1960…. Scientists have identified many contributing factors: Discrimination, the number of sexual partners, substance abuse, being dumped by a romantic partner, parental divorce, child physical and sexual abuse, bullying and even excessive video-gaming play a role. Scholars at the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center have offered a novel contributing factor to teen suicide: high school.

In a careful and persuasive paper released last fall called “Back to School Blues: Seasonality of Youth Suicide and the Academic Calendar,” Benjamin Hansen and Matthew Lang point out that suicides for 14- to 18-year-olds drop abruptly during June, July and August.

“The decrease in suicides for 14- to 18-year-olds during the summer months is stark, while the 19- to 25-year-olds see a slight rise in suicide rates during the summer,” the authors point out. “The fact that 15- to 18-year-old suicide rates decrease in the summer, but the 19-year-old suicide does not, suggests that the high-school calendar is playing a prominent role in youth suicide,” they conclude.

Given that the summer vacation reduces the teen suicide rate from 6.22 per 100,000 to 4.71, this means that banning public school would save 1,092 lives per year. This is far more lives than can be saved by most of the usual actions advocated by the save-the-children crowd. Since we are so often told that various laws are justified if just one child’s life is saved, and we also know that homeschooling is an academically superior method of education, how can anyone possibly argue in good conscience that eliminating the public schools is not an imminent moral imperative?

Banning public school will save more children’s lives on an annual basis than every vaccination program put together, in fact, it would save more children’s lives than seatbelt laws and child safety seats. Banning public school, or at least barring public school attendance after sixth grade, would reduce the third leading cause of youth death by 25 percent. And let’s face it, it’s not as if they’re even learning how to read or do math there anyhow.


A very good week in books

The Mises Institute released The Turgot Collection in both hardcover and epub format and I finally noticed that Umberto Eco’s latest novel, il cimitero di Praga, is in the bookstores.  (Spacebunny would like to point out that she informed me two months ago; I was under the impression it was a collection of newspaper columns in the mode of la bustina di Minerva.)  The best thing about having learned Italian is that I no longer have to wait a year for the English editions to be released.


A humble man

And one with much about which to be humble, most notably his governance of Minnesota:

Tim Pawlenty is in. So far, he has been talking tough — although his response to Paul Ryan’s House budget a few months ago was to jam his hands in his pockets, shuffle his feet a little, and then point and yell, “Look over there, at the debt ceiling!” (Also, I am secretly worried that Pawlenty’s ex-mullet will now write a tell-all book about him.)  And while his introductory video is effective at positioning himself as a “truth teller,” it contains one of my foremost pet peeves in political commercials: the “I’m from humble beginnings” talking point.

I have no desire to go into the specifics underlying my contempt for Tim Pawlenty, but suffice it to say that to my certain and personal knowledge, he is a conflict-avoidant coward, a mediocre, hands-off manager of the executive branch, and moreoever, one with zero regard for the letter of the written law.  Republicans who hope to ride this bland dishrag of a pragmatist to the White House will almost certainly find themselves badly disappointed, as the man has even less principle and backbone than George W. Bush.