Women working destroys marriage

The social science backs up common sense and observation concerning the terrible social policy of encouraging women to work outside the home rather than marry and raise children.

We examine causes and consequences of relative income within households. We show that the distribution of the share of income earned by the wife exhibits a sharp drop to the right of 1/2 , where the wife’s income exceeds the husband’s income. We argue that this pattern is best explained by gender identity norms, which induce an aversion to a situation where the wife earns more than her husband. We present evidence that this aversion also impacts marriage formation, the wife’s labor force participation, the wife’s income conditional on working, marriage satisfaction, likelihood of divorce, and the division of home production. Within marriage markets, when a randomly chosen woman becomes more likely to earn more than a randomly chosen man, marriage rates decline. In couples where the wife’s potential income is likely to exceed the husband’s, the wife is less likely to be in the labor force and earns less than her potential if she does work. In couples where the wife earns more than the husband, the wife spends more time on household chores; moreover, those couples are less satisfied with their marriage and are more likely to divorce. These patterns hold both cross-sectionally and within couples over time.

Whatever the theoretical benefits of doubling the percentage of women in the workforce were, the material costs to society have dramatically exceeded them. This is not about women working per se, as one-third of women have always worked, but the change since 1950 is that most young marriage-age women now work so that old men can collect Social Security, watch TV, and play golf instead of working as they always had before.

The results have been not merely dyscivic and dysgenic, but downright dyscivilizational. And regardless of what you think on the matter, it is clear that a society which encourages widespread female education and employment is not sustainable and is guaranteed to collapse sooner rather than later.

Most DEFINITELY not Alt-Right

I have no idea why anyone thinks this clown is even remotely a threat to anyone except himself. Although I suppose it’s possible you might actually pull something laughing at him.

The alt-right should be in favor of banning of all video games, and actually we should go further and we should make all video games feminist, extreme feminism, so basically the video game will be you have to ask permission to kiss girls and they just say no all the time. That’s like you keep going up levels and you keep not getting laid. That should be the only video games allowed, and basically it’s a it’s just a you know you have heroic versions of purple-haired SJWs conquering Nazis and things like that.

So it we basically want these video games to turn off as many young men as possible so that they will turn on to something that’s actually real and I’m actually serious about this.

Speaking as a professional multi-platinum-selling game designer, don’t quit your day job. Assuming, of course, that you’ve ever actually had one.

JORDANETICS now in audio

JORDANETICS: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity’s Greatest Thinker

by Vox Day

Narrated by: Thomas Landon

7 hours 32 minutes. $14.99. DRM-free MP3 format. Available only at the Arkhaven store.

Jordan Peterson is believed by many to be the greatest thinker that humanity has ever known. He is Father Figure, Philosopher-King, and Prophet to the millions of young men who are his most fervent fans and followers. He is the central figure of the Intellectual Dark Web, an academic celebrity, and an unparalleled media phenomenon who has shattered all conceptions of what it means to be modern celebrity in the Internet Age. He has thought thoughts that no man has ever thought before. He has dared to dream dreams that no man has ever dreamed before.

Of course, Jordan Peterson also happens to be a narcissist, a charlatan, and an intellectual con man who doesn’t even bother to learn the subjects upon which he lectures. He is a defender of free speech who silences other speakers, a fearless free-thinker who never hesitates to run away from debates, difficult questions, and controversial issues, a philosopher who rejects the conventional definition of truth, and a learned professor who has failed to read most of the great classics of the Western canon. He is, in short, a shameless and unrepentant fraud who lacks even a modicum of intellectual integrity.

But is Jordan Peterson more than a mere fraud? Is he something more sinister, more unbalanced, and even more dangerous? In JORDANETICS: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity’s Greatest Thinker, political philosopher Vox Day delves deeply into the core philosophy that Jordan Peterson advocates in both his written works and his video lectures. In doing so, Day methodically builds a shocking case that will convince even the most skeptical Jordan Peterson supporter to reconsider both the man and his teachings.

Note: remember to turn NoScript off if you’re having trouble with your order. If it’s your first order, you may need to call your bank to tell them to approve the European charge.

There is a bonus in the Bookstream, when one of Richard Spencer’s little gamma pals shows up and demands that I talk to Spencer… apparently not realizing that Spencer ran away from a debate with me proposed by the Ralph Retort. And it seems 2VS is now running around telling people that I plagiarized… NN Taleb?

This is why there is no media or new media worth doing anymore. It’s all just grist for the drama mill.

Invasive species in Europe

It’s strange that scientists expect people to be concerned about the threat invasive species pose to the native squirrel population, but not the native human population.

Meet 9 Creepy Species That Pose Greatest Threat to Europe

Scientists have identified 66 species of plants and animals that pose the greatest threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. These species, entering and falling into new territories, displace the local flora and fauna.

Scientists considered eight species to be the most dangerous, another 40 to be high-risk, and 18 others to be medium-risk.

Species considered by the team of researchers included plants, terrestrial invertebrates and some marine and freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates.

This is just additional evidence that even those who affect to believe in evolution by natural selection don’t really believe in it.

How to spot a liar

Owen Benjamin explains:

Number one is a passive voice. Notice when someone doesn’t use the word “I”. Passive. Like saying “you”. When you add too many words, liars a lot of times are trying so hard not to be caught lying that they overdescribe things. They won’t say things like “I saw, I see”, those are direct, that’s direct language. It’s always passive. “You’d be inclined to believe that”. Liars also speak in the negative. Always understand that when a liar is speaking, they’re always simply trying to avoid being caught in a deception. They’re not trying to say anything, they’re only trying to evade. It’s like word judo.

So they don’t say what they saw, they say what they didn’t see. And they say “you”. It’s never “I”. Because when you say “I saw, I went, I am, I will” that is people hold you to that. That’s why Kennedy was like “We will go to the Moon. That’s very direct language.

Evasive language is when you say “the gun went off”. You don’t say “I shot someone”, you put all the onus on the object and not yourself. Like “you know how fast you were going?” “The car started accelerating.” No.  A liar is always trying to take everything off you and you’re never going to make a statement that can later proven to be false.

It’s so funny because if someone speaks clearly and strongly and with meaning, I am so much more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt as just being wrong than if someone speaks this way. The odds are really high that they are liars…. They also tend to stutter on the word “I” when they are lying. “I… I… I.”

I am immediately suspicious of anyone who will not answer a direct question or who begins evasive action. I knew Jordan Peterson was a liar due to his dishonest response to criticism on the IQ question, so when I saw his first video and witnessed his “I… I… I’ve been thinking so deeply about this for so long that I can’t possibly give you an answer”, that simply confirmed what I already knew. But it would have been enough to make me deeply suspicious of anything the man said.

Another tell is when they avoid precision with regards to quantities. They suddenly can’t remember what their IQ is, but somehow, they know it is really high! They can’t tell you how much they owe you, but they always know to the penny how much someone else owes them.

Financial blacklisting

Allum Bokhari traces it back to the credit card companies and the SPLC:

Crowdfunding platforms like Patreon, which allow online content creators to collect donations from their supporters, are frequently cast as the primary villains in financial blacklisting. Patreon’s recent ban of YouTuber Carl Benjamin, better known by his moniker Sargon of Akkad, triggered a crisis for the platform. Both donors and creators — including prominent atheist Sam Harris — quit the platform in protest, while Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin pledged to create an alternative platform that is pro-free speech.

But Patreon and other crowdfunding platforms are not the real villains. They are dependent on the whims of the credit card companies, something that was already apparent in August when Mastercard forced them to withdraw service from Robert Spencer. We now know that the credit card companies were also a factor in Patreon’s decision to boot Benjamin.

YouTuber and Patreon creator Matt Christiansen recently released a transcript of his conversation with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon about Benjamin’s ban. Hart frankly admits that the sensibilities of credit card companies play a key role in Patreon’s decisions.

Here’s an excerpt of that transcript:

JACQUELINE: The problem is is Patreon takes payments.  And while we are obviously supportive of the first amendment, there are other things that we have to consider. Our mission is to fund the creative class. In order to accomplish that mission we have to build a community of creators that are comfortable sharing a platform, and if we allow certain types of speech that some people would call free speech, then only creators that use Patreon that don’t mind their branding associated with that kind of speech would be those who use Patreon and we fail at our mission.  But secondly as a membership platform, payment processing is one of the core value propositions that we have. Payment processing depends on our ability to use the global payment network, and they have rules for what they will process.

MATT:  Are you telling me that this was Patreon’s decision then, or someone pressured you into this?

JACQUELINE:  No – this was entirely Patreon’s decision.  

MATT:  Well then I don’t understand passing the buck off to somebody else.  

JACQUELINE:  No, I’m not passing the buck off.  The thing is we have guidelines, but I’m trying to explain, #1 it is our mission to fund the creative class and obviously some people may not want to be associated.  

MATT:  Well if it’s your mission, then payment processors are irrelevant.  It’s your mission. That’s what you’re pursuing.

JACQUELINE:  We’re not visa and mastercard ourselves – we can’t just make the rules.  That’s what I’m saying – there is an extra layer there.

This “extra layer” places platforms like Patreon in an impossible position: abandon free speech or lose your ability to process payments. That’s also why so many free-speech alternatives to Patreon have failed: FreeStartr, Hatreon, MakerSupport, and SubscribeStar all tried to offer a more open platform, and were promptly dumped by the credit card companies. All are unable to do business.

This exposes the emptiness of establishment conservative arguments about the free market. Those who oppose Silicon Valley censorship aren’t allowed to just build their own alternative platforms. They must build their own global payment processing infrastructure to have any hope of restoring free speech online. That, or they must find a way to stop Visa, Mastercard and Discover from taking advice from the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Color of Change.

I’m a little dubious that Patreon and other companies engaged in financial deplatforming are quite as innocent as Allum paints them here; it strikes me that they are really doing what they want to do and using the credit card companies as an excuse. But this financial deplatforming is unlikely to continue for long, as the political pressure is growing for the Republicans to do something about it, and it will probably not be long before we see the first successful legal action against a deplatforming platform, which should have a salutory chilling effect on those attempting to wage financial terrorism. Because that is quite literally what it is.

And perhaps more importantly, a number of Asian payment processors are extremely eager to move into the vacuum that is being created by the Third World-style unreliability and lack of accountability of their Western counterparts.

A satanic racial imperialist

In case you ever had any doubts about my complete rejection of Richard Spencer or why I identified him as a Fake Right anti-nationalist, this video should resolve them for you. This is a partial transcript of ‘The Richard Spencer Show: Moonraker’ with Mark Brahmin on HEELTURN

RICHARD SPENCER: This is our view of the world, this is what we do for you now, and this is our view for the future. At some point we need to put forth a legitimate vision and a legitimate platform, saying this is our answer to the world’s problems. I think there’s something to be said for such a vision.

CALLER: Ancient Greeks sacked cities and set fire to their homes. Modern paleocons say that there must be a homeland for all. They are gay. Nations rise and fall, we either live to colonize the stars or die honorably. Paleocons aren’t even right-wing.

RICHARD SPENCER: I basically agree with this criticism of what you could say is pan-nationalism. It’s almost like egalitarian nationalism, but it’s almost nationalism as egalitarianism. You know, every single little people will have an ethnostate homeland and we’ll all therefore kind of unify, or, you know, at least treat each other fairly, and kind of be unified, the friendship of peoples, you could say, and so on. I think there is something to be said for such a vision, and something at least rhetorically that we should call upon, and say that you have your ethnostate, this is what we want.

But as an actual ideology, I think it absolutely fails. This is not, this is simply not, how the world works. Nations and states are born, they live, they flourish, they decay and die. And we can’t just freeze the world as it is now and say nothing ever changes from here on out. No, we believe in an organic view of society. There is going to be life, and death, and decay, and victory, and defeat.

I think as an actual philosophy, this pan-nationalism has never, I’ve never had any interest in it. And also, one thing we can learn from the ancient world, we can also learn from the modern world as well, there are hegemonic power blocs across the world. That is not going to go anywhere. We aren’t going to just simply devolve into little statelets, or city states, or neighborhoods, whatever they want. There’s going to be big kahunas out there, who have more power than others, and are going to form the geopolitical world order. That just is what it is. We need to live in the world that exists and not just in some fantasy land.

MARK BRAHMIN: It’s also desirable. I mean, honestly, it’s also desirable. There is this famous parable in the Bible about the Tower of Babel. And the whole premise of that parable is that there are effectively these kind of non-Jewish figures whoa re trying to build a tower to go to the heavens. The Jewish god effectively sees them as a competitor, right?

RICHARD SPENCER: Right.

MARK BRAHMIN: He sends down his minions. He says lets go down and confuse their languages and disrupt them. So that Tower of Babel is kind of an ideal. That’s something that our adversaries wouldn’t want. When I say “the Tower of Babel” that would actually be a kind of unified culture. This unified language, or a common language, and common culture. We already have that to on extent or another, with English being a coommon language in the Western World. I think going in that direction, further in that direction, is actually a good thing.

RICHARD SPENCER: We need to flip all this supposed Biblical wisdom on its head. This is the paleocon answer: Oooh the Tower of Babel or whatever! It’s funny that a lot of these people are Catholics. No, we build structures that last a thousand years. That is what we do. We build the Tower of Babel. We build Rome and we centralize things and bring people together. And this can last a long time.

First, he doesn’t know what “pan-nationalism” means. He himself is actually a pan-national imperialist, and what he’s criticizing is genuine nationalism. Second, he’s not merely non-Christian and he wasn’t “confused about Brexit”, he openly supports globalist projects like the European Union and looks to the Tower of Babel as an ideal.

Spencer is no more on the side of Western civilization than Jordan Peterson or George Soros. He’s just another head of the globalist hydra.

Here we go again

Apparently Literally Who is uncontrollably attractive to niche journalists:

Last June, DC Comics announced that the company would be reviving their graphic and adult content imprint, Vertigo Comics. The relaunch was announced alongside several new titles which aimed to speak to current social issues, such as xenophobia in Eric Esquivel’s Border Town or sexual freedom in Tina Horn’s Safe Sex. One of the titles announced for this relaunch was Goddess Mode, a cyber punk adventure series written by Zoë Quinn with art provided by Robbi Rodriguez.

Recently, The Verge’s Laura Hudson conducted and  published an interview with Quinn. The published piece is a fairly standard promotional interview in which Quinn speaks at length on Goddess Mode in order to promote her book in the wake of the comic’s official release. Yet many readers were quick to point out that, while the piece itself was innocuous, there was a glowing omission: Hudson did not disclose her personal relationship with Quinn.

If there is anyone in the media who does not have a personal relationship with Zoe Quinn, please raise your hand. At least we can all look forward to the inevitable CSI-SVU episode about a crazed ComicsGater kidnapping the Zoe Quinn stand-in.

The ride never ends.

Universal liberal imperialism

As promised in last night’s Darkstream, I started reading Yoram Hazony’s The Virtue of Nationalism last night. I only read up to Chapter 8 before turning in, but so far, Hazony appears to be a genuine nationalist rather than a fake nationalist Neopalestine-Firster like Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro. He makes some excellent observations, and while he so far has steered almost entirely clear of the heavy involvement of members of his nation in what he calls “the international liberal empire”, that’s not particularly important in light of the focus of his work on the intrinsic imperialism of universal liberalism.

MY LIBERAL FRIENDS AND colleagues do not seem to understand that the advancing liberal construction is a form of imperialism. But to anyone not already immersed in the new order, the resemblance is easy to see. Much like the pharaohs and the Babylonian kings, the Roman emperors and the Roman Catholic Church until well into the modern period, as well as the Marxists of the last century, liberals, too, have their grand theory about how they are going to bring peace and economic prosperity to the world by pulling down all the borders and uniting mankind under their own universal rule. Infatuated with the clarity and intellectual rigor of this vision, they disdain the laborious process of consulting with the multitude of nations they believe should embrace their view of what is right. And like other imperialists, they are quick to express disgust, contempt, and anger when their vision of peace and prosperity meets with opposition from those who they are sure would benefit immensely by simply submitting.

Liberal imperialism is not monolithic, of course. When President George H. W. Bush declared the arrival of a “new world order” after the demise of the Communist bloc, he had in mind a world in which America supplies the military might necessary to impose a “rule of law” emanating from the Security Council of the United Nations. Subsequent American presidents rejected this scheme, preferring a world order based on unilateral American action in consultation with European allies and others. Europeans, on the other hand, have preferred to speak of “transnationalism,” a view that sees the power of independent nations, America included, as being subordinated to the decisions of international judicial and administrative bodies based in Europe. These disagreements over how the international liberal empire is to be governed are often described as if they are historically novel, but this is hardly so. For the most part, they are simply the reincarnation of threadworn medieval debates between the emperor and the pope over how the international Catholic empire should be governed—with the role of the emperor being reprised by those (mostly Americans) who insist that authority must be concentrated in Washington, the political and military center; and the role of the papacy being played by those (mostly European, but also many American academics) who see ultimate authority as residing with the highest interpreters of the universal law, namely, the judicial institutions of the United Nations and the European Union.

These arguments within the camp of liberal imperialism raise pressing questions for the coming liberal construction of the West. But for those of us who remain unconvinced of the desirability of maintaining such a liberal empire, the most salient fact is what the parties to these disagreements have in common. For all their bickering, proponents of the liberal construction are united in endorsing a single imperialist vision: They wish to see a world in which liberal principles are codified as universal law and imposed on the nations, if necessary by force. This, they agree, is what will bring us universal peace and prosperity.

The book so far almost reads like something John Red Eagle and I might have written as a follow-up to Cuckservative. It’s definitely something Castalia House would not have hesitated to publish. A warning for libertarians, though. You will find yourself distinctly disappointed, if not outright angered, by the positions espoused by Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek with regards to liberal imperialism.

It also makes me suspect that Hazony’s tangential attack on globalism as a particularly virulent form of imperialism might prove to be more effective rhetoric than attacking it directly in its own right.