Saturday, July 01, 2017

Black tears stain the cheeks that once were so admired

Last year Reuters-Ipsos ran a poll asking participants to choose a term that best described themselves from a list of twelve responses. One of those is "Feminist". The following graph shows the percentages of female respondents, by age, who chose it over the other eleven possible answers (n = 6,269):

The other options are Democrat, Conservative, Republican, Liberal, Environmentalist, Socialist, Libertarian, Nationalist, Anarchist, Populist, and Communist, so this isn't the consequence of something like "Mother" or "Wife" confounding the results.

The term is hardly novel. It's not as though the figures are higher for younger women because it's a new thing the old fogies haven't ever heard of. To the contrary, the blue hairs have known feminism the longest--and it's central to the identity of very few of them.

For women under 30, the Yolo/Eat, Pray, Love lifestyle is enticing. The world bends its knee--for a few years.

Petals begin falling through the twenties. The attention that came as easily as a summer's breeze before now requires effort. With each passing day it takes a little more effort than it did the day before.

By the mid-thirties wilting is well underway. Diet, working out, sleeping better--at best these merely slow the decline. Despite the best efforts, the hourglass transforms into a pear and then into a box. Gravity relentlessly renders all things saggier, looser.

Reaching that point without a family is realizing the chances of ever having one to be in free fall. Partner options are limited and uniformly less appealing than any who excited stirred the passions a decade ago.

Upon turning forty the spinster becomes invisible to the world (the human world anyway--there are always cats). Family functions are painful. Being the cool aunt is bittersweet. Mostly bitter.

The prospect of several decades of lonely, slow decay is immiserating, suffocating, and... unavoidable.

There won't be any visits in the retirement or nursing home. There are no visitors to do the visiting.

At expiration, scarcely a soul notices. It's as though she never was:


Mama Pepe said...


this reminds me of this song that Heartiste wrote and i recorded

Audacious Epigone said...

Mama Pepe,

Yeah I remember that from a few months ago. Good stuff.

Issac said...

Women best suited to the liberal education and career life are rapidly selecting themselves out of the gene pool.

Audacious Epigone said...


Nature has a way of sorting things out over the long term.

silly girl said...

Oh, and ladies, watch out for cavities!

I never had cavities when young, but after children, I got several. That is almost worse than wrinkles and grey hair and having to get glasses, and...

Audacious Epigone said...

The GSS asked about feminism in 1996 (see here). Silents and Boomers embraced it, X-ers did not. Now R-I shows a possible resurgence among millennials/Z-ers. R-I shows low figures for the same cohorts who relatively strongly identified in the GSS, though. Could be that the concept of feminism--while the term itself isn't novel--has shifted considerably over the last couple of decades. The women who thought it was great in 1996 may have changed tune, too, as they've aged.

Take me back said...

That was one of my favorite songs when I was a kid. I did an " exegesis " when I was in middle school for a literature class.

Feryl said...

Reminder: 18 yr old males look like boys for a reason. Females are so valuable that nature develops them quickly; even taking into account the R & K selection thing, Asian/white girls are typically at the end of the assembly line by the time they graduate high school at the very latest. Males, on the other hand, are expected to gradually build up a mate attracting CV in their adolescence and young adulthood, with the contenders separated from the pretenders by about age 30 (by most accounts most people's lives are set by that age). Males who can't compete realize that they're status is likely never going to rise after that age (though it's still possible) while for non-fecund women who didn't find (or choose) Mr. right, it's when angst begins to kick in and a sense of dread about the inevitable grows..

Like it or not, nature gives males a competition window which gradually widens and gradually closes; women are given a biological timer that starts around the age of 15 and lasts 15-20 more years, with the ticker speeding up and getting louder as time goes by.

Issac said...

AE- Yes it does; however, the bad news is that a 1/5 loss in female fertility is quite significant even if the trend is being reversed by selective pressure. I think Feryl makes an excellent point. Men having a wider fertility window softens the blow. Marry younger women and bypass the female dysgenic bottleneck.

Sid said...

What's so funny to me is how 18-24 year old rich white girls can somehow buy into feminism and seriously believe they're oppressed. Western girls in that age range are the most privileged fools in human history, and it's not even funny how much everyone goes out of their way to make sure they're not even slightly inconvenienced.

But because of "intersectionality," feminists believe they're as oppressed as slaves. Heck, when you show them people who objectively had it worse than them, such as slaves in antiquity, Indian laborers during the Doji bara, etc., they just take it as a signal that they're even MORE oppressed! "See, this is how terrible the Patriarchy is!"

Audacious Epigone said...


To put it in Heartisean terms, the SMV curve for women shoots almost straight up after puberty, rides high for a few years, then begins rapidly collapsing in the thirties and is almost nothing by 40. Men's slowly begin to rise at puberty and continue to slowly and steadily do so until ~40 (with plenty of exceptions) from which point it begins slowly and steadily declining. The female peak is higher than the male peak.


Marry younger women and bypass the female dysgenic bottleneck.

Indeed--I'm 34, my wife is 26. We have two kids, 3 and 1.


In a world where victimization has replaced just about everything else in terms of acquiring status, it's understandable. But also perverse, of course.

chris said...


This blog piece here captures the different cases of SMV amongst men and women of different ages very well I think.

Audacious Epigone said...

Take me back,

"Now the progress takes away what forever took to find"

RIP Western Civilization.

Audacious Epigone said...


That's a great theoretical take, graphs are just about perfect (only quibble I have is I think male SMV graph should be even less steep on both the incline and decline than it is). The evidence for relationships actually lasting doesn't quite match up though--more than ten years apart in age are very high risk for divorce, but there are other potential reasons for that.

Feryl said...

Well, Germany also admitted recently that a huge number of refugees are going to be jobless for the foreseeable future.

If America went through several stages with blacks, well, perhaps ethnically similar whites in other Western countries will do the same.

What were America's stages with race relations?

- hordes of culturally and genetically alien people are dumped on our shores (largely due to corrupt and arrogant elites who've stopped concerning themselves with prole natives and the effects of diversity on a national culture's long-term viability). Pre-civil war America.

- discord among elites grows as they try and figure what the hell to do with a population of people incapable of partaking in Western norms. Meanwhile, a lack of effective and urgent correction plays havoc with social policy, public safety, and civic order. The build up to the civil war, the war itself, and it's aftermath, about 1850-1900. Dominant generation: Transcendental (arrogant, out of control). Rising generations: Guilded (fatalistic, detached) and Progressive (neurotic)

- The grief that accompanies elite ideological and sometimes literal warfare and prole exploitation has become intolerable, and the at the time rising generations focus more on noblesse oblige for the natives, including non-whites. It turns out that physical and cultural segregation, combined with low(er) immigration levels creates harmony and soothes non-elites who by then are tired of a half-century of bickering and chaos. Roughly 1900-1945. Dominant generation: Missionary (wise, disciplined). Rising generations: Lost (self-sacrificing, pragmatic), and G.I.s (optimistic, comfortable).

Feryl said...

- Prosperity and peace embolden G.I. and Silent leaders to embark on ambitious public and ideological works. However, the youngest generation (Boomers), which grew up tremendously spoiled and was encouraged to think outside the box/question authority, simultaneously accuses older generations of corruption and cowardice. First this young generation usurps cultural authority before the oldest Boomers are 40 (1980, at which time G.I.s and Losts were evicted from influencing mainstream mores and trends), and within the next 10-20 years they share political power with the generation above them (the Silents). The projects started by confident G.I.s just won't work with callow Boomers and guilt-ridden Silents, younger generations who squander the gifts they inherited.

Boomers, and to a lesser degree, Silents, egg on crime waves, welfare abuse, greed, and corruption (Boomers who once railed against the man turn out to be even worse than that which they once criticized). Poor behavior among the rising generations of this period (Silents, Boomers, and X-ers) is handled primarily by mass incarceration as well as, to a lesser degree, restrictions on welfare use, as the elites of these generation adopt an every man for himself attitude in which the winners boast and the losers are written off. Blacks disproportionately turn out to be the biggest losers here, though we try and off-set that by giving blacks greater liberties to live in white society while we also use affirmative action/diversity ideology to encourage blacks to have better jobs, feel better about themselves, etc. So long as some semblance of prosperity and civic order can be maintained, whites will begrudgingly foot the bill and cultural elites will tolerate the dissolution of the general black community that comes about when black elites are permitted to escape now dystopian black ghettos and live among whites and upper class blacks.

This period can be divided into about three parts: 1946-1964 (success, the G.I. phase), 1964-1980 (hedonism/experimentation, the Silent phase), and 1980-2007 (cynicism, decadence, the Boomer phase)

- Due to the economic recession, and Boomers eager to begin a new age of ideological warfare (as signalled by Obama being far more driven by cultural reforms and ethnic grievance than populist economic reform), native prole whites finally say enough! Right now it's up to Boomers to set the proper tone, and finally show that they're capable of putting the right foot forward. Boomer follies are threatening to alienate the lion's share of X-ers from the highest levels of society (be they economic or cultural), as corrupt Boomer dominated institutions have become infected by self-righteous jerkoffs who rub most X-ers the wrong way. And Millennials, to the extent that they can used/harnessed, are in danger of emulating the worst characteristics of the previous two generations: the older Millennials, in particular, might be adopting a detached and fed up mindset similar to X-ers (albeit with lower levels of self-destructive behavior), while later Millennials in particular might be latching on to the humorless and sanctimonious scolding of Boomers (albeit with a bit more modesty). If we're not careful, if we don't learn to rein the excesses in, we're in for another civil war style period of perpetual tremendous bad faith between the races. Boomers have to choose between the path taken by Transcendentals (war, arrogance, toxic wrong-headed idealism) or the one taken by Missionaries (new found virtue and tranquility to benefit younger generations ). 2008-Present.

chris said...


Are those couples more than 10 years apart ones were the male is more educated as well as older?


"Bereczkei’s and Csanaky’s (1996) study of more than 1,800 Hungarian men and women who were 35 years of age or older (and thus not likely to have more children) found that women who had married older and better educated
men on average had more children, were less likely to get divorced, and reported higher levels of marital satisfaction than did women who married younger and/or less educated men. In short, marrying a culturally successful
man provides the woman with social, psychological, and reproductive benefits (Geary, 2000; Low, 2000)."

The study in question:

Feryl said...

BTW, as previous generations of Europeans learned, Muslims (of all ethnicities, East African included) will NEVER peacefully co-exists, at all, with other cultures. Here in 'Merica, and elsewhere in the Anglo diaspora, low-functioning ethnic minorities who do not happen to be Muslim (West African blacks, feather indians, Puerto Ricans, Australian aborigines, etc.) and do not join the artificial lower IQ NAM middle class, basically experience alienation/isolation from white society with periods of boiling tension and periods of cooling down, which happen at least every 50 years and sometimes after 25 years. There was a later 60's spike in blacks and Indians causing trouble, along with less prominent "chicano" power movements at the time. Flash forward to the late 80's/early 90's, and colleges start dropping Indian nicknames, Disney does Pocahontas, a boom in "urban" movies and trends (this after the late 1970's/Reagan 80's period where whites disdained black urban culture).

These days, roughly intensifying around Obama's 2nd term, the BLM movement took off, people started bitching about too many people (e.g., blacks) being in prison, The Washington Redskins are apparently single-handedly holding down an entire ethnic group and must have their name changed, etc.

But at least with non-Muslim minorities who don't descend from East Asia/the Indian sub-continent, we get periods of (relative) tranquility and at least a grudging acceptance that perhaps, we might never see eye to eye, but whatever, that's just the way it goes. That happens after 5-10 years of rising tension between non-Muslims NAMS and the (for the time being) numerically dominant host white population.

For what it's worth, an apparent plus turns out to become a negative for Muslim integration. Muslims are less personally chaotic/violent/obstreperous than, say, West Africans or Australian aborigines. Good, right? Not so fast. Semitic and North African cultures are highly prone to collectivist tribal warfare. Whereas typical ghetto black Americans are prone to shooting each other up for the most airheaded and sef-absorbed reasons, Muslims are much more disciplined. They're good at teaming up and sublimating the individual's moral/spiritual/hedonistic agency to the "greater" cause of dying for their ethnic group and Allah. The lion's share of West Africans are still Christian, or at least associated with a FUBU variant of Islam that tries (in vain) to rally blacks together for a commie inspired collectivist social/spiritual movement. But West Africans and their descendants respond better to Anglo Christianity's focus on one's individual and unique relationship with God and Jesus, that does not ask people to seek martyrdom to gain esteem in one's community or church. Black churches not run by cultural Marxists, in fact, have historically been associated with passionate individual ecstasy, not sober devotion to a communal cause. Obama (who is not West African but a Kenyan mullato) was drawn to the Rev. Wright (a light skinned black who focused more on condemning white Western culture than he did on praising the glory of God). Obama has always seemed aloof and even a bit dorky; he's never felt at home with West African culture which he seems to know (or at least once knew). Marrying Michelle (who typifies "normal" black American ancestry and emotional affect), resenting Bobby Rush for keeping it real with voters, etc.

Feryl said...

How does the racial Venn diagram go?

- Individualistic - Europeans, West Africans, North American feather Indians, Australian Aboriginies

Collectivist - Everybody else (Asians, North/East Africans, Mixtec type New Worlders, virtually all ethnic groups originating from the Middle East with some being worse or better than others)

- High functioning - Europeans, Asians

Low functioning - Everyone else

- Extroverted - Those from Africa and the Middle East

(comparatively) Introverted - Everyone else.

So, I've got the three perhaps primary traits on which to classify ethnic groups: individual vs group orientation, Intelligence/competence, and emotion vs stoicism. Those who hail from North/East Africa and the Middle East have a toxic combo of collectivism, low intelligence, and passion. I seem to recall too that within the Middle East, the most depressed losers were drawn to the most toxic variants of Islam and Islam in general, while Christianity/Judaism/more modernist strain of Islam are pitted against these assholes. And of course, European Christians created the most benign variant of that religion to adapt for white individualistic benevolence/creativity, while Ashkenazi Jews personally shy away from violence (there are very, very, very few Ash. Jews in prison). West African blacks are not interested enough in sublimating depressive rage (which they tend to not have much of, anyway) into collectivist disciplined violence on a regular basis.

What with all the inbreeding and terrorist mania among Arabs (read: Muslims),it's obvious that they have created some of the worst and most toxic culture on the Earth.

Feryl said...

Why do white people do so great? Individualism, high IQ, and stoicism. Problem is, we take for granted our gifts and, in times of prosperity, too many of us think our awesome culture can be magically transmitted to other ethnic groups whose cultures never selected for the above traits. One reason why American whites and "blacks" (e.g., West Africans) remain so committed to 1960's ideals is their individualism; no less than MLK said that he dreamed of a society where ethnicity was ignored. Meanwhile, studies show that collectivist ethnic groups (like Asians and Mexicans) have much less PC attitudes towards race. And the Middle East's collectivist cultures are the most vicious, from a tribal stand point, in the world.

It's mainly whites and West Africans who fantasize about Kumbaya visions, other ethnic groups just want their own space and want everyone else to stay the hell out. BTW, to the whites who read this blog, I'm sure you've had amiable encounters with chatty blacks. Sure, blacks to a man are quite dangerous and commit a lot of crime, but that's based on narcissistic sociopathy more so than collective tribalism. Kinda like how black women resent white girls stealing their men not for some kind of ethnic or political reason, but more because black women take it as a personal diss. Disses are more personal among whites and West Africans (look at their culture of rap battles/the dozens, where they playfully give each other shit). Whereas "the dozens", in the Middle East and North Africa, would lead to dozens of families massacring each other.

Audacious Epigone said...


I'm going off of Jason Malloy's reference from several years ago. I'll try to find the comment thread. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about it and don't know what different attributes were controlled for (though the one showing higher levels of education is a potential confounder because education is a strong predictor of marital stability). I may be incorrect. My intuition is staying just inside the rule of 7 is probably ideal (woman half the man's age plus 7 years). There is a "high point" in that dynamic, though, so maybe matching the curves is better.

If the woman honors her end of the bargain--feminine, unconditional fidelity, nurturing, supportive--then the man should cut her some slack. Having children is stressful on the body. After she's had a kid, her best years are behind her in terms of physical attractiveness. That's not her fault.

Feryl said...

"Industry analysts estimate that rising costs of developing combustion engines that meet ever-stricter emissions regulations could make some electric models more affordable as soon as 2025. With a starting price of around $35,000, the Tesla Model 3 that launches this week is only slightly more expensive than BMW AG’s 3-Series sedan with a gasoline or diesel engine."

Get it? Governments (federal or state, see CA) have to handicap ICE vehicles to make alt. energy more competitive. As usual, no discussion of the eco impact of the manufacturing process. Also, won't this strain energy demand, should large numbers of people start driving E vehicles?

"82k vehicles per year? This Chinese automaker is trying to market the rare earth and other high pollutant items they've sewn up for years.

Unless its a hybrid, electric cars are useful only in cities for short hops. Using the heater cuts down the range even further from the miserable numbers posted now.

Ford sells more mustangs alone!"

"I look at it differently. Volvo is looking to see if it can raid the US Treasury as Tesla has."

See.....ICE innovators/entrepreneurs didn't need massive subsidies for boondoggles. When the "market" takes this damn long to figure out how to harness and scale a "new" technology though the technical means to fashion an electric car have existed for many decades at this point, it's just that people couldn't get E cars to be logistically and economically practical, it means that E vehicles are to a large degree a fraud that exploits liberal guilt and fuels globalist technocrats.

More later.

Audacious Epigone said...


This reads like the outline of a book. Have you considered it?

Germany just passed a law going after the opinion dealers instead of just the opinion makers. The effort to crush dissent is entering a new phase. Executing drug dealers (rather than users) shuts down the drug trade. Executing platforms that allow dissident opinions will shut down the airing of those opinions. I hope the historical exercise is informative, but I'm cynical enough to think that Western Europe (especially the continent; I actually have more hope for Britain) is going to roll over.

Audacious Epigone said...

Those who hail from North/East Africa and the Middle East have a toxic combo of collectivism, low intelligence, and passion.

Somalia immediately comes to mind, before I even finish reading the sentence.

Audacious Epigone said...

studies show that collectivist ethnic groups (like Asians and Mexicans) have much less PC attitudes towards race

Indeed, the GSS shows the same.

Feryl said...

"The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975, the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially based selection criteria unlawful. In the decades since, Australia has maintained largescale multi-ethnic immigration. Australia's current Migration Program allows people from any country to apply to migrate to Australia, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, culture, religion, or language, provided that they meet the criteria set out in law.[3]"

Found this in Wiki's white Australia page. While Jews were heavily responsible for creating incendiary images and rhetoric that basically burned cities to the ground in 1960's America, the much smaller (and perhaps, less venomous than American Jews) population in Canada and Australia (or hell, anywhere else in the West) can't really be blamed for the early stages of white national identity being actively opposed by Western governments. It's really all Hitler's fault.

Subsequent to WW-2, white Western countries were so ashamed by fascism and it's well-meaning ideological roots throughout the West that we commenced a series of ever more ambitious social/legal movements to "correct" whatever past mistakes we'd made

What's so eternally frustrating is how a key feature of all nations before WW-2 (defense of ethnic continuity/homogeneity) was discredited by one asshole getting carried away (Hitler), with just two other countries foolish enough to have leaders go along for the ride (Italy and Japan).

And if in previous eras there was at times some kind of debate and discord about the necessity of limiting diversity, well, the majority of people didn't feel repulsed by the notion that their nations belong first and foremost to those who built them and their descendants. Jared Taylor had a fascinating video in which he quoted numerous respected American elites WRT to racial views in the pre-WW2 era. It's a given that they understood HBD. The paleo crowd has long known that Lincoln himself believed blacks to be a permanent lower class incapable of advancing, such that he felt it would better to just send them back to Africa.

Feryl said...

It turns out that a country can only withstand about 60-70 years of native self-sacrifice on the altar of the diversity idol. In Trump's campaign season, large numbers of immigrants (some of whom weren't even legal!) had the nerve to join protests. As late as the 70's, Western authorities would likely have actively disrupted and perhaps even arrested these trouble makers. (recall Kent State, in which a cop possibly without just cause fired on protesters). After the unrest of the 60's and 70's, more and more leaders thought that urban/campus/youth unrest should be allowed to "burn" itself out, lest crowds be further provoked.

In Europe, Muslim rape gangs mock authority and rule of law, everybody (even cops) is supposed to look away from almost every sign of Muslim danger (with token arrests of some radicals). Remember when Trump suggested greater monitoring of Muslim neighborhoods, how much it bugged people? Didn't he talk about knowing where to find these people? The MSM/liberals were quick to scream profiling, and also had the gall to suggests that nobody, least of all Trump, could possibly discern what made a particular neighborhood/Muslim association worth scrutiny.

We can't do anything that would smack of ethnic profiling/quarantining/stigmatizing, God, the MSM went crazy. They teased Trump: "what exactly would you look for? "How would you go about this?". Who do they think they're kidding? The enemy organizes and collaborates with somebody, and it's also damn obvious that ethnic groups cluster together. Just as stupid was the media saying that "you can't find all the immigrants", it's costly, difficult, divisive, etc.

All's you have to do is get some good people to build trust in these areas. The subversives invariably will spill their guts to our agents. The agents will tell the proper authorities, who'll arrest/deport/other wise punish these dangerous people. I know we do this already, but the sheer number of invaders, and the resultant effect of little Somali's and such being replenished with wave after wave, make monitoring very difficult.

Perhaps, with PC reaching tortuously inane depths, we have to pretend that not only is noticing differences a prima facie bad thing, but that any effort expended to discern and record these differences is ignorant and futile. Since after all, all Good People everywhere understand that ethic groups are equal in ability and potential. As such, we can't hit anyone, Muslims or otherwise, with the assault of "low-expectations" and unfair pre-judgement after noticing that they're nests of vipers, flaring their hoods, ready to strike us at any moment.

chris said...


"What's so eternally frustrating is how a key feature of all nations before WW-2 (defense of ethnic continuity/homogeneity) was discredited by one asshole getting carried away (Hitler), with just two other countries foolish enough to have leaders go along for the ride (Italy and Japan)."

I suspect the only thing that will reverse this will be experiencing the negative consequences of non/anti-racism on the same level as the horrors of WWII.

It took lived experience to get us here, it will take lived experience to get us out of here.

Feryl said...

And our capacity for empathy is so great that we'll tolerate the inadequacies of virtually all ethnic groups. If muzzies would at least have 2 cooling off decades in between flare-ups of nonsense, like other low-functioning ethnic groups, they'd do themselves a big favor.

It might sound sick, but the utter non-compliance that muslims have toward even halfway getting along with other ethnic groups is a blessing in disguise. Why? It destroys the notion that any particular group, no matter their origin, their ancestry, their religion, etc. can authentically become Western.

Other ethnic groups, no matter their problems, can at times inspire empathy and even fascination since they're not plotting 24/7 to subvert the West. Some strains of Islam are worse than others, yet the more modernist/individualist camp, such as it is, is seemingly helpless to stop Muslims from waging war on other cultures.

Audacious Epigone said...

In Trump's campaign season, large numbers of immigrants (some of whom weren't even legal!) had the nerve to join protests

When I went to the Trump rally in Kansas City during the primaries the pre-rally protesters were waving Mexican and Iraqi flags. We were having fun taunting the whites among them by telling them to pledge the flags of their countries as we pointed at the foreign flags. While the post-rally protesters were more professionalized, the pre-rally protesters were obvious spontaneous because a stunt like that so obviously backfired on them. The local media, of course, exclusively covered the post-rally protests.

but the utter non-compliance that muslims have toward even halfway getting along with other ethnic groups is a blessing in disguise

Right. We hear a lot about the "thin end of the wedge". Well, for Euro-descended identitarians, Muslims are that thin end.