While I’m not a professor of economics from MIT, I do have a real degree in economics and an honorary PhD in red pill pharmacy. Putting those two together allows me to explain what so frightens the good professor and the journalists quoting him. To start with, they very much should be frightened by the shrinking wage gap, but not because men are ignoring market signals or are somehow unfit for the modern economy. In fact, the problem is that men are slowly but surely starting to respond to market signals stemming from our radical overhaul of the family structure in recent decades.

Facts from world history

Frost: “Where does it all end? There appears to be a lifecycle to the typical man’s induction into Red Pill thought . . . Inevitably, we must draw one of three conclusions . . .”

– Specific predictions made by “science” do not materialize. “Science” still valid.

James Kalb: “the kind of meritocracy we have leads to stupidity. Its effect is that local and subordinate groupings are deprived of talent and respect, and the leadership at the top becomes unable to think or function outside established understandings.”

– What might modern slavery look like?

– See Nydwracu and Anomaly UK for some reactionary geekery.

– Derbyshire on gay marriage: “The three or four percent of the population that is homosexual will have arguably enjoyed a tiny increase in their freedoms. But for the rest of us, the zones of ideas we may discuss and opinions we may respectably hold will have shrunk yet further.”


22 Responses to Randoms

  1. survivingbabel says:

    After having read Derb’s questionable logic, I would like some critical responses to the following assertion:

    The only two logically consistent reactionary positions on homosexuality are:

    1. Full marriage equality, part and parcel of a general push of society back towards the nuclear family as it’s base (IOW, sanctioning of homosexual monogamy only).

    2. The absolute criminalization of all homosexual acts.

    I’m having a really hard time seeing how you can oppose SSM, especially for the reasons noted by the Derb, and not see that the acts must be outlawed. (For the record, I support #1, but am more than willing to listen to opposing arguments. I also understand how SSM benefits Cultural Marxism, but just because they are evil and often wrong doesn’t mean they can’t also sometimes get it right by accident.)

    • Foseti says:

      I don’t follow why there’s no middle ground. Who cares what people do if they’re quiet about it? Frankly, as reactionaries, I think it’s important to be skeptical of laws that are impossible to enforce.

      • survivingbabel says:

        Read Derb again. He points specifically to the AIDS epidemic being caused by promiscuous gays. Not all the men in those Turkish bathhouses started out wanting that life. Many would have gladly married a man and perhaps even adopted an orphan if given the opportunity. Either this prospect is okay with you, or it isn’t. It truly is a binary.

        For an issue like this, I don’t see how there can be a middle ground between tolerance (and the logical conclusion that monogamist gays are much more beneficial to society than promiscuous gays) and intolerance (and the need to stigmatize homosexuality again through law in order to discourage the chaos of socially sanctioned soft polygamy).

        (This position may seem nonsensical if you take the postmodern view of free sexuality for straight couples as a given. As a reactionary, I see no good reason to do so.)

      • Foseti says:

        I don’t read Derb as saying it has to be prohibited by law.

        Drunkness creates problems, but there are ways of dealing with it short of banning alcohol. Stigmatizing homosexuality or driving it out of sight are different than blanket prohibitions.

      • Foseti is right. The modern rights crusade is driven by the goal of _acceptance_ which is very different from tolerance. This distinction has been lost utterly.

      • survivingbabel says:

        Ah, but what do you tolerate? Do you tolerate the unregulated but hidden culture of anonymous gay male sex which leads to the STD epidemics? Surely not. But, John down the street, the “lifelong bachelor” with his “roommate” James is tolerated, correct? As long as they keep to themselves and don’t rock the boat? Well, when they fall in love, and care about each other, and then find that they can’t visit each other in the hospital, or owe the government thousands of dollars in taxes because they aren’t exempt, are they much better off now? Or have you set them up for a lifetime of conflict?

        How do you think we got here in the first place?

      • survivingbabel

        This is precisely the error spandrell seems to make often -> position or implying that the demand for these social changes comes from the affected parties as opposed to the progressive overclass as part of a culture war. If you accept the hereditary nature of homosexuality, you must accept that there weren’t many fewer homosexuals a couple centuries ago. So, why weren’t they clamoring for these changes?

      • Anonymous says:

        surviving babel says

        “But, John down the street, the “lifelong bachelor” with his “roommate” James is tolerated, correct? As long as they keep to themselves and don’t rock the boat? Well, when they fall in love, and care about each other, and then find that they can’t visit each other in the hospital, or owe the government thousands of dollars in taxes ”

        Tell them to CRY ABOUT IT, jesus christ, who cares?

      • asdf says:

        I’m not sure there are that many gay men who would act in a more mainstream marriage oriented way if they could get married. Promiscuity and gay men seem to go hand in hand regardless or prevailing social conditions. I’m sympathetic to the argument, as I’m sure there are a few for which this is the case, but in general I’m not buying that legalized gay marriage will cause the transformation of the gay community into model households.

      • survivingbabel says:


        I’m okay with that thesis, and it looks like we’ll have some good evidence over the next quarter-century. *If* it turns out that gays can’t or won’t settle down, then it’s time to remove all socially acceptable paths for them except celibacy. Per Comtemplationist, gays exists, regardless of how we feel about it. If they can’t be gay with one another, society simply has to offer acceptable paths, away from children as has been mentioned. But the genie is out of the bottle, and pretending gays are lifelong bachelors again is just kicking the can down the road.

    • Anonymous says:

      Cool asperger’s syndrome, bro

      Who gives a damn about being “ideologically consistent”?

  2. Flaming Loon says:

    Those people are not scientists.

  3. Francis the talking mule says:

    3. Homosexuals fly away back into the closet, we leave them alone as long as they do. They are strongly encouraged to stay far away from children.

    Marriage is re-oriented towards the production and rearing of children and the appropriate incentives are offered if needed.

    • Allan says:

      Now it’s we traditionalists
      who have been forced into the closet.
      if you dare,
      to say what you really think about homosexuals
      in ‘polite company’.

    • anon666 says:

      If they’re back in the closet, that means they marry women and have kids, as they once did, all for the sake of maintaining respectability. That’s quite the opposite of staying away from children, as you suggest.

  4. spandrell says:

    Well I think it was PA who goes around saying that gay lib is good, because creating a gay identity makes it harder for normal people to go on buggering boys as they used to in the old days.

    Now you’re either Gay, and you marry a dude and accept the officially sanctioned gay lifestyle, or you are not Gay, and the mere thought of touching a male is unconceivable.

  5. RS says:

    No, PA suggested radical liberation means more buggery of boys not less.

    At any rate it contributes to an atmosphere of plaint, hedonism, decadence, and deprecation of masculine ideals. Therefore, while I don’t give a god damn about people being queer, I favor free association.

  6. Giving gay married couples benefits is dumb because they aren’t forming families. They don’t need the extra money.

    Would it be that hard to have your lawyer write something up that says Lance can visit you in the hospital if you come down with a bad case of GRIDS?

    • Anonymous says:

      I flat out -refuse- to believe this this “gays can’t visit in the hospital” is a real problem…

      You mean to tell me that when people get visitors other than an official spouse, there are hospitals who are like fsck off, go away, only spouses allowed? What the hell? Where does this happen? I visited a childhood friend in the hospital at least a dozen times, I just walked in and they asked who i was here to see and told me where he was.

      • Foseti says:

        I agree. I don’t believe this happens or that – even if it does – marriage is the only (or even a reasonable) solution.

      • Handle says:

        What is happening, however, is that people and institutions that don’t want to be forced against their consciences to minister to homosexual couple as if they were in a traditional marriage are being thrown out of the public realm. Oh well, live by the sword, …

        But you can blame this on the law – people are forced or encouraged to argue mainly in frames that highlight the abstract, emotionally extreme cases or the hypothetical / theoretical.

        Anyone with any insight and maturity who pays attention to the “arguments” which float about on this topic will immediately notice that the various sides seem to be obsessed with focusing on trivial or ancillary “legal” issues they don’t genuinely care about in reality.

        If you rephrase the small cases in terms of what both sides really want, then it makes a lot more sense, and doesn’t require all the nonsense.

  7. Best argument against gay marriage, IMHO: You screw with long-established institutions at your peril.

    Unanticipated consequences can be huge. I’m old enough to remember the promises that were made vis a vis welfare, civil rights and immigration reform in the ’60s. Welfare wasn’t going to provide incentives for anyone to goof off and have welfare brats. Civil rights wasn’t going to turn into affirmative action. And immigration reform wasn’t going to significantly alter the ethnic balance of the country. How’d all that work out?

    So, my conclusion: Hey, why not let other countries legalize gay marriage, wait 50 years and see how it works out, and then give it some serious consideration of our own?

    It’s absurd to claim that numerous guys who were caught up in the gay bath-house scene of the ’70s wouldn’t have been if they’d had the option of gay marriage. Guys were in the scene because they were having the time of their lives. And most gay guys — right up until the mid-’90s, when Andrew Sullivan first popularized the idea of gay marriage with his book “Perfectly Normal” — ridiculed the idea of gay marriage. “Marriage, yuck. That’s the kind of boring baloney we turned gay in order to avoid,” they’d tell me with a shudder.

    Forgive the self-linkage, but here’s a little blog-memoir I wrote about being in NYC during the frenzy of the ’70s and early ’80s. Not gay myself, but I am arty and I’ve always had a lot of gay friends, so I saw a lot of what was going on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: