What the hell is going on?

Donald Trump may get the nuclear suitcase, a cranky “park bench” socialist took Hillary Clinton to the wire, many countries are becoming less free, and the neo-Nazi party came very close to assuming power in Austria.  I could list more such events.

Haven’t you, like I, wondered what is up?  What the hell is going on?

I don’t know, but let me tell you my (highly uncertain) default hypothesis.  I don’t see decisive evidence for it, but it is a kind of “first blast” attempt to fit the basic facts while remaining within the realm of reason.

The contemporary world is not very well built for a large chunk of males.  The nature of current service jobs, coddled class time and homework-intensive schooling, a feminized culture allergic to most forms of violence, post-feminist gender relations, and egalitarian semi-cosmopolitanism just don’t sit well with many…what shall I call them?  Brutes?

Quite simply, there are many people who don’t like it when the world becomes nicer.  They do less well with nice.  And they respond by in turn behaving less nicely, if only in their voting behavior and perhaps their internet harassment as well.

Female median wages have been rising pretty consistently, but the male median wage, at least as measured, was higher back in 1969 than it is today (admittedly the deflator probably is off, but even that such a measure is possible speaks volumes).  A lot of men did better psychologically and maybe also economically in a world where America had a greater number of tough manufacturing jobs.  They thrived under brutish conditions, including a military draft to crack some of their heads into line.

To borrow a phrasing from Peter Thiel, perhaps men did better in the age of “technological progress without globalization” rather than “globalization without technological progress,” as has been the case as of late.

Here’s a line from Martin Wolf:

Princeton professors Anne Case and Angus Deaton note, in addition, a sharp relative deterioration in mortality and morbidity among middle-aged white American men, due to suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse.

(Addendum: note this correction.)

For American men ages 18-34, more of them live with their parents than with romantic partners.

Trump’s support is overwhelming male, his modes are extremely male, no one talks about the “Bernie sisters,” and male voters also supported the Austrian neo-Nazi party by a clear majority.  Aren’t (some) men the basic problem here?  And if you think, as I do, that the incidence of rape is fairly high, perhaps this shouldn’t surprise you.

The sad news is that making the world nicer yet won’t necessarily solve this problem.  It might even make it worse.

Again, we don’t know this is true.  But it does help explain that men seem to be leading this “populist” charge, and that these bizarre reactions are occurring across a number of countries, not just one or two.  It also avoids the weaknesses of purely economic explanations, because right now the labor market in America just isn’t that terrible.  Nor did the bad economic times of the late 1970s occasion a similar counter-reaction.

One response would be to double down on feminizing the men, as arguably some of the Nordic countries have done.  But America may be too big and diverse for that really to stick.  Another option would be to bring back some of the older, more masculine world in a relatively harmless manner, the proverbial sop to Cerberus.  But how to do that?  That world went away for some good reasons.

If this is indeed the problem, our culture is remarkably ill-suited to talking about it.  It is hard for us to admit that “all good things” can be bad for anyone, including brutes.  It is hard to talk about what we might have to do to accommodate brutes, and that more niceness isn’t always a cure.  And it is hard to admit that history might not be so progressive after all.

What percentage of men are brutes anyway?  Let’s hope we don’t find out.


Have you been reading Jack Donovan? In any case, I'd heartily recommend The Way of Men and Becoming a Barbarian.

My own preferred solution is a return to Christian patriarchy.

Here are the Amazon links:

In a world with Nukes thinking like a barbarian is a dead end.

The US military has hard a hard time dealing with people who fight like barbarians.

The US military has only used them twice. When someone thinking like a barbarian uses them???

Pshrnk: The day an old-fashioned or new-fangled barbarian gets his hands on the Bomb would be a good day to have already moved to Mars. Hitler planned to clear the Priyapet Marshes with nuclear weapons, and rumor has it that he kind of liked the idea of nuclear apocalypse...

"My own preferred solution is a return to Christian patriarchy."

Case in point.

I think of it as a happy medium: providing an outlet for traditional masculinity, but with restraints.

Restraints on the non-Christian, non-patriach people, to be more precise. No, thanks.

Meh, it works both ways. Anyway, perhaps you'd prefer your barbarians unrestrained.

Thursday: If you define "barbarian" as Christians have in the past (gays, Jews, heretics, blasphemers, etc.), YES I do prefer my barbarians unrestrained.

Who has ever defined barbarians thus?

josh, right. Christians have generally thought of barbarians as warrior tribes, like the Vandals, Vikings, Huns, Mongols, Bedouin raiders etc., as well as their modern technology enabled successors, like the Nazis, WWII Japanese, Islamists etc. I take it these other fellows would prefer those other things on the loose to Christian patriarchy.

My preferred solution is that people who see Trump and non-Socialist Euros as demons from hell just (1) stop fear-mongering, name-calling and (2) consider the wide variety of reasons why a diverse group of people prefer new faces over party loyalists.

But instead of honest inquiry and introspection, it's self-gratifying to just diagnose a single, all encompassing mental defect (the modern "false conciousness") that allows you to dismiss the millions and millions of individuals that disgust you and yours.

Tyler is definitely not a brute.

I wonder if Tyler even appreciates how much contempt drips off every line of this post. These are people who just wanted to work hard at a job and then go home to families they were supporting. Not evil, rapist "brutes". They did nothing wrong -- the world just changed around them.

If online courses were eliminating jobs for academics, would Tyler complacently write about the "effete" types who were society's losers?

If the word "brute" offends you, you probably aren't one.

Yes, I think Tyler would write about them.

Hmmm..."These are poeple who just wanted to work hard at a job and then go home to families they were supporting."

Does this make them different from other people? I guess, what we might be saying, is that there is only room for a certain percentage of people to have a job and support their families at any given time. This particular cohort is being phased out as others take their place, and they're upset about it. I suppose like anyone would be who just wants to work hard at a job and go home to families they are supporting but are shut out due to sexism and racism.

does Tyler know that he is part of the regime that is responsible for the popular revolt happening right now? I doubt it. he is, after all, asking "what the hell is going on?"

Are people angry because they are not succeeding, or are they not succeeding because they are angry? That seems to be the question. Both?

I know I go to the well on Malheur, but if you listened to the closing live stream for the event, those poor dumb (loosely employed and less than solvent) guys thought the militia was coming. They are probably the brutish fringe of Tyler's brutes, but they were real. This year.

'and non-Socialist Euros as demons from hell'

So refreshing to see a commenter at Marginal Revolution stand up for how the Greens are treated.

(1) Riiiight. Trump's not fear mongering or name calling. That's a good one! (2) In every election cycle there are diverse groups of people who prefer new faces over party loyalists. It's a tired old story but there's little evidence that it's really true. On the day after the election, I fully expect 90% or more of incumbents to be reelected or newly elected to the next stepping-stone office. And no, I'm not a Socialist Euro, just in case you were wondering.

The suicide and death by overdose rate for working class WOMEN has increased at nearly the same pace as it did for men. Over 20% of American women are prescribed an anti-depressant. So, if feminized culture is to blame for male failure, what's to blame for female failure? Economically, women have made progress; it's true, but that doesn't seem to have made them any happier.

Tyler's thesis is simpleminded.

The fortunes of uneducated men have gone down, while the fortunes of uneducated women have increased. So female failure isn't really a thing, in the sense that females seem to be gaining ground in the economy slowly, while the opposite is true for men, especially uneducated men. This isn't to denigrate the horror of suicide, rape, and other problems women have. Only to say that holistically, there seems to be a trend, and trends generally have reasons for existing. One could argue that in the narrow case of anti-depressents, there is another trend that has nothing to do with the dissassocation of men with society.

In fact the fortunes of unmarried women are already superior to unmarried men of all classes and races. Something is happening in our culture. There is a subset of men who are simply not participating in the new economy, and instead are joing tribal subcultures.

I'm a man, and I can see this clear as day. Women, for whatever reason, are more engaged in soceity on average, and this is happening at increasing rates.

Case in point. Bryan's response completely ignores the actual data, just like Tyler's original post does. Let's try it again:

1. Tyler's post says that men (especially white working class men) are suffering from high mortality rates etc.

2. He concludes that this is because (white working class) men are getting shafted.

3. Yet the same data cited by Tyler shows that white working class WOMEN have seen an even MORE dramatic increase in mortality, suicide, depression, drug addiction etc than their male counterparts.

4. When SGarvey points this out, the response is "Yeah but men are getting shafted so yeah."

Once more, in terms that I hope are clear: THIS EXPLANATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DATA YOU ARE CITING.

Very pertinent comment. The gaping weakness in Tylers "analysis" (read biased opinion) above is that he complains that the world isn't what he thinks it should be ! HGe seems to prefer the squalid, corrupt oligarchy that is evolving to anything else; a sort of rule by your betters and I (big I here) get to decide who your "betters" are.

This is possibly one of the shallowest bits of so called analysis I've yet seen on the phenomenon, extremely superficial, extremely disappointing. Engage brain Tyler, engage your brain.

not sure if serious...

on the one hand, this makes for a very witty joke. on the other hand, i've read the comments on this blog before.

Why would this not be serious? It's the historical norm?


A young mother forced to sell her soul for apiece of gold
For the four babies starving at home all alone
No one cares about the way she wears her hair
They couldn’t care less about the dress she wears.

A young boy walks a lonely street at night
Hunger burns his tiny tummy “it’s not alright”
Climbing up into an old man’s van
Making this where the end of his life just began.

How can we humans still live this way
Seeing a life in trouble and turning to walk away
If you live with more than others, you are the one full of share
For each human was born the very same.

There’s a loving mama of twelve
She believes in a heaven and hell
An honest day’s work is her only yield
Her hands now forever bleed from the cotton fields

A mother says goodbye to her only son
As an army man hands him his first shotgun
All he is told to survive is “be strong son
And do try to make it home to your mum.”

What is this humanity meant to believe?
Why doing everything is not all this government has you’ll need
Hide your beliefs from the streets
If you are seen passing by the people will now all scream you are a terrorist
Racism has gone far beyond the colour of our skins
Is this the world we live in?

LOL right the western way of religion is the way to go. yup i totally agree with you. and all muslims are evil too right?

Who gave Tyrone the blog password?

In deed. What did you smoke Tyler? Are you in Amsterdam? Populist is not the same as neo-nazi. Just like socialist is not the same as marxist or north-koreanist (lool). The post is also super-incoherent. It cites Peter Thiel which is kind of ironic since Silicon Valley (where according to the hype the future is being built) is overwhelmingly dominated by males, while it is kind saying that "males are declining and not fit for the 21st century". So which one is it? It is not surprising that most voters in Trump or Sanders are male, women are likely much more pro-establishment. And there are VERY GOOD reasons for people not to vote for Hillary, so ask your globalist friends to choose a better candidate next time....

'Populist is not the same as neo-nazi.'

It certainly isn't - things like the Le Pen's Front National and Wilders' PVV are quite explicitly anti-Islam, something the Nazis never actually cared about.

Of course, from a traditional American perspective, being against a religion or group of people looks a lot like what the Nazis practiced.

Using that perspective then US only stopped being nazi in the 60s lool !!!!

Better than that - the Nazis copied a lot of useful concepts from the U.S.

Including this, from my home state - 'On March 20, 1924 the Virginia General Assembly passed two laws that had arisen out of contemporary concerns about eugenics and race: SB 219, titled "The Racial Integrity Act" and SB 281, "An ACT to provide for the sexual sterilization of inmates of State institutions in certain cases", henceforth referred to as "The Sterilization Act". The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 was one of a series of laws designed to prevent interracial relationships.

The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (essentially all other, which included numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as "colored" persons with any African or Native American ancestry. It also expanded the scope of Virginia's ban on interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation law) by criminalizing all marriages between white persons and non-white persons. In 1967 the law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in its ruling on Loving v. Virginia.

The Sterilization Act provided for compulsory sterilization of persons deemed to be "feebleminded," including the "insane, idiotic, imbecile, or epileptic."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

As noted in the specific wikipedia article for the Sterilization Act, it was never found to be unconstitutional.

Which leads naturally to this man's unstinting work - 'The Reichstag of Nazi Germany passed the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring in 1933, closely based on Laughlin's model. Between 35,000 and 80,000 persons were sterilized in the first full year alone. (It is now known that over 350,000 persons were sterilized). Laughlin was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Heidelberg in 1936 for his work behalf of the “science of racial cleansing.” (Five other Americans received honorary degrees the same year). However, reports about the extensive use of compulsory sterilization in Germany began to appear in US newspapers. By the end of the decade, eugenics had become associated with Nazism and poor science. Support for groups like the American Eugenics Society began to fade. In 1935, a review panel convened by the Carnegie Institute concluded that the ERO's research did not have scientific merit. By 1939, the Institute withdrew funding for the ERO, and the office was forced to close.

Laughlin was a founding member of the Pioneer Fund, and was its first president, serving from 1937 to 1941. The Pioneer Fund was created by Wickliffe Draper in order to promote the betterment of the race through eugenics. Draper had been supporting the Eugenics Research Association and its Eugenical News since 1932. One of the first projects that Laughlin pursued for the Fund was the distribution of two films from Germany depicting the success of eugenic programs in that country. A biographer has described Laughlin as "among the most racist and anti-Semitic of early twentieth-century eugenicists."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_H._Laughlin

Generally, the Nazis weren't very innovative - they just cut and pasted, so to speak, a lot of their racial ideology from various Americans. Admittedly, a lot of what happened could be called synergy, of course.

@ prior_test2: "persons with any African"

Which, at least as I understand what the anthopologist seem to be saying, means that there are no non-colored so we're all the same....

Certainly don't support that history but would love to be able to see one of their faces if confronted with the current take on the archaological record ;-)

Yes, prior_test2, the United States has not exactly distinguished itself in treating all races fairly and equally. Even today, the remedy for the past discrimination that you describe so capably is more discrimination, this time against, Asians, whites, and various other non-victim categories. We are all mixed up about race.

Despite endless criticism of Buck v. Bell I fail to see how it's wrong to prohibit someone who is too impaired to consent to having sex from having children. Think about it.

Actually Eugenics was originally supported extremely fervently by the Fabian Socialists in the UK and elsewhere. In fact just about the ONLY country not to have some form of Eugenics laws on the books was the UK because of the opposition in parliament by a couple of legislators who basically filibustered the introduction of the law. The Swedes though had eugenics legislation on the books into the 1970's at least.

So hardly a "Nazi" thing at all. Very common in Europe and elsewhere from the 1880's or so through to the 1950's or later

hmm, let me think, what other ethnic minority group practicing a Middle Eastern religion could right wing Europeans have picked on instead...

Silicon valley is mostly driven by men, but they're probably not the same set of men who, in an earlier world, benefitted from being told by a judge that they were either joining the Marines or headed to prison.

Yet Peter Thiel votes Trump funny huh ;)

We don't know how he will vote in June. He signed up as a delegate because the thinks Trump will win his district, but like other delegates taking Trump slots, presumably will oppose Trump's interests on the Rules/Platform committees, perhaps support an anti-Trump VP, and vote against him in the event the rules allow for unbound voting rounds. The better question is why Trump's staff allowed him as a delegate, but I assume it is because 1) they are not very bright and 2) he might be a more determined enemy if they were to directly oppose him from the start.

something something entropy

I guarantee Ron Paul respects Bernie, because he is principled and willing to logically debate their differences.

Ha, ha, YES! I've been waiting for this post for months now. Oh, how the cognitive dissonance hurts!

Just one point, regarding the 'rise in niceness', which is how Tyler calls Political Corectness: are PC people really nice to those they hold in low esteem, say, towards the so-called rednecks? Or towards the pople they deem racist? My view is that the PC is about telling lies ("all adult human populations are identical except in superficial ways") and then living them (open borders).

Welcome to the backlash Tyler. It's pointless to argue about the past and present. What I'd like to see from people who compare Trump to you-know-whom are some predictions. What is it that he is going to do that's going to be so horrible? For example:

- During the first 90 days of his administration, President Trump to invade Poland (p > 90%)

- Trump administration to set up concentration campls for people like his daughter and his son-in-law (p > 90%)

I've read this blog since 2008, and this is the worst post I've ever seen out of Tyler. So I agree it is out of character. But it's not Tyrone material which is, if anything, better than typical Tyler. This is more like Tanner, the histrionic little brother that Tyrone used to bully.

It's important to note that female happiness has been stagnant for a long while now, so I'm doubtful that the "improvements" of the past 2 - 3 decades have much accrued to women either. But they're less likely to rock the boat, so to speak.

Also, the assumption that women are nicer is carrying a lot of the load in this blast.

That's not my experience, unless it's nicer to be more judgy, grudgy, lashy-outy and thin-skinned. Hanging with guys is more fun and less fraught with danger. Broad generalization, natch, but the entire premise of this post rests on that kind of generalization.

I don't know about nice, but women are definitely less violent.

You are probably right, but I will say; when I taught at an "alternative" high school, girl fights were a daily occurance. Boy fights were much more rare. On the other hand, at least three male students that I taught over the course of three years (about five years ago) have suffered violent deaths.

If Tyler thinks women are 'nicer' he needs to get out of his bubble more.

I work in an industry that is a not 80-90% female, and middle class female at that. Just because they don't occasionally punch each other doesn't mean they're any nicer than men.

Punches are violence. If you start excluding things you end up saying "this business is profitable excluding taxes and capital costs".

But today verbal abuse is violence as well -- we've changed the rules on that -- so don't see the claim. Moreover I suspect it's more the constrained sterotypes of the past that created the non-violent woman. Now many are pushing to be soldiers and MMA fighters (and boxers) -- if I'm not mistakend there's even a bit of a trend in Asia (or maybe Japan and Korea) in school girls emulating fight club, more or less. Where is that coming from. IN the end we're just another animal on the planet and observation of other species would suggest that females are just as violent as males as a general proposition -- it seems to be a survival requirement.

Classifying verbal aggression as violence makes a mockery of the concept.

Now many are pushing to be soldiers and MMA fighters (and boxers) — if I’m not mistaken there’s even a bit of a trend in Asia (or maybe Japan and Korea) in school girls emulating fight club, more or less.

Such exceptions stand out, but there aren't actually very many of them.

Women are less likely to commit crimes across the board than men and are also far more likely to be their child's primary caregiver. The complaints here are almost laughably and stereotypically middle class -- oh no, some women can say mean things or be subtly rude, therefore Tyler lives in a "bubble." Do they commit property crimes, abuse alcohol and abandon responsibilities to children at rates even close to those of men?

They really mean that Cowen is a weenie, which he clearly is.

Tyrone, on the other hand, is clearly very alpha.

In a sea of crappy comments, a jewel from @Ricardo.

There are other ways which women score higher in a "nice" measure. For example, empathy.

"Women are less likely to commit crimes across the board than men and are also far more likely to be their child’s primary caregiver."

Needs a control for endogeneity.

Property crimes men take the cake. I'm actually very curious about alcohol abuse, it might well be a tie.

On the third issue, it depends entirely on whether getting an abortion counts as abandoning responsibilities to children.

Women are the masters of microagression and backhanded compliments. No woman has ever had to have the word "frenemy" defined for her.

So if men are aggressive and women are microaggressive (is there a standard metric conversion here? Who is picoaggresive?), seems like women are "nicer." Certainly has been my experience.

"Broad" generalization.

Use "passive aggressive rather than overtly aggressive" if it makes you feel better.

That should make many of you feel at home, passive aggression what brings you in every day.


"the world becomes nicer"

doesn't necessarily follow from

"The nature of current service jobs, coddled class time and homework-intensive schooling, a feminized culture allergic to most forms of violence, post-feminist gender relations, and egalitarian semi-cosmopolitanism"

Read Shakespeare and Greek tragedy: no trace of "kind", "caring" women. Of course they usually don't do the fighting because they are physically weaker, but they just hate as much as their male counterparts. Mr Cowen's "nice" woman is a modern ideological construction, I would even say American construction.
Then in the past fifty years parts of popular culture have seen an increase in violence by an order of magnitude, starting with Hollywood cinema. I venture that current American "caring" practices will be found revoltingly violent by future generations, like medication of asocial boys and surgical sex changes of adolescents.

I am surprised that so many, even those who apparently have read Shakespeare and Greek tragedy, can misunderstand "nice." I bet Shakespeare could.

The modern environment favors conformity and seeming agreement. Court behavior. Think of it as Japanese surface politeness. You can smile, and bow, as you plot your revenge.

Something has happened, across the board from PC college students to reactionary trolls, that makes conformity and seeming agreement impossible, even when it is in the interest of the actor.

Read Shakespeare and Greek tragedy: no trace of “kind”, “caring” women.

Desdemona, Ophelia, Juliet, Cordelia, Rosalind, Miranda are all pretty amiable.

But it does help explain that men seem to be leading this “populist” charge

You'll be nitpicked to death on this piece, which is unfortunate, but nonetheless my possible nitpick here is: Haven't men lead most major political / social / technological charges? In that case, men leading populist charges is not so different from men going to space or founding tech companies or whatever other charges men disproportionately lead.

If this is indeed the problem, our culture is remarkably ill-suited to talking about it.

Yeah. There is much that our culture is ill-suited to talking about it, which leads to some challenges being talked about primarily in fringe communities that nonetheless exist because the more mainstream communities reject them outright.

... there isn't an edit function, but the comment should read "my possible nitpick is here."

Most but not all, right? Temperance, the sexual revolution...

And notice how much mileage we got out of those. Gangsters and bootleggers from the first, sub-replacement fertility, broken families and jaded adults from the second. I'd look forward to strikes three and four, but we're living them - normalizing deviancy (and I don't mean sexual exclusively) and inviting the world to replace you.

I think Tyler's thesis is pretty good, and I appreciate him winging it now and then.

It may not be totally wrong. A "loss of place in society" is widely felt and reported.

I suppose if we wanted to prove Tyler's thesis by contesting it in the modern vernacular, we could say it is just "mansplaining."

The thing people don't seem to understand is they didn't "lose" their place in society like it was a set of car keys. Their place in society was taken away from them and shipped overseas. Globalization, free trade agreements, etc. actively took it away from them.

Consider an analogy. It was actually impossible for me to find actual data on this, but from what I could google up somewhere around X*$10 billion is lent for student loans every year, where X is some single digit number. Imagine if the Federal Government up and decided we're not going to do that any more. Think of the economic devastation that would cause for academics and the web of other industries their salaries support. No one should be surprised if drug abuse rates for out of work former women's studies professors were higher than the average.

Here's a modest proposal. Highly subsidized, huge volume, semi-professional athletics. Try to channel a sizable proportion of males between 18 and 35 into some sort of sporting team. Imagine 30 million part-time minor league ball players. Have the government pay them a modicum of compensation for their time and effort, with increasingly larger prizes the higher teams and players rise. Strongly encourage the media to extensively cover their hyper-local teams. (The small-p promise of large rewards gives the stories a human interest side).

Most importantly this gives men with dead-end low-status service sector jobs an outlet for their aggression and ambition. Sure, you have to get orders barked at you all day by women and old people. But at least you can be high status, or at least have a plausible chance of being high status, on your sports team. It creates a rough little corner of society, that has virtually no spillover on the rest of civilization. Besides partially restoring some of the lost social status to brutes. Most likely hardly anyone will object. Even if womens' social status falls, it probably solves the male marriage shortage. It more palatable to settle for an economic loser of a husband, so long as you get to watch your community cheer for him at the big games.

It's pretty functionally like the gymnasiums of Ancient Greece. It's also basically how social balance is maintained in American public schools. If it works for 14-18 year olds, no reason it can't for 18-40 year olds.

Interesting. Beats welfare. Something to be proud of. Something that's fun. Perhaps expanded beyond athletics to things like inventorship clubs and other things with some likelihood to contribute to productivity?

Employing them in a Stasi is also an option (perhaps by directing towards people who are qualified to diagnose them with something that will get them on disability?). But we could just call it "counter-terrorism" or "homeland security" or something and combine it with special budgets for various electronic gadgets for boys ...

In which case the athletics ideas would be all the more appealing.

If I were a wealthy philanthropist, I would start a hyper-local rugby club organization. You would have to teach Americans the game, and market it to former college jocks and to the public at large, but it requires practically no equipment, so once, it got off the ground, towns could easily start their own clubs. It's a shame that grown men don't play real sports in this country (kickball!?)

They used to call it the army, but they're ruining that too. Men can't escape the clucking and pearl-clutching even when attempting escapism, like videogames.

Say it like it is - we need something that channels male aggression and resolves their issues with low status. No solution you can identify is safe from "improvement" by well meaning progressives.

"Highly subsidized, huge volume, semi-professional athletics."

We used to have this: we called it "college sports". But it was largely nerfed by Title IX, which, intending to enhance women's' sports in college, had the perverse (but, it must be said, entirely predictable and predicted) effect of causing many colleges and universities to disestablish men's teams because they couldn't raise enough interest in a corresponding woman's team and didn't want to fall under the Department of Education's scrutiny.

This is true. Title IX has been very good for girls but too much of the good has come at the expense of boys.

Any evidence that sports provide an "outlet for their aggression," rather than reinforce aggressive behaviours?

South Korea and Japan have already implemented digital versions of this with Starcraft and League of Legends...

My immediate reaction is that something like this is sorely needed. I play on an amateur baseball team in New York. It is a major effort to land a spot on one of these teams and the league itself is frequently beset by institutional obstacles--mainly unsympathetic parks departments and underfunded management that isn't very competent.

It's a source of community and meaning that a lot of men struggle to find in adult society because whether it is nature or nurture or both, a lot of us tend to slip into isolation left to our ourselves. There is very little infrastructure in our society, whether civil or official, that speaks to this problem and the result is widespread male alienation. You see some things popping up like the Crossfit Clubs and so forth that are very expensive and can be solutions to this problem for the rich, but it isn't available to everyone.

At least in Chicago, where we have a bit of a problem with male violence, the powers that be have moved in the opposite direction. The park district used to subsidize men's 16" softball leagues indirectly by charging next to nothing for the fields. These leagues served exactly the role that Doug's proposal meets. The fields are now bid up by for-profit co-ed social sports leagues while schools and park district programs for children get the indirect subsidy of low usage fees. Sixteen inch is dying. The wealthier North Shore and western 'burbs have found an alternative in a massive paddle tennis league with over 3,000 participants but that game has high capital costs while 16" costs almost nothing.

That's actually pretty interesting. Something that is different about Australia (where I grew up) than the US is that in Australia it is much more common for a man to keep playing organized sports after their education is finished. Lots of guys play in their local suburb's 2nd XI cricket team or 3rd XIII rugby team something like that. It definitely appears to give people, especially in rural areas, a sense of purpose and camaraderie.

CrossFit provides a similar outlet, though in big cities the cost is usually prohibitive for proles.

I'm not sure this actually helps. Local sports clubs would be proto-fascist mobs in waiting.

Just don't let them have fans and there should be little hooliganism.

Good luck with that.

Bringing promotion & relegation to American sports could help substantially along this line. For example, the Wikipedia article for English football league system states about 7,000 teams in the league system that includes the country's top professional league. Clubs in the top 11 tiers (about 2,000 clubs) only have their first team in the league system, but many have more than one team. England has about 54 million people.

An alternative idea: reboot the concept of a citizen militia, except recasted as a combination of a National Guard Reserve focused on disaster relief and public works, and continuing vocational training. It could combine elements of shovel ready fiscal stimulus, volunteer fire fighting, neighborhood watch, big/little brother program for delinquent youths, and a mechanism for supplanting gang membership and facilitating cooperation between police and communities.

Harvey Mansfield's views are relevant here.

On support for Sanders, he gets majority support from Democratic women under 45.

Quite so:

"MANSFIELD: Well, manliness is something natural, which cannot be done away with. And you can take away the occupation of a man or the pride that he takes in being a man and doing things that a man does, for example, taking care of your family, protecting your family, and providing for your family by being the breadwinner. So that has been taken away from men now. So that good aspect of manliness is unemployed.

KRISTOL: And I mean, the implications – I mean, what is it just –

MANSFIELD: Well, it’s going to sit there and find some avenue to express itself, like voting for Donald Trump...

MANSFIELD: Yes. Vulgar manliness, a demagogic manliness but he’s appealing to the manliness of, I think, his supporters with his outrageous remarks and his willingness to take on the establishment, which means – which includes especially the gender-neutral establishment..."

Trump leads Clinton in the polls at this point, But, as a BBC article points out, Dukakis led Bush I at some point, Carter led Reagan, and McCain led Obama, so it's no big deal. Something like 70% of uneducated non-degree whites back Trump (20% of adult Americans don't have a college degree), gun backers and xenophobes back Trump (who BTW would probably poll OK here in Greece where I'm posting now), so I would imagine Trump will give Clinton a run for her money, though Clinton should win.

TC is trolling with this post...relax, Trump is not a problem.

No. The trends are not the same. Trump was way behind Hillary and now he is in front. He will crush Hillary. All he has to do is to soften his rhetoric a bit and the Bernie fans and women will start switching. He has the men already.

He's got to win the Bernie voters, which broadly speaking, are young and white and like Obama. He'll get some, but fewer than like 30% would make for a tough road.

Trump leads in the polls because the fight is over in the Republican party but not in the Democratic party.
Once Sanders is defeated, his supporters will get with the program and line up behind Clinton.

There is like zero chance that Trump is going to win any of them. Democrats are way better at marching in lock-step, particularly the socialists. They will close ranks. No question.

You think Bernie is going to run as an independent?

My dad loves to cite the phrase "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." I think the jury is out on which party's supporters are more likely to go with the program.

Sanders will be the VP and draw most younger voters with him. There will be candidates from a variety of political parties, but probably not enough to swing the election from major party candidates. It is clearly false to state that Nader impacted the outcome in 2000, when you consider that some people who respected his integrity would have picked Bush over Gore, and that there were also conservative new political parties on the ballot in that election.

Democrats are way better at marching in lock-step,

In terms of voting, Republicans have had higher party loyalty than Democrats since, well, I don't know how long (it's over 50 years), but probably pre-WWII

OK I read TC/ Tyrone's piece after posting the above, and would say also that Trump and the Austrian Neo-Nazis, etc are simply a 'protest vote' by those people who have lost the most since the last recession, and since globalization, namely, the "brutes". A non-issue.

Hi E. Harding. I vaguely recall the migrant crisis here in Greece; it's largely a non-issue. Consider that Greece, a population of 10M, gets 20 M tourists during the summer months, so 1M illegal aliens is no big deal. The Austrians overreact I think, though I've only visited that country briefly. As for Duerte (pronounced "do dirty"), the Philippines "Dirty Harry", ex-mayor of Davao, he's popular with Filipinos that are poor and anti-establishment (my gf likes him, though she's no longer poor after finding me), and he's largely a vote against the vested interests in that country (PH has a handful of families controlling most of the economy, as does SE Asia in general). Crime in PH is low (about the same as in the USA years ago) drug crimes are not that common (perhaps because PH is well armed--big guns on very guard) and I think the most impressive victory for Duerte was the fact Davao was never taken over by the Muslim MILF (no, it's not sexual) separatists, for reasons I don't know why, perhaps they are not strong in that city for whatever reason. I think Duerte will be compromised by the elite and assimilated. The choice is the same offer you can't refuse as with godfather drug lord Pablo Escobar: plato e Pb? Silver or lead? Much better to take the money, and anyway one person cannot really make a difference in a corrupt political system (in the Philippines, candidates routinely pay for votes, then recoup their investment by accepting bribes, it's a business).


This was your best chance to make a worthwhile comment and you failed. You could have tried to explain why the people in the country in which you live elected their own Trump.

Out of fear. The problem with Austria is that the opposite option is not better. He is a green socialist who will run Austria further into the ground. But then I should know that living in a country that has rejected proper science and commonsense in favor of environmental madness for some time now.

Nitpick: About 68% of Americans over 25 do not have a college degree.

Not a nitpick at all. The difference between 20% and 68% is yuuuge!

Weird. I just checked the more reputable poll aggregator sites and Clinton still leads in the aggregate-- though yes there have been some outlier polls giving Trump a slight lead.

'No on talks about Bernie-sisters'

They may not talk about them but latest polling shows that Bernie enjoys more support among women than men. From memory, I think Trump is doing better among women than other republican candidates as well.

"From memory, I think Trump is doing better among women than other republican candidates as well."

Trump did better among all Republican groups. His advantage among men was larger than his advantage among women.

I think we're giving too much weight to Trump's "win." If the parties didn't use the worst possible voting system for races with multiple candidates, he probably would have never been a contender.

But you do include Bernie as the other side of the same coin as Trump, which together seems like a sizable proportion of the public... But not really. The primary electorate isn't very big. Most voters didn't care enough to participate. So again, you're probably overstating it.

I'm surprised you don't focus more on globalization, immigration, and stagnant wages first and foremost. Not sure this needs to be a male thing.

Also, if Clinton didn't run, I don't think Sanders would have been very competitive. The other moderate Dems knew they had no chance. Hillary would get those voters. And thus the anti-Hillary Dems could only rally around the cranky socialist.

I think you're reading too much into a presidential primary.

I think you have it wrong. Men understand other men and the threats that they pose. Women do not. They project their own soft psychology. So when men in Europe see and fear the arrival of large numbers of islamic men with a strong macho and misogynistic culture and diagnose this as a threat to civilised life, women do not see this. They do not understand that islam is a religion of conquest. And so modern politics with its soft female attitudes fails to respond to these fears. And so-called extreme parties form. The same is happening in the US where people are seeing ethnic change coming and a potential cultural switch as latinos take more power. So it is not something to do with a problem with men. It is a problem with women failing to understand potential threats which are real.

Sometimes fear is self fulfilling. If you've ever been a lonesome foreigner in a distant land, you should know that fear is your greatest enemy.

Be a man. Go meet a Muslim, shake his hand, and talk about something you can't have a deep argument about, like food or chess or something.

Islam certainly is a religion of conquest as demonstrated by their crusades which sacked European cities in the middle ages and their carve up of Europe into states of their own choosing over the last few hundred years.

In another reality, I think the Islamic males have a lot in common with the Trumpites. Basically: loss of historical status coupled with an inability to think with much complexity.

a) That was a long time ago. b) That's not how it was everywhere. c) Uh, weren't most civilizations that didn't get conquered kinda like that?

Now let's pretend that the last 200 years are more relevant to the present than the 200 years that preceded it. Haven't we done an awful lot of conquering them?

The notion that individuals and families coming looking for refuge from war, or for work, are an "invasion". So ... one in a million followed through on terrorism. What can we learn from that? that 999,999 in a million did not.

I do agree, however, that complex thinking and loss of historical status might be relevant. But I think a lot of them are much wiser to the world than they let on. For example, they might understand that entire foreign armies in their lands is somewhat more of a threat to them than a handful of terrorists in Western countries are to us. Then again, that's not particularly complex. But it seems to escape the vast majority of Westerners. In which case, who is thinking with less complexity?

I see that the Nathan cuck has successfully changed his name. His testosteroneless, pathetic femininity of thought betrays him though.

I've got enough testosterone and self confidence that I don't need the swagger or to go around calling people names to feel like something worthwhile.

The uncuckables, however, are paragons of free thought. They cannot be cucked.

Ah yes Jim, the crusaders. What preceded the crusades? Oh, that's right, hundreds of years of violent Islamic expansion forcefully transforming and destroying most of the middle-eastern and part of the European antiquity into a ruined hellhole of slavery-based living and what Islam has been known for since then.

Islam was at war with Europeans for well over 1000 years until the crushing defeat at Vienna and then subsequent European development of military technology and tactics which made the low intelligence brutes--as the author calls them--unable to compete with Europeans on a battlefield, anymore.

If you're trying to claim that these fears aren't valid or have no real basis behind them, you're just historically ignorant on top of not listening to what the Imams are actually saying they intend them and their people to do to us. Keep pretending to be an enlightened post-racial, post-tribal thinker, whatever that is. You'll be the first they behead, and you'll deserve it. The rest of us will be militarizing in whatever way we can to be ready to remove the threat from our lands.

"Like food or chess or something."

OK I will get my chess board and take my Muslim friend a Budweiser and a ham sandwich.

I met an Egyptian the other day. Shook his hand and all. The only issue is that he was a Copt who fled Muslim violence and persecution to come to the United States.

It's a terribly bad, clever silly idea to judge an entire population by superficial interactions with a constituent member limited to innocuous shared interests.

When fear is a predictor of politics, can it be a predictor of manliness too?

Used to know a guy who wouldn't run with me in the mountains. Afraid of lions. Voted Republican because he feared Islamists.

To be fair, he owned lots of guns and _considered_ himself manly.

You pretty much have to be an idiot NOT to be afraid of lions. Running while carrying a gun may not be too comfortable, and I'd question if you'd have the time to defend yourself even if you did. Multiply that by chances you'd encounter a lion and is there a cost to running elsewhere vs the mountains.

We are talking North America, and Mountain Lions. The current reported attack rate in the U.S. and Canada is ~6 attacks per year, with just under 1 death per year.

North America is big, many people go to the mountains. The odds are good. I am not afraid.

Running in the mountains is a lot safer than driving in town.

Maybe lions and other people's guns ought not be your first concern while running, anywhere.


The knees of the few (or the one) are subsidized by the many.

You should be afraid of lions when you see them, but not in the abstract as a highly likely threat. Also, mountain lions attack small people - a 5' woman jogging should be concerned. A man should be far more concerned with a twisted ankle.
I rate the cowardly lion as: not manly.

Snakes and insect borne illnesses are a bigger threat in the mountains than lions.

It might be, not sure, just possibly, that most men aren't actually brutes. But they do want at least to have a family, a wife and children of their own.

The modern world is set in such a way that even famous tenured professors at elite universities often lack these things.

George Mason is a Tier II school, and not "elite" by US standards, though it is by world standards (probably the best schools of SE Asia, and that includes India, would be worse than George Mason). And TC has a family, albeit adopted. Julius Cesar adopted Augustus Cesar, which the months of July, August are named after, respectively, so TC is a family man too.

Spandrell is still obviously correct.

Except that it is quite fair to say that most male tenured faculty actually are married, and do have children. Which stands in flat contradiction to 'even famous tenured professors at elite universities often lack these things.'

'Often' is a flexible word, of course, but not that flexible.

I think Tyler is wrong in his theory on "brutes". It's that the world is too nice for them, because, let's face it, they're the ones that made the world nice in the first place. All that technology, medicine, infrastructure, safety and security (from other men, but still).

What Tyler doesn't get is that competition between groups is eternal and that the competition is increasingly being rigged so that men stand less of a chance in it. That is what they are protesting, both through voting patterns and also patterns of how they conduct their lives - marriage, community involvement, work etc. It's not about brutes, since the problems affect too many men. If 80% of the male population is made up of brutes, then the word loses meaning. They're the normal guys, and the outliers are the pansies. But the excessive feminization of education is not just about men's preferences, it is about employing exclusively means of education and socialization that are not fit for boys, but are a better fit for girls, leading to increasingly divergent outcomes. This would not be a problem, if you schooled boys their way and girls their way. but the pattern holds throughout the entire lifetime of education and provides innumerable opportunities to shame boys and men, both through their failings at the new educational modes, and through their eventual outcomes.

It is war and competition, through other means. And if you think making parties and posting stuff online are a bad reaction, wait till people go back to the real means of male diplomacy - violence.

What I read in TCs post was a core assumption that all the changes 'for the better' have in fact been for the better, and thus any trends away mean we need to understand what is wrong with those who don't agree the better is... Better.

He said as much when he contemplated that history isn't as progressive...

Seems to me there is increasing, long run evidence that the progressive better is not better for large masses, and perhaps this isn't a moment to ponder what's wrong with men but to ponder what's wrong with progressive bitterness, either in outcome or method, that causes it to fail.

That, of course, threatens the whole structure of thought, theory, and fact collective used to justify that the new world is a better one. Terrifying. Yet... What if it's not men, but the politics and economics that fail?

Basically, he's conceptually trapped in the whig theory of history, that things keep getting better and better, with only some hiccups on the way.

Horhe - 1000 times yes.

..."competition between groups is eternal and that the competition is increasingly being rigged so that men stand less of a chance in it"...

Correct (as far as it goes.) Competition also increases as the number of competitors increases. There are more and more humans every day, competing for an ever diminishing "allocated" slice of the pie. After that, "brutes" like Trump, Soros, Gates, Zuckerberg, et al, successfully compete for sub-slices of other people's slices of the pie. Even a few "non-brutes" with female naughty bits convince their "brutes" that little Joey's Mercedes has a scratch and needs to be replaced, et voila, "brute by-proxy".

More people, fewer resources per person, less space, more manipulation.

Want to see the "brute" of the "future"? Glance in the mirror. Yes, you too, ladies.

But factory workers in 1900-1940 lacked any sort of stability; it was only in the brief age of unionism and ample federal housing loans with the initial build-out of suburban sprawl that there was the guaranteed good blue collar job and home.

Until the late twentieth century, most decent hard working well behaved men could expect to have a wife and children.

Now no male really has a wife, not a wife in the old sense, and his children do not belong to him but to his wife, unless, like Sean Connery, he is a bit of outlaw who can break a few rules, unless he is stubbornly resistant to socialization and has a propensity for violence.

As the epidemic of cutting demonstrates, women hunger to be owned, and but hardly any men dare to own them. Women never really liked emancipation, and are unhappy because of it, and men are very unhappy because of it.

Used to be if a man had a house, it was his house. Now it is his wife's house, and all he owns is the mortgage. All he has is the payments.

Used to be if he had children, they were his children.

Now they are not, so why spend money on a house and children? Makes more sense to live in mum's basement and watch cartoon porn,

Neo-Nazi party... Tyler are you high? Seriously, this stuff gets tired, the "populist" right is nothing remotely like the former Nazis as they are not expansionistic, but just defensive... So rather you should call the new invaders "neo nazis" (they have similar values, too if you look at Pew research online).
Now people will say "but FPÖ was founded by Nazis", well then call Merkels Party the Nazi Party (lots of nazis in there after WW2) and call the Spanish Peoples Party the Nazi Party...
Great idea btw to import millions of young males, when the problem is males not coping with the modern world in the West...
Finally, yes the Austrian populist right got lots of support from males and yes more women voted for the Green candidate... but still 40% of female voters supported him too.

*40% of female voters supported the right-wing candidate

Yes, but keep in mind a plurality of Germans supported the early Hitler, even after the Night of the Long Knives (Röhm-Putsch), which was deemed as a proper authoritarian response to the Brownshirts. TC is right, and don't be surprised if later these types later come for you. As for me, I'm in the 1%, a dual national (working on a third passport) and can buy my way to freedom. I am invincible.

keep in mind a plurality of Germans supported the early Hitler

The majority of Germans voted against Hitler, but those votes were scattered among a dozen different parties and candidates, so Hitler won.

They did not vote against Hitler. They voted FOR another candidate. What is your point?

They did not vote against Hitler. They voted FOR another candidate. What is your point?

1. A commenter stated: keep in mind a plurality of Germans supported the early Hitler
2. I replied: The majority of Germans voted against Hitler

If the majority of Germans voted for someone other than Hitler then the statement "a plurality of Germans supported the early Hitler" cannot be correct. Either statement 1 or statement 2 is wrong.

That was my point. Do you get it now? Or do I need to explain it even simpler for you?

plu·ral·i·ty - plo͝oˈralədē/
The number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority.
"his winning plurality came from creating a reform coalition"

Thanks for making it simpler for Craig.

Refugees are "invaders", and maybe we need to get our guns, and they are inferior brutes, and we need to uphold the sanctity of white virgins before impure mongrel breeds destroy Western civilization entirely.

But there are no neo-Nazis.

The migrants (or invaders as they enter forcefully and unwelcomed, destroying borders) are exactly saying that "europeans are inferior brutes with no values and culture, and we need to uphold the sancitity of our muslim virgins who cannot have sex or marry an European (unless they convert and become like us; at the same time we should have sex with all those European sluts). The reason our great muslim civilization got destroyed (and why we dont succeed) now is the degenerate West" - they are neo-nazis right?

No Ray, you are just wildly speculating... The risk of Islamists or Marxists coming after us, is higher than the populist right turning into Neo nazis

'is higher than the populist right turning into Neo nazis'

Oddly, Bernd Lucke, a man with some experience in this area, might just disagree with you.

Bernd Lucke is just speculating as well... (and hurt about loosing power)

Well, you cannot have it both ways - either he is speculating as an outsider, or as an insider and essentially the founder of the AfD, he saw how the party putsch that forced him out of the leadership worked.

Amusingly, Lucke was concerned mainly about the euro in public statements, and this was the reason he attracted people like Olaf Henkel. The new AfD leadership seems a lot more concerned about shooting women and children at the border - a political position last seen in German politics being upheld by Erich Honecker. Admittedly, a notably anti-Nazi figure, not a neo-Nazi one. But that is part of the problem these days with trying to weed out the true neo-Nazis in Germany, mainly the NPD and Republikaner in the West, from the whatever ideological brew one finds in East Germany. Possibly because it was pretty hard to find a party founded by a former SS man in the worker and farmer state, so modern East Germans don't have the same well grounded roots in proper neo-Nazi ideology.

Can you pinpoint a single Marxist or islamic entity that could manage to get more than a few hundreds guns across any border anywhere?

They can achieve the occasional terrorist act, and no more.

Also, there's a big difference between "I want my child to marry someone of similar values" and "those genetically inferior beasts are going to weaken the gene pool - keep them out!"

I think it would be naive to think that there isn't a good reason to be attentive to how the populist right evolves and manifests over time. Given the neo-Nazi value system of "the strong rule the weak, etc", there is no reason to believe that at least some would not be willing to go as low as one might imagine in various manipulations (or worse) to pull off the social transformations they want.

Disagree with the PC people all you want, but to their credit, it is all happening plain as day right in front of us. There is no mistaking who they are and what they stand for (including the significant diversity on that side of the non-economic parts of the political spectrum).

What has this got to do with guns now?

No "populistic party" is talking about gene pool, they talk about culture.. Meanwhile, btw interracial marriage (when the other "race" has more dominant genes) is also normally not accepted in the society of immigrants...
Yes it is all happening right infront of us, most of the immigrants have the same sort of view as the "populist party", but on steroids. Somehow for the PC it is OK to be a supremacist, misogynist and homophobe when you are an immigrant, but if you are a European who supports traditional families and does not want to be a minority in his own County - > nazi who needs to be stopped.

Even the well-known crypto-Marxist entity Barack Obama and his ironically named Department of Justice only managed to run a few hundred guns to Mexico.

People are talking about "invasions". So .... I ask "where are the guns"? I mean, there guys don't even have guns, let along neuroweapons. You guys come across as paranoid and incredibly insecure as a result. Want to talk about the aspects of culture that are dear to you, and which you fear being lost as a result of newcomers? let's have that conversation.

There is no "invasion". The "invasion" language sounds altogether too much to me like a precursor for future violence.

Boatloads and truckloads of guns headed towards places in Europe have been seized in the last year.

This is an invasion. A new type of warfare, of demographics being aided by traitorous governments across the west.

If people don't want their people to be bred out of existence or mongrelized by proximity to ever-growing masses of alien peoples forced into their nation against their will with no vote, that is their prerogative. Who are you to tell these people they're evil nazis for wanting to maintain their own country for their own people? You're disgusting.

Let's perform an experiment. I want you to hop the fence into Mexico, walk into the nearest Mexican government office and loudly demand free medical care, tuition, food stamps, and housing and see what they do to you.

Why would I? I'll just show my passport at the border and stay as long as I like as long as I follow some basic procedures.

'Now people will say “but FPÖ was founded by Nazis”'

Well, only if you want to be factual about it. This is the guy that was head of the FPÖ at its founding - (German only - 'Nach mehreren Wahlniederlagen und internen Turbulenzen wurde die FPÖ in einer konstituierenden Sitzung am 3. November 1955[22] gegründet. Am 7. April 1956 fand der Gründungsparteitag in Wien-Josefstadt statt, dabei wurde als erster Parteiobmann Anton Reinthaller, ein ehemaliger SS-Brigadeführer, der von 1950 bis 1953 wegen nationalsozialistischer Betätigung als Schwerstbelasteter inhaftiert war, gewählt. Reinthaller, der der NSDAP schon vor dem „Anschluss“ Österreichs beigetreten war, 1938 die Funktion des NS-Landwirtschaftsministers im Anschlusskabinett Seyß-Inquart bekleidete und anschließend bis 1945 Reichstagsabgeordneter war, erklärte in seiner Antrittsrede: „Der nationale Gedanke bedeutet in seinem Wesen nichts anders als das Bekenntnis der Zugehörigkeit zum deutschen Volk.“'

'as they are not expansionistic'

Depends what Höfer thinks about pan-Germanism, and on Anschluss II. He tends to be a bit coy on the whole subject of a greater Germany. Former FPÖ head and former brigadier general of the SS Anton Reinthaller was much less coy.

'well then call Merkels Party the Nazi Party (lots of nazis in there after WW2)'

Well, the CDU (and even the CSU) has a notable lack of former brigadier generals of the SS as members, much less one being chosen to head of the party.

Self-determination of countries (which could result into unification of Germany, Südtirol, and Austria) is not the same as “expansionism” nor "being Nazi" (is the UN now Nazi too for advocating self determination?).
The point is this: the Nazis had a disgusting plan of invading and killing/enslaving the whole eastern Europe. Can you tell with a straight face that "Neo-Nazi Parties" FPÖ or AFD would ever do the same? Tell me what is the worst the FPÖ is proposing and how is that in comparison to what the Nazis did?

Let me also clarify the comparison with CDU/CSU and PP. My point is you should judge a party based on their current positions, and not based on their founders or influence 50 years ago. The PP was founded by former Franco members, this does not mean that it is a fascist party today; CDU/CSU had a lot of former Nazi members, this does not mean that it is a fascist party today; the Green party had a lot of pedophiles (and were pro legalization of this), this does not mean that it is a "pedo" party today; the FPÖ had a former SS brigadier as a party head, this does not mean that it is a fascist party today....

'Self-determination of countries (which could result into unification of Germany, Südtirol, and Austria)'

Self-determination? Really? And back in the 1930s, the German expression for torture was 'verschärfte Vernehmung,' which amusing translates into 'enhanced interrogation,' the preferred word for torture in American government usage currently.

'The point is this: the Nazis had a disgusting plan of invading and killing/enslaving the whole eastern Europe. '

You left out doing the same to western Europe, to be honest. With less mass extermination and enslaving, admittedly.

'Can you tell with a straight face that “Neo-Nazi Parties” FPÖ or AFD would ever do the same?'

Do I think that any political figure in Austria or Germany can publicly advocate to have a goverment commit a war crime and remain in power? No, I don't. Which also means that that I personally don't believe that anyone in the FPÖ or AfD leadership is advocating for such plans these days. Though interestingly, both parties are interested in throwing off the EU, which prevents their nations from becoming great, like they used to be. Back when Gdansk was part of Germany, for example.

'Tell me what is the worst the FPÖ is proposing and how is that in comparison to what the Nazis did?'

See the point about war crimes above - in German and Austrian politics (among other countries), there are a number of things that are explicitly banned from being possibly to publicly advocate. I assume the FPÖ would have little problem stripping recent immigrants who practice Islam of their Austrian citizenship, but if that was said in public, the person saying that would face a court. This is open to intepretation, of course - maybe the FPÖ would be thrilled to welcome many new Islam practicing Austrian voters to their party.

'My point is you should judge a party based on their current positions, and not based on their founders or influence 50 years ago.'

Things change, yes.

'the FPÖ had a former SS brigadier as a party head'

You do know who this man is, right? Jörg Haider, who was a fascinating figure with some admitted complexity, did seem to have a bit of problem recognizing history - 'On several occasions Haider made remarks about Austrian World War II veterans that were represented as broad endorsement of the war and of the Nazi SS. Speaking to a gathering of veterans from several countries in 1990, he said that the veterans were "decent people of good character" and "remain true to their convictions." Haider stated that he did not specifically address Waffen-SS veterans with his remarks. On another occasion, he said, "the Waffen-SS was part of the Wehrmacht (German military) and because of that it deserves every honor and recognition." In 2000, at a gathering of Wehrmacht veterans in Ulrichsberg, including Waffen-SS veterans, he said, "Those who come to Ulrichsberg are not the old Nazis. They are not neo-Nazis, they are not criminals."' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Haider

However, it is getting pretty hard to find true Nazis anymore, since they are dying out. Meaning that Hofer, assuming he shares any of Haider's beliefs (after all, parties and their leadership change), will not have the chance to publicly honor members of the Waffen SS.

Let me start from the beginning prior_test.
Neo-nazi is someone who either identifies or has a worldview/promotes policies of the Nazis. But it is not just any policies the Nazis did (like supporting the construction of high-ways), but those which differentiates Nazis from other groups and those which makes Nazis "super evil" (which is the association the Western World has with Nazism). Nazism sets itself apart by aggressive and "expansionist" ultra-supremacism that promotes the complete annihilation or enslavement of ethnicity that are deemed as inferior. This manifests itself especially in the Eastern Front (the Western Front, though evil, is not exceptional looking at European history).

There is no policy by the AFD or FPÖ even remotely close to what I described above. Thinking that the AFD or FPÖ has such a hidden agenda or might one day have such an agenda, is pure fear-mongering and speculation - it is as realistic as Islamists or Marxists promoting this agenda in Europe (thats what I referred to before with Bernd Lucke...).
Actually, if you use a continuum from "not supremacist" to "hyper-supremacist" (the Basis of Nazism), then Erdogan- or Netanjahu- or Putin supporters (or a lot of current migrants) are way closer to "hyper-supremacist" than the FPÖ or AFD is (the first groups also is closer to Nazis by being more anti-semitic, homophobe and aggressive/expansionist than AFD or FPÖ).

"Self-determination" is a pretty simple concept: if Germans, Austrians and people from Tirol wish to be independent, than it is fine. If they wish to be together, that is fine. There is nothing wrong with FPÖ saying that those group of people can decide themselves about their fate. Lets be consistent here: there is nothing wrong with self-determination of former Yugoslavian countries, Poland or Palestine? Btw this comparison to torture is disgusting of you..

ZEIT: Kommt der neue Populismus nicht aus Frankreich?
Bruckner: Der Front National ist chauvinistisch, aber hält sich an republikanische Regeln, verurteilt den Antisemitismus und bleibt gewaltfrei. Ich halte den Terrorismus für gefährlicher.
ZEIT: Weil er tötet?
Bruckner: Weil er aggressiver und imperialistischer ist. Selbst der Populismus ist bei uns defensiv, teilt den zaghaften Charakter Europas und hat deshalb wenig gemein mit dem alten expansionistischen Faschismus.

(you could replace FN with AFD or FPÖ)

Most founders of CDU/CSU came from the Center Party and from the Bavarian People's Party, not from the Nazi Party.

About the Spanish People's Party (founded by former supporters of "clerical-fascist" regime of Franco) has more in common with the Austrian People's Party (even the name is the same - a name very common with the catholic conservative parties of Europe), the former supporters of the "clerical-fascist" Dolfuss.

@Ouzani: what is the position of Norbert Hofer on South Tyrol? Then go to the dictionary and read the definition of "expansionism".

But maybe the FPÖ and the Lega Nord can reach some sort of compromise, at least when they finally achieve real power. After all, when Austria was joined to Germany, the leader of Austro-Germany (yeah, that is essentially just made up, but this is the Marginal Revolution comments section) was friends with the leader of Imperial Italy, and they just agreed to keep the arrangement that still exists today.

Before Steve Sailer comes to say it, I'll point out that the obvious solution to all these problems is to import millions of men from the Third World, who are orders of magnitude more likely to be brutes than native men.

And once they're "civilized", some of them can go back home and spread the word in a culturally aware manner? Great idea!

Na, 1% of strangers will defile and undermine Western civilization entirely. Western civilization has that little worth holding on to that we will all self convert at the first sight of those dark beady eyes.

Smash the Cishetero Patriarchy! (aka Western Civilization)

Queen Victoria is wondering what you are talking about.

Well yeah, I am often wondering what the hell these PC people are talking about as well

Occam's razor is not going on. Of that I am sure.

Perhaps one day it will become "non mentally ill" to theorize about the likelihood that things that happen behind various closed doors and other hidden places actually have significant influences on the world? If we cannot theorize about these things, without becoming hysteric or pointing fingers at whatever hated groups we just want to poop on ... won't a lot of dodgy people get away with a lot of dodgy stuff?

Anyways, it seems to me that the anti-coddlers are big fans of coddling themselves. The brutes want to be brutish, and if anyone criticizes them they call out "tyranny" or "draconian suppression". Like, how many professors are actually getting chased out of their jobs for expressing openly racist or sexist views?

Free speech used to criticize free speech is not oppression.

(I do wonder ... if some types might respond well to boot camp like experience. But I would not be prepared to take such options out of the hands of parents.)

(Supposed to be its own post).

As long as no one tries to civilize the Bloody Vikings, we'll be OK.

Tyler asks the right question, and it's the only question that matters. That the world's most brilliant economist (love you, bro!) has to ask the question tells us a lot about about the discipline of economics, eh?

Politics is the clumsy, red-headed stepchild of logic and reason and has an immense and indiscriminate velocity.

Tyler seems to ask whether the disruption in current society regarding gender is enough to put Trump in the White House.

If you think the holder of the US Presidency is important enough to wring your hands in despair, or joy, by all means you need to answer the question. And the rest of us will go on tending the garden and smelling the roses.

Even nice Canadians are brutish on occasion. https://youtu.be/D8MZwMzs9rA?t=94

Male citizens' economic prospects have been declining for decades. Non-citzens immigrating to this country have seen there economic prospects substantially increase for decades, probably to the determinate of the former. Trump is the first candidate in decades to adamantly defend the former's interests. I think it's that simple.

Doesn't Trump do well with white women?

But I don't think gender is really the point. Despite the media smokescreen it has been a poor decade for America. The economy is sluggish, full time job creation low, debt is soaring, the government increasingly weak abroad and coercive at home, and people really are not happy with the record rate of immigration from low-skilled countries into an expanding welfare state.

The GOP were given a chance to fix things with the mid term landslide. But they didn't. Now people are turning to something else.

Doesn’t Trump do well with white women?

I don't think so. Clinton demolishes Trump among college-educated white women. For white women without degrees, it may be flipped, but the thing is we now have more voters who are white women with college education than white women without. Add in any minorities and it becomes even harder to make a case for Trump, but we'll see, these things will change up until the election.

This recent CBS poll has Trump ahead of Clinton with white women, and only 4% behind with college-educated white women. Pretty remarkable considering Hilary's running on women's issues and Trump is getting awful press.

So not seeing this as a man-woman issue so much as white-minorities issue.Trump leads 50-38 among all whites.

Tyler's post argument doesn't work.


I think a campaign has to know that an election is run in stages, and swings are natural.

I wouldn't expect that trying to lead all the way is the way to win. People will burn out or flip. The pendulum must swing.

And so I'd think that strategists are trying to time Hillary's peak lead for election day. The best ammunition will not be used too early.

This is a good stage to test messages, but not the best to really use them.

I don't think Trump has this kind of discipline, and so he gets to see if bashing his way all the way to November will work.

Bear in mind that while Trump has his nomination sewed up, Hillary does not. At this point it's still a three way race: Trump vs Clinton vs Sanders. If and when Sanders drops out we'll see Clinton's support consolidate as Trump's has in recent weeks.

"The GOP were given a chance to fix things with the mid term landslide. But they didn’t."

The problem is that they didn't even raise a point of order.

Is Tyler still in China? He must have hurriedly posted this one. It is simply incoherent.

Change is bad, at least too much of it at one time.

I think the polarization of the parties effectively discounts the views of the true "median" voter more than in the past. The middle ground seems more like no-mans-land. My impression is there are always a high percentage of the population that will support almost any crazy thing, but usually the political process pulls officials toward the median voter. That doesn't seem to be happening as strongly for reasons I don't understand. I think part of it has to do w/ jerrymandered districts that are intentionally designed to be not reflective of the population on the legislative side (this hurts ability for concensus seeking), and this spills into presidential politics because the legislature has decided to stop functioning. With a better functioning congress, presidential politics might be a bit more reflective of the median voter imho.

The differences between the candidates are insignificant on every issue other than the wall, mass low IQ nonwhite immigration, and anchor babies.

So it looks to me that politicians are being pulled to the median voter, except on those issues where the median voter is deemed a savage vicious subhuman who needs to be exterminated for his horrid lack of political correctness.

Hey ... uh ... did you hear the story about how the Microsoft AI Twitterbot became racist within the space of hours? How accidental was it that it was racists guiding the AI Twitterbot so quickly? Is there any Straussian reading, or just a random quirky story? I mean ... what kind of people would think it's OK to use AI for, shall we say, less than altruistic reasons?

The way I see it. Be nice. But don't forget what Hobbes said. Even a king, with a knife in the back, is a dead man. Does "be nice" still sound sincere? Hey, no one's perfect. Just try not to be such an ass. I rarely suggest much more than that.

The recent rise of nationalist, immigration-restrictionist parties can't possibly have anything to do with historically white nations being swamped by legions of third world mal.. er, what was the word Tyler used? Oh that's right. Brutes. You see, genetics don't exist and evolution stopped at the neck.

Seriously though, the idiocy of academics astonishes me at times. Take a 90% white nation and turn it into a < 50% white nation over the course of less than a century and you act surprised when there's a nationalist uprising? These cucks act like Western civilization is a fungible idea that anybody can participate in - that institutions and ideologies can be completely separated from the very particular conditions in which they arose.

Specifically, which institutions and ideologies are you concerned about?

I do not consider that the newest wave of immigrants to the New World should be considered as posing any specific threat to institutions or ideologies relevant to the founding and continuation of these nations, or Western civilization.

But if nightmares about a mulatto America in 300 years time leaving you waking up puking, then I gather you would not agree.

(Hint: People are less likely to be brought around to your argumentation when you insult them.)

See Venezuela ans Zimbabwe for what happens when western institutions get corrupted by low IQ brutes.

Which Western institutions did either of those countries ever have?

And for that matter, does it not strike you as pretty dishonest to go pick a couple basket cases and ignore all the examples of countries who have done well in adopting some aspects of Western institutions?

It's good to have fewer Europeans in Europe because neo Nazi fascist racist brute diversity is our strength GDP skin colour isn't culture we're all the same and equal celebrate diversity we're all identically different

As he pointed out, all human capital is not equal. Sorry, but Somalians with an average IQ of 70, or Arabs with an average IQ in the low 80s are not going to uphold and maintain our systems. This is even discounting the fact that ethnic competition and ethnocentrism are real strategies being employed by these alien groups you bring into white nations, at the expense of whites, while whites are being told we're evil if we want to engage in the same for our own interests.

A mixed mulatto nation won't work, either since groups that are mixed with whites tend to be of lower average intelligence than whites, such as mestizos or Turks as an example. Sorry to tell you but we have glaring examples of failed states or near-failed states to look at for that, either. Turkey and most of the states of Central and South America are great examples. The future of the US is that of Brazil where unless you're a high class person who can essentially afford to live in a fortress with armed guards, you are subject to living in favelas in very dangerous cities like Rio with the largely lower racial castes. Unless of course, immigration is stopped, the illegals sent back, and actual level playing field competition without this anti-white male racial favoritism is brought back.

Evolution didn't stop from the neck up. We evolved differences in intelligence and disposition as racial groups that evolved in different environments, under different selection pressures. Denying this is just some basic science denial but you kind of expect it from liberal "intellectuals" who's ideas are themselves built on an anti-scientific house of cards.

edit: this speaks primarily to what I observe in the U.S. I don't know if it translate to Europe.

Well, don't let your doubts that Prof. Cowen knows what he is talking about in the wider world stop you from becoming a loyal reader.

"The nature of current service jobs, coddled class time and homework-intensive schooling, a feminized culture allergic to most forms of violence, post-feminist gender relations, and egalitarian semi-cosmopolitanism just don’t sit well with many…what shall I call them? Brutes?"

From Buzz Aldrin and Don Draper to Caitlyn Jenner and that ball breaking bitch at every corporate VP level in 50 years. F-ck this gay America.

The feminization of teaching has hurt boys. Boys respond to competition, removing it and tailoring education to how girls learn has pushed boys aside. This has nothing to do with "brutes".

Cerberus, not Cerebus

I find socionomics, which is based on social mood, tends to work well. I predicted Trump would win the presidency on the immigration issue back in July 2014.

Everything that is happening has happened before. Now we are in a period of negative mood and many political leaders are implementing insane policies given the mood of the public.
Negative Mood and Stupid Policy Fallout: Europe Swings Right

In Hungary and Poland, the left-wing is gone and the right has begun purging communist influences (constitutional reforms, etc). East Germany is moving sharply to the right and pulling Germany with it. The German public considers Afd and NDP the only two right-wing parties, i.e. the political center has moved right.

The forces combining are a political pendulum swing, coupled with negative mood which creates the opportunity for extreme political outcomes, plus extremist political leaders already in office all over the West. Merkel's migrant policy is insane if you look at political developments in eastern neighbors, the general and rising anti-immigration sentiment in the West, terrorism, debt levels, difficulty assimilating Muslims living in Germany for 50 years...

The sane policy would be to do what politicians do in almost any other case and co-opt the opposition's policies. If the public is anti-immigration, then restrict or even ban immigration for a time. The U.S. did it for 40 years and it wasn't the end of the world. Instead, the existing left and right establishment parties are teaming up on these issues. It's creating a high stakes game where the out of power faction is growing larger and more radical over time and becoming the only alternative to the existing political structure. This is how a Trump can waltz in and win the presidency. It is how you will see Europe elect far-right parties with majorities so large they do not need to form coalition governments.

very well said.

It seems like the high-risk, high-reward strategies than many men seek are increasingly costly to initiate and maintain... and are filled with more paperwork. If a new unexplored continent rose from the sea, I suspect the resultant land-rush would attract many depressed brutes. Seeking glory within a small, local domain is less and less satisfying in an age where global winners are visible everywhere on the internet.


Echoes a thought I've had: Global civilization is in desperate need of an empty frontier. Everywhere is full of preexisting people, and current political style is that it's not ok to rip and replace people and culture; instead it is to be preserved. So in such a world, if you don't like the local culture and regulation, and globalization has spread it, where do you go? No wild west to conquer anywhere, and if you tried you would be crushed for not becoming native.

Mars is getting some attention lately.....

I can hardly believe the crassness of Tyler's rant. Just switch the genders round and you will see what I mean.
The truth is that the upheaval in politics is a revival of good old-fashioned but still formless class politics. The killer statistic is that 90% of Austrian manual workers voted for the supposedly neoNazi party.
Why have they abandoned the socialists? Because they have become part of the "respectable" consensus driven by those who are content with Cornucopian abundance. No more need for the rich and "respectable" to worry about high taxes they are free to prove their virtue by parading their consciences and muttering the Progressive Ave Maria to prove to themselves they are such very. very nice people. Just count the beads on the Progressive rosary and mutter the right words about diversity, gender, sexuality, race et akl. Just don't mention class, that means higher taxes, limits on the globalised export of jobs and limits on the the import of cheap labour to drive down costs.
Wake up Tyler and see the rebirth of class politics.

I think you miss the point. Browse the web a bit, men are spoken about in this manner everywhere (rightly or wrongly). A male backlash in unsurprising.

For readers of German an analysis in Die Zeit - a left leaning national daily - of the failure of the socialists in Austria and Germany to recognise that they do not represent the views and needs of their supposed constituency.


And yet the Greens seem to be doing OK - winning the recent Landstagwahl in Baden-Württemberg, and having a former Austrian Green Party head being elected as president.

The idea of a Green Party which is neither conservative nor liberal nor socialist seems extremely hard to fit into an American narrative. After all, it is the Greens and CDU that now share power in Baden-Württemberg, just as it was the Greens and SPD that shared power in the previous government.

Further, it should be noted that at least looking at Austrian politics from Germany, it was both the center left (the socialist SPÖ) and the center right (ÖVP) that have failed miserably. Much as happened in the Netherlands with the rise of Wilders.

There is a lot of truth in the idea that the rise of parties like the FPÖ and AfD is related to a protest vote against the existing system. Which also applies to the Greens, of course. There is also a lot of truth, as one can see from the leadership change that occurred in the AfD, that there is a significant resonance among a certain group of people in believing in a party where leaders feel free to express the need to gun down women and children at the border, to save the nation.

One of the jokes in the recent German film "Er ist wieder da" is that if Hitler came back to Germany today he would find the Green party the most congenial place to rebuild his power base. "Naturschutz ist Heimatschutz!"

I laughed out loud in the movie theater at that joke - which starts/continues along the lines of Hitler more or less amusedly dismissing as nonsense that the Green are not in favor of weapons grade uranium.

'he would find the Green party the most congenial place to rebuild his power base'

Actually, as I recall, Hitler says the Greens had the right idea about keeping Germany in good condition - he did not think the Greens were the best place to start reclaiming power. Instead, it was the Internet that thrilled him with its possibility to spread his message to the masses again.

The term is, I believe, 'useful idiots'.

'‘useful idiots’'

Watch the movie - it turns out that the 'useful idiots' were the media figures that gave Hitler something resembling a comedy/reality show in exchange for higher ratings. (Though this is definitely part of the second, and weaker, part of the film.)

The main plank in all of those parties is anti-immigration. Mass immigration of wildly alien people destroys a nation's coherency. The indigenous people of Europe should not and do not want to give up their ancestral homelands. Certainly not to Islamic fanatics who have already stated their intent of enslaving, raping, murdering and miscegenating native Europeans (through taking their women by force, like they do everywhere else) out of existence.

In recent weeks I've yet to see the much talked about "not nice" Trump supporters.

On the other hand I've seen BLM and La Raza throwing rocks and batteries at people heads, pushing people around, destroying cars.

So Tyler believes young black and Hispanic men throwing rocks at your head = nice and pleasant. Trump calling out this behavior = not-nice.

Keep up the good work! We're all impressed.

Sexist, emotional, illogical claims like Tyler's here are actually pushing me TOWARD Trump. I was looking forward to voting Gary Johnson AGAIN, but maybe it's time for men to stop being ashamed of being men. It's not my fault I was born with a penis, I'm done taking unending heaps of scorn and abuse for the imaginary crimes of my gender. Nathan? You want citations? I can give you pages upon pages of citations of popular examples when I get off work.

From my time in Iceland and Sweden, the nordic countries did not feminize men, at least not to the extreme degree that it has happened here in the US. They masculinized women (ha! Autocorrect agrees with me - feminize is a word, masculinize is not!), if one takes the (sexist) assumption that being calm, rational, accountable, and fair is masculine. I'd rather not even say they're masculine traits, and simply good ones that everyone is encouraged to have - in the old Nordic world. Teaching emotional response and primarily fear-response is becoming as popular there as it is here, however.

"being calm, rational, accountable, and fair is masculine"

Great definition. Can we call the others brutes then?

I'd call the intersectional feminists many things, but brutes are not among them. Cry-bullies is an amusing and appropriate smear word, but how about we just stick to professionalism and call them emotion-driven and anti-science. I really don't think calm, rational, accountable, and fair is necessarily masculine, but they are good traits that are becoming more rare.

'Brute' implies force. I see very little evidence of brutes in mainstream western culture, and I live near a NASCAR speedway and enjoy watching the occasional MMA fighting. Do you need me to defend my lack-of-observation? If the media is to be believed at all, brutes are to be found where socialists and Islamists are in control.

Yeah, American culture has really gone downhill since the days of Dirty Harry and Rambo.


Think about it.

What if you aren't the only male who says "this thing (whatever thing at the moment) makes me angry, so I might just vote Trump to show you!"

Wouldn't that pretty much prove the argument?

Anon, it completely proves the argument. I agree with you here. Can you agree with me here? I want to vote for Gary Johnson because he most accurately represents my viewpoints on policy. To vote Trump because I get called mean names on the internet is a pretty stupid, emotional decision. If that makes me a Brute, then fine - but I'll hold you to that.

To vote Hillary because you're afraid Mr. Trump is Hitler is also an emotional, irrational decision. To vote Trump because you're afraid Hillary will take your guns, also emotional decision. The people who vote against candidates by voting FOR candidates they're ALSO against, are also emotional Brutes by this peculiar definition, and they've been in charge for the last 20+ years. Did you vote for Gore to keep out Bush? Bush to keep out Kerry? Obama to keep out McCain? Romney to keep out Obama? Brutes, all of those voters, by this peculiar definition. Nah, I'd rather not call them brutes... but they're definitely not calm nor rational voters.

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

I'm not a Clinton fan. I see her as a status quo candidate. And I don't like the status quo. But I don't think Trump would make it better.

On the "lizards" issue. I think the particular setup of the American electoral system makes it difficult to do much other than replace one set of lizards with another set of lizards. There's not room for a third party to come in with 10% of the vote, perhaps regionally relevant, build a base with some recognition in Congress, and carry on from there. There's too much "winner takes all" in American politics, and as a result two parties have a complete stranglehold. It makes it altogether too easy for corrupt-minded folks to pick off all the right people in each party and prevent any generally honest people from really gaining much influence.

There are things I respect about the two major idiots running for office these days. One of the things I admire about Trump is that he is shameless, in an age where shame has become weaponized. I do actually encounter on a... weekly? basis attempts to shame me for being male, and that's after cutting a fair amount of media out of my life. I'm a big boy and can handle ridicule - humans are ridiculous creatures, and humor is an excellent survival tool - but damn the constant attempts at shame get tiring.

Attempting to shame someone for something they shouldn't be ashamed of, WILL create an emotional response. It doesn't make lashing out right, but it makes it understandable. What's that saying about cornered animals, which apparently men are?

Once upon a time in America our High School civics classes taught enlightened self-interest.

Once upon a time in America, the League of Women Voters had evening coffee, cookies, and discussions of issues.

Those are a lot different than "the last thing you said made me angry, so I will vote for what makes you angry."

Even in Once Upon a Time, though, movements were fueled by outrage. I'm pretty sure the suffragettes weren't "Meh, this would be nice but I'm not upset if I don't get the vote".

Spite-voting is pretty dumb, but... it's not new, and it's how we've gotten where we are. It's what motivates the bulk of voters, even Democratic voters. I'd dare say ESPECIALLY Democratic voters. It doesn't matter who wins, so long as they're not The Other Side - well, a lot of R's are bailing on the party line. I seriously doubt any D's will Berniebros notwithstanding. I want to vote my conscience, but the more this retarded culture war intrudes on my life, the more willing I am to support a monster to unleash on my enemies. The left only needs to stick to facts and sanity, and I'll keep voting 3rd party.

罗臻 (??) had it right - sane politics would have a party interested in winning trying to address the grievances of a substantial portion of the electorate, rather than alienate them further.


There is actually a term for what Tyler is up to: Gas lighting.

Right, and that's why anyone who says "Hitler" or "Nazi" is an insance, delusional, paranoid freak, totally unable to use their mental faculties.

Because the people who say "uhh.... HISTORY? Lessons? Analogies? Caaaareful guys? WTF is going on?" .... THOSE are the people who are gaslighting the people who want to gun down women and children at the border. Right.

Do you just not understand the term or ... are you a bloody Nazi? Or is this just some misunderstanding we can write off to poor communication of some other sort? If so, please be specific.

Who is calling for gunning down people at the border for sport? You really are a silly man.

The sentiment is that we have a border, which is itself an expression of law, and laws are enforced or they're not laws at all. Most would just as soon wish Mexicans well on their side of the border and have no desire to shoot them if they're not then invading sovereign U.S. soil.

Tell me when it was that Hitler or the NAZIs grand plan involved simply keeping the Poles or French on their own side of their Nations' border with Germany?

Certainly not gas lighting. The sentiment is out there - listen to country music for a few days. And, it does have a partially economic basis. It is not, like gas lighting, disconnected from reality.

There has been a bona fide shift over the last past few decades in terms of what is acceptable in terms of physical contact, physical force and violence. What is defined as date rape today used to be socially accepted. Ditto a large share of prosecuted domestic violence. DUI wasn't taken seriously. Minor physical assaults between men weren't prosecuted nearly as reliably.

Jobs that don't involve sitting quietly behind a computer screen are on the decline. The economic prospects of blue collar men have been stagnant for forty years while women and white collar men have seen their economic prospects improve. For purposes of what is the problem today it doesn't matter much how this came to be. This trend has made blue collar men less marriageable and made their marriages unstable compared to their peers and spawned a lot of misguided scapegoating seeking to remedy a decline in family values that is mostly a matter of economics.

Some of its is essentially inevitable and irreversible in a society where technology has made brains more economically important and braun less economically important.

And, the shift hasn't been exclusively at the bottom of the socio-economic heap either. For example, the number of medical doctors produced each year has increased very little while the demographic pool from which med school applicants are drawn has increased dramatically with the effect that lots of white men who would have made it into med school in 1966 have no real shot at getting into med school in 2016. For that individual at the high end of the socio-economic scale, conditions are worse.

Well, it's not like we haven't been here before: an elite ideology that blames the world's ills on some aspect of human nature taken to be irrational while the thankfully uneducated population sees it as the madness that it really is.

Well if the ones among them who have converted to Nazi-like views would realize that string pullers in such a movement would regard them as disposable tools, that might be useful.

"You're next..." and all. Whoever would be at the front line, rest assured, no genuine eugenicist Nazi movement would be putting anyone at any front line except for those they deemed "not useful, except right now ... we neeeeed you!"

By the time a rather crazy period in Canada was over, the people who'd been under the most pressure to conform or "we'll get you" were homeless, and after it was all over, you'd see homeless people self identifying as "Nazis". So, I gather we were to blame the homeless people for everything and kill them as retribution? Thank God we're not complete retards. I hope those people got the support they need. They must have gone through a lot.

Which honestly makes me wonder ... if the Germans were mostly useful idiots the last time around, someone to pin all the crap on. But I don't actually think it's constructive to try to reconstruct that history. The present is too important for such a distraction.

When you were a kid did you ever imagine spending all your time as an adult hunting Nazis? You've never found one. You've never even seen one. But they're EVERYWHERE!!!

I see this now. I can't think of the passed incidences in history that match this.

"Princeton professors Anne Case and Angus Deaton note, in addition, a sharp relative deterioration in mortality and morbidity among middle-aged white American men, due to suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse."

Actually, the last five years or so have been harder on the life expectancies of white women than of white men.

It's almost as if what's bad for white men also tends to be bad for white women.

Shhh . . . if this gets out it'll surely sink the Clinton campaign.

Tyler: And if you think, as I do, that the incidence of rape is fairly high, perhaps this shouldn’t surprise you.

Except that the incidence of rape has collapsed over the last few decades.

You are correct: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

Maybe you can thank conservative incarceration policies for that?

A general attitude that "no means no" might have something to do with it.

The definitions seem to be getting updated again. Enthusiastic and ongoing consent required. Now, surely this wouldn't apply to a huge number of people, but in the meantime be careful not to be persuaded to believe that someone should beat themselves up for something done 30 years ago under a different understanding of appropriate behaviour.

I believe the present approach is better, however (except for the part where an accusation is enough to bring on the lynch mobs, and not even a finding of "not guilty" in a court of law is enough to assuage some...

The Austrian FPÖ is a lot of things: anti-immigration, pro-welfare state, socially conservative. Of late, it has become pro-Israel and it is very critical of the spread of cultural Islam in Austria. It is more or less the Trump party of Austria, not the "neo-Nazi" one.

If so, in response to such concerns, they can prove in word and action that they do not and will not cross such lines. Something like "we respect the inherent sanctity in every human life... but for cultural preservation we want to keep things separate".

Which I is not my view. I do not feel that my culture is so weak that some foreigners will destroy it by their mere presence. But, regardless, it would be evidence that they aren't neo-Nazis, or especially that the people at the helm are not. Do you hear of anything they do or say that provides such reassurances? Given the claims coming from many quarters, they would certainly have a real interest to dissociate themselves from such types, but I am simply unaware of them doing/saying such things.

Supporting a centre for job training for the down and out, say?

So, they're presumptively Neo-NAZIs and have to prove otherwise to some guy on the internet now?

Look, they never SAID they weren't neo-Nazis intent on rounding up the undesirables in prison camps so for the time being let's just presume that they are?

A small set of cities has developed incomes far above the national average - Boston, NYC, LA, San Francisco. From 2000 to 2007, according to the Census Bureau, net domestic migration out of those cities was nearly 4 million people. America used to be a place where people moved toward prosperity. Now they have to move away from it. The economic stress is coming from the economic inequality within those cities and the refugee crisis they are spawning. Meanwhile, sense we have become scared of the shadows of our own homes, a million construction jobs disappeared while for a decade we have built homes as if we are in a depression, and most policy talk today is about macroprudential oversight meant to keep it that way.

Here is a post with a graph of the difference in income distribution between the problem cities and the rest of the US.
The reason for the extremism is because we are chasing hobgoblins instead of recognizing the problem. How many Bernie supporters are out marching about the rigged system, but don't have any problem at all with the fact that more than half the country can't get a mortgage and shudder at the idea that a developer or banker might dare make a profit off of them if they could.

Your information about outflows is completely wrong. Just Google "population of CITY" and a graph will immediately pop up showing that you're wrong. I'm pretty sure Google's got that one figured out. Where are you getting your misinformation from?

It's migration after accounting for international migration, deaths, and births. It's the estimate of the number of people actually picking up and moving. The Census Bureau has data on this.

Sorry. I misread "net migration" as "net immigration".

People come and go. It's called geographic mobility. Obviously there's nothing too wrong with the places if more people are coming than leaving.

Obviously there’s nothing too wrong with the places if more people are coming than leaving.

You might even wonder if all those non-Americans moving in is related to all those Americans moving out

@Careless, the difference in these high prosperity areas between domestic & international migration has lead me to wonder if immigration policy should be altered in some way to reduce immigration to places with above average per-square-foot housing costs (i.e. places with demand exceeds supply) in order to allow more Americans to live there.

Home ownership rates have dropped a few percentage points to 64% (about what they were in 1990) after the Great Recession from their all time peak in the mid-2000s of 69%, but remain higher than they were in the idealized 1950s (55% in 1950) and 1960s (62% in 1960), mostly (1) because lenders were freer about making mortgage loans once FannieMae and FreddieMac created a large secondary market for those loans, and (2) because the emergence of the condominium form of ownership made it possible to own a unit in a multi-family building. From 1900-1940, home ownership rates ranged from 44% (1940) to 48% (1930) with no strong long term trend lines.

You don't have to look back very far in economic history to the point at which it was virtually impossible to get a mortgage with less than a 20% down payment and I grew up expecting mortgage interest of 8% or so, instead of the 3.5%ish 30 year fixed rate that I actually pay.

And, the notion that owning a home with a mortgage is economically better than renting for everyone simply is not true, particularly not now in an era when geographic mobility is common and lifetime jobs are rare.

A lot of it has to do with the Left's never ending pursuit of the next problem to solve. Everything is the new Civil Rights Movement, even when it is a small or trivial issue. This alienates a lot of people.

Just because it only involves 1% of the population does not make it trivial.

However, I think there are those who get a little hysterical about it sometimes. I think the same applies on the other side of the spectrum too. I don't think it's fair to blame the people who want to make things better for the aggrieved 1% though. Agree or disagree with their methods, but the people who are the source of grief, and not the aggrieved, and not those who stand up for the aggrieved, are the source of the problem.

The internet has stripped away the thin veneer of sanity we previously believed covered everything.

No, we think that what we read on the Internet is somehow representative of a world that is larger than that seen on a screen.

A fairly common mistake, admittedly.

10 years ago I had high hopes for the internet. People have different views on what "please use responsibly" would mean. But it is clear that quite a lot of people do not apply that approach regardless.

AFAICT it's concern about the cultural and economic impact of immigrants combined with white men simply becoming tired of being the group of people that it is acceptable to constantly attack.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, in the eyes of the mainstream media and academia, white men peacefully attending a Trump rally can be presumed to be racist fascist misogo-whatevers, while the media/academic reaction to actual violence from blacks, Mexicans or Muslims is more along the lines of "what did those horrible white men do to you, you poor babies?".

Well, regardless, they certainly don't shush the racist sexists in their midst. Don't they .... cheer them a lot of the time?

People don't constantly attack white native born men, certainly not on the basis of race, citizenship or gender.

What rock have you been living under for the last 30 years? White men have been under increasing attack with some people CELEBRATING our impending demise as a people if trends continue--that is, CELEBRATING the genocide of European people at the hands of the migrant hordes pouring into our nations the world over.

"Women and minorities" first policies are a great example of this attack. That basically just means "no white males." Turn on the tube, see a bunch of filth promoting interracial sex. Of course we're under attack.

Why don't you take a look at FBI crime statistics demonstrating the races of perpetrators and victims and get back to us having fleshed out your theorem.

Have you seen the movie "idiocracy"? That's just it, sad world.

How many childs does a moderately educated family have? lets say between 2 and 4, more often 2,3.
How many childs does a "favela" family have? Well, you guessed it, it's often between 5 and 10.

Now these childs will get educated by their own parents so they'll probably have more or less the same education and will most probably repeat the process when they'll reach the parenting age.

100 years later you'll have 30% of educated people and 70% of uneducated people voting for the likes of Trump.

The people born in the "favelas" are generally not the ones voting Trump. Also Trump is winning the nomination among all major (Republican-voting) demographics including various education levels.

Trump's voterbase is more educated and well off than the opposition, actually. The main threat being voted against is demographic threat from lower IQ racial alien groups swamping the country. Same as in Austria. It's racial self-preservation that is the impetus. Ethnic and racial competition doesn't cease to exist just because you pretend it does or don't practice it yourself. Ethnocentrism is a winning strategy over all others, I might add.

I'm sure you'd like to imagine you're all enlightened and that anyone voting for Trump is just some toothless trailer trash, but you're wrong. You're probably in that liberal demographic if people with slightly-higher-than-average IQ who think you know everything, but yet can't think ahead 20, 30, 50, 100 years to where mass immigration is actually going.

Factor in the Idiocracy imported through immigration and you might see that Trump and his voters are trying to avert a more rapid descent into idiocracy. Immigration, itself, is a factor in stunting affordable family formation, which leads to lower birthrates for the discerning.

Very, very few people in the US are having ten kids.Even five kids are pretty rare, and found mostly among certain religious groups.

Funny how people have been saying these things for 100 years, but there are more and more educated people than ever, with ever higher levels of education.

If you're concerned about the favela families and their birth rates, just make sure the girls have good access to free schooling of good quality, and reasonable prospects to get an OK job.

There are more and more people with degrees, but fewer people with an education.

Degree inflation

A harvard law degree is roughly equivalent to what high school matriculation used to be.

More people have higher and higher degrees, but the substance of what is taught has deteriorated massively,

Typical university entrance examination questions in those supposedly bad old days - a series of questions that leads the testee to construct an efficient algorithm for pi from first principles. Draw on the map the journey of the ten thousand.

So, your solution to avoid Idiocracy is to vote against Trump so that we can continue importing people directly from favelas and somehow thereby not arrive at Idiocracy before schedule?

Mr Cowen's understanding of what is "nice" appears to differ from those of millions of disaffected voters. Student debt and redundancy are not "nice". Soaring rates of divorce and separation are not "nice". Terrorism in Paris or California are not "nice". As "brutish" as manufacturing might sound to Mr Cowen, a lot of people found it "nice" to have quiet, respectable jobs, go home to their families and open the papers without fearing for the immediate futures of their nations.

'and open the papers without fearing for the immediate futures of their nations'

Don't remember the Cold War?

My suspicion is that most people react far more violently to threats within their borders than to threats outside their borders but I'll grant that I'm not sure how I'd prove this.

'react far more violently to threats within their borders'

You really don't remember the Cold War, then.

'but I’ll grant that I’m not sure how I’d prove this'

Fair enough - it is very difficult to remember just how all-encompassing the fear of nuclear obliteration was, especially in the context of an ideological struggle between two superpowers following a MAD policy - mutually assured destruction. And yes, anyone reading a normal newspaper's front page during the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s would be provided information on the latest developments - arms control agreements, 3rd world proxy wars, military expenditures, new developments in weapons/technology, etc. Reagan's 'Star Wars' program was good for years and years of reporting in combination with all of the above (not counting proxy wars), upending MAD as it would.

You really don’t remember the Cold War, then...

I've thought about this and you're completely right. To salvage some measure of credibility for my initial point, I do think there's a different, if perhaps no more extreme, reaction to internal rather than external threats that is encouraging this swerve to the right but it was dumb to imply that people ever felt secure.

Do you look the door behind you every time you move from one room of the house to the other? No, because it's assumed that your house's is borders are secure enough to make you feel secure, psychologically. Taking it to the neighborhood level, because you can have a mental space where, despite distant dangers, you can put your feet up and not worry about the little lady out doing the shopping or the kids playing in the neighborhood. People crave that, psychologically, and are willing to accept quite a lot of inconvenience to get it. This explains the huge premium on homes in good school districts with low crime (the same thing, because it comes down to the presence of minorities of a certain class). It's why people pay for gated communities. Looking over your shoulder, whether you realize you are doing so or not, is an exhausting way to live. This is why a main focus of responsive states has been to widen the area of assumed security. From walled familial compounds to walled cities to nations with good border protection. Nothing ever eliminates the risk, but you can minimize it.

Perhaps ironically the foreign existential threat from the Soviets and Red Chinese gave the factory worker's occupation meaning - which is to say being a productive citizen was doing his part in the Cold War.

Divorce rates have been steadily declining since 1980 in the USA. http://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/files/2015/08/us_divorce_and_marriage.png They increased at a rapid rate before that, but I'm not sure this really fits with your assertion that this coincides with manufacturing job losses. http://blogs-images.forbes.com/davidewalt/files/2011/11/manufacturing_jobs.jpg

Haven't marriage rate been declining as well, though?

That's certainly a big part of it, I'm just pointing out that 'soaring rates of divorce' is factually incorrect, and the timeline doesn't especially work for the decline of manufacturing.

True, but combine it with the rate at which unmarried couples separate.


One is a movement that involves something in the range of a few in a million. The risks for terrorism are real, but ones that I shrug my shoulders at, much prefer the institutional apparatus of freedom.

The other is capturing significant shares of the electorate. I don't really know what all they want, but it is clear that we're talking about things with enormously different potential scopes of action. If the other 99% of Muslims in Europe are not already radicalized, I don't think there's much of anything that will radicalize them further without, ah, really going where some people want to go (and what would we call those people, and which parties are they found in?)

I see - let in ever increasing numbers of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East or else the extant Muslims in Western Nations will radicalize and commit acts of terror against their host nations. Conversely, restricting immigration might deflate these cryptic NAZI parties and stave off their NAZI evil, but we mustn't give in to them.

The solution is always "fewer Europeans in Europe". No matter what the problem, that is the final solution.

The problem is the definition of "nice". Niceness seems to include all sorts of ugly social bullying that rewards social politicians and the attractive while depreciating actual skill or usefulness. The values of Pi Beta Phi seem to be considered "nice" even when they are not, the values that used to be proclaimed widely are not.

Most of the "nice" values are as competitve as any of the "brute" values but they are based more on achieving status through internal competition which tends to be zero sum rather than competeing against outsiders. This is because the nice feminine values are those of weak dependents, these values are also common in unfree or enslaved populations because can be very effective in raising the relative position of dependents and excluding competition. The brute values are those that raise the status of the dominant in competition for leadership with other dominant individuals. Brute values are focused on increasing solidarity in a group of strong individuals and reducing internal competition which among brutes leads to mutual destruction and instead direct it out away from the group.

We just pretend that social ostracism of group members is an undesirable after effect of nice feminine values when it is actually the point, just as we condemn brute aggressiveness and assume that internal group cohesion and ideals of sacrifice are just accidents unrelated to aggression against outsiders.

This is why traditionally masculine group activities of bonding are becoming inherently suspect while group activities of feminine cast are celebrated despite being arenas of in group competition.

You don't even need biologic explanations beyond sexual dimorphism for this, because it is all about social roles. Once feminists claimed to despise female weakness associating deference with inferiority but then when feminism became dominant among higher status women it quickly turned on women who behaved in a masculine manner

Niceness is just a cover for war by feminine means. If you're a class of people with higher verbal intelligence and skills and can restrict your less verbose interlocutors to arguing with you on your terms, rather than theirs, then the fight is won. You can harass your enemy with passive aggression, through policies, humiliating impositions, language control, status games, shaming etc.

There is a lot of uncertainty for men, especially for more brutish men. How are they to treat women, especially in the workplace? They certainly can't treat them like other men, because that's sexist, and they certainly can't go on treating them like women, because that's sexist too. Basically, they're forced to compete with women by feminized standards, but then women hold all the cards. Equality, it turns out, involves everyone treating everyone else like women, but not too overtly. This is not an equality that a huge chunk of men (and a smaller chunk of women, for that matter) are ever going to be comfortable with.

I strongly agree with you about whether "nice" or "brutish" is more common in enslaved populations. My understanding is that enslaved populations experience a lot more "brutish" than "nice".

It is possible to be nice and tough too. Like, nice most of the time, but you drawn lines, no when to say no, and if there are some brutes giving you bullshit, you lay it on them. Nicely, if possible.

I think brutish behaviour is generally for those who actually have low self confidence, and so have to put on a show so they think they tough, delude themselves into thinking they have influence. But most often, it will backfire, and contribute to social isolation, or at least isolation from people with better team work and team building and network building skills.

Everyone who prefers to work with and for assholes please raise your hand!

Although I suspect this is a satire piece, I'd like to add a couple of things:
a) if you want to call the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs a "neo-nazi" party, than you have to do this to Magyar Polgári Szövetség of Hungary, Prawo i Sprawiedliwość of Poland or even the Smer–sociálna demokracia of Slovakia too, because their political goals are very similar: national self-determination instead of EU rule, increased social equality, strengthening of the traditional family and direct democracy, increasing taxes on foreign-owned corporations, and anti-immigration. Of course, all of this has anything to do with fascism of any kind, but it would be correctly described as "Left-wing nationalism". And the reason these parties are on the rise is much less sinister as you insinuate. The reason is that the traditional left-wings parties have ratted the average worker out to neoliberalism. They did throw in some so called progressive elements like support for same-sex marriage or gender equality, but their economic policy is heavily skewed to corporatism. That was good for stock owners here in Europe, but not so much for laborers.
b) "anti-immigration" is too broad a definition for what an increasing number of Europeans stand for. A better term would be: "anti-islam" or "anti-arab" or "anti-african". As has been demonstrated by a study performed in Sweden, natives do tolerate foreigners from other European countries in their neighborhood but they move when there is an influx of non-Europeans and this threshold is very low, lower than 5%. The same can bee seen with the naked eye in France, which had a large influx of immigrants in the 60s and 70s and very soon, ghettoization started to take place. You can also witness this already in Vienna, Austria, where the 10th and 11th districts is increasingly becoming the immigrant ghetto. Where are they? Just search the map for the place where natives voted in support for Hofer. You Americans know that segretative phenomenon by another name: "white flight".
c) "president" and "power" don't go together for most European countries with the exception of France because the president has largely representational duties. Much more powerful is the Prime Minister or Chancellor. That is the reason why almost nobody knows the name of the German president (Joachim Gauck), but everybody is afraid of Angela Merkel. If the FPÖ copies the strategy layed out in 2015 by PiS' Jarosław Kaczyński and goes into the next parliamentary elections not with the brutish Heinz-Christian Strache, but with a likable figure like Norbert Hofer at the helm, the president will have no choice as to appoint Hofer Chancellor- where the real power is also in Austria.
d) you have an interesting definition of "nice". But ok, if being gang-raped by 3 immigrants from Algeria is "nice", then good, we should welcome more immigrants.

I think you might be about 80% right. But in some venues, it is patently obvious that there are some pretty ugly elements within. And do not think they will not be trying to recruit the others into their ways of thinking and doing.

And as for the 80% you are right about? Clearly they aren't bothered by the other rhetoric. Which suggests it might not be oh so difficult to progressively manipulate them into something other than what they currently are. If it's just a bunch of smoke being billowed about, it would be rather easy for such parties to make a few comforting indications, ideally backed with actions and rhetoric that prove there is no reason for the spider sense to be going off. But I do not believe they will issue any such signals. Because ... ???

Because anyone to your right is a Nazi, duh

"Another option would be to bring back some of the older, more masculine world in a relatively harmless manner"

Paintball? Gladiator fights?

Politics. Strauss said that contempt of politics was an unmanly trait.


The James Caan version preferably.

As a number of commentors have pointed out, the FPÖ is no longer "Neo-Nazi" in any meaningful sense, other than having a lot of vicious anti-Semites in the leadership, but you could say that about "Die Linke" in Germany as well, or the British Labour Party.

Depends what you mean by "anti-semite".

There's a difference between being critical of actions of the state of Israel and Jew hating.

In theory, perhaps. I myself have been critical of many policies of the state of Israel. However, today that's mostly a distinction without a difference. The "anti-zionists" single out Israel for criticism that they never apply to other countries. If you have a one standard for the Jewish state and another for the rest of the world, well, you're a Jew hater.

In my experience, the vast majority of self-professed "anti-zionists" are, in practice and fact, Jew haters.

It's somewhat ironic that "anti-zionist" now provides the same veneer of social acceptability relative to "anti-Semite" that "anti-Semite" once had relative to "Jew hater". A Jew hater, Wilhelm Marr, coined the phrase "anti-Semite" and I'd be willing to be that another Jew hater coined the phrase "anti-Zionist".

And yes, Jews can be Jew haters, though I won't call them self-hating Jews, It's the other Jews they hate.

Trump is mainly class and age, not sex. Hofer is mainly class and age. Sanders is overwhelmingly age. There is just not that much work being done by sex to justify a grand theory of sex differences, or put another way, for every post about sex differences you should be thinking of eight to ten for class differences.

Latest polls has Trump leading Hillary by 9+ points amongst white females.

Does that throw out your hypothesis Tyler?

The 'Angst' argument is getting a bit overdone at the moment. How about just that the establishment, a.k.a. economists, have been consistently wrong for a long time. Recent poll has millennials overwhelmingly seeing maths as opinion and no longer fact. This is a terrible development, however, this again is probably economists' fault as they talk like their models actually predict anything and maths gets a bad name by association. Taleb has better thoughts on this than "Angry brutes".

"Latest polls has Trump leading Hillary by 9+ points amongst white females."

Cite? And what is the margin of error on that 9%? If you take a poll where the overall margin of error is already 3 points and then slice it along two dimensions, your margin also increases.

I would really like to see that poll, too. I googled and got a bunch of hits but none of them showed any lead for Trump.

The closest I got was http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-lead-over-donald-trump-narrows-1463922182 two days ago, Trump leading among men by 9 points. I doubt he is leading among white women the same as he is leading among men.

Ah, posted up above http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-national-poll-hillary-clintons-lead-over-donald-trump-narrows/

Trump leads Clinton in "white women" by 1 percentage point as of 6 days ago.

There are presumably a lot of white women who are less interested in re-reading "Lean In" than in their husband's job security.

The world is becoming nicer??!! Only to a committed member of the cultural/lifestyle left like Tyler. Was the world "nice" to the women of Cologne? Was Yale "nice" to Elena Kyriakos? (I know, Tyler doesn't know anything about Yale, so he can't comment.) Were the protestors at DePaul "nice" to Milo? What Tyler means by "nice" is simply thought control and suppression of speech.

'Was the world “nice” to the women of Cologne?'

Groping and assaulting women has been going on for decades and decades in Köln - but somehow, no one seems all that concerned about groups of men from a certain religion doing that during Fasching, year after year. Well, maybe some women - but since when did the leaders of that religion care anything about what women thought?

The migrant lads were just joining in an old German tradition. Little did they expect the racism of the natives.

Also known as the Kölnischer Gropenfest with its colorful patron, St Gropen. But could the poor, ragged boys from the Middle East join in the fun? Noooo.

And the next time evil whites do something bad, you'll equivocate by mentioning that women are treated jolly beastly in Botswana don't you know?

Interesting that among 1000 reported assaults in public places in the age of ubiquitous camera phones was associated with precisely zero video footage or pics.

The single case that went to court was thrown out because there were no witnesses.

This is an interesting standard - does the requirement of film of the event and witnesses other than the victim apply to all sexual assault accusations going forward, or just the ones alleged against your foreign pets?

Is this Cowen's causality post from Bizarro World? I suppose it's true that men will respond to adversity with anger while women will respond with tears, but what's the cause of the anger? Effeminate Silicon Valley billionaires? Or Mexican immigrants washing dishes and mowing lawns? Or corporate CEOs shifting production to low-cost China while awarding themselves enormous pay packages as costs drop and profits rise? The logical consequence in a zero sum world where the credits all go to the top and the debits all go to the rest is anger and tears.

As a biologist I tend to view these questions in evolutionary terms. Maintaining diversity in a population is important. This is a chief critique of agricultural monoculture. In the past the diversity of the human male phenotype has been useful to society but our literate technological civilization is "selecting for" a certain narrow range of male phenotypes. If Tyler's critique is correct, we are practicing our own form of monoculture.

Donald Trump has five children. Rick Santorum, another sort despised by the ranks of soi-disant libertarians, has seven. The five women who have put in time married to Bilge Clinton, his brother Roger, and his brothers-in-law have a mean of 1 child a piece. I think TC has a stepdaughter, or something.

There is also the view that we have many existing types to "choose" from lying within us all. I think this is rather more cultural than genetic.

OK, class, the assignment for the summer semester is to simply read Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West" and then we'll discuss it on the last day of class, after my golf game. http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/09/according-to-oswald-spengler.html

80% of suicide victims are male.
93% of workplace fatalities are male.
76% of homicide victims are male.
60% longer criminal sentences on average for males.
98% of war death combatants are male.
87% of alimony and child support goes from men to women.
Majority of high school dropouts now male. 87% of teachers women.
Men are now expelled from college by women on an accusation of sexual assault alone - with due process and presumption of innocence removed from the accused.

The list of outright atrocities against men goes on and on and on - but you won't hear of this outcry from the lame stream media or the man hating gynocentrists that supports them. Why? Men are the whipping posts for the female victim class.

80% of suicide victims are male. 93% of workplace fatalities are male. 76% of homicide victims are male. 60% longer criminal sentences on average for males. 98% of war death combatants are male.
Bit of a selection challenge here, though, right? What share of men own guns (for the suicide) compared to women? What share of murderers are male? What share of war combatants are volunteers?

87% of alimony and child support goes from men to women.
What share of divorced women are tasked with raising, and paying for, the kids? And in what share of these cases are the men paying alimony because they make more money than the wife? Should the wife pay, even if she makes less money?

On guns, not much. Nationally 37% of males own a firearm and 31% of females own them. A 6% differential is not going to explain much of the differences in gun deaths (men are about three times more likely to use a firearm than women).

Far more likely is the fact that women receive more psychological counseling (female suicide victims are more than twice as likely as males to have received such care).

Further, as far as selection challenges go, I am curious. How should we use selection biases for statistics comparing say racial groups? I agree we cannot just look at raw statistics like hourly pay, crime victimization rates, etc. but what is a consistent and appropriate method for discerning selection challenges from structural disadvantages?

When I was in college, an art student decided to, as performance, stand in a campus lobby and cry.

He had the cops called on him in 5 minutes.

Because a man expressing that much emotions is a time bomb

Shared custody seems the civilized solution, old sock. Since women can work outside the home these days, and indeed are known to do so, they no longer need alimony either.

"80% of suicide victims are male. 93% of workplace fatalities are male. 76% of homicide victims are male. 60% longer criminal sentences on average for males. 98% of war death combatants are male."

And men are the source of all these problems - not women. I'll ignore the rest of the misogynist rant.

I do sympathize. Male violence disproportionately affects men, and it needs to be fixed. Whatever monstrous solution you're pondering is not an option.

How are men "the source" of disproportionately male workplace fatalities, longer criminal sentences, or war deaths?

How are women "the source" of disproportionately male workplace fatalities, longer criminal sentences, or war deaths? That seems to be the implication Tim is making in his comment. For all of the hand-wringing about the feminization of society,most leadership positions in our society and law-makers in congress are male.

It is the fault of PC culture. I think of that as fundamentally feminine bUt it hardly matters

Because they aren't doing their fair share, they just want their "fair" share.

I'm not sure how PC culture is killing men in the workplace, war, or through homicide or suicide. I hardly think most men are ending their lives because they have been asked to be PC. Or that being PC send men into murderous rages that makes them kill people. Or that being PC somehow makes men have more dangerous jobs, or become more likely to have a fatal workplace accident.

Those things are completely disconnected from men feeling pressured to act in a certain way socially.

I'm not sure what your concept of "misogyny" is, but I know it's not right

The above whine-fest -- assuming it is not a parody or attempt at trolling -- filled with tendentious and illogical use of statistics is one the least manly things I have read in some time.

You are one of the least manly commentators on this site

The "if you arent a feminist, you wont get laid" trope, in its general 'masculinity critique' form. Thanks, Jeff J and Ricardo.

If men were nicer to men, much of that wouldn't be a problem.

Now, if those stats were driven by female violence against women, I think you'd be onto something big.

These aren't "outright atrocities against men." Men do things that are much more likely to have these consequences than women. This has been so for tens of thousands of years which is why over the millennia evolution has caused more men to be born than women (which balances out around reproductive age).

Men are more often incarcerated and serve longer terms because about 90%-95% of violent crimes are committed by men and more often are in more culpable roles when there are both male and female offenders. Women weren't even allowed to be combatants in war in combat roles until very recently and still rarely elect combat roles that they are allowed to enter.

Teenage male drivers are almost twice as likely to cause serious car accidents as teenage girls, for reasons that have everything to do with testosterone and nothing to do with oppression.

Suicide attempts are much more evenly divided between men and women but men die more often because they attempt suicide in more lethal ways.

Men pay alimony and child support disproportionately because they are far more likely to be absent parents and tend to have higher incomes in married couples with children. Post-divorce women fall into poverty much more often than men do.

The percentage of female teachers has fallen over time - it used to be higher before women had other job choices. And many careers remain male dominated (e.g. the skilled trades and farming and fishing and mining and logging) which is why workplace fatalities differ so much.

Dropping out of high school is strongly associated with juvenile delinquency driven by the same factors that drive the 19-1 ratio of male to female violent crime commission.

The number of people expelled from college for any non-academic reason (realistically less than 1%) is dwarfed by the number of people who who are expelled from college or drop out due to poor grades or financial hardship (more than 50%). And, while men make up a much smaller percentage of college students than they did in the 1950s, far more men graduate from college than did a generation or two ago (even adjusting for population growth).

We are witnessing the public rejecting neo-liberal economics that Regan and Bill Clinton stuck us with. http://www.e-ir.info/2016/04/23/sanders-vs-clinton-on-economic-inequality/

Maybe if white working class males would do better if we put up trade barriers with China!!! Or stopped all immigration!!!

Wouldn't they? The argument for free trade is not that it makes white working class males better off. It makes the world better off, overall. Perhaps these brutish boobs no longer wish to sacrifice themselves to global GDP?

The modern changes to the U.S. education system ( de-emphasis on competition, emphasis on homework rather than high-stakes tests, de-emphasis of standardized tests scores in favor of GPA in university admissions) are neither accidental nor necessary features of a modern economy. They were consciously implemented over recent decades to redress what was viewed as unfairness to females. If girls were now under-performing in a K12 education system where the *vast* majority of instructors were male, this would be considered blatantly, outrageously unfair to female students. In the job market, in fields where men are over-represented (tech), this is considered a problem with the field (or culture or the education system or all of the above) that *must* be remedied. But in those professions where men are under-represented (nursing, K12 education, veterinarian medicine, pharmacy), this is considered a sign that men are inherently defective ('brutes').

But is this truly a "male" problem? No. It is a problem with males who are average or below average in school. Most tech and science fields are dominated by men who don't seem to be hindered by homework vs. high stakes testing, or GPA vs. standardized tests. It seems to me that this is a specific problem for men who are not interested in academic-type fields but might be more interested in physical work --making things, fixing things, enforcing things...etc.

"It is a problem with males who are average or below average in school."

I'm not quite following you -- as long as there are high-achieving males out there and a few male-dominated fields then the rest...can go screw themselves?
The ratio of female:male ratio in the university undergrad population is nearing 60:40 and is still becoming more lopsided. Yes, the strongest male students can succeed in spite of the hostile environment, and the real damage is most visible with the average students, but that doesn't mean there's no effect even at the top. As it happens, I'm one of those high-achieving males in a tech career, but I did my undergrad back during that brief era of equality when college populations were actually about 50:50. I received an invitation to the honors college of a public ivy on the strength of top standardized test scores and in spite of good-but-not great HS GPA (a very male pattern). Now that GPA is given so much more weight, I'm not sure my record would even get me into the school at all (and certainly not into the honors college).

No. I didn't say that they can go screw themselves. I am saying that the changes cited have nothing to do with "feminization" of the education system, as evidenced by the fact that many men don't have a problem competing and excelling in those education structures. They are really not "feminine" vs. "masculine" changes. I'd like some sort of evidence that the changes were made for the sake of making concessions for women, rather than looking for evidence of students that would be more disciplined and have the work ethic to complete their studies. It's great if you can test into a program, but if you don't show evidence that you will do the work and finish the program, that's not good for the college.

According to this Pew report, the change in demographics is not due to the fact that less men are going to college--the rate has stayed the same--but that the rate of women attending has grown. It is not that men are being pushed out, merely that women are going in greater numbers.


I am saying that the changes cited have nothing to do with “feminization” of the education system, as evidenced by the fact that many men don’t have a problem competing and excelling in those education structures.

That some males still succeed is really not good evidence for your proposition -- can the most capable males still navigate the hostile educational environment ? Yes. (Are some horses still fast when carrying lead in their saddles -- equally yes). But that's not where you should look for the effects -- you should look farther down the ability distribution where the impact becomes more obvious. Or, to put it another way -- given individual differences, are there boys who are comfortable in the new environment that was designed to be female-friendly? Of course there are. But it still hurts boys on average.

According to this Pew report, the change in demographics is not due to the fact that less men are going to college–the rate has stayed the same–but that the rate of women attending has grown.

That's weak. If the wages of one group had stayed the same as they were 100 years ago while everybody else had gotten richer, would that be OK (because that group was no worse off than before)? Or would you feel that it was a problem that the group was not enjoying the benefits of progress? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the effects of the hostile environment in K12 toward males is being masked, to an extent, by the overall increase in university attendance?

Slocum (it won't let me reply under your comment),

"Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the effects of the hostile environment in K12 toward males is being masked, to an extent, by the overall increase in university attendance?" I don't understand what your point is here. How can the hostility be masked if the rate for male college attendance is the same? There is nothing to mask. If the K12 system was suddenly so hostile to males, then there should be an evident decrease in male attendance rates. I think that what the discrepancy between genders shows is that females have embraced higher education as the path most likely to lead to higher wages and better jobs in their future. Whereas, in the past, men would not necessarily have to go the route of higher education in order to make a decent living and have good job prospects. Trade occupations pay very well ad don't require a degree. Many average men will go that route. However, the manufacturing jobs which provided decent jobs and money to average men not interested in higher education have dried up.

This seems like cultural problem that is playing out through gender, not so much an assault because of gender politics. There is no grand plan to undermine average men. How many women were in manufacturing jobs previously? Some but not the majority. How many women mechanics/plumbers/carpenters/construction workers are there? Some but not many. When those sectors get hit with downturns, men are bearing the brunt of it because they make up the majority of those occupations. It isn't due to "feminization." It's due to corporate, trade, and economic decisions which were likely made by male CEO's and lawmakers.

"I don’t understand what your point is here. How can the hostility be masked if the rate for male college attendance is the same?"

How could that work? Suppose we put that in medical terms. Imagine that, over the past 50 years, men were gradually being exposed to more dangerous, toxic work environments but, during the same period, the quality of medical care was improving so that for men, the two processes roughly balanced and male life expectancy remained the same while, at the same time, female life expectancy increased due to the medical improvements. In that hypothetical case, for males, the improvements in care would be masking the effect of deterioration in working conditions -- do you see?

Let me give you some concrete examples. Do you think this kind of thing would tend to help or hinder male achievement:


Do you think there are more males or females who love math but dislike writing and would *hate* and do more poorly on that kind of 'math' homework (even though they would have excelled otherwise)?

Or -- what do you think might be the differential effect on sexes here:


Are there more boys than girls who will think -- "Well, this is what my teachers and parents expect and I wouldn't want to disappoint them, so this what I must do" and are there more boys or girls who would, at some point, decide "F*ck this sh*t -- this is a stupid and I'm not doing it". To ask that question is to answer it, no?

I have two teenage sons in school. I can guarantee you that they are not writing essays in math class. The link you provide is one person't idea, it isn't actually implemented anywhere and is not evidence of reality. I can also anecdotally attest that they don't actually get assigned much homework. When my 16 year old is bogged down with homework, it is almost always from one of his AP classes--college level work which should require more effort--not from his regular honors English and Math classes.

School is not being "feminized" through subject matter.

The hypothetical example you provide doesn't parallel what we're talking about You are creating an example that posits worse conditions that are being mitigated by improvements elsewhere. Please explain what the worse "conditions" in the educational system are and what is mitigating the consequences.

Everything you have put up is speculative. I'd be more convinced with actual data.

Of *course* that kind of math homework is being assigned routinely in many places (including where my kids went to school) and has been for a couple of decades at least. The 'math wars' have been ongoing since at least the early 90s. You are fortunate that you and your kids came through it unscathed.

As for the 'masking' example -- what I'd say has gone on in the education system is that, at the same time, the environment has become more hostile for boys but the incentives for sticking it out have gotten stronger. Jobs that used to require a high-school diploma now require a bachelor's degree, and jobs that used to require a bachelor's require a master's degree. This is partly because 'Griggs v Duke Power' has made it very difficult to use employment tests in place of credentials, so credentials is what employers demand. The school experience has gotten worse for boys but the rewards for suffering through it are higher, and it's about a wash. For girls, the school experience has gotten more comfortable and supportive AND the incentives are greater, so their achievement has grown apace.

Can I prove this? No. But I've offered a number reasons why the environment has gotten worse for boys (de-emphasis on physical activity, de-emphasis on competition, increasingly feminized teaching staff, 'writing across the curriculum' programs that have turned all subjects into a form of English class, emphasis on homework, emphasis on GPA over test scores, etc).

And, to complete the thought, economic prospects for men who don't have particularly high IQ (which is the primary driver of academic performance) but are able bodied and hard working are much worse than they used to be because (1) technology made these jobs more efficient and more skilled, (2) lots of these jobs were outsourced, and (3) the low end of these jobs in terms of skill have been displaced by immigrant workers who are more fit in the workplace than the American workers they are displacing. Also, while women have aggressively sought places for themselves in all manner of historically male dominated professions, few less skilled men have sought places for themselves in historically female dominated professions (nursing, food service, child care, education of young children) that they are qualified or could become qualified to fill, often for reasons of social stigma rather than economics.

The first factor is pretty much completely irreversible. The other two are economically costly to change by trying to reverse those policy choices. There is great room to change the last one.

And, it is absolutely true that nobody has made any serious effort to address the declining economic prospects of less bright men who are willing and able to do hard physical labor. Notably, in Europe, these men are in just as bad straights economically before the welfare state gets involved, but have shared in economic growth as a result of wealth transferring social programs to a much greater degree.

Policy makers don't have to be communists to take a more communitarian outlook towards workers who are on the receiving end of economic change so that they aren't bearing most of the costs of economic benefits arising from cheaper goods and services and job prospects for more skilled workers.

Yes, of course. Due to the Zeroth Amendment, current levels of legal immigration can only increase, while enforcing the law as to illegal immigrants is forbidden.

I don't understand the view that determining everything on the basis of a high stakes test is a better means of evaluation. In the real world, one's performance is based on project outputs achieved through a combination of individual dedication and good teamwork over the long run.

Are you aware of any private business that evaluates employees based on annual knowledge or ability tests? Perhaps we should take a nod from the private sector on this one.

In some countries, there are other justifications for standardized tests. In China, for example, standardized tests are the norm for all educational evaluation. But it's not because this is a superior means of evaluation per se. It's because the alternative would be rife with corruption, and also because the administrative ability to use more refined means of evaluation do not yet exist. Tier one universities are progressively accounting for softer stuff in admissions, like letters of intent, volunteership, other experience, etc.

The only benefit of standardize tests is that they are easy to administer and less prone to results being gamed (bought). The real world does not use standardized tests for anything other than a cheap and lazy means to reduce the number of candidates for whom more details evaluation is performed. And then not at all once your foot is in the door.

Right problem, wrong description: while we might want to assign credit to beleaguered males by dismissing them as "brutes", the problem is not so much a simple matter of disaffection with the excessive excesses of feminism and the advent of feminist clienteles (the professional/career feminist class, the homosexual spectrum, spoiled youth who flounder as children before floundering as adults, et al.) but much more (or at least as much) a simpler matter of temporal (dis)orientation, as TC only begins to concede at the very end of his post ("it is hard to admit that history might not be so progressive after all").

We men have never been reliable agents of "Progress", since most men on the planet (and quite a large number of women, but perhaps fewer proportionate to the populations of first-world countries) are living anachronisms and atavisms: we trust the past whose evidence we can yet discern and in whose slipstream we know ourselves to live much more than any non-existent future which is promised and prophesied to inaugurate changes we have no faith in and no commitment to. The ongoing dispute might accurately be deemed "the repudiation of so-called 'Progress'" or "the rejection of modernity" (and the rejection of our political avant-garde classes, who are credited with having led us straight into this post-modern, progressive mess).

"Progress" remains a groundless temporal myth sponsored by modernity (the world created since c. 1500 CE) which promises that we live already, and incontestably so, in an irreversible future. Those groundless assumptions of temporal inevitability and historic irreversibility are now being challenged strenuously and seriously.

Time is not reversible. It's a one way street. This is just about the most basic law of nature there is, even beating out conservation of energy.

Requisite specificity, per favore: I don't argue that time itself is reversible or irreversible, since humans do not create temporality: history is another matter altogether, and history has never been simply a one-way street pointed in a single direction.
Progress remains a temporal myth sponsored by modernity.
(I'll confess here that I subscribe to the "growing block universe hypothesis of time" in order to assert that the Future does not exist at all. As further evidence for this position, I also cite the Fermi Paradox, which in addition to suggesting that our galaxy and perhaps the universe at large host no other sentient populations also suggests either that time travel is utterly impossible [since we're not receiving hourly visits from our concerned descendants] or that humanity's future itself does not exist.)

Pointed in a single direction? No. But also not reversible. Charles I's head could not reattach to his body and the dead at Gettysburg have stayed dead. The Han Dynasty remains fallen. No one speaks Etruscan.

As for the future-- there is no "the future", just futures, plural, a superposition of potential states to which the current world might evolve-- or not.

Maybe I can refine my argument for our mutual benefit.

Historical movements regularly are launched, and whether they succeed initially, fail ultimately, or die prematurely or no, they are all subject to being recast in subsequent accounts. Historical judgments and assessments are always reversible.

Progress yet remains the temporal myth sponsored by modernity that historical judgments and assessments are irreversible and that "progress" itself (which I take as imprecise shorthand for "continuous amelioration of the human condition") is inevitable.

Or: superpositions of potential states exist only when and as measurements are initiated (unless or until our physicists are willing to concede that superluminal neutrinos or other tachyonic particles and matter are able to "precede" existence in order to accommodate emerging states of being)?

In 1500, many looked back to the "golden ages" of Rome and Athens. And then they engaged in "rational" inquiry and a sought to follow through on the view that we could do even better than the Romans and Greeks. The Enlightenment, as it were.

Hmm. I did a search for the word immigration and didn't find it.

An exquisite education can make you profoundly stupid. Almost all the political turmoil is driven by that issue.

Clinton is a caricature of the crooked Democrat machine politician. Her support is a millimeter thick in a party that is preoccupied with who uses what bathrooms. If Bernie had been this aggressive earlier in the campaign he would own it.

Perhaps soon we will get a final delegate count on the Democratic side and be able to calculate what percentage of the vote Bernie would have had to carry to overcome his preordained Superdelegate deficiency.

TC intimates he would take up arms against a Trump Administration. Bravo. The Trump phantom menace is nothing compared to the real threats in the world. Vindictive spleen like this only further assures it will not be the despised working class males who may be turned to in the next national crisis. TC almost seems to be praying for a military defeat to prevent Trump from showing up the feckless Ivy League knuckleheads and their floundering reign of incompetence. Rather than wait for the inevitable military defeat, why not split the eggs among several baskets via an Article V Convention to wind up this failed republic's affairs and start anew.

Given Trump's indication that he wants to make it easier to sue anyone who criticizes him, I think it's important to assert in no uncertain terms that there simply are not enough lawyers on the planet for that to get anywhere.

Or maybe he'll grow a thicker skin. After all, he wants to be the most powerful man in the world, right? Thick skin is required. We don't want him going nuclear on someone because they were insulting to him.

I think it’s important to assert in no uncertain terms that there simply are not enough lawyers on the planet for that to get anywhere.

You're kidding, right? There are hundreds of thousands of people with JDs not fully (or even partially) employed in law

Hence bring back the draft?

3 million idle soldiers milling about. What could possibly go wrong?

Not a bad idea at all from an economic perspective, although currently military service excludes roughly the bottom 25% academically of high school graduates and pretty much all high school dropouts, who are the most hard hit by these economic trends.

This exclusion is good from the perspective of the effectiveness of the military (academic ability and performance as a soldier are actually more strongly correlated than academic ability and performance in the civilian world, perhaps because a lot of wealth and social class confounds are absent), but it is bad from the perspective of economic policy.

A "public service" draft, or even a volunteer "public service corps" that would guarantee admission to anyone who wanted to join with a minimum income and training comparable to that of a draftee soldier as part of the deal would probably be better.

This is sort of the definition of an 'ad hominem' attack.

How is recognition that a group of people are aggrieved and that somebody should do something to address their issues an attack?

I like Tyler and agree with him most of the time but this theory has more to with Tyler not understanding what is going on(I'll admit it I don't either) and going with a hypothesis that makes him feel good. Unfortunately it also exposes some rather ugly personal biases Tyler has.

I was thinking the same thing. Very derogatory. Spiteful? Fearful?

Spiteful. "How dare these plebes reject my ideology? Brutes!"

What's the optimal number of times to concern oneself about the potential to "go Nazi" and not be quite on the mark, but get it right just once? While the risk of "crying wolf" is important to consider, we should welcome those who openly discuss such risks. Because it has happened before, and sometimes there are wolves. How many wolves are there?

Sanders doesn't exactly scream male brute to me... his policies seem in tune with Nordic ' feminizing' ... whatever that means.... the greater issue isn't whether jobs and societal roles are in line with ' brute' and 'feminine' values, but whether the people doing them actually believe they contribute to future development and progress and are not just working ' for the man'... so to speak....

Agreed. His policies may be targeted at helping a lot of the same people that Trump appeals to, but those people are not attracted to Sanders as a matter of political identity.

Trump the clown will provide comedy entertainment,

As did this post.

Ya'all got trolled.

Tyler is trying to troll lately. It's worked so well for Trump. He's not a natural though.

Personally, I think of it more along the lines of self-recommending mood affiliation.

If central bank interest rates had not been persistently above equilibrium in the past 8 years, especially in the eurozone, there would have been good jobs not only for experienced urbanites but also for workforce newcomers and people in rural areas. This would have solved the Bernie/Trump problem.

The job markets for these two groups is disproportionately affected by above equilibrium interest rates because margins tend to be slim for businesses hiring these people.

Why are women allowed to act female, but men not allowed to act male?
This incongruency in modern respect for our inherent biologies and behaviours will come to a head, at some point (maybe sooner than I think?). However, when push comes to the ultimate shove, who's side do you want to be on? The Brutes (terrible, demeaning moniker) will not go quietly.

I say that is more socially acceptable women behiving like men than the opposite.

Not on the side that treats people like shit. And I think there will be more on my side. Being nice doesn't mean being dumb. Good people who are nice know are equally capable of wielding a weapon. They just do not do so with relish.

Being a dumb male seems to be a common feature of the alt-right, hence the rise of the "cuck" meme, so you may be on to something, Tyler. White identity politics certainly has to do something with it, too, obviously. What's the causal connection between being a male vulgarian and being engaged in white identity politics?

A regression into stone age ethics and stone age tribal affiliation. Masquerading as "nature", or "how the world works". I think this is relevant. The world works differently when there are lots of people than when there are just a few. Culture needs to accommodate our nature in a sense, but the opposite also applies.

Oh, come on; your elitest creds are showing.

Lower class males? Jobs displaced?

Which jobs? Who do you call when you need a plumber; and how much do you pay? One example. Who do you want standing between you and the mob when things get rough; or climbing multiple flights of stairs to carry you to safety when the building is on fire? What nonsense. The traditional jobs are there, and the same brutes are doing them.

Why the hand wringing because there are not enough women in hard core engineering jobs to meet the quotas?

There has been a concerted effort for decades to marginalize and feminize boys. So, those who do not roll over and conform become characterized as lower-class brutes, eh?

The article, and most of the discussion, is pure BS.

Marvin Harris predicted something very much like this back in the 1980s, in his book "America Now" -- which followed the post-WWII decline of male participation in manufacturing and blue collar jobs, and the rise of female participation in the service and information producing economy. Aided by effective fertility control, women were freed to enter the workforce, fueling the rise of the middle class (which needed the additional income from working wives), the effects of reproductive free sex (including the emergence of the gay rights movement, which Harris predicted), etc. Check it out.

Then there was this piece of fiction from 1952 - 'Player Piano, the first novel of Kurt Vonnegut, was published in 1952. It depicts a dystopia of automation, describing the deterioration it can cause to quality of life. The story takes place in a near-future society that is almost totally mechanized, eliminating the need for human laborers. This widespread mechanization creates conflict between the wealthy upper class—the engineers and managers who keep society running—and the lower class, whose skills and purpose in society have been replaced by machines. The book uses irony and sentimentality, which were to become hallmarks developed further in Vonnegut's later works.'

I'd look at it differently. Rather than saying that some men are angrier than before, I'd say that things are being flatter and more transparent.

By transparency I mean it's more acceptable to show your thoughts and emotions in ways that a previous era would've considered unacceptable, so people are more open about expressing fears and frustrations and translating them into politics. That means there's less need to use ideology or political affiliation as a waystation to intermediate between your thoughts and your politics. Maybe now it's easier to just say "I don't want Mexicans here, so let's build a wall." That makes politics less formal, less diplomatic, less philosophical, more brutal, more emotional, more irrational.

By flatter I mean that the will of "elites" is less acceptable to simply legislate onto others than it once was. This applies to media, to education, to banks, to religion, and of course to politics. All those institutions that try to standardize and issue orders and generate conformity and consensus are less able to do so than in the past. The hierarchy is less popular, meaning people who sense themselves near the bottom are less accepting of it and people who might otherwise fall near the top are less confident about demanding acceptance.

This is consistent with Trump, who is entirely about translating unfiltered thoughts into binary emotions about others, and who dismisses all hierarchy between himself and voters for the simple reason that he doesn't trust any institution to be an intermediary.

This proposed explanation is still consistent with the idea that the world is getting better and safer and more peaceful (a view of the world akin to Steven Pinker or Matt Ridley), and that people are becoming more moral (David Boaz) and yet some relict group is becoming more apparent. This is not mutually exclusive from the idea that these relicts are mostly men who feel left behind, I guess. But considering how terrible the past was, I think it's reasonable to say that we have a lower level of hatred and prejudice and frustration but it's being expressed loudly and more readily, and is less obstructed by social-conforming institutions.

Good post. I agree with most of it, less so the last paragraph. Some men may be feeling left behind, and justifiably so in some cases. Some men undoubtedly are concerned, angry, outraged that men are being represented as inadequate, primitive, threatening or brutish simply for being masculine, enjoying masculine activities, or seeing the sexes as different (though equal in social stature and rights). The feminist agenda is not equality, but a preference for female traits and doctrine, with some retribution towards males (witness what goes on on university campuses).

I normally love Tyler's commentary, but, wow, this one stunk.

A lot of words to say "I'm smart, normal, happy and awesome. So why does everyone seem so angry? Must be that most men aren't as smart, normal, happy and awesome as me." Ironically, that attitude is EXACTLY why Sanders and Trump are doing as well as they are doing.

One other interesting point: Peter Thiel is a Trump supporter.

Seems right. Thiel and Trump are self declared brilliant men, who remind us of this often, and who also happen to know zero economics.

Perhaps Tyler, and the electorate, see Trump for what he is, an insecure man with braggadocio. Some are attracted to that, and some are repelled by it. Which are the smart, normal, happy and awesome ones?

(Admittedly Trump has made insecure braggadocio work to an amazing degree, but it has it's place, and it isn't politics.)

You didn't read what Tyler said. Lots of men simply aren't built for today's society, and regardless of whose fault it is, those men aren't going to just sit back and be steamrolled.

I got that. But there was also a subtext of scorn toward these people. Am I imagining that?

I suspect he doesn't really know anyone in this category, which is why the post was uncharacteristically clumsy. He really doesn't understand on a gut level. How could he?

I note that Tyler often criticizes others for lack of nuance in their thinking.

Irony meter is redlining.

"Quite simply, there are many people who don’t like it when the world becomes nicer. They do less well with nice. And they respond by in turn behaving less nicely, if only in their voting behavior and perhaps their internet harassment as well."

Tyler, you seriously underestimate how many people simply flat out hate being in a structured school environment for extended periods. There's a big gray area between "brutes" and "people who don't like school."

And keep in mind that the structure of the school environment has changed. In-class competition has been de-emphasized, and the use of the dreaded 'group projects' has been greatly expanded. Math classes have been converted into English classes with numbers, so that students who formerly would have been strong in Math but weak in English are now weak in both. Lunch periods have been shortened, and recesses have been eliminated in some districts. Around here, informal student-organized sports and 'violent' games like 'tag' and 'dodgeball' (which appeal to boys) have been banned -- even during lunch hour, all outdoor activities are lead by adult lunch monitors. The emphasis on homework rather than tests has discouraged students who fall into the 'smart-but-disorganized' category (a male-biased group). The gender imbalance in the teaching corps has -- amazingly -- gotten even worse (from 2/3 female in 1980 to over 3/4 now).

There have always been significant numbers of men who were not academically inclined and the academic environment has been feminized since the days of the old school "marms". The difference is that in the past men who did not do well in school and, going back far enough, even those who dropped out could find gainful employment. Nowadays, not so much.

Yes, of course, there have always been those who were not academically inclined. And yes, teaching has long been a predominantly female profession. But the environment has changed in recent decades to make the school system less hospitable, and the profession has gotten even more female dominated in that time. And, yes, it's true too that rampant credentialism has made things much more difficult for those without the 'necessary' degrees: so the environment has gotten more hostile AND the impact of failure in that environment is greater.

The whole point is that it once used to be possible to live a pretty decent life without being in a structured school environment for extended periods, and now, it is economic suicide to make that choice. TC is acknowledging that that are a lot of men in that situation who are now a lot worse off than they used to be because our economy doesn't need them anymore, and there are no good solutions on offer for them.

Another blogger uses the term the "unnecessariat" https://morecrows.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/unnecessariat/

This looks like a the money illusion post.

Everything has hidden upsides. Trump may be a populist and a torturer, but he will also increase the probability of nuclear war, which decreases the risk of astronomical amounts of future suffering.

There are those who want humanity to colonize space and spread suffering life far and wide. They cannot be reasoned with on ethical grounds, in my experience.

The only thing that can stop this torture train is an even stronger emotional vector that destroys it from the inside. That is, humanity needs to be divided and locked in costly zero-sum games, perhaps even to the point where civilization crashes without recovery.

It will cause much suffering and violence in the near-term, but if it prevents space colonization, it will prevent 10^20 times more suffering and violence in the long term. This negative feedback probably isn't reliable enough to support the authoritarians, but it's plausible enough that we can call it a blessing in disguise.

Evo Morales and Putin are building nukes in Bolivia and TC is worried about Trump with the suitcase? In the vanishingly small event that Trump does get elected, I would estimate there is about a 20% chance that Obama would find an opportunity to surrender to China in exchange for some important post governing the post-US. TC et al would be delighted. Military rule by a divine dictator seems to be the upper Atlantic coast population's ideal.

First world navel gazing versus masculine action.

Doesn't Trump support nuclear proliferation?

So if this is true and the end result is Donald Trump as President? Big deal. He's not Genghis Khan.

Don't forget ISIS. They execute people the way 10-year-old boys take apart insects.

Dont forget who created, trained and financed them.... ;)

A lot of Islamic extremism is driven by legions of unemployed young men in Islamic countries who have no economically useful skills in their own economies, which is pretty much the same thing driving this political trend in the West but more so.

No. They just cut people's heads off. Which is perhaps even less barbaric than dropping bombs on people. It's hard to cut the wrong head off. Not that I support what they are doing. I support carefully planned actions to degrade their military capacity in a way that is not conducive to additional radicalization or Armaggedonist thinking. But if you do a body count, ISIS is positively saintly compared to Assad.

As the world’s population increases and technology brings us ever closer and uncomfortably together, humans will eventually, like other highly-social organisms (bees, ants, etc.), conclude that excess males are too expensive to keep around. Especially likely after a group of boisterous dudes with adolescent resentments – ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, or the Internet-Commentariat League of Brutish Oafs, perhaps – get hold of and set off some 60-year old technology in the middle of a major city. Enough being enough, our having purged most males and self-identifying males, only then will we realize humanity’s apotheosis, where reproduction is left to a Queen Kardashian and a few select breeding drones, all of whom quickly and courteously die off after video of their coupling is posted to social media. Meanwhile lumpen femininity dutifully bears the work of state and production, competently and peacefully managed by middle-aged spinster cat ladies and their HR harridans.

I think this post is very good at formulating and calling attention to an explanandum, but I don't find Tyler's explanation very satisfying.

the neo-Nazi party came very close to assuming power in Austria.

This is a stupefying characterization. Is there anyone at Mercatus who knows anything about anything other than the subdiscipline they are working within? You've managed to top Scott Sumner's daily journal of vulgarities.

Austria has a long history of some sort of third force apart from the Social Democratic and Catholic electorates. Only evanescently (from 1933 to 1945) was this 3d force Nazi in character. Pan-Germanism was the mode prior to 1933, a mix of nationalism and economic liberalism since then. The Freedom Party has been in coalition with the larger parties in the past and governed cantons in Austria without incident.

Or is it the notion in your addled head that anyone who advocates controlling the border is a neo-Nazi?

Somehow I knew that it would be you, Art Deco, stepping up to the plate for Nazism. good job staying in character.

It happened before, so it can ________________.

Tyler didn't like it when Roissy discussed these problems.

These issues have been summarized before.
Cliff Notes: Womens' economic liberation, sexual revolution, and legal protection have come at the expense of men. Society no longer values masculinity, and taxes productivity to pay for a feminized social safety net. A minimum-wage barista gets more sex and respect than an industrious college nerd. When the celibate nerd graduates, all his extra income will be absorbed by taxes (to pay for single mothers) and alimony. Men no longer have incentive to work, marry, and invest in children. Western society is doomed.

When the celibate nerd graduates, all his extra income will be absorbed by taxes (to pay for single mothers) and alimony.

Wait. How does a celibate nerd end up paying alimony?

The internet ruined political culture. It was always hypocritical, but now it's outright cancerous. A memetic metastasis of Moloch, if you will.

A) Men are more prone to aggressive anti-social behavior
B) The internet is making people more aggressive and anti-social

Combine ingredients, Shake, and serve.

I wouldn't say just the internet; also the rise of 24-hour ideology propaganda TV channels (pretending to be news channels). But both of those have tapped into the existing trend of increasing identity politics that started in the 80's.

Taming testosterone has always been the major challenge of civilization.

But 24 hour cable news has been around for decades. And even FOX and MSNBC have been around for a while.
What's different recently is the rise of social media and the *decline* of traditional media.

Testosterone is being tamed and mutated by the chemicals in the water you drink and in the food and packaging. Look at trends in sexual dimorphism and lower T counts to see the result of the past several decades of environmental degradation that is working its way through the human ecosystem.

Maybe. But we also live in a bath of electromagnetic radiation from electricity transmission, cell phone towers, etc. etc., that goes beyond anything humanity ever experienced before. I do not think we should be alarmist about such things, and assume the costs exceed the benefits by a large margin. But it might also explain some observations, perhaps more so than packaging and what's in the water, especially considering that packaging and water are highly regulated and monitored in most advanced countries.

Sorry, the bath of electromagnetic radiations is far lower then earth's natural magnetic field by several orders of magnitude.

Also, we're not talking about males in general, but specifically lower-class males.
We're talking about people whose jobs have been displaced by technology and global competition.
The world has less need of the kind of unskilled labor that lower-class men used to perform. So they are losing their jobs, worldwide. And they are angry about it, since they typically have to be the breadwinners. It's not that the economy in general is bad, but that the economy has changed in a way that renders their skills less marketable. The working-class male is obsolete and is having a temper tantrum about it.

Oh, come on; your elitest creds are showing.

Lower class males? Jobs displaced?

Which jobs? Who do you call when you need a plumber; and how much do you pay? One example. Who do you want standing between you and the mob when things get rough; or climbing multiple flights of stairs to carry you to safety when the building is on fire? What nonsense. The traditional jobs are there, and the same brutes are doing them.

Why the hand wringing because there are not enough women in hard core engineering jobs to meet the quotas?

There has been a concerted effort for decades to marginalize and feminize boys. So, those who do not roll over and conform become characterized as lower-class brutes, eh?

The article, and most of the discussion, is pure BS.

"cranky, park-bench socialist"
Not sure what TC has against Bernie Sanders. They both seem to follow in the Karl Polanyi tradition.
I'd imagine they both subscribe to:

"Socialism is, essentially, the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society. It is the solution natural to the industrial workers who see no reason why production should not be regulated directly and why markets should be more than a useful but subordinate trait in a free society. From the point of view of the community as a whole, socialism is merely the continuation of that endeavor to make society a distinctively human relationship of persons which in Western Europe was always associated with Christian traditions."

We're establishing floors for women as we replace the men's floors with eggshells. Safe harbors and protections are afforded to just about everyone but white men. This has led to a growing imbalance where those who have the misfortune of growing up male and poor, or the misfortune of taking a career in an industry which is now obsolete have fewer resources to fall back on. It's little wonder that the suicide rate for white males exceeds all other demographics. We've just about codified a prejudice that the historical advantage exploited by some men automatically confers upon all men. So, I think you're right Tyler that our society poorly supports males but that's because we've built supports for all others and figure that men can just take care of themselves.

I think we're clearly at the turning point because we're starting to see social institutions even becoming a bit sinister to men. We've become averse to putting down women (that's a good thing) but have no such aversion about putting down men which is why the bumbling father/competent mother trope is so common--that's the only socially acceptable way to introduce the conflicting archetypes of knowledgeable versus foolish into a family dynamic. It's now a truism that "women have the right to choose" and yet men who choose careers are doing something inappropriate when their choices lead to them out-earning women no matter sacrifice they've made. Men are asked to feel guilty for their very successes since any success has been presumed to be predicated on something other than their own efforts. Intersectionality implies that marginalized individuals deserve a hearing because they can speak authentically about their experience (also a good thing) but members of the mainstream are not individuals and their unique experiences are somehow so well understood that it deserves no voice. In other words, we (men) are expected to be their (women) allies, but they are under little obligation to reciprocate.

In a post from yesterday, one of the people interviewed was told that their opinions do not deserve to be heard because they were a white cis-male.

This isn't the first time we've all heard this sentiment and yet there's no condemnation of it. People may say, "Oh, sure, that may be over the line but they are making an important point." Men are not afforded such consideration. The double standards on which we're working to eliminate for the benefit of women are still held in place when it disadvantages men. Suppose a man were to say either of these two phrases: "That bitch should be fired for her incompetence" and "That asshole should be fired for his incompetence", the first can be ignored in its entirety because of the second word, while the second there's no reason to consider it invalid.

In the face of such neglect and occasional hostility, why not Donald Trump? The guy is an idiot, a jackass, a moron, a fool, an asshat, a foul smug incompetent buffoon. But if identity is all that matters, he's apparently my idiotic, jackass, moronic, foolish asshat. What other choice do I have?

Meanwhile, if I bow out of the identity game altogether, I'm left with no choice at all. Only Hillary Clinton could make Donald Trump look good and only Donald Trump could make Hillary Clinton look good. This is the very definition of racing to the bottom.

Good post Paul. In most instances, bang on.

Hang around a college campus to pick up the current teachings and student views.
At one time, there was a sentiment in various parts of the civilized world expressed by Vive la différence!
Nowadays, that has been turned on its head to highlight only certain differences while ignoring others or while criticizing those that notice the suppression.

You have the choice of taking your own life, a choice I enthusiastically endorse.

Conservatives love to bash intersectionality. Well, Actually (see what I did there), it is good for cis-white-males when diversity is rising.

Consider a workplace of 100 white men. Over time, social pressures insist it be 50% female and 20% visible minority. The path of least resistance leads to a workplace of 30 white men, 50 white women and 20 visible minority men. If intersectionality is respected, we get 40 white men, 10 visible minority men, 40 white women and 10 visible minority women.

Intersectionality is good for those with multiple social disadvantages, and for those with none.

This isn't a bash against intersectionality and your example doesn't quite make the case for it anyway. Consider a workplace of 97 women and 3 men (oops, I just described elementary schools--stats bear out that men make up 3% of kindergarten educators and 18% of the remainder in grade school), why is there no social pressure being brought to bear there especially considering the increased importance that intersectionality places on the value of role models in education?

Clearly, those industries which are male dominated are subject to social pressures demanded by intersectionality, but not those which aren't male dominated. The end result is that male industries are expected to share, while female dominated industries are not. Tragically, that just reinforces my point that our society is leveling two water tanks using a one way valve.

I think that's all relevant. But at the same time, a man and a woman in a similar management position might see the first labelled as a "strong leader" and the second as a "controlling bitch" for precisely the same behaviour. But I think everything you say is an important counterpoint to this.

Two things:

1) The issue isn't that "men get a pass and women get demeaned." The issue is "women get demeaned." Calling her a "controlling bitch" already is a bit too far. Thinking of her as a "bitch" is enough to state the problem.

2) I think there's little value in a comparative approach. In your scenario, it may be possible to envision a male executive who could be a strong leader and say such things, but does that mean that all men in that situation would be considered a strong leader or would more than a few be disciplined or chastised for it? I guess what I'm saying is this: it's prejudicial to think that all men get away with such boorish behavior just as its prejudicial to think that all women would be considered controlling bitches. In either case, it depends on the man and it depends on the woman.

In matters of social acceptability, I think there is greater stigma applied toward slurs against women than there are against men. To consider a recent boorish example, I think it's pretty clear that Trump's comments about Fiorina's face disqualifying her for the presidency were sexist. Yet, when he started referring to another competitor as "Little Marco", this is clearly intended as a form of emasculation and has an equivalent degree of concern when it comes to gender stereotypes (that a man should be tall and appear powerful which Trump has in spades and Rubio at 5'10" did not). The New York Times didn't spend many inches on Donald's reprehensible views on men, though.

Good Lord, what transparent straw men. Who have you ever heard call anyone in your work place a "controlling bitch"? You pulled that out of-- well, you created it from whole cloth.

One factor in the U.S. has been a U.S. distaste for robust unemployment compensation. If you had a good blue collar job and get laid off, long term or seasonally, without comparable unemployment payments, your role as economic head of the household is undermined and your family falls apart in a classic "the lifeboat can only hold so many" logic. If unemployment payments largely buffer the gaps between blue collar jobs, in contrast, your family sticks together. But, the U.S. has been so concerned about promoting laziness with unemployment payments that the program is so short term, so easy to be disqualified from, and so insufficient in amount compared to employment, that it doesn't provide a reliable buffer.

Instead, the U.S. has preferred pure need based welfare (food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, etc.) that has historically favored families without able bodied men in them.

Listen to Marvin Gaye's What's Goin On, the whole album. It explains it all perfectly.

Who is to blame when we can't stop living?

Put less obliquely, though, "nicer" is one way to put it, but another way to put it is "oppressive of the will to life." Society has become ordered such that it is very easy to live a mediocre existence, please yourself with various hedonistic activities, and generally do nothing of value, if that's what you want. On the other hand, it has become more difficult for most people to support a family in a healthy way, to take risks and achieve things, to be a proprietor in one's own work as opposed to being at the mercy of many superiors and life-destroying rules in a large bureaucratic organization. People are getting married later or not at all as a result, having fewer children, starting fewer successful businesses, etc. Women are perhaps less likely to want to overturn the system as a result of all this, but young men get pissed off, and even if they are indulging themselves in all the free sex and drugs and mediocrity, deep down they know it isn't what they really want.

I took a look at a few passages near the end of Mises' Bureaucracy the other day and it was remarkable how he described pretty much what's happening today. He attributes it in large part to the bureaucratization of society, and I wouldn't disagree with him.

Oh and add in the fact that it is difficult or impossible to store up any wealth given that 50% of it is stolen by inflation every 20 years, you lose money keeping it in a bank account, and while you might make some returns in the stock market, it is clearly a gargantuan fraud that will collapse again, like it did in 2008-2009, at some unknown point in the future.

Good post. Think bureaucracy is bad there, Canada is becoming downright oppressive.

Most people don't store money under the mattress or a significant share of money in checking accounts. Real interest rates (nominal interest minus inflation) is the relevant variable for long term considerations. Actually, the rate of return on capital (like, dividends plus stock gains) should be even more relevant than that for long term investments. Which, anyways, isn't so important to the lower class because they don't have much money to save. In their case, the minimum wage might be more relevant.

I agree about your points on bureaucracy. It is a system that women seem to like more because they are more risk averse but it makes men, who value control over safety, less happy.

Change the world fast enough as everyone on board is crunched together cheek to jowl and enough people lose their who-they-are-ness so you get tribalism.

Tribalism's 1st precept is that the man's at the top of the heap. Ergo, there the blank we are.

The big boys and girls among those who need tribes is that you can keep your tribe as you mix and match with other tribes. Just you can't be too rude about it. Note we began to figure this out in 1783. Also, since, we learned real ways to heal one's who-I-am-ness. Tribal mood-alteration doesn't do the trick.

"What percentage of men are brutes anyway?"

A percentage that Mr. Cowen -- and the rest of the chattering class -- wants to be high when it's convenient.

Intellectuals LOVE the brutes when they build our skyscrapers, pave our roads, clear our snow, or get our power back on. They also love watching brutes play professional sports or remove "the criminal element" from their tony neighborhoods.

However, the brutes are loved a lot less the second they make their voices heard in the political arena. Then it's: "Do you construction and shovel that snow, then shut up and GTFO." I'm reminded of the kings of old who treated their subjects this way...and why monarchies aren't exactly in vogue anymore.

Yes, they do love them when they do their jobs. That's why they pay them. Not sure why that automatically qualifies them as having ideas worth listening to. Indeed, we should expect several economically significant demographics to have terrible political ideas (given that terrible political ideas are the norm).

Spoken like a true elite.

You know Urstoff, not all ideas worth listening to come from what you would no doubt classify as intellectuals. If you ever actually conversed with one of those brutes, you might find it surprising. He may not quote the currently fashionable elite, but then again he may have a much better understanding of the world, and his place in it, than many that you would admire. He probably has a much healthier sense of self worth, as well. There is little more stimulating than actually seeing the results of your labors manifest. Most brutes also likely take satisfaction in knowing that they are providing for those who depend on them; and often sending their brutish children off for a higher education--so that at least they may escape the "lower classes" and rise above brutishness.

In my experience, one of the more profound expressions of a life well lived came from a wonderful handy man/contractor, who could build or repair anything. He knew his worth, reveled in his independence, and had routine feed back about the quality of his skills. He incidentally was proud of his son in graduate school and his college daughter.

How many academics does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Someone should write a grant application.

You mean we don't have a robot for that yet?

Academics buy LEDs that last almost forever and happily pay someone else to replace them when necessary.

Couple of problems. One our school system is still set up to condition and organize the "brutes" for brute work. But there is no brute work with manufacturing reducing labor and the last 40 years of consumption of capital instead of creation of capital in the infrastructure realm.

Two, there is no outlet for the non-conformist, anymore. There are no frontiers where law is more concept than nagging bureaucrat.

Instead we have the socialistic regulatory state with reams of government imprimatur required to do anything. This retards the adjustment of the economy which would create jobs for those lost to changes in manufacturing, etc.

I think if you step back from the brute v metrosexual explanation, you may see this current phenomena is across sexes and even races and past party affiliation and is more top 20 metropolitan areas vs the rest of the country. And yes, that does look to be a mostly white and mostly "brute" demographic because while 17% of the population resides in the top 20 cities, only 10.6% of non-hispanic Whites reside there. The wild card is all this is how many of the "brutes" inside the top 20s are also going Trump.

One major problem, the socialist state, even those not full on socialism but highly interventionist like the US, are incompatible with open immigration and unfettered free trade. I hope to see, especially on the local/state level, a hard pushback on regulation and licensing which will ease opposition to open immigration and free trade. But at the national level, throttling those two elements is all that a President can do in the face of oppressive regulation of business formation and growth.

Whatever one can make of the Trump phenomenon, seeing it as call for libertarian, non-interventionist government is flat out absurd. The Trumpistas do not want small government-- they want big government that serves their interests.

Mr, Bfrown, I guess the big issue is what you consider constitutes brute work. Is it the guy who installs and maintains your AC system? The one who replaces your leaky roof? The one who may not understand high finance, but can give you and accurate quote--and stand by it--for the fairly complex project on your home? The one who gets your auto back on the road, because he can actually interface computer technology and mechanical equipment?

As I have opined in other responses, this article and much of the commentary is from left field--so to speak.

On another level, you state that there are no jobs for home-grown brutes, but you want open borders to allow an invasion of others. What do you mean to say?

Just yesterday I heard a Tim Ferriss podcast where he interviewed Sebastian Junger (author of The Perfect Storm, Fire, A Death in Belmont, War, and Tribe) which touched on this topic.

I think there's something to it. It's also why I think young men gravitate towards video games so much. Alarmingly, the militant feminizers are trying to squash that male outlet as well.

BTW, does anyone else think that Tim Ferriss is the worst interviewer ever? :-) Seriously, he does a fine job, but I often find myself wishing that his guests were instead being interviewed by Russ Roberts or Tyler.

Most podcasters are terrible interviewers, basically just reading a prepared list of questions. They ignore even the easiest layups for follow-on questions by their wistful interviewees. It can be near agony to listen to.

I'm pretty doubtful that more psychologically aggressive males tend towards lower professional and personal success today, relative to the mean, than they did 50 years ago.

If anything, the Brutes are in suits. (And they marry.)

The current norms favor men who are oriented to social aggression and to seeking personal power and success.

So those aren't the kind of people who are dissatisfied, today. (Of course they need some intelligence).

Able, straight whites and especially white men have allowed a world that makes room for women, people of color, different gender identities, people with disabilities, etc. Sometimes when men tolerated these changes, sometimes they invited them, but either way they allowed it to happen and mostly went along with it (obviously these changes are still underway). But all these people who have enjoyed an unprecedented increase in status and well-being are not grateful... instead they keep demanding more and more (quite understandably). And they aren't asking nicely, they are demanding angrily. And instead of working hard and earning it, this latest generation whines and cries like helpless victims.

The new risers in status (women, people of color, etc.) understandably want to keep pushing what they believe they deserve. That said, this is frustrating and bewildering to the high status folks (esp. white men) who may feel they are being punished for doing the right thing, don't know how to get these folks to shut up, be happy and leave them alone.

It used to be that a guy came home from work and had to listen to his wife complain for an hour. But he could nod his head, have a few drinks and tolerate it... and he could tell her to buzz off when he'd had enough. Now a days, his wife, his kids and d*mn near everybody on the planet thinks they have the right to b*tch and moan to the guy all day long and if he doesn't listen nicely and address their concerns he'll be shamed on facebook, etc. Chr*st people, let me alone!

Basically, there's less and less room for us Brutes to avoid constant cry-baby complaining and have a beer in quiet these days. I predict an increase in segregation by race and gender in social settings (even as workplaces become more diverse).

Agreed. Will we be allowed to socialize on our own terms, or will this all be mandated and subjected to shaming too?

What is going on?"

What we are observing, in Western Civilization, is the acceleration of the recession of individuality which began around the mid-20th century (the denigrations of the value of individual life); the advent of "mass man" (Ortega y Gasset & Oakeshott) the institutionalization of "popular" governments -and- the anti-individual, with its need for "leaders" and "Leadership."

Such recessions have been recurrent phenomena in Western Civilization as it came together from fragments of the Classical and other precedents, absorbing or being assimilated into amorphous ('barbaric") cultures during (proportionately) widespread movements of peoples over the Eurasian continent and ultimately overseas.

With the diminutions (and actual suppressions) of the forces of individualities inter acting to establish any available points of cohesions, fragmentation of social orders and the civilization their cohesions establish is well underway ("with weigh on"); with accompanying conflict and violence, of which the last century may be a lesser precursor.

Trump supporters and Right Wing Austrians are probably worried about immigration undercutting wages. Interestingly, in Austria, some immigrants voted for the Right because they wanted to protect their own wages and Social provisions.

There are still a lot of jobs that require a strong back rather than a bachelor's degree but immigrants tend to take these jobs because the indigenous people have better communications skills. Indeed, a 'local' who isn't utterly dense will soon be in a supervisor's position, or even running his own company, once he figures out a way to communicate with the immigrants.

The notion that young males have been feminized is not new. It can be found in Aristophanes. Perhaps the one novel feature about my generation- i.e. tail end baby boomer- is that we used a variety of intoxicants to a greater degree than the previous generation and had few sexual taboos. We wanted to leave home coz Mom & Dad were uncool. Our boomeranging progeny however know we've got better booze in our cabinet and, more often than not, a better stash as well. That and real big ass TVs and the Pizza place on speed dial.

Gladiators! Let them fight to the death in the arena for fame and glory. Fight or shut up and stop whining.

I read this just as a neck-vein-bulging Amtrak employee screamed things like "take a swing" and "I was a marine!" at a passenger during a profanity-filled track-side altercation a few feet away, so I'm in a mood to agree with Tyler at the moment.

Hasn't both Trump and Bernie's median voter been more affluent than Hillary's? Seems like that would not be the case if this is all about men losing out in the modern world. Could still be the case if it is about men *feeling* like they are losing out in the modern world, of course.

Sorry if I'm repeating earlier posts, at >200 comments on this thread, I've not even read Half of them. I think the electronics revolution, surge in productivity, A.I., rise of women in workplace, drop in fertility, rise of women in higher education, and wage stagnation are all related. What does "educated" mean? I think it means something different in 2016 than it did in 2000 or 1980 or 1960. The facts are that education can, AT THE MARGIN, substitute for intelligence but that at some point it fails to be an adequate substitute. The facts are than while IQ seems to be increasing slowly over the centuries, significant changes in innate human capacity will take millennia, not decades (excluding genetic intervention and electronic prostheses) and is too slow to be important in politics. My point is the part of the IQ distribution which is 'unemployable' (without self-supporting wages) has increased drastically in the last 50 years. And many of these people know it, they just have to look around them. We have to create the circuses and bake the cake for these citizens. The era in which a respectable income was the primary measure of social contribution/worth is over, or perhaps I should say is drawing to a close.

I use "IQ" as a crude proxy for the intellectual (and emotional !) skill-set required for significant advancement/competitiveness in our mostly capitalistic economy.

Education as 'paideia'- i.e. becoming a gentleman was about being able to fit in with the leisured class by having no obvious utilitarian value. Thus the educated man did not have bulging muscles nor did he use the jargon of his trade or business. The 'educated' cleric- e.g the Vicar who had studied at Oxford or Harvard- was able to converse politely and display savoir faire. The second generation industrialist was able to mingle with the aristocracy and the Financial elite, conversing easily about race horses or the latest Opera, thus enabling the enterprise founded by his father to secure the backing of the State and acceptance by influential segments of society.
The Second World War was a game changer- especially for America, thanks to the G.I Bill- because it opened people's eyes to America's 'manifest destiny' as 'leader of the free world' and for the huge expansion that was possible, if the methods of scientific industry were applied more widely, in the range of its power and influence.
Demobbed soldiers were in no mood to be treated like overgrown school kids. Many were married. They demanded instruction in useful skills. Already, American Universities had embraced utilitarian education- things like courses in Journalism and Film Making- to the dismay and incomprehension of the Europeans. Thus Sinclair Lewis's Babbit, who is a College Man, writes 'racy' copy for his Realty company. English reviewers couldn't understand how a College- even one in the mid-West- could actually stoop low as to teach students how to write in a vernacular style. They thought Lewis was writing a dystopian fantasy- America couldn't possibly be as bad all that!
It was only in the Seventies that even the M.B.A program got a foothold on the other side of the Atlantic.

As you say, by the Sixties, there were diminishing returns to the value added by skills-based University instruction. Yet, because for Americans, College is also about improving Reproductive outcomes, a larger proportion of the population is in Higher Education than would appear optimal. The British attempt to emulate America has been a dismal failure. Socially stratified countries, or patronage based ones, can tolerate excessive Higher Education because it is seen as a rationing device and is linked to local politics. However, market oriented societies where mobility is valued, can't afford a Credentialist crisis of over-supply for the reason that Tyler points to- viz. we get a shrill ressentiment driven Public Discourse which alienates ordinary people- more especially the young whose lives are most directly affected by the mistakes of the pedagogues.
By contrast, the antiquated German system can appear better precisely because Technical Skills are directly linked to Local Employers. However, it must be said, a lot of the Uni Depts are worthless and thus plagiarism in Germany can actually be a mark of intelligence.

What I think Tyler "mansplains to the brutes" is that at lower IQ, conformity and pro-social behavior can give you the edge. The are in his view feminine characteristics. This is how he views (from past posts) increasing success of women in college and the workplace.

I think "a good soldier" is also conforming and pro-social, but without a big post-war cohort (too much automation) that model (as albatross notes) has not been taught.

The way I would put it is that the lower-skilled white male is more economically threatened today than ever. They are threatened by automation, immigration, global trade, and domestic competition from women and minorities simultaneously. If their jobs aren't being rendered obsolete by machines, they are being outsourced, and if they aren't outsourced they have to compete with a lot more people, including immigrants, women, and minorities to get them.

Basically there are multiple trends converging in a lot less demand for low-skilled labor at the same time as increased competition among low-skilled laborers worldwide. The biggest loser is the low-skilled white male.

In short, they have lost their privileges and are getting pissy about it.

This was the stupidest thing you've posted in this thread. And that's after you set a high bar throughout.

Don't pretend there's honest competition going on. Affirmative action and racial quotas alone render it an uneven playing field tipped in the favor of the "women and minorities" aegis.

If there were millions of gorgeous young women from Russia and the Ukraine flooding into the country, women would be the meanest, cattiest B*** about it you have ever seen. And they would be the most immigration-restrictionist as well, and would be accusing everybody of misogyny who did not want to immediately shut off immigration.

In fact, that's already happened (2005).


Hilarious- so when it comes to restricting men from marrying foreign nationals -not restricting right to immigrate, but citizen's right to marry, the government is right on it. But when men want to restrict immigrants who have no family connections from trespassing our borders, we are brutes. Its funny it focuses on criminal record- when the immigration law Tyler likes would have allowed many criminals a path to citizenship. Really shows how the government tips the scales for women, doesn't it.

Is this an argument for insuring the survival of football (a sport whose future Tyler has been a little bear-ish on in the past: http://grantland.com/features/cte-concussion-crisis-economic-look-end-football/), even at the expense of brain injuries? And how about loosening labor laws and lowering the minimum wage? Its my impression that most of the "brutes" are probably less educated males 18-30 -- the sort of people who are likely to be adversely impacted by those laws.

Its an argument for killing welfare as well as all the little useless occupation regulations and lightening up on small firms a lot. Also killing affirmative action in all its forms. HR departments (only needed becuase of AA etc.) are a subsidy from productive people to unproductive women. No affirmative action, no tax. No welfare, people have to work. Bring back a real workfare with tough jobs that pays enough for subsistence. No welfare, women who have kids without a man will just have to suffer. Stop subsidizing women so much and you will find that men are very necessary. When men are needed they will respond with effort.

First, we know that there are cultural differences in how equal societies are and that those differences also go to the changes in male culture. Your hypothesis should suggest that the proportion of "brutes" should be larger in cultures that emphasize brutishness in male upbringing and smaller in more equal countries (such as Scandinavia). Is there a way to measure these together? Are they correlated or not?

If they are correlated, we may have hope - but the hope is in creating better institutions in teaching and allowing young boys to be more than just brutes. If they are not correlated, there seems to be little hope as some part of the humanity would be "doomed to be brutes".

Last, I suggest you read Alexander Bard's Netocracy. It concerns itself with exactly this theme. He touched this very issue in his talk last fall. http://www.alibisforinteraction.se/portfolio-item/2898/

This is my idea for one of those big, outdoor summer festivals. This is called Slug Fest. This is for men only. Here's what you do. You get about a hundred thousand of these fucking men. You know the ones I mean. These macho motherfuckers. These strutting, preening, posturing, hairy, sweaty, alpha male jackoffs. The muscle assholes. You take about a hundred thousand of these disgusting pricks, and you throw them in a big dirt arena, big twenty-five acre dirt arena. And you just let them beat the shit out of each other for twenty-four hours non-stop. No food, no water, just whiskey and PCP. And you just let them punch and pound and kick the shit out of each other until only one guy is left standing, then you take that guy and you put him on a pedestal and you shoot him in the fucking head.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Sounds like fun! However, I must point out that these terrible, awful people are more likely to be hairless (by choice) than hairy these days.

Freedom Party is a classical liberal party that's hawking on immigration. That's not what "neo-Nazi" means

Anything can call itself anything. Parties can be taken over.

Not that I know them well enough to know who is behind them for which kinds of reasons or where it might all be leading ...

They don't have a fascist platform though. They aren't anything like, say, Golden Dawn.

They're probably Nazis because I don't know anything about them and I heard they believe in less immigration than me.

In the far-left crazy mind, if you're against the genocide of your own people through unending mass migration of racial alien groups while you are held prisoner of an oppressive system of anarcho-tyranny where you will be thrown in prison or lose your livelihood for trying to have an open discussion about what's going on while the alien groups can groom and rape your 11 year old daughter and get away with it, well then you are a fascist racist neo-nazi.

I think you're unfortunately spot on. Two politically incorrect thoughts.

The increased young male death rate is a feature not a bug. Darwin in action.

We may need to meet brutality with brutality. E.g., if cops witness typical street harassment against women by beating the perp into a coma, street harassment will stop. Of course the cops will need to e properly incentivized.

Since a large portion of the population is not "winning", the reaction to that takes a few forms:

1. Socialist - tax the winners and distribute the proceeds to the losers (Sanders)
2. Nativist - kick the competitors out of the country, etc. (Trump).

What happens when these losers have a big political voice? Bad things. I can't agree that it's gender related really. That sounds like a self congratulatory academic gather round the teapot story.

I think Tyler knows that the rubes are right, that low-IQ immigration harms the receiving country. But the more important point is that they're rubes, and he's not going to be one of the rubes who disagrees with the elite consensus.

I think this is predominantly about race rather than gender. Women are not doing all that well under the current order either, as many of them learned the hard way in Cologne earlier this year. Men have always been more likely to vote for radical parties, back before 1980, when the Left actually was the more revolutionary side of the political spectrum, the Right got a larger percentage of the women's vote in European countries.

We hear a lot of news stories about how Japan is supposedly very pozzed. I'm sure a lot of it is liberal propaganda, but there's probably truth to some of it, certainly Japan has a low fertility rate. The Japanese are certainly "nicer" than their predecessors, they do less hard labor, they have no enthusiasm for war, and according to our liberal media they aren't having very much sex. Yet, you don't see them voting for anti-establishment parties. The difference is that they aren't being displaced. They know that if they manage to have grandchildren under Japan's 1.4 fertility rate, they will be Japanese who will speak Japanese under a Japanese government and a Japanese-dominated cultural environment. But now imagine if Japan was importing hordes of low-IQ Indonesians, who have a grudge against the Japanese, have a much higher fertility rate than the Japanese, commit occasional religiously-motivated terrorism against the Japanese, and are encouraged to keep their own culture rather than assimilating to Japan's. Imagine if half of Japan's movie studios were in the hands of "the Irish."(You know what I mean) Then, you'd be surprised if there wasn't resistance against the elites.

"I think Tyler knows that the rubes are right, that low-IQ immigration harms the receiving country."

Immigrants who fill low skilled jobs, may, in the aggregate hurt the low IQ natives who used to fill those jobs and were replaced by immigrants who are doing the job better for lower pay. The receiving country is better off (on average). The low IQ native of that country who find their job prospects are worse do not. There is a difference.

Also, re Japan, there are a lot of Japanese men in the same situation (sometimes called NEETs in Japan which is a loanword of the British acronym for not in education, employment or training). Mostly, they don't vote because mostly they don't have anti-establishment choices available to them at the ballot box and they are disconnected from the establishment.. Stereotypically, they word odd jobs, play video games and sponge off their parents for as long as possible (just like U.S. millennials with little education). And, the Japanese do rather irrationally take it out with a vengeance in anti-foreigner prejudice, for example, against the tiny Koreans minority (even if their parents and grandparents were born in Japan and they've never been to Korea and don't speak Korean), which their leaders largely accommodate.

The country receiving these people isn't better off. It starts by ethnically cleansing the lower class low IQ people you deride as society takes all types, but then it moves upwards as it's just ethnic competition taking place. It's not a level playing field, either. Don't pretend these Mexicans or other groups are doing better jobs than the left end of the bell curve whites they're displacing, this isn't an honest conversation if you leave out the fact they're being subsidized to do that work as they wouldn't be able to stay in the country otherwise. Corporations and employers are making profits off of the misery of the lower classes being displaced and passing the real costs of all of this off (financial, social or otherwise) to the taxpayer, or middle and upper class whites in the American example.

When you throw in all of these "Diversity" commissars, the wealth redistribution, the anti-white discrimination and so on you get a clearer picture of why white men in America, Europe and elsewhere--in our own countries--are getting very angry. You don't even have to be part of the lower class that's being displaced to see where this will likely end up: Civil war over which racial group owns the land. Demography is destiny.

This is wrong for a different reason. It assumes the rather short recent period of relative niceness is some of norm, or new plateau the world can rest at.

More likely, what we are seeing and will see is a return to the norm of human history - nasty, brutish, and not all that long.

You want to talk brutes? Have I gotta brute for you. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-inspector-general-report-223553

It's remarkable that one could write a piece about the return to brutishness without specifically calling out what are by far the most visible examples of brutishness today -- the violent protesters who accost Trump supporters, police, and passers-by at his rallies (the classic tactic of Röhm's SA), and the Black Lives Matter protests. The world today is simply not nicer or more genteel than it was in recent past. The trend lines in the past two or three years have turned sharply in the direction of greater brutishness and violence in the public sphere, and the country's rulers -- who might have spoken out forcefully for peace and order -- have been at pains to disguise, minimise, and excuse the new barbarity.

Another thought: straight men don't like paperwork.

Does anyone?

In organizations where I have worked, women love paperwork.

Remind me to stay out of those places.

I say, chaps, this cries out for a Straussian reading.

"The contemporary world is not very well built for a large chunk of males."

This is very perceptive and true.

"Quite simply, there are many people who don’t like it when the world becomes nicer."

This misses the mark. Two better explanations:

- Status. Status and respect is more highly concentrated among a few in the modern western world. People get more food, health care, and leisure time than in the past which is a huge positive, but the median person gets less social respect and community. One of the big draws of some criminal activity is it offers excitement and peer respect and status that available modern jobs and roles do not.

- Racism. It's racist for Austrians to keep their culture and exclude completely foreign cultures. It's similarly racist to love your own child more than the child of a stranger. From one viewpoint, the world is kinder if people stop loving their own race, culture, and children more than foreign ones. From another viewpoint that is simply antithetical to the very nature of humanity.

Normal men can be conditioned to function well in cultures of kindness where they are not allowed to kill, rob, or even insult others if the above two issues are addressed. Society should do a better job of respecting well functioning men who aren't celebrities or millionaires or university faculty.

"the neo-Nazi party came very close to assuming power in Austria"

Is the FPO really a neo-Nazi party? I understand the party has Nazi links from before 1980, but is there any more recent connection? Is the mere fact that they want to limit immigration and preserve their culture earning them this pejorative?

Love your own children and culture. Confident people don't trouble themselves too much with the others, although they may lend a hand from time to time.

I have a grievance to air on Tyler's choice of word. "Brutes." I assume this was calculated and deliberate given the multi-sentence build-up, the ellipses, the italics, and the question mark--as if to say, "After a reasoned and dispassionate internal consideration, this unfortunately is the best word for them...brutes." I suppose if you belong to the class of globe-trotting, effete aesthete that does things like casually reconsider the Western cultural canon in off-handed remarks (Pullman standing next to Blake? I still recoil at this.) or chronicle a 10,000 mile voyage to discover Asia's superlative cucumbers, 'brute' may be le mot juste for a mass of people you've only read about in The Nation. For the rest of us, it's an indelicate and imprecise slur. "Traditional men" might be more gracious if inexact. Or, if we're being cynical, "today's only out-group."

Anyhoo. I think Tyler has identified a symptom only, to the exclusion of a broader development that, while in places manifests as masculine revolt, really goes much deeper. It may also explain the seemingly sudden eruption of minority passions and nationalist fervor that have coincided, but are not the same as, the revolt of the 'brutes.' What I'm seeing isn't a reaction against the feminization of a predominantly masculine culture, merely. I think, rather, that the reaction is against the willful and state-sanctioned subordination of majorities and large minorities to ever smaller minorities. It is a modern, secular interpretation of Christ's declaration that the meek will inherit the earth: The meek will conquer the earth, with the help of well-meaning authorities if necessary. (I assume the majority's yielding to minorities is what Tyler means by the world becoming 'nicer.' Another commenter identified it as political correctness, which may be accurate.) The eruption of passions and fervor hasn't been endemic to whites only or Americans only, after all. Everyone seems agitated, and I don't think it takes an active imagination to find a common thread between all the different actors:

- American men, whether white, black, Hispanic, or Asian, have been told to shut up and shape up because women are underrepresented in male-dominated industries (while female-dominated industries like nursing, psychiatry, teaching, and title & escrow [seriously, what's with all the female escrow officers out there?] avoid scrutiny). This hasn't affected white men only; blue-collar blacks and Hispanics have equally suffered as women enter male-dominated-but-female-friendly industries like finance, while male-dominated-but-female-unfriendly (which is to say, risky and dangerous) industries like manufacturing, construction, and mining are being obliterated by the post-1970's regulatory explosion that have made it too expensive to support these industries domestically. (How much off-shoring is the result of lower foreign wages rather than the cheaper cost of not having to comply with American safety and environmental standards? Sincere question.) While I like environmental and safety regulations, to a point, I also acknowledge those are feminine ideals that are costing jobs traditionally held by Tyler's "brutes." Especially here in Colorado, the tension between the feminist/environmental wing and the Hispanic/union wing of the Democratic party is obvious in places like forestry, mining, and oil.

- White men have been told to shut up and check their privilege even as their employment and educational prospects suffer. Tyler's observation that the labor market "just isn't that terrible" ignores a variety of social and cultural pressures white men are subjected to that stoke resentment (and ignores how the actual labor market looks outside of economic journals). The anti-white, anti-male signals sent daily by our press and media are having a tangible effect on white men, and telling them to 'check their privilege' is only making it worse. I don't think it's selfish or bigoted to think other people's success should not come at the expense of your own. But maybe that isn't a 'nice' thing to believe.

- Native Europeans are being told to shut up and clear out while millions of illiberal immigrants flood their countries and disrupt the orderly functioning of their societies. Whatever your thoughts on immigration (I'm generally for it) you must acknowledge that a sudden influx of culturally different individuals will have momentary, and sometimes chronic, effects on a society. Telling people who would rather avoid the crime and poverty associated with uncontrolled immigration to shut up because they're hateful, xenophobic bigots isn't helping. Their concerns should be acknowledged as legitimate and mitigated as best they can rather than dismissed altogether. The near-election of a far-right politician in Austria should be a serious wake-up call.

- Christians and people with traditional worldviews are being sued into financial ruin for failing to comply with the sudden onslaught of pro-homosexual and pro-transgender discrimination laws, or having their livelihoods threatened by intense media scrutiny for taking anti-gay stances even in places like Indiana. Pro-gay and pro-transgendered laws have gone from protective to punitive, and people seem surprised when heterosexuals lash out as a result.

- Blacks are becoming increasingly resentful toward the government's new-found interest in Hispanics and homosexuals. This is probably the most underappreciated development in the last few years, and one I've heard expressed from black friends and acquaintances at church and the gym, and from black individuals on Twitter (when you've lost Azalea Banks...). After the Obama administration stoked racial tensions enough to animate the Black Lives Matter movement, suggesting racial bias in cases where no racial bias was ever found, it turned next to Hispanics and homosexuals. Blacks seem to really resent the government's push to legalize so many illegal immigrants, who often compete for the same jobs as blacks. And they especially resent the Obama administration's singular focus on gay priorities, ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell, legalizing gay marriage, and reinterpreting relevant statutes to invent protections for transgendered individuals. Blacks seem frustrated that their priorities have still gone unrealized while sexual minorities and non-citizens are given preference. At least that's been my reading of things.

- A similar development that I'm not sure how to classify is the resentment fiscally disciplined states, and the people within those states, have toward those small but profligate states requiring a bailout. Whether it concerns Greece or Puerto Rico, the diversion of general funds to bail these peripheral states out causes a lot of hostility. (Admittedly Puerto Rico's bailout doesn't seem to have animated many Americans outside of Matt Drudge's sphere of influence, but Greece seems to be the nationalist gift that keeps on giving.)

In each of these examples, large groups are being forced into subservience for even smaller groups, and any resistance is labeled hatred, bigotry, or privilege. Is it really that unreasonable to expect the needs and wants of the majority should be appreciated just as much as for minorities--especially extreme minorities like trannies?--without lamenting that some people just can't adjust to a 'nicer culture'? Or to acknowledge the state of white America and male America and even the state of European Europe is in dire need of redress? I honestly think mere acknowledgement is sufficient to snuff out a lot of these tense flames. I am old-fashioned and think the temperament of crowds is similar to the temperament of women: they don't care so much that you have solutions; they just want to know you're listening. Trump and Brexit and even Black Lives Matter prove this point. They don't really offer solutions. They only demonstrate that they're listening.

In the end, my greatest puzzlement comes from most commentators' seeming blindness to an obvious fact: Trump and Brexit and Austrian Hitler-in-a-three-piece have approached near-electability through democratic processes. Their positions have democratic--which is to say near-majoritarian--support. Any explanation should account for this support. And, frankly, I don't think the number of hen-pecked emasculated men in this country proffered by Tyler's theory reaches this threshold.

Lower class or vulnerable people being diminished to the point that they submit to reprogramming and then pumped up on faux confidence associated with victimizing people (sold as "leadership" or a "pathway to power").

An informal slave army, of sorts. But if it all ultimately manifests as social supports for these groups which do not involve them basically being given an income which frees them up to be a Stasi, but rather which focuses on their potential, and their happiness, them I'm quite prepared to write of the racist elements as legitimate cultural preservation, so long as gunning down women and children at the border is not a big part of things.

The technologies involved make use of the "microwave auditory effect" (beaming voices into people's heads), organized stalking ("mobbing" a la KGB et al.), remote emotion and brain influencing technologies by applying long-known effects of pulse modulations of electromagnetic waves at certain frequencies and amplitudes, and ... the missing link, more advanced neural monitoring mechanisms than are presently demonstrated in the civilian sector.

In short. But if you don't come armed with 200 pages of scientific references, you'll get locked up in the mental ward. And if you say it IS IS IS happening, you'll get locked up in the mental war. If you say it could be happening, 50/50 you'll get locked up in the mental ward. If you say it's happening to you, you'll get locked up in the mental ward. If you discuss obvious facts about the very few countries, and specific agencies within them, who could pull it off, you're locked up in the mental ward.

Get the picture? These technologies have been proven for decades, and if you talk about the reality that they exist or the reality of who could possibly be using them, you get locked up with zero due process until you can persuasively convince people in white coats that you truly believe you're crazy.

Good luck folks! If that were remotely plausible, I would want to know everything I could know about the who, why, what. And especially HOW. Fortunately, HOW is the easiest part. Because there's four decades of scientific literature proving it. (But you're "mentally ill" if you think it's real.)

In such a situation, Trump will struggle to to keep control of himself, let alone any movement associated with him. He will sorely need people who can call bullshit and not come across too negatively. No matter that I think he's an ass to the core. He's too thin skinned to take it any other way.

Now Colombia is going communist.

Wow, I'm shocked. I just done a Ctrl+F search of several hundred comments and not one instance of the word *hero* has been used. Has anyone wondered that the male malaise has all to do with a thwarted impulse to be a hero? That it might be existentially necessary for men to look forward to, to strive for in some way? Just wondering.

I'm sure that lots of men want to be heroes. I'm not in any way convinced that the fraction of men who do so successfully has changed much in the last seventy years. Employment and job prospects in historical "hero careers" like law enforcement and fire fighting have actually remained pretty decent (in part because an inability to offshore those jobs has allowed the professions to become almost entirely unionized, and in part, because relatively few women have been interesting in filling those jobs compared to other professions like office work and law that have seen dramatic gender shifts).

Too many comments to read them all. Has anyone thought that the comfort level with a derogatory term like "brute" is part of the problem here.? "Double down on feminizing men? Wow. I have two young boys and fear for their future. You "public intellectuals " sure know how to turn off a loyal reader.

These "intellectuals" are about to be swept aside. Their insane investment in their pseudo/anti-intellectual, anti-scientific dogmatism will be their downfall.

The mere plebes they decry (and the actual intellectuals on their side making arguments based on, for example, evolutionary theory) are of course right, That this is a result of the "racial diversity" nonsense being pushed on the west for decades to the detriment of the western native population which is facing a form of genocide from the endless inflow of parasitical, low IQ foreigners from failed states (failed because of the people who inhabit them, because racial equality doesn't exist and trying to pretend it does is science denial of evolution) that the western governments have been discriminating in favor of for many decades.

The end result is either going to be very bloody wars or repatriations on a massive scale, and the traitorous politicians and their intelligentsia will be lucky if they don't end up being executed for what they've done.

No one wants to be made a powerless ever-shrinking minority in their own lands as that is a quick route to extinction of your people. The basis behind all of this is racial survival. "Educated" idiots like the author of this article are too steeped in their own bullshit to understand some basic truths of the world, such as that humans too are animals that operate on many of the same natural laws. The current day example of the male grizzly bears migrating into polar bear territory and mating with female grizzly bears is very telling here, and scientists are already predicting this could be the end of the polar bear. Well it's no different really with Europeans losing their lands to other races while race-mixing is being promoted in the media owned by an alien racial group using it as a tool of ethnic competition.

I agree with Tyler. I would go farther. Our culture encourages inflated egos in nearly all who claim to be christians. This will include nearly all of Tyler's opponents on this topic.

Yep. I've been tracking this issue for a few years (http://www.aguanomics.com/2014/10/the-middle-class-is-dead-long-live.html) and (http://www.aguanomics.com/2011/03/some-thoughts-on-women.html), b/c men (esp American white men) have been losing out to women in education, foreigners in labor and bots in discovery. I can see how they'd take that change of status (from majority/ruler to minority/follower) badly, leading to them dropping their benevolent tolerance of underlings in favor of lashing out.

The only solution in the face of such progress (which, like technolgy, cannot be stopped) is -- to me -- to replace the breadwinner/security model with a basin income model, so that men can succed in some other way.

That's awfully convoluted. Here's a simpler explanation for the success of anti-immigration and anti-globalization candidates: many people don't like mass immigration and globalization. Shocking theory, I know!

Tyler, I know you aren't very cosmopolitan, but there is a great big world out there, and other than in the western world, very few people like mass immigration. In Japan, *none* of the major parties support mass immigration. Wow! By Tyler's standards, virtually everyone is a Nazi! Brownshirts are under every bed!

Japan was, of course, on the Nazi side in WWII, and while it dramatically changed following U.S. occupation in some respects with the cooperation of its Emperor, in many others it remains unchanged.

Japanese racial supremacy and an aversion to racial and ethnic diversity have certainly remained in place there - and while unmarried childless women face little employment discrimination, married women and mothers face intense employment discrimination.

Of course, Japan is a nation utterly dependent on international trade and globalization for its economic survival.

Japan has also tended to follow that pre-Nazi Prussian model of localizing a lot of social welfare functions with a long term employer who bears lots of obligations to employees including security of employment if possible, rather than locating those duties in the state as Europe has overwhelmingly and the U.S. has to an intermediate extent. And, Japan tolerates much more than the U.S. does having the government and your employer telling you how to act. Employers, for example, expect you to not just do your job but to socialize with co-workers for long hours after work, to sing the company song and do morning exercises with your co-workers, and if you are just starting out, to often live in company provided housing with other employees of the firm of similar rank.

On the plus side, a working class career and life that would be considered almost shameful in the U.S. is much more accepted as a legitimate and decent and sound life choice for lots of people without the negative stigma that the U.S. attaches to such careers. Japan has not yet fallen for the trap of thinking that everyone should do their best to try to be a lawyer, or a doctor or the President rather than "settling for less." And, it has built social and economic institutions that acknowledge the dignity of those choices.

The average American's contempt for those who work in relatively low-paying jobs (e.g McDonald's) never ceases to disgust me.

More like the current world isn't fit for humans, but for replaceable cogs and robots and only an autistic spergbot wouldn't see why. Just wait for the preference cascade to see how truly popular these bullshit post ww2 values are.

Do we really need a WWIII to remember why we agreed on them in the first place?

Respect people. Even if you don't quite.

My prediction to that question is yes..., billions of dead bodies yes.

I think Tyler is spot on and I'll happily take on any of these idiotic commenters in a fistfight to prove it

Where do you want to meet up? What time?

Its not about male or female, its about the complete emptiness of values...
Read Nietzsche´s 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' or 'European Nihilism', its all in there.

I don't see any evidence that the trends that Tyler lists are 'nice'. The world isn't getting better or nicer.

Behavioral economics tells us that losing something you have (white men) is much more disturbing than not getting something you never had (women and minorities). Men are losing status. Women are gaining status. Men used to have well-defined roles in western culture. That has mostly evaporated. "Men" are now mostly just "people".

Men's value was in part their ability to employ violence, not least to protect their families or to hunt. Back in the day, some one-third of male deaths were violent. When men had a distinctive value, women would put up with their flaws and even make the effort to civilize them. As that value diminishes, particularly outside the upper class, fewer women are willing to make that investment. At the same time, women stopped requiring men to put a ring on it first, reducing men's incentives to settle down. So, beer, video games and porn. Watch what happens as the #1 male occupation withers away. That would be "driver". Do truckers become "nice" nurses?

Actually, we do not have reliable statistics from "back in the day". Before about the mid 19th century we have only limited hard demographic data, and the farther one goes back the less there is (and the more it is skewed to the upper classes)

Tyler (or Tyrone?), perhaps you should leave politics to others and stick to blogging about things in your domain of expertise (ethnic foods, books, markets, etc.)

Update (5/28): Here is my take: https://priorprobability.com/2016/05/28/nate-silver-gets-it-tyler-cowen-does-not/

Wow. Probably, what, 90%? 95%? of these comments appear to be from, just, miserable pricks. Jesus.

What percentage of men are brutes anyway?

I wonder why Clive Crook said "in London or Oxford from the 1970s onwards I never witnessed the naked disdain for the working class that much of America's metropolitan elite finds permissible in 2016."


Almost every time I read an article about Trump, I feel my blood boiling with a desire to vote for the misbegotten populist.

Problematizing the male fraction of the species is more likely a cause than a solution, Professor.

"it does help explain that men seem to be leading this “populist” charge, and that these bizarre reactions are occurring across a number of countries, not just one or two."

As opposed to all the other political turbulences in history, which were led by women, I suppose?

Tyler, you can sum it all up in one word: pushback. Americans are pushing back against a far left agenda that they believe is inherently anti-American, and lefties are only pushing harder in return, which creates more pushback. The idealism of left-wing ideology often plays out very poorly in the real word. Example. Leftists may see the transgender bathroom issue as a key factor in LGBT rights against rank homophobia, whereas many Americans only see it as allowing swinging dicks into little girls' rooms. For millions of women and mothers with young children, politics doesn't factor into it. Propriety does. Look at the price Target is paying for pushing the point. They've lost billions in the boycott. In Europe, it's the onlsaught of Muslim refugees from the Middle East and the terror that has followed with it. More terror is sure to come. You don't have to be Nostradamus to foresee that. The Austrians see it.

But it goes far deeper than that in America. We are tired of being called every name in the book for mere political dissent. To question why immigration laws are not being enforced is not racist or xenophobic. To point out that Islamic terrorists are trying to turn the world into rubble like war-torn Syria, or that most Muslim nations have oppressive Islamic laws that treat women, Jews and gays as less than human is not Islamophobia. It is fact. To question the highly politicized subject of Climate Change does not make one a denier on the order of the Holocaust. All science should always be open to question, and that's the main problem. Epithets and not reason are being and have been used by the left to close discussion on the pressing issues of our time. You paint people into corners like that long enough, and pushback occurs.

Trump is smashing that PC wall like no other candidate of either party would have the balls to, and that is why he is winning. Men being men aren't the problem.America has apolitical pendulum that, once it swings too far in one direction right or left, gets forcibly moved by the electorate to the center. I have seen it my entire life, starting with Carter and Reagan. You want to know what the hell is wrong? Everything. And when everything is wrong, people push back to make things right again. That's what you're seeing, imho.

*slow clap*


Mr. Cowen, I'm a big fan, and I read pretty much everything you write.

But I'm skeptical of the premise that the culture is getting nicer. What is true is that the target has shifted. As a parent and teacher, I can tell you that young men of traditional and conventional outlooks are feeling unceasing hostility from all corners of the culture. The elites and their hangers-on have united in fury against them.

A shift in targets is not an improvement.

I agree. I think 'comfortable' is better term than 'nicer', especially with what the kids are listening to today and the influence of ghetto cultures.

It's all part of the plan. After another generations of this or two and the strong white male will be near-extinct, leaving the gates open for the caliphate. Plus we're just guzzling down energy like there's no tomorrow, so all of this comfy environment and all these energy-draining gadgets will eventually end. And we'll end up just like Greece under the Ottomans - and don't forget, the new sultans will make sure to rewrite the history books to take credit for all the wonderful inventions we've created over the past 100 years.

Eugenics is the obvious solution, but politically it will never fly.

If CRISPR can deliver, then we might be able to side-step the whole issue.

Imagine the shock of all the ideologues with all their categories, as problems vanish overnight as every human is now engineered to be intelligent and well-balanced. History solved as an engineering problem.

Of course, then we'll probably have to contend with lone super-geniuses out to destroy the world. At least you can target brutes en masse.

Coming in very late, but this is pretty close to how I see it.

One instructive story from the natural world is the species of lizard that goes through cyclical phases in which different male reproductive strategies dominate: nice guys, then brutes, then sneaky guys, then back to nice guys, et cetera, cycling as I recall it about every seven years. Obviously the genes for those three types don't newly evolve every seven years. All three are carried by every male, but only one is expressed in each individual.

I suppose there is something similar going on in humans, but spread randomly across society and over time, not in any cycle. Besides brutes versus nice guys, there are also xenophobes versus cosmopolitans, among men and women. I think somehow primitive human societies must have fared better when they included multiple types. This is how I explain why people don't evolve continually improving intelligence, and the smartest most cosmopolitan parents in the world will still have about one out of four kids turn out totally ordinarily intelligent and brutes and/or xenophobes. These personality types are in all our chromosomes and they have evolved to crop up fairly randomly and somewhat regardless of parentage, though I don't dispute that parents of certain types are more likely to have kids of those types.

PS I disagree re the late 1970s: the Reagan revolution was that reaction.

I'm surprised by how critical the comments are. I think the post is mostly dead-on. Yes, there is a shift in the electorate towards fascism. That doesn't mean that Trump, or even the Austrian Freedom Party, are just like the fascists from the 1930s. It just means that there's a subtle shift in that direction.

You can't explain this whole thing away with just economic explanations. There's definitely a social component, and I think it absolutely has to do with a segment of the world's population that feels left behind, not by globalization and economic or technical change, but by the shifting standards of conduct, speech, etc.

Do not ignore the role of the IT revolution, the rise of social media, and the slow death of traditional media. Attention spans are shorter, there is no trusted medium that serves as an arbiter truth, and in fact "truth" has been relativized. Meanwhile we are increasingly "bowling alone" and less connected to other human beings. You can rant and troll your heart away on Twitter and stir yourself into a stupor. You get the point. This is a big part of it.

What Govco, MichaelG, TheMadKing and others have said.


Having known you since before the World Wide Web existed, I can't recall any time you've looked down your nose at anyone like this.

Funnily enough, this kind of mass condescension reminds me much more of...well, brutal times. Back when our manifest destiny told us, plain as day, that the Native Americans were savages. Not to mention poor people were overgrown children who needed to be guided and controlled, and the Irish and Germans (not to mention folks further east) were all benighted drunks.

I'll guess you're familiar with Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Even given World Wars I and II, the 20th century was the most peaceful around the world...and the 21st is set to continue this long trend too.

And yes, it's due to what he calls the Civilizing Process -- for example, duelling used to be just how folks resolved disputes, until people widely agreed that skewering and shooting one another over an insult or a glare wasn't just wrong but also ridiculous. For quite some time now -- as in over the whole time humans have walked the Earth, but especially since World War II -- peaceful norms have increasingly replaced violent ones, to the point where even time-honored practices like spanking your misbehaving child have become suspect.

Pinker has identified five basic causes of the growing niceness. One is feminism and feminine norms.

Another two are growing empathy and reason. Both of which frown on writing off a group of people you don't like as "brutes". That kind of tribalism causes (not to mention worsens) crimes, wars and genocides.

You mentioned rape. Well, the fewer men who write off women as, say, cockteases and gold-diggers who only respect force, the fewer rapes we'll have.

Last but not least, I personally believe we have significantly more rape -- especially on campus -- than many of us used to think. But much less than some -- especially those who want more money and power for certain programs and officials -- tend to think.

The reason the traditional elites aren't doing well right now is that the elites have divorced themselves from the interests of ordinary voters. For the past two decades, the desires and interests of the elites and ordinary voters have diverged more and more. Voters have tried to change that by various means, but the elites keep refusing to listen. They are putting their own boutique interests first which are of minor importance to them, and no importance at all to the people, while ignoring the very real desires of vast numbers of people.

Since the elites haven't listened, the people are now looking for anyone who does.

Illegal immigration has been a major issue for a long time now. That pro-amnesty rally showed the marchers showing Mexican flags - how long ago was this, 2006, earlier? - it alarmed a lot of people. It's been ten years. Measures should have been put in place a long time ago. But the elites didn't care what the American people. They only cared about 1) virtue signalling their concern over the illegals, or 2) wanting the lower wages that illegal immigration drives. For ten years, nothing was done and about the only "reforms" being pushed were reforms in the wrong direction.

People are concerned about economic growth and declines in standard of living (either in growth or absolute levels). So what do the national elites care about? Allowing men into women's rest rooms. In a time when crime rates were at an all time low (at least re-Ferguson Effect) and women were safest they've ever been, the elites kept insisting women were being raped on college campuses based on bad data that has been debunked repeatedly. Hate crime hoax and fraud has been reported again and again, but the media keeps pushing the frauds because they have a "narrative". People are tired of this.

After ten years of not being listened to, people are now looking elsewhere for others who does.

In Europe, the EU bureaucrats have ignored all sorts of popular concern about the new EU in the past two decades. Referendum votes that said no resulted in the EU and the local elites holding another referendum until the voters approved. Concerns about letting countries like Greece into the single currency were likewise ignored. Romania and Bulgaria were let in too early despite lacking necessary reforms simply because the French government wanted in some countries that weren't as pro-American as Poland. There are plenty of other examples.

Having ignored what the people actually wanted for 15-20 years, it is no surprise people are willing to look at other potential leaders. Furthermore, they know that the media slander them that they are racist, ignorant, stupid, etc. which they know is not true. And if that is not true, they think then maybe that group over there the same media labels as extremist- well maybe they are not. Maybe the media lies about them like they lie about us.

There is a huge credibility gap among the elites right now, but they still remain oblivious to it. Tyler's post just exposes that ignorance on his part.

Instead of thinking about "What is wrong with the people?", Tyler needs to think about "What is wrong with the elites that people no longer trust them".

Ctrl+F for "I was wrong."

I get confused. Men rape so we should become a nicer society. In the "Nordic Countries" and Germany where the men are nicer (I guess), rape is happening and the authorities are blaming the girls and putting out comic books to show men what they shouldn't do. I also appreciate the mention of Peter Thiel who is putting his money behind his theories and funding fellowships to young people so they can learn rather than go to overpriced colleges with overpaid professors who with their "cold and timid souls neither know victory nor defeat".

Over 500 comments!

I knew you had it in you Tyrone.

Interesting. It aligns with what Amish Tripathi has written about on the rise and fall of masculine and feminine centric civilizations in his latest mythological fiction "Scion of Ikshvaku". The way he defines masculine and feminine forms of civilization, however, is much more nuanced. It is not so much about males being dominant over females, but it is more about "Rule of law" versus "social justice". So as per Amish, societies go through a cyclical pattern of masculine and feminine centric forms when one form over a period of time degenerates and gives birth to another form. But As Tyler has pointed out, are we now beyond the point where we can go back to a masculine centric civilization?




This is one piece of what's going on. You see in the video (and at numerous other protests) flags from all over central and South America and few if any USA flags.

Another piece: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15Y2JvUjDjnvgw6zpekQzmziZ1WzPDL9vmfSsdk5ZBYA/edit?usp=sharing
See highlights (also in crime stats people from latin america are white).

And there are many more pieces that are similar, and when all added up combine to create an overwhelming picture of the most "brutish" white men being pacifists compared to the most brutish of other racial and ethnic groups. Tyler however thinks that only white people matter.

"What the hell is going on?"

In Europe, land invasion from the Third World is going on, to the tune of several thousand yound males daily.

Do you expect the ancient nations just to roll over and die?

Hey Tyler do read replies

Look take this What the F article and average is over themes on workplace and its worst the you make out

Ok there's less space for small, daft, angry, ignorant etc brutes aka men However men themselves are the outperformers and they will continue to rule world - the group of men who succeed and are the poster boys from most men are hyper aggressive, time allocation insensitive winners.

So you have a failing genre who's leaders
Are glorious and glorified - this is a dangerous mix just like last time - 1930s - when a different strong group felt misunderstood and misused-
They found a clever little creep and don't think you have to look like a big blond Arian to be the poster boy - blond wig will do

Tyler, here is my personal experience:

I am tired of kindly asking people to adopt liberal values. I am tired of elections. I am tired of explaining economics to IQ90 insufficients.

Trump is the unapologetic leader that the right has needed for decades. No more pathetic requests to get permission to mess with medicaid benefits.

Trump is the unapologetic leader that the right has needed for decades.

Hasn't had for just over seven decades, in fact.

Very interesting. I would add one terminological point, one observation, and one hypothesis. The terminological point is that I would call Cowen's brutes "rednecks." The observation is that median income figures are probably not reliable: see https://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/arnold_katz_fcsm_paper.pdf. The hypothesis is that white males have also been discriminated against (by government) for several decades.

I mean this not as criticism, but a kind of appreciation.

It is glaringly obvioius that the system is loaded against males, is punitive against males, is punitive against whites, and is especially punitive against white males.

This is more obvious in fields such as tech, where merit is obvious, where it is obvious that unqualified and often unpleasantly badly behaved females are given far more than they deserve on merit.

From kindergarten to postgrad, males are continually denigrated, punished, and demonized. Masculinity is treated as an evil hateful pathology.

Of course males, and whites, and especially white males are going to resent this. And there is an increasing realization that if they simply ignore the rules of democracy where white males are permanently outvoted, and continually punished for being white and male, no one has the power to make them pay any attention to those rules - that white males have an overwhelming advantage in coercive violence, no matter how many girls in high heels the army puts on the front line.

Comments for this post are closed