The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-06-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 195 references
[Comments enabled]  

Now let's talk drugs for a minute -- along with the jackassery in both the States and Washington DC.

Everyone is outraged about the number of opioid deaths -- and the peddling of synthetics, such as fentanyl.  In fact I can make a pretty clean argument for closing the Mexican border and nuking Beijing on that alone.  But..... how about something more-mundane?

30% -- or about 1 in 3 American adults -- don't drink at all.  20% more have less than one drink a month.  The next decile (10%) consume about one drink every two weeks.

The next 10% consume about one drink every three days; odds are they have them both in a given week on one day, probably Friday.  The next 10% (we've now accounted for 80% of adults) have slightly less than one drink a day.

Now it gets interesting.  The second-to-top 10% consume about 15 drinks weekly, or about two a day.  This is the limit, according to physicians and such, for alcohol consumption that is generally not (all that) harmful.  I have news for you -- as I've reported here before, I can, from the physiological data off my Garmin, tell you on which days I've had one drink, two drinks, or more.  So if you say it doesn't do any harm with the first one, well, yes it does.  And so does the second.

But the top decile -- the top 10% , which incidentally means more than 20 million Americans -- consume an unbelievable 73 drinks a week or more than 10 a day, on average, every day.

To put this in perspective if you add up all the drinks the other consume you get about a third of those that these people consume.  That's right -- 3/4 of all alcohol consumed goes down the gullet of 1/10th of the American adult population.

73 drinks is over 7,000 calories a week as a result of alcohol consumption or more than 1,000 a day.  That's enough to put on more than two pounds a week, all other things being equal.  Put another way the average sedentary person who is drinking that much is consuming roughly 60% of their caloric requirement in alcohol alone; if that booze is being consumed in the form of beer or mixed drinks that contain sugar in their mixers it's even worse, likely 2-3x as bad!

ALL of these people are raging alcoholics.  ALL of these people are either outrageously obese or nutritionally deficit at a level sufficient to do very serious metabolic damage or kill them, not counting the damage from the alcohol itself.


I personally do not care if you are (1) an adult and (2) wish to drug yourself to death.

But -- I refuse to sit quietly for the hypocrisy both from politicians who bitch and whine about far less dangerous drugs than alcohol (e.g. marijuana and especially CBD, which has no known intoxicating effect) while at the same time there is a store on every single corner that intentionally stocks, markets to and sells dangerous drugs that they know damn well are, 75% of the time by volume, going into the gullet of people who are committing slow suicide.

Further, while you certainly have the right to commit suicide, whether slowly or not, you don't have the right to demand that I pay for it.

What shocks me in these statistics, however, is that it's 10% of the population.  I knew two people who have drank themselves to death, am absolutely certain that's both what killed them and have no trouble believing they were consuming 70 drinks a week.  But what these statistics say is that this is an amazingly common thing.  1 in 10 American adults?!  Seriously?  1 in 10 adults in America are clinically alcoholic and well on their way to killing themselves by being so?

Well now that does put some perspective on things, does it not?

It also puts perspective on state and federal government activities related to various drugs -- including a whole host of them that are illegal, yet clearly are less-harmful than booze is.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

So we have Louisiana poised to sign an anti-abortion Bill, Alabama has just passed one, and there are others.

On the other hand as I noted New York and Virginia started this latest round of insanity, with both states basically attempting to declare that a child in the process of being born could be aborted.  Then the US House refused to pass a bill that would require a fetus that survived an abortion attempt to be given medical care as a child.

I don't know how much more-clear you can get than that as to intent; the House clearly stated that a born infant, who was attempted to be aborted but survived, has no right to life even though it is now independently alive outside of the mother.

Essentially, the left -- all of it, including all elected Democrats in Congress, have declared that there is no such thing as a baby until and unless the mother declares that it is.  At any point prior to that declaration she can declare it nothing more than an unwanted growth irrespective of that "unwanted growth's" ability to survive independently, independently of her negligence, or independently of the random odds of survival, which said child beats, while she's actively trying to kill it.

Let's cut the crap; the left's position on this is transparent and obvious: A woman who doesn't want the financial and personal costs of raising a child must have the ability to evade that at any moment up to the baby's first breath, no matter what happens from that instant in time forward.  She may defer that decision through personal avarice, negligence or even intentional misconduct up to that moment in time and none of that bears on the merits of the decision.

At the same time a man has no rights whatsoever, even if his sperm is stolen from a used condom.

The far right's position is equally-clear: Your legs were open if a women or your pants off (or at least unzipped) if a man.  Tough crap; you undertook an adult act, now behave like an adult.  If you got raped that's unfortunate and a criminal act but even under that circumstance it's not the baby's fault so you don't get to kill the child.  Go after the rapist.

These are polar opposite positions.

The USSC in Roe, however, played Solomon and "split the baby" so to speak.

And when these laws get to the USSC, and they shall as they're intended to do exactly that it is my belief that the Court will do the logical and appropriate thing.

Specifically, I don't think Roe falls.  In fact I don't even believe that despite the statements from some of these state legislatures they expect Roe to fall.  They may wish it but I doubt very much they expect it to.

But I do believe the USSC will send back these laws with a remand consistent with Roe.

Let me remind you what Roe actually holds:

  • In the first trimester a woman has the presumption of supremacy for two reasons -- personal medical privacy and the fact that no 1st trimester fetus can survive outside the womb.  That is, the fetus is inextricably tied to the woman in question and if she acts as an adult, having undertaken an adult act or as a victim of a crime implicating an adult action forced upon her, she, in concert with a physician that elects to do so under his rules of conscience has the right to stop the progression that would otherwise lead to a birth.

  • In the second trimester there is a balance of harms and benefits to the woman which is left to the states to decide and regulate, with the exception found below (that is, a state cannot require a woman to sacrifice her life.)  That is, the people of the 50 states have the right to tilt the scale of supremacy in either direction provided they can justify it on the basis of maternal health. There are likely to be 50 different answers depending on the specifics of the circumstances found in said states -- and that's constitutional.  This balance of harms and benefits test is logical because any woman who desires to know she is pregnant before the expiration of the first trimester may discover same and by that point she has had a reasonable amount of time to contemplate the risks and benefits of both paths available to her in the context of both state law and the regulation of medical practices within a given state.

  • Beyond fetal viability (which is almost-exactly concordant with the start of the third trimester) the states have the right to put into law a presumption that the fetus has a right to live.  At this point the woman has decided either through negligence or intentional action to continue the pregnancy for two thirds of the requisite time.  In addition with each passing day it is increasingly likely that should there be a birth the child can survive independently of that specific woman; in other words it in the event of delivery said child is no more or less dependent than any other baby in that anyone can feed, clothe, diaper and protect it; there is no longer a biological requirement that a given specific woman do so.  Exactly where that line is changes over time but that it certainly occurs somewhere early in the third trimester is a fact.  However, even here the duty is not absolute: A woman is not required to sacrifice her life for said soon-to-be--infant, any more than you are required to stop and render aid to a motorist in a crash.  In fact there is no circumstance, not even under admiralty law on the sea, where you're required to sacrifice your own life to save another.  You may choose to, but you're not required to.  Therefore absent such a clear requirement in trade -- life-for-life or clear and convincing evidence that the mother will have her health severely and even permanently harmed -- states are fully within their rights to bar as a matter of law all third-trimester abortions.

That's what Roe found folks.  It did not confer an absolute right to an abortion at any time.  The Supreme Court has never issued such a ruling.


The screaming liars on the left have claimed that Roe in fact goes all the way to birth -- and even during birth.  This is flat-out nonsense.  Here is what was actually held in Roe, from the actual text of the decision:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

There is no unrestricted right to abortion, as found by Roe, beyond the first trimester.


A State may therefore find that abortion beyond the end of the first trimester implicates maternal health, including mental health, damaging same, and so regulate it -- including a prohibition except where the manifest trade-off mitigates otherwise.

A state may not, in other words, enact a law that requires a pregnant woman to sacrifice herself for the fetus she is carrying.  However, beyond the first trimester a state may find as its legislature determines on the balance of harms.

Further, since the states are explicitly in Roe reconfirmed in their power to license physicians and thereby set standards for the conduct of medical practice the State can determine what appropriate medical judgement is -- in other words a State is fully within its rights to declare, for example, that "health" in this context means severe and permanent physical disability (for example) and not something such as "well she doesn't have any money therefore that implicates her health."

The State is also empowered to prohibit any and all abortions not performed by a physician defined by the licensing and practice scheme within in the State.

Note that fetal viability is medically defined as the point where there is a 50% rate of survival.  This is approximately 24-25 weeks or during the sixth month of pregnancy.  By the 27th week the rate of survival is roughly 90% and survival beyond that is >95%.

Therefore an appropriate remand on such a law at the USSC would be:

  • Prohibitions on abortion at a state level prior to the passage of three months from last menstruation are inconsistent with Roe and void.

  • Prohibitions at a state level beyond three months may be enacted provided they comport with state-licensed medical practice rules that protect maternal health, provided that they cannot require a woman to continue to carry a pregnancy that, in the reasonable opinion of licensed physicians, will kill her.

  • States may, beyond fetal viability, which is approximately congruent with the third trimester, ban the procedure entirely except where the mother's life or, congruent with the above objective medical licensing standards, serious maternal health issues are implicated.  Note that this does not create a "carve out" for economic or speculative impact (e.g. "psychology") such as, for example where a fetus is known to have a material but survivable defect or deformity.  A state may choose to permit abortion in such a circumstance but is not required to permit it.

That's what I expect the USSC to hold as it is entirely consistent with Roe and yet at the same time upholds most of what these states seek to do.  As such "heartbeat" laws are likely unconstitutional -- but just barely, by a couple of weeks, and as such instructions on a remand would move that barrier to 14 weeks after the initiation of last menstruation.

That decision would in fact not eviscerate Roe -- such a judgment would reconfirm Roe, and leave the States in the position of setting enforceable and definitive medical standards and licensing requirements defining the balance of harms tests for maternal health and the protection (or lack thereof) for fetal life which they are explicitly empowered under Roe to do.

It would "reset" and underline what has been a rampant and outrageous pack of lies by the left as to what Roe actually held -- a good thing that has been needed for the last three decades -- while at the same time moving the barrier on the "heartbeat" people to a legally-defensible place in conformity with Roe itself.  While that change would be significant all-in the states that enacted "heartbeat" legislation would likely find it to be a win as they'd get 90% of what they enacted and which is almost-exactly what Roe first put into place.

Alabama would be the sole exception: they would be forced to accept Roe "as written."

In addition such a decision does not implicate the 1st Amendment (e.g. establishment) where a decision to toss Roe would have severe trouble in that regard.  The Establishment Clause issue can probably be worked around but there's utterly no reason for the Court to twist themselves into knots to go there, and as a result I don't expect them to.

We'll see.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

That's really what this op-ed is:

This plea is made to the suburbanites among us: If you have disengaged from Baltimore City, please consider re-engaging. My appeal is not based upon vague notions of virtuous acts. I appeal to nothing other than your self-interest.

So many of you tell me that you no longer go to the city. Often, I sense a hint of pride in your voice, as if you have managed to kick a bad habit. It may seem irresponsible to ask people to frequent the City That Reads Healthy Holly given its deeply regrettable state of affairs.

Uh huh.

From the demographc report, as of 2010 (last census):

Black: 63.7%
White: 29.6% (non-Hispanic: 28%)
Asian: 2.3%
American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.4%
Two or more races: 2.1%
Other race: 1.8%
Hispanic, Latino or Spanish of any race: 4.2%

So, you have a majority black population and the city has gained a reputation for being a ****hole to the point that white suburbia has both fled and won't even come downtown to shop or partake in whatever it offers.

Oh, the writer of the OpEd actually admits this too:

Your retort to me might very well be, “If I go to the city, I’m likely to end up at Shock Trauma.”

“No place better,” I might respond, “They really know what they’re doing — world class.”

And there it is.  Getting shot, knifed, raped, robbed or beaten ought to be on your agenda!  We have a great hospital to take care of that!

But of course it's raciss to point this out.  Except that I'm not the one pointing it out, of course, so stop calling me the racist.  Point your ire at the author of that OpEd.

Except.... facts aren't raciss.  They're just.... facts.

Never mind a mayor who seems to have the magical ability to cut sweetheart insider deals to make a ton of money selling..... children's books (the aforementioned "Healthy Holly") through the University of Maryland medical system while on its board!  The FBI just raided City Hall along with a number of other locations related to this nice bit of cronyism (and potential felony, given that the FBI is involved) while...... the mayor is nowhere to be found. Uh..... yeah.

Re-engage with such a place?  **** you.

Hehjackass!  Reality in Baltimore is not much different than in ****cago, well, with one exception -- there are places in the city where (still) you might not get shot.  But, last weekend..... 5 killed, 29 wounded -- over Easter Sunday.  The bunny wasn't one of them.

Clearance rate on all those murders?  12.2%.  So much for the cops; they suck too.  And between black and hispanic in ****cago that would be 94% of the victims (and, likely, the shooters -- the media only reports the race of the shooters, most of the time, if they're white.  Total of such reports in said city thus far this year?  Zero.  You can therefore infer that none of the shooters were white as they'd be both caught and paraded around by the Sun Times and Tribune as proof of how raciss all of us white people are.)

Never mind the Wednesday before Easter in that "fine city" (which I'm sure Baltimore emulates) where five hundred teens (guess their predominant race!) decided to play "mob of the apes" (with apologies to actual Apes for maligning them) in the shopping district on MagMile, going on a smash-and-grab fest both against citizens who had their purses and phones stolen along with stores that had merchandise robbed.  By the way that's the "high rent, full price" retail district in town just in case you don't know.

Now that's the culture we should make the hallmark of our nation -- right?

Baltimore doesn't have HeyJackass but it does have this site from the Sun, which says 89 homicides so far this year.  For comparison ****Cago has managed 125.  Of course ****cago has 2.7 million people in the city while Baltimore has 611,000!  So on a per-capita basis ****cago manages 1 in 21,600 killed thus far this year while Baltimore has done 1 in roughly 6,800, or three times ****cago's rate.

The city wants you to "come back" into a ****ty that has three times ****cago's murder rate?  Recreational cannabis is not legal in Maryland -- but it's clearly being smoked in abundance by the writer of this editorial!

Baltimore is in the middle of collapse during the biggest stock-market boom in history and with record-low unemployment to the point that the city believes it has to "reach out" to suburban whites and those blacks who left due to having both a brain and decency pleading with them to "come back"?

It's not like white males and culture built all of those cities to start with, right?  Why do all these great city folks need any of us?  Everyone's equal, all cultures and socio-economic choices are equal, there are no gang-banger wanna-be's all over your city who form into mobs of people to sack stores and steal purses --and it's raciss to suggest otherwise or even report the mathematical facts.  Why do you give a crap about all those suburban dudes and dudettes?  If there's nothing "superior" about one culture, values and level of industriousness over another then why isn't Baltimore thriving with its awesome and industrious population, showing us all how wonderful and productive said population and culture is?

I have one question: How much of Baltimore -- and Chicago, with dozens of other similar cities -- will be on fire as soon as the next recession hits?

I have the answer to that too: ALL OF IT.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-04-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 1025 references
[Comments enabled]  

So now it's "Easter worshipers" in Sri Lanka who were blown up; not "Christians" eh?  And by the way, that's what Barack Obama and literal dozens of other "political people" called them.  

And while the media and everyone else was all agog about "white supremacists" after New Zealand they cannot bring themselves to use the words "Muslim terrorists" or "Islamic terror", or, quite-accurately, "Islamic state" in terms of the goals and desires of those committing these bombings.

The very words "Muslim" or "Islamic" are banned when it comes to anything negative, you see.

**** these people.  All of them.

But let's not stop here.  How about if I go at something more basic, and longer-running, and I'll drive a pike through a few more sacred cows this way too.

The so-called sexual revolution.

Let's first start with a basic fact of reality: There are approximately the same number of boys and girls born.  It is slightly biased toward males; about 105:100.  This assumes nobody deliberately tampers with it by, for example, aborting girls after determining their sexes, which has happened in China and thus driven the ratio higher.

By the time both sexes reach puberty, however, it's nearly equal.  The reasons are somewhat complex and all turn on the fact that boys tend to die very young more often than girls.  It's not a large number, but it's enough to "even the odds" -- at least "close enough."

So for each girl there is a boy, and vice-versa.

That's good, right, if you'd like humans to continue to be a species.

Well, wait a second.  That's too simple.  The assumption there is that one boy and one girl will get together and live happily ever-after, making some number of children between them if nobody interferes and everything works as originally intended.

That's pure nonsense and it's easy to see that.  Just look around you.

What happens in other primates -- which have reasonably-close sex ratios too, since sexual reproduction works pretty-much the same way ("X" and "Y" chromosomes)?

90% of the males don't get to mate at all; they're either exiled or killed.  10% or less of them screw all of the females.

This is true of most animals that form social groups; it is not limited to primates.  In a pride of lions one adult male winds up with all -- or nearly all -- of the pussy; any other adult male that wants to actually mate has to fight and either kill or drive from the pride (with the penalty for not leaving if you lose being death) the existing leader of same.  There are typically a couple of lesser adult males around, but they don't get any sex - except by extreme rare circumstance.  At a couple of years age young males, recognizing that they'll never get any where they are leave their pride and try to displace the male in another one.

A good number of them die trying, but a few succeed and kill or drive from that pride the male already there.

Why does this situation come up again and again?  Simply put it's physiological and inviolate -- which the Social Justice Warriors refuse to accept -- just like they refuse to accept so many other physical facts (such as there being exactly two sexes.)

Specifically, men are cursed with vastly more genetic material than they can ever use for reproduction at disgustingly high ratios.  Men produce more sperm every day than they could possibly use in a lifetime.  Women, on the other hand, are cursed with producing about 300 ova over their entire fertile life, one per month, and a significant percentage of them are defective.  They either fail to be fertilized, fail to implant or something is wrong with them and the woman miscarries.

Here's how those curses manifest: It is to the advantage of men from a reproductive perspective to use as much of that genetic material as possible.  For a woman, however, she can trivially use all of the ova she wishes to turn into children without any effort whatsoever.  In other words women are the "price makers" when it comes to sexual congress in all willing sexual contact and this is true in essentially all sexually-reproducing species.  It is why the males have all the "pretty stuff" in the animal kingdom; all that "pretty stuff" is there to seduce.  The two young bucks (deer) outside your window are locking antlers and fighting between each other to impress the doe and thus obtain sexual favors; they fight not to gain the ability to rape but rather to impress the price maker and get her to allow him to have sex.  Ditto for the peacock.

The "natural order" winds up with the huge majority of the males getting nothing or nearly-nothing while the females get all the sex they want -- that is, enough sex to reproduce.

Humans formed social constructs to address this problem -- and for damn good reason.  Having the men running around constantly trying to kill or exile one another and then murdering all the children of the previous male, which happens frequently among animals too, is considered immoral -- and that's being kind.  Genghis Khan anyone?  He literally raped his way across continents and has more genetic material expressed in humans today than anyone else to have ever walked upright on two legs.

That social construct humans put together took into account that women are wired to want "one man" but there is no physiological reason for it to be the same one at any given time (e.g. they have every physiological incentive to "trade up" at every opportunity) while men are wired to want to screw as many women as possible.  Both of these natural physiological facts are immutable but you can design incentives to make them unattractive to follow through on.

The media and information revolution, starting with radio and onward, is hugely responsible for appealing to these base physiological instincts and claim that both sexes can have what their base instinct wants.  Why not?  Make men always seek no less than a "9 of 10" and make women always seek the Arnold Schwarzenegger (physically) or Jeff Bezos (wealth) -- preferably both!  Stuff that in both men and women's faces 24x7 to sell all sorts of "stuff" from fast cars to glamorous make-up.  Make the pitch that "buying this car" will get you the fabulous 5'10"' tall, 26" waist gal with 38DD*****. If you're a woman you can have the bronzed 6-pack abs dude with a billion dollars, a 10" all-night cock and 100' yacht.  He'll fly you to Paris for lunch on his private jet too -- if you just buy Chanel #5.

The so-called "sexual revolution" intentionally destroyed all of the social constructs that had been put together over thousands of years of human history.  It was sold to women as "freeing them" from their half of the bargain which was seen as "unjust" and many men foolishly thought it would work out well for them too.

What both women and men were sold was a knowing lie.

Then social media and the Internet came along and made it 100x worse.  Not only is the brag factor out there but a huge part of it isn't even true because anyone can post anything.  Then add to that Tinder, Bumble, Match and the rest.  There was billions of dollars to be made selling both men and women lies and so Zucker****er, Spoogle, Twatter and IAC all went to work on your head -- and no, not the big one.  The one between your legs.

Study after study has shown that women rate 90% of the men as "less than average" in attractiveness and wouldn't consider going on a single date with more than 10% of the men they meet.  That sounds pigheaded but it's nothing more than expression of how women are physiologically wired.  The same studies show that men are much less selective in terms of who they'd be willing to go out with but in terms of how they see attractiveness, not so much.  Indeed irrespective of a man's age within the "breeding band" or his own appearance and wealth virtually all prefer the extremely-cute 20 year old!  Again, they're not pigs; this expression of preference is nothing more than how men are physiologically wired.

So are we surprised at what has happened when all of the social constructs that bound women to men and vice-versa were intentionally destroyed in the name of "feminism" and the "sexual revolution"?

A 20 year old attractive woman gets all the men; she has more cock available to her than she knows what to do with.  She feels great -- for the moment.

The somewhat-attractive 20 year old woman also gets a large number of men; she too has many choices one for each day if she'd like.  She too feels great -- for the moment.

The 6-pack abs dude gets more pussy than he knows what to do with.  Great for him, right?

And the 1%er with money gets all the pussy he knows what to do with no matter what he looks like.  The evidence for that is easy to find too; go anywhere there are nice expensive boats and see all the fat, balding 50 year-olds with a 20-something 36DD chick in a bikini sunning herself -- and that's not his daughter either.  Great for him too, right?

But what about the bottom 50% of guys?  Hell, how about the bottom 80 or even 90 percent?  You know, the dude with a regular old job and a Chevy -- no Lambo, no boat, and no six-pack abs.

They get none; exactly zero of the above women will go out with them.  Such a man is allegedly too "boring."  There are plenty of dudes that have one or both of the six-pack or lots of money so..... all the rest of the dudes wind up going to whack off to porn on the Internet.

What about the bottom 50 -- or 80% of women?

Well, at 20 they might get some, probably all they want is on-offer, but remember -- men are being told they can have it all too, and so they'll get laid but they too have been told they're a princess and can have the six-pack stud, so they have no particular reason to be loyal.  As soon as the somewhat better looking or richer guy comes along they're suddenly "unhappy" and.... well there you go.

Then time goes on a bit.

The 20 year old woman who used to have a lot of dating (read: sexual) options is now 30, and then 40.  She has had lots of sex but she's never happy because there's always richer and better-toned available.  Why should she settle?  She hasn't, in short; there's always a better one right around the corner, in the bar, at work, whatever.  Well, she turns 40 and..... oops.  Mr. SixPack now screws the 20 year old!  Why wouldn't he -- remember, he is supposed to be "sexually liberated" too!  Why take less -- as he sees it -- than he can get?

Women have a few years of very high sexual market value as "price makers" and then it starts declining, and that market value declines fast.  If she wants kids that problem gets serious around the 30ish year mark if she wants 2 or more, and in the mid-30s even if she only wants one.  Maybe one of the dudes who was "boring" but has a nice, steady job runs into her 20 years later.  She turned him down 20 years before; he was neither cute or rich enough and he remembers her choosing to screw the burly dude with the six-pack -- or the guy in the $5,000 suit with the Lambo buying $200 shots -- that night in the bar.  Why would he believe how she truly feels has changed now?  Her desire is transparent and he has no reason to believe she won't **** the Amazon delivery dude next year if he's cuter as soon as she has her kid(s) -- and leave him.

Worse, he'll never see HIS kids again but he'll get the bill to raise them while the Amazon delivery dude goes to Disney with them on his dime.

As for men what do they have on offer when they're 40?  Half or more of men at that point have a nice beer belly and the six-pack is long gone.  If by then he's got a yacht (in other words he's in the 1%) well, that's plenty good enough and he'll keep getting some -- from younger women at that.  But why would he want more than a bang-and-done from any of them?  She's transparent in what she wants, so why wouldn't he be?  Of course he is and will be -- it's only rational and there's nothing unfair about that exchange.

What happens to the now 90%+ of both women and men who are neither stupid-rich or stupid pretty/cute/sexy at 40?

They keep Hustler and the dildo store in business.

Is that such a great deal for nearly everyone out of the so-called "sexual revolution"?  Wouldn't nearly everyone have been better off if most people pair-bonded at 20 and there was a strong disincentive to screw the Amazon delivery dude -- or the 20 year old beach blonde bubble-head?

Heh, if you all like the way things are now then so be it.  You're odd's off to benefit from it, but there's no limit to human stupidity.

Remember, the ****heads who pushed this **** on people were all high-paid academics, media ****heads and politicians, all of whom have a lot of money and power and thus are never in the "common person" category nor will they ever be.  They get all the sex they want all of the time from the day they reach puberty until the day they die and they can and will change the person they sleep with as often as they like -- maybe as often as they change their underwear.  Have either power or money and sexual partners are never in short supply.  Have both and, well, the world's your oyster.

Oh by the way the people who pulled that crap originally are still running their pack of lies too -- the evil bitches named Pelosi and Harris (who literally admits she blew her way into political office!) among them, never mind Trump and  Clinton.  Of course those two could and did "grab 'em by the pussy" (or stuff their dick in an intern's mouth) because they have either a billion dollars or are the most-powerful man in the world.  McKenzie Bezos did just fine after Jeff decided to dick someone else but gee, Jeff got all the pussy he wanted, including while married and still does, right?  McKenzie will get all the dick she wants because she too has a billion dollars.  Ain't that special?

But neither you or I have a billion dollars nor do we have the ability to ram our bull**** down other people's throat at gunpoint because we're just ordinary people instead of being billionaires, Senators, Congress-sluts or Presidents.

In short they don't care about you when it comes to any of this.

If that was all it was then it wouldn't be worth this article.  Frankly, I don't care any more.  Not all that long ago I had a nice big boat.  It was amazing what happened in terms of what was on offer to me literally the day I sold it.  If you think I didn't recognize that immediately you don't have much respect for my level of intelligence.

The bigger problem for society however, and why this is worth the digital ink is that without a solid pair-bonding paradigm the human race is in big trouble and so is our nation.

If only the top 10, 20 or 30% of women have kids and they have no support for same they will only have 1 or 2 because that's all they can have.  The few who are so wealthy they don't care about support, either emotional or monetary can have eight or ten but they won't choose to -- they're too busy making money to have all those kids and besides, it gets in the way of the trips to the Louvre or Alps.

The only people today having a lot of kids are those who could give a wet crap about them in any respect; they simply crank them out as a meal ticket to get freebie government benefits and could care less what happens to them beyond that point.  Those are the kids who turn into teens that go on wilding screeds down on the MagMile of Chicago and, in short order, wind up as gang-bangers shooting, raping and robbing people -- or replicating what their momma did and making eight more for the next turn of the crank.  Our cities are full of these people but up until the so-called "sexual revolution" and "feminism" that subgroup of society for all intents and purposes DID NOT EXIST.  Feminists and the "sexual revolution" CREATED this segment of society AND IT IS NOW EATING THE NATION FROM WITHIN -- LITERALLY.

All-in, statistically, there isn't a fair distribution of children across socio-economic lines and worse even if you don't care about that there aren't enough kids being made in total to keep the human species going in our country -- or any other Western nation.

So the "wise asses" in Government have panicked and threw open the door to illegal immigration, turning same quasi-legal because those people will screw like rabbits and the Ponzi finance system they devised to give away all that money to women cranking out babies without regard to whether Remy, Jose or Harold is the father this time makes it possible to -- for a while -- cut the checks.  Incidentally this includes Trump.

Unfortunately the mathematical reality is that the percentage of children being born who can and will go on to be in the 1% in earnings power (that is, pay disgusting amounts in taxes) and invent things (that is, improve productivity by leaps and bounds) -- or to be more precise, move society forward -- is collapsing and on present trends we will soon see the effective extinction of same.

That people like Ilhan Omar or Maxine Waters can and have been elected to Congress is proof of thisa majority of the people voting in those districts, which is necessary for them to be elected, are in the group that will never produce an Einstein or Henry Ford simply because they don't give a crap about anything except gaining a larger government check for emitting another spawn and the 50-IQ male they bang in order to do it doesn't care either; for him it's nothing more than intermission between shooting at other gang-bangers on the nearest street corner.

The necessary social construct which must be restored has to provide good incentives for men and women to "pair off" early and permanently in life.  Like around 20 years of age.  At the same time the incentive to crank out babies you don't give a crap about and who turn into gang-bangers and worse on a wildly disparate basis must be ended entirely or we will be swallowed by those individuals.  The reform needed must come at both sides of the sex aisle -- not just one.

This is not a trivial issue nor is a simple-minded (and there are lots of those folks out there -- beware the banhammer in the comment section here if you're one of them) answer going to work.

This much is certain, however -- any such solution involves getting rid of those in power who have promoted the lie of both "sexual revolution" and "feminism" to both sexes for decades and deposing them to somewhere at least as remote in terms of their access to the levers of power as is Mars.

This must happen -- and soon.

Like now.

2024 is coming, which is a knee point in federal finances.  The math is what it is and there's nothing anyone can do to change it at this point in time.  While we cannot possibly reverse the demographic damage in that amount of time -- it simply can't be done, as it will take a full generation or more to make a serious dent in it -- we had better be well on our way by then or people in the markets and society are both likely to put not just middle fingers up in the air when government finance collapses but things that expel items from their business ends that are much more-forceful.

The gang-bangers already have plenty of them and they've demonstrated they'll use them with no hint of restraint.

Your move, fools.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

The very title of this article is a lie.

One morning last December, Autumn Barksdale, a receptionist at a dog grooming salon, asked a dozen colleagues to gather near the fur-trimming tables so she could explain how she would change in the weeks ahead.

Barksdale’s coworkers listened as she explained that the person they knew as a man named Adam would shift to become a woman named Autumn. She had started taking estrogen pills, which would give her breasts and a rounder face. She wanted to begin wearing women's clothing, makeup, and nail polish to work. Barksdale arranged this "trans 101” session, as she called it, because she feared that people would react negatively when her identity began to change visibly. That turned out to be a fair assumption.

The bolded sentence is a lie.

Adam would appear to become a woman yet it is a physical impossibility for Adam to become a woman because he is immutably a man.

This is not my opinion it is a physical fact that cannot be changed any more than you can change the pull of gravity on the face of the planet earth from 32 ft/sec^2.

The very name "transgendered" is a factual lie for the same reason: You cannot change your gender; it is an immutable quality set at the time sperm and egg join.

You can change your appearance to varying degrees, whether done with simple modifications of your dress or far more-drastic events such as attempting to override your natural hormonal balance with drugs or surgical modification of your body, with the latter two having an increasingly-permanent effect.

But it is not possible to change your factual gender and any claim to the contrary marks you as a liar and fraud -- period.

The real problem that I see with claims of "discrimination" is that they too are inherently false.  The issue from my point of view, as a former employer, is that someone who will lie to themselves will lie to both myself and other associates in the firm as well, and that has the potential to be extremely serious.

I never gave a damn about an associate's sexual preference at my firm; it's utterly immaterial to their job performance.  However, were I to become aware of someone's infidelity, irrespective of their sexual preference, I might have a different view for the precise same reason that I'd have had an issue with someone trying to claim the impossible: It bears on their willingness to lie for personal gain with those who at least in theory they should have had a greater duty to than they do to the company.

“When someone calls me [Adam] or calls me 'he,' it takes away everything, it makes me feel so invalidated," she says. “These people are literally refusing to see me as a person, except for this construction that they have in their mind.”

No, when someone calls this person "Adam" or "he" they are stating a physical fact.

The only thing "invalidated" by such a declaration is your belief in being able to change immutable physical facts to suit your fantasy world view -- something that we consider to be normal in children and their development but which used to be, and still should be, recognized as a mental disorder when exhibited by grown adults.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)