the oft-quoted statistic that the top 80% of women are contending for the top 20% of men and the bottom 80% of men are contending for the bottom 80% of women, or some similar numbers that are eerily close to the Pareto distribution.
Never have I seen the 80/20 rule stated that way in the context of the mating market anywhere. What I can surely state is that the rule was originally popularized (in the online space, that is) on Manosphere sites sometime around 2008 or 2009 (definitely not 2015). I can’t cite sources because those sites disappeared a long time ago due to various reasons (doxxing etc.). It’s a simple interpretation of the Pareto effect (i.e. that 80% of the consequences/results come from 20% of the causes/effort) applied to the mating market, and was usually stated as “20% of the men attract 80% of the women” or “20% of all men have 80% of all the sex” etc. I’m aware that those statements are rather different but that doesn’t matter because all of them assume the same Pareto effect. (Some detractors even came up with the argument that what’s actually happening is that 20% of all men engage in 80% of all sex acts with 20% of all women, which’d still be an example of the Pareto effect/distribution). Again, the fundamental intent behind the whole argument is to differentiate the current society of unrestrained female hypergamy from the bygone society of enforced monogamy, because a lot of people were unaware of this distinction, especially back then.
Unfortunately I think their belief in this is mostly unironic and sincere. So is that of their mulatto 'allies'.
"quite a few"?
The Ukraine, on the other hand, also guaranteed its neutrality. It's supposedly an article in the treaty that established the Ukraine as an independent nation in 1991. Don't quote me on that though, I've only heard it from an acquaintance who claims to have read it.
I find all this to be a bit far-fetched. When exactly did the Chinese Communists express any intent to unify Korea after expelling the Americans? Their intervention in the Korean War didn't go to such lengths either. We might as well say that their wildest dreams include Vladivostok. And what Russian ambitions are 'way beyond' Eastern Ukraine? Don't tell me it's Moldova of all places.
Why are you convinced of that? Is she that sympathetic to normies?
Why are you making such a comparison?
Genetic similarity is pretty high, many Serbs can pass for Britons and vice versa.
Also, it was British colonists who came up with the legal concept of the white race in the late 17th Century. I'm pretty sure no Briton in the 19th Century would take serious offense at the argument that they have more racial similarity with Serbs and Bulgarians than with Haitian or South African blacks.
You don't need a high IQ to be a peasant though.
Unlike the Ukrainians, unfortunately (for this point of view, that is) the Finns aren't Slavs, aren't Orthodox Christians and have their own peculiar language.
These studies aren't strictly about "leaders of men" but leaders and employees of current corporations in which presumably also include women to a large degree (maybe not 50% but surely close to that).
And your conclusion from all that is that there's no parallel at al???
The one part we could really nitpick about is the one concerning the educated classes, but I'm confident to say that whatever level of trust they have in the current American system is a function of their trust in the Democratic Party's ability to assert itself as the long-term political hegemon on a national level. Most of this trust would evaporate in an instant should Trump win another election.
Implicit in all the supportive arguments about the incursion is the assumption that the Ukrainian forces cannot break through the enemy defenses anywhere inside official Ukrainian territory, or that they shouldn't try it because it'd be wasteful or something. After all the Atlanticist propaganda I've read about the orc hordes in the last two years, this just strikes me as 100% pathetic.
I know some definite positive contributors from Haiti.
Huh?
Edit: see below.
These are just beliefs, and beliefs alone do not guide the culture war. Those who wage it take other considerations into account as well.
What's the 'the fascism of pure aesthetics' supposed to be?
You're absolutely right in that they didn't particularly start out that way, instead they only took on that image afterwards.
You even have to invent additional just-so stories to explain the relative "failure" of the democratization of the GDR
Yes, I argue that the democratization of the newly annexed Eastern provinces of the FRG after 1990 is at this point largely seen as a failure by the West German establishment and their supporters. I think this is pretty much bunk because it ignores that a new political synthesis should have been worked out in the first place, a process that should have made reunification real instead of just a BS word for what in reality was annexation.
even though they it should have been the most successful of all
No, I think the most successful of all democratic transitions should have been and did in fact turn out to be the Czech, because it was the sole Soviet satellite state that in fact functioned as a democratic pluralistic republic before it was Sovietized; and because the Czechs were influenced by Holy Roman / Germanic culture for centuries before that, which made the country ripe for Westernization after 1989.
There are two glaring problems with that. Imperial Germany had a legacy of democratic norms already - there was a legislative assembly, elections, political parties, political discussions in a free press etc. Also, Germany isn't in Eastern Europe.
Ah yes, the long rich democratic tradition of the 20 years between the World Wars, that were imposed by Woodrow Wilson's deranged fantasies, and managed to revert to authoritarianism even within that short timespan.
What is this meant to be a reference to please? Czechoslovakia? Because there was no reversion to authoritarianism in that case.
The attachment to democracy was so short that we were seriously debating if it's not better to take the Asian Tiger route, and only implement democracy after authoritarian reforms.
The Asian Tiger route was a strictly Southeast Asian (Confucian) phenomenon in the specific context of the Cold War and facilitated by generous and targeted American capital investment and the proto version of offshoring. None of that applied to Eastern Europe after 1989.
It can work if the stars align just right, but has the tendency of taking it's necessary conditions (like everybody having roughly the same values) for granted. The moment these conditions are not met the democracy enjoyers themselves will start begging for it's end, arresting opposition candidates, and seriously considering the banning of political parties, for the high crime of people voting the wrong way.
It was all a long-term consequence of German 'reunification' (the annexation of the former GDR into an unchanged federal state structure) being a complete shitshow which incidentally the Americans played no part in.
What actually compelled the emperor to surrender unconditionally was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo, coincidentally on the same day as the bombing of Nagasaki. This had two consequences: the possibility of negotiating a conditional surrender with Soviet mediation, which was the last hope the militarists were clinging to (as the USSR was the last remaining great power still neutral in the Pacific war), was obviously nil from that point; and that whatever remaining military units stationed in Manchukuo that they were planning to deploy es reinforcements against the final US invasion were going to be destroyed.
There was indeed naive optimism throughout the non-Soviet member states of the collapsing Eastern bloc as well in 1989-91. What devisively killed it (besides economic collapse) was the Gulf War and the bungled Soviet intervention against separatists in the Baltics.
And if US didn't lose the war, Vietnam could be what South Korea is now. Which is better than what it is now.
How exactly?
the victorious British (if they were lucky) or French (if not) troops
Care to explain the distinction?
Or alternatively just store your combat aircraft in reinforced hangars, as they all should be in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link