Meet Milo Yiannopoulos, the Appealing Young Face of the Racist Alt-Right

Jack Hunter writes: Milo Yiannopoulos is a beast.
The 32-year-old, boastfully gay Breitbart writer—or “dangerous faggot”—has quickly become a hero to young conservatives and libertarians for smacking down the ridiculous out-of-control “social justice warriors” who troll college campuses.
If Donald Trump defies political correctness, Yiannopoulos—an avid Trump supporter prone to calling The Donald “daddy”—obliterates it.
A woman confronted Yiannopoulos during his speech in a packed American University auditorium last month, asking if his controversial rhetoric “invalidated” minority views.
“F*ck your feelings,” he told her.
The kids loved it. Me too.
How could you not? As the student left becomes insufferably extreme, Milo’s become the perfect counterpunch.
He’s irreverent. He’s exciting.
To an old guy like me—a whole decade Milo’s senior!—he’s punk rock.
“At 6’2, punctuated by a tall poof of bleached hair… his friends will tell you, he is always ‘on,’ whether he’s railing against the matriarchy, bragging about his own fabulousness or discussing his love of ‘black d*ck,” wrote Fusion last year.
He’s a middle finger to the establishment, left and right.
Slamming #NeverTrump Republicans last week, Yiannopoulos scolded the GOP for offending young Trump supporters like himself, “Unlike most right-wing writers, my biggest demographic is 18-34 year olds.”
“Those weren’t just any old voters you were alienating,” Milo said to anti-Trump Republicans. “They include the next generation of conservative firebrands, who are currently gravitating to Trump, the alt-right, and me.”
“The alt-right.”
There are worse things than political correctness.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Meet Milo Yiannopoulos, the Appealing Young Face of the Racist Alt-Right

The US Election

Comments:

* Part of the frustration over Hillary Clinton not having been coronated already is that women would vastly rather not go through a drag down knock out affair to assume power. Why should they? Right now they do a pretty good job getting others to wield power for them. The women’s movement could literally expend their entire political capitol to elect her and for what? Equality? That is the last thing they want. It would be vastly better for the feminists if she could just ascend up onto a pedestal and radiate her glory but instead she has to muck around like the whoring lawyer that she is.

* Trump has garnered more Republican voters than anyone else in the history of time, while Clinton has fewer voters now than she had in 2008. Furthermore, I’m not even sure Clinton will be her party’s nominee. She’s losing state after state and the email scandal has yet to be fully resolved. Look for a resurgence of the ‘Draft Biden” movement once it becomes apparent that Hillary could actually lose to Donald Trump.

Also, the news media are about to pivot in favor of Trump, beginning with Megyn Kelly’s exclusive interview. They all want to ride the Trump Train.

Those head-to-head national polls mean absolutely butt-crack nothing now, since they were all taken at a time when the Republican field was still open and thus a free playground for fantasy and projection. Now we have a nominee and we have a race. We have a national spotlight that is about to shine very brightly on the candidates and their doings. Trump will rise in the polls and destroy Hillary handily, if she even runs.

* My gut feeling is that Trump cannot win. Any recent immigrant won’t vote for him. Most women will vote for Hillary. And so on.

And yet: I know a guy who invited me to go have lunch on Inauguration Day, 2009. I backed off, I was busy at work. But 30 minutes later, I swung by to see what was up, and he was standing at the bar watching Obama’s swearing in, and there were tears streaming down his face.

Today, he is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump, and believes he can win.

So, miracles do happen. Hey, are we gonna do a Cinco de Mayo thing here, or what?

* The people who are so confidently predicting a Trump loss in November are largely the same people who assured us that Trump was a joke, that he’d fade away before the end of 2015, and that surely he’s gone too far this time and the voters will punish him.

* Also, its best to examine state by state polls to see where Trump is up and where he needs more work to do. Guessing that since the gun control issue is now part of Hillary’s campaign that Trump just solidified the entire South behind him (and also TX; OK; KS), so we are talking about 150-180 electoral votes.

Assume for a moment that Trump can match Romney’s 206 electoral votes. What he then needs is:

FL = (29), which brings the total to 235

PA = (20), which brings the total to 255

MI = (16), which brings the total to 271, which means he wins.

Can he win these three states? If I were part of the campaign, that’s the advice I’d give. Blitz those three states with wall to wall coverage of ads, media, etc. with major emphasis on local and counties within each of these states. Reading over the state by state primaries I’m encouraged that Trump over performed in both PA and FL, so this is doable. MI could just be the key. All three states have a sizable share of blue collar voters as well.

What was encouraging is that Trump won all three primaries so there seems to be a base of support. Neither three are particularly over the top Evangelical, so that won’t count vs him. PA does have a lot of gun owners (hunters) so this is doable. And its fortunate that Trump hasn’t gaffed himself in the mouth by going vs the auto bailout or anything stupid along those lines the way that Mitt did.

Also, if UT does flip cause they’re all in a hissy fit, Trump could conceivably trade UT for NV (another state where he over performed). But for the GE, he has to focus on FL; PA; and MI and he has a very good chance in GE. Whatever it takes, he has to blitz those three states with media.

On side note, in parts of PA, there were Trump and Cruz signs. There were also more Bernie signs than Hillary signs. She’s not popular with a lot of white folks. Just saying.

“Whatever it takes”—Chuck Noll

* Hillary has just officially announced that her two signature issues for the GE are Gun Control and Immigration Reform. Basically the two issues that are ivory tower wonk based, whereas Trump has offered immigration as in: build a wall, and enforce existing laws vs illegal aliens as well as get a handle on unfair trade agreements, like NAFTA, which her husband signed
into law.

Hillary’s nomination confirms every stereotype conservatives have said about the liberal Democrats that control their party for yrs, namely, they don’t give a damn for the white working class and havent since the ’70′s. All they care about are the gays, environment, gun control, etc. which, except for the 2nd Amendment issue, doesn’t register with ordinary voters.

FACT: It has been noted repeatedly in the MSM that Trump has brought millions of new voters into the primaries to vote for him, to cross over and vote or ones who haven’t voted in decades. Hillary has none of that. There’s no cross over appeal for her, and millions of GOP voters aren’t suddenly gonna switch and vote for her in November.

If anyone is doing the “Guns, gays, etc” stuff this time round it’s Hillary. Trump’s offering concrete issues that voters care about. Even the issue of Immigration, WHO has made that his signature issue for over the last yr? Not Hillary. WHO has been driving the election for nearly a year? It certainly hasn’t been Jeb!

* The nomination process will have asymmetrical effects on both party’s candidates, benefitting Trump more than Clinton. There is more up-side for Trump and more down-side for Clinton in the campaign for Presidency.

Clinton is already a “made guy” in political terms. So she will not gain much political capital from accepting what is, in any case, a political inheritance from her husband. But she will lose political capital as voters tire of her flat political style and somewhat tainted record.

Trump, by contrast has a lot of political capital to gain from the nomination process. He is s political novice who has emerged from the ruck to win the top prize. The imprimatur of the party will confer democratic legitimacy on his candidacy. Also, Trump had already endured an orgy of mud-slinging and shrugged it off. People are still interested in what he has to say, going by his ratings.

So yeah, there is still some mileage in this horse race. And time for Trumps luck to let him take the pot.

Although I’ve got $100 on Hilary at 2.5 as I think the US has passed the tipping point of political demography.

* Negative partisanship will keep it fairly close, even if Trump runs a totally disastrous general election campaign.

The Clintons drive Republicans hysterically insane. Many Republicans aren’t too keen on Trump, but the thought of Hillary as president will bring them to the polls no matter what.

But I think Trump will actually run an effective general election campaign. Trump has abandoned a lot of the toxic positioning that usually kills Republicans among working class whites in the Midwest. He needs to pivot further to the center now that he’s won the primary and appeal to those voters. If he can flip Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, he’ll win.

* Van Halen members’ likelihood of voting for Trump:

Sammy Hagar: 90%
Alex Van Halen: 75%
David Lee Roth: 70%
Eddie Van Halen: 60%

Posted in America | Comments Off on The US Election

Slogan: “For Ourselves and Our Posterity”

Commenter ABN suggests:

… maybe “For Ourselves and Our Posterity” would make a good slogan.

The repeated possessive pronoun “our” unmistakably draws a contrast between the American nation and foreign nations. The implication is that our government arises organically from a specific national community and has neither rights nor responsibilities outside this context. If there is an “us,” there must be a “them,” and the state must necessarily distinguish between the two.

Moreover, the reference to multiple generations of a single people is a standing repudiation of the globalist/immigrationist notion that our people’s problems can be solved by other people’s fertility. The solutions to any economic, spiritual, or demographic problems we have must be found among ourselves, or the inter-generational social contract will be broken and we will cease to exist as a nation. Also, the invocation of demographic continuity here implies an ethnic or racial component of national identity without being too explicit or divisive in that regard.

The reference to the Constitution also has the advantage of attracting some of the Cruz-supporting types who have created a kind of cargo cult around the country’s founding documents. The underlying message to them is that Trump’s nationalism and True Conservatives’ constitutionalism are complementary; the Constitution wasn’t written in a vacuum. The laws and the ideology can’t be separated from the people and the land.

Finally, it’s hard for the Left to attack the Constitution itself. If leftists attack “For Ourselves and Our Posterity” as “racist,” “xenophobic,” or whatever, we need only point out that it’s part of the written mission statement of the USA. There would be no better opportunity to implement Peter Brimelow’s advice to respond to the accusation of racism with the counter-accusation of treason. That aggressive posture would suit Trump’s style.

Comments: * Gavin McInnes says there are 14 types of Conservatives.

If there are 14 types of Conservatives, no wonder the Right is fractured and not united like the Left.

Can anyone here name 14 types of Liberals? Do that many different types of Liberals even exist?

* Just because the founders thought this was a catchy slogan fit for the times (the 18th century) doesn’t mean it must have the same appeal as now.

Sweden believes the fundamental mission of the country is to fight racism worldwide and 1% of their economic output at least every year should go towards helping mothers in Africa and such.

Why not adopt that mission instead?

* Yes the Constitution was dedicated TO a specific people and their descendants. Don’t tell me how much you worship the Constitution yet fail to realize that (silly cuckservatives).

I must say, it appears we are in the beginning stages of a social revolution which people like Steve seemed to think were impossible without “elite intellectual” support.

* Obviously there are not 14 mutually exclusive types of lib, but the same is true of conservatives.

But if you were to force 100 random Democrats and fellow travellers to tell you their primary agenda, I think at least one person would list each of the following (possibly using euphemisms):

1) black supremacy

2) female supremacy

3) taxing the rich more

4) killing the rich

5) Gay power

6) Lesbian power

7) Tranny power

8) anti-war

9) Latinx power

10) anti-christian

11) Sharia jihad

12) Weed legalization

13) Single payer healthcare

14) tuitionless college, student loan debt forgiveness

15) ban guns

I could probably name a few more

* Fauxcahontas hates Trump because he represents an America in which blue eyed blond haired lesbians don’t get career boosts from claiming to be Indians.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Slogan: “For Ourselves and Our Posterity”

The Allure Of Donald Trump

Comment: Trump has clear policies, which certainly on immigration correspond to the positions of populist parties in Europe….

He does not have a full policy platform, but that is not necessary for a populist party to be successful. It only needs to address the issues which anger its electorate. And that is the reality which needs to be considered: a section of the population is angry at mainstream politics, in Europe we would say ‘the political class’, for ignoring their concerns and fears. The denialist position which Neil Levy advances, in effect tells the political class that they can continue to ignore these voters. I think that is a dangerous strategy…

I suspect this kind of explanation [Trump voters being stupid and easily influenced] is popular, because it lets everyone else off the hook. Trump is seen a a jester leading the gullible peasants. No-one has to rethink their own positions and policies, which might be an uncomfortable exercise.

In reality, the primary explanation for the success of Trump, is that he is a competent representative of a section of the population, that is currently unrepresented in the party spectrum. By ‘competent’ I mean that he has an organisation, is seen as potentially electable, and accurately reflects the concerns of his own voters. This is also the primary explanation for the rise of UKIP, the Front National, the Dansk Folkeparti, the AfD, Geert Wilders’ PVV, and so on. Their success is essentially a restructuring of the party landscape, to conform more closely with the attitudes and aspirations of the electorate… Two-party systems tend to exclude new parties, but if enough voters are dissatisfied, then sooner or later there will be a shift in the political spectrum.

* Trump’s wife is a recent immigrant. His mother was an immigrant, and 4 of his 5 children were born of an immigrant. He has a very compelling personal story to use to show he is not in any way prejudiced against immigrants per se, just illegals. And he has not even begun to use this story.

My gut is that Trump will start displaying and describing women he has employed in high positions for decades with equal or better pay and contrast that to Hillary, who cannot even pay women in her Senate office equally with her male employees even as she decries wage discrimination.

Trump has already neutralized all the religious right social issue nonsense for the election, so the decision for or against him will be on economics, security, illegal immigration/border control, and personal trust. There won’t be any campaign discussion this year of birth control and transgender bathroom access or denying white women who are raped by a black criminal an abortion.

Most women may vote for Hillary unless this turns into a landslide, but these will primarily be blacks, other minorities, and single white women Trump was never going to win. On the other hand, he is going to push her into being incredibly alienating towards men, starting with #OffTheReservation.

* Republicans need to get away from the “path to 270″ rubbish. Narrowly trying to win an election generally means you are going to lose. The Democrats tried that in 2000 and 2004 and let the Republicans barely eke by, but otherwise they went for the jugular.

We should instead aim for 350+ like Obama did, knowing that if we lose a few, which is inevitable, we will still win. I honestly think there is a chance for a 450+ wipeout, especially if Trump can pull off the NY upset.

For Trump going for 350, that means competing for most of the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast (we can let MA, RI, and MD, and DC slide), the industrial midwest in Ohio, Michigan, and Iowa, and sandy swing states Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. This also has the advantage for Trump of making his travel itineraries simple and letting him sleep at one of his homes most nights.

WI, MN, CO, VA, and OR will be pulled along by external events nationally rather than overt campaigning – they are not Trump country.

Consider for a moment that winning Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida early is an opportunity to call the race at 11p EST and start partying, something Republicans haven’t gotten to do since 1988! There is a lot of pent up psychological frustration to win big that is going to come into play.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off on The Allure Of Donald Trump

Milo Yiannopoulos Doesn’t Have Feelings

New York Times:

You’re one of the loudest, most provocative voices at Breitbart News, and you’re currently on a speaking tour of college campuses, railing against “P.C. culture.” You once admitted in a profile that your public persona started out as a comedy character that you created because “I didn’t like me very much.” What didn’t you like about yourself?

I’ve wrestled with being religious and being conservative and being gay, but the reason I felt like that is because of other gay people. The only real shaming I’ve ever experienced has been from other gay people when I reveal my politics or my religion.

You’re a Trump supporter, and you frequently refer to him as Daddy. I do because that’s what he is.

I assume that’s not in a purely father-figure sense. Are you sexually attracted to Donald Trump? Oh, yes. I call myself a Trump-sexual. I have a very antiwhite bedroom policy, but Trump is kind of like the exception to that rule.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Milo Yiannopoulos Doesn’t Have Feelings

A new book answers why it’s so hard for educated women to find dates

Washington Post: For many women these days, it’s not “He’s just not that into you” that’s the problem. It’s that “There aren’t enough of him.”

So says Jon Birger, the author of a new book called “Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game.” The book, which Birger describes as “the least romantic book ever written about dating,” uses demographics, statistics, game theory and other wonky techniques to shed light on the surprising and growing gap between the number of college-educated women and the number of college-educated men.

The main idea is that women have been attending college at much higher rates than men since the 1980s, in the U.S. and in other countries around the world. That has led to a big demographic mismatch for people who want to date and marry others of the same educational level. The dating pool for college-educated people in their 30s now has five women for every four men. For people in their 20s, it’s four women for every three men.

The gap is even more extreme in certain places. In Manhattan, there are 38 percent more female college grads under the age of 25 than college-grad men, according to Birger’s data. The gap is 49 percent in Raleigh, N.C., 86 percent in Miami, 49 percent in Washington and 37 percent in Los Angeles. And it’s not just cities – many rural areas also have these “educated man deficits.”

…As “Date-onomics” shows, this mismatch in the number of college-educated men and women leads to some surprising consequences, affecting not just dating, marriage and fidelity, but campus culture, credit card debt and even pop song lyrics.

…I tend to agree with Claudia Goldin, who is an economist at Harvard. She argues that the big driver for college enrollment is the expectation of future labor force participation. In an era in which women were getting married young and having kids soon after, there wasn’t much of an expectation for long stays in the workforce. Goldin attributes the change to the pill, which allowed women to delay marriage and childbirth. The expectation of spending more time in the workforce made college a better investment.

But how we got to four women for every three men has more to do with biology and neuroscience. Some of the old discrimination obscured what is essentially a fundamental biological truth, that girls mature socially and intellectually faster than boys. Even though boys and girls score comparably on raw intelligence tests, when it comes to actual school work, girls fare much better. Girls are better organized, they’re more likely to be valedictorians. The girls are just better at college preparation.

One of the things I normally write about is the oil industry. If you spend any time in North Dakota, which is the big booming oil state these days, you have kids right out of high school, and 98% are men, earning 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year as roughnecks. Those kind of high-paying working class jobs are even harder to come by for women. That’s what makes the college wage premium so much bigger for women, because there are fewer job opportunities to earn a decent wage in blue collar jobs.

What are some of the effects of this imbalance on college campuses?

It’s clear that schools that have more men tend to have more traditional dating situations, whereas the ones that are disproportionately female tend to have more intense hookup cultures. It’s not just the social science I cite in the book, you can really see it in how kids talk about dating life at these schools.

I use data in the book from Niche.com, which is a college review site. At the schools that are predominantly male, the kids talk about how students like to be in relationships. So for Georgia Tech, which is 66% male, the comment on Niche.com was, “Tech is a fairly monogamous campus.” But for the schools that are skewed female, the hookup culture becomes more intense. So James Madison, which is 63 percent female, one comment is, “The deficiency of guys creates a scene that tends to embrace random hookups.”

Less educated men are actually facing as challenging a dating and marriage market as the educated women. So for example, among non-college educated men in the U.S. age 22 to 29, there are 9.4 million single men versus 7.1 million single women. So the lesser-educated men face an extremely challenging data market. They do not have it easy at all…

I think this is a largely a developmental issue. The real issue is that boys lag at least a year behind girls, both intellectually and socially, when it comes to brain maturity. As a result, boys don’t perform as well in school. I do think that if we essentially red-shirted boys and had them begin kindergarten a year later than girls, it would go a long way toward closing this gap. And in fact, the handful of western countries, like Switzerland and Finland, where both boys and girls start school later, tend to have smaller college gender gaps…

Looking at college-educated people age 22-29, the three best cities for men are Fort Lauderdale, Fla, where there are 71 percent more women than men; Providence, R.I., with 60 percent more women than men, and then Portland, Ore., at 56 percent. OKCupid recently named Portland the most promiscuous city in the U.S., and I strongly suspect that’s related to the gender ratio.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off on A new book answers why it’s so hard for educated women to find dates

WP: Hookup culture isn’t the real problem facing singles today. It’s math.

WP: Apps like Tinder are a symptom of gender imbalance in the dating market.

John Birger writes: Today’s hookup culture does have one big thing in common with the ’20s flapper generation, and that is demographics. In the Vanity Fair article, David Buss, a University of Texas psychology professor, says that apps like Tinder contribute to “a perceived surplus of women,” among straight men, which in turn leads to more hookups and fewer traditional relationships. Here’s the thing: This surplus of women is not just “perceived” but very, very real.

As I argue in “DATE-ONOMICS: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game,” the college and post-college hookup culture is a byproduct, not of Tinder or Facebook (another target of modern scolds), but of shifting demographics among the college-educated. Much as the death toll of WWI caused a shortage of marriageable men in the 1920s, today’s widening gender gap in college enrollment has created unequal numbers in the post-college dating pool.

In 2012, 34 percent more women than men graduated from American colleges, and the U.S. Department of Education expects this gap to reach 47 percent by 2023. The imbalance has spilled over into the post-college dating scene. According to data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, there are now 5.5 million college-educated women in the United States between the ages of 22 and 29 vs. 4.1 million such men. In other words, the dating pool for straight, millennial, college graduates has four women for every three men. No wonder some men are in no rush to settle down and more women are giving up on what used to be called “playing hard to get.”

These demographics represent the true dating apocalypse, as stacks of social science show how dating and mating behavior is influenced by prevailing sex ratios. When there are plenty of marriageable men, dating culture emphasizes courtship and romance, and men generally must earn more to attract a wife. But when gender ratios skew toward women, as they do today among college grads, the dating culture becomes more sexualized. The good news, at least according to the work of psychologists and sex-ratio pioneers Marcia Guttentag and Paul Secord, is that people tend to have better sex when ratios skew female. The downside? Women frequently wind up being treated as sex objects, and men are more inclined to exercise the option to delay marriage and play the field. As I note in my book, today’s uneven gender ratios “add up to sexual nirvana for heterosexual men, but for heterosexual women — especially those who put a high priority on getting married and having children in wedlock — they represent a demographic time bomb.”

Of course, these lopsided numbers might not matter if young, college-educated women become more willing to date — and, eventually, marry — across socioeconomic lines. But according to separate research by University of Pennsylvania economist Jeremy Greenwood and by UCLA sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare, educational intermarriage is less common today than at any point over the past half century.

Because the pool of college-educated women is much larger, the unwillingness of college-educated men to consider working-class women as life partners has little statistical effect on their marriage prospects. But for college-educated women, excluding working-class guys makes their dating math much more challenging. If there is an undersupply of men in the college-educated dating pool, there is going to be an oversupply of men in the non-college-educated one. Indeed, there are 1.5 million more non-college-educated men than women among Americans age 22 to 29. Bottom line: New York City women looking for a match would be better off, statistically at least, at a fireman’s bar in Staten Island than a wine bar on the Upper East Side…

Dating and marrying across socioeconomic lines — “mixed-collar” marriages, if you will — is one possible remedy. I’d also urge marriage-minded women not to put off getting serious about dating because the math will only get worse over time. Call it the musical chairs problem: Nearly everybody finds a chair in the first round. By the last round, however, there’s a 50 percent chance of not getting one. Similarly, in a dating pool that starts out with 140 women and 100 men, the gender ratio among those still single soars from 1.4:1 to more than 2:1 once half the women get married.

Another solution (at least for the frustrated women interviewed by Vanity Fair) would be to quit Manhattan, which is one of the worst dating markets in the country for educated young women. Indeed, their new mantra should probably be “Go West, Young Woman.” The Western part of the country, in general, has more balanced gender ratios than those found east of the Mississippi River. California and Colorado, for example, each have 20 percent more college-grad women than men age 22 to 29 compared with 36 and 41 percent, respectively, in Illinois and North Carolina.

Unsurprisingly, men tend to be less — I’ll say it — promiscuous when women are more scarce. Consider Santa Clara County, Calif., home to Silicon Valley and the only well-populated area in the country where male college grads outnumber female ones by a significant margin. There, it’s women who have the dating leverage. “I think it’s pretty good for the girls,” one single woman told the San Jose Mercury News a few years back. “You can be more picky,” because guys “have to try harder.”

Perhaps as a result, 33 percent of college-educated women age 22 to 29 are married vs. 13 percent in Manhattan. Santa Clara County’s marriages happen to be more stable too: Among college-grad women in their 30s, 4 percent are separated or divorced vs. 7 percent in Manhattan.

Posted in Dating | Comments Off on WP: Hookup culture isn’t the real problem facing singles today. It’s math.

The Shiduch Crisis

From Time magazine: Secular-style dating is rare in the Orthodox community in which Elefant lives. Most marriages are loosely arranged—“guided” is probably a better word—by matchmakers such as Elefant. The shadchan’s job has been made exceedingly difficult, she said, by a mysterious increase in the number of unmarried women within the Orthodox community. When Elefant attended Jewish high school 30 years ago, “there were maybe three girls that didn’t get married by the time they were twenty or twenty-one,” she said. “Today, if you look at the girls who graduated five years ago, there are probably thirty girls who are not yet married. Overall, there are thousands of unmarried girls in their late twenties. It’s total chaos.”

For Orthodox Jewish women, as for Mormon ones, getting married and having children is more than a lifestyle choice. Marriage and motherhood are essentially spiritual obligations, which is why the Orthodox marriage crisis is so hotly debated and why it has earned its own moniker. Shidduch is the Hebrew word for a marriage match, and Orthodox Jews (including the more assimilated Modern Orthodox) now refer to the excess supply of unmarried women in their communities as the Shidduch Crisis.

Mormon and Orthodox Jewish leaders alike fear that their respective marriage crises reflect some failure to instill proper values in young people. Perhaps young people are too self-absorbed? Maybe the men are just too picky? Or maybe it’s the women who are holding out for the Mormon or Jewish George Clooney?

In fact, the root causes of both the Shidduch Crisis and the Mormon marriage crisis have little to do with culture or religion. The true culprit in both cases is demographics. The fact is that there are more marriage-age women than men both in the Orthodox Jewish community and in the Utah LDS church. And just as I predicted, lopsided gender ratios affect conservative religious communities in much the same way they affect secular ones…

As with the Mormon marriage crisis, the Shidduch Crisis has become a source of enormous heartache for Orthodox Jews, especially older single women and their parents. (Among Orthodox Jews, “older” often starts at 21.) The Letters to the Editor section of The 5 Towns Jewish Times, a weekly newspaper for the Orthodox community in suburban New York, has become a receptacle for Shidduch Crisis–related angst and sadness. “An absolute tragedy,” is how one mother described the situation. It is “what we as a family and I as the mother of a 27-year-old ‘older single girl’ go through every moment of my life, every breathing second of every day. And believe me, sometimes it hurts to do just that—i.e., to breathe.”

The statistical explanation for why Orthodox men are in short supply is different from the one for the shortage of Mormon men. Orthodox men are not abandoning their faith in large numbers and leaving Orthodox women behind. According to a recent Pew Research study, only 2 percent of Orthodox Jews are married to non-Jews, and the attrition rate from the Orthodox movement to the more mainstream Reform or Conservative branches of Judaism has actually been declining.

The imbalance in the Orthodox marriage market boils down to a demographic quirk: The Orthodox community has an extremely high birth rate, and a high birth rate means there will be more 18-year-olds than 19-year-olds, more 19-year-olds than 20-year-olds, and so on and so on. Couple the increasing number of children born every year with the traditional age gap at marriage—the typical marriage age for Orthodox Jews is 19 for women and 22 for men, according to Michael Salamon, a psychologist who works with the Orthodox community and wrote a book on the Shidduch Crisis—and you wind up with a marriage market with more 19-year-old women than 22-year-old men.

There is no U.S. Census data on religion. But Joshua Comenetz, chief of the Census Bureau’s Geographic Studies Branch, studied the demographics of Orthodox Jews back in his college professor days at University of Florida. Based on his academic research, Comenetz contended that each one-year age cohort in the Orthodox community has 4 percent more members than the one preceding it. What this means is that for every 100 22-year-old men in the Orthodox dating pool, there are 112 19-year-old women—12 percent more women than men.

The bottom line: According to a 2013 article in the Jewish weekly Ami Magazine, there are now 3,000 unmarried Orthodox women between the ages of 25 and 40 in the New York City metro area and another 500 over 40. That’s a huge number when you consider that New York’s Yeshivish Orthodox—the segment of the Orthodox community most affected by the Shidduch Crisis—has a total population of 97,000, according to the Jewish Community Study of New York published by the UJA-Federation of New York in 2012.

That is the Shidduch Crisis in a nutshell. Unfortunately, relatively few Orthodox Jews realize that the Shidduch Crisis boils down to a math problem. Most explanations for the Shidduch Crisis blame cultural influences for causing men to delay marriage. “Those of us who’ve tossed and turned with this, we don’t necessarily believe that there are more girls than boys,” said Elefant. “We believe God created everybody, and God created a match for everybody.”

As Elefant saw things, a 22-year-old man inherently has more dating options than a 19-year-old woman, because he can date down age-wise. “The guys act like kids in a candy store,” Elefant said. Of course, if there were gender-ratio balance among all the age cohorts, single 22-year-old men would not have more choices than single 19-year-old women because most of the age-19-to-22 women would already be married to older men—thus shrinking 22-year-old men’s dating pool…

There is, however, one major cultural difference between the two groups: Hasidic men marry women their own age, whereas Yeshivish men typically marry women a three or four years their junior.

“In the Hasidic world, it would be very weird for a man to marry a woman two years younger than him,” said Alexander Rapaport, a Hasidic father of six and the executive director of Masbia, a kosher soup kitchen in Brooklyn. Both Rapaport and his wife were 36 when I interviewed him.

When I asked Rapaport about the Shidduch Crisis, he seemed perplexed. “I’ve heard of it,” he said, “but I’m not sure I understand what it’s all about.”

In fact, there is no Shidduch Crisis in the Hasidic community. “When I mention the term to Hasidim, they don’t know what I’m talking about,” said Samuel Heilman, a professor of sociology and Jewish studies at City University of New York and an expert on Hasidic Jews.

Another academic, Hershey Friedman of Brooklyn College, reached the same conclusion, but from a different vantage point. When Friedman is not teaching finance at Brooklyn College, he volunteers as a matchmaker for Saw You at Sinai, an Orthodox dating service that combines traditional matchmaking with some of the tools of online dating. Friedman is not Hasidic himself, but he’s familiar with the Hasidic community because he lives in Borough Park, a Brooklyn neighborhood considered the epicenter of American Hasidic life.

“The girls have it made in the Hasidic world,” Friedman said. “They’re the ones in demand.” Friedman’s explanation for the absence of a Shidduch Crisis among Hasidic Jews is that there are more Hasidic boys than girls—a perception that I suspect is inaccurate but nonetheless reflects how different the marriage market is for Hasidic versus non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews.

The seeming immunity of Hasidic Jews to the Shidduch Crisis has not been lost on some Yeshivish rabbis. In 2012, a dozen American and Israeli Orthodox rabbis signed letters urging young men and their parents to begin their matchmaking process earlier than age 22 or 23. The rabbis noted that their community “finds itself in an increasingly difficult situation,” with “thousands” of single Jewish women struggling to find husbands. “[I]t has become clear that the primary cause of this is that [men] generally marry girls who are a number of years younger,” read one of the letters. “Since the population increases every year and there are more girls entering shidduchim than boys, many girls are left unmarried. Clearly, the way to remedy this terrible situation is to reduce the age disparity in shidduchim. Many [Hasidic] communities who do not have age disparities in shidduchim are not facing this tragic situation of numerous unmarried girls.”

The suggestion that the true origin of the Shidduch Crisis lies in demographics has not sat well with those who staked their reputations on alternative explanations…

Perhaps the most controversial—and definitely the most misogynistic— explanation for the Shidduch Crisis was offered up by Yitta Halberstam, coauthor of the best-selling Small Miracles series of books. Halberstam’s 2012 column in The Jewish Press started out innocently enough. “This is the harsh truth,” she wrote. “The mothers of ‘good boys’ are bombarded with shidduch suggestions on a daily basis—a veritable barrage of résumés either flooding their fax machines or pouring out of their email inboxes—while those with similarly ‘top’ daughters sit with pinched faces anxiously waiting for the phone to ring. The disparity is bare, bold-faced, and veritably heartbreaking.”

Halberstam knew all this because her own son was going through the matchmaking process: “I feel a little sad each time the fax machine cranks out yet another résumé for my son. I know full well that there are fantastic girls out there who are his equals—perhaps even his superiors—who are NOT receiving comparable treatment… I ache for their mothers, who repeatedly call the shadchanim [matchmakers] who never call back, but are visibly more responsive if you are the mother of a boy. Inwardly, I rail against the unfairness of it all.”

Here Halberstam went off the rails. She went on to describe attending a community event where single women were introduced to mothers of single men—and being “jolted” by the subpar looks of the girls.

“Yes,” she wrote, “spiritual beauty makes a woman’s eyes glow and casts a luminous sheen over her face; there is no beauty like a pure soul. Makeup, however, goes a long way in both correcting facial flaws and accentuating one’s assets, and if my cursory inspection was indeed accurate (and I apologize if the girls used such natural makeup that I simply couldn’t tell), barely any of these girls seemed to have made a huge effort to deck themselves out.”

In other words, the real reason these young women were still unmarried was because they were homely. Halberstam then doubled down on heartlessness, suggesting that a visit to the plastic surgeon might be in order for some of these Plain Janes: “Mothers, this is my plea to you: There is no reason in today’s day and age with the panoply of cosmetic and surgical procedures available, why any girl can’t be transformed into a swan. Borrow the money if you have to; it’s an investment in your daughter’s future, her life.”

…One cultural by-product of the Shidduch Crisis that has not been hushed up is the ever-larger dowries that Orthodox brides and their families are now expected to pay for the privilege of getting married. These dowries are financial promises made by the bride’s parents to help support the young family for the three or four or however-long-it-takes years that their future son-in-law may spend studying at a Jewish seminary. The fact that these dowries keep increasing demonstrates both the market power men possess as well as the desperation felt by young women and their parents. “It was never like this before,” said Salamon. “There was always a dowry, but it was pillowcases and things of that nature—not $50,000.”

Salamon noted that the practice of brides’ families paying five- and six-figure dowries has leached from the traditional Orthodox community into the more assimilated Modern Orthodox one. Indeed, the Summer 2013 issue of Jewish Action, the official magazine of the Modern Orthodox umbrella organization Orthodox Union, included an essay by Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen, a well-known Jewish scholar and lecturer. Kelemen told the story of his attempt to arrange a marriage for his daughter: “When I contacted the head of a prestigious American yeshiva [an Orthodox Jewish seminary] to ask if he might have a shidduch for my daughter, he asked me ‘what level boy’ I was interested in. Unsure what he meant, I asked for clarification. ‘Top boys go for $100,000 a year, but we also have boys for $70,000 a year and even $50,000 a year.’ He said that if I was ready to make the commitment, he could begin making recommendations immediately.”

Posted in Dating, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on The Shiduch Crisis

The One Righteous Man

Chaim Amalek writes: The American People have failed to support Ted Cruz. What if it turns out that having Ted Cruz in the race and as nominee was akin to the one virtuous man in Sodom whose existence would have led God to spare that city?

* That’s what I’ve been saying. We’ll all be consumed by balls of fire with an adulterous man leading us.

* It’ll be the New York Post vs. the New York Daily News.

* Who does the GOP belong to? For years the big donor class and the think-tankers lazily thought it was theirs to play with. They ignored identity. They ignored tribes. The Democrats increasingly became an alliance of the upper and lower strata against the middle. The Republican Party was and is really only a vehicle for the kind of middle American whose ancestors came from America’s founding stock, supplemented by pre-WWI European immigrants. That rage Trump tapped into was always there, and while the Beltway elite exploited it, they directed it for their own purposes.

* Are the descendents of today’s American middle class destined to become a stupid fermenting mass of tens of millions of desperately proletarianized working animals who are at best permitted to chew their cud before slaughter?

* I was paraphrasing and adapting language from Goebbel’s 1945 essay in Das Riech, “The Year 2000”. Specifically, the phrase “stupid fermenting mass” (which may have originated with someone else). Concerning which, some of us are that already, with more to be reduced to that level in the future.

* Inside of every American is a proletariat waiting to get out.

* George Walker Bush liberated mine.

* In his column today Los Angeles Times writer George Skelton asks how Trump could get to the doorstep of becoming the presidential nominee of the Republican party without Skelton ONCE mentioning immigration or the plight of the white working class. What on God’s earth does Skelton think all these people are mad about?

* If Donald Trump adopts these two ideas, game over – he becomes our next President. As someone posted on Reddit:
Premise: The country is full, and immigration should not drive population growth. So….
1. BALANCED IMMIGRATION. The United States should limit the number of immigrants it takes in from any given country to the number of Americans that country took in from the US over the previous year. In other words, on a country by country basis, immigration=emigration, and there is population balance. How would it work? If 100,000 American citizens say “screw America, I want to live in Pakistan” and are accepted as immigrants by Pakistan in 2017, then America would take in up to 100,000 Pakistani immigrants in 2018. If not many Americans immigrate to Pakistan (or Israel or Sweden – no need to play favorites) then not many Pakistanis would be accepted in exchange. Fair is fair, and who can oppose that? No need for any invidious discussions of the merits of this group versus that group. Just fairness and balance.
Premise: The Illegals have got to go. Also, increasing the minimum wage lowers demand for labor, so….
2. Raise the minimum wage due illegal alien labor to $75/hour. Collectible ONLY when the illegal alien leaves the US to wherever. We could even incentivize our vast army of under- and unemployed lawyers to help them collect by giving them a third of the cut. Plenty incentive for them to leave and screw over the greedy, unpatriotic businesses that hired them in the first place, and plenty of disincentive on the part of business to hire them going forward. The end result would be massive self-deportation of illegals.
I don’t see how even progressive, liberal folk could object to either of these ideas. Liberals used to believe in “zero population growth” and many still do. And who would begrudge an illegal alien a working minimum wage of $75/hour? Not I!
If Donald Trump incorporates these ideas into his immigration platform, then Donald Trump becomes President of the United States of America.

* A Stanford business school lecturer explains why tens of millions of Americans support Trump: “All I know about Mr. Trump’s America is that it will have a huge wall and new trade deals…. He threatens a global trade war while I am a free trader. ….He has supported single payer health care reform. He boasts that he would order firm leaders to build their factories in the U.S. and then threatens to punish them if they do not. …. I have yet to see an instance of a policy view from him consistent with free market capitalism and limited government intervention in the economy.” All of this sounds pretty good to the scores of millions of American citizens who have been screwed over by limitless immigration, open borders, free trade, and globalism.

* Neoconservatism succeeded as a reaction against Democratic/liberal vacillation in the face of the Soviet/Bolshevik threat of the seventies, our defeat in SE Asia in 1975, and the national shame inflicted on us by the Iranians in 1979. Absent all that, what do they think attracted people to them, their devotion to the ideas of Ayn Rand and low taxes for Wall Streeters?

* Whether you believe this is happening (it is) due to human activity or not (and this point isn’t so clear), for most Americans, global warming is not high on the list of things to worry about. Finding or keeping a job, paying for health insurance and medical care, finding good, affordable schools for one’s progeny and so forth rank much, much higher on the list of things to worry about. In sort, fretting over global warming is a rich man’s sport. And it does not help any that for most Americans, global warming has been experienced not as hotter summers but as milder winters, which for most people is a good trade.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The One Righteous Man

Why the Media’s Silence on Japanese Protectionism Gives Trump Another Priceless Opening

Eamonn Fingleton writes: In few places has Donald Trump’s rise caused more unease than in Tokyo. Indeed it is probably safe to say that, underneath an ostensibly imperturbable exterior, top Japanese officials are running far more scared than even Trump realizes.

They have a lot to be scared about. Much of what the Washington establishment thinks it knows about Japan is false, with the result that successive U.S. presidential administrations have never been able to bargain intelligently with Tokyo.

Here I will focus on Japan’s trading system, and I will address other potential flashpoints in future commentaries. Pace the mainstream American media, Japan remains as mercantilist as ever. As Trump has repeatedly pointed out, Japan poses as great a challenge for U.S. trade policymakers as China. In fact the Japanese economic system could no more operate without high trade barriers than a Las Vegas nightclub could survive without muscular bouncers.

Tokyo’s forebodings about a revival of 1980s-style trade friction have been greatly exacerbated lately with the demise of Marco Rubio’s “savior” campaign. Not the least of those who aspired to be “saved” by Rubio were Japanese trade officials and their Washington lobbyists. Given that Rubio was bankrolled mainly by Norman Braman, a big Florida-based importer of high-end foreign cars, Rubio seemed a safe bet to perpetuate the “trade-doesn’t-matter” consensus of recent presidential administrations.

Assuming he is elected and keeps his promises, Trump would be the first president since Ronald Reagan to challenge Japanese mercantilism. He looks likely moreover to adopt a much tougher line than Reagan. Reagan not only felt constrained by the Cold War but naively accepted his vaunted “friend” Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone’s assurances that, given a little time, Japan would fall into line. After all, almost the entire Japanese elite was supposedly already on board (at least that was the happy story promulgated in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages). Japan’s problem was ostensibly that a few remaining “backwoodsmen” were for a little while longer blocking progress but once they were jostled aside, a younger, more enlightened breed of Japanese official would enthusiastically embrace American-style free trade.

Well, here we are in 2016 – more than 35 years after Reagan took office and nearly twelve years since he died – and Japan remains as protectionist as ever.

Consider cars. Cars are worthy of special mention in part because they are by far the most important advanced manufactured item traded internationally (their electronics alone are as sophisticated as anything in an Apple iPhone). The car industry is also of special note because its trade patterns are easy to track.

That the Japanese car market is protected is the first thing you notice on setting foot in Japan. Except for a few token German cars that are visible mainly in central Tokyo, the cars on Japanese roads are Japanese. Drivers don’t have much choice. Foreign marques are systematically marginalized.

Korean cars provide a striking example: at last count their market share was less than 0.02 percent. Yet it is hardly as if the Koreans can’t make good cars: Hyundai competes to win against the Japanese in virtually every other market. In Japan, however, Hyundai sold an average of a mere 1,700 cars a year in the early years of the twenty-first century – a performance so miserable that in 2009 the company just gave up and shuttered its Japanese car marketing division.

Japan’s apologists have suggested that Hyundai’s problem was merely ethnic bias. In reality, such a bias explains nothing. Certainly in other respects Japanese consumers hardly seem allergic to things Korean. Japan’s most popular foreign cuisine, for instance, is Korean, and Korean culture is widely respected as a progenitor of Japanese culture (in much the same way that the British acknowledge a cultural debt to ancient Rome). Meanwhile there is the fact that ethnic Koreans constitute by far Japan’s largest minority. Even if anti-Korean bias is supposed to explain something, it can hardly explain why ethnic Koreans don’t buy Korean cars. Nor does it explain why ethnic Korean entrepreneurs (of whom there is a plentiful supply in Japan) don’t set up dealerships for Hyundai and the others. There is, too, the fact that in other products – including even auto components – Japanese and Korean companies do a thriving two-way business. The conclusion is inescapable that Japan pursues a deliberate policy of keeping Korean car imports close to zero.

As for the larger picture, for most of the last fifty years total imports of foreign-brand cars – from all nations – have consistently been kept to a mere 4 percent of the Japanese market. This has applied whether the yen is high or low, and whether the Japanese economy has been booming or stagnating.

Of course, if you believe Japan’s excuses (as conveyed via, for instance, the Economist and the Wall Street Journal), the problem is that the Detroit companies don’t make cars with the steering wheel on the correct side for Japan’s drive-on-the-left roads. This is obvious nonsense. Not only has Detroit long made some of its models in the Japanese configuration (the Jeep, for instance) but the Detroit companies’ European subsidiaries make whole ranges of competitive cars configured for Japan.

Cars apart, several other aspects of Japan’s trade policy might also interest a future President Trump. Take, for instance, Japan’s trade with China. Officially the two nations are supposed to be daggers drawn. Yet if an intelligent Martian were to analyze international trade flows (and if he insisted on looking at hard facts rather than trusting to the Anglophone press – we are talking a really smart Martian here), he would conclude that the only mutually satisfying economic partnership among the U.S.-Japan-China ménage is between Japan and China.

Whereas Japan’s imports from the United States last year totaled a mere $64.4 billion, its imports from China came to a whopping $155.1 billion. If Japan were run on free market lines, such outcomes might be mere happenstance. But given the extent to which Japan regulates its trade, it is clear that Chinese-made goods enjoy affirmative-action status. This has indeed been apparent from the beginning of the Chinese miracle. Even in the 1980s and 1990s when China was competing mainly with nations like Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and India, Japan strongly favored China over the others.

What’s in it for Japan? Exports. Almost alone among advanced nations, Japan enjoys a broadly balanced trade relationship with China. In a macroeconomic version of you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours, top officials on each side set policies to favor purchases from the other.

Posted in Japan | Comments Off on Why the Media’s Silence on Japanese Protectionism Gives Trump Another Priceless Opening