The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Military Discovers That Stripping Photos from Promotion Evaluations Hurts Blacks
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Military.com a year ago during the Racial Reckoning:

Esper Bans Use of Promotion Board Photos, Orders Review of Hair and Grooming Standards

15 Jul 2020
Military.com | By Richard Sisk

Defense Secretary Mark Esper put out a military-wide directive Wednesday barring the use of photos in promotion boards and ordering the development of new hair and grooming standards devoid of racial bias.

In a memorandum to the service secretaries and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Esper outlined a series of steps aimed at eliminating “discrimination, prejudice and bias in all ranks” to promote equal opportunity, morale and the readiness of the force.

The steps include “prohibiting the use of photographs for promotion boards and selection processes pertaining to assignment, training, education and command.”

After all, we know that systemic racism is pervasive so just the sight of a black candidate’s photo must diminish his chances.

The Army had already moved to stop using photos in promotion boards, and the Navy planned to review the practice.

Esper also ordered all the services to “review hairstyle and grooming policies for racial bias” and “make appropriate policy modifications” no later than Sept. 15.

In addition, the memo calls for an update to equal opportunity policy “to prohibit pregnancy-based discrimination.”

“We must root out prejudice and bias that may exist but isn’t always transparent” throughout the military, Esper said. The measures are based on recommendations from the service branches. …

In a series of Twitter posts, Esper said that all commands should work to eliminate “unconscious bias” among service members through frank and open discussions.

Prejudice and bias in the ranks are not always transparent, he said in urging commands to increase the frequency of workplace and equal opportunity surveys to identify areas for improvement.

He called on commands to give him monthly updates through the end of this year to gauge the effectiveness of the policy changes.

“The actions I am directing are a necessary first step, but hard work remains and we will continue to learn as we move forward,” Esper said.

And now the brass have learned. It turns out that America is biased in favor of blacks, so eliminating their photos hurts them by forcing evaluation to be based more on their accomplishments.

From Stars and Stripes today :

Navy could return to using photos for promotions, personnel chief says

BY CAITLIN DOORNBOS• STARS AND STRIPES • AUGUST 3, 2021

WASHINGTON — The Navy could include service photos in promotion packages again after data suggested minorities are less likely to be selected blindly in some situations by promotion review boards, the service’s chief of personnel said Tuesday.

Diversity among leadership dropped after photos were removed last year from Navy promotion packages, Vice Adm. John Nowell said during a panel discussion on diversity and inclusion at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference.

“I think we should consider reinstating photos in selection boards,” he said. “We look at, for instance, the one-star board over the last five years, and we can show you where, as you look at diversity, it went down with photos removed.”

Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper directed all services in July 2020 to eliminate photos from promotion and selection boards to support diversity in the ranks. But Nowell said adding them back could do more to build a more diverse leadership force.

“It’s a meritocracy, we’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider diversity across all areas,” he said. “Therefore … I think having a clear picture just makes it easier.”

The Marine Corps is also “looking at reinstating the photos,” Brig. Gen. A.T. Williamson, director of the service’s manpower plans and policy division, said during the panel discussion.

“There are elements of the photo that are … very helpful for us. I think that we may find that we may have disadvantaged individuals by removing those photos from the boards.”

Williamson said there was an “assumption that there’s bias in the boardroom,” but a recent review of the Marine Corps’ promotion board process by the Department of the Navy’s office for diversity, equity and inclusion found that’s likely untrue.

“We’re doing a survey right now to see if there’s bias inside the evaluation system,” he said. “[If] we find out that there’s disparities within the way we do business within a service, we need to be intellectually curious enough to ask why and then figure out what we need to do.”

The comments come as the Defense Department works to address extremism and promote diversity in the military. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has spoken “very publicly that at the senior leaders’ level, we are not as diverse as the rest of the force,” Chief Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Tuesday.

Kirby said he “wouldn’t speculate the degree to which the secretary might get involved in something as specific as photographs” because the services run their own promotion system. However, he said Austin is open to new ideas to support diversity and inclusion.

“There’s a lot of work to be done,” Kirby told reporters at the Pentagon. “The secretary has reiterated numerous times to service leadership that he wants to be open-minded about additional solutions, additional ways to increase and to improve diversity inclusion throughout the force, and that he wants them to think creatively about that.”

My translation of General Austin’s suggestions from militaryese: “Do it. Promote more blacks and fewer whites. Now.”

 
Hide 103 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. They really just don’t care how blatant they are about it.

    • Replies: @Charon
    @res

    It simply has to be corrosive to those remaining officers possessing any substantial degree of integrity. It must surely add to the pressures driving them out of the military.

    Which is, one supposes, its purpose.


    Esper said that all commands should work to eliminate “unconscious bias” among service members
     
    And replace it with conscious bias. Aye aye sir. Got it.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @res


    They really just don’t care how blatant they are about it.
     
    Isn't it just the logic of disparate impact taken to its inevitable conclusion?

    Step 1: Eliminate information that permits invidious discrimination against a protected class (i.e., First Class Citizens) in order to deliver to them unearned benefits.

    Step 2: Discover that withholding the information had the opposite of the desired effect. (Suppress articulating that the information made it possible to discriminate in favor of the First Class Citizens).

    Step 3: Declare that the system which withholds information is systemically racist (didn't you just make it so?) and reverse course to provide the withheld information so that tacit favorable discrimination can resume as if nothing really happened in the interim.

    It's "heads I win, tails you lose" as government policy regarding race. In fact, it's crazy to believe that there wasn't silent favorable discrimination for blacks for military promotions when the entire civilian and military leadership of the DoD has been demanding tantamount to ordering more high ranking black officers for well over a decade. (Leave aside the fact that actually competent and accomplished black military officers are probably heavily recruited for lucrative positions in American industry and away from a career in the Armed Forces in order to fulfill corporate America's extravagant commitment to DIE).

    They're just never going to acknowledge that they've just proven the opposite of the assumption about race in the Armed Forces. There will be no epiphany. This can only be remedied by hewing away the political military leadership in one quick blitz, installing new leadership disposed against the political lurch of the military since the Obama years, and demonstrating objective measures of increased performance under the new leadership as a minimum standard. They want actual competent patriotic NCOs and Officers to quit in disgust as an ideological filtering mechanism.
  2. Sorry, but the headline of the article reminded me of this.

  3. The military is amazingly pozzed for an organization that is essentially 0% Jewish, very white Southerner, and has so many blacks that performance would be (prolly is) extremely degraded if they did not ensure that dumbs stay low in rank.

    Do they have cushion because the ASVAB keeps out the dumber half of blacks? Do they have a lot of cushion because the higher ups actually know the IQ of underlings, so they do not have to rely on proxies, like what college someone went to, or whether they look or sound smart?

    As the country, and more importantly workforce, get less white and dumber, looking at how heavily minority organizations manage to function could be extremely valuable. That is assuming that the military is still functional. Their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially how delusional the generals were, does cast some doubt on their being functional,

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Rob

    I seem to remember conservative writers sounding the alarm that Obama was purging the ranks of military brass and promoting SJW cronies, making a politically-correct fighting force inevitable. Looks like they were right.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    , @It's Ovrer
    @Rob

    Your mistake is seeing the military as that capable in the first place.

    Where is the proof of that exactly? Being tested against Afghanistan, the worst shithole outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Saddam-era Iraq? GWOT?

    The last peer-state war the US was in was the Korean War. It was, by all accounts, a stalemate. I wouldn't call it that though if you consider the Chinese were what made it a peer war, and they didn't join from the start. If you start from the day they joined, then the US lost that war.

    From the day China joined to the armistice, the US lost hundreds of miles of territory. That territory is now called North Korea and is an endless (but mostly harmless) pain in the ass. Of course, many Ameritards still consider it a victory because the Chinese lost at least 4x as many troops as the US did... because of course that is the judge of victory and not actual territorial changes.

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations. Surely, more funding and more technology, and within that linear purview they might be better (though even that gap is thinning rapidly), but in almost every other way they are average or inferior.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Henry, @Feryl, @bomag, @Wency

    , @JMcG
    @Rob

    Some doubt? Imagine if this crew were facing Von Runstedt or Kesselring.

    , @RabbiGewneral
    @Rob


    The military is amazingly pozzed for an organization that is essentially 0% Jewish
     
    You forgot about the rank of Gewneral.
  4. @Rob
    The military is amazingly pozzed for an organization that is essentially 0% Jewish, very white Southerner, and has so many blacks that performance would be (prolly is) extremely degraded if they did not ensure that dumbs stay low in rank.

    Do they have cushion because the ASVAB keeps out the dumber half of blacks? Do they have a lot of cushion because the higher ups actually know the IQ of underlings, so they do not have to rely on proxies, like what college someone went to, or whether they look or sound smart?

    As the country, and more importantly workforce, get less white and dumber, looking at how heavily minority organizations manage to function could be extremely valuable. That is assuming that the military is still functional. Their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially how delusional the generals were, does cast some doubt on their being functional,

    Replies: @JimDandy, @It's Ovrer, @JMcG, @RabbiGewneral

    I seem to remember conservative writers sounding the alarm that Obama was purging the ranks of military brass and promoting SJW cronies, making a politically-correct fighting force inevitable. Looks like they were right.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @JimDandy

    "Looks like they were right."

    Will frogmen be placed in the waters surrounding Martha's Vineyard to protect Obama's triumphant birthday bash from attack by white nationalists? And will these frogmen be USN or servants of the Devourer of Stars?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

  5. He’s white. But, based on the picture, most likely gay.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/sailor-hated-navy-torched-1-025604670.html

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @JimDandy

    He’s Ryan but answers to Patsy.

    , @Steve Sailer
    @JimDandy

    Thanks. I shall post.

  6. You have to wonder if Esper will next ban the use of first names before the promotion board. After all, first names such as Keyshawn, Tevin and LaKeisha generally makes one think of, ahem, a certain demographic. Just think of it, without photos and first names then military members will actually be judged on their own merit and ability.

    • Replies: @IHTG
    @PaceLaw

    Read the post more carefully.

    , @Anon
    @PaceLaw


    You have to wonder if Esper will next ban the use of first names before the promotion board.
     
    At some point in the future I could foresee white parents giving their sons names like Keyshawn and Mohammed just to give them an advantage. If you just changed your name I could see that not being taken seriously by an employer, but if it's your birth name, what are they going to do?

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @Almost Missouri
    @PaceLaw

    The fact that Esper thought that banning photos would increase black promotion (which any commenter here could have told him wouldn't work) shows that he actually believes the SJW jive, so perhaps he will try that too, even though his presumptions were just disproved by his photo-blind experiment. SJWs typically are immune to logic. OTOH SJWs also believe that all first names are equal, so it might not occur to them to hide those. Correlating names with races requires recognizing patterns, and SJWs don't do that.

  7. I wonder how long it will take these people to realise that quotas, and other forms of blatant racial discrimination, increase racial identification, and reduce tolerance?

    I appreciate that they have identified that black Americans have an unfulfilled need to feel actually respected by society and even by themselves, but there are much less harmful ways to go about it.

  8. My translation of General Austin’s suggestions from militaryese: “Do it. Promote more blacks and fewer whites. Now.”

    “You want answers?! Merit ain’t cutting it! It is a NIGGA SHORTAGE out here! It is a shortage of available, good niggas out here!”

    • LOL: Charon
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Her numbers are a little off. It isn't 25% in prison, nor 25% gay. But I guess that's more palatable than adding in that the most eligible black men often prefer to mate with non-black (especially white) women, and that a big chunk of the ones left to black women are major playas.

    I personally had never thought about this plight of black women until it was explained by a black coworker-ess some years ago (including the out-marrying and playas). Since then it's hard to un-see it, and as other commenters have said, it is probably a permanent fixture of liberal, multiracial society.

    So the twitteress above is correct that black women have to come to some sort of acceptance of the facts as they are. Also she has nice eyes and I appreciate her keeping her décolletage in frame for the video's duration. This adds to her credibility.

    Replies: @Arclight, @anon

  9. Dear Mr Sailer,

    Better than photographs, here’s a video, just for you whitey!, giving you a preview of the look of the future diversified face of the US Army!

    While of course there will continue to be a role for white troops, namely in going overseas to sacrifice their lives on behalf of Isreal, Big Oil, my former employer Raytheon, etc etc, the offensive focus of our new model armed forces will be on the Home Front, on the enemy within…

    Yours (with AK-47 in raised fist while I sing ‘Shoot the Boer!’)

    Toussaint Louverture
    Defense Secretary

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Ano

    They seem unsafe... Stay the hell away if you value your longevity...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y44Zr-oPY8A

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

  10. This lady is hilarious and spot on! I’m surprised that she’s not working in the Biden administration. She’s clearly a deeper thinker than Kamala Harris.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, Right_On
  11. @Rob
    The military is amazingly pozzed for an organization that is essentially 0% Jewish, very white Southerner, and has so many blacks that performance would be (prolly is) extremely degraded if they did not ensure that dumbs stay low in rank.

    Do they have cushion because the ASVAB keeps out the dumber half of blacks? Do they have a lot of cushion because the higher ups actually know the IQ of underlings, so they do not have to rely on proxies, like what college someone went to, or whether they look or sound smart?

    As the country, and more importantly workforce, get less white and dumber, looking at how heavily minority organizations manage to function could be extremely valuable. That is assuming that the military is still functional. Their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially how delusional the generals were, does cast some doubt on their being functional,

    Replies: @JimDandy, @It's Ovrer, @JMcG, @RabbiGewneral

    Your mistake is seeing the military as that capable in the first place.

    Where is the proof of that exactly? Being tested against Afghanistan, the worst shithole outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Saddam-era Iraq? GWOT?

    The last peer-state war the US was in was the Korean War. It was, by all accounts, a stalemate. I wouldn’t call it that though if you consider the Chinese were what made it a peer war, and they didn’t join from the start. If you start from the day they joined, then the US lost that war.

    From the day China joined to the armistice, the US lost hundreds of miles of territory. That territory is now called North Korea and is an endless (but mostly harmless) pain in the ass. Of course, many Ameritards still consider it a victory because the Chinese lost at least 4x as many troops as the US did… because of course that is the judge of victory and not actual territorial changes.

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations. Surely, more funding and more technology, and within that linear purview they might be better (though even that gap is thinning rapidly), but in almost every other way they are average or inferior.

    • Agree: Spect3r, John Henry
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @It's Ovrer


    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations.
     
    I do not know if the name Trevor N. Dupuy bears much weight around here, but Steve may know of him because Dupuy was known for attempting to quantify which armies were "better":

    Dupuy's main contribution to military operation analysis is the assessment method Quantified Judgment Method or QJM, where the outcome of a battle is predicted using a fairly complicated multiplicative-additive formula in which various factors relating to the strength and firepower of the fighting parties as well as the circumstances are taken into account. Dupuy and his associates adjusted the parameters of his model by using known statistical facts of several recorded battles.
     
    Here is what Dupuy had to say on the topic of US servicemen in WWII:

    One of the things that emerged from our study of operations on the Western Front and in Italy in World War II was that there was a consistent superiority of German ground troops to American and British ground troops. As a retired American army officer this didn't particularly please me, but I can't deny what my numbers tell me...I had assumed that by 1944 we would have learned enough that we would be approximately equal, [but] in combat units 100 German in mid-1944 were the equivalent of somewhere around 125 American or British soldiers.
     
    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    If you take a moment to contrast what America was like in the 1940s (i.e. a high trust society) with what it is like today, and what its industrial capacity was seventy-five years ago compared to now, well, why America keeps losing wars does not remain a mystery for long.

    Admittedly, it is also possible that the US enters into wars, not with any serious intent to win them, but rather, to use them as a mechanism to siphon wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy.

    (This would help explain the seemingly inexplicable insistence of the Americans to remain in Afghanistan for two decades when Bin Laden and co. cleared out well before the Americans ever appeared. The Americans fared no better than the Russians did, alas, but Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. made out quite handsomely for themselves and their shareholders.)

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Henry, @ben tillman, @Farenheit, @res

    , @John Henry
    @It's Ovrer

    I've been writing something like this in comments sections for a long time. The last time we fought a real Navy was in 1944. The Japs were pretty much done by then. The last time we fought a real army was in 1953.

    , @Feryl
    @It's Ovrer

    Military morale and motivation (as important as talent) peaked with WW2 and has been declining ever since (although the arrogance of young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly, both in terms of the war itself and the public reaction to it).

    Americans don't feel entitled anymore to use the tactics and manpower necessary to gain and hold onto control of more territory. Keep in mind that all Western leaders buy into cultmarx non-sense about white supremacists imperialism (e.g. they sympathize with erstwhile "victims" of Western/American conquest instead of wanting to rule over them). If American leaders really wanted to "win" Afghanistan or whatever, they would ruthlessly massacre all Afghanis who oppose them in order to make them submit to American rule. But nope, we half-heartedly fight "insurgents" and try to make "alliances" with locals who typically don't have our back and take advantage of America's wimpiness. We dropped nukes on Japan to gain their submission after 1946.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Hibernian

    , @bomag
    @It's Ovrer

    We were/are fighting far from home against locals.

    , @Wency
    @It's Ovrer

    I sort of agree, but some criticisms:

    First, I don't think the Korean War is all that relevant a comparison, one way or the other. The Chinese, in addition to taking a lot more casualties, also vastly outnumbered the US force in Korea. China was fighting on its own doorstep. If the early 1950s US military had the efficiency of the Wehrmacht on its best day, I still don't think it could have held onto much more Korean territory.

    I also think the US military today (or of the very recent past) is a *lot* more capable than the one that launched Operation Eagle Claw in 1980, by any objective measure. Though I also believe the military is entering into a period of demoralization that will make the post-Vietnam demoralization look like a golden age, and it will last a lot longer -- perhaps even for as long as the American Republic still endures. Not only do we have a pattern of failed quagmires where we can't remember the last time the military did anything praiseworthy, but we have a country whose majority and official ideology despise the sorts of men that actually win wars, and even within the military we have a Woke politicization almost custom-made to demonize and demoralize those same sorts of men and promote bureaucratic HR types instead.

    Replies: @RonaldB

  12. Dear Mr Sailer,

    Er, this is kind of awkward…

    You know those silos with the ICBM missiles?

    Well, in the name of Diversity, we took out the white guys, replacing them at the launch consoles with a crew of Strong Black Women.

    It was going so well for the first five minutes, until the scene became one big WorldStar video….

    …with someone yelling ‘hold my baby!’, and then in the brawl with plastic chairs, one hit one of the buttons instead of a head…

    Far as we can tell it started when DeLakeisha accused DeVeronique she had touched her hair…

    Well, er, the upshot is, you know Los Angeles, where you live?

    Stay inside your walk-in closet for your own health- just for the next 40,000 years.

    Yours in Diversity.

    Lloyd Austin

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    @Ano

    When mohammedans are close to replacing England's population, who will be in control of their nukes?

  13. In a series of Twitter posts, Esper said that all commands should work to eliminate “unconscious bias”

    The Secretary of Defense issues orders to the military via Twitter?

    Why is the Secretary of Defense even on Twitter?

    • Agree: AceDeuce
  14. Anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    25 percent of black men are gay or trannies? Maybe she’s exaggerating a bit here.

    At any rate, it was so refreshing to hear the N-word so many times. I was alone in my room so I just said it again and again. Steve won’t let me type it, but he can’t prevent me from saying it. STEVE, I AM SAYING THE N-WORD OUT LOUD AND YOU CANNOT STOP ME!

    What’s that Alexa? The SWAT team is on the way?!

    =====

    Somebody needs to get this video to President Biden. I can imagine him watching it, and then in one of his senior moments during a press conference ad libbing that he is dedicated to solving the N shortage and making sure that every black woman has her own personal N. And I bet he’d get a ton of new voters if he did something like this. It would out-Trump Trump.

    • LOL: Angharad
    • Replies: @Spect3r
    @Anon

    I would pay to see that happening!

  15. Fewer blacks were promoted when it was purely on merit? Color me shocked…

    Sort of like the fake story of blind auditions being better for women and minorities that used to be pushed…. and still is after it was debunked….

    For the last 50 or so years, all biases favor women and minorities, except where connections or ethnic membership is present.

    Any moderately qualified white guy has been passed over for “diversity” many times over their lifetime….

    • Agree: Old Prude
  16. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    The New York Times was on the story just before woke broke:

    https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/20/black-men-for-black-women/a-definite-shortage-of-marriageable-black-men

    Room for Debate
    DECEMBER 20, 2011
    Black Men for Black Women?

    INTRODUCTION

    In a recent essay in the Sunday Review, Angela Stanley, a researcher at Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, wrote about being black, single and female and how friends and family worry that she’ll never find a husband because supposedly the statistics are stacked against her.

    Is there a shortage of black men for black women? Does that question presume that men and women should marry someone of their own race? Ralph Richard Banks, the author of “Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone,” suggested this forum.

    Ralph Richard Banks
    A Shortage of Eligible Black Men
    RALPH RICHARD BANKS, AUTHOR, “IS MARRIAGE FOR WHITE PEOPLE?”
    Marriage has declined throughout our society, but more so for African-Americans, and in particular black women.

    Angela Stanley
    A Shortage: Maybe, Maybe Not
    ANGELA STANLEY, KIRWAN INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
    If a black woman happens to be single, it is not necessarily a commentary on black men as eligible partners.

    Ivory A. Toldson
    Education and Income, Not Race
    IVORY A. TOLDSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, HOWARD UNIVERSITY
    If black people dealt with the facts, instead of the news media’s ‘battle of the black sexes,’ they’d find healthy love in one another.

    Dalton Conley
    Blacks Need to Reinvent Marriage
    DALTON CONLEY, SOCIOLOGIST
    The dearth of ‘marriageable’ black men assumes that marital roles are inflexible, and that blacks only marry blacks.

    • Replies: @PaceLaw
    @Anon

    Yeah, this issue has been out there in the black community for quite a while now. I can’t see anything in the near, or even distant, future that will fix and/or ameliorate it. Several factors are involved: 1) black women will continuously earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees at a significantly higher rate than black men; 2) black men will continue to commit random acts of violence at an astonishingly high rate, and thus will become incarcerated, leading to a dearth of dating partners; and 3) black women generally do not like to date outside of their race, yet also it seems as if other races do not generally prefer black woman as mates (many exceptions to the rule are duly noted). The bottom line reality is that many black women seem to be in a tough spot. Not enough black men of comparable education to go around, but also in-group discrimination and preferences that actively discourage dating outside the race. Sad.

    Replies: @Wency, @Johann Ricke, @Rahan

    , @Anon
    @Anon

    Didn't the New York Times used to publish news? It's more like Cosmo these days.

  17. @JimDandy
    He's white. But, based on the picture, most likely gay.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/sailor-hated-navy-torched-1-025604670.html

    Replies: @Cortes, @Steve Sailer

    He’s Ryan but answers to Patsy.

  18. @PaceLaw
    You have to wonder if Esper will next ban the use of first names before the promotion board. After all, first names such as Keyshawn, Tevin and LaKeisha generally makes one think of, ahem, a certain demographic. Just think of it, without photos and first names then military members will actually be judged on their own merit and ability.

    Replies: @IHTG, @Anon, @Almost Missouri

    Read the post more carefully.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
  19. Military Discovers That Stripping Photos from Promotion Evaluations Hurts Blacks

    Speaking of which, everybody wish Barack Obama a happy sixtieth today.

    It’s also Coast Guard Day. Big deal in Grand Haven, Mich.

  20. Hopefully not just still images will be allowed in promotion applications. I’m thinking of applicant tik-toks that showcase vibrant talents perhaps easily missed by traditional promotion procedures. eg

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @TyRade

    Not bad!

  21. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:
    @PaceLaw
    You have to wonder if Esper will next ban the use of first names before the promotion board. After all, first names such as Keyshawn, Tevin and LaKeisha generally makes one think of, ahem, a certain demographic. Just think of it, without photos and first names then military members will actually be judged on their own merit and ability.

    Replies: @IHTG, @Anon, @Almost Missouri

    You have to wonder if Esper will next ban the use of first names before the promotion board.

    At some point in the future I could foresee white parents giving their sons names like Keyshawn and Mohammed just to give them an advantage. If you just changed your name I could see that not being taken seriously by an employer, but if it’s your birth name, what are they going to do?

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Anon

    Mohammed Changstein.

  22. @res
    They really just don't care how blatant they are about it.

    Replies: @Charon, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    It simply has to be corrosive to those remaining officers possessing any substantial degree of integrity. It must surely add to the pressures driving them out of the military.

    Which is, one supposes, its purpose.

    Esper said that all commands should work to eliminate “unconscious bias” among service members

    And replace it with conscious bias. Aye aye sir. Got it.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @Charon

    It's all a Plot by Putin.

  23. “We must root out prejudice and bias that may exist but isn’t always transparent” throughout the military, Esper said. The measures are based on recommendations from the service branches. …

    So who currently holds the tough and never-finished job Predjudice Finder General?

    Kirby said he “wouldn’t speculate the degree to which the secretary might get involved in something as specific as photographs” because the services run their own promotion system. However, he said Austin is open to new ideas to support diversity and inclusion.

    It’s supposed to the the Imperial Force, essentially white by design, organization, purpose and tradition, not a NYC school. Oh well.

  24. “We’re a meritocracy…”. Not so much.

  25. @Charon
    @res

    It simply has to be corrosive to those remaining officers possessing any substantial degree of integrity. It must surely add to the pressures driving them out of the military.

    Which is, one supposes, its purpose.


    Esper said that all commands should work to eliminate “unconscious bias” among service members
     
    And replace it with conscious bias. Aye aye sir. Got it.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    It’s all a Plot by Putin.

  26. @JimDandy
    He's white. But, based on the picture, most likely gay.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/sailor-hated-navy-torched-1-025604670.html

    Replies: @Cortes, @Steve Sailer

    Thanks. I shall post.

    • Thanks: JimDandy
  27. @TyRade
    Hopefully not just still images will be allowed in promotion applications. I'm thinking of applicant tik-toks that showcase vibrant talents perhaps easily missed by traditional promotion procedures. eg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ecasPqhgk

    Replies: @El Dato

    Not bad!

  28. @Anon
    The New York Times was on the story just before woke broke:

    https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/20/black-men-for-black-women/a-definite-shortage-of-marriageable-black-men

    Room for Debate
    DECEMBER 20, 2011
    Black Men for Black Women?

    INTRODUCTION

    In a recent essay in the Sunday Review, Angela Stanley, a researcher at Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, wrote about being black, single and female and how friends and family worry that she’ll never find a husband because supposedly the statistics are stacked against her.

    Is there a shortage of black men for black women? Does that question presume that men and women should marry someone of their own race? Ralph Richard Banks, the author of “Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone,” suggested this forum.
     

    Ralph Richard Banks
    A Shortage of Eligible Black Men
    RALPH RICHARD BANKS, AUTHOR, "IS MARRIAGE FOR WHITE PEOPLE?"
    Marriage has declined throughout our society, but more so for African-Americans, and in particular black women.

    Angela Stanley
    A Shortage: Maybe, Maybe Not
    ANGELA STANLEY, KIRWAN INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
    If a black woman happens to be single, it is not necessarily a commentary on black men as eligible partners.

    Ivory A. Toldson
    Education and Income, Not Race
    IVORY A. TOLDSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, HOWARD UNIVERSITY
    If black people dealt with the facts, instead of the news media's 'battle of the black sexes,' they'd find healthy love in one another.

    Dalton Conley
    Blacks Need to Reinvent Marriage
    DALTON CONLEY, SOCIOLOGIST
    The dearth of 'marriageable' black men assumes that marital roles are inflexible, and that blacks only marry blacks.
     

    Replies: @PaceLaw, @Anon

    Yeah, this issue has been out there in the black community for quite a while now. I can’t see anything in the near, or even distant, future that will fix and/or ameliorate it. Several factors are involved: 1) black women will continuously earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees at a significantly higher rate than black men; 2) black men will continue to commit random acts of violence at an astonishingly high rate, and thus will become incarcerated, leading to a dearth of dating partners; and 3) black women generally do not like to date outside of their race, yet also it seems as if other races do not generally prefer black woman as mates (many exceptions to the rule are duly noted). The bottom line reality is that many black women seem to be in a tough spot. Not enough black men of comparable education to go around, but also in-group discrimination and preferences that actively discourage dating outside the race. Sad.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @PaceLaw

    When we were first dating, my wife used to work at an office doing semi-governmental administrative work with lots of black women who mostly had Master's degrees, minimum Bachelor's, ages ranging from 30s to 60s. Not a single one of them had so much as a long-term boyfriend -- some of them had never had a serious boyfriend. None of them had ever been married, and none of them had children. And they didn't seem like bad women -- all very friendly, got along well with my wife, almost all went to church. A lot of obesity, to be sure, but a few of them were reasonably fit.

    I'm acquainted with one black man who has an advanced degree. He is, of course, married to a white woman.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    , @Johann Ricke
    @PaceLaw

    black women generally do not like to date outside of their race, yet also it seems as if other races do not generally prefer black woman as mates (many exceptions to the rule are duly noted).

    This is called making a virtue (the first part) out of necessity (the second part). It's not even looks or weight. Everyone's had a black colleague who's complained of racism detectable only by the accuser. How'd you like to deal with that every waking hour?

    , @Rahan
    @PaceLaw

    See, you've given another delightful reason to import a million African young males a year.

    Wait until the fellow white people figure out that not importing young African males is a crime against US black women by white supermacists.

    Now of course it is very likely the imported Negroes will quickly end up in jail or gangs or both, but society will just have to constantly move one step ahead of the mysterious racism forces and keep importing more and more black males until every Lakeesha has a man.

  29. The easiest way to solve this problem is to just stop promoting whites.

  30. @Ano
    Dear Mr Sailer,

    Er, this is kind of awkward...

    You know those silos with the ICBM missiles?

    Well, in the name of Diversity, we took out the white guys, replacing them at the launch consoles with a crew of Strong Black Women.

    It was going so well for the first five minutes, until the scene became one big WorldStar video....

    ...with someone yelling 'hold my baby!', and then in the brawl with plastic chairs, one hit one of the buttons instead of a head...

    Far as we can tell it started when DeLakeisha accused DeVeronique she had touched her hair...

    Well, er, the upshot is, you know Los Angeles, where you live?

    Stay inside your walk-in closet for your own health- just for the next 40,000 years.

    Yours in Diversity.

    Lloyd Austin

    Replies: @Sick of Orcs

    When mohammedans are close to replacing England’s population, who will be in control of their nukes?

  31. ““It’s a meritocracy, we’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider diversity across all areas,” he said. “Therefore … I think having a clear picture just makes it easier.””

    WTF!!!
    How can anyone say something like this and keep a straight face?

    • LOL: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    @Spect3r


    “It’s a meritocracy, we’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider diversity across all areas,” he said.
     
    Agree. Really astonishing; this goes in the annals of great uses of the conjunctive. As usual, I ask whether this is just cluelessness by someone hopelessly mired in wokeness, or if he's just spiking the football in our faces.

    And Admiral John Kirby, retread again? He went from Defense Dept. spokesman to State Dept. spokesman, now he's back. Does he have some preternatural gift for excellence as this critical, challenging position? We need more Heather Nauert types.

    Replies: @Spect3r

    , @Old Prude
    @Spect3r

    "How can anyone say something like this and keep a straight face?"

    Years of practice. Just like his house whitey General Milley and all the other suck-ups, most easily identifiable by the presence of stars on their shoulder-boards.

    Replies: @Spect3r

  32. @Anon
    25 percent of black men are gay or trannies? Maybe she's exaggerating a bit here.

    At any rate, it was so refreshing to hear the N-word so many times. I was alone in my room so I just said it again and again. Steve won't let me type it, but he can't prevent me from saying it. STEVE, I AM SAYING THE N-WORD OUT LOUD AND YOU CANNOT STOP ME!

    What's that Alexa? The SWAT team is on the way?!

    =====

    Somebody needs to get this video to President Biden. I can imagine him watching it, and then in one of his senior moments during a press conference ad libbing that he is dedicated to solving the N shortage and making sure that every black woman has her own personal N. And I bet he'd get a ton of new voters if he did something like this. It would out-Trump Trump.

    Replies: @Spect3r

    I would pay to see that happening!

  33. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @It's Ovrer
    @Rob

    Your mistake is seeing the military as that capable in the first place.

    Where is the proof of that exactly? Being tested against Afghanistan, the worst shithole outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Saddam-era Iraq? GWOT?

    The last peer-state war the US was in was the Korean War. It was, by all accounts, a stalemate. I wouldn't call it that though if you consider the Chinese were what made it a peer war, and they didn't join from the start. If you start from the day they joined, then the US lost that war.

    From the day China joined to the armistice, the US lost hundreds of miles of territory. That territory is now called North Korea and is an endless (but mostly harmless) pain in the ass. Of course, many Ameritards still consider it a victory because the Chinese lost at least 4x as many troops as the US did... because of course that is the judge of victory and not actual territorial changes.

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations. Surely, more funding and more technology, and within that linear purview they might be better (though even that gap is thinning rapidly), but in almost every other way they are average or inferior.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Henry, @Feryl, @bomag, @Wency

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations.

    I do not know if the name Trevor N. Dupuy bears much weight around here, but Steve may know of him because Dupuy was known for attempting to quantify which armies were “better”:

    Dupuy’s main contribution to military operation analysis is the assessment method Quantified Judgment Method or QJM, where the outcome of a battle is predicted using a fairly complicated multiplicative-additive formula in which various factors relating to the strength and firepower of the fighting parties as well as the circumstances are taken into account. Dupuy and his associates adjusted the parameters of his model by using known statistical facts of several recorded battles.

    Here is what Dupuy had to say on the topic of US servicemen in WWII:

    One of the things that emerged from our study of operations on the Western Front and in Italy in World War II was that there was a consistent superiority of German ground troops to American and British ground troops. As a retired American army officer this didn’t particularly please me, but I can’t deny what my numbers tell me…I had assumed that by 1944 we would have learned enough that we would be approximately equal, [but] in combat units 100 German in mid-1944 were the equivalent of somewhere around 125 American or British soldiers.

    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    If you take a moment to contrast what America was like in the 1940s (i.e. a high trust society) with what it is like today, and what its industrial capacity was seventy-five years ago compared to now, well, why America keeps losing wars does not remain a mystery for long.

    Admittedly, it is also possible that the US enters into wars, not with any serious intent to win them, but rather, to use them as a mechanism to siphon wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy.

    (This would help explain the seemingly inexplicable insistence of the Americans to remain in Afghanistan for two decades when Bin Laden and co. cleared out well before the Americans ever appeared. The Americans fared no better than the Russians did, alas, but Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. made out quite handsomely for themselves and their shareholders.)

    • Agree: photondancer
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan's view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Similarly, WWI on the Eastern Front largely consisted of the locals farting around until a few divisions of Germans were sent in by train, who kicked everybody's ass, but who then got back on their trains to die on the Western Front.

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren't bad either.

    Replies: @Feryl, @JMcG, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Anonymous, @Whiskey

    , @John Henry
    @Anonymous


    the Americans won WWII
     
    Not to belittle the efforts and sacrifice of our soldiers/sailors. But the Germans lost the war on June 22, 1941. I'd like to see some similar comparisons with Japanese troops.
    , @ben tillman
    @Anonymous


    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.
     
    And weather luck.
    , @Farenheit
    @Anonymous

    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    The Russians did the dirty work defeating the Germans, and Stalin's purported quote gives the detail as to how "Quantity has a quality all its own"

    , @res
    @Anonymous

    Thanks. It looks like this is the most relevant book for Dupuy's QJM.

    https://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318

    There is ongoing QJM discussion at
    http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/tag/quantified-judgement-model-qjm/

    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?

    P.S. I think Twinkie is on hiatus (see his last comment June 20th), but if he happens to see this I would be interested in his take as well. A quick search shows a few of his comments in Anatoly Karlin's blog:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=dupuy&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Twinkie

    He was rather critical in this one.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/little-green-army-women/#comment-3482448

    His other comments were all in this thread (AK mentioned Dupuy in his post).
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/#comment-1199183
    There he specifically calls out mathematical errors in the book I linked above. Anyone know of a reference which lists the errors?

    Replies: @anon, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

  34. I think the PLA is looking with glee at kicking our pozzed military.

  35. @Anonymous
    @It's Ovrer


    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations.
     
    I do not know if the name Trevor N. Dupuy bears much weight around here, but Steve may know of him because Dupuy was known for attempting to quantify which armies were "better":

    Dupuy's main contribution to military operation analysis is the assessment method Quantified Judgment Method or QJM, where the outcome of a battle is predicted using a fairly complicated multiplicative-additive formula in which various factors relating to the strength and firepower of the fighting parties as well as the circumstances are taken into account. Dupuy and his associates adjusted the parameters of his model by using known statistical facts of several recorded battles.
     
    Here is what Dupuy had to say on the topic of US servicemen in WWII:

    One of the things that emerged from our study of operations on the Western Front and in Italy in World War II was that there was a consistent superiority of German ground troops to American and British ground troops. As a retired American army officer this didn't particularly please me, but I can't deny what my numbers tell me...I had assumed that by 1944 we would have learned enough that we would be approximately equal, [but] in combat units 100 German in mid-1944 were the equivalent of somewhere around 125 American or British soldiers.
     
    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    If you take a moment to contrast what America was like in the 1940s (i.e. a high trust society) with what it is like today, and what its industrial capacity was seventy-five years ago compared to now, well, why America keeps losing wars does not remain a mystery for long.

    Admittedly, it is also possible that the US enters into wars, not with any serious intent to win them, but rather, to use them as a mechanism to siphon wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy.

    (This would help explain the seemingly inexplicable insistence of the Americans to remain in Afghanistan for two decades when Bin Laden and co. cleared out well before the Americans ever appeared. The Americans fared no better than the Russians did, alas, but Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. made out quite handsomely for themselves and their shareholders.)

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Henry, @ben tillman, @Farenheit, @res

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan’s view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Similarly, WWI on the Eastern Front largely consisted of the locals farting around until a few divisions of Germans were sent in by train, who kicked everybody’s ass, but who then got back on their trains to die on the Western Front.

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren’t bad either.

    • Agree: Raches
    • Replies: @Feryl
    @Steve Sailer

    During 2020's peak Antifa induced battles, it did look as if the German giant had been awakened from it's slumber (prior to 2020 Anglo-Celts-Jews had successfully suppressed the German-ness within America). But non-German liberal social and political operatives effectively won control of America via election theft and making opposition to the theft taboo to the point that even some Right-wingers are loath to discuss the subject, as if one is committing heresy against "conventional" (as in Jew-Wasp elite) wisdom.

    , @JMcG
    @Steve Sailer

    I can’t see a case for the effectiveness of the British or the French in either of the World Wars. Gallipoli? The Somme? Passchendaele? Verdin? The Nivelle Offensive? Jutland?
    Dieppe? Crete? France? Norway? Singapore? The Italian Campaign?

    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Steve Sailer


    Yeah, military historian John Keegan’s view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.
     
    Steve, do you credit the idea that the Germans were hopped up on speed at the outset of German aggressions in WWII, but that they later hit a wall of exhaustion and fatigue when the inevitable caught up with them?

    Though it wouldn't be surprising if Prussian-derived German infantry culture was a few steps ahead given that the various German principalities have been at the crux of the land wars of Great European powers in the past - having the ability (and reputation) to be able repel ambitious empires and superior numbers on one's borders in order to not be overrun and absorbed is probably a prime concern.

    The flip side is that the British and Americans were probably superior naval powers given that the former is an island and the latter derived from the British bordered by oceans on two coasts.
    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer


    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren’t bad either.
     
    It is interesting to note that the end of WWI saw, not an increase in hatred of the Germans by the British, but rather, an admission that the Germans had fought a good fight:

    Pro-German feeling had been increasing. With the war over and the German armies beaten, we could give the German soldier credit for being the most efficient fighting man in Europe ... Some undergraduates even insisted that we had been fighting on the wrong side: our natural enemies were the French.

    — Robert Graves
     
    My impression of the Allied victory in WWI has always been that it was a near-run thing. Had the war lasted even a few more weeks, I am convinced the British Army would likely have seen the same sort of widespread revolt the French had in 1917. As it was, there were a couple of riots in late 1918 and early 1919 when the soldiers felt they were not being demobilised fast enough.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    , @Whiskey
    @Steve Sailer

    That's not the view, interestingly, of the German General Staff at the same time. Military History Visualized on Youtube has several videos about the quality of the fighting man in the German military.

    Essentially, the Staff Officers felt it took 18 months to train and equip soldiers properly, particularly in infantry units supporting tanks which had to be highly trained in maneuver warfare with tanks as unsupported tanks were often sitting ducks. And infantry unsupported by tanks could also be hit badly quickly.

    The German High command felt that after Barbarossa, fully 50% of their troops were not fit for offensive operations. And after Case Blue, that went to something like 75%.

    I would take their assessment more than the above study, as it does not take into account that the Germans were on the defensive mostly, with often terrain favorable for defense.

    Replies: @SOL

  36. @PaceLaw
    You have to wonder if Esper will next ban the use of first names before the promotion board. After all, first names such as Keyshawn, Tevin and LaKeisha generally makes one think of, ahem, a certain demographic. Just think of it, without photos and first names then military members will actually be judged on their own merit and ability.

    Replies: @IHTG, @Anon, @Almost Missouri

    The fact that Esper thought that banning photos would increase black promotion (which any commenter here could have told him wouldn’t work) shows that he actually believes the SJW jive, so perhaps he will try that too, even though his presumptions were just disproved by his photo-blind experiment. SJWs typically are immune to logic. OTOH SJWs also believe that all first names are equal, so it might not occur to them to hide those. Correlating names with races requires recognizing patterns, and SJWs don’t do that.

  37. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My translation of General Austin’s suggestions from militaryese: “Do it. Promote more blacks and fewer whites. Now.”

     

    “You want answers?! Merit ain’t cutting it! It is a NIGGA SHORTAGE out here! It is a shortage of available, good niggas out here!”


    https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ColJessup_AFewGoodMen-1992_ZoomBlur.jpg

    https://twitter.com/owenhabel2/status/1397792392741371906

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Her numbers are a little off. It isn’t 25% in prison, nor 25% gay. But I guess that’s more palatable than adding in that the most eligible black men often prefer to mate with non-black (especially white) women, and that a big chunk of the ones left to black women are major playas.

    I personally had never thought about this plight of black women until it was explained by a black coworker-ess some years ago (including the out-marrying and playas). Since then it’s hard to un-see it, and as other commenters have said, it is probably a permanent fixture of liberal, multiracial society.

    So the twitteress above is correct that black women have to come to some sort of acceptance of the facts as they are. Also she has nice eyes and I appreciate her keeping her décolletage in frame for the video’s duration. This adds to her credibility.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Arclight
    @Almost Missouri

    She at once makes a valid point - that there are not enough eligible black men to go around for black women - and then turns around and shows why dysfunctionality reigns by indicating she is perfectly fine with black men having multiple women in their lives just so she isn't without a partner.

    Although there are lots of excuses for the condition of black America, one thing that I think is undisputable is that the decline of decent-paying jobs for men who did not go to college or trade school over the last 4 decades of the 20th century was disproportionately bad for black men. Prior to that there was a path to being the provider of a traditional family for a very large share of the working class population and taking that away left millions with extremely limited economic prospects right as more black women moved into the workforce. The percentage of black men that were seen as potential long term mates fell off a cliff and the effect this had on family formation and the outcomes for children were awful.

    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It's a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender - be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Alden

    , @anon
    @Almost Missouri

    There is no shortage of black people. The idea that blacks or Asians are some a minority should be left to a time when we weren't so global. There is a whole world of African, they just don't want to take their talents and live there, become a teacher and a model for others.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_population

    Just the top:
    Nigeria (more) 195,873,800 15.40% 200,963,599 195,874,683 5,088,916 2.60% 27
    Ethiopia (more) 109,223,919 8.59% 112,078,730 109,224,414 2,854,316 2.61% 27
    Egypt (more) 98,423,256 7.74% 100,388,073 98,423,598 1,964,475 2.00% 35
    DR Congo (more) 84,067,620 6.61% 86,790,567 84,068,091 2,722,476 3.24% 22
    South Africa (more) 57,792,384 4.54% 58,558,270 57,792,518 765,752 1.33% 53
    Tanzania (more) 56,313,145 4.43% 58,005,463 56,313,438 1,692,025 3.00% 23
    Kenya (more) 51,392,360 4.04% 52,573,973 51,392,565 1,181,408 2.30% 30

    And don't forget;
    Although most Afro-Caribbean people today live in English, French and Spanish-speaking Caribbean nations and territories, there are also significant diaspora populations throughout the Western world—especially in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France and the Netherlands. African-Caribbeans have maintained their African culture and heritage, and traditional African religions, like Santeria (a mix of Catholicism and Yoruba Orishas) are still being practiced. For this reason, in some Caribbean countries, African languages are being spoken, like Igbo and Yoruba in Cuba, and Brazil (South America) .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Caribbean_people

  38. As has been repeatedly noted, our overlords believe that the reason 50+ years of social policy and public spending designed to put a foot on the scale for blacks hasn’t worked out are things like implicit bias that prevent people in power from recognizing their incredible potential and putting them in a position to succeed. Yet all the evidence is that given the chance, society gives blacks the benefit of the doubt perhaps more than any other group but they keep letting us down.

    Perhaps the roots of the current cultural crackup is a result of the cognitive dissonance of internalizing the belief that blacks are capable of great things if only given a (white) helping hand and observation of the real world failures of that belief that are in front of you daily.

    • Replies: @Joseph Doaks
    @Arclight

    "Perhaps the roots of the current cultural crackup is a result of the cognitive dissonance of internalizing the belief that blacks are capable of great things if only given a (white) helping hand and observation of the real world failures of that belief that are in front of you daily."

    Hence the invention of "systemic white supremacy," and the 1619 Project as proof of it. Doubling down on denial of reality can only last as long as the media, the academy and big tech continue to support it, but cognitive dissonance must win out in the long run --- but will there be a country left when that finally happens?

    , @RonaldB
    @Arclight

    There's actually a darker reason for eternal white hope to find a magic formula to make all blacks productive citizens: the question of, if they can't be brought up to snuff, what the heck to do with them? It's a question that plagued the US from its beginning. The emancipationists were all for freeing the slaves, but they didn't want the freed slaves coming to live with them. Mostly, as slavery became less economical, and states voted to end slavery, they gave slaveowners plenty of time to sell their slaves further south. Thomas Jefferson, who freed his slaves in his will, had precious few slaves to free, as he sold most of them to pay back his debts.

    So, we have to accept some race realism. Blacks will by and large vote for blacks, regardless of policy. Blacks will have a lower proportion of high-level qualified people, and a higher proportion of criminals. Chances are, in a democratic election, places with a black majority will vote for an incompetent and corrupt leader, as long as they're black. Also, black juries will free black defendants. So, a locale either has to get rid of most blacks, or filter the electorate so as to limit the voting population to responsible, educated voters. This will eliminate many, though not all, blacks. The alternative is a political district that soaks up all the money that white districts throw at it, and is still mired in corruption and abominable services.

  39. @Rob
    The military is amazingly pozzed for an organization that is essentially 0% Jewish, very white Southerner, and has so many blacks that performance would be (prolly is) extremely degraded if they did not ensure that dumbs stay low in rank.

    Do they have cushion because the ASVAB keeps out the dumber half of blacks? Do they have a lot of cushion because the higher ups actually know the IQ of underlings, so they do not have to rely on proxies, like what college someone went to, or whether they look or sound smart?

    As the country, and more importantly workforce, get less white and dumber, looking at how heavily minority organizations manage to function could be extremely valuable. That is assuming that the military is still functional. Their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially how delusional the generals were, does cast some doubt on their being functional,

    Replies: @JimDandy, @It's Ovrer, @JMcG, @RabbiGewneral

    Some doubt? Imagine if this crew were facing Von Runstedt or Kesselring.

  40. @It's Ovrer
    @Rob

    Your mistake is seeing the military as that capable in the first place.

    Where is the proof of that exactly? Being tested against Afghanistan, the worst shithole outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Saddam-era Iraq? GWOT?

    The last peer-state war the US was in was the Korean War. It was, by all accounts, a stalemate. I wouldn't call it that though if you consider the Chinese were what made it a peer war, and they didn't join from the start. If you start from the day they joined, then the US lost that war.

    From the day China joined to the armistice, the US lost hundreds of miles of territory. That territory is now called North Korea and is an endless (but mostly harmless) pain in the ass. Of course, many Ameritards still consider it a victory because the Chinese lost at least 4x as many troops as the US did... because of course that is the judge of victory and not actual territorial changes.

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations. Surely, more funding and more technology, and within that linear purview they might be better (though even that gap is thinning rapidly), but in almost every other way they are average or inferior.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Henry, @Feryl, @bomag, @Wency

    I’ve been writing something like this in comments sections for a long time. The last time we fought a real Navy was in 1944. The Japs were pretty much done by then. The last time we fought a real army was in 1953.

  41. @Anonymous
    @It's Ovrer


    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations.
     
    I do not know if the name Trevor N. Dupuy bears much weight around here, but Steve may know of him because Dupuy was known for attempting to quantify which armies were "better":

    Dupuy's main contribution to military operation analysis is the assessment method Quantified Judgment Method or QJM, where the outcome of a battle is predicted using a fairly complicated multiplicative-additive formula in which various factors relating to the strength and firepower of the fighting parties as well as the circumstances are taken into account. Dupuy and his associates adjusted the parameters of his model by using known statistical facts of several recorded battles.
     
    Here is what Dupuy had to say on the topic of US servicemen in WWII:

    One of the things that emerged from our study of operations on the Western Front and in Italy in World War II was that there was a consistent superiority of German ground troops to American and British ground troops. As a retired American army officer this didn't particularly please me, but I can't deny what my numbers tell me...I had assumed that by 1944 we would have learned enough that we would be approximately equal, [but] in combat units 100 German in mid-1944 were the equivalent of somewhere around 125 American or British soldiers.
     
    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    If you take a moment to contrast what America was like in the 1940s (i.e. a high trust society) with what it is like today, and what its industrial capacity was seventy-five years ago compared to now, well, why America keeps losing wars does not remain a mystery for long.

    Admittedly, it is also possible that the US enters into wars, not with any serious intent to win them, but rather, to use them as a mechanism to siphon wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy.

    (This would help explain the seemingly inexplicable insistence of the Americans to remain in Afghanistan for two decades when Bin Laden and co. cleared out well before the Americans ever appeared. The Americans fared no better than the Russians did, alas, but Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. made out quite handsomely for themselves and their shareholders.)

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Henry, @ben tillman, @Farenheit, @res

    the Americans won WWII

    Not to belittle the efforts and sacrifice of our soldiers/sailors. But the Germans lost the war on June 22, 1941. I’d like to see some similar comparisons with Japanese troops.

  42. @It's Ovrer
    @Rob

    Your mistake is seeing the military as that capable in the first place.

    Where is the proof of that exactly? Being tested against Afghanistan, the worst shithole outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Saddam-era Iraq? GWOT?

    The last peer-state war the US was in was the Korean War. It was, by all accounts, a stalemate. I wouldn't call it that though if you consider the Chinese were what made it a peer war, and they didn't join from the start. If you start from the day they joined, then the US lost that war.

    From the day China joined to the armistice, the US lost hundreds of miles of territory. That territory is now called North Korea and is an endless (but mostly harmless) pain in the ass. Of course, many Ameritards still consider it a victory because the Chinese lost at least 4x as many troops as the US did... because of course that is the judge of victory and not actual territorial changes.

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations. Surely, more funding and more technology, and within that linear purview they might be better (though even that gap is thinning rapidly), but in almost every other way they are average or inferior.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Henry, @Feryl, @bomag, @Wency

    Military morale and motivation (as important as talent) peaked with WW2 and has been declining ever since (although the arrogance of young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly, both in terms of the war itself and the public reaction to it).

    Americans don’t feel entitled anymore to use the tactics and manpower necessary to gain and hold onto control of more territory. Keep in mind that all Western leaders buy into cultmarx non-sense about white supremacists imperialism (e.g. they sympathize with erstwhile “victims” of Western/American conquest instead of wanting to rule over them). If American leaders really wanted to “win” Afghanistan or whatever, they would ruthlessly massacre all Afghanis who oppose them in order to make them submit to American rule. But nope, we half-heartedly fight “insurgents” and try to make “alliances” with locals who typically don’t have our back and take advantage of America’s wimpiness. We dropped nukes on Japan to gain their submission after 1946.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Feryl

    "young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly"

    Typically I'm loathe to defend Boomers seeing as they are my eternal enemy but laying the moral catastrophe that was the American war in Vietnam at the feet of young men is not right. The initial impulse made by U.S. security elites -- the WW2 generation -- to replace the French as the colonial power in southeast Asia was driven by their need to control the Golden Triangle heroin trade. The corporate war grift followed soon after the CIA mission in Laos expanded into Vietnam. The whole damn thing was ugly from its inception.

    Replies: @Feryl, @RonaldB

    , @Hibernian
    @Feryl


    If American leaders really wanted to “win” Afghanistan or whatever, they would ruthlessly massacre all Afghanis who oppose them in order to make them submit to American rule.
     
    Yea, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Operation Phoenix were high points of American military professionalism.
  43. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan's view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Similarly, WWI on the Eastern Front largely consisted of the locals farting around until a few divisions of Germans were sent in by train, who kicked everybody's ass, but who then got back on their trains to die on the Western Front.

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren't bad either.

    Replies: @Feryl, @JMcG, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Anonymous, @Whiskey

    During 2020’s peak Antifa induced battles, it did look as if the German giant had been awakened from it’s slumber (prior to 2020 Anglo-Celts-Jews had successfully suppressed the German-ness within America). But non-German liberal social and political operatives effectively won control of America via election theft and making opposition to the theft taboo to the point that even some Right-wingers are loath to discuss the subject, as if one is committing heresy against “conventional” (as in Jew-Wasp elite) wisdom.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  44. @Spect3r
    "“It’s a meritocracy, we’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider diversity across all areas,” he said. “Therefore … I think having a clear picture just makes it easier.”"

    WTF!!!
    How can anyone say something like this and keep a straight face?

    Replies: @EdwardM, @Old Prude

    “It’s a meritocracy, we’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider diversity across all areas,” he said.

    Agree. Really astonishing; this goes in the annals of great uses of the conjunctive. As usual, I ask whether this is just cluelessness by someone hopelessly mired in wokeness, or if he’s just spiking the football in our faces.

    And Admiral John Kirby, retread again? He went from Defense Dept. spokesman to State Dept. spokesman, now he’s back. Does he have some preternatural gift for excellence as this critical, challenging position? We need more Heather Nauert types.

    • Replies: @Spect3r
    @EdwardM

    The revolving door of the Military-Industrial complex never stops spinning.

  45. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan's view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Similarly, WWI on the Eastern Front largely consisted of the locals farting around until a few divisions of Germans were sent in by train, who kicked everybody's ass, but who then got back on their trains to die on the Western Front.

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren't bad either.

    Replies: @Feryl, @JMcG, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Anonymous, @Whiskey

    I can’t see a case for the effectiveness of the British or the French in either of the World Wars. Gallipoli? The Somme? Passchendaele? Verdin? The Nivelle Offensive? Jutland?
    Dieppe? Crete? France? Norway? Singapore? The Italian Campaign?

    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
  46. @Almost Missouri
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Her numbers are a little off. It isn't 25% in prison, nor 25% gay. But I guess that's more palatable than adding in that the most eligible black men often prefer to mate with non-black (especially white) women, and that a big chunk of the ones left to black women are major playas.

    I personally had never thought about this plight of black women until it was explained by a black coworker-ess some years ago (including the out-marrying and playas). Since then it's hard to un-see it, and as other commenters have said, it is probably a permanent fixture of liberal, multiracial society.

    So the twitteress above is correct that black women have to come to some sort of acceptance of the facts as they are. Also she has nice eyes and I appreciate her keeping her décolletage in frame for the video's duration. This adds to her credibility.

    Replies: @Arclight, @anon

    She at once makes a valid point – that there are not enough eligible black men to go around for black women – and then turns around and shows why dysfunctionality reigns by indicating she is perfectly fine with black men having multiple women in their lives just so she isn’t without a partner.

    Although there are lots of excuses for the condition of black America, one thing that I think is undisputable is that the decline of decent-paying jobs for men who did not go to college or trade school over the last 4 decades of the 20th century was disproportionately bad for black men. Prior to that there was a path to being the provider of a traditional family for a very large share of the working class population and taking that away left millions with extremely limited economic prospects right as more black women moved into the workforce. The percentage of black men that were seen as potential long term mates fell off a cliff and the effect this had on family formation and the outcomes for children were awful.

    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It’s a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender – be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Arclight


    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It’s a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender – be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.
     
    It often seems like fool's gold, but the idea is that because blacks vote between 90-95% in favor of the Democrat in National elections, and because blacks are concentrated in big cities in swing states (Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit-Milwaukee), poaching just a few points from the Democrats' black vote tally in a National election could be outcome determinative.

    Of course, the Democrats' response to this has been to amp up the racial grievance in advance of elections and thereby gifting us with heretofore unseen levels of black ethnonarcissism expressed in things like BLM riots, Black Girl Magic and more explicit white race-hatred which tends not to quickly recede between elections.

    Replies: @RonaldB

    , @anon
    @Arclight

    She at once makes a valid point – that there are not enough eligible black men to go around for black women – and then turns around and shows why dysfunctionality reigns by indicating she is perfectly fine with black men having multiple women in their lives just so she isn’t without a partner.

    Dude, she's a girl...being a girl. Numbers are not her strong point, and an acceptance of polygamy is generally lurking in the female brain's firmware. Don't expect her to really understand cause and effect, either.

    , @Alden
    @Arclight

    GOP obeys it’s cannibal capitalist masters. No good well paid jobs even for the most highly skilled and educated. Asians and Indians as HI-B Drs programmers accountants engineers etc. Mexicans and Central Americans for everything else. For 2 generations. Then they’ll find a new source of cheap labor.

    Lots of college grads are convinced that the Republicans were the slave abusing Confederates and the Democrats the federals during the Civil War. Really. Because that’s what they learned since middle school. And the Republicans were the KKK that lynched millions of innocent black men who did nothing wrong.

    The GOP really really needs to realize that there’s only one race in America that votes GOP Whites.

    Blacks Asians and most Hispanics just vote straight democrat. For instance, black congress critter racial rabble rouser Maxine Waters district is mostly Hispanic now. They still vote her back every 2 years.

  47. @Anon
    The New York Times was on the story just before woke broke:

    https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/12/20/black-men-for-black-women/a-definite-shortage-of-marriageable-black-men

    Room for Debate
    DECEMBER 20, 2011
    Black Men for Black Women?

    INTRODUCTION

    In a recent essay in the Sunday Review, Angela Stanley, a researcher at Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at Ohio State University, wrote about being black, single and female and how friends and family worry that she’ll never find a husband because supposedly the statistics are stacked against her.

    Is there a shortage of black men for black women? Does that question presume that men and women should marry someone of their own race? Ralph Richard Banks, the author of “Is Marriage for White People? How the African American Marriage Decline Affects Everyone,” suggested this forum.
     

    Ralph Richard Banks
    A Shortage of Eligible Black Men
    RALPH RICHARD BANKS, AUTHOR, "IS MARRIAGE FOR WHITE PEOPLE?"
    Marriage has declined throughout our society, but more so for African-Americans, and in particular black women.

    Angela Stanley
    A Shortage: Maybe, Maybe Not
    ANGELA STANLEY, KIRWAN INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF RACE AND ETHNICITY, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
    If a black woman happens to be single, it is not necessarily a commentary on black men as eligible partners.

    Ivory A. Toldson
    Education and Income, Not Race
    IVORY A. TOLDSON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, HOWARD UNIVERSITY
    If black people dealt with the facts, instead of the news media's 'battle of the black sexes,' they'd find healthy love in one another.

    Dalton Conley
    Blacks Need to Reinvent Marriage
    DALTON CONLEY, SOCIOLOGIST
    The dearth of 'marriageable' black men assumes that marital roles are inflexible, and that blacks only marry blacks.
     

    Replies: @PaceLaw, @Anon

    Didn’t the New York Times used to publish news? It’s more like Cosmo these days.

  48. Remember when they used to say that it was ridiculous to imagine that armed rednecks could humiliate the US military like say Afghans or Vietnamese? Sectetary Austin is helping to bring about the day when no one will be able to think it.

  49. anon[143] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Her numbers are a little off. It isn't 25% in prison, nor 25% gay. But I guess that's more palatable than adding in that the most eligible black men often prefer to mate with non-black (especially white) women, and that a big chunk of the ones left to black women are major playas.

    I personally had never thought about this plight of black women until it was explained by a black coworker-ess some years ago (including the out-marrying and playas). Since then it's hard to un-see it, and as other commenters have said, it is probably a permanent fixture of liberal, multiracial society.

    So the twitteress above is correct that black women have to come to some sort of acceptance of the facts as they are. Also she has nice eyes and I appreciate her keeping her décolletage in frame for the video's duration. This adds to her credibility.

    Replies: @Arclight, @anon

    There is no shortage of black people. The idea that blacks or Asians are some a minority should be left to a time when we weren’t so global. There is a whole world of African, they just don’t want to take their talents and live there, become a teacher and a model for others.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_population

    Just the top:
    Nigeria (more) 195,873,800 15.40% 200,963,599 195,874,683 5,088,916 2.60% 27
    Ethiopia (more) 109,223,919 8.59% 112,078,730 109,224,414 2,854,316 2.61% 27
    Egypt (more) 98,423,256 7.74% 100,388,073 98,423,598 1,964,475 2.00% 35
    DR Congo (more) 84,067,620 6.61% 86,790,567 84,068,091 2,722,476 3.24% 22
    South Africa (more) 57,792,384 4.54% 58,558,270 57,792,518 765,752 1.33% 53
    Tanzania (more) 56,313,145 4.43% 58,005,463 56,313,438 1,692,025 3.00% 23
    Kenya (more) 51,392,360 4.04% 52,573,973 51,392,565 1,181,408 2.30% 30

    And don’t forget;
    Although most Afro-Caribbean people today live in English, French and Spanish-speaking Caribbean nations and territories, there are also significant diaspora populations throughout the Western world—especially in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France and the Netherlands. African-Caribbeans have maintained their African culture and heritage, and traditional African religions, like Santeria (a mix of Catholicism and Yoruba Orishas) are still being practiced. For this reason, in some Caribbean countries, African languages are being spoken, like Igbo and Yoruba in Cuba, and Brazil (South America) .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Caribbean_people

  50. @res
    They really just don't care how blatant they are about it.

    Replies: @Charon, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    They really just don’t care how blatant they are about it.

    Isn’t it just the logic of disparate impact taken to its inevitable conclusion?

    Step 1: Eliminate information that permits invidious discrimination against a protected class (i.e., First Class Citizens) in order to deliver to them unearned benefits.

    Step 2: Discover that withholding the information had the opposite of the desired effect. (Suppress articulating that the information made it possible to discriminate in favor of the First Class Citizens).

    Step 3: Declare that the system which withholds information is systemically racist (didn’t you just make it so?) and reverse course to provide the withheld information so that tacit favorable discrimination can resume as if nothing really happened in the interim.

    It’s “heads I win, tails you lose” as government policy regarding race. In fact, it’s crazy to believe that there wasn’t silent favorable discrimination for blacks for military promotions when the entire civilian and military leadership of the DoD has been demanding tantamount to ordering more high ranking black officers for well over a decade. (Leave aside the fact that actually competent and accomplished black military officers are probably heavily recruited for lucrative positions in American industry and away from a career in the Armed Forces in order to fulfill corporate America’s extravagant commitment to DIE).

    They’re just never going to acknowledge that they’ve just proven the opposite of the assumption about race in the Armed Forces. There will be no epiphany. This can only be remedied by hewing away the political military leadership in one quick blitz, installing new leadership disposed against the political lurch of the military since the Obama years, and demonstrating objective measures of increased performance under the new leadership as a minimum standard. They want actual competent patriotic NCOs and Officers to quit in disgust as an ideological filtering mechanism.

  51. @Arclight
    @Almost Missouri

    She at once makes a valid point - that there are not enough eligible black men to go around for black women - and then turns around and shows why dysfunctionality reigns by indicating she is perfectly fine with black men having multiple women in their lives just so she isn't without a partner.

    Although there are lots of excuses for the condition of black America, one thing that I think is undisputable is that the decline of decent-paying jobs for men who did not go to college or trade school over the last 4 decades of the 20th century was disproportionately bad for black men. Prior to that there was a path to being the provider of a traditional family for a very large share of the working class population and taking that away left millions with extremely limited economic prospects right as more black women moved into the workforce. The percentage of black men that were seen as potential long term mates fell off a cliff and the effect this had on family formation and the outcomes for children were awful.

    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It's a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender - be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Alden

    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It’s a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender – be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.

    It often seems like fool’s gold, but the idea is that because blacks vote between 90-95% in favor of the Democrat in National elections, and because blacks are concentrated in big cities in swing states (Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit-Milwaukee), poaching just a few points from the Democrats’ black vote tally in a National election could be outcome determinative.

    Of course, the Democrats’ response to this has been to amp up the racial grievance in advance of elections and thereby gifting us with heretofore unseen levels of black ethnonarcissism expressed in things like BLM riots, Black Girl Magic and more explicit white race-hatred which tends not to quickly recede between elections.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    Another Democrat strategy for blacks concentrated in big cities is to loosen the restrictions on vote harvesting. Democrat political machine bosses specialize in contacting otherwise uninterested and uninformed black voters and bribing them to surrender their ballots or signatures to the vote harvester. This is why the Democrats always call racial vote suppression on any ballot measure to improve security or prevent mass vote harvesting.

  52. @Anonymous
    @It's Ovrer


    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations.
     
    I do not know if the name Trevor N. Dupuy bears much weight around here, but Steve may know of him because Dupuy was known for attempting to quantify which armies were "better":

    Dupuy's main contribution to military operation analysis is the assessment method Quantified Judgment Method or QJM, where the outcome of a battle is predicted using a fairly complicated multiplicative-additive formula in which various factors relating to the strength and firepower of the fighting parties as well as the circumstances are taken into account. Dupuy and his associates adjusted the parameters of his model by using known statistical facts of several recorded battles.
     
    Here is what Dupuy had to say on the topic of US servicemen in WWII:

    One of the things that emerged from our study of operations on the Western Front and in Italy in World War II was that there was a consistent superiority of German ground troops to American and British ground troops. As a retired American army officer this didn't particularly please me, but I can't deny what my numbers tell me...I had assumed that by 1944 we would have learned enough that we would be approximately equal, [but] in combat units 100 German in mid-1944 were the equivalent of somewhere around 125 American or British soldiers.
     
    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    If you take a moment to contrast what America was like in the 1940s (i.e. a high trust society) with what it is like today, and what its industrial capacity was seventy-five years ago compared to now, well, why America keeps losing wars does not remain a mystery for long.

    Admittedly, it is also possible that the US enters into wars, not with any serious intent to win them, but rather, to use them as a mechanism to siphon wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy.

    (This would help explain the seemingly inexplicable insistence of the Americans to remain in Afghanistan for two decades when Bin Laden and co. cleared out well before the Americans ever appeared. The Americans fared no better than the Russians did, alas, but Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. made out quite handsomely for themselves and their shareholders.)

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Henry, @ben tillman, @Farenheit, @res

    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    And weather luck.

  53. @It's Ovrer
    @Rob

    Your mistake is seeing the military as that capable in the first place.

    Where is the proof of that exactly? Being tested against Afghanistan, the worst shithole outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Saddam-era Iraq? GWOT?

    The last peer-state war the US was in was the Korean War. It was, by all accounts, a stalemate. I wouldn't call it that though if you consider the Chinese were what made it a peer war, and they didn't join from the start. If you start from the day they joined, then the US lost that war.

    From the day China joined to the armistice, the US lost hundreds of miles of territory. That territory is now called North Korea and is an endless (but mostly harmless) pain in the ass. Of course, many Ameritards still consider it a victory because the Chinese lost at least 4x as many troops as the US did... because of course that is the judge of victory and not actual territorial changes.

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations. Surely, more funding and more technology, and within that linear purview they might be better (though even that gap is thinning rapidly), but in almost every other way they are average or inferior.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Henry, @Feryl, @bomag, @Wency

    We were/are fighting far from home against locals.

  54. @Anonymous
    @It's Ovrer


    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations.
     
    I do not know if the name Trevor N. Dupuy bears much weight around here, but Steve may know of him because Dupuy was known for attempting to quantify which armies were "better":

    Dupuy's main contribution to military operation analysis is the assessment method Quantified Judgment Method or QJM, where the outcome of a battle is predicted using a fairly complicated multiplicative-additive formula in which various factors relating to the strength and firepower of the fighting parties as well as the circumstances are taken into account. Dupuy and his associates adjusted the parameters of his model by using known statistical facts of several recorded battles.
     
    Here is what Dupuy had to say on the topic of US servicemen in WWII:

    One of the things that emerged from our study of operations on the Western Front and in Italy in World War II was that there was a consistent superiority of German ground troops to American and British ground troops. As a retired American army officer this didn't particularly please me, but I can't deny what my numbers tell me...I had assumed that by 1944 we would have learned enough that we would be approximately equal, [but] in combat units 100 German in mid-1944 were the equivalent of somewhere around 125 American or British soldiers.
     
    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    If you take a moment to contrast what America was like in the 1940s (i.e. a high trust society) with what it is like today, and what its industrial capacity was seventy-five years ago compared to now, well, why America keeps losing wars does not remain a mystery for long.

    Admittedly, it is also possible that the US enters into wars, not with any serious intent to win them, but rather, to use them as a mechanism to siphon wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy.

    (This would help explain the seemingly inexplicable insistence of the Americans to remain in Afghanistan for two decades when Bin Laden and co. cleared out well before the Americans ever appeared. The Americans fared no better than the Russians did, alas, but Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. made out quite handsomely for themselves and their shareholders.)

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Henry, @ben tillman, @Farenheit, @res

    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    The Russians did the dirty work defeating the Germans, and Stalin’s purported quote gives the detail as to how “Quantity has a quality all its own”

  55. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan's view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Similarly, WWI on the Eastern Front largely consisted of the locals farting around until a few divisions of Germans were sent in by train, who kicked everybody's ass, but who then got back on their trains to die on the Western Front.

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren't bad either.

    Replies: @Feryl, @JMcG, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Anonymous, @Whiskey

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan’s view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Steve, do you credit the idea that the Germans were hopped up on speed at the outset of German aggressions in WWII, but that they later hit a wall of exhaustion and fatigue when the inevitable caught up with them?

    Though it wouldn’t be surprising if Prussian-derived German infantry culture was a few steps ahead given that the various German principalities have been at the crux of the land wars of Great European powers in the past – having the ability (and reputation) to be able repel ambitious empires and superior numbers on one’s borders in order to not be overrun and absorbed is probably a prime concern.

    The flip side is that the British and Americans were probably superior naval powers given that the former is an island and the latter derived from the British bordered by oceans on two coasts.

  56. @JimDandy
    @Rob

    I seem to remember conservative writers sounding the alarm that Obama was purging the ranks of military brass and promoting SJW cronies, making a politically-correct fighting force inevitable. Looks like they were right.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “Looks like they were right.”

    Will frogmen be placed in the waters surrounding Martha’s Vineyard to protect Obama’s triumphant birthday bash from attack by white nationalists? And will these frogmen be USN or servants of the Devourer of Stars?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @SunBakedSuburb

    "servants of the Devourer of Stars"

    Actual frog men.

  57. @Ano
    Dear Mr Sailer,

    Better than photographs, here's a video, just for you whitey!, giving you a preview of the look of the future diversified face of the US Army!

    While of course there will continue to be a role for white troops, namely in going overseas to sacrifice their lives on behalf of Isreal, Big Oil, my former employer Raytheon, etc etc, the offensive focus of our new model armed forces will be on the Home Front, on the enemy within...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=523s81ITrSc

    Yours (with AK-47 in raised fist while I sing 'Shoot the Boer!')

    Toussaint Louverture
    Defense Secretary

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    They seem unsafe… Stay the hell away if you value your longevity…

    • Replies: @anon
    @Joe Stalin

    That's a really big sand trap. Why were the NFAC guys hanging out on a golf course?

    , @Anonymous
    @Joe Stalin

    I remember when initial video of these guys appeared, people were claiming their guns had to be unloaded, as nobody would be dumb enough to be waving loaded rifles around like that - pointing them their own legs, at their comrades, at random passers-by.

    Well I guess we now know better.

  58. @Feryl
    @It's Ovrer

    Military morale and motivation (as important as talent) peaked with WW2 and has been declining ever since (although the arrogance of young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly, both in terms of the war itself and the public reaction to it).

    Americans don't feel entitled anymore to use the tactics and manpower necessary to gain and hold onto control of more territory. Keep in mind that all Western leaders buy into cultmarx non-sense about white supremacists imperialism (e.g. they sympathize with erstwhile "victims" of Western/American conquest instead of wanting to rule over them). If American leaders really wanted to "win" Afghanistan or whatever, they would ruthlessly massacre all Afghanis who oppose them in order to make them submit to American rule. But nope, we half-heartedly fight "insurgents" and try to make "alliances" with locals who typically don't have our back and take advantage of America's wimpiness. We dropped nukes on Japan to gain their submission after 1946.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Hibernian

    “young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly”

    Typically I’m loathe to defend Boomers seeing as they are my eternal enemy but laying the moral catastrophe that was the American war in Vietnam at the feet of young men is not right. The initial impulse made by U.S. security elites — the WW2 generation — to replace the French as the colonial power in southeast Asia was driven by their need to control the Golden Triangle heroin trade. The corporate war grift followed soon after the CIA mission in Laos expanded into Vietnam. The whole damn thing was ugly from its inception.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    @SunBakedSuburb

    But it was Boomers (and late Silent mentors) who were responsible for hundreds of act of terrorism motivated predominantly by hostility toward Vietnam, and lots of really ugly rhetoric around the general subject of the military. Boomers also became convinced of the white imperialist meme around this time (the most ardent supporters of whom many would become academics in the 1970's and 80's, planting seeds for the CultMarx revolution that we were told would remain a fantasy confined to college campuses).

    Moralistic complaints about the motives behind war obscure the fact that rising nations do not feel remorse about conquest. Falling nations do. Western Boomers did not feel pride in their ancestors, called them boring, ignorant, and hypocritical, to justify jettisoning various hated "traditions" which they saw as an impedent to creativity, indiviualism, and happiness. But in return for the loss of great collective efforts, which whatever their motive required much discipline and sacrifice, we've gotten huge levels of mental illness, obesity, drug abuse, and sexual excess, all rooted in the Boomer mentality of living life on one's own terms and never following the rules.

    We must also ask precisely why there is so much angst over Vietnam but not other events. Well, look, it's the big mouth Boomers making a fuss out of their generation being jobbed, a common sentiment has been that their parents and grandparents fought "good wars" while their own generation got stuck with the crappy one. In other words, we want a good war for own vanity.

    BTW, some of the leaders of the 50's and 60's pre-dated the WW2 generation. Some were of the Lost Generation. Furthermore, the WW2 generation quickly handed the baton to the Silent Generation in the 1970's and 80's, who never quite had a clear vision for America though they didn't want to corrupt and destroy America as Boomer leaders have done since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @RonaldB
    @SunBakedSuburb

    There's an excellent account of the genesis of the Vietnam War in McMasters book "Dereliction of Duty". He gives a detailed recounting of the events leading to the inception and development of the war from the perspective of the President, LBJ, Secretary of Defense McNamara, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head and later Vietnam ambassador Maxwell Taylor. All were liars, egomaniacs, narcissists, and Machiavellian power-players. This was the WW2 generation. Going by the book, the war didn't develop from any plan or even empire-building impulse. It rolled along on its own momentum, and nobody had the courage or resolve to actually take the risk of pulling back. LBJ didn't want to be known as the President who lost a war, and nobody in the military was willing to risk their career advancement by making a public statement. LBJ had no desire or plan to win the war, and constantly hobbled the military to make sure there were no initiatives by which the US could be accused of unprovoked aggression. So, the 48,000 servicemen who lost their lives just kind of trickled away. Not to mention the million or so Vietnamese who died.

  59. @SunBakedSuburb
    @JimDandy

    "Looks like they were right."

    Will frogmen be placed in the waters surrounding Martha's Vineyard to protect Obama's triumphant birthday bash from attack by white nationalists? And will these frogmen be USN or servants of the Devourer of Stars?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “servants of the Devourer of Stars”

    Actual frog men.

  60. @Anonymous
    @It's Ovrer


    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations.
     
    I do not know if the name Trevor N. Dupuy bears much weight around here, but Steve may know of him because Dupuy was known for attempting to quantify which armies were "better":

    Dupuy's main contribution to military operation analysis is the assessment method Quantified Judgment Method or QJM, where the outcome of a battle is predicted using a fairly complicated multiplicative-additive formula in which various factors relating to the strength and firepower of the fighting parties as well as the circumstances are taken into account. Dupuy and his associates adjusted the parameters of his model by using known statistical facts of several recorded battles.
     
    Here is what Dupuy had to say on the topic of US servicemen in WWII:

    One of the things that emerged from our study of operations on the Western Front and in Italy in World War II was that there was a consistent superiority of German ground troops to American and British ground troops. As a retired American army officer this didn't particularly please me, but I can't deny what my numbers tell me...I had assumed that by 1944 we would have learned enough that we would be approximately equal, [but] in combat units 100 German in mid-1944 were the equivalent of somewhere around 125 American or British soldiers.
     
    Put another way, the Americans won WWII, not because their troops were superior, but through sheer weight of numbers and massive industrial capacity.

    If you take a moment to contrast what America was like in the 1940s (i.e. a high trust society) with what it is like today, and what its industrial capacity was seventy-five years ago compared to now, well, why America keeps losing wars does not remain a mystery for long.

    Admittedly, it is also possible that the US enters into wars, not with any serious intent to win them, but rather, to use them as a mechanism to siphon wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy.

    (This would help explain the seemingly inexplicable insistence of the Americans to remain in Afghanistan for two decades when Bin Laden and co. cleared out well before the Americans ever appeared. The Americans fared no better than the Russians did, alas, but Halliburton, Raytheon, etc. made out quite handsomely for themselves and their shareholders.)

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @John Henry, @ben tillman, @Farenheit, @res

    Thanks. It looks like this is the most relevant book for Dupuy’s QJM.

    There is ongoing QJM discussion at
    http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/tag/quantified-judgement-model-qjm/

    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?

    P.S. I think Twinkie is on hiatus (see his last comment June 20th), but if he happens to see this I would be interested in his take as well. A quick search shows a few of his comments in Anatoly Karlin’s blog:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=dupuy&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Twinkie

    He was rather critical in this one.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/little-green-army-women/#comment-3482448

    His other comments were all in this thread (AK mentioned Dupuy in his post).
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/#comment-1199183
    There he specifically calls out mathematical errors in the book I linked above. Anyone know of a reference which lists the errors?

    • Replies: @anon
    @res

    That book is from 1979, by the way. It is possible that there was / is data Dupuy missed 40+ years ago. For example, S.L.A. Marshall's work was generally accepted back then, but now we know it has some serious errors.

    Replies: @res

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @res

    The Germans killed 3 Russian soldiers for every one they lost. They were well trained and well led.

    If Hitler had not declared war on the USA and not invaded Russia, he was in a good position to keep much of the territory he'd conquered by July 1940, though I think it was just a matter of time before Stalin attacked him from the east.

    Replies: @Whiskey

    , @Anonymous
    @res


    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?
     
    Dupuy was a career military man; I do not blame him for trying to bring order to chaos.

    On the other hand, I admit to becoming quite nervous when I see the boffins start to play around with numbers. My unhappy experience is that the chaps who do the number-crunching rarely have to bear the consequences when the numbers they are so enthusiastic about do not fare well upon encountering reality.

    I think this Twinkie fellow more or less had the right idea when he said:

    His model was, as with many such models, mechanistically firepower-based, and poorly handled the crucial intangibles of war such as morale, cohesion, and operational excellence.

     

    My understanding is that the Americans are credited with winning every major battle of the Vietnam War, yet they still lost the war. Who could have predicted such an outcome? I do not doubt for a moment that when the Americans fed all the data into their computers, the computers responded by telling them that they were winning the war by a wide margin.

    But Twinkie is right: how do you measure and factor in human qualities like patience, stupidity, bravery, and indifference? Is it possible to quantify e.g. how long a particular group of soldiers can "take it" before they simply stop caring about their fate? Or how long an individual can continue to fight after they become convinced that the side they are on is not in the right after all?

    I have no idea. I can only hope that any country (not just America) looking to send its young men off to parts unknown has a far more complete grasp of such matters than I have.

    Replies: @RonaldB

  61. anon[124] • Disclaimer says:
    @Arclight
    @Almost Missouri

    She at once makes a valid point - that there are not enough eligible black men to go around for black women - and then turns around and shows why dysfunctionality reigns by indicating she is perfectly fine with black men having multiple women in their lives just so she isn't without a partner.

    Although there are lots of excuses for the condition of black America, one thing that I think is undisputable is that the decline of decent-paying jobs for men who did not go to college or trade school over the last 4 decades of the 20th century was disproportionately bad for black men. Prior to that there was a path to being the provider of a traditional family for a very large share of the working class population and taking that away left millions with extremely limited economic prospects right as more black women moved into the workforce. The percentage of black men that were seen as potential long term mates fell off a cliff and the effect this had on family formation and the outcomes for children were awful.

    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It's a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender - be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Alden

    She at once makes a valid point – that there are not enough eligible black men to go around for black women – and then turns around and shows why dysfunctionality reigns by indicating she is perfectly fine with black men having multiple women in their lives just so she isn’t without a partner.

    Dude, she’s a girl…being a girl. Numbers are not her strong point, and an acceptance of polygamy is generally lurking in the female brain’s firmware. Don’t expect her to really understand cause and effect, either.

  62. @res
    @Anonymous

    Thanks. It looks like this is the most relevant book for Dupuy's QJM.

    https://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318

    There is ongoing QJM discussion at
    http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/tag/quantified-judgement-model-qjm/

    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?

    P.S. I think Twinkie is on hiatus (see his last comment June 20th), but if he happens to see this I would be interested in his take as well. A quick search shows a few of his comments in Anatoly Karlin's blog:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=dupuy&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Twinkie

    He was rather critical in this one.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/little-green-army-women/#comment-3482448

    His other comments were all in this thread (AK mentioned Dupuy in his post).
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/#comment-1199183
    There he specifically calls out mathematical errors in the book I linked above. Anyone know of a reference which lists the errors?

    Replies: @anon, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    That book is from 1979, by the way. It is possible that there was / is data Dupuy missed 40+ years ago. For example, S.L.A. Marshall’s work was generally accepted back then, but now we know it has some serious errors.

    • Replies: @res
    @anon

    I noticed the date. That was part of the reason I included the blog link. It has fairly recent content, but I did not dive in.

  63. @Anon
    @PaceLaw


    You have to wonder if Esper will next ban the use of first names before the promotion board.
     
    At some point in the future I could foresee white parents giving their sons names like Keyshawn and Mohammed just to give them an advantage. If you just changed your name I could see that not being taken seriously by an employer, but if it's your birth name, what are they going to do?

    Replies: @International Jew

    Mohammed Changstein.

  64. @It's Ovrer
    @Rob

    Your mistake is seeing the military as that capable in the first place.

    Where is the proof of that exactly? Being tested against Afghanistan, the worst shithole outside of sub-Saharan Africa? Saddam-era Iraq? GWOT?

    The last peer-state war the US was in was the Korean War. It was, by all accounts, a stalemate. I wouldn't call it that though if you consider the Chinese were what made it a peer war, and they didn't join from the start. If you start from the day they joined, then the US lost that war.

    From the day China joined to the armistice, the US lost hundreds of miles of territory. That territory is now called North Korea and is an endless (but mostly harmless) pain in the ass. Of course, many Ameritards still consider it a victory because the Chinese lost at least 4x as many troops as the US did... because of course that is the judge of victory and not actual territorial changes.

    So no, there is no proof that US servicemen are on the whole of better quality than those of comparable nations. Surely, more funding and more technology, and within that linear purview they might be better (though even that gap is thinning rapidly), but in almost every other way they are average or inferior.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @John Henry, @Feryl, @bomag, @Wency

    I sort of agree, but some criticisms:

    First, I don’t think the Korean War is all that relevant a comparison, one way or the other. The Chinese, in addition to taking a lot more casualties, also vastly outnumbered the US force in Korea. China was fighting on its own doorstep. If the early 1950s US military had the efficiency of the Wehrmacht on its best day, I still don’t think it could have held onto much more Korean territory.

    I also think the US military today (or of the very recent past) is a *lot* more capable than the one that launched Operation Eagle Claw in 1980, by any objective measure. Though I also believe the military is entering into a period of demoralization that will make the post-Vietnam demoralization look like a golden age, and it will last a lot longer — perhaps even for as long as the American Republic still endures. Not only do we have a pattern of failed quagmires where we can’t remember the last time the military did anything praiseworthy, but we have a country whose majority and official ideology despise the sorts of men that actually win wars, and even within the military we have a Woke politicization almost custom-made to demonize and demoralize those same sorts of men and promote bureaucratic HR types instead.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    @Wency

    Generally, a military can be used for internal security or external security. Internal security includes suppression of dissent; an example is the Burma military. Generally, a military can do one or the other credibly well, but not both. The Argentine military lost to the British expeditionary forces during the Falklands War.

    Assuring a woke military is not a bad strategy if you intend to use the army for internal security against its own people. It's a very bad strategy if you intend to take on credible foreign powers like China, Russia, or even Iran. One hopes the current crop of state department and defense officials are aware enough of their increasingly incompetent military so as to not blunder the US into a disastrous war presenting an existential threat.

    Replies: @Wency

  65. @Arclight
    As has been repeatedly noted, our overlords believe that the reason 50+ years of social policy and public spending designed to put a foot on the scale for blacks hasn't worked out are things like implicit bias that prevent people in power from recognizing their incredible potential and putting them in a position to succeed. Yet all the evidence is that given the chance, society gives blacks the benefit of the doubt perhaps more than any other group but they keep letting us down.

    Perhaps the roots of the current cultural crackup is a result of the cognitive dissonance of internalizing the belief that blacks are capable of great things if only given a (white) helping hand and observation of the real world failures of that belief that are in front of you daily.

    Replies: @Joseph Doaks, @RonaldB

    “Perhaps the roots of the current cultural crackup is a result of the cognitive dissonance of internalizing the belief that blacks are capable of great things if only given a (white) helping hand and observation of the real world failures of that belief that are in front of you daily.”

    Hence the invention of “systemic white supremacy,” and the 1619 Project as proof of it. Doubling down on denial of reality can only last as long as the media, the academy and big tech continue to support it, but cognitive dissonance must win out in the long run — but will there be a country left when that finally happens?

  66. @PaceLaw
    @Anon

    Yeah, this issue has been out there in the black community for quite a while now. I can’t see anything in the near, or even distant, future that will fix and/or ameliorate it. Several factors are involved: 1) black women will continuously earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees at a significantly higher rate than black men; 2) black men will continue to commit random acts of violence at an astonishingly high rate, and thus will become incarcerated, leading to a dearth of dating partners; and 3) black women generally do not like to date outside of their race, yet also it seems as if other races do not generally prefer black woman as mates (many exceptions to the rule are duly noted). The bottom line reality is that many black women seem to be in a tough spot. Not enough black men of comparable education to go around, but also in-group discrimination and preferences that actively discourage dating outside the race. Sad.

    Replies: @Wency, @Johann Ricke, @Rahan

    When we were first dating, my wife used to work at an office doing semi-governmental administrative work with lots of black women who mostly had Master’s degrees, minimum Bachelor’s, ages ranging from 30s to 60s. Not a single one of them had so much as a long-term boyfriend — some of them had never had a serious boyfriend. None of them had ever been married, and none of them had children. And they didn’t seem like bad women — all very friendly, got along well with my wife, almost all went to church. A lot of obesity, to be sure, but a few of them were reasonably fit.

    I’m acquainted with one black man who has an advanced degree. He is, of course, married to a white woman.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Wency

    "lots of black women who mostly had Master’s degrees, minimum Bachelor’s, ages ranging from 30s to 60s. Not a single one of them had so much as a long-term boyfriend — some of them had never had a serious boyfriend. None of them had ever been married, and none of them had children"

    That's sad, because the black women who drop out of school have plenty of boyfriends and babies. I suppose if you deliberately wanted to lower black IQ that's how you'd do it.

    To be fair, the more letters after her name a white girl has the fewer kids she'll have, but at least she gets the boyfriends bit even if the next generation doesn't get her bright babies. See Dr Alice Evans of King's College London (whose birthday it is) for details.

    Replies: @Wency

  67. @Arclight
    As has been repeatedly noted, our overlords believe that the reason 50+ years of social policy and public spending designed to put a foot on the scale for blacks hasn't worked out are things like implicit bias that prevent people in power from recognizing their incredible potential and putting them in a position to succeed. Yet all the evidence is that given the chance, society gives blacks the benefit of the doubt perhaps more than any other group but they keep letting us down.

    Perhaps the roots of the current cultural crackup is a result of the cognitive dissonance of internalizing the belief that blacks are capable of great things if only given a (white) helping hand and observation of the real world failures of that belief that are in front of you daily.

    Replies: @Joseph Doaks, @RonaldB

    There’s actually a darker reason for eternal white hope to find a magic formula to make all blacks productive citizens: the question of, if they can’t be brought up to snuff, what the heck to do with them? It’s a question that plagued the US from its beginning. The emancipationists were all for freeing the slaves, but they didn’t want the freed slaves coming to live with them. Mostly, as slavery became less economical, and states voted to end slavery, they gave slaveowners plenty of time to sell their slaves further south. Thomas Jefferson, who freed his slaves in his will, had precious few slaves to free, as he sold most of them to pay back his debts.

    So, we have to accept some race realism. Blacks will by and large vote for blacks, regardless of policy. Blacks will have a lower proportion of high-level qualified people, and a higher proportion of criminals. Chances are, in a democratic election, places with a black majority will vote for an incompetent and corrupt leader, as long as they’re black. Also, black juries will free black defendants. So, a locale either has to get rid of most blacks, or filter the electorate so as to limit the voting population to responsible, educated voters. This will eliminate many, though not all, blacks. The alternative is a political district that soaks up all the money that white districts throw at it, and is still mired in corruption and abominable services.

  68. @res
    @Anonymous

    Thanks. It looks like this is the most relevant book for Dupuy's QJM.

    https://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318

    There is ongoing QJM discussion at
    http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/tag/quantified-judgement-model-qjm/

    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?

    P.S. I think Twinkie is on hiatus (see his last comment June 20th), but if he happens to see this I would be interested in his take as well. A quick search shows a few of his comments in Anatoly Karlin's blog:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=dupuy&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Twinkie

    He was rather critical in this one.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/little-green-army-women/#comment-3482448

    His other comments were all in this thread (AK mentioned Dupuy in his post).
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/#comment-1199183
    There he specifically calls out mathematical errors in the book I linked above. Anyone know of a reference which lists the errors?

    Replies: @anon, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    The Germans killed 3 Russian soldiers for every one they lost. They were well trained and well led.

    If Hitler had not declared war on the USA and not invaded Russia, he was in a good position to keep much of the territory he’d conquered by July 1940, though I think it was just a matter of time before Stalin attacked him from the east.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    @Jim Don Bob

    The German Staff themselves did not think this. They found serious deficiencies in both Poland and France, with many operational errors caused by poor training. They used the pauses in operations from both campaigns to retrain troops that had operational errors. But the tempo of the Eastern Campaigns, added to the Med campaigns in Greece, North Africa, Italy, etc. never allowed them to re-equip and retrain.

    In particular, German tanks, machine guns, artillery, and self propelled artillery were complex systems requiring lots and lots of training. At the start of Barbarossa they were likely the most highly trained, but their own staff felt at the end of the campaign they had serious issues. They lost enormous amounts of men in that campaign even on the offensive, men that could not be replaced. Much less their training.

    This has huge implications for the US by the way. Any sustained conflict we are toast. Because Shontavious no matter how much you train him won't be as combat effective as the late Chris Kyle.

  69. @Wency
    @It's Ovrer

    I sort of agree, but some criticisms:

    First, I don't think the Korean War is all that relevant a comparison, one way or the other. The Chinese, in addition to taking a lot more casualties, also vastly outnumbered the US force in Korea. China was fighting on its own doorstep. If the early 1950s US military had the efficiency of the Wehrmacht on its best day, I still don't think it could have held onto much more Korean territory.

    I also think the US military today (or of the very recent past) is a *lot* more capable than the one that launched Operation Eagle Claw in 1980, by any objective measure. Though I also believe the military is entering into a period of demoralization that will make the post-Vietnam demoralization look like a golden age, and it will last a lot longer -- perhaps even for as long as the American Republic still endures. Not only do we have a pattern of failed quagmires where we can't remember the last time the military did anything praiseworthy, but we have a country whose majority and official ideology despise the sorts of men that actually win wars, and even within the military we have a Woke politicization almost custom-made to demonize and demoralize those same sorts of men and promote bureaucratic HR types instead.

    Replies: @RonaldB

    Generally, a military can be used for internal security or external security. Internal security includes suppression of dissent; an example is the Burma military. Generally, a military can do one or the other credibly well, but not both. The Argentine military lost to the British expeditionary forces during the Falklands War.

    Assuring a woke military is not a bad strategy if you intend to use the army for internal security against its own people. It’s a very bad strategy if you intend to take on credible foreign powers like China, Russia, or even Iran. One hopes the current crop of state department and defense officials are aware enough of their increasingly incompetent military so as to not blunder the US into a disastrous war presenting an existential threat.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @RonaldB

    I honestly don't think there are many leftists who are thinking of the US military in terms of using it for internal security -- the left just doesn't think they'll need it for that purpose. But I do think there are leftists who are worried about the military (which has a natural rightist bias) potentially aiding a rightist seizure of power. So it's more about neutralizing the right (which is increasingly electorally irrelevant and has no other avenues for taking power in the next few decades besides a possible military coup) than crushing it.

    The US military will still be able to serve another purpose you didn't mention: pushing around third-world countries, for the sake of the egos of politicians and other chicken-hawk elites. Even a relatively low-morale force with a budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars will be able to serve that purpose.

  70. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan's view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Similarly, WWI on the Eastern Front largely consisted of the locals farting around until a few divisions of Germans were sent in by train, who kicked everybody's ass, but who then got back on their trains to die on the Western Front.

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren't bad either.

    Replies: @Feryl, @JMcG, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Anonymous, @Whiskey

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren’t bad either.

    It is interesting to note that the end of WWI saw, not an increase in hatred of the Germans by the British, but rather, an admission that the Germans had fought a good fight:

    Pro-German feeling had been increasing. With the war over and the German armies beaten, we could give the German soldier credit for being the most efficient fighting man in Europe … Some undergraduates even insisted that we had been fighting on the wrong side: our natural enemies were the French.

    — Robert Graves

    My impression of the Allied victory in WWI has always been that it was a near-run thing. Had the war lasted even a few more weeks, I am convinced the British Army would likely have seen the same sort of widespread revolt the French had in 1917. As it was, there were a couple of riots in late 1918 and early 1919 when the soldiers felt they were not being demobilised fast enough.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @Anonymous

    The US was the decisive factor in World War I, just as much in World War II, by the summer of 1917 the French had been reduced to a nearly complete defensive posture in their own territory, largely because of the aforementioned mutinies. Germany's problems were that they had few allies and the Royal Navy blockade which slowly starved the civilian population of the country. If Britain had sat out the war, both Russia and France would have been beaten fairly easily, and Germany would have replaced Britain has Europe's leading nation, which is why they didn't sit the war out.

    However by 1917, even Britain and it's Empire were beginning to show the strain, but by then the US had joined the fight. After the French Army mutinies, the new Army chief promised no more offensive operations against the Germans until the Americans arrived in large numbers. The German Army was only eighteen miles from Paris when the Marines stopped the German 1918 offensive.

  71. @Joe Stalin
    @Ano

    They seem unsafe... Stay the hell away if you value your longevity...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y44Zr-oPY8A

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

    That’s a really big sand trap. Why were the NFAC guys hanging out on a golf course?

  72. @PaceLaw
    @Anon

    Yeah, this issue has been out there in the black community for quite a while now. I can’t see anything in the near, or even distant, future that will fix and/or ameliorate it. Several factors are involved: 1) black women will continuously earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees at a significantly higher rate than black men; 2) black men will continue to commit random acts of violence at an astonishingly high rate, and thus will become incarcerated, leading to a dearth of dating partners; and 3) black women generally do not like to date outside of their race, yet also it seems as if other races do not generally prefer black woman as mates (many exceptions to the rule are duly noted). The bottom line reality is that many black women seem to be in a tough spot. Not enough black men of comparable education to go around, but also in-group discrimination and preferences that actively discourage dating outside the race. Sad.

    Replies: @Wency, @Johann Ricke, @Rahan

    black women generally do not like to date outside of their race, yet also it seems as if other races do not generally prefer black woman as mates (many exceptions to the rule are duly noted).

    This is called making a virtue (the first part) out of necessity (the second part). It’s not even looks or weight. Everyone’s had a black colleague who’s complained of racism detectable only by the accuser. How’d you like to deal with that every waking hour?

  73. @Wency
    @PaceLaw

    When we were first dating, my wife used to work at an office doing semi-governmental administrative work with lots of black women who mostly had Master's degrees, minimum Bachelor's, ages ranging from 30s to 60s. Not a single one of them had so much as a long-term boyfriend -- some of them had never had a serious boyfriend. None of them had ever been married, and none of them had children. And they didn't seem like bad women -- all very friendly, got along well with my wife, almost all went to church. A lot of obesity, to be sure, but a few of them were reasonably fit.

    I'm acquainted with one black man who has an advanced degree. He is, of course, married to a white woman.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “lots of black women who mostly had Master’s degrees, minimum Bachelor’s, ages ranging from 30s to 60s. Not a single one of them had so much as a long-term boyfriend — some of them had never had a serious boyfriend. None of them had ever been married, and none of them had children”

    That’s sad, because the black women who drop out of school have plenty of boyfriends and babies. I suppose if you deliberately wanted to lower black IQ that’s how you’d do it.

    To be fair, the more letters after her name a white girl has the fewer kids she’ll have, but at least she gets the boyfriends bit even if the next generation doesn’t get her bright babies. See Dr Alice Evans of King’s College London (whose birthday it is) for details.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Indeed, the observation (and I first recall seeing this from Jayman) is that dysgenics is operating much more rapidly among blacks than whites, and this has been clear for a while. But it really struck home when I was exposed to all those ladies I just described.

    One stat I wish I could find (but never had any luck) is married TFR by race in the US (with separate stats for mixed-race and same-race couples).

  74. Normal white Europeans are tired of American negrolatry; tired of affluent Western European perversion; tired of all that stinks in the West.

    [MORE]

    What is the perception of the Black Lives Matter movement in Czechia & Slovakia? Do Czechs and Slovaks understand BLM’s demands?

    Ani Lav, lives in Slovakia

    Slovakia has it’s own issue with a brutally murdered citizen at the Belgian airport.

    Jozef Chovanec was a town mayor candidate from Slovakia. He had a wife and two small kids waiting for him at home.

    He was a co-owner of a company in Belgium that recruits employees. One day he was trying to board a plane back home to Slovakia, but he never came home.

    He was detained after being reported of being rude to the staff. Eventually, they left him in a cell for many many hours. Long story short, the staff beat him to death where one officer was sitting on his chest for too long. The security camera revealed a video where one of the officers was doing a Hitler salute while other officers were pacifying him, other officers are seen to be making other stupid gestures and laughing-giggling the whole time. At some instances, we can see one officer sitting on his chest, other holding his legs and other just randomly poking into him for no reason. During the whole thing, the officers made fun of his accent, his broken German he was trying to communicate in, in fact, the Hitler-heiling officer’s explanation when asked why was she doing that, she said she found it funny the way he talked, it reminded her of Hitler. The way he talked… in a foreign language… while he was choked…. and being pacified by 5 people at the same time, as if that was somehow needed.

    Eventually, he died. There were all kinds of “arguments” or excuses that he was being dangerous or intoxicated. There are no official autopsy reports supporting the claim he was drunk or under any other influence. He was never admitted by any medical records that he ever suffers any mental condition. Despite of the Belgian internet trolls trying to claim he was mentally ill, drunk or drugged and dangerous. Even if that was true, how does that excuse the Nazi salutations and laughter whilst killing a human being?

    If you ask how strong is the BLM movement in Slovakia, I ask you back, how strong is the Jozef Chovanec movement in your country? How is this case any different from Floyd’s case? Both are police brutalities that have base in the sense of ethnic/national superiority. Is it less sexy because of worse mass media coverage? Does the big superpower USA need Slovakia’s help to tackle its own issues within its own citizen to stop racism, or is it the tiny Slovakia that needs help of others to even be recognised and seen by others as a country who’s citizen was brutally murdered overseas by a foreign group of officers? Or is it just because the difference in skin tone of Jozef and Belgian officers was not as big as between Floyd and his murderer? Both are victims of the same mindset.

    Why do people from the USA always expect the whole world to join them in campaigns but they never join anybody when something equally serious takes place overseas?

    Are Eastern Europeans really more racist than Western Europeans, or are they just more honest?

    Jakub Štopl, studied Law at Masarykova Univerzita (2021)

    There are some really deep and profound differences in perceiving of racism as a societal issue between the Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

    So I decided to write this answer because of fairly recent event. There was this fuzz recently about the punishment of Czech football player Ondřej Kúdela playing for Czech football club Slavia Prague. Most people probably do not know anything about this, because it really ain’t that important unless you are football fan and you support some of the clubs involved. So I will try to really briefly describe the situation and why it brought me to writing this answer.

    So in the end of a very intense football match between Glasgow Rangers and Slavia Prague, which was from the beginning played very roughly and aggressively from the Rangers side, which committed some really ugly fouls (in one of those fouls, Slavia goalkeeper got his skull fractured), Czech player came up to black player of Rangers said something to his ear with his mouth covered with hand. The player, Glen Kamara, accused Kúdela of racism and of saying to him: “You are a fucking monkey, you know you are”. Kúdela denied it and accused Kamara of physically attacking him inside the stadium after the match. Couple of weeks afterwards the punishment was given by the UEFA: 10 match ban for Kúdela, 4 match ban for the player that fractured the skull of a goalkeeper and 3 match ban for Kamara for the attack inside the stadium.

    Now why am I writing about this fairly irrelevant football skirmish? Because I find that the differences in reaction of Czech society and British society to that incident to be really fascinating. So after the verdict was given, Czech society is almost unanimously united in seeing the punishment as absolutely unfair, unreasonable and just outrages. I really do not remember when, during my lifetime, was such a huge number of Czechs capable of agreement on some topic. This really might be the first time. From our conservative President Miloš Zeman, across the political spectrum all the way to the Mikuláš Ferjenčík of Pirate Party, which is really the closest thing in our parliament to western style progressive left. Everybody condemned the punishment. It really is remarkable. So the main arguments you can hear from everyone? Basically how can UEFA punish the player for something they did not prove he did, and if they do punish him, how can they give substantially higher punishment for verbal offence than for two physical attacks? Another thing that was often pointed out was the fact that UK press did not talk about the dangerous and aggressive behaviour of Glasgow players at all, despite it being crucial for context, and all the attention was aimed at the alleged racism. Generally everybody here will agree that it is complete farce and it has nothing to do with justice.

    Now then I looked at some forums like reddit, facebook discussions on UK sport related pages or British press and I was really stunned. The 99% of the comments were pretty outraged too, but for totally opposite reasons. Everybody was complaining about the punishment being too light, that the player should have been banned for several years of life or that the whole club should have been banned from the UEFA tournaments and that the fact that Kamara was punished for only reacting to racist offence is unacceptable. There was also talks about criminal charges against the Czech player from Scottish police and talks of prison time.

    So, I guess… these are two worlds.

  75. Anonymous[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    @Anonymous

    Thanks. It looks like this is the most relevant book for Dupuy's QJM.

    https://www.amazon.com/Numbers-prediction-war-history-evaluate/dp/0672521318

    There is ongoing QJM discussion at
    http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/tag/quantified-judgement-model-qjm/

    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?

    P.S. I think Twinkie is on hiatus (see his last comment June 20th), but if he happens to see this I would be interested in his take as well. A quick search shows a few of his comments in Anatoly Karlin's blog:
    https://www.unz.com/?s=dupuy&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Twinkie

    He was rather critical in this one.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/little-green-army-women/#comment-3482448

    His other comments were all in this thread (AK mentioned Dupuy in his post).
    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/#comment-1199183
    There he specifically calls out mathematical errors in the book I linked above. Anyone know of a reference which lists the errors?

    Replies: @anon, @Jim Don Bob, @Anonymous

    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?

    Dupuy was a career military man; I do not blame him for trying to bring order to chaos.

    On the other hand, I admit to becoming quite nervous when I see the boffins start to play around with numbers. My unhappy experience is that the chaps who do the number-crunching rarely have to bear the consequences when the numbers they are so enthusiastic about do not fare well upon encountering reality.

    I think this Twinkie fellow more or less had the right idea when he said:

    His model was, as with many such models, mechanistically firepower-based, and poorly handled the crucial intangibles of war such as morale, cohesion, and operational excellence.

    My understanding is that the Americans are credited with winning every major battle of the Vietnam War, yet they still lost the war. Who could have predicted such an outcome? I do not doubt for a moment that when the Americans fed all the data into their computers, the computers responded by telling them that they were winning the war by a wide margin.

    But Twinkie is right: how do you measure and factor in human qualities like patience, stupidity, bravery, and indifference? Is it possible to quantify e.g. how long a particular group of soldiers can “take it” before they simply stop caring about their fate? Or how long an individual can continue to fight after they become convinced that the side they are on is not in the right after all?

    I have no idea. I can only hope that any country (not just America) looking to send its young men off to parts unknown has a far more complete grasp of such matters than I have.

    • Thanks: res
    • Replies: @RonaldB
    @Anonymous

    The Secretary of Defense McNamara during the Vietnamese war, was a notorious number-cruncher who despised the traditional military viewpoints. One of the problems to his approach was he demanded quantification for figures such as the number of enemy killed by bombing. He was given the best estimates of the military analysts, who may or may not have been motivated to jimmy the numbers in the desired direction, but in any case, the numbers were often pure guesswork. So, McNamara's quantitative approach was based on fantasy. There was a famous lawsuit that General Westmoreland brought against CBS, which had accused him of providing false estimates of enemy casualties, designed to make him look better than he was.

    Replies: @Ralph L

  76. @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, military historian John Keegan's view was that during WWII, German soldiers were, man for man, 30% better than American or British soldiers.

    Similarly, WWI on the Eastern Front largely consisted of the locals farting around until a few divisions of Germans were sent in by train, who kicked everybody's ass, but who then got back on their trains to die on the Western Front.

    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren't bad either.

    Replies: @Feryl, @JMcG, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Anonymous, @Whiskey

    That’s not the view, interestingly, of the German General Staff at the same time. Military History Visualized on Youtube has several videos about the quality of the fighting man in the German military.

    Essentially, the Staff Officers felt it took 18 months to train and equip soldiers properly, particularly in infantry units supporting tanks which had to be highly trained in maneuver warfare with tanks as unsupported tanks were often sitting ducks. And infantry unsupported by tanks could also be hit badly quickly.

    The German High command felt that after Barbarossa, fully 50% of their troops were not fit for offensive operations. And after Case Blue, that went to something like 75%.

    I would take their assessment more than the above study, as it does not take into account that the Germans were on the defensive mostly, with often terrain favorable for defense.

    • Replies: @SOL
    @Whiskey

    Or maybe the German General Staff was being an Asian Tiger Mom.

  77. @Jim Don Bob
    @res

    The Germans killed 3 Russian soldiers for every one they lost. They were well trained and well led.

    If Hitler had not declared war on the USA and not invaded Russia, he was in a good position to keep much of the territory he'd conquered by July 1940, though I think it was just a matter of time before Stalin attacked him from the east.

    Replies: @Whiskey

    The German Staff themselves did not think this. They found serious deficiencies in both Poland and France, with many operational errors caused by poor training. They used the pauses in operations from both campaigns to retrain troops that had operational errors. But the tempo of the Eastern Campaigns, added to the Med campaigns in Greece, North Africa, Italy, etc. never allowed them to re-equip and retrain.

    In particular, German tanks, machine guns, artillery, and self propelled artillery were complex systems requiring lots and lots of training. At the start of Barbarossa they were likely the most highly trained, but their own staff felt at the end of the campaign they had serious issues. They lost enormous amounts of men in that campaign even on the offensive, men that could not be replaced. Much less their training.

    This has huge implications for the US by the way. Any sustained conflict we are toast. Because Shontavious no matter how much you train him won’t be as combat effective as the late Chris Kyle.

  78. What is the net effect of this policy by Lloyd Austin?

    Pretty much all promotion will be BLACK BLACK BLACK. Nothing else. This means all the dudes who were operators, or combat leaders, etc. will be denied promotion. And will leave the military bitter at the opportunity denied them. Since blacks are nearly never near any actual combat. Its Whites and Hispanics at the tip of the spear, and in combat. Which is highly G-loaded.

    The military will be combat ineffective, and likely an all-black operation used to suppress the US White population. An all black military WILL herd Whites into camps, joyously.

    Meanwhile the up or out (and thus out) White combat veterans will essentially have no place in civilian life. As being White, they will be last hired and first fired. Black black black black only. The operators will be CIA contractors, but get paid less with less honor, benefits, and respect, and likely little loyalty to their paymasters as mere mercenaries not honored soldiers. The rest, the combat patrol leaders, the combat engineers, the skilled mechanics, etc. will all leave and go work at Starbucks.

    It would not be the move of a smart elite. But since when has our Elites been anything but stupid?

  79. Decadence. Like the rest of the federal government, they have lost the plot.

  80. Anonymous[894] • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Stalin
    @Ano

    They seem unsafe... Stay the hell away if you value your longevity...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y44Zr-oPY8A

    Replies: @anon, @Anonymous

    I remember when initial video of these guys appeared, people were claiming their guns had to be unloaded, as nobody would be dumb enough to be waving loaded rifles around like that – pointing them their own legs, at their comrades, at random passers-by.

    Well I guess we now know better.

  81. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Wency

    "lots of black women who mostly had Master’s degrees, minimum Bachelor’s, ages ranging from 30s to 60s. Not a single one of them had so much as a long-term boyfriend — some of them had never had a serious boyfriend. None of them had ever been married, and none of them had children"

    That's sad, because the black women who drop out of school have plenty of boyfriends and babies. I suppose if you deliberately wanted to lower black IQ that's how you'd do it.

    To be fair, the more letters after her name a white girl has the fewer kids she'll have, but at least she gets the boyfriends bit even if the next generation doesn't get her bright babies. See Dr Alice Evans of King's College London (whose birthday it is) for details.

    Replies: @Wency

    Indeed, the observation (and I first recall seeing this from Jayman) is that dysgenics is operating much more rapidly among blacks than whites, and this has been clear for a while. But it really struck home when I was exposed to all those ladies I just described.

    One stat I wish I could find (but never had any luck) is married TFR by race in the US (with separate stats for mixed-race and same-race couples).

  82. @RonaldB
    @Wency

    Generally, a military can be used for internal security or external security. Internal security includes suppression of dissent; an example is the Burma military. Generally, a military can do one or the other credibly well, but not both. The Argentine military lost to the British expeditionary forces during the Falklands War.

    Assuring a woke military is not a bad strategy if you intend to use the army for internal security against its own people. It's a very bad strategy if you intend to take on credible foreign powers like China, Russia, or even Iran. One hopes the current crop of state department and defense officials are aware enough of their increasingly incompetent military so as to not blunder the US into a disastrous war presenting an existential threat.

    Replies: @Wency

    I honestly don’t think there are many leftists who are thinking of the US military in terms of using it for internal security — the left just doesn’t think they’ll need it for that purpose. But I do think there are leftists who are worried about the military (which has a natural rightist bias) potentially aiding a rightist seizure of power. So it’s more about neutralizing the right (which is increasingly electorally irrelevant and has no other avenues for taking power in the next few decades besides a possible military coup) than crushing it.

    The US military will still be able to serve another purpose you didn’t mention: pushing around third-world countries, for the sake of the egos of politicians and other chicken-hawk elites. Even a relatively low-morale force with a budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars will be able to serve that purpose.

  83. Photos or no photos?

    Sheee-itt if ya do, Sheee-itt if ya don’t.

  84. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Feryl

    "young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly"

    Typically I'm loathe to defend Boomers seeing as they are my eternal enemy but laying the moral catastrophe that was the American war in Vietnam at the feet of young men is not right. The initial impulse made by U.S. security elites -- the WW2 generation -- to replace the French as the colonial power in southeast Asia was driven by their need to control the Golden Triangle heroin trade. The corporate war grift followed soon after the CIA mission in Laos expanded into Vietnam. The whole damn thing was ugly from its inception.

    Replies: @Feryl, @RonaldB

    But it was Boomers (and late Silent mentors) who were responsible for hundreds of act of terrorism motivated predominantly by hostility toward Vietnam, and lots of really ugly rhetoric around the general subject of the military. Boomers also became convinced of the white imperialist meme around this time (the most ardent supporters of whom many would become academics in the 1970’s and 80’s, planting seeds for the CultMarx revolution that we were told would remain a fantasy confined to college campuses).

    Moralistic complaints about the motives behind war obscure the fact that rising nations do not feel remorse about conquest. Falling nations do. Western Boomers did not feel pride in their ancestors, called them boring, ignorant, and hypocritical, to justify jettisoning various hated “traditions” which they saw as an impedent to creativity, indiviualism, and happiness. But in return for the loss of great collective efforts, which whatever their motive required much discipline and sacrifice, we’ve gotten huge levels of mental illness, obesity, drug abuse, and sexual excess, all rooted in the Boomer mentality of living life on one’s own terms and never following the rules.

    We must also ask precisely why there is so much angst over Vietnam but not other events. Well, look, it’s the big mouth Boomers making a fuss out of their generation being jobbed, a common sentiment has been that their parents and grandparents fought “good wars” while their own generation got stuck with the crappy one. In other words, we want a good war for own vanity.

    BTW, some of the leaders of the 50’s and 60’s pre-dated the WW2 generation. Some were of the Lost Generation. Furthermore, the WW2 generation quickly handed the baton to the Silent Generation in the 1970’s and 80’s, who never quite had a clear vision for America though they didn’t want to corrupt and destroy America as Boomer leaders have done since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Feryl

    It’s really amazing to me how there is a subset of commenters on this fine opinion webzine who insist we can’t have nice things because of Boomers and Jews. I thought it’s only liberals who engage in the blame game and victim hood.

  85. @Spect3r
    "“It’s a meritocracy, we’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider diversity across all areas,” he said. “Therefore … I think having a clear picture just makes it easier.”"

    WTF!!!
    How can anyone say something like this and keep a straight face?

    Replies: @EdwardM, @Old Prude

    “How can anyone say something like this and keep a straight face?”

    Years of practice. Just like his house whitey General Milley and all the other suck-ups, most easily identifiable by the presence of stars on their shoulder-boards.

    • Replies: @Spect3r
    @Old Prude

    We are so screwed... I'm not a religious person, but some things make you wonder if the Devil doesn't really exist!

  86. @anon
    @res

    That book is from 1979, by the way. It is possible that there was / is data Dupuy missed 40+ years ago. For example, S.L.A. Marshall's work was generally accepted back then, but now we know it has some serious errors.

    Replies: @res

    I noticed the date. That was part of the reason I included the blog link. It has fairly recent content, but I did not dive in.

  87. @PaceLaw
    @Anon

    Yeah, this issue has been out there in the black community for quite a while now. I can’t see anything in the near, or even distant, future that will fix and/or ameliorate it. Several factors are involved: 1) black women will continuously earn more undergraduate and graduate degrees at a significantly higher rate than black men; 2) black men will continue to commit random acts of violence at an astonishingly high rate, and thus will become incarcerated, leading to a dearth of dating partners; and 3) black women generally do not like to date outside of their race, yet also it seems as if other races do not generally prefer black woman as mates (many exceptions to the rule are duly noted). The bottom line reality is that many black women seem to be in a tough spot. Not enough black men of comparable education to go around, but also in-group discrimination and preferences that actively discourage dating outside the race. Sad.

    Replies: @Wency, @Johann Ricke, @Rahan

    See, you’ve given another delightful reason to import a million African young males a year.

    Wait until the fellow white people figure out that not importing young African males is a crime against US black women by white supermacists.

    Now of course it is very likely the imported Negroes will quickly end up in jail or gangs or both, but society will just have to constantly move one step ahead of the mysterious racism forces and keep importing more and more black males until every Lakeesha has a man.

  88. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Arclight


    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It’s a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender – be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.
     
    It often seems like fool's gold, but the idea is that because blacks vote between 90-95% in favor of the Democrat in National elections, and because blacks are concentrated in big cities in swing states (Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Detroit-Milwaukee), poaching just a few points from the Democrats' black vote tally in a National election could be outcome determinative.

    Of course, the Democrats' response to this has been to amp up the racial grievance in advance of elections and thereby gifting us with heretofore unseen levels of black ethnonarcissism expressed in things like BLM riots, Black Girl Magic and more explicit white race-hatred which tends not to quickly recede between elections.

    Replies: @RonaldB

    Another Democrat strategy for blacks concentrated in big cities is to loosen the restrictions on vote harvesting. Democrat political machine bosses specialize in contacting otherwise uninterested and uninformed black voters and bribing them to surrender their ballots or signatures to the vote harvester. This is why the Democrats always call racial vote suppression on any ballot measure to improve security or prevent mass vote harvesting.

  89. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Feryl

    "young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly"

    Typically I'm loathe to defend Boomers seeing as they are my eternal enemy but laying the moral catastrophe that was the American war in Vietnam at the feet of young men is not right. The initial impulse made by U.S. security elites -- the WW2 generation -- to replace the French as the colonial power in southeast Asia was driven by their need to control the Golden Triangle heroin trade. The corporate war grift followed soon after the CIA mission in Laos expanded into Vietnam. The whole damn thing was ugly from its inception.

    Replies: @Feryl, @RonaldB

    There’s an excellent account of the genesis of the Vietnam War in McMasters book “Dereliction of Duty”. He gives a detailed recounting of the events leading to the inception and development of the war from the perspective of the President, LBJ, Secretary of Defense McNamara, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head and later Vietnam ambassador Maxwell Taylor. All were liars, egomaniacs, narcissists, and Machiavellian power-players. This was the WW2 generation. Going by the book, the war didn’t develop from any plan or even empire-building impulse. It rolled along on its own momentum, and nobody had the courage or resolve to actually take the risk of pulling back. LBJ didn’t want to be known as the President who lost a war, and nobody in the military was willing to risk their career advancement by making a public statement. LBJ had no desire or plan to win the war, and constantly hobbled the military to make sure there were no initiatives by which the US could be accused of unprovoked aggression. So, the 48,000 servicemen who lost their lives just kind of trickled away. Not to mention the million or so Vietnamese who died.

  90. @Anonymous
    @res


    Do you have any other thoughts or references to share on this?
     
    Dupuy was a career military man; I do not blame him for trying to bring order to chaos.

    On the other hand, I admit to becoming quite nervous when I see the boffins start to play around with numbers. My unhappy experience is that the chaps who do the number-crunching rarely have to bear the consequences when the numbers they are so enthusiastic about do not fare well upon encountering reality.

    I think this Twinkie fellow more or less had the right idea when he said:

    His model was, as with many such models, mechanistically firepower-based, and poorly handled the crucial intangibles of war such as morale, cohesion, and operational excellence.

     

    My understanding is that the Americans are credited with winning every major battle of the Vietnam War, yet they still lost the war. Who could have predicted such an outcome? I do not doubt for a moment that when the Americans fed all the data into their computers, the computers responded by telling them that they were winning the war by a wide margin.

    But Twinkie is right: how do you measure and factor in human qualities like patience, stupidity, bravery, and indifference? Is it possible to quantify e.g. how long a particular group of soldiers can "take it" before they simply stop caring about their fate? Or how long an individual can continue to fight after they become convinced that the side they are on is not in the right after all?

    I have no idea. I can only hope that any country (not just America) looking to send its young men off to parts unknown has a far more complete grasp of such matters than I have.

    Replies: @RonaldB

    The Secretary of Defense McNamara during the Vietnamese war, was a notorious number-cruncher who despised the traditional military viewpoints. One of the problems to his approach was he demanded quantification for figures such as the number of enemy killed by bombing. He was given the best estimates of the military analysts, who may or may not have been motivated to jimmy the numbers in the desired direction, but in any case, the numbers were often pure guesswork. So, McNamara’s quantitative approach was based on fantasy. There was a famous lawsuit that General Westmoreland brought against CBS, which had accused him of providing false estimates of enemy casualties, designed to make him look better than he was.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @RonaldB

    You might be interested in this recounting of an LBJ/JCS meeting about Vietnam from a witness:

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/34024

    Replies: @RonaldB

  91. The best thing that can happen to the USA is an all out race war. All those liberals and SWJ’s who think they have a “special relationship” with blacks will be surprised when they find out that your skin color is your uniform!

  92. Brig. Gen. A.T. Williamson, director of the service’s manpower plans and policy division

    Too many generals. Too many wars.

    Too many public schools.

  93. @Feryl
    @It's Ovrer

    Military morale and motivation (as important as talent) peaked with WW2 and has been declining ever since (although the arrogance of young Boomers made Vietnam conspicuously ugly, both in terms of the war itself and the public reaction to it).

    Americans don't feel entitled anymore to use the tactics and manpower necessary to gain and hold onto control of more territory. Keep in mind that all Western leaders buy into cultmarx non-sense about white supremacists imperialism (e.g. they sympathize with erstwhile "victims" of Western/American conquest instead of wanting to rule over them). If American leaders really wanted to "win" Afghanistan or whatever, they would ruthlessly massacre all Afghanis who oppose them in order to make them submit to American rule. But nope, we half-heartedly fight "insurgents" and try to make "alliances" with locals who typically don't have our back and take advantage of America's wimpiness. We dropped nukes on Japan to gain their submission after 1946.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Hibernian

    If American leaders really wanted to “win” Afghanistan or whatever, they would ruthlessly massacre all Afghanis who oppose them in order to make them submit to American rule.

    Yea, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Operation Phoenix were high points of American military professionalism.

  94. @RonaldB
    @Anonymous

    The Secretary of Defense McNamara during the Vietnamese war, was a notorious number-cruncher who despised the traditional military viewpoints. One of the problems to his approach was he demanded quantification for figures such as the number of enemy killed by bombing. He was given the best estimates of the military analysts, who may or may not have been motivated to jimmy the numbers in the desired direction, but in any case, the numbers were often pure guesswork. So, McNamara's quantitative approach was based on fantasy. There was a famous lawsuit that General Westmoreland brought against CBS, which had accused him of providing false estimates of enemy casualties, designed to make him look better than he was.

    Replies: @Ralph L

    You might be interested in this recounting of an LBJ/JCS meeting about Vietnam from a witness:

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/34024

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    @Ralph L

    Yes, indeed. Much of the history of the dithering and prevaricating of Johnson and McNamara is contained in the McMasters book "Dereliction of Duty". All the snakes deserved each other: President Johnson lied to Congress and the press; Secretary of Defense McNamara lied to Johnson, the press, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. McNamara and Johnson were in way over their heads in military and diplomatic affairs, but made up for it with lying and bluster.

    That's one reason why governors make much better Presidents than career legislators. Legislators have the experience of windbagging any problem, while governors have to deal with real decisions and consequences.

  95. It’s like the 80s and 90s never happened. I keep waiting for school busing to make a comeback.

  96. @Arclight
    @Almost Missouri

    She at once makes a valid point - that there are not enough eligible black men to go around for black women - and then turns around and shows why dysfunctionality reigns by indicating she is perfectly fine with black men having multiple women in their lives just so she isn't without a partner.

    Although there are lots of excuses for the condition of black America, one thing that I think is undisputable is that the decline of decent-paying jobs for men who did not go to college or trade school over the last 4 decades of the 20th century was disproportionately bad for black men. Prior to that there was a path to being the provider of a traditional family for a very large share of the working class population and taking that away left millions with extremely limited economic prospects right as more black women moved into the workforce. The percentage of black men that were seen as potential long term mates fell off a cliff and the effect this had on family formation and the outcomes for children were awful.

    The GOP hope of converting large numbers of blacks to potential voters is sort of ridiculous. But emphasizing that it wants to have as many men working and able to provide for their families as possible does have cross-racial appeal, and Trump definitely benefitted from that. It's a version of the Sailer Strategy only for gender - be the unabashedly masculine party and let the Dems be the party of women.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Alden

    GOP obeys it’s cannibal capitalist masters. No good well paid jobs even for the most highly skilled and educated. Asians and Indians as HI-B Drs programmers accountants engineers etc. Mexicans and Central Americans for everything else. For 2 generations. Then they’ll find a new source of cheap labor.

    Lots of college grads are convinced that the Republicans were the slave abusing Confederates and the Democrats the federals during the Civil War. Really. Because that’s what they learned since middle school. And the Republicans were the KKK that lynched millions of innocent black men who did nothing wrong.

    The GOP really really needs to realize that there’s only one race in America that votes GOP Whites.

    Blacks Asians and most Hispanics just vote straight democrat. For instance, black congress critter racial rabble rouser Maxine Waters district is mostly Hispanic now. They still vote her back every 2 years.

  97. @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer


    The Germans were really effective in WWI and WWII, although the French and British weren’t bad either.
     
    It is interesting to note that the end of WWI saw, not an increase in hatred of the Germans by the British, but rather, an admission that the Germans had fought a good fight:

    Pro-German feeling had been increasing. With the war over and the German armies beaten, we could give the German soldier credit for being the most efficient fighting man in Europe ... Some undergraduates even insisted that we had been fighting on the wrong side: our natural enemies were the French.

    — Robert Graves
     
    My impression of the Allied victory in WWI has always been that it was a near-run thing. Had the war lasted even a few more weeks, I am convinced the British Army would likely have seen the same sort of widespread revolt the French had in 1917. As it was, there were a couple of riots in late 1918 and early 1919 when the soldiers felt they were not being demobilised fast enough.

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    The US was the decisive factor in World War I, just as much in World War II, by the summer of 1917 the French had been reduced to a nearly complete defensive posture in their own territory, largely because of the aforementioned mutinies. Germany’s problems were that they had few allies and the Royal Navy blockade which slowly starved the civilian population of the country. If Britain had sat out the war, both Russia and France would have been beaten fairly easily, and Germany would have replaced Britain has Europe’s leading nation, which is why they didn’t sit the war out.

    However by 1917, even Britain and it’s Empire were beginning to show the strain, but by then the US had joined the fight. After the French Army mutinies, the new Army chief promised no more offensive operations against the Germans until the Americans arrived in large numbers. The German Army was only eighteen miles from Paris when the Marines stopped the German 1918 offensive.

  98. @Whiskey
    @Steve Sailer

    That's not the view, interestingly, of the German General Staff at the same time. Military History Visualized on Youtube has several videos about the quality of the fighting man in the German military.

    Essentially, the Staff Officers felt it took 18 months to train and equip soldiers properly, particularly in infantry units supporting tanks which had to be highly trained in maneuver warfare with tanks as unsupported tanks were often sitting ducks. And infantry unsupported by tanks could also be hit badly quickly.

    The German High command felt that after Barbarossa, fully 50% of their troops were not fit for offensive operations. And after Case Blue, that went to something like 75%.

    I would take their assessment more than the above study, as it does not take into account that the Germans were on the defensive mostly, with often terrain favorable for defense.

    Replies: @SOL

    Or maybe the German General Staff was being an Asian Tiger Mom.

  99. @EdwardM
    @Spect3r


    “It’s a meritocracy, we’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language to boards that we want them to consider diversity across all areas,” he said.
     
    Agree. Really astonishing; this goes in the annals of great uses of the conjunctive. As usual, I ask whether this is just cluelessness by someone hopelessly mired in wokeness, or if he's just spiking the football in our faces.

    And Admiral John Kirby, retread again? He went from Defense Dept. spokesman to State Dept. spokesman, now he's back. Does he have some preternatural gift for excellence as this critical, challenging position? We need more Heather Nauert types.

    Replies: @Spect3r

    The revolving door of the Military-Industrial complex never stops spinning.

  100. @Old Prude
    @Spect3r

    "How can anyone say something like this and keep a straight face?"

    Years of practice. Just like his house whitey General Milley and all the other suck-ups, most easily identifiable by the presence of stars on their shoulder-boards.

    Replies: @Spect3r

    We are so screwed… I’m not a religious person, but some things make you wonder if the Devil doesn’t really exist!

  101. @Ralph L
    @RonaldB

    You might be interested in this recounting of an LBJ/JCS meeting about Vietnam from a witness:

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/34024

    Replies: @RonaldB

    Yes, indeed. Much of the history of the dithering and prevaricating of Johnson and McNamara is contained in the McMasters book “Dereliction of Duty”. All the snakes deserved each other: President Johnson lied to Congress and the press; Secretary of Defense McNamara lied to Johnson, the press, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. McNamara and Johnson were in way over their heads in military and diplomatic affairs, but made up for it with lying and bluster.

    That’s one reason why governors make much better Presidents than career legislators. Legislators have the experience of windbagging any problem, while governors have to deal with real decisions and consequences.

  102. @Rob
    The military is amazingly pozzed for an organization that is essentially 0% Jewish, very white Southerner, and has so many blacks that performance would be (prolly is) extremely degraded if they did not ensure that dumbs stay low in rank.

    Do they have cushion because the ASVAB keeps out the dumber half of blacks? Do they have a lot of cushion because the higher ups actually know the IQ of underlings, so they do not have to rely on proxies, like what college someone went to, or whether they look or sound smart?

    As the country, and more importantly workforce, get less white and dumber, looking at how heavily minority organizations manage to function could be extremely valuable. That is assuming that the military is still functional. Their failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially how delusional the generals were, does cast some doubt on their being functional,

    Replies: @JimDandy, @It's Ovrer, @JMcG, @RabbiGewneral

    The military is amazingly pozzed for an organization that is essentially 0% Jewish

    You forgot about the rank of Gewneral.

  103. @Feryl
    @SunBakedSuburb

    But it was Boomers (and late Silent mentors) who were responsible for hundreds of act of terrorism motivated predominantly by hostility toward Vietnam, and lots of really ugly rhetoric around the general subject of the military. Boomers also became convinced of the white imperialist meme around this time (the most ardent supporters of whom many would become academics in the 1970's and 80's, planting seeds for the CultMarx revolution that we were told would remain a fantasy confined to college campuses).

    Moralistic complaints about the motives behind war obscure the fact that rising nations do not feel remorse about conquest. Falling nations do. Western Boomers did not feel pride in their ancestors, called them boring, ignorant, and hypocritical, to justify jettisoning various hated "traditions" which they saw as an impedent to creativity, indiviualism, and happiness. But in return for the loss of great collective efforts, which whatever their motive required much discipline and sacrifice, we've gotten huge levels of mental illness, obesity, drug abuse, and sexual excess, all rooted in the Boomer mentality of living life on one's own terms and never following the rules.

    We must also ask precisely why there is so much angst over Vietnam but not other events. Well, look, it's the big mouth Boomers making a fuss out of their generation being jobbed, a common sentiment has been that their parents and grandparents fought "good wars" while their own generation got stuck with the crappy one. In other words, we want a good war for own vanity.

    BTW, some of the leaders of the 50's and 60's pre-dated the WW2 generation. Some were of the Lost Generation. Furthermore, the WW2 generation quickly handed the baton to the Silent Generation in the 1970's and 80's, who never quite had a clear vision for America though they didn't want to corrupt and destroy America as Boomer leaders have done since the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    It’s really amazing to me how there is a subset of commenters on this fine opinion webzine who insist we can’t have nice things because of Boomers and Jews. I thought it’s only liberals who engage in the blame game and victim hood.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?