"Curvy" Celebrities Expanding Beauty...Not Really

MTV aired a True Life* episode a few years back entitled "I'm Happy to be Fat." They profiled two women and one gay man. Unsurprisingly, one of the women was an obese black girl who took rather unabashed pride in her adiposity. One shouldn't exactly blame her as she merely noted the amount of attention she receives from black men. As we know, black men like dat ass.

Undoubtedly, fat white women comprise a large portion of the "everyone is beautiful" movement, an unfortunate consequence of the modern processed diet with mothers increasingly absent from the home. But the popular notion that media should celebrate "different body types" assuredly comes from multiculturalism, as blacks and Latino women have naturally more pronounced physical features than their white counterparts. This popular insistence that "real women have curves" does for black and Latino women what the exportation of ghetto culture, such as rap, the dozens, and breakdancing, does for blacks as a whole. In sum, by pushing as an attractive aesthetic the fat black girl and big-assed Latino woman or the features common amongst these groups, media normalizes a minority culture at odds with the majority.

As a society, we keep having "plus-sized" models pushed down our throats because in doing so, black and Latino women can have their collective status raised. I've made a similar argument regarding black pathology, avering the notion that liberalism is a social means of protecting blacks from criticism. If we excuse or normalize single motherhood, welfare, and drug abuse, then blacks don't look so bad anymore. Of course, obese white women get to reap the benefits, but the initial goal of "fat acceptance" and "all bodies are beautiful" was to make non-white women desirable. A fact further substantiated by looking at feminist blogrolls. Not entirely relevant, but how else do you explain this?

Ironically though, the most prominent celebrities, pun intended, with black and Latino curviness look nothing like the typical black hoodrat or Latino chola. Here's a slideshow of women with the "curvy" aesthetic pushed in recent years. It includes Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce, Selma Hayek, Rihanna, and Eva Longoria. And of course, perhaps the most hated women in black America - Kim Kardashian. All these women may have "dat ass" and ample curves, but they all have flat stomachs and extremely well proportioned bodies with little fat outside their breasts, butts, and hips. Here's Kim Kardashian, who has apparently ushered in a new beauty standard (LSFW: bikini):

I'm sorry, but what's so different between her and the "unrealistic" beauty standard? I see an almost ideal hourglass shape. How about another "curvy" superstar who is somehow widening the previously excessively narrow beauty archetype:


Now take a look at the hotties who we're told should "love themselves", "be happy in their own skin", and "appreciate their curves." Tell me if you notice any difference. (NSFW and while eating)





Implicit to campaigns like Dove's Real Beauty and "Every Body is Beautiful" and opposition to an objective beauty standard is the idea that the individuals above are equal in attractiveness to Kardashian and Johansen. If we're all beautiful and no hierarchy of beauty exists, then the two groups are essentially equal in beauty. Now you tell me: do black and Latina celebrities like JLo and Beyonce, in addition to curvy white women like above, reflect the type of "real, big, beautiful black" woman shown? The media apparently thinks so, as these recent black and Latina celebrities have been championed as revolutionary in terms of portrayals of beauty.

* True Life is a sporadic one-hour documentary series that has been running on MTV since the late 90s. If you want a up-close, firsthand look at this generation's decay, this is the show to watch.

** I don't have any particular animus against fat people; actually I feel some pity towards them. And I even understand why they go to great lengths to fool themselves into feeling good. My problem: don't get mad at society when we reject you as unattractive due to your corpulence.

Are Liberals Insane or Just Insanely Consistent?

I actually know someone who takes part in the Voluntary Human Extinction movement. She refuses to have children because she believes people pose the primary danger to the Earth/Gaia. I'm not making this up - she is married, over thirty years-old, and absolutely will not bear children.

A "leading bioethicist" at UK's University of East Anglia has published an article condemning pregnancy as "barbaric" and an "illness...comparable to measles":

Pregnancy and childbirth are so painful, risky and socially restrictive for women that public funding should urgently be directed to the development of artificial wombs. This is the only way to achieve true equality between men and women for then neither women nor men would then be limited by having children and the burdens of reproducing the species would be shared equally.

Changes to financial and social structures may improve things marginally, but a better solution needs to be found. Either we view women as baby carriers who must subjugate their other interests to the well-being of their children or we acknowledge that our social values and level of medical expertise are no longer compatible with “natural” reproduction.

I think we need to seriously start considering if liberals fit a reasonable definition of insane - and by "insane" I mean eating-one's-own-feces-insane. Note that this "leading bioethicist" works at a large university and while the university may not explicitly countenance her positions, they do employ her. And by funding an essentially insane woman who reads Brave New World as a utopic story, academia illustrates just how much they will tolerate leftist insanity.

But leftism is not merely insane, they are almost genocidal. While most regard social, philosophical, and political movements as a means of improving human life, leftists abide by principles as the be all end all. Of course I won't begrudge this too much, as a consistent set of principles does well to motivate action and settle disputes. But when principles become the only factor in defining morality, we get ideas like "pregnancy hurts women." From an entirely leftist frame, Dr. "Artificial gestation" is actually logical; liberals view nature as wholly subordinate to cultural directives, including the imposition of abject gender equality. So, from the leftist perspective, it only makes sense that we rectify such a gross inequity in which women must bear the burden of reproduction.

Back to liberal insanity - perhaps it's unfair that I categorize someone of this particular strain of liberalism as insane. She's unique in that she differs from the Teach for America do-gooders who go on "Nice White Lady" crusades for spiritual and cultural enlightenment, Bill Gates and other billionaires who throw money down the toilet of Africa, and Paul Krugman who harbors an uncontrollable rage against any moderately right-leaning individual. She begins with a reasonable philosophical premise of gender equality, but then brings it to a conclusion that makes any sane individual's head spin. Same with my acquaintance who resolves to never have children as a sacrifice for Gaia. Sure, if we accept global warming as fact and the Earth as a valuable entity, then maybe some of us should not have children. But besides an insanely dedicated leftist, who could actually come to these kinds of final conclusions?

In a way, I agree with the arguments, at least if one accepts the context of liberal values. But ultimately we uphold principle because we value people, an idea that must motivate some sort of nuance in following one's principles. The insane and blind liberal does not understand this. The pillars of liberal philosophy, "tolerance", "equality", take precedence over absolutely all else, including even human life.

Superman or Batman?

Saturday Audience Participation

Today's two-part question:

A) Who do you prefer: Superman or Batman? Answer in regards to which character, story, and corresponding themes you like better. (And please consider the growling Dark Knight/Christian Bale version, not the campy Adam West version.)

B) I have a feeling that most regular readers can guess how I would answer the above question. And I very much do have a decided preference. So which story and character do you think I like better?

[In asking this question, I'm primarily concerned with the background stories, the characters, and the respective themes rather than the quality of recent movies or TV shows based on Superman or Batman. While comic books, which I ironically hate despite enjoying superhero movies and TV shows, have been marketed towards kids as escapism, all of them have a distinct allegorical foundation. And Superman and Batman are two of the most meaningful superhero stories in this regard, as opposed to the simple nerd fights back theme of Spiderman. I'd go into what various ideas and themes are present in the stories of Batman and Superman, but I want to leave that for discussion. Plus, it may spoil the answer to (B) above.]

Can American Liberals be Populists?

One generally regards populism as a right-wing leaning political phenomenon, with the "masses" rising up as a collective unit against an antagonistic, globalist elite. But Salon.com writer Steve Kornacki curiously categorizes Obama's State of the Union speech and his attendant campaign narrative as "populist" and "combative":

But if you put aside all of the platitudes, mushy rhetoric and feel-good proposals, the heart of Obama’s remarks demonstrated that he’s intent on pursuing a far more combative and populist path to a second term than the one Clinton followed.

But his central message stressed a sharp and basic philosophical contrast with his partisan opponents – one he clearly plans to make the centerpiece of his reelection effort.

“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by,” Obama said early in his speech, “or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

Essentially, Obama's purported "populism" reduces to economics, as the plasma-owning masses apparently can't feed their families. Obama is clearly positioning himself as a voice for the 99%, casting avaricious millionaires as the primary enemy. And in doing so, by casting a tiny portion of the population as unfairly hurting the masses, one could maybe interpret this as populism.

Yet, can economics, i.e. class warfare, really undergird a populist movement, especially in the context of Decmorat's general liberalism? Can a movement of "the people" succeed if all that binds "the people" is a shared envy and resentment towards the greedy class? I'd argue that populism can not exist as a solely economic movement, an insight implicit to the ultimate class warriors of 20th century Communism. These regimes understood that mass-based movements need to be cleansed of their cultural, religious, and social differences - with any line of demarcation leading to a fragmentation of the pitchfork mob.

In sum, populism can not be based on merely the fact that my neighbor does not have what I do not have. Populism must be supported by an overarching cultural and social narrative from which people ultimately bond. I admit that this ultimately comes down to psychology - do people only care about the bottomline in coming together? Or are all social and political movements ultimately defined by an incredibly complicated confluence of factors? The recent election successes of the homogeneous Tea Party versus the aimless and conflict-filled Occupy Movement should answer that. People just can't seem to ignore their differences, whether racial, religious, or cultural, in forming coalitions. It's ironic then that a Democrat, the party of The Other, the party that champions multiculturalism and population replacement of natives, would go the populist route.

Talk Amongst Yourselves

No new post today either. I've been simultaneously very busy and sort of not in the mood to post this week. Talk amongst yourselves - preferably with horribly racist, sexist, bigoted, idiotic, and close-minded rhetoric.

Evolutionary Pschology Study on Men and Its General Implications

Evolutionary pscyhology study from Oxford University’s Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology: "When men go to war, blame their sex drive"

The review of psychological research concludes that men evolved to be aggressive towards ‘outsiders’, a tendency at the root of inter-tribal violence.

It emerged through natural selection as a result of competition for mates, territory and status, and is seen in conflicts between nations as well as clashes involving rival gangs, football fans or religious groups, say the researchers.

In contrast, they add, women evolved to resolve conflicts peacefully. They are said to have been programmed by natural selection to ‘tend and befriend’ to protect their children.
‘We see similar behaviour in chimpanzees,’ said Prof van Vugt. ‘For example, the males continuously monitor the borders of their territory.

‘If a female from another group comes along, she may be persuaded to emigrate to his group. When a male strays too far, however, he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed.’

I'm reminded of this oft-cited quote in the Manosphere:

Men created civilization to impress women.

Some have criticized evo-psych for reducing man to an automaton. I don't disagree, but nonetheless this biological reductionism is undoubtedly true. We evolved just like any other animal and thus are privy to the same environmental pressures just as are butterflies and finches. But if we do accept this view, do we lose something intrinsically valuable about man and his "spiritual" transcendence?

Well, if I told the desire to play with a doe-eyed baby was merely the result of an evolutionary strategy to assure children were protected by their elders - would it make the baby any less cute? Would you not feel the same sort of ethereal connection to that baby? Explaining social experiences in rational terms does not undermine the complicated neurological states we undergo; it may take away some of the mystery, but the potency remains.

Blacks will Save White America?

Amongst the larger right-wing commentariat, there's perpetual talk of conservative white America finally throwing their weight around politically. While the punditry sometimes overstates their optimism (or opposition) in this regard, the 1980's Moral Majority, the 2000's evangelical Religious Right, and the continued popularity of right-wing talk radio implies that the majority still holds some amount of power. But I ask a rather heretical sort of question - what if blacks can actually save conservatism? And I don't mean their impact on social issues like gay marriage in California. I mean that blacks can actually singlehandedly keep America a race-based European nation with white people still strongly in command.

Admittedly I present the argument as above to be purposefully incendiary, so let me fill in the context below:

-The Left has power only as a coalition of minority groups, namely immigrants, blacks, gays, Hispanics, and Jews (for their money).
-The Left can only have enough votes if they maintain this rather tenuous multicultural bloc.
-One primary reason the Left maintains this group is due to Hispanic fecundity, weak deportation efforts of illegals, and lax immigration restriction, both legal and illegal.
-Thus, the Left must ensure Hispanics and immigrants in general continue their relative population growth as a means of populating the next generation of Democrat voters.

So what if any of the above Leftist groups decide it no longer likes the Democrat message, it no longer sees one particular aspect of the Democrat plan as beneficial for their own group? Just from the numbers, especially as white Americans grow increasingly frustrated with liberalism, Democrats absolutely need every minority group voting as much as possible. It's why they've championed felon voting, absentee ballots, and same-day registration, amongst other initiatives, some nefarious, to expand the vote as much as possible. If any one group drops out of their ragtag collection, they just don't have the raw numbers to pass anything.

So I ask - what if blacks drop out? What if blacks suddenly realize that immigration, one of the pillars of modern liberalism, actually affects them very badly? What if blacks realize that unskilled Hispanic laborers have replaced them in the lower-class, while Asian groups like Arabs, Vietnamese, and Indian groups set up businesses in their neighborhoods? Blacks may realize that sticking it to whitey simply isn't that important anymore; it's far better to fight so much imported competition in the job market. And in making this decision, blacks actually help whites maintain their demographic hegemony, as immigration and subsequent anchor baby births are the primary means of racial displacement.

So have blacks woken up to the fact that modern liberalism might pay them off with welfare, but all the while steal jobs from those in black communities who actually want to work? Take a look at this video:



We've seen this before - fat black bitch goes crazy in public. And she does begin with the expected appeal to slavery and reparations. But listen to her rant - she actually doesn't primarily blame black economic problems on evil whitey. She blames it on immigrants taking jobs and getting loans to build businesses in black neighborhoods. She also alludes to multi-generational Americans as having a sort of birthright - "we built the pipes...". Here's some quotes:

And [immigrants] own the industry. They own the hotels and they own these. But I'm asking you why is there an industry for you, who has opened the market to you? If you go back, go all the way back, at one point in time it was us that owned it in our own communities.

We don't want you owning shit in our community; we want to you to go back to where you live. Because where I live don't none of you live, but you come to our communities and take our money. And where you at - you in a black community.

When I go to to try to own a hair store, who owns the industry - the Chinese. And they have to sell it to us and they don't want to sell it to us.

Go back to your country, make your money there...let us own our own shit.

Now I'm not going to bash immigrants who come here to live the American Dream. In fact, I applaud those that still believe in America as the land of opportunity (hint hint: despair porn alt-right). And the woman is wrong in not understanding why banks don't loan to blacks; simply, blacks are irresponsible or many do not have the proper credit. Further, blacks have shown themselves largely incapable of running organized, stable business (see athlete bankruptcy), especially with the incentives of the welfare state and the cultural/family problems of black America.

Yet, while this woman ignores some other variables, she does understand how much immigration has hurt black America. Prior to the double whammy of Civil Rights and Latino immigration, blacks did get along decently, so one could argue that blacks aren't entirely hopeless.

I'll end by noting the transparency of "on-the-ground" experience. While detached elites continue to push large-scale societal changes without an understanding of local repercussions, the "unwashed masses" are the ones who must endure whatever the elite imposes on them. The HuffPo may censure black comedian Kat Williams for his anti-Mexican rant in order to maintain their voting bloc, but some of the plebians might very well dissent anyway. And wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if the favorite pet group of liberals, the blacks, were the first to do so?

[I'll concede that blacks may very well prefer the hush money offered by welfare-supporting Democrats, but I also think this woman does reflect a large portion of the black community.]

Musings on Sports Fandom

Today, entire stadiums full of grown men will cheer on other grown men playing a game. There will be fights amongst fans of opposing teams comprised of vagabond players, perhaps the most laughable form of tribalism mankind has ever witnessed. These men will yell as loud as they can for other men to hurt other men. And in the end, there will be blood and tears, more yelling, and a victor. Many of these men will proudly wear on their backs the name of these other men, apparently unaware of the emasculation of such a display. These men will feel a connection to these other men, using the first-person plural pronoun "we" to describe a team full of players who could not care less about them. And in these drunken moments, these men will actually measure their own personal worth consistent with their favorite team, apparently unaware of how pathetic their own lives have become to do so.

But to those that watch to merely enjoy, to those that understand the farce of modern sports fandom, to those that understand it's just a game, to those that can enjoy sports as a momentary means of nostalgia for the trappings of youth, to those that root but don't cry, to those that view sports as a microcosm of our larger social landscape, to those that think about sports as fun not "Breaking News from our Bristol headquarters!! - sit-ups in the driveway", even to those that get really excited when their favorite team wins and really pissed when their favorite team loses, just within reason - have fun today. I know I can't wait. (For the record, I'm still a huge NFL fan - it's sort of my one irrational vice.)

Rooting interests: Pats and Giants: Come on, everyone wants to see this game again in the Super Bowl. Plus, these are easily the two best and most exciting teams left, with two elite QBs (Eli may make mistakes, but he's even better than Brady in the clutch) at the top of their game. And I just like Eli for some reason.
Picks: Pats and Giants: Going with the favorites, though I'd give even odds on Niners.

Intelligence and Depression

Saturday Audience Participation

There's some controversy over whether higher intelligence and depression correspond. From reading the "intellectual" sphere, generally defined as people who engage in self-analysis, one would surely conclude that such a correlation exists. Bloggers like Robert Lindsay write about their depression and/or OCD on a regular basis and it always appears that their ability to provide insight into the problem exacerbates it. However, Wikipedia claims that no such correspondence exists and then mentions something I was thinking before reading the Wiki article:

With the exception of creatively gifted adolescents who are talented in writing or the visual arts, studies do not confirm that gifted individuals manifest significantly higher or lower rates or severity of depression than those for the general population...Also, no research points to suicide rates being higher in gifted adolescents than other adolescents.

However, a number of people have noted a higher incidence of existential depression, which is depression due to seemingly highly abstract concerns such as the finality of death, the ultimate unimportance of individual people, and the meaning (or lack thereof) of life. Gifted individuals are also more likely to feel existential anxiety.

So smart people may not suffer more from regular "cloudy skies" depression, but they do suffer from thinking too damn much about the big questions of life. For me personally, there's nothing more simultaneously uplifting and depressing than thinking about the relative scale of humanity in the context of our universe. After awhile though I just couldn't handle the depressing side, so that's why I started a culture/politics blog rather than a science/religion blog; the former at least gives me some semblance of importance in a world where none of us really truly matter (besides perhaps historically evil people, ironically enough). In general, smart people just think too much and it weighs on one's emotions.

But depression is also one of these 'fad' diseases, buttressed by Big Pharma, lazy psychiatrists, and claimed by every Chicken Little SWPL woman getting over a breakup or not landing that PR dream job. Same with other mental ailments too, the number of which has increased beyond reason. Plus, depression is just such an odd disease - it has no objective test or physical manifestation. I believe it exists, but it's still very hard to define.

Today's questions: Are smart people more depressed? If so, is it because they 'think' instead of 'live'? Can cogitation on the "big questions", especially if the answers lead to materialism, cause depression? Have you suffered from depression and/or anxiety? When, why, what? And how did/do you deal with it? What exactly does depression feel like? Do some people self-diagnosis depression when it's not warranted?

Responding to a Liberal Critic

I Google myself quite often. (You do too, admit it.) So whenever someone mentions 'OneSTDV' on the Internet, I usually find out about it and go see what overflowing praise they have directed my way. But shockingly, not everyone regards yours truly as a man of unimpeachable wisdom. I've got 'hatas' in many parts of the Internet, though sarcastically referring to me as 'OneSTD' doesn't really constitute criticism. However a few days ago, a liberal whose blog I've never encountered focused an entire post on me, yes me! I respond below.

It is an odd thing, to read the thoughts of your opposite. In my readings of conservative blogs, I have come across a blogger who calls himself "OneSTDV"...On every political issue that I have ever seen him address, his views appear to be the complete and total opposite of mine.

I don't know how many liberal readers come here, but I don't really get it. I spend a lot of time perusing various liberal sites, but I do so in low doses as to avoid going crazy. It's laudable that someone could actively engage with their political polar opposite on a regular basis.

...with his belief that blacks are inherently inferior to whites intellectually. He calls this idea "Human BioDiversity" or "HBD". I call it "racism" myself, and I believe it to be false.

OneSTDV is also quite anti-feminist. While I would call him a misogynist, he himself would probably claim he is not, so we'll compromise and say he is openly and extremely sexist.

I am a vegetarian, OneSTDV is a carnivore, and quite proud of it--and more than that, he is openly hostile to vegetarians.

Well, didn't see any of that coming. Mr. "Mysterious Man" then explains why he puts himself through the intellectual torture of reading my blog, i.e. ideas people prior to the 1960's considered axiomatically normal and true. And then he expounds upon why he finds me so detestable:

I tried for some time to analyze my visceral dislike for his ideas, to comprehend what it was that made us different. I believe I found it when OneSTDV wrote in:

"In the end, we just can't escape biology."

But there is a way in which OneSTDV seems to revel in this fact, as if he is perfectly content with seeing everyone as just "moist robots", as Scott Adams would say. It is perfectly true that we cannot escape biology--but it is my contention that this doesn't mean we ought not to try. For in trying, we become more than just biological entities--we achieve something more meaningful. It is this desire, I think, which underlies all Art and Literature.

Liberalism means freeing the mind to do mental work, Conservatism means freeing the body to do physical work.

And that, I think, is what OneSTDV is striving for. He wants to obey his herd instincts--not a bad thing necessarily, as they got to be instincts for a reason--and this is what most of his ideas are directed towards. The vegetarian issue is a perfect example: as I recently noted, I am a vegetarian because I want to be different, OneSTDV is not a vegetarian because he vehemently does not want to be different.

Funny that I've always considered this a rather pensive, even bordering on sentimental, blog; others appear to not share this opinion, oh well.

As to his other point - in essence, Mr. "Mysterious" reduces my paradigm to biological reductionism, a sentiment with which I don't necessarily disagree. However, and this is how I'd define conservatism, I'd say society must understand that a certain structure, to both our personal lives and to our social connections, exists and that tradition has been a trial and error process by which successful mores have persisted through practical vetting. In other words, innate biology, the motivations of group pressure, and the traditional constructs of society should guide us in how to live. It's not that I abide only by "herd instincts"; rather it's that I understand how biology and tradition should inform us on how to live. (Digression: I abhor vegetarianism because it is an extremely unhealthy diet pushed by anti-white, anti-male, New Age-lite liberals and money-hungry Big Food/FDA/Big Pharma.)

And in doing so, by structuring our own lives and that of our social communities in concert with previously successful ways of living, we are free of the practical and emotional burdens that the liberal revolution has given us, free to pursue our own ends, whether that be "mental work", literature, art, or science. Yet if we ignore the guide of tradition and biology, by encouraging female licentiousness, by demanding racial de-segregation, by dissolving national, tribal borders, we will see a society and the people within it suffer.

One of the commenters then gives this tired condemnation:

The most glaring difference between you and One STDV is that you want to examine your life and to do that you compare it to an opposite to challenge your beliefs. You have an open mind. Those that I've encountered like this guy have closed minds and the last thing they would do is seriously consider anything you have to say as valid and attack everything you stand for. They believe in a closed set, not an open set, and they are much the more intellectually poor for such a mind set.

Ahh the "closed-minded" shaming tactic. I have informed myself of differing worldviews and come to a thoughtful decision based on the information I have gathered - how is that "close-minded"? In essence, "open-minded" does not really even mean anything; it's a specious liberal phrase meaning, "believe what we believe or we'll call you an idiot." I'd argue that liberals have a worldview as well and while we disagree, I wouldn't necessarily call them close-minded in all aspects of their perspective. More like naive, idealistic, evil, and just plain wrong.

I also take issue with the notion that I cut myself off from differing opinions. The very fact that I regularly challenge mainstream dogma, on race, gender, and diet, points to my ostensible open-mindedness. Note we're not talking Truthers here, as one must distinguish between open-mindedness and plain crazy. I was raised in the leftist American education system; my current beliefs relative to that of the liberal establishment provide enough evidence of open-mindedness. I've also defended teacher's unions and sympathized with fat feminists. But I will not apologize for having a strong opinion based on my own thoughtful consideration of a given issue. Liberals throw around terms like "open-minded" and "tolerance", yet they don't mean the absence of criticism or animus; they really want abjectly positive reenforcement and agreement. Only then can one avoid the labeling of "close-minded."

I will applaud Mr. "Mysterious" though for his even-keeled appraisal of my work. And shockingly, his post didn't devolve into Daily Show sarcasm so popular amongst the smarmy Left.

Female Sexuality in Pop Culture and the Implicit Assault on Men

In The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Steve Carrell's character gets frustrated and resolves to quit women altogether. He decides to stop masturbating, stop chasing after women, and stop thinking about how to attract women. He wants to "go his own way", divorcing himself from the fairer sex as a means of retaining his sanity. Yet the character has a rough go at it; immediately after a hysterical rant venting his frustration, he turns around and sees a half-naked woman on a bus. He looks up and sees a half-naked woman on a billboard. Then three beautiful, scantily-clad, young college-age women brush by him on the sidewalk. Exasperated, he puts his head down and walks home quickly.

In other words, men literally can not escape sexual images in popular culture. While some have described the Internet as merely a repository for porn, the real social trend is that softcore porn has gone mainstream. Pop stars present themselves as sex symbols first and foremost. Actresses do nude scenes for "authenticity." Maxim and FHM have a half-naked celebrity on their cover every month. Many female celebrities are "professionally hot", such as Kim Kardashian and Stacy Keibler. In sum, men are literally "assaulted" by hot women wherever they look. For instance, look at this banner that ran at the top and side of SI.com, a sports site, the last few days (click for full-size image):
The sexual/feminist revolution didn't really free women from the restraints of the patriarchy. Instead, it allowed them to attain power via the primary means they have of attaining power - carnal sexuality. The sexual revolution mostly de-stigmatized female sexual openness, encouraging women to rather forthrightly present themselves as sexual objects in order to gain the attention (and goodies from) men. Feminists consider this as reflecting the persistence of the patriarchy in which society forces women to sell themselves. However, it is actually the autonomous, wily female who understands her primary source of social capital that independently engages in this behavior. These women have it and they gladly flaunt it - then marry Donald Trump.

And what has this done to men, especially beta men (yes, you Internet Male who is not a millionaire or George Clooney) who will never "have" anyone close to Yvonne Strahovski or Mila Kunis. Just like 20-something women have gone crazy by avoiding family and motherhood, 20-something men have gone crazy with a parallel de-stabilizing of their sexuality. Society gives them a little taste of something that they want so badly, but will never ever have. How cruel a tease. Of course, dangling a carrot in front of a horse does not turn out well.

Now I'm not necessarily complaining about this implicit assault on men nor do I think it affects all men. I'm merely pointing out a fact of modern society and the implications on how it affects a segment of the population. Admittedly I've avoided describing what exactly "gone crazy" means in regards to men, but if we are ultimately sexual beings, then this ubiquitous and unhealthy tease cannot have positive consequences.

New York Times Hates White Men Merely for being White Men

The New York Times, and the coastal elites to whom it speaks, has gone off the deep end. In an article from this weekend, Lee Seigel (yes, we all notice it too) illustrates how "whiteness" has become a sin. I've discussed this before by noting that modern liberalism has imbued white men with Racial Original Sin:

But liberals also believe in "original sin", the notion that we all inherit a corrupt soul and that we can only absolve ourselves through faith and its attendant demands. Thus, as a proxy for salvation through Christ, liberals demand adherence to the leftist racial doctrine that necessitates complete racial integration and views whites as a pernicious collective in both modern and historic times.

Leftists then argue that one can exonerate himself of "original sin" through deeds like forced desegregation, support of unlimited immigration, support of affirmative action, and advancement of the basic hate-whitey ideals. Only then, when a white person has fully accepted his inherent depravity and rejected his presumed white privilege through deeds can he be considered a moral individual.

Yet in this post-racial era, modern leftism has taken it even further. Besides whites being collectively responsible for the (relatively benign) sins of their forefathers, merely being white or evoking "whiteness" is now seen as morally wrong. The article begins with a picture of Romney's large, smiling, well-dressed, fit family. God forbid, an entire family of good-looking white people!

But the horror continues (\sarcasm). Mr. Seigel notes the surreptitious ways Romney messages to potential voters. In doing so, Mr. Seigel's argument reduces to him complaining, basically, that upstanding white people even exist. Seriously, just read this below and ask yourself what the heck Romney is doing wrong?!

It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.

Contrast that with Mr. Romney’s meticulously cultivated whiteness. He is nearly always in immaculate white shirt sleeves. He is implacably polite, tossing off phrases like “oh gosh” with Stepford bonhomie. He has mastered Benjamin Franklin’s honesty as the “best policy”: a practiced insincerity, an instant sunniness that, though evidently inauthentic, provides a bland bass note that keeps everyone calm. This is the bygone world of Babbitt, of small-town Rotarians.

He speaks of the founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence as phases of national creativity that we are destined to live through again. He frequently accompanies his recitative with verses from “America the Beautiful.”

Allow me to summarize: Romney dresses well, is exceedingly polite, and has a genuine respect for the founding traditions of this country. And Mr. Seigel complains!? I don't say this with exaggeration - this might be the most insanely hateful article I've ever read. It's borderline genocidal - as in wishing those of a particular ethnic or racial background would stop existing as such. Mr. Seigel presents Romney's probity, even his mere existence as a stable white man, as something immoral and worthy of moral censure.

We see here the endgame of liberalism - they don't even want conservative white people to exist. They view the "bygone world of...small-town Rotarians" as somehow wrong, evidently because these insulated social environments do not possess all the diversity of New York private schools and Mr. Seigel's synagogue. No longer does the left abide by "live and let live". Whiteness, and the edifying personality traits consistent with whiteness, opens one up to criticism from the ruling class.

I can't stress this enough. Mr. Seigel bashes Mitt Romney for merely existing as a venerable white man, nothing more. How sick.

I am a Liberal

Only Jesus and MLK get official holidays celebrating their birthdays. I guess it makes sense since MLK has been deified by modern American leftism and thus deserves the trappings of divine status. But we needn't rehash the obvious implications of MLK's place in the American social and political landscape; the fawning over him makes even the apathetic cringe. Only Harriet Tubman receives an equally disproportionate amount of "love", as they say.

Wikipedia refers to MLK as "a national icon in the history of modern American liberalism." I ask though - what exactly is a "liberal"? Sure we know the limp-wristed, Pruis driving, sanctimonious American liberal well, but should this class justifiably call themselves "liberal"? Of course not, as the American version of liberalism does not uphold their own principles, imbuing white men with original sin and downplaying their accomplishments via insidious notions such as privilege. While MLK didn't champion this left-liberal race hatred explicitly, he sure seemed open to it and it likely did underlie his wealth redistribution initiatives.

On occasion, I have referred to myself as the "ultimate liberal", in that I afford everyone the same rights independent of their class, their background, or their race. The above statement would likely be classified as classical liberalism or libertarianism in the modern political climate, yet I diverge from these doctrines by extending the idea to collective groups. In sum, any group, Jews, American whites, French, Mexicans, Japanese, even nigs (I use it ironically here :) has the moral autonomy to choose their own collective fate. Sort of libertarian individualism, writ large.

Axiomatically, we should have the freedom to associate with whomever we please, the freedom to decide one's own life trajectory, and the freedom of independent groups to decide their own fate. If all those freedoms are God-given, both as individuals and as collectives, then HBD, immigration restriction, and race or ethnic-based traditionalism, is justified. Groups can decide who they permit into their own lands, an extension of the freedom to associate. In international law, these principles are called "right to self-determination" and the citizenry of a nation should have the freedom to put that right into practice as a collective.

Does this then make me a "liberal", as I apply these ideals equally to every group, even ones that are odds with each other such as Palestinians and Israelis? Is liberalism really about equality and blind justice or is it about imposed egalitarianism and white guilt? I'd say that liberalism has been co-opted by the American Left as the latter, though my conception above does not contradict the notion of "equal rights" and "liberty". In fact, it gives everyone "equal rights" while maintaining a respect for borders and national cohesion.

It appears that the Left has taken a healthy liberalism, one with which I would agree, and perverted it to meet their own ends of flagellating whites and propping up their pet minority groups. I'm afraid though that any pursuit of reclaiming the term "liberalism" by the Right will inevitably go the way of Glenn Beck's odd display back in 2010. He basically just started spouting leftist bromides, convinced that somehow he was combating leftism despite playing by their rules. In essence, the term "liberalism" may be beyond repair, so perhaps we should stick to "freedom" and "equality" as more potent and less sullied alternatives.

Big Government Breaking Down My Door?

Today is a great day. The government has caught a rogue criminal who will no longer be able to terrorize innocent people:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) apparent war on Amish raw dairy farmers increased on December 6 when they filed a “motion for summary judgment,” with Pennsylvania judge Lawrence Stengler asking for a permanent injunction against dairy farmer Dan Allgyer to forbid him from selling fresh milk out of state.

After a two year expensive, exhaustive undercover operation, including multiple armed raids on Allgyer’s farm, FDA agents and a team of ten federal lawyers amassed over two hundred and seventy-six pages of evidence allegedly proving what Allgyer openly admits, that he is raw, unpasteurized milk to customers who knowingly carry the milk across state lines.

The people of Kinzers, PA can sleep safe at night knowing a vile criminal mastermind like Amish dairy farmer Dan Allgyer has found government resistance at his front door, literally. (\End sarcasm)

A few commenters have criticized me for not defending "freedom" enough or at least not understanding the grave danger inherent to official power. I don't necessarily disagree as I focus far more on the noxiousness of culture than that of government, though the two are undoubtedly linked in America. In sum, I guess I just have essentially no personal experience with government imposition. Maybe a long line awaits me at the DMV or some beaurocratic nonsense annoys me in a professional context, but I can't ever say the government or an official body has thwarted my freedoms or punished me for doing something they unjustifiably consider wrong. For me 1984 is an imaginative dystopian novel written by a dead Englishman, not a dishearteningly realistic account of an evil Communist government or the prescient thoughts of a man seeing the West's future.

I basically just don't get the often shrill hysteria about government gone wild. I basically think, "well, there's absolutely no way it's ever going to happen to me." "First, they came for..." someone else and never got around to coming for me or mine.

Maybe it's due to my relatively insulated life as an American, privileged in a sense that we have a historical stubbornness against big government. Given my lack of personal experience, it's difficult to even fathom how government can go off the deep end, even as Britain actually jails people for thoughtcrimes and Russia is dominated by closed-door leaders. Yet I just can't imagine that coming to America; heck, I can't even imagine that happening in Britain or Russia despite reading the articles myself.

Is this how government gradually embeds itself - by either convincing people that everything's just fine or by relying on the masses to not notice or not believe what goes on behind the scenes? Maybe I'm being naive here or putting too much faith in an elite that I ironically lambast almost every day. Or maybe I'm justifiably more concerned with the dominance of harmful culture, believing that culture can negatively drive our social and personal actions in a way government can never do. Or finally, maybe I just like badass leaders such as Putin - my right-wing parallel of liberalism in which government makes you feel safe at night despite stealing your tooth fairy money while you sleep.

Working Out

Saturday Audience Participation

Like most desk jockeys, I basically need to work out to avoid the stiffness associated with sitting all day. I surmise that the vast majority of back and neck pain plaguing America does not require more doctors and chiropractors, but merely doing 25 minutes of light exercise three times a week.

When I was younger, I got quite obsessed with working out, going to the gym for about 1.5 hours a day for six days a week. That lasted about a year until I realized that I had plateaued for about six months and got frustrated with seeing relatively little gains in musculature. I worked out two or three times a week for years after that and then quit for a couple years, and then went a couple years going once a week.

This past year I decided to start lifting again, going to the gym twice a week (standard push/pull split) and once a week doing a P90-X style workout at home for about thirty minutes. Just so you don't reject that home workout as nothing, I can barely stand by the time I'm done. For lifting, I do almost all free weights with machines for supersets, as you should. I focus on compound exercises like bench, incline bench, shoulder press, bent-over rows, upright rows, side raises, and others, though these do get somewhat boring after having done them for almost half my life. Note that I don't do lower body; I know, I know, criticize me all you want. It just plain doesn't feel good; that's the only way I can describe lower body workouts and some full-body exercises like clean and jerk, which I think should only be done after extensive coaching.

Unfortunately though, I honestly don't really look like I've worked out for so long - at least with my shirt on. With my shirt off, I have the classic upside down triangle shape and obvious musculature (note I do not have particularly low body fat), but my arms just don't look good in sleeves for some reason. This distinction between how I look with a shirt on and with one off was crystallized when a girl who saw me in a wife beater for the first time asked, seriously, if I had done steroids over summer break. This sort of gawking happens quite often when people first see me without a shirt or in a wife beater (I wear wife beaters everyday during summer). I've sort of come to terms with my inability to gain very noticeable muscle with a shirt on and it has largely spurred my discouragement over the years regarding lifting. I know the only thing that will help is going on an absolutely strict diet, but I tried it for three months and it was absolute hell. Like a full-time job basically.

Today's questions: Do you workout? What kind of workouts do you do? What are your goals for working out? What is your body type and has working out changed it? How do you feel after a good workout? What kind of gym do you go to? Hopefully not one like Chuck's. Does anyone else suffer from the same shirt-on/shirt-off distinction I do?