Female Blindness Concerning Alpha Males

Some members of the anti-PC Right want to disenfranchise women because the female psyche is so dominated by attraction to the alpha male. An alpha male who presents himself as such will find favor amongst the female population despite any apparent flaws. Women will forgive, overlook, and delude themselves to excuse an alpha male.

The general public, inundated with societal level shit tests like feminism and "but I just want a nice guy who will treat me right" carping, finds the notion of female solipsism far fetched. After all, the stereotype about emotional women has all but disappeared from polite society, so only an unrefined dolt could believe such idiocy. Yet for those that have taken the red pill, all the evident paradoxes of female behavior become clear.

I recently had this revelation concerning a couple that I've known since I was very young (not going to tell exactly how I know them). Now I don't relay this anecdote as a means of denigrating this couple that I actually admire; I offer it merely as a real-world illustration of how the carnal desires of women cloud their behavior and their thoughts. The man, Dan, is a lower alpha but a man's man who comes from a rural town and likes to get his hands dirty with woodworking and fixing motorcycles and cars. Yet Dan suffers from unjustified hubris, unable to realize his own faults even if said faults reflect little on his character or person. Specifically, Dan has essentially no memory. It's not that he has a bad memory - no, he basically has no memory. I've witnessed him forgot his niece's name, movies he's seen in the past month, short trips he's taken, and basic chores he has to do daily. Of course, he also doesn't remember faces, names, or people in general.

I first noticed it when I was around 9 years old. Being a precocious (read: annoying) little kid, I brought it up to his wife. She immediately rejected my observation and assured me that Dan has a "great memory". Over the years, I would bring it up occasionally and, each time, both Dan and his wife would admonish me for such a false characterization. Sure, I understood Dan's reaction as I'd always known him to be defensive about any perceived slight, yet his wife's reaction perplexed me. She must have noticed it as Dan would forget things in situations involving both of us. I mean, it's like Mini-Me walking into the room and not noticing he's a midget.

Around age 16, I accepted the fact that she would never come around, yet I remained nonplussed as to how someone could so adroitly circumvent the truth like that. Is delusion really that easy? Well, for a woman smitten by a man who expresses alpha qualities, it really is. I only understood this truth and the above paradox after Roissy and others awoke me from the collective beta male slumber. Take Victoria Beckham's recent admission that she never noticed David Beckham had a high-pitched voice:

I don’t really notice that he’s got a high-pitched voice. I just think he’s so goddamn perfect that people have to find something wrong with him. He never looks like s–t in the morning. Never. So he’s sitting there sending his e-mails, all ripped. Not an ounce of fat on him. And I thought, you done good, girl. I sure wasn’t thinking of his high-pitched voice.

Quite simply, a women in love is truly blind, but not because of the patriarchy or a manipulative man. She is blind because she's motivated entirely by her emotional desire for an alpha male. And only those that have taken the red pill can understand this female trait.

Finally, let me add that I don't present this observation derisively. Women like what they like, just as men want T/A on a young blond. That's the way it is. If we must blame something for the unfettering of female solipsism it isn't the biological basis of women themselves, but rather the weakening of societal constructs that created a nation built upon stability and continence, not hedonism and the pathology that inexorably follows.

Liberal Hypocrisy on Popular Culture

Whiskey is a frequent (and somewhat notorious) commenter across the alt-right sphere who runs a blog focusing on "politics, culture, and how they intersect." Back in my September post on Modern Family, Whiskey pointed out the importance of popular culture and its corresponding effect on political and social behavior:

Onestdv, great post, this is why I write about popular culture a lot. Popular culture, is all that is left, with collapse of religious attendance and the nuclear family, to shape people's attitudes.

Given that I often write about the intersection of culture and politics, I assuredly agree with this idea. In addition to pronouncements from elite academia and their political sycophants (or is it the other way around?), pop culture is the best means of normalizing behavior and spreading a message. Cultural sway works because it targets the masses, the movie-going public, the families watching primetime TV, and the bored teenagers lounging around with MTV on in the background. And when presented as the normative standard, the masses gradually begin to believe such a characterization.

So those on the Right can look at popular media as motivating many recent political and social trends. Yet, the left doesn't agree or, more accurately, only agrees when it fits their agenda. Take yesterday's Salon.com admonishment of Jonah Goldberg for pursuing a pop culture based argument concerning gay marriage. Though I hate to call it merely an "admonishment", more like a visceral and insulting hissy fit. In it, Alex Preene (a herb if I've ever seen one) calls Golbderg "incredibly stupid" for associating TV shows with cultural mores:

But even so, the sweeping embrace of bourgeois lifestyles by the gay community has been stunning. Nowhere is this more evident — and perhaps exaggerated — than in popular culture. Watch ABC’s Modern Family.

Yep. "Gay people are all bourgeois now, I learned it on a TeeVee show I watch. Liberals stink!"

Here's another example at Racialicious where the writers mock the Council of Conservative Citizens for getting angry about the casting of a black man to play Thor:

Verily, these be dire times for the brave souls at the Council of Conservative Citizens: not only is Marvel Comics once again publishing a comic book starring an African character, but at least one member of the overall ensemble cast in the upcoming Thor movie adaptation will be – gasp! – black! You can almost hear the call ring out:Idris Elba as Heimdall? Forsooth! THEY TOOK OUR GODS! Robblerobblerobble …

The article also dismisses supposedly unjustified outrage over Captain America's chiding of the Tea Party and a new Black Panther character:

Not only were they outraged at the perceived slight of the Tea Party movement depicted in the pages of Captain America (which the company quickly apologized for), but the mere existence of the Black Panther character is proof the company is in the business of publishing “extremist ‘Black Power comics.”

For a less recent example, see the merciless mocking of Dan Quayle for repudiating Murphy Browne's positive portrayal of single motherhood. As in Mr. Preene's article above, the writers of Murphy Browne couldn't help but denigrate Mr. Quayle's intelligence in dismissing his argument as inane.

In all the instances cited, it's clear that the writers present a calculated formulation of peoples and social phenomenon in order to motivate public opinion. Sure, they don't flash on screen, "Gay single mothers are awesome!", "This is Law and Order - skip the first 30 minutes because the detectives will go after common street thugs until we discover that the perpetrator is a conservative, upper class, white man preferably with blond hair", or "Captain Planet - don't have babies or you'll kill the Earth." The message, of course, isn't that explicit. Propaganda, especially that intended to subvert traditional norms, works surreptitiously. It presents radical ideas, such as a prep schooler whose father is a Harvard Law grad killing his friend in cold blood (actual Law and Order episode), as mundane, then lets the audience run with it. Liberal pop cultures pushes and prods, it hints, it gradually tells you what to think is normal and right. Think the Magic Negro as omniscient father figure in films like Bruce Almighty or the unbelievable movie 2012.

Yet liberals think conservatives who connect popular culture with leftism are just plain stupid, as shown with examples above. They're expressing unjustified outrage and reading into stuff way too much. Funny though that liberals expend so much energy on pursuing the exact same line of reasoning - when it fits their agenda. How often have liberals railed against popular media for perpetuating a false construction of man? The site Racialicious has a post every day about some egregious transgression in the media's eternal war against the oppressed. And on Salon.com's front page, right below their story on Goldberg, an article laments the fact that movies such as Juno and Knocked Up callously averted the abortion issue. For more examples, think feminists' complaining about sluts and the gender double standard, modeling and Western beauty, and heteronormative sexuality and the anti-racists about stereotypes and appropriation of minority culture (direct parallel to Thor casting).

So while the left chides conservatives for blaming media as a motivator of social pathology, they actually engage in the exact same type of discourse. Once again, the left pursues a sneaky strategy at propagating their message as they shame conservatives into ignoring popular culture while they attempt to take it over completely.

I Don't Care about Class and Politics

On yesterday's post, an "anonymous" commenter (warning: this is a sock puppet for this site's most infamous troll) tried for yet another "gotcha" moment with the insidious and elitist reactionaries that frequent sites like this one:

The first being, that one of the commenters above mentioned how "proles" will respond to naked racial political appeals. That may indeed be true, but then that raises another question - the vast majority of the readers here, have a less than favorable view of proles to begin with.

First, "Anonymous" contends that HBDers have a "less than favorable view of proles". Of course, he offers no evidence supporting this hypothesis, but I'll admit that such a perspective isn't uncommon on HBD sites. However, I have never personally countenanced a culturally elitist perspective; though I have supported a cognitive elitist stance, which often corresponds to class due to the connection between class and intelligence. The latter notion, that a cognitive elite exists and exhibits less socially pathological behavior, is a verifiable fact that even liberal creationists accept, granted the relevant group is the "correct" one. The former notion, that this cognitive elite has constructed a parallel upper class culture of higher objective value than lower class culture, is undermined by one imagining a tranny projectile vomiting on Susan Sarandon or Upper West side elites purchasing the scribbles of a three year old for thousands of dollars. Sure, watching 40 cars turn left for three hours seems odd to you and me, but so does swimming in a dumpster or tattooing a mustache on your finger.

The occasional disdain shown for proles on alt-right sites derives from their repudiation of stable, middle-class norms. This in turn motivates depressive culture, as in teen pregnancy and obesity. However, those bloggers and commenters who excoriate proles for supposed cultural vacuousness independent of these bad behaviors do express actual elitism.

Second, and building on the first supposition, the "anonymous" commenter then implies that a divide in culture must create a divide in politics. As if, hand holding must extend from the boardroom, to the voting booths, to the bar. The left's amusing coalition of disparate group undermines this supposition, with upper class, secular, class elitist Jews voting for the same inane policies as the church-going, uneducated, ghetto blacks. So really, the cultural divide between groups needn't enervate their political alliances. The contrary type of thinking got Bush II, a blue-blood New England WASP who ended up in Texas, elected twice despite his liberal politics. If two groups share a common political vision despite holding different positions within that future nation, then so be it.

One final note on "Anonymous''" brilliant insight. He clearly attempts to shame HBDers, who he believes harbor a potent disdain towards proles, out of conservative politics. Of course, such a strategy has actually worked wonderfully for the upper classes, whereby status seeking motivates political opinion far more than concern for what actually works. Inherent to "Anonymous'" comment is the notion that HBDers can't possibly agree with those uncouth proles they look down upon.

But, as stated above, I can easily separate the man from his political opinions. If an uneducated hillbilly wants to vote for the same thing I do, then who cares about his snaggle tooth or the fact that we couldn't converse for more than 3 minutes? Just don't bother me for cigarettes at 3 in the morning or try to hit on my daughter.

Problem with Conservative Focus on Economics

On the surface, one of the political highlights of 2010 was this campaign ad from failed Alabama gubernatorial candidate, Tim James.



The ad became fodder for hysterical liberal pundits denouncing the rather mundane message Mr. James proposes:

This is Alabama, we speak English. If you want to live here, learn it.

Slate.com recently called this ad "political lunacy", reflecting the leftist indignation directed at the aptly named "common sense" candidate. But should we on the reactionary Right praise Mr. James? Sure the left has characterized him as a "jingoistic lunatic", a generally reliable marker of the person actually speaking truth. Yet, I'm troubled by Mr. James' immediate qualification offered in the ad and his subsequent defense of this same idea.

The above statement comes in the context of Alabama offering the driving exam in 12 different languages. James rightly admonishes the state for doing so, yet instead of criticizing the undermining of national and cultural cohesion, he brings up economics and safety.

In the ad: Maybe it's the businessman in me, but we'll save money.

But as he explains on his website, James just cares about our safety. He cites a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report that notes an increase in work-related traffic fatalities in his state -- and where there are traffic accidents, there are foreigners who can't read our damn stop signs.

James further states that there's the issue of the "wasted cost and bureaucracy of offering drivers' test" in a dozen languages.

Mr. James risibly remarks on political correctness, all the while a hostage of the thoughtpolice. Pretty simple, "this is [America], we speak English" because that's America. No esoterica on economics or traffic statistics - just a forthright demand that America maintain its historic roots and an integral component of its nationhood, language.

Unsurprisingly, despite his desperate pleas to the contrary, the leftist media had a field day with Mr. James. For example, Slate.com called him "xenophobic and anti-[immigrant]", mocked his "drawl", and stated he didn't make a "bit of sense". So despite James' hasty backing off, the left still went at him. They still lambasted him for presumed racism even as Mr. James made a conscious effort to focus on pragmatism and avoid the more abstract, yet exceedingly important notion of national culture. Ironically, the left's response would have been identical had Mr. James taken the latter approach. In the end, the left will mercilessly attack conservatives who push any measure potentially interpreted as anti-foreign, as in just about anything alluding to a sovereign America. The only way conservatives can make it stop is through complete surrender and self-induced banishment.

In general, this example illustrates an unfortunate problem for mainstream conservatives. They want to advertise their conservative bona fides, but they know the strident left will pick up on anything mildly anti-PC. So they usually go with the less polemical economics focus, as opposed to the social values route. The social values approach will inevitably have something to do with American traditionalism and/or the correspondence between race and liberal initiatives. That's a minefield of potential "gaffes" or, as I like to call them, statements of fact. So those like Mr. James, ostensibly a man who understands American traditionalism and nationhood, instead attack the multicultural structure by proxy. They attack the government red tape that acts as a conduit for multinational imposition and they obscure their un-PC criticism in the guise of practical efficiency.

Yet what's the end game for supposedly wily individuals like Mr. James? What does the focus on conservative economics ultimately accomplish? Sure, maybe Mr. James projects to the voting public that he wants a smaller government and maybe this will help get pro-American politicians elected. But this attack-by-proxy is easily noted by the left (they're delusion, not dumb) and it doesn't address the root cultural and social problems that ultimately motivate progressivism.

Good Girls Gone Bad

[Disclaimer: I have no clue how many readers will be interested in this post, but I found it surprising and indicative of American youth, so that's why I'm posting it. I'm purposely posting on this topic in the doldrums of the post-Christmas, pre-New Years time span for this reason. If you don't like it, oh well, come back tomorrow for material more in line with regular content here.]

On my last post about ethereal beauty Taylor Swift, a few commenters accused Miss Swift of "carouseling". Now if you're not familiar with the Internet slang "carouseling", imagine a girl who rides around on a bunch of... Some commenters expressed this belief in less discreet terms:

Taylor Swift is a ho. She fucks lots of men.

In her personal life, she's gone from man to man, racking up Hollywood bad boys at a rate that would shame any college girl. By the time she's 21, she'll probably number having been with well over a dozen men.

That's a very interesting point that the previous commenter made about drawing a "notch count" comparison between Swift and Gaga.

She's sleeping with ALL of them. Boyfriend = someone you've had sex with sex. Welcome to the 21st century.

That's of course a separate issue from Swift the real person, who is gaining a reputation for bad-boy Hollywood carouseling.

While I've praised Miss Swift as a wholesome individual, it is not her personal actions that define my characterization. In my original post extolling Swift as a positive cultural icon, I focused on how her popularity transcends the personal and reflects a potentially burgeoning cohort of people eager for conservative pop culture. So while she may be riding the carousel like so many other young women her age, her importance lies primarily in her position as a reflection of America's cultural values.

Yet, this post is going to deal with Miss Swift's purported nighttime endeavors. No doubt she has been involved with many Hollywood men (not bad boys, but high alphas nonetheless) and this is disconcerting for those who see as a demure role model. I was initially quite skeptical of the characterization of Miss Swift as a harlot since she just doesn't seem the type. Yes, perhaps I'm blinded by her unique beauty and ostensible kindness and femininity, but I just can't imagine it. I can't imagine this sweet girl who sings songs about fairy tales and princes hopping into bed like a common sorority girl. Yet, we can't always trust our instincts, especially when it comes to women.

Awhile back, I profiled YouTube superstar JuicyStar07. She does make-up videos and video logs about her life and will soon be featured in an MTV reality show with her sister. Here's a sample video showing Blair as a beautiful, sweet, and just plain adorable"good girl":



I've followed her off and on since I blogged about her awhile back, just mainly because she's a fun, not too serious, nice girl. Yet, Miss Fowler has a lot of haters, so there's a ton of information about her on the Internet. Most of the information constitutes attempts to undermine her purported "good girl" image, such as that she takes money for product reviews, that she's a bitch in real life, and other stuff like that. For awhile, I simply didn't believe any of it - until I didn't watch a video of hers for about two months and then noticed barely 17 year-old Blair looked a little...different. Notice? (I promise I'm getting to the point.)



So I looked a little harder online and found this picture of Ms. Goody-Goody with beer and a rather scantily-clad friend. Now, not really big deal, especially for today's American girl, but the image started wearing down. So then when the commenters above started bashing Miss Swift, I looked into Miss Fowler some more. I wanted to know if the public image of a sweet, innocent good girl could mask traits not exactly desirable in marriage material.

Last week, I found this link from one of Blair's videos when she was 16 years old. Turns out a girl who makes a show of being a role model for young girls is already riding the carousel barely out of 10th grade. [Update 12/28: Some commenters have suggested that Blair uses birth control as a means to control her period. In a previous video, Blair did state that she faints occasionally and that this is common amongst women in her family. As a result of this new information, I find it plausible that Blair is not, in fact, using birth control for its intended purpose. I retract my supposition since I can not make a definite conclusion.]

That would be the birth control Seasonique.

So I guess my long-winded answer is that perhaps we can't trust a public image as indicative of personal behavior. Maybe I'm too willing to believe Miss Swift's image reflects her actual behavior, especially since I consider her a vital component of this current conservative revival. Oh well.

Liberal Conspiracy Theories vs. Leftism as a Cultural Meme

Yesterday, an anonymous commenter left the following remark:

Do people seriously think there is some conspiracy to drown Christmas out of the public arena just because someone says "Happy holidays" to you?

In August, the Asian of Reason chided me for chasing conspiracies as well:

I am amazed at your ability to find liberal conspiracy theories in almost every aspect of human life.

Frequent commenter and stalwart moderate Cul-De-Sac-Hero agrees with AOR:

So Onestdv is out chasing yet another conspiracy. This time he says that infant formula is part of the plot to undermine the family.

From my perspective, I've never seriously countenanced the notion of a specific liberal conspiracy. In my estimation, a conspiracy involves conscious actors who engage in largely secretive collusion to cause some end objective. Dictionary.com agrees:

an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Yet in none of the posts cited do I put forth such an argument. I don't finger a particular group of individuals who underwrite these activities. I don't claim a "surreptitiously evil", shadowy group pulling the strings on an ignorant public. I don't imagine a well-defined and structured cabal making deals under the table, the masses mere bargaining chips in their exchanges. Basically, I'm not a libertarian.

Instead, where these commenters see conspiracy, I see embedded values and norms pushed by decidedly liberal edifices with significant control over public opinion. Just because a particular cultural meme has spread doesn't mean there's a conscious conspiracy or a furtive cabal behind it. No, it means that the norms of liberalism have slowly seeped into the public consciousness - which then manifests in our daily interactions. This happens through media, popular culture, academia, and politics.

These mores spread, then become normalized, then become gospel supported by the PC doctrine, with the highly powerful institutions working to support this process. So, there's no liberal conspiracy amongst academics to advance the vegetarian diet - rather, individual academics have been convinced, through liberal inculcation, that liberal principles are correct. They then use spurious science to advance the vegetarian diet as a reflection of liberal principles, i.e. meat is bad for the environment, indicative of male privilege, and a traditional pastime.

The liberal underpinnings of these phenomena don't arise from a small subset of people acting in concert. Instead these arguments depend on the powerful manner in which liberalism propagates its message and thus indirectly motivates people to abide by the leftist ethos as described by media.

The War on Christmas

Saturday Audience Participation

A few years back, Bill O'Reilly and company declared War on the War on Christmas. They were sick of "Happy Holidays". They were sick of "holiday breaks", "holiday bushes", "holiday parties" and all the other ultra-inclusive language we use this time of year. But liberals scoffed at Mr. O'Reilly blustering, accusing him of histrionics and creating a problem where none existed.

So today's question: Is there a "War on Christmas"? If so, from what underlying principles did it begin? Who is responsible for promoting this idea: non-Christians such as Jews, self-hating nominal Christian liberals, and/or secularists? Have you acquiesced to the supposed War on Christmas by not saying "Merry Christmas"?

For a good laugh, here's Gap's "holiday" ad from last year that surely irked Mr. O'Reilly:



Merry Christmas to all my readers. Please enjoy some ham tonight, mine is already cooked and ready to eat!

Update: The online magazine The Huffington Post has its headline as "Season's Greetings" today, December 25th.

Eastern Medicine as Mysticism, Not Science

I've been a skeptic for as long as I can remember. But recently, I've reconsidered my rejection of Eastern Medicine, particularly acupuncture.

My initial aversion to acupuncture derived from the conception of this practice in the West. Western practitioners of acupuncture present it as primarily a spiritual medical technique with quantifiable health benefits. They use terminology such as "energy meridians", "qi", "yin", and "fu" that reflect incorporeal systems that supposedly cause physical ailments. I initially rejected it due to its strong connection to New Age, what one OneSTDV commenter deemed "chick science".

But I've since wavered on my opposition and this past week I came across a paleo-leaning website that advocates acupuncture as a decidedly scientific approach to medicine.

The “energy meridian” model that has become the default explanation of Chinese medicine US is not only out of sync with our modern, scientific understanding of the body – it’s also completely inconsistent with classical Chinese medical theory. In other words, we’ve made up our own western version of Chinese medicine that has little to do with how it was understood and practiced since it began more than 3,000 years ago in China.

So I'm not yet sold on acupuncture, but it's unlikely a system could persist for so many years without at least some salubrious effects. Further, and relevant to this site's content, one notes the Western perversion of this apparently scientific practice. The Healthy Skeptic explains:

Paul Unschuld, a respected Chinese studies scholar, notes that “the core Chinese concept of qi bears no resemblance to the Western concept of ‘energy’.” Schnorrenberger, another prominent scholar of Chinese medicine, also notes that qi is “certainly not equivalent to the Western term ‘energy’.”

De Morant himself admitted that he translated qi as energy, “for lack of a better word.”

Therfore, the commonly accepted idea in the west that Chinese medicine is an energetic, metaphysical medicine was singlehandedly created by a French bank clerk with no training in medicine or ancient Chinese language. It is neither historically accurate nor consistent with modern scientific understanding of the body.

So why then has the mysticism formulation of Chinese medicine become embedded in the West? Once again, we look at the willingness of the West, spurred by a dissimulating academia and media, to degrade itself in favor of other cultures. Modern science, an enterprise defined by the testing of falsifiable theory, has its origins in Europe and its daughter states. In the modern West, we take a decidedly sterile approach to medicine. Of course, this is the best means of dispensing medicine, but for the layperson, such an approach sometimes leaves her unfulfilled in understanding the basis of medical discovery.

Of course, this materialistic approach to science relies solely on physical evidence. For those like me, this does not weaken the approach's success, yet to the "chick scientists" and the media that lauds their achievements, an exceedingly materialistic approach seems lacking. So along comes the Chinese, a group the West has fetishized as illustrated by Mr. Miyagi, Bruce Lee, and the almost robotic Asian math whiz. Surely, they have knowledge and sagacity not privy to those of the boring and vapid West. Surely, they have access to realms not open to the insular and culturally empty Europeans. Thus, the New Agers and their academic peers "created" a system of medicine as the antithesis of the vacuous West, a dichotomy that fits nicely into their general worldview.

As a result, this misleading conception of acupuncture found popularity amongst individuals wishing for New Age, personalized medicine and a means to degrade the West.

Cognitive Dissonance

At AlterNet, an article summarizes an interesting study on cognitive dissonance. For some reason, I imagine the guys at AlterNet don't view the study like I do.

Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

there is no necessary relationship between reality and its symbolization … Our descriptions do not naturally and immutably refer to things, but … things in retrospect begin to resemble their description.

In the "realism" blogosphere, we speak often of liberal delusion, manifested in their hypocritical personal lives and their obstinate championing of ideas like cognitive egalitarianism, AGW, and the low-fat/high-carb diet. Yet I'm somewhat sympathetic to those hampered by what these researchers deem "backfire" and "disavowal".

there is no necessary relationship between reality and its symbolization … Our descriptions do not naturally and immutably refer to things, but … things in retrospect begin to resemble their description. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already – whether we know it or not – made our choice; we are already within one ideological system or another.

It does feel good to have a cohesive ideology that allows us to understand the world. This allows us sanity in a life marked with little of it. This allows us to understand exceedingly complex phenomena in the context of simple ideas that we not only "get" but believe represent the ultimate truth. So even though I get maddeningly frustrated with my vegetarian friends who won't listen to anything I say, maybe I should be a little easier on them.

However, patronizing willful delusion should extend only to the individual and not to the elite whose delusions have consequences reaching further than the recesses of their own minds. We can go along with the chubby girl who thinks she's beautiful or the SWPL who thinks he's smart enough for an Ivy. But when those beliefs transcend the personal and begin affecting policy, we can't lay back. We can't accept cognitive dissonance when the facts have grave importance for those not so willfully naive.

A few days ago, Mangan asked about erroneous "scientific" beliefs. His commentary on the subject was noticeably devoid of emotion. He presented these widely held scientific falsehoods as merely intellectual property and not the underpinnings of a technocratic and intervening elite. But given the harmful effects of some of the ideas cited, we can't view them as merely intellectual.

Mangan's post was motivated by Richard Thaler's question about "favorite wrong scientific beliefs". In the comments, I answered the stigma against saturated fat and meat (the lipid hypothesis). This outright false claim is literally killing us. Let me repeat that: an idea promulgated by almost the entire mainstream establishment, one which is the antithesis of correct, is literally killing us. The elite promote an idea that has caused a rapid decline in health standards (please watch the linked video for a great summary of paleo diet ideas). And they continue to do so despite the multitude of evidence suggesting the paleo diet is easily the healthiest. Thaler also asks why it is believed, a question I tried to answer in a post last summer connecting vegetarianism to the leftist ethos. (I intend to expand on the thesis presented in that post by providing more evidence and I hope to do so in the next month.)

So cognitive dissonance underlies all those exasperating conversations you've had with your vegan work peers, liberal friends, and woo-believing relatives. Sometimes, maybe just let them think a big diamond the size of a refrigerator is buried in front yard. After all, only the elite really matter and that's an indomitable foe itself.

White Knights and Women's Basketball

The anti-feminists have observed the large number of anti-male shaming tactics common in feminist arguments. Yet despite their intimate knowledge and criticism of these empty strategies, the anti-feminists use these shaming tactics as well. While they justifiably criticize the prostrating beta males who eagerly tend to any female whim, all too often these "manginas" are lumped in with men who simply defend a venerable individual who happens to be female.

I've written a few posts defending and praising the lovely Taylor Swift. As a result, haters and other commenters have accused me of "white knighting". This phrase gets thrown around a lot and despite its ubiquity, its context includes anything from nauseating male supplication to, as in my case, justified praise. The reflexive "white knight" pejorative should only apply to situations where a man willing lowers his own status or puts himself into harm to aid a woman or unjustifiably praises a woman just to get on her good side.

These situations differ markedly from my lauding of Ms. Swift, as Ms. Swift simply deserves the good things I said about her. It's not "white knighting" when the woman has earned the commendations and/or the man expresses admiration with no expectation of requited feelings. The indiscriminate usage of this phrase undermines its potency and, far worse, implies that woman never deserve praise. If every approbation of a woman is dismissed as "white-knighting", then the man-hating caricature would seem to hold.

With this in mind, the UConn women's basketball team broke the college record for conservative wins tonight. Their long-time coach, Geno Auriemma, got all indignant about the increased media exposure foisted on his team:

"I just know there wouldn't be this many people in the room if we were chasing a woman's record," the Connecticut coach said Sunday near the end of his postgame news conference. "The reason everybody is having a heart attack the last four or five days is a bunch of women are threatening to break a men's record, and everybody is all up in arms about it."

"All the women are happy as hell and they can't wait to come in here and ask questions. All the guys that loved women's basketball are all excited, and all the miserable bastards that follow men's basketball and don't want us to break the record are all here because they're pissed," Auriemma said. "That's just the way it is."

"Because we're breaking a men's record, we've got a lot of people paying attention," Auriemma said. "If we were breaking a women's record, everybody would go, 'Aren't those girls nice, let's give them two paragraphs in USA Today, you know, give them one line on the bottom of ESPN and then let's send them back where they belong, in the kitchen.'"

Basically, we're all sexist for not caring about women's college basketball. To put such an inane statement in perspective, I have actually watched a WNBA game. It was the very first one in history. I turned the game off after about 3 minutes. I spent even less time watching the XFL.

Mr. Auriemma's orneriness is classic white knight behavior, with a dash of gender delusion. He actually thinks that the public should be just as excited about women's basketball as men's basketball. Come on. We don't like women's basketball because..do I have to finish that sentence. He's pursuing an absurd line of reasoning because he thinks his female players are worthy of such high praise just due to their gender and not the objective entertainment value of what they do.

Two Californias: Seeing but Not Understanding

Via a reader, the National Review's Victor Davis Hanson takes us through "Two Californias":

Many of the rural trailer-house compounds I saw appear to the naked eye no different from what I have seen in the Third World. There is a Caribbean look to the junked cars, electric wires crisscrossing between various outbuildings, plastic tarps substituting for replacement shingles, lean-tos cobbled together as auxiliary housing, pit bulls unleashed, and geese, goats, and chickens roaming around the yards.

Mr. Hanson describes the increasing squalor of this Mexican annex in vivid detail. One can imagine these once thriving areas now home to groups who are apparently the capable future of this nation:

In fact, trash piles are commonplace out here — composed of everything from half-empty paint cans and children’s plastic toys to diapers and moldy food.

In two supermarkets 50 miles apart, I was the only one in line who did not pay with a social-service plastic card (gone are the days when “food stamps” were embarrassing bulky coupons). But I did not see any relationship between the use of the card and poverty as we once knew it: The electrical appurtenances owned by the user and the car into which the groceries were loaded were indistinguishable from those of the upper middle class.

Yet Mr. Hanson makes a concerted effort to avoid what he deems "editorializing", which I take to mean interpreting this anecdotal data honestly and presenting a pointed criticism of the situation.

I don’t editorialize here on the logic or morality of any of this, but I note only that there are vast numbers of people who apparently are not working, are on public food assistance, and enjoy the technological veneer of the middle class.

Again, I do not editorialize, but I note these vast transformations over the last 20 years that are the paradoxical wages of unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico, a vast expansion of California’s entitlements and taxes...

How odd that we overregulate those who are citizens and have capital to the point of banishing them from the state.

Yet despite his insistence on civility, Mr. Hanson does "get it". He understands the end game:

Hundreds of thousands sense all that and vote accordingly with their feet, both into and out of California — and the result is a sort of social, cultural, economic, and political time-bomb, whose ticks are getting louder.

The problem with right-leaning individuals like Mr. Hanson, who holds a PhD in classics from Stanford, is that they're restrained by the prevailing non-critical culture. Not only does this have consequences for curtailing pathology, but it also seeps into political discourse and enervates the potency of discussion. Mostly, this affects the intellectual conservative who wants to advance right-wing principles, but not at the expense of upper class social cachet.

Mr. Hanson has all the pieces in front of him. He understands the decaying state of California, the corresponding demographic shifts, the elites' tacit approval of government profligacy, and the underclasses' inevitable pathology. Yet he uses weak language while dare not speaking of the obvious foundation of the problem. So while Mr. Hanson portrays himself as the venerable conservative, apparently misguided in his tilt but altogether acceptable in demeanor, the leftists continue their push. They have no problem yelling, shaming, and mocking the opposition. They have no problem employing Alinsky tactics while hypocritically condemning anyone on the right who does the same.

Mr. Hanson and other moderates need to understand Barry Goldwater's timeless aphorism that "extremism in the pursuit of justice is no vice," because if not, if one refuses to stand hidebound in opposition to the left, it will continue its gradual march against every traditional edifice we have left.

Replacing "Old White Men"

Here's UCLA ethnic studies "professor" and all-around Asian failure Kent Wong haranguing conservative racists for opposing the DREAM Act.



You know the drill - "whitey sucks, let's replace him with industrious and law-abiding Hispanics!" The highlight comes when Wong, in the midst of his desperately effusive diatribe, mentions all those "old white men", a group who apparently hold back the untapped resource of Latino physicists.

I've come across this obviously negative phrase before in the context of what's wrong with America. Apparently, we need to get young and non-white to maintain a competitive and socially viable nation, an oft-repeated "maxim" evinced by the burgeoning civilizations of Africa and Latin America. But despite such obvious idiocy, no one ever stops to consider the blatant bigotry behind such a statement.

Clearly, the connotation is negative, as most anyone would consider "old" a chiding term illustrating an increasingly impotent workforce and boring social life. After all, when people think "old", they think nursing homes, bad music, and body odor, contrasted with the vibrant and robust traits of the young. Yet by concatenating old with white, "Dr." Wong's intended message is obvious - whiteness is a negative concept. To be white means to be culturally empty. For a nation to be white means that it can not compete, that it must incorporate non-white wisdom to keep pace with the rest of the world.

This conception of whiteness as negative usually comes in the form of comedy, as in Weird Al's "White and Nerdy" or the ever popular "dumb white father" sitcom genre. But "Dr." Wong provides us with a transparent example of the elite's prevailing view. Unfortunately, this association has become so ingrained in our culture, as I covered with this DJ Hero commercial, that no one ever stops and considers the actual meaning of the phrase and the vile opinion it conveys about an entire race (ironic considering the relative civilization success).

Saturday's Votes

A bittersweet day for illegal-gay-Mexican soldiers: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repealed, but DREAM Act blocked. The SanFrancisco Chronicle has an article entitled Gays Celebrate repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' and in another article included the picture below:

Of course, the left despises the military and sees our armed forces as a modern incarnation of the rapacious Colonial settlers. Thus, one would seem confused by their excitement over DADT repeal. If we accept the leftism perspective on the military, this basically means that now gays can openly kill oppressed peoples too. Not sure why that's cause for celebration.

Yet, leftism isn't defined by internal consistency - it's defined by convenience and reflexive opposition. As in, the left will champion any discordant ideal as long as the end result undermines some traditional aspect of our nation. Gays don't like the military or the values it reflects. But because the military represents a bastion of nationalism and traditionalism, leftists want to fundamentally change it into an societal edifice in line with their worldview.

Leftism works by chipping away at the traditional fabric of the country. Once again, as in identity politics disguised as rational atheism, they advance an initiative without much beneficial practical consequences. I mean, why does it matter if gays can tell everyone what gets them hot? Are straight men with yellow fever or fetish for man-as-baby porn (don't look that up) going to start their own advocate groups now too? Yet that doesn't matter because leftism relies on the presumably axiomatic principles they've embedded into our social landscape. So when they grouse about diversity and tolerance, no one stops to consider whether such values should supersede pragmatic ones, like social comfort and communal bonding.

Finally, I've spent a lot of time recently discussing symbolism and its relation to the strength of nations. I've used this as opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque, championed the idea of a mythic narrative, and, on Friday, argued that the military foments patriotism. So will this repeal have consequences for national security? I doubt it. But will it have consequences for the traditional symbols that define our nation? I hope it won't as I simply don't foresee the gay impact being large enough on the military. But what we can learn from this is that leftists understand what the traditional symbols are and will continue to try to undermine their potency.

Giving to Charity

Saturday Audience Participation

During the holiday season, people seem more willing to give to charity. There seem to be more food drives, charity fundraisers, and people ringing bells everywhere I go. Add to that the recent announcement from Facebook wunderkind Mark Zuckerberg that he will donate half his fortune to charity, along with the 100 million he already wasted gave to Newark public school district.

But the cynical amongst us (me) could ask whether giving is justified. I don't mean from an Ayn Rand, egoist point of view as I generally consider charitable giving a morally neutral act for the individual, yet a pragmatic necessity for society as a whole. By "justified", I mean does it actually do anything? Perhaps it just delays the inevitable hunger of the homeless or goes to an irresponsible person who will squander it on his vices. If considered in this context, one could view charitable giving as ultimately a self-aggrandizing act, due to both its corresponding social effects and the oft-repeated truism that "helping others makes you feel good." Finally, one must consider where the money goes, as the more parsimonious would not want to give to certain groups or individuals with self-induced pathologies.

So today's question: Do you give to charity? Why or why not? If yes, what organizations or events do you give to? Does the particular objective of the charity or the people who will ultimately receive your money matter?

FWIW: I don't give to charity often, but when I do, I almost always give to disease research. On a somewhat related note, I did once sign a petition for truth which I now really regret.

Military and Nationalist Sentiment

Here's a pro-military video via Moonbattery:



Pay attention to the first 24 seconds full of admittedly overwrought, yet inspiring military imagery. As a youth, my first feelings of patriotism were spurred by these types of military memes, the fighter planes roaring, the austere soldiers, and the American flag waving overhead. To this day, I still get goosebumps watching videos like that.

Fittingly, I abhor leftist animosity towards the military, though such ire fits into their disdain for American hegemony in general. In addition to the Berkeley hippies who view any American aggression as unjustified, libertarians (and their paleo brethren) harbor a similar enmity towards the military. Now before I criticize the anti-military right-wingers, I'll broach the aspects of their criticism with which I agree. Sure, we likely spend too much on the military and their endeavors. More importantly, and usually the most constructive argument against the American military, is the use of it as a force of democratic exportation. Namely, we have used the military not merely to pursue our own interests, but rather to police the world. By means of the military, we export American ideals into generally hostile lands at the expense of American lives. In a subsequent post, I will argue about the conflation of nationalistic/pragmatic and moral ideals, but for now, let me just say I find this criticism warranted.

Ignoring the moral component of military action, one questions what purpose does this entity serve the American people. Once more, libertarians (paleos have different reasoning that I simply don't feel like dealing with) naively exult the individual, and in doing so, ignore his place within larger society and the social bonds inherent to that connection. Because libertarians view individual freedom as the primary, and generally only, valuable construct of a governing system, they often fail to understand societal level phenomenon. In their often hidebound pursuit of unfettered personal freedom, libertarians champion culturally depressive ideals and rely on exceedingly sterile policies in reaching this ultimate objective. At the most basic level, they espouse the same "legal reductionism" popular amongst the left - the notion that a collective either does not exist or is so amorphous as to warrant its rejection in political affairs.

How does this relate to the military? The military is the most potent nationalistic symbol. It evokes national strength, national vigor, and national achievement. It embodies the physical, spiritual, and emotional strength of a nation through its "propaganda" and, when necessary, proves it on the battlefield. There is no more emotionally edifying meme than the military to evoke feelings of nationalism. In addition to the anecdotal passion evident amongst the populace, one notes the historical prevalence of military conquests as a means of fomenting collective sentiment, the Vikings, the British, and the early Muslims.

The average person simply does not get excited about American technological achievement, our previously high test scores, or any other egghead meme. He gets going when he sees the flag flying, the majestic planes above, and servicemen in pursuit of the same goal. If we reject the military, then the notion of patriotism may go along with it.

Teeth and the Paleo Diet: A Story of Vegan Delusion

If you read this blog, you know I'm a strong proponent of the paleo diet. For those unfamiliar, the paleo diet means:

Paleo is a simple dietary lifestyle that is based on foods being either in or out. In are the Paleolithic Era foods that we ate prior to agriculture and animal husbandry (meat, fish, shellfish, eggs, tree nuts, vegetables, roots, fruit, berries, mushrooms, etc.). Out are Neolithic Era foods that result from agriculture or animal husbandry (grains, dairy, beans/legumes, potatoes, sugar and fake foods).

To understand why the diet works, one needs to only consider the basic evolutionary argument of what our prehistoric ancestors ate and the relative absence of disease until processed foods and high-carb/low-fat/vegetarian hysteria hit the mainstream in the 1950s. In previous posts, I've linked to numerous studies on the matter, including vegetarian luminary Andrew Weil admitting that saturated fat is actually healthy. Here's another blog post discussing why meat eating makes sense, along with supporting data.

Recently, a very close SWPL friend of mine informed me that he suffers from horrible dental health. He goes to the dentist about every three months and often has multiple cavities. Ironically, given his liberal creationism, he attributes this to genetics. Without even knowing for sure, I immediately fingered his diet as the main problem. My friend eats a soft-vegan diet, partly motivated by his reading of Skinny Bitch and partly by his SWPLism. But unlike hardcore vegans, he cheats too much with processed foods and grains. So he gets the worst of everything - too many processed foods but no meat and no saturated fats.

Because his dental problem is independent of most anything else going on in the body, I viewed this as the perfect opportunity to convert a paleo skeptic. All I had to do was confirm a connection between dental health and the Neolithic diet. So I spent about 5 minutes of searching Google and came up with these two links:

Due to those high levels of phytates in grain, grain is linked to dental decay. With high levels of mineral-blocking phytic acid coupled with low mineral absorption rates and plenty of starches for bacteria to feed on, grain contributes to dental decay. Anthropological records of our pre-agricultural ancestors indicates very little to no tooth decay; however, that changed after the dawn of agriculture. Indeed, some anthropologists use the presence of tooth decay is an indicator of an agricultural society.

Researchers have known since the 1980s that the invention of agriculture led to more tooth decay, particularly in women. Most researchers have attributed this to dietary and cultural changes that come from settling down. Both men and women began eating more starchy grains, such as corn and wheat, which contain sugars. Changes in the division of labor meant that women were preparing food more than men--and snacking more, because they had access to more food. "You increase carbohydrates and generally you increase the incidence of dental caries," says anthropologist Clark Spencer Larsen of Ohio State University in Columbus.

Pretty straightforward. Not much to argue with there - nothing complicated about stomach enzymes, hunter-gatherer moving patterns, or treatment of prehistoric grains. Everyone agrees that agriculture has caused teeth decay; thus one can readily conclude that people who avoid carb-heavy diets suffer from little tooth decay, i.e. cavities.

My point for this post is twofold. First, I want to inform my readers of this amazing health secret ignored by the mainstream. Second, I want to relay this story about my friend. So how did my friend ultimately react? Remember that vegetarianism is largely a social indicator born out of pseudo-religious leftist ideals where meat-eating is viewed as discordant with the urbane, refined individual. Fittingly, my friend couldn't offer any rejoinder, yet he then promptly rejected the data. He told me, "OK fine, but I'm not going to stop eating carbs. That's dumb."

Funny that my friend holds onto these religious beliefs as fervently as the Christian Scientists who refuse medical treatment. And even worse, he doesn't realize the class-based motivation of his dietary choices. In the end, my friend would rather suffer from horrible dental health than accept traditional eating habits and the perceived social aspects therein.

The Origin of Black Crime

Over at Mangan's, the commentariat discusses California's crime problem as it relates to Hispanic immigration. At VFR, Larry Auster declares black crime a reflection of race, not culture or economics:

which in turn suggests that the astronomically high rate of rape by blacks is caused not by social, cultural, or economic factors, but by racial factors. And this should be no surprise.

The undeniable truth of high black and Hispanic crime evinces itself with a glance at the evening news or a short drive through any "bad neighborhood". Everyone knows it. And in this sphere of discourse, I needn't expand upon this unassailable truth any further.

But there's a missing qualification to much of race realist discussion on minority crime rates. Now before you accuse me of pedantry, I admit that the first hurdle is often the most difficult. In polite society, one can't even mention the mere idea that blacks and Hispanics engage in more criminal activity, even if one supports that supposition with statistical data. I've heard this PC sensitivity referred to as "hate facts", an acerbic reminder that even undeniable facts are privy to social pressures. So I forgive those who just want to clear this initial hurdle and not worry about the details of the discussion. However, if we focus on black crime using inexact language, we fail to diagnose the actual problem and thereby undermine any potential solution.

Now to the point - too much race realist discourse on black or Hispanic crime merely states black crime as a genetic inevitability, without qualifying that in regards to historical precedence or understanding the context of why the mainstream focuses so much on the issue. I'll summarize my position concisely:

The absolute incidence of black crime is NOT genetic, but the relative difference between white and black crime is almost solely a product of genetic differences.

I'll illustrate with an example. It's highly likely that there are more murders per capita in Compton each year than there are in the worst maximum security prison in America. Are we to presume then that this disparity reflects the dispositions of the two populations - as in, pronouncing the average Compton resident more violent than the worst criminals in the country. Of course not. Extrapolating to a more general context, we know that culture matters as far as the absolute incidence because we can think of highly restrained situations where genetics are completely nullified.

One also notes lower black crime and higher civility prior to Civil Rights. Thus, we can safely conclude that black crime can indeed be significantly reduced if given the right cultural and social landscape. Yet the genetic argument remains precisely because we live in a multicultural society where the elite obsesses over perceived inequality. And it's in this context, the relative crime gap between whites and blacks, where genetics constitutes the defining factor. The relative racial disparities, statistical fodder for incessant leftist carping about racism, will always remain.

In curing this societal ill, the realist Right must understand how a society's collective social values push forth policy and motivate behavior. The Civil Rights movement didn't only legally condemn discrimination, but it also, through attendant social and cultural changes, unfettered black impetuousness and collectively exonerated them from any future wrong doings. Mainstream academia and media adopted a narrative that blamed black transgression on historical wrongs, and later, hoaxes like "institutional racism." Society allowed the concept of racial "equality" to undergird its entire value system, thereby justifying any argument on these grounds. For example, I've covered media sympathy for felony voting rights and the Duke Lacrosse stripper.

This has created a social landscape where blacks act with impunity, like OJ, Mumia, and Tookie Williams. In addition, media glorifies stereotypically black yet societally depressive behavior to further exculpate blacks. We see this in the mainstreaming of rap acts like Ice-T, Public Enemy, and 2Pac and in acceptance of demonstrative sports celebrations in basketball and football, a trend beginning with the seminal and oft-celebrated 1968 black glove moment. For historical reference, compare today's athletic celebrations to those of Jesse Owens, Jackie Robinson, and Bill Russell.

The take home message: we must understand black and Hispanic crime as both a function of genetics and the liberal values that have "created" this problem.

Favre Sits and the Streak Ends

I've never much liked Brett Favre. I found the media fawning over him nauseating, especially John Madden's incessant gushing. The Favre narrative went something like this: "Man is he having fun out there?", "He's like a big kid, smiling, hopping around, drawing plays in the dirt!", "He's such a gunslinger!", "Boy does he take risks out there, but he gets the job done", "Oh he just threw a retarded INT, but you gotta accept that with that gunslinger mentality." The excessive adulation was even worse because Favre was possibly the most overrated player of all time (not withstanding his brilliant 2009 season that still ended with a stupid late-game INT).

So even though I've never been a Favre fan, last night was a disappointment. Perhaps the greatest streak in the history of sports ended with Favre finally missing a game after 297 straight starts. Favre had not missed a game since September of 1992 when he subbed in for the now immortal Don Majkowski. I honestly can't articulate why I'm disappointed, though I've always been a fan of streaks, including sometimes irrational personal ones.

I guess we always mourn when something comes to an end and for the past 18 years, you could always count on Favre to suit up. So here's to you Mr. Favre, may you be remembered for more than your retirement vacillation, those Wrangler commercials, and those regrettable text messages.

America as Merely a Set of Laws

On Thursday's post, sanctimonious liberal interloper 'Dave' said this:

When I think of American tradition, I think of everyone being equal under the law. Because, unlike you, I'm capable of describing what American culture means to me in actual words.

You hear this type of rhetoric quite often from moderates, mainstream Republicans, liberals, and center-liberals. (I exclude far-leftists because they really only discuss why America is horrible and why it should end.) Dave took exception to my demand that America exert itself as an independent entity, excoriating me for supposed vagueness. Perhaps Dave is correct in that I didn't provide a strict definition of this nation, an admittedly difficult task given cultural and demographic fluidity. But if one closely considers Dave's focus on "law", what I've previously deemed "legal reductionism", one notes the patent absurdity of his perspective.

So why does Dave insist on defining America solely by "law"? Sure, I agree that America has erected a singular system of governance and we owe our relative prosperity, compared to European and Asian states, to the Founding Fathers' wisdom. But Dave goes further and takes out the people from the nation, rejecting the rather obvious notion that a nation is inextricably intertwined with its majority constituency - their genetic behavioral predilections and their collective cultural narrative. He does so as a means of supporting the globalist/diversity paradigm whereby the majority culture and demographic group simply don't exist (or don't have relevance to the nation) and thus are easily replaced by minority or foreign cultures and peoples. After all, if America is merely a set of laws, then it doesn't matter who lives here if the laws remain.

But let's consider Dave's argument anyway - that nations have nothing to do with the people and their traditions. America is a constitutional republic, which Wikipedia defines as:

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of it's citizens.

According to Dave and mainstream Republicans like Bill Whittle, America is essentially equivalent to any other country with this same basic set of "laws". After all, a country is defined by its laws and not its people, its traditions, or its unique history (all concepts weakened by massive demographic changes). The following countries have a similar system of governance to ours:

South Africa: constitutional democracy
Central African Republic: presidential republic
Zaire: democratic republic
Zimbabwe: presidential republic and parliamentary
Haiti: presidential republic
Columbia: constitutional republic (just like us!)
Nicaragua: democratic republic
Mexico: constitutional republic

I could keep going, but you get the point. According to the "legal reductionist" argument, all those countries are the same as the United States of America. Yes, so who wants to trade in their East Coast suburbs for the serenity of Medillin, Columbia, Mexico City, or your very own triple gated property in South Africa?

Nixon Tells the Truth

Newly released tapes of Richard Nixon reveals his candid thoughts on various ethnic groups. The tapes were made in the early 70's as the country gradually adapted, both culturally and politically, to the nascent Great Society liberalism and other "progress" made during the tempestuous 60's. In this context, Nixon expressed these sentiments in a time period when such thoughts were almost out of favor in polite society.

The tapes reveal Nixon's views on blacks, Jews, and other ethnic groups. In my estimation, Nixon's largely spot on in discussing these groups and he doesn't seem to harbor any irrational animosity towards said ethnics. But the MSM takes a different view: "New Nixon tapes reveal anti-Semitic, racist remarks". So let's review:

Richard M. Nixon made negative comments about Jews, blacks and other ethnic groups during informal discussions with top aides and his personal secretary that were recorded before he resigned as president, according to a newly released batch of tapes.

Generally when "negative" and some protected minority group are contained in the same sentence, you can substitute "true" instead. Basically, the mainstream considers negative any observation concerning group behavioral differences. Of course, such a characterization rarely reflects the veracity of the observation, it instead reflects what the writer desires the reader to think.

"I've just recognized that, you know, all people have certain traits." [That's about the simplest formulation of HBD possible. And really, it's undeniable to anyone with eyes.]

He then turns to certain ethnic groups:

The Jews have certain traits. The Irish have certain - for example, the Irish can't drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I've known gets mean when he drinks. It's sort of a natural trait. Particularly the real Irish. The Italians, of course, just don't have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but . . ." he trailed off, adding later: "The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality.

Can you really argue with any of that? He continues:

Basically, Rose, most of our Jewish friends . . . they are all basically people who have a sense of inferiority and have got to compensate.

Jewish stand-up and the significant overlap with SWPL comedy is almost entirely based on (ethnic) self-deprecation. Given this and my own experience with Jewish acquaintances engaging in this, often unsolicited, type of joking, I agree with Nixon here. Finally, he gets to blacks and says what everyone knows:

Bill Rogers has got somewhat - and to his credit it's a decent feeling - but somewhat, sort of, a sort of blind spot on the black thing...He says, well, 'They are coming along, and that after all, they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.' My own view is I think he's right if you're talking in terms of 500 years.

So for telling the truth, Nixon gets smeared as a racist and a Jew-hater. Well can't say I'm surprised.

Is Marriage Over?

Saturday Audience Participation

A study came out this past week on the State of Marriage. The main conclusion:

The data sparked the conclusion that "the United States is devolving into a separate-and-unequal family regime, where the highly educated and the affluent enjoy strong and stable households and everyone else is consigned to increasingly unstable, unhappy, and unworkable ones."

The study compares numerous indicators of marriage stability and suggests that the upper classes still hold to traditional social ideas yet endorse discordant progressive views politically. In other words, they might voice acceptance of increasingly licentious social norms at the next DAR meeting, but certainly not as advice for their own children.

As for the reactionary Right, a movement harboring a healthy dose of cynicism regarding the harmful effects of progressivism, marriage is viewed as an ineluctable death trap for males. Anti-feminism holds that marriage will end with her taking the money, the house, and the kids. Most anti-feminist men justify their avoidance of marriage on these grounds.

So today's question: Are you married? How do you feel about marriage in general? Is marriage a linchpin of society or an institution with little importance? Is marriage "over" or can it be reclaimed by traditionalists?

White Dog: An Actual Movie

The following represents both the most heavy-handed use of metaphor and the epitome of Unintentional Comedy. I give you: White Dog - the poignant tale of a German (seriously) shepherd poisoned by an undying racism, abandoned by his caretaker and saved only by the faith of his black trainer. While never released in theaters, the movie was critically acclaimed (big surprise) and the eventual distributor received a special heritage award. So sit back and enjoy the trailer, it doesn't get much "better" than this.

"Culture Defense" in Law and the Existence of a Nation

Yesterday, an anonymous reader posted this story about an immigrant using cultural relativism to exonerate herself in court. The prosecution argued that simple-minded Americans were unable to interpret the defendant's purported actions, human trafficking, as accepted African tradition. The twelve jurors, likely a bunch of insular dolts who avoided post-modern re-education chambers, didn't buy it.

The lawyer for an African woman charged with smuggling young girls from Togo to New Jersey said her trial was about cultural norms that failed to translate in America. Twelve American jurors saw it as a clear-cut example of human trafficking, and she was sentenced to 27 years in prison.

Both sides focused on the cultural nuances of the case; the defense arguing the woman was a benevolent mother figure who helped young girls escape a life of poverty; the prosecution accusing her of using the threat of African voodoo curses to keep the girls subjugated.

The lawyers and the ominpresent "experts" feel a lack of cross-cultural sensitivity precluded an accurate assessment of the facts. Note in the second paragraph how they champion the neocon/nation of immigrants conception of America.

"We derive meaning from action, and that meaning is very culturally laden," said Susan Bryant, a law professor at the City University of New York who provides cross-cultural training to lawyers and judges...Adetula argued that what prosecutors called clear-cut signs of modern slavery were considered protective measures in African culture: restricting telephone access, holding the girls' passports, and forbidding them from going out of the house unaccompanied.

"America is supposed to be a country made up of so many different cultures, so, yes, make the laws, and enforce the laws," Adetula said. "Do not make different sets of laws for different people, but look to the interpretations of acts, before you say: 'Oh, it's an offensive act, it's against the law, it amounts to human slavery." Lawyers like Adetula emphasize that factoring in someone's cultural upbringing can help juries and judges determine the degree of an offense or the severity of punishment.

Any reasonable person (read: not a liberal) would dismiss this balderdash as just that. But I must concede that their argument is internally consistent. If morality does not exist and a parallel national edifice does not exist to reflect that morality, then yes, the cultural defense is viable. Simply, if cultures ascribe different value judgments to certain behaviors and we define every culture as equal, then we should consider their value judgments as equal to our own.

But let's escape the twilight zone to more accurately analyze this idiocy. This case again showcases the weakness of the diversity/"nation of immigrants" paradigm. If we do not possess a societal level social contract forged by cultural tradition and widespread patriotism, then we can not argue against these claims. If America exists merely as a vessel for the habitation of disparate groups, then any imposition of societal norms on minority groups is hypocritical. We can't champion the multicultural society where society capitulates to every minority want, panders to minority groups in social situations (Happy Holidays!) and the identity politics racket, yet then demand they repudiate those norms and adopt the majority's in certain circumstances.

As I've been arguing for quite some time, a nation requires both a cohesive narrative and a substantial number of socially unifying institutions. Contrastingly, liberals, moderates, and (most) libertarians reject the notion of a solid nation and see individual behavior as independent from societal level change. This conception is ludicrous as social acceptance according to widespread mores represents the ultimate motivator of behavior. Quite simply, as illustrated by this case, disparate individual groups can not amalgamate to create a unified society because they simply don't agree on what constitutes acceptable behavior.

What America must do is assert its existence. I shudder to think that such a starkly obvious prescription would be considered sacrilege amongst polite society. But yes, America must do this, thus avoiding capitulation to foreign entities such as this modern African slave master.

Having Sex with your Hard Drive (Get It?!?)

Most social commentators understand that porn has pushed through much of recent technology. People (men) like porn and there will always be those willing to make money off these desires. To this end comes the next revolution in wanking: Kinect Sex. A porn and technology blogger (seriously?) muses on the possibility of Microsoft's new gaming toy being used for lascivious purposes:

If you want to know about the possibilities of Kinect sex, just ask Kyle Machulis. Machulis, aka "qdot," runs a site called slashdong.org (Google it at your own risk). The site, which I probably shouldn't mention by name more than once, focuses on the meeting point between sex and tech. It featured a blog this week exploring the idea of X-rated uses for Kinect-enabled Xboxes (hat tip to the crew from CNET for finding the page).

In the blog, Machulis -- who was recently cited by New Scientist as a Kinect-hacking authority -- observes how the Kinect is able to use depth in order to identify a person's body shape. He goes on to note, however, that Microsoft's gaming console really tracks the human body "as a whole," looking at "major geometric features" of a user's form...Long story short, Machulis concludes that Kinect sex is going to be challenging -- but he believes someone will find a way to penetrate the mystery.

I can admire the initiative and technological prowess, but who would actually see this as a viable alternative to real women? So many in the manosphere prognosticate on the coming sexbot revolution, yet I can't foresee a mass exodus of men from the sexual marketplace. Simply, I can't understand how a regular, straight man would pursue plastic over..well you get the alliteration.

And that brings me to my favorite group of closet homos: the Men Going Ghost or MGTOW. If you need to classify a particular social cohort, note if they use a moniker. If they do, such as vegans, they do so as a reflection of their insecurity or their need for social acceptance. Simply, if a behavior is viable, its participants would not require social proof via association with others. Sure today's modern women is increasingly frivolous and entitled, but how could any man overcome his carnal motivations. And if he somehow does (doubtful), why must he advertise his behavior to anyone who will listen.

The Kinect sex possibility will only cull off the nominally straight men as technology can not replace nature. The "uncanny valley" and all our futile efforts at artificial health measures, such as getting away from the paleo diet, evince that.

Utah Flourishes - Despite all those Boring, Conservative White People

So Newsweek accidentally discovered how great Utah is doing despite the national recession.

But while nearly every local economy succumbed to the frozen credit markets, failing to grow much during the last two years, Utah has flourished. With Edwards’s help, it set its own records for new companies (more than 40) and capital investment (nearly $2 billion). That has helped sustain an average of 3.5 percent annual growth during the last five years, more than any state other than energy-rich North Dakota.

Surprisingly the article isn't entirely condescending and does present the state's success somewhat judiciously.

Greater Salt Lake City, the 75-mile corridor stretching from Ogden in the north to Provo in the south, has absorbed massive new data centers for eBay, Twitter, and Oracle; splashy new offices for Disney Interactive and EA Sports; and, just last month, a commitment from Adobe—the makers of Flash and Acrobat—to build a thousand-person software-development campus, where the minimum average salary will be $60,000.

Homegrown tech is booming as well. The University of Utah recently tied MIT for creating the most companies out of its patented research: more than 80 since 2005. Provo, home to Brigham Young University, has the most high-growth companies per capita in the country, according to Inc. magazine.

I'll give credit to Newsweek for even writing this article and not qualifying it with some convoluted liberal logic. They say Utah is doing great, simple as that. Yet I expect more from media, especially those who should presumably engage in fastidious analysis of current trends. After all, these types of media outlets don't shy away from musing on all sorts of social phenomenon, picking apart trends and telling us why they happen and what it means for the society at large. In fact, that should be the objective of media - couch esoterica in common language so as to inform the common man of the goings-on around him.

Yet, the author presents nothing to this end; instead, he considers Utah as an anti-liberal aberration whose success derives from putatively odd circumstances. Take these few statements that reflect the author's risible confusion at Utah's success:

Why Utah? Founded by Mormon pioneers, the state, which has been called “a quasi theocracy” by the editor of its largest newspaper, is overwhelmingly white (93 percent) and Mormon (60 percent). Those demographics make for a socially conservative mind meld—no gay marriage, mixed acceptance of women in the workplace—that might seem hostile to the idea-swapping associated with a go-go economy. Mix in a thin coffee-and-booze culture, and you might expect Utah’s economy to be listless as well.

Utah’s biggest potential liability—its conservative, religious populus—becomes an indisputable strength.

So the author tells us why Utah should NOT experience the success it has (more on that later), but he never answered the most important question: "Why Utah?" Further, he appeals to liberal axioms that Utah clearly disproves, such as the notion that a (bland) conservative, white, gender traditionalist, religious (those crazy Mormons no less) surely could not thrive. According to this author, the "go-go economy", presumably referring to a coastal and socially liberal environment, is what ultimately motivates success.

Obviously, we all know why Utah has such success - and the author even tacitly alludes to it in describing its constituency as "healthy, hard-working, and exceedingly stable". But even if the author won't dare speak such blasphemy, he never even broaches why one would presume otherwise. Namely, why would a socially liberal, diverse culture engender success? As in, what logical mechanism connects social liberalism and diversity to pragmatic success? Call me obtuse, but I'm having trouble figuring that one out.

Quick thought experiment: In 1969, America achieved possibly the greatest technical achievement ever by sending men to the Moon on graphing calculators. (Aside: apparently, this wasn't good enough and we still need more, more education reform!) Take a look at the control room. Now tell me, how would sexual liberation and the presence of women, blacks, and Hispanics have made us any better that day? I'm simply not seeing the connection. Math does not need "different perspectives", technological development does not require globalist politics (ask pioneering modern HBDer William Shockley), and improving biological health does not need a woman's touch.

But in fact, no viable connection actually exists. Instead, we get nebulous platitudes like a "go-go economy" with the liberal masses nodding along without hesitation. Then Utah comes along, with ethnically homogeneous Japan, Germany, and Finland too; yet the elite still push diversity and social liberalism as the defining factors of success. Unfortunately, outside these enclaves, we all suffer as a result of this purposeful delusion.

Demography is Destiny: The Mainstream Wakes Up

Two recent stories highlight the growing concern about demography and the course of a nation. First, Tea Party Nation president goes reactionary in supporting voting rights only for property owners. Though, he does couch it in more socially acceptable terms as to not rouse leftist anger (yea that'll work):

The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who got the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you automatically got to vote. Some of their restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of them was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but they, property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than non-property owners do.

I've championed this idea before, namely that the listless lower classes will continue to vote for government profligacy no matter the consequences. Second, a Tennessee Republican uses some startlingly transparent language in describing the problem of illegal immigration:

Tennessee State Rep. Curry Todd took his dissatisfaction with the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to a strange level this week, when he suggested that pregnant immigrants will "multiply" like "rats" if they are not asked about their citizenship status.

"They can go out there like rats and multiply, then," Todd responded.

The Tennessee Republican's comments on "multiplying"implies an acknowledgment of HBD. Unlike other mainstream conservatives who imbue American exceptionalism with undue power, he seems to understand that those born of illegals will behave in a similar manner.

So what is the connection between these two stories? In both cases, the speaker seems to understand the failings of democracy in a nation containing inexorably unproductive cohorts. We give power to the people, but if the people vote for idiotic policy, the nation will eventually succumb to its citizens' stupidity. The only way to avoid such a fate is to limit the amount of potential voters and to do so concordant with obvious indicators of aptitude, like homeownership. The Left has actually understood this better than the Right. They formulate their voting strategy in terms of inclusiveness, a surreptitious tactic whereby they publicly endorse democracy, but really intend to open voting rights to anyone who will support suicide by liberalism. The Right, especially in this era of PC, has a harder road because their strategy must involve exclusion.