Medical Industrial Complex: What Not To Do

If you followed mainstream medical advice, here's how your average day would NOT look:

-Do not sleep too much or too little, or you'll die. But don't worry, "they" can fix that with magic little pills.

-Do not eat bacon and eggs or you'll get high cholesterol and die. But don't worry, "they" can fix that with magic little pills.

-Do not microwave your oatmeal (whole grains!) in a plastic bowl or you'll die.

-Do not drive a gas-guzzler because it'll pollute the air and you'll die. But don't worry, "they" have a better option and it won't even cost you that much.

-Do not eat meat for lunch or you'll get a heart attack and die. But don't worry, "they" can fix that with magic little pills.

-Do not go outside and get a tan, or you'll die of skin cancer. But don't worry, "they" can help you avoid that.

-Do not get emotional or you'll die. But don't worry, "they" can fix that with magic little pills and a nice woman with a psychology degree.

-Do not use a cell phone or you'll get brain tumors.

-Do not watch too much TV or you'll die.

-Do not drink. Oh wait, drink red wine. Or white wine. Or I dunno, drink some, but not too much. But anyway, you'll die if you don't follow "their" advice.

-Do not eat anything that is not organic or you'll get heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. And then you'll die. But don't worry, "they" can fix that with magic little pills.

-Do not stop having sex after age 70 or you'll die. But don't worry if you have trouble, "they" can fix that with magic little blue pills.

-Do not avoid going to the doctor for any mild ailment, because it could be cancer or diabetes or a learning disability or, god forbid, a cold. And then you'll die.

What I'm sardonically alluding to above is the mainstream hysteria about potential health threats. Every single day, the media bombards us with information about a new study or new research purporting to find yet another way for us to die. Of course, after learning of the paleo diet, I view any mainstream medical suppositions with intense skepticism. But I'll admit there likely is some truth value to these pronouncements. Nonetheless, the incessant and often shrill prognostications about public health scares do little except, well, scare people.

I was just going to deem this the "Medical Industrial Complex", but apparently that phrase already exists. That's basically what this is - big Pharma that funds specious data mining and takes advantage of a media that gleefully breaks any sensational news irregardless of the story's veracity, a modern society that has enough leisure time to scare itself, liberal academia that pushes fallacious medical scholarship, and liberal society that views mankind himself, instead of nature, as the ultimate arbiter of man's biology.

In the end, destiny will take hold of our lives. My advice: live your life with little worry, eat and exercise paleo, and don't do crack.

The Twilight Zone of Academia and Media: Black Self-Esteem Edition

Academia and Media:

Low self-esteem isn't something we can measure on a scale. Unlike most physical maladies, we can't point at it and say, "There it is." But like a reflection on water, we infer it from its victims' self-destructive behavior. Many poor black girls especially suffer from it. Since whatever ails them is eventually reflected on generations of black children, it's a condition associated with much that afflicts black America.

In the 1940s, Dr. Kenneth Clark performed an experiment to quantify the degree of black self-esteem using black and white dolls. He conclusively showed that most black kids felt white dolls were better than black, preferring to play with the white dolls. Since, like the "inferior black dolls," they too were black, they felt they were "bad." Clark concluded that "prejudice, discrimination and segregation" caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred.

Low self-esteem among black kids lives for generations of families headed by poor women without husbands, leaving kids without male role models and often no one to affirm their worth.

"We have failed to exemplify what's good, beautiful about who and what we are. Blacks have to learn that it's just fine to celebrate, love and honor who we are."

Real Life:

The Cost of Knowledge

Guest Post

Guest Posts are now open for any day of the week and to anyone willing to submit one. The following Guest Post was submitted by Simon Grey, who blogs at Le Cygne Gris.

One of the more popular liberal dogmas in regards to discrimination in general is that one should “get to know everyone as an individual,” or some similar sounding claptrap. Of course, this sort of injunctive sounds good, and repeating it makes one feel good, especially if one is an impressionable youth. It is highly idealistic to say that all people should be treated only as individuals, and that no one should be treated as a statistic, and being highly idealistic is an ego boost for some people. It is wonderful to say that one’s intentions and desires are universally lauded and above reproach.

Unfortunately, this sort of idealism is pure, unbridled nonsense. It is nonsense because it is not in any way founded in reality. Getting to know someone takes time and has relatively high discovery costs.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are at a party with one hundred other people who are all strangers. Will you try to talk to everyone, or will you talk to random people until you encounter someone who interesting and entertaining and then spend as much time as possible with the interesting person? Most will simply try to find someone who is engaging and then spend time with him. Why? Because most recognize that they have a limited amount of time on their hands, and it is too valuable to waste on a bore.

This mindset is the foundation of virtually all discrimination. Emo kids, for example, tend to discriminate against non-emos, mostly because it is time-consuming to discover which non-emo kids are amenable to friendship or companionship. Of course, being amenable to friendship usually implies shared interests and values, and outward appearance is a signal of values. Furthermore, outward genetic markers (race and gender, among others) are signals for genetically-motivated interests and values. Stereotypes, to a limited extent, reflect the intrinsic values that are associated with genetic markers.

As such, women tend to have a disproportionately large number of female friends, males tend to have a disproportionately large number of male friends, blacks tend to have a disproportionately large number of black friends, whites tend to have a disproportionately large number of white friends, and so on. Each of these groups have realized, whether consciously one cannot be sure, that people of the same race and gender are more likely to share their interests. Therefore, it is prudent for one to spend more time socializing with one’s own “group,” so to speak, because doing so is the most efficient way to find like-minded people with whom to associate. This isn’t to imply, of course, that one could never find someone who shares one’s interests in another “group;” rather, it is more time-consuming to find another person with similar interests in another group. For what it’s worth, the sexual divide seems greater than the racial divide. [OneSTDV: Completely disagree with this statement.] (E.g. a white man would have more difficulty finding a woman who shared his interest in Olivia Wilde than finding a black man who shared his interest in Olivia Wilde.)

In addition to being time-consuming, getting to know someone carries risk. Imagine that you are walking down a dark alley at night when you see someone coming toward you. A quick glance at the approaching figure lets you know that the person is tall and most likely male. As you get closer to the person, you confirm that he is male and white. As you get closer still, you see that he is dressed like a wigger, is wearing brass knuckles, and has tattoos all over his body. Do you then begin to talk to him in order to see if he was in the boy scouts at some point in his life? Do you ask him if he goes to church?

One doesn’t ask questions of young men dressed like thugs while walking by one’s self at night because the odds of that young male actually being a violent thug are relatively high, and the costs associated with being in close proximity to young male thugs are also relatively high. In probability theory, this is known as expected cost. To determine expected cost, one multiplies the probability of an occurrence by its likely cost. In this case, there is a high probability that the stranger approaching you is a thug, and the costs of “interacting” with him are very high.

Thus, the cost of getting to know this person individually has very high probabilistic costs, and so the rational thing to do is avoid the approaching stranger, if possible. This cost is rarely taken into account, for it is often assumed that discrimination occurs in its most blatant forms during the light of day. The reality is that discrimination is considerably more complex, and based on a host of variables. In most cases, discrimination is quite rational. There are costs associated with all interpersonal interactions, although some are more obvious than others. To ignore these costs is foolish, and so it should come as no surprise that young, idealistic liberals do so on a regular basis.

In sum, it is obvious that discrimination happens for a reason. Getting to know people individually is costly and takes time. Discriminating against others, then, is simply a distasteful feature of a finite world.

Written by Simon Grey

"Everyone is Thinking It" Thought Crime

Saturday Audience Participation

Watch the video below. Or this one.

My guarantee: you will think something that you would NEVER, EVER admit at a polite dinner party.



Today's question: what was the thought? Feel free to post anonymously or use a proxy server if you're really paranoid.

[Editor's note: I do NOT condone any actions derived from that thought nor do I feel good about thinking it myself. And yes, I did hesitate before posting this, but so many of the YouTube commenters admitted to it, so it got me interested. The Internet provides a safe haven for just about anything, down to the most vile of ideas. But don't view this post as a means of justifying a stigmatizing thought; rather, I view it as a social experiment only viable within the confines of the anonymous Internet.]

The Left's Successful Shift

Guest Posts open to anyone and for any day of the week.

The Left might be full of emasculated betas, incompetent affirmative action hires, and mannish lesbians, but they sure have been successful. The wily leftist elite has pushed the zeitgeist, primarily via ambiguity and baseless invective, to the point where we get stuff like this:



Two notes:

-Notice how many times the exceedingly ambiguous term "hate" is spoken. The pundits and websites targeted by this fake campaign apparently put "hate-filled" rhetoric out in the political arena, yet what the hell does "hate" mean? It's one of those terms brilliantly and repetitively spewed by the left, an instant and pliable argument-stopper that puts pusillanimous conservatives on the defensive. The Left uses this term as a one-size-fits-all means of stigmatizing conservative opinions. Of course, I have ample experience with this term and its synonyms like bigot and racist. I've always wondered though what exactly could I do to avoid such characterization, given I apply my nationalism and radical traditionalism to all peoples equally - answer: nothing besides complete capitulation. And even that often isn't enough, e.g. I once saw an AlterNet conversation where a guy who voted for Cynthia McKinney for President was tarred as a racist.

-HotAir and InstaPundit are examples of conservative sites?!? Wow, the center sure has shifted Left. Those two sites are great examples of tepid conservatism, the type of discourse offered by the mainstream right-wingers that still get invited to Beltway dinner parties. O'Reilly and Hannity fit into that category as well, though I don't put Limbaugh in there with them and I'm confused as to why so many HBDers do.

Un-compassionate Conservatism

So I've already got the blogging itch back, primarily because I thoroughly enjoy checking comments every day. I really miss having a lively discussion to read every day and to hear feedback from a group of people that I admire. But, as I said on Sunday, I just don't have the strength right now to consistently churn out dissolute posts in the manner described perfectly by Elusive Wapiti (spoiler warning for those reluctant to understand the hidden secrets of daily political blogging). As of right now, I'm still not sure how to proceed. I don't foresee maintaining the arduous posting schedule I once did. Maybe I'll reduce detailed posts to a couple times a week and intersperse these with shorter posts that point to some prevailing social trend in order to motivate discussion. Also, Guest Posts are now open for any day of the week.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Gabler, a presumably leftist columnist at the LA Times, has some begrudgingly perspicacious analysis of modern conservatism. He laments the perceived lack of compassion extant amongst the right-wing, a sentiment that I actually agree with:

The United States has always had a complex national moral system. On the one hand, there is the Puritan-inflected America of rugged individualism, hard work, self-reliance and personal responsibility in which you reap what you sow, God helps those who help themselves, and our highest obligation is to live righteously.

On the other hand, there is also an America of community, common cause, charity and collective responsibility. In this America, salvation comes from good works, compassion is among the greatest of virtues, and our highest obligation is to help others.

He goes on:

It is easy to miss how significant a change this is. It transforms compassion, a bulwark in practically any moral system, into a negative force that undermines the good of individual initiative. Indeed, conservative ideologue Marvin Olasky wrote a book to this effect, pungently titled "The Tragedy of American Compassion," in which he called for the privatization of all charitable efforts.

I actually find his analysis correct here and it's one reason why I've become so disillusioned with conservatism recently. Take the recent healthcare debate - imagine a mainstream conservative publicly supporting the basis moral argument for universal healthcare. In my opinion, one should sympathize with the idealistic notion that everyone in our nation should have access to services that will give them the basic right of life. But instead, we get rhetoric like "slavery" and undue animosity amongst the political class.

Why then have conservatives gone the way of Ayn Rand, who perverted the Protestant concept of rugged individualism into viewing rapaciousness as morally valuable. It's about projection - projecting to the populace in pragmatic and ultimately politically correct terms that one is conservative enough. So compassion goes out the window because mainstream conservatives need to distance themselves from whatever falsely liberal concepts get out in the political ether. They falsely believe that tolerance, community, and a tacit collectivism via culture (not victimology) somehow contradict conservative principles, a deluded idea that actually outright opposes the reason why small-government societies work in the first place. They react against liberalism instead of supporting a traditionalist conception of America.

Of course, this traditionalist concept will necessarily brush up against a Leave to Beaver notion of community, family, and society. And that's ultimately why it's taboo. The picture below should suffice in illustrating the anti-PC nature of this position:

An Explanation and the Future of OneSTDV

I started this blog almost exactly two years ago because I was sickened by the mainstream PC-addled discourse. I couldn't stand having these ideas bouncing around in my head without an outlet to express them. I couldn't stand watching as idealistic liberalism took over while I witnessed our political and cultural institutions undermine traditional American values. And the initial incarnation of OneSTDV, down to name choice, reflected my frame at the time. I focused mostly on race, politics, and limited government with little cogitation on issues beyond the political sphere.

But I gradually expanded my focus to other issues. I did so partly because I felt like I had a lot to say on other matters and partly because one can not view the political and social landscapes as independent entities. Yet perhaps the biggest motivation was one that I've merely hinted at, though more so in recent months. Reactionary politics provides a collective framework for the nation and this collective framework impacts our personal lives. It affects how people act and how people view each other and our ability to foster common bonds.

But it can't give you meaning in life. Writing a blog or justifiably grousing about the latest liberal inanity does not satiate one's soul. It doesn't make you excited to get up in the morning. It doesn't make you feel alive. It can't compare to meeting a pretty girl, upping your max bench press after months of training, or having your father genuinely tell you he's proud of you. Taking the red pill can only provide a means to these transcendent experiences. But feeling something "spiritual", when you fall asleep with a restless giddiness, that can only come with the joys of daily life.

In the past few months, I've lamented the growing pessimism of the Alt-Right, especially the fags in the Manosphere who wax hysterical about marriage and consider nihilistic anarchism, a surreptitious form of liberalism, a satisfying alternative. I've criticized mere reaction instead of reaction coupled with positive traditionalism as insufficient in making us fulfilled as a society. Yet for all my forthright admonishment of the prevailing zeitgeist, I haven't taken my own advice. I've completely failed in doing anything that would bring something besides standard, but ultimately vapid success. If we find happiness not in the cubicle, but in our homes, amongst friends, then I'm not on the right path.

Most would view this blog as a political endeavor and they would be right. However I resolved to say something more than whatever esoterica fills cable news programs. I wanted to say something about life as the end result of a political and social landscape. I wanted to connect the societal with the personal and understand how the two feed off each other. In the end, this blog wasn't really about politics. It was about living in a leftist diseased society that didn't allow its citizens the happiness and freedom that they once had. Maybe I didn't start off that way, but I gradually went in that direction.

So why then am I quitting exactly? Simply, I'm dissatisfied with some aspects of my own life. Without getting into personal details, I just don't have the energy to come here every day and tell you what's wrong with the nation while I haven't answered some important questions for myself. Criticism comes from a position of strength and I don't feel I'm there right now. So I'm a sensitive asshole, if you haven't noticed yet.

Blogging takes energy. It demands the author really engage with the subject material. But I'm not sure I have that much to give right now and doing so in an intellectual environment too full of fatalistic whiners doesn't constitute something healthy. Maybe I overreacted on Wednesday in announcing a permanent hiatus. I don't do things half-asssed, so blogging just sometimes won't work for me. Maybe I need a different approach, but then I really don't know what that should be or even if I could do that since I feel my strength lies primarily in criticism. Maybe I'm just exasperated with the pessimistic blogosphere, reading about the apocalypse, or all the bullshit from the women-haters and nihilists.

Basically, I'm just worn out, in part due to blogging itself and in part due to some things that have happened in my real life recently. This has nothing to do with getting caught (I've never told anyone about this blog) or planking (I deleted that post just to make my "Bye" post stand alone) or falling in love with a NAM (LOL, no.) So for the future - I sort of got addicted to blogging and perhaps my impetuous announcement (I did genuinely mean it when I wrote it) will come back to haunt me, maybe even very soon. Who the hell knows? So I'll leave everyone hanging and maybe there will be new posts this week or next month or never.

And finally I really have no clue why I've attracted even one hater. I guess if you countenance a traditional America dictated by the founding principles and people, then you're an incorrigible and reprehensible racist. If you express what everyone knows to be true, then you get labeled. If you point out the obvious biases of modern media and popular culture, then the hatred comes. If you apply the same nationalistic principles to every group, no matter in Africa, Asia, or America, then apparently that's not fair. Early on, I realized that no matter what I said, they would complain and call me a bigot or a racist. So I never cared about the dumbasses, and really, besides maybe two liberal interlopers, every single hater has been literally stupid or mentally disturbed. The Internet is full of idiots who like to puff out their chests. Of course, I understood why I'd attract some of these individuals, but it still perplexes me a little.

Why

I will likely post an explanation very soon of why I'm quitting.

Bye

I quit.

An Ex-Feminist's Personal Experience

At his Game website, Vox Day posted a personal account of one woman's abrupt understanding that perhaps feminism paints an unrealistic picture of female probity. The author relays her time spent as a decades-long feminist activist and how the views she championed then would later befall her own child. It's an incredible read, both for an illustrative reminder of feminism's ails and a refreshing example of how tragedy can undermine idealism.

I will tell you that I am a feminist. That I fought for the rights of women to be believed. I worked for a rape crisis center in the 80s. I helped organize and participated in Take Back the Night events. I am friends with therapists and activists who have worked tirelessly for the rights of women and children. I was sexually abused as a child, and it defined my life for a number of years.

I am also a mother. I have raised a beautiful son, now a beautiful, caring man. He is honorable and strong. He has a deep spiritual practice. He is a man sensitive to the needs of women. Because of my involvement in “the movement” and because at some point he became aware of my own painful history, he is empathetic to women who have been abused.

Despite no evidence, despite the fact that she is obviously a troubled woman, despite other attempts by her in the past to accuse people of hurting her in some way, despite her own admissions of wanting to sue others still, despite my son’s spotless record and the support of myriad women who have known him for years, the state has chosen to pursue this “case.”

If you think that women don’t lie to get back at men, how naive can you be? Yet we live in a culture of “women don’t lie,” a culture fostered by women’s groups since the 70s. A culture I helped create and support. A philosophy I believed.

Think about the transformation here - this woman went from crusading feminist to false rape advocate. A few short thoughts:

1) They say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. I think that about sums up this woman's "journey."

2) Note how a personal event spurred this almost stunning awakening. It wasn't the judicious arguments of anti-feminists, living in a culture that regularly depicts men as buffoons, or the daily concessions (beta) males make to patronize women. No, only a first-hand experience with the damage of feminism could force her to understand. Yesterday, I spoke of making conservatism more palatable to a youthful audience, supporting initiatives that pique an emotional rather than intellectual response. This is why.

3) The author describes her son as the typifying beta male, likely indoctrinated with this woman's blathering throughout his childhood. He treated all women as precious gems, yet he still got treated as if he meant nothing. But, as she notes, this is the endgame of feminism, a doctrine that finds all men culpable for the oppressive patriarchy. So even though her son perfectly fit the mold of an emasculated male, his gender did allow him immunity. Feminism is a collectivist ideology that holds all women as inherently more valuable than all men, no matter the individual merits of any one person.

4) Maybe I'll get some disagreement with this, but I'll concede that some liberal policies start off with good intentions. For example, I want to live in a society where no one misses out on medical care because they can't afford it. So nascent feminism likely had a noble motivation. There was a time when even the most capable women found undue challenges in the workplace or legitimate rape cases turned into victim-bashing. Unfortunately though, as with all progressive movements, subsequent generations "built" upon the once justified foundation, making the rhetoric more shrill, the ideological restrictions more stringent, the demands more extreme. I summed up this phenomenon when I linked to an article on veganism and racism:

In the more insular of environments, this desire can explode into nonsense quite quickly. If there exists no damping mechanism to thwart the proliferation of garbage, then the garbage keeps piling up. It collects until someone excitedly climbs to the top, smitten with their own stature, yet not realizing she's atop a bunch of diapers, vomit, and moldy food.

How to Win the Youth

Jon Stewart, the king of (nauseating) snark, had a refreshing segment on his show last week. Refreshing not because it deviated from his standard routine, but rather because he just came right out and explicitly expressed the sort of tactic he's used for years: shame conservatives as a bunch of losers.

Here's his penetrating criticism of Newt Gingrich:

You're not cool.
You're uncool.
Let me put this in lingo you might understand...You're what your generation might call a 'square.'
You physically resemble a square...Look at your head. Your head resembles a box a slightly smaller square might come in.
If you were a superhero, your power would be the ability to turn things beige.

The sycophantic audience giggles along. But is Stewart onto something here, an observation not really due to his own discernment but rather due to his stature as an advocate of establishment leftism. As we saw with Obama's presidency, the youth tend towards liberalism. Much like Gloria Bunker, they see new political fads as opportunities for motivating change and being in the center of that change. And the liberal elites understand youthful indiscretion. They take advantage of it, depicting themselves as the leaders of tomorrow opposing the ossified curmudgeons of yesterday.

Stewart's petty insults of Gingrich reflects this political strategy. The question for conservatives is how to combat this. Gingrich answers such a challenge with a pedestrian attempt at showcasing his technological savviness. But I'm with Stewart here - it didn't work. And perhaps in general, conservatives simply can't play the same game and expect to win. You can't play by the rules of your opponents. You can't allow the opposition to frame the debate.

So how then do conservatives attract a younger demographic, a situation frequent commenter PA supports. I won't avert the truth here - it's a tough battle. Liberalism offers an idealistic, almost utopic vision of tomorrow while conservatism offers stuff that actually works. Yet the youth have never been known for their pragmatism or their understanding of long-term consequences. In the end, I don't think a positive approach can work with the youth. Conservatism simply does not offer a palatable product to youthful sensibilities. It doesn't celebrate hedonism. It doesn't promise everything under the sun. It doesn't convince you that you're born with endless possibilities. It doesn't, owing to the term itself, offer empty promises of change.

But don't worry - the youth can still be won, but instead of lollipops and rainbows, shame and horror will work. The youth go along with the leftist fads primarily due to social motivation. Perhaps conservatives can frame the left as invariably feminized, a prostrating cohort of men dictated to by a bunch of mannish women. Or frame them as the party of fat lesbians. Or the party of angry blacks. Or the party of the lazy and stupid wishing to feed off the government. The alternative shaming narratives, aided by the veracity of these caricatures, deviate from the academic approach of many leading conservatives. And yea it's sort of shallow, but who cares?

Second, tell them what's coming and not in a bar chart or with a hockey stick graph of debt. Paint a picture like Sharron Angle's infamous gang ad. Go with the grandma death panels and the socialist invectives. Scare the hell out of them, exaggerate (a little), distort (slightly), whatever. As Barry Goldwater said, "extremism in the pursuit of justice is no vice."

And maybe overplay the urbane, Regean-esque conservative caricature. We might get inundated with tattooed thugs and rock stars wearing eyeliner as the epitome of "today", but people can't help but respect that stereotypical image of a stoic and staid male leader.

Special Guest Post from Jared Taylor Announcing New Book

Saturday Guest Post

A few weeks ago, I received a personal e-mail from race realist luminary Jared Taylor. In my humble opinion, there are few more urbane, articulate, and informed voices on race realism than Mr. Taylor, editor and founder of American Renaissance. Mr. Taylor e-mailed me to announce his new book entitled White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. I reproduce the e-mail below, with advanced praise and a link to purchase the book.

I have just finished a new book called White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. Ten years in the making, it is the sequel to my earlier book, Paved With Good Intentions.

One of this book’s major themes is that a certain level of racial consciousness and conflict is inevitable in a multi-racial society, and that it is probably impossible to build a nation in which race does not matter. I cite many scientific studies that suggest racial loyalty is an inevitable part of human nature.

This helps explain why blacks and Hispanics routinely work to advance their own group interests, and Asians increasingly do the same. These group interests often conflict with each other and they also put pressure on the majority white population. I show with many examples that this diversity of races is not a strength but a source of conflict and tension.

Whites are currently the only group in the United States that does not try to advance group interests. Indeed, any whites who show signs of the racial loyalty that is common among other groups are harshly condemned.

I argue that this double standard will come into sharper focus as whites become a minority. I argue that pressure from other groups will force whites to act as others do, to work together to defend group interests. If they do not, in a few decades they could find themselves marginalized by others who have a clear sense of their collective interests and do not hesitate to advance them at the expense of whites.

This book will certainly be controversial, but it is an honest appraisal of race relations as they are, not as we might wish them to be. Our race and immigration policies should be based on reality, not wishful thinking and good intentions.

Jared Taylor is arguably the most brilliant of the leaders of what is sometimes called the “Alternative Right,” the intellectual movement focused on emergent issues that are now systematically suppressed in America’s purblind public debate. This book, the long–awaited sequel to his seminal Paved With Good Intentions, will eventually be seen as a decisive step forward on the historic American nation’s road to recovery from the paralyzing curse of Political Correctness.
-- Peter Brimelow, Editor of VDARE.com and author of Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster

In this brilliant and wide-ranging survey of the relevant science and history, Jared Taylor shows that racial consciousness is intrinsic and that efforts to remake human nature are doomed to fail. He shows that in modern America, people of all races prefer the company of people of their own race; that racial diversity is more often a source of conflict than of strength; and that multiculturalism is changing the United States profoundly and to the detriment of most white people.
-- Dr. Raymond Wolters, Keith Professor of History, University of Delaware

The work of an insightful, well-tempered, and above all, demandingly honest mind, White Identity is especially timely as the white population of America comes under intensifying demographic, political, cultural, and economic pressure from both within and without. Jared Taylor deserves our deep gratitude for declaring that whites must find a way to stand up for themselves in a world in which they are becoming a shrinking minority, even in their own once white-majority countries.
-- Prof. J. Philippe Rushton, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario

Jared Taylor offers the reader an open, honest, and frank discussion of the reality of race and race relations in America today. He convincingly argues that unless all the facts, painful or politically inconvenient though they may be, are laid bare then all that follows will be based on false assumptions and doomed to failure.
-- Dr. Roger D. McGrath, Author/Historian/Television Commentator

Blogger is Back

Blogger is back up, but my post from yesterday has been deleted. I guess Blogger finally decided to have a technological intervention with me over my one-a-day blogging addiction.

Update: On a lot of Alt-Right sites, some commenters have stated that they initially thought this was some sort of pointed attack against anti-PC Blogger blogs. First, this hypothesis was easily tested by checking any other Blogger blog. Second, not everything is a conspiracy, though Adsense's dropping of HalfSigma and their unexplained disappearing of Mangan's, likely due to his AIDS skepticism, somewhat justifies the initial reaction.

Left-Wing Delusion: The Who's In Academia Edition

I don't know if the left is just plain stupid or just incredibly wily. In an article lamenting the Koch brothers strings-attached donations to Florida State, typifying "male" leftist Alex Pareene seems to espouse the notion that liberal academia is a bastion of disinterested study.

In the marketplace of ideas, all that matters is the strength of your argument, and whether or not you are a billionaire. That is the wonderful ideal America is striving for: the unregulated free exchange of paid-for speech representing the interests of an incredibly elite few. And to that end, Charles Koch, of the Koch brothers (official "bad guys" of liberalism in 2011), is purchasing the economics department of Florida State University.

So do I agree with the Koch brothers approach here? Once again, we look to Barry Goldwater's timeless maxim that "extremism in the pursuit of justice is not a vice." But I wouldn't even consider this extremism; if I'm giving my money somewhere, it better be put to good use. Pareene continues with this hilarious idea:

Today's rich libertarian knows the real ticket to winning the future is filling schools with people who agree with you. (This hasn't worked for the left, but that may be because they spent all their time in control of academia rigorously critiquing texts instead of just inventing pseudo-scientific justifications for gutting the welfare state and eliminating the tax burden of very rich people.)

So is he admitting that the left controls or controlled academia? Why then is it so bad then that the Koch brothers want in on the action? Is organic control any less invidious than control obtained in a more direct manner? Pareene also views academia as a enterprise of asocial actors whose biases do nothing to cloud their research. Oh god, that's funny. I love how the left cogitates, or more appropriately dissembles, on all sorts of social motivations of conservatives, but then believes leftists somehow magically avoid such biases in their own work. I mean even if the left is correct, it still doesn't mean they're inhuman, right? Of course, we can't expect such logical consistency from that increasingly deranged cohort. But he finishes with this bombshell:

Left-wing ideas -- not just Krugman-liberal ideas but proper left-wing ideas -- tend to be a bit less popular among the ruling classes, and so left-wingers are generally less successful in getting their fringe academics quoted by legislators, or starting up influential, well-funded think tanks whose policy papers end up as major legislation.

So the ruling class isn't left-wing enough for Mr. Pareene?! What exactly does he want? Seriously, what does he want? This reflects the notion that the left, especially social mafias like the gays, don't want mere passive tolerance; they want a complete normalization of their actions. They want everyone to march in Slut Parades and to go gay, not Galt, as often as they do.

Finally, as to the question of malice or stupidity, I'll go with a final option for a "guy" like Pareene: blind ideology. I think he actually believes academia isn't leftist enough; now what exactly would he regard as acceptably leftist, who knows? But I'll guess it has to do with glitter, house music, and diversity!

That Which is Good

Awhile back The Elusive Wapiti lamented the growing pessimism of his blog:

Along the way, this blog both capitalized and stoked the fires of righteous resentment and anger toward a world full of evil and injustice; in doing so, unfortunately, at times it led me to overly dwell and focus on that evil and injustice. This focus on the negative is what I wish to focus on in today's post.

I have realized of late, and others close to me have, well, suggested, that the frequent focus on negativity here at EW does you, reader, and I a disservice over the long haul. While I sometimes proffer thoughts in a positive or at least neutral manner, more often my posts employ a negative frame.

I'll give EW a reprieve here and note that blogging is inherently a reactive enterprise. Unless you're a 13 year-old talking about the mundane occurrences of your daily life (seriously, YouTube is filled with videos like that), blog posts almost always take a "negative frame." And surely we have reason to react with disdain for the prevailing social and political landscape. And we justifiably seek catharsis by posting and commenting on sites like this one. However, EW hits on something by noting the pervasive and sometime strident negativity amongst anti-PC sites. But unlike EW I didn't write this post as a means of changing my tone or resolving to write a different style of post. I merely want to comment on negativity in general.

I've always had a contrarian streak, but my iconoclasm used to be sporadic. I didn't dwell on doom and gloom as much as I do now. Perhaps because I've grown more informed or matured and thus taken a larger interest in what goes around me. But I can't say I necessarily like the change. As I've harped on before, negativity, or the absence of something, can not sustain a man's life.

Here's what EW wants to do:

So, moving forward, I suspect I will dedicate more time and energy toward helping individual men and boys find the way. To humbly advise them in the way that I wish I had been advised in my youth, before I was forced to learn the hard way the lessons that billions of men had already learnt before me.

So he intends to help rather than merely criticize. I know EW is married and I believe he has a child as well. It's clear that EW sees raising his child as far more important than whatever musings he offers online. And I think, even for those who are not parents, having some outside passion is necessary for happiness. You can't just wallow in the impending extirpation of a nation.

I know this was extremely rambling and I can't say there was even a coherent point here. Basically what I'm trying to say is that reactionary politics might not really be all that great. It isn't going to make you a better person and it definitely won't make you feel better going to sleep at night. You need other people, passions, and achievements to do that. To get your emotional satisfaction, you can't latch on to a political movement that you view as merely an avenue to vent rage. Sure, it feels good and I believe with every part of my being that the policies and cultural criticism I offer here will improve this nation and the people who live here. But I'm not naive to think that my real life can depend entirely on this criticism.

Or maybe I am that naive, but I'm hoping that I won't be in the future.

"I Just Don't Like 'Em"

Reading the posts and comment sections of anti-PC blogs, I've become somewhat jaded with regards to candid statements on race and behavioral differences. But this clip still took me by surprise (I predict this will go viral, at least around the reactionary blogosphere):



A few thoughts that come to mind:

-I love his initial nonchalance.

-@ 0:42, he says and then one of the women exclaims:

Ya know I'm a minority, but I gotta say...
You're a minority yourself!

Note the implication of this statement. Liberals and anti-racists have succeeded in convincing minorities, especially blacks, Jews, and Latinos, that it's "us vs the (evil) white Christians." In essence, the man in the clip acknowledges that he's subverting the "minorities stick together" paradigm. The women who then seconds this idea clearly can't fathom "racism" from a minority, reflecting yet another success of modern anti-racism. His honesty though reflects the notion that such a political and social coalition might not actually stick, primarily because it's an artificial one based solely on reaction.

-He doesn't do a great job of explaining his position, though he does appeal to "personal experience and people he's worked with" and notes "I live in the South and I've had quite the opportunity to work with these people." He also mentions what I assume to be constant black social grievances when saying, "thinking we owe them something" and "Polynesians don't get all pissed off." But he never quite articulates a concise answer. When you say something so decidedly anti-PC, you have to be prepared. I mean, imagine him going up against professional anti-white racist Michael Eric Dyson, a wonderful case study in black bombasticism and empty talk.

-At 2:34, the old black man goes into a mawkish oration on discrimination. I can feel the sanctimonious moralizing through the computer screen. This goes back to my notion of racial moral autonomy (one of these phrases, god dammit!), in that whites must always cede to blacks and other minorities in matters of race and what constitutes moral behavior. The old black man clearly believes that he possesses some sagacity on racial morality that no one else does. And that this wisdom qualifies him to preach to others.

Apparently, this appeared on an American game show on GSN a few years ago. Not sure why it's all of a sudden out there. But I'm not the only incredibly surprised by this, right? Be honest, your jaw dropped a little watching this, especially when he comes right out and says it.

Gloria Bunker Syndrome

In her recent hit Born This Way, a paean to gays, Lady Gaga sings:

I must be myself, respect my youth.

Perhaps owing to our evolutionary restlessness, the youth always want respect. But not in the general sense in that they wish to garner respect that they haven't earned from the traditional institutions of society. Well they want that too, a phenomenon I've deemed the "entitlement paradigm" (one of these phrases of mine is eventually going to catch on!). Implied by Lady Gaga's lyric and the attendant personage she has nurtured, the youth want to subvert the traditional means of social capital. In its place, they want to erect their own institutions, then demand that everyone else march in place.

Now progress isn't necessarily a bad thing; but progress for merely the sake of progress or merely because it satisfies one's perverse desires is generally bad. Yet this never bothers the youth, thinking the antiquated perspective of their elders is wholly unacceptable. Their reasoning generally is nothing more than "get with the times." And that whatever "new and improved" way of thinking they have conjured up must supersede that of their parents.

One could dub this "Gloria Bunker syndrome" after Archie's trailblazing daughter on the classic sitcom All in the Family. Following her risibly juvenile and desperate "Daddy!" squeal, Gloria would challenge her father's "soft bigotry" with the contemporary liberal arguments. Archie, in his inimitable and decidedly anti-intellectual style, would dismiss her for what she was - a naive little girl who filled her pretty little head with all sorts of fantasies.

But Gloria exists in real life and she wrote into Salon.com asking for advice.

[My family and I] used to get along really well until a few years ago, but then I fell in love with my partner and my worldview changed on such a basic level that I no longer feel a close part of my family anymore. I'm white and privileged and so is everyone in my family, and like them I used to be casually racist and entitled and generally boorish. I believed in the old myth that people who've failed in life must have been lazy. Drug addicts, the homeless, struggling single mothers: I tended to blame these people for their poverty and suffering. I had naive views about women, particularly about contraceptive rights. [So you used to believe in all the right stuff. What went wrong?]

Since then I've changed a lot, and I'm grateful to my partner for helping me see the world in a less closeted and prejudiced way. Unfortunately my parents are still closeted and prejudiced, and still want to be part of my life. But they would say stupid things again from time to time, and I would have arguments that upset me for no good reason -- sometimes I'd be so upset I'd cry later on, telling my partner about them -- just stupid arguments about public school funding or whatever. I hated the gulf between me and Dad. He didn't seem to accept that the lower middle class deserve any consideration. [I wonder if he reads my blog.]

Anyway, my strategy has been to keep my opinions to myself most of the time. When my brother tells a story that includes repeated reference to the "wog" or the "Asian guy" with a condescending laugh, I would stop smiling and look into my teacup and that would be all. No arguments from me. Just get through it and leave.

And now for the good part - her "keep quiet" strategy didn't work:

The problem is that they want my partner to come to family dinners. She's a second-generation migrant from Malaysia, very smart, with a short temper, and not someone who tends to let stupid, offensive rants pass without a challenge. It's a recipe for disaster with my family. When she first attended a dinner my brother's partner asked her the pointed question "Where are you from?" Code for "Oh, my God, you're not white!" I don't blame her for feeling subtly excluded from my family. She'll never be "white." And she'll definitely never be able to accept the things my family believe and say.

How times have changed. Gloria brought home Meathead Polack Mike Stivic. Today, Gloria brings home a butch lesbian from Malaysia. And it only gets better:

After a few beers, Dad decided to begin a lecture on the "foolishness" of being vegetarian. My partner and I are both long-term vegos, but I'd only told my parents about it a few months earlier. Dad went on and on, and the worst part is he weighs 135kg (298 pounds) and was stuffing his face with Brie cheese at the time yet he was giving us dietary advice. When he said that meat-eating was necessary because it had been part of human evolution, my partner finally snapped and said, "Yes, and so were rape and genocide."

Eventually the old die and the ideas of yesterday with them. I guess only cold-hard reality can stop the liberal trainwreck. Maybe the Internet is just the way to do that.

Popularity of Conspiracy Theories

Mangan asks Why Did they Dump the Body? and hypothesizes that conspiracy theorists will jump on this rather odd act:

The body was dumped ("buried at sea") before any news of the operation came out. Why would they do this? Plenty of conspiracy theories have already been spun, of which the most prominent seems to be that the entire operation was some sort of hoax, that Osama bin Laden has in reality been dead many years.

Mangan is correct as the Deathers started spouting theories shortly after this news became available. I've heard they dumped the body so as not to invite shrines, but any explanation would likely not suffice in discouraging wild conjecture from a segment of the public. This stubborn refusal to believe the "official" story pops up in a wide array of contexts, implying people just like to hear about the collusive and surreptitious efforts of small groups, large groups, individuals, reptilian aliens, and anything in between.

So why do people like conspiracy theories? I admit they just sound so damn cool. And because man clearly has no qualms about following his emotions rather than his reason, these ideas spread. But back to them sounding cool, just think if some of these conspiracies were true. Recently Richard Spencer at AltRight mentioned Englishman David Icke who has posited the following:

In The Biggest Secret (1999), Icke introduced the "Reptoid Hypothesis." He identifies the Brotherhood as originating from reptilians from the constellation Draco who walk on two legs and appear human, and who live in tunnels and caverns inside the earth. They are the same race of gods known as the Anunnaki in the Babylonian creation myth, Enûma Eliš.

There was a second breeding program around 30,000 years ago, and a third 7,000 years ago. It is the half-bloods of the third breeding program who today control the world, more Anunnaki than human. They have an extremely powerful, hypnotic stare, the origin of the phrase to "give someone the evil eye," and their hybrid DNA allows them to shapeshift when they consume human blood.

Maybe because I like science fiction, but that's a decently interesting narrative. Insane, but interesting. Shockingly it sounds like he just pulled it out of thin air. But having a fantastical narrative doesn't exactly explain why people actually believe it. I mean, women all want vampire boyfriends now but none of them actually think Edward is showing up at their door. (Oh wait.)

I think the phenomenon of conspiracy theories derives from our skepticism of authority. Most conspiracy theories involve a subterranean (sometimes literally) cabal of conscious actors manipulating the masses. Yet man seems to want his autonomy above all else, evinced by teenage rebellion, individuals seeking their own power, and the limited government movements globally. By supporting conspiracy theories, these legitimately crazy individuals implicitly reject an imposed force on their lives. They get their freedom by rejecting every institution of power, including ones that could never even exist.

Owing to denunciation via association, the term "conspiracy theorist" has become a sort of strawman argument directed at anyone who believes people act in concert. Of course, this is the one thing conspiracy theorists get right - that people, sometimes without full disclosure of their motivations, do stuff together. But today we rarely see Soviet-likestyle machinations; instead we get people, perhaps unconsciously, engaging in groupthink-like plots to spread disinformation, with my favorite example being the liberal aspects of vegetarianism. And maybe that's another thing conspiracy theorists get right - don't trust what the "experts" tell you. Here one should note the parallel between conspiracy theorists; the (generally left-leaning") experts who act in accordance with their social desires instead of evidence and the (generally loony) conspiracy theorists who act in accordance with their emotion instead of reason.

So the conspiracy theorists are onto something, perhaps moreso by accident than anything. Oh and that the Royal family is a bunch of a shape-shifting reptiles - that's totally true.

Primary Motivation

Saturday Audience Participation

Well the guest posts have seemed to die. I'll retire them if no one provides one this week.

Politics and culture are highly contentious aspects of man's life. People can argue all day about the interpretation of some cultural idea or what political initiative will work the best for the most people. But despite all the rhetoric and the esoterica, people simply want to a world that conforms with their values. Sure, they'll argue in practical terms to try to convince the other side. Yet in the end, essentially every political and cultural opinion reduces to reflecting what someone values.

So today's question: what is your primary motivation in life?

[After writing that, I realized how incredibly vague and general it is. Oh well, answer as vaguely and generally or specifically as you like.]

An Asian Wigger

A few weeks ago, I discussed a twenty-something wigger that I personally met. Perusing YouTube, I discovered this yigger:



I can't decide if this is more or less intriguing than wiggers. But nonetheless, it's quite amusing. I still can't figure out how people like this keep up such an act. Being "on" all the time must be incredibly exhausting. Note that the ubiquity of Asian breakdancers is a parallel phenomenon.

The Liberal Version of "Try Your Best"

In real life, I don't exactly shy away from discussing bio-realism, though I don't use the same tone as used here. Occasionally, someone will catch on, as when one friend pointedly asked me, "you're into eugenics, aren't you?" But usually people respond with surprise and mild disgust, often accusing me of lacking decency. On more than one occasion, the other person has said something like, "so you just go up to random fat people on the street and call them ugly?" I ask how exactly did expressing obvious truths become tantamount to emotionally and personally abusing strangers.

When people have asked the above question, they imply that I'm basically an asshole who simply wants to demean others for their failures. But that's not at all true; primarily, I don't want public policy to reflect a deluded notion of man nor do I want our culture to refrain from celebrating the undeniably valuable. My criticism of polite society's lies does not mean I want to mock or belittle those that don't measure up. In fact, none of us "measure up" in every aspect of life, so such a position would be rather self-defeating.

In the end, the problem here reduces to how the left has perverted the following childhood maxim:

Try your best and that's all that matters.

This actually used to mean something. We used to demand that society adhere to this simple, yet sagacious idea. After all, if we pursue success with everything we have, then we should be proud. We can only change our desire and our work ethic, not the basic gifts of birth. Contrary to popular belief, we don't all have a genius inside. Maybe I lean towards "everyone wins" liberal here as opposed to accepting the sterile notion of conservative success, but oh well.

Yet, the crusading liberals weren't satisfied with this. Perhaps due to their listlessness, their entitled attitude, their own gnawing failures, or their unending quest to dismantle everything sacred, liberals changed this slogan to something along the lines of:

Try your best, but if you fail, we'll find someone to blame.

The external cause of failure shows up in essentially every aspect of life, reflecting the notion that society hold no one responsible for their actions. We have murderers using the bad childhood defense, New York helicopter moms suing preschools for future lost educational opportunities, fat acceptance harpies railing against popular culture, and feminists blaming men for just about anything. Though the left didn't stop there (do they ever?); they went a step further to something like:

Don't bother trying because whatever they want you do is racist, classist, sexist, ageist, homophobic, intolerant, bigoted, insensitive, and/or sizeist.

So now, instead of trying your best and taking pride in your personal triumphs and hard work, we have a generation of entitled pansies blaming their failures on some nefarious and always amorphous third party. And perhaps it makes them feel good for awhile, but I think they all understand, deep down inside, the ruse they play on themselves. Finally, it's ironic that the left tacitly rejects working hard. After all, they believe hard work and only hard work determines success. Funny that they only espouse such a belief in certain situations, e.g. fatties have a higher weight baseline but everyone can score above average in school.

Surprising Information on Trump and "The Blacks"

As "scholar" Cornel West once said, race matters. If I may paraphrase "Dr." West tersely, he really meant "white people suck." But for those of us understanding the real realities of race, race matters because certain racial groups exhibit certain behaviors and no matter the exceptionalism of a nation, these collective inclinations can not be subverted. For this reason, the anti-PC sphere often considers the rise of any mainstream politicians, especially those of a presumably conservative bent, with suspicion. Because even the self-proclaimed "mavericks" succumb to the pulls of PC, the anti-establishment rhetoric enervated by the lies of polite society.

So when Donald Trump became the latest right-wing star, who knew where he stood on what is ultimately the most important issue. Well I have some good news - The Donald might not have the great relationship with "the blacks" that he has proudly proclaimed. Despite his Ivy League pedigree and status amongst the New York elite, Mr. Trump has some rather un-PC views on "the blacks". The HuffPo reports:

Trump once said, in reference to a black accountant at Trump Plaza, “laziness is a trait in blacks.” He also told O’Donnell: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."

After the rape of a white female jogger in Central Park in 1989, Trump aroused controversy in New York's black community when he took out full-page newspaper ads calling for the death penalty for the African-American teenage suspects.

Later that year, Trump caught flack for his comments [again] attacking affirmative action on NBC’s two-hour special “The Race,” telling host Bryant Gumbel: “If I was starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black because I really do believe they have the actual advantage today.”

Yet the most damaging episode in the saga of Trump's fractured relationship with the black community came in 1973, when his family's real-estate company, Trump Management Corporation, was sued by the Justice Department for alleged racial discrimination...The case alleged that the Trump Management Corporation had discriminated against blacks who wished to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. The government charged the corporation with quoting different rental terms and conditions to blacks and whites and lying to blacks that apartments were not available, according to reports of the lawsuit.

...because three years later, the Justice Department [again] charged Trump Management with continuing to discriminate against blacks through such tactics as telling them that apartments were not available.

Of course, he's also rented space to Jesse Jackson and hangs out with P.Diddy. But this is still encouraging.

The Perverse Version of American Patriotism

Osama's dead and America celebrated with flag-waving and chants:



Does this strike anyone else as somewhat odd? Sure, we finally killed one of the most wretched men alive. We finally gave some closure to that horrible day ten years ago. We finally corrected the cosmic order.

But should we respond by waving flags and chanting U.S.A.? Is such a response, verging on giddiness, appropriate for such an event? Now some probably think I mean we should approach his death with more gravity, eschewing the celebrations in favor of somber recollection. Some would argue that death should never foment happiness, even if the emotions arise from dispensing justified retribution. This was a necessary act that one should regard as righting an egregious moral sin.

I agree with this, but it's not the primary reason I find the celebrations so off-putting. Instead, I think the excited crowds illustrate the lack of healthy patriotism evident amongst our populace. Much like the American man's perversion of masculinity, the prevailing zeitgeist has undermined our ability to express or even experience anything positive concerning our national community. In this instance, we have not won a great war, defeated a great enemy, or succeeded in a national triumph. We have engaged in anti-climactic revenge against one man. And while one can't discount the evil of this person, should such an event cause really cause an outpouring of patriotism?

Apparent in the celebrations is the view of America almost as a sports team. And sports loyalty largely comes in spurts corresponding to seasonal triumphs. But America, and any nation, should not be regarded as such. Patriotism is not a sometimes thing. Patriotism does not come and go with the seasons. Patriotism isn't celebrating isolated incidents with shallow displays of loyalty. Patriotism is complete acceptance of a national concept, its culture, its traditions, its people, its narrative.

The crowds chanting USA do so because they can only connect with the national concept in bursts. The masses view America as perpetually failing to provide for them, their entitlement precluding any genuine sense of community. They have no healthy middle ground for feeling nationalistic sentiment. When something happens that ostensibly re-establishes our preeminence, they feel pressured to express their capricious loyalty. But then when they return to their normal lives, the isolated triumphs a distant memory, they revert back to anti-American hostility, e.g. "America is fat and dumb."

[And on a related note: Every time a terrorist story comes up, I always hear something like, "Islam is a religion of peace." I say, who cares what "Islam" teaches, I care about how its adherents act - and it's not good.]

Excusing Black Murderers

Amy Biehl was a young, pretty, middle-class, highly intelligent (Stanford grad) white girl who took the Teach for America experience to a new level by venturing to South Africa in 1993. An mob of angry blacks killed Mrs. Biehl. And her parents responded as one would expect (\sarcasm):

Biehl's family supported release of the killers, and her father shook the murderers' hands, stating that:

"The most important vehicle of reconciliation is open and honest dialogue...we are here to reconcile a human life which was taken without an opportunity for dialogue. When we are finished with this process we must move forward with linked arms. Among those we remember today is young Amy Biehl. She made our aspirations her own and lost her life in the turmoil of our transition, as the new South Africa struggled to be born in the dying moments of apartheid. Through her, our peoples have also shared the pain of confronting a terrible past, as we take the path towards the reconciliation and healing of our nation."

I've supported the notion that liberalism reduces to an excuse for black dysfunction, but this sick man extends that beyond the relatively mundane. In essence, vile creatures like Mr. Biehl exonerate blacks for all wrongdoing, pawning off all responsibility to some nefarious, racist white society. Blacks may commit any offense, acting with complete impunity as viewed by these sniveling sickos.

Unfortunately though, this approval often manifests in less candid terms, the expression less overt but the acceptance just as nauseating. In the linked article, the man producing the most mawkish content I have ever encountered, sportswriter Rick Reilly, lauds NBA star Chris Paul's "generosity." (Anyone one else hate sportswriters, except the utterly fantastic and inimitable Bill Simmons?) A little background: Chris Paul's grandfather was murdered by five "young boys", mainstream code for mob of blacks, when he was in high school. Paul later rose to NBA stardom and he has now come out and forgiven the murderers, two of whom are serving life sentences. Rick Reilly can't contain himself in slobbering all over Paul for this act of "goodwill".

Paul, now 25, said: "These guys were 14 and 15 years old [at the time], with a lot of life ahead of them. I wish I could talk to them and tell them, 'I forgive you. Honestly.' I hate to know that they're going to be in jail for such a long time. I hate it."

"Chris Paul hates it?" says Geneva Bryant, the mother of one of the five, Christopher Bryant. "Well, so do I. My boy is 23 now. He's been in since he was 15." [I love the indignation - "so what if my boy kil't someone, y'all just went after him cuz y'all be raaacccist."]

Whose heart has that much room?

"I've probably tried 30 homicide cases," says Paul Herzog, of Fayetteville. "It's very rare for a family survivor in a murder case to feel that way. You just don't see that ever. That's incredibly generous of Mr. Paul."

To understand how generous, you have to know how close Paul was to his granddad.

None of the five boys were particularly hardened criminals. Only Cauthen had been previously arrested -- twice for running away and once for stealing his mom's car. [Yes, give them a "murderer mulligan" or, more appropriately, "a get out of jail free" card. And same goes for the Unabomber - I mean he only started killing people in the late 80s and he was really smart too!]

This kid floors me...what floors me about Chris Paul is his humanity.

Chris Paul once wrote that his grandfather "taught me more things than I could ever learn with a Ph.D." One of them must've been love.

I think the article speaks for itself. As for this type of attitude, let me quote legendary rapper NaS from his 1996 "If I Ruled The World" (such a thought should make one shudder):

I'd open every cell in Attica send em to Africa

Getting Called a "White Knight"

In my post entitled Anti-Family Attitude of Manosphere, a commenter predictably deemed me the MRA equivalent of a small-penis loser who lives in his mom's basement:

Your true colors are showing. A palid shade of white knight...

Of course, I saw this type of baseless invective coming. Because after all, many MRAs exist as feminist doppelgangers, eager to shame and insult anyone who doesn't agree with their gender hatred. This largely explains why many have turned away from The Spearhead. But as with the perennially unsatisfied anti-racists, MRAs accept nothing less than full acceptance of their creed. Unless one is ideologically pure, a standard that they move capriciously and frequently, you're a despicable "white knight".

So just for kicks, let's review what has made me this sort of spineless fellow. Let's see what unreasonable positions I took in the aforementioned post:

1) The nuclear family is the bedrock of civilization.
2) Women are valuable as more than just prostitutes.
3) A romantic relationship has more benefits than just physical pleasure.
4) Marriage has risks, but sometimes they're very much worth it.
5) Fatherhood is a rewarding experience integral to the emotional health of children.
6) (Modern SWPL) Women can be petulant, mannish, and entitled, but also uniquely endearing as only feminine women can be.
7) MRAs express a female-like neuroticism because they whine and focus so much on what could happen.
8) A return to patriarchy should be the goal, not men going their own way.

Pretty outlandish stuff, right? But you can never satisfy the MRAs who legitimately hate women, even when I countenance a return to patriarchy where, in the words of the mainstream, I want to banish women back to the kitchen. These men, in a position that should stupefy any reasonable individual, don't see men and women as two necessary components of a stable society; they actually think "going their own way" will somehow work. Or the really funny ones that think robots can replace real women. I wonder how many of them have Real Dolls already.

So where does this come from? I imagine they're gay (destroy heterosexuality as a means of normalizing homosexuality), bitter (people hate what they're not good at), anti-white (destroy American whites as a collective by undermining the basic unit the family and trying to divert the focus to white feminists instead of NAMs), or jealous (if they can't get any, no one should).