Special Guest Post: The Energy of Ourselves

Special Guest Post

Update: This is a satire, primarily of New Agers and Gaiaists.

The following is a guest post from a reader. She has a degree from Oberlin College in Environmental Studies and a minor in Film. She currently works at a local natural food store.

I thank OneSTDV for giving me this opportunity to share myself with the lovely denizens of this blog. I am writing this article primarily as a means of informing and enlightening the readers here. Think of this as a short primer to life, its soul, and what of it. I will briefly go over some important topics concerning those undeniable gifts that enrich us, hoping that some readers find peace in my words.

In short, we all must come to understand the energy and therein how it feels. It is this undeniable lifeforce, this gift of the divine, this spirit which moves us that gives us each ourselves. And it is ourselves, our energy and our souls, which guide us towards the divine, enriching, giving, supporting, and hoping. How then does one understand the concept of ethereal energy and thereby allow oneself to connect to this source of life. One must come to the collective spirit of man, of Earth, and of nature. It is only through all of these facets of the soul that we can feel our own selves and our energies. One must come to the energy and the soul, through his own volition, but nonetheless being open to the collective will of these selves. His openness to others, to other things, and other energies, other souls, all venturing both a different and exactly the same path, will ultimately guide him to the spirit of his own soul and that of his own energy. In time, one will find this energy source, knowing one has done so when he can feel the emotion of that energy without struggle.

Once this energy has been realized, one is free to explore further into the spirit of people, individuals and groups, sharing, loving, and feeling together and as one. In the midst of others is where we share the deepest emotions. It is where we can realize the potential of the spirit which guides us all the time, in all of space, and forever without end or limit. The spirit amongst or in tune with other spirits and auras is the soul divine of which we can never know but know nonetheless. And when with other energies, basking in that which we know of, we experience the emotional fervor only one in tune with that energy and soul can feel. I advise that we all look for this energy amongst others, the people, their emotions intertwined with the vast world, but free to explore whatever emotions may arise in such contexts.

And what of wonder and awe that invigorates us. We must explore, to find the energy of ourselves and our souls and spirit, but ultimately we must find contentment. We must find the spirit of happiness and wonder, that spark inside of ourselves that doesn't die, but instead pushes us to imagine the world in which we are. It pushes us to try to know what will come and what has come. It pushes us to imagine all the people, their energy. That spark of energy inside who we are as individuals and groups within such energy inspires our awe of that which we can see and not see, what we can feel and not feel, what we can know and not know. Of nature, of selves, of man and his being.

Of course, for those who have reached this feeling, perhaps amongst others' energy, we know that energy lives on. It is the spirit of man and his place within nature and the soul that can never whither away. So we must then understand the eternal and how this affects our emotions, how the eternal guides where we go and where we've been. In the end, time goes forth and it goes back, it envelopes us and it ignores us. Time tells us where the soul must go, on what path it must venture, even if we can only experience such chaos through the energy of the unknown. So one must understand time, but do not fear time as it flows like a river through the trees, through the forest, whirling ourselves inside it, but never ceasing to stop nor allowing us to drown. Time will eventually know us even if we initially reject such knowledge. Time is nature's way of keeping us within its grasp. And the eternal is time's way of harnessing our spirit without trying to dampen our energy.

All of this together, of course, becomes life, that unknowable being that encompasses all that we are and can ever be. It is life that gives us ourselves and our energy. It is life that enlivens our spirit. It is life that connects us with the energy of life and all that surrounds our souls even if we do not know or care to know the value of those aspects. So we live life and we respect life without being too concerned with the life. We live it and are of it and gladly accept it as the domain of our energy and our spirits. From life comes love. And love is the highest point of that life therein. So we must reach for love in this life if we can never know the spirit of ourselves, then we have accomplished something which our souls aspire to.

And it is my hope that we can all do just that. Thank you.

Thoughts on Tattoos

Saturday Audience Participation

Today's questions about tattoos: Prole or now drifting upwards in class? Do you have a tattoo? Why did you get one? Why do people in general get one? Anyone else find the notion of the body as a canvas somewhat odd? What do you think of people who get a tattoo? If you don't like tattoos in general, are there specific kinds that you do actually like? Impressed by tattoo artwork? Did you ever consider getting one but didn't go through with it? Is there any place on one's body where a tattoo is more acceptable? Any reason behind the tattoo that would make it more acceptable? What do you think of people absolutely covered in tattoos?

Disgusting Comedy

I'm not a fan of comedy, especially the modern version obsessed with crassness over quality. Here's a recent example. Back story: A British model and tabloid star, Kate Price, has a blind, overweight child currently around 10 years old. Price later married another man, Alex Reid, a cage fighter by trade. A British comic made the following joke about her son back in December 2010:

“I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage-fighter: she needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her.”

Now how is that funny? And even if someone could devise a witty joke from that premise, how could anyone ignore the vile content leading to the punchline? A commenter over at Racialicious sums it up:

I thought comedy was supposed to be an artform, not "say a bunch of horrible things about people and pray that some of it will be funny".

"Say a bunch of horrible things and hope people find it funny" seems to be intention of many comedians. Ever heard of The Aristocrats? Don't look it up unless you enjoy "jokes" about gay incest and other acts not suitable for discussion at this blog. Yet the comedy community idolizes those that conceive a novel retelling of the joke, with "novel" defined as imagining the most perverse actions possible.

So how did we get here? The comedy world has a collectively inflated ego due to their unjustifiably bequeathed status as (leftist) social pundits and as a consequence of viewing themselves as cultural innovators. Unfortunately, as in many pursuits, "innovation" means a race to the bottom. Many comics set themselves apart by going for shock value, a situation that, in our already debased culture, becomes quite volatile. Much like the Internet, the comedic world keeps pushing the envelope with neophytes ultimately seeing the ubiquitous vile content as standard.

"Diverse Standard of Beauty": Ugly Girls Want Love Too

I copy Sailer's Law of Female Journalism below:

The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

Yesterday, in a post over at HuffPo, Vivian Diller, Ph.D writes about the "unfortunate" homogeneity of beauty even as recent surveys express a desire for a more "diverse" standard.

Is blonde and bubbly Jennifer Aniston your ideal of beauty? Or is it sultry Angelina Jolie, the woman Brad Pitt seems to favor? What about Serena Williams, America Ferrera or even Betty White?

Is 'none of the above' an option?

According to CNN contributor, Alana Dawson, our beauty icons have become more diverse...Aimed at getting people to question the influence of society on female beauty, the show left her asking, "What is Beauty and Who Has It?" She concluded that standards of attractiveness are rapidly changing -- "from blonde to brunette, from fair skinned to deep." Americans, she says, are ready to embrace beauty diversity.

The egalitarian paradigm comes forth once again. Everyone is beautiful, of course. I await the day when everyone will be considered tall too. Somehow I imagine these egalitarian zealots will start on that soon enough.

The above bolded statement is confirmed with recent surveys expressing a vastly different conception of beauty than the archetypal California blond. Unfortunately though, the professed desires of this cohort don't help when they actually look in the mirror. Not everyone can pull off big hips like Kim Kardashian.

Allure magazine offered support for this new trend when their 2011 Beauty Survey found "64 percent of all our respondents think women of mixed race represent the epitome of beauty."...In 2011, Allure also announced that Angelina Jolie had replaced Christie Brinkley as the new face of beauty, proclaiming there was "no longer such a thing as an all-American look." Americans, they said, "have branched out beyond the Barbie-doll ideal and embraced something quite different."

-While 73 percent of women said that a curvier body type is more appealing than it had been in 1991, 85 percent still said they wish their own hips were narrower.

-93 percent of women said the pressure to look young today is greater than ever before.

-In the 1991 beauty survey, men said women were at their most beautiful at age 31. In 2011, that ideal age had been reduced to 28.

-86 percent of men said that they wanted to weigh less as compared to 97 percent of women.

I surmise that the disconnect here results from what people want to be true and what is actually true. One should understand that the indefatigable hindbrain can weather almost any attack from the prevailing anti-reality zeitgeist; ultimately, as evidenced by the above contradictions, it wins out. No matter how much individuals like Dr. Diller try to convince us to the contrary, everyone knows beauty when they see it (hint: it ain't Precious).

Note here the rather overt calls for more "diversity", ostensibly meaning less white, blond women with blue eyes. Once again, the demonization of whiteness manifests with just the mere fact of looking white representing something nefarious, "corrupt, and subvert". These beauty scholars criticize the traditional Western standard of beauty as oppressive to those not comporting with it. In essence, beautiful white women merely existing justifies moral outrage. Now, one could argue they merely castigate an insular beauty industry and the depictions put forth by them. Yet the article above goes further than that, lamenting too the notion that women feel bad about themselves because they don't look like the standard (white) beauty, as in the statistics above. She concludes with this transparent statement:

the majority said they were eager to see beauty icons who were more like them -- of different color, race, size and age -- a hopeful turn toward diversity.

One can only conclude then that using a phrase like a "hopeful turn toward diversity" means that the opposite, typifying the white look, means something negative. (Full disclosure: I have neither blond hair nor blue eyes.)

As for the desperation evident in these types of articles, her whining, artfully obscured with academic rhetoric, won't change much. The profit-hungry porn industry is filled with skinny, big-bosomed white women with bleached blond hair and a significant minority of docile, doe-eyed Asians. Now if men didn't want that, if it didn't "work" for them, why would the porn industry continue pushing it? And one needn't even look towards at the admittedly base porn industry, just open up a women's health magazine filled with angelic looking, fit, young women too. Or flip on the Disney channel. We don't see Precious all over the place because it doesn't sell.

In the end, these harpies can probably only convince mangina nerds to embrace their "curves" (read: rolls, bulges, and cankles) or whatever other physical oddity they possess. For evidence, here's another picture from SI.com showing a woman (I use that term loosely), and a Redskins cheerleader no less, who some peculiar men actually find attractive. I imagine though that these "nice guys" aren't really who these feminists want.

[I want to end this post with a celebrity who does actually epitomize beauty, but I've used Taylor Swift and Dianna Agron too much. Anyone have a good alternative?]

Thoughts on Norway Attack

Some commenters have asked for my thoughts on the Norway attacks, so here's a few reflections.

Back in January following the Tucson attack, I wrote the following (later quoted by Derbyshire at Takimag):

Why can't we characterize this man for what he is? And then why don't we, as a society, have any measures in place to act on what we know about this crazy person?

Well, to define this man as irredeemable would constitute surrender to biological determinism, the bane of liberal creationists and social constructionists. Liberals will not allow society to "give up" on anyone, not even the most hardened criminals or the dumbest children. Liberals imbue society with immeasurable power to successfully cultivate, nurture, and mold every single individual. It takes a village, from the cradle to the grave.

The Norway terrorist, referred to in this article as ABB, is pure, unadulterated evil. There is no other viable explanation. Yet the post-Christian or pseudo-Christian left, with "left" here used as both a reference to the professional political left and society in general, has abandoned the intellectual means to describe such savagery. We have also repudiated the notion of biological determinism, instead believing that external influences impose themselves upon individuals instead of understanding that these individuals act upon inherent desires that occasionally manifest as abject evil. So we concoct narratives that rationalize the behavior as opposed to merely accepting the state of man as he exists. The Christian ethos, with objective and stringent definitions of evil, and the biological imperative are both sufficient for describing such behavior, but our enlightened class wrongly dismisses such basic representations of man.

Up until this point, I've spoken of our general society, unconsciously loyal to the maxims of liberalism yet not explicitly applying them in social analysis. Unsurprisingly, we've seen an outpouring of condemnation from the left of "far-right extremists", with so many specific spurious claims that I won't even mention, e.g. ABB is a Christian. Some on the Right, likely the same pusillanimous cowards back in January, fear this attack will undermine conservatism. They believe the left will use this man to smear groups with which he may or may not have had minimally overlapping views. But the left does not care about truth, they do not care about justice or honesty. They have already demonized conservatives as murderous and evil, so what will change? Our resident troll called the Tea Party, the damn Tea Party "terrorists" yesterday:

"Great White Terrorist". Plenty of those. Let us see. Oslo right wing rascist, Confederatee States of America, Unabomber, McVeigh,Tea Party, European Colonialistas

And in a column about the debt ceiling, let me repeat that the debt ceiling, NYT columnist, Nobel Prize winner, and Princeton professor Paul Krugman had this to say about the Republican dissenters:

And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.

So the left spews mindless vituperative no matter what; this will change nothing.

-In the end, ABB is a psychotic, evil man largely rejected by society. While he nominally expressed a desire to defend society and perhaps rationalized his actions as such, he did something antithetical to the nature of civilization. Thus, his actions were the expression of someone who felt the burden of social rejection and adopted a Messianic-like justification for ultimately performing an act that undermined the society he had no part of. We need to understand men like ABB, who his friends have described as socially inept, not in the context of a political ideology (same applies for "left-wing" terrorists like that eco-nut last year) but in the context of man as a social animal. Men who have no part in society have no impetus to support it. Fortunately, this apathy very rarely becomes antagonistic.

Finally, as to the notion that ABB attempted to rationalize his actions as a violent defense of his nation, Auster has a back and forth with OneSTDV commenter RobertB concerning the underlying reasons behind ABB's actions. As Auster points out, RobertB claims to "understand" ABB's actions, even while condemning the notion of political violence as a general concept. First, I have never seen anyone on the Right or the Left encourage such violence, even amongst the "fringe" niche we inhabit here. Second, it's an interesting dilemma brought forth by RobertB's comments, specifically the moral justification for political violence. I posit that we all condone violence in some instances, usually in regards to self-defense or thwarting some inevitable evil not yet come to pass.

However, the West currently must combat a verifiable yet not rigorously defined war against its native people. What then should we do when political initiatives fail, when culture, media, and government collude to persist the war? Is a violent revolution tenable from a moral standpoint? Perhaps in an entirely quantitative framework, one could argue in the affirmative. But as we've been repeating consistently here, we as a society must not fall victim to materialistic nihilism. We must not allow bean-counting to supersede life and its transcendence in determining our actions. We must not concede the moral axioms that make us human, even if such concessions appear rational. Of course, we will often struggle mightily to uphold such principles, but what benedictions result from this struggle - community, civilization, and humanity. We mustn't lose sight of the ultimate goal of conservatism, the protection of society and the presumed way of life within it.

Race Miscellany

A few race-related links:

Karl Rove's pathetic display showing what happens when whites try to "act black" (@1:45):



Whites have ceded the authority on "cool" to blacks, with blackness and the corresponding mores now defining this ambiguous yet nonetheless important social trait. I don't know what's more pathetic: the behavior in the video above or young wiggers. It's a toss-up for sure.

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

Race realists pervade our society, as evidenced by the site I'm not racist, but... Highlights from the first few pages:

Asians can't drive.
People living in America should speak English.
Black people are loud.
American music should be played in public, not Mexican music.
Blacks get unfair special privileges, such as scholarships.
Advice to switch the street when blacks or Latinos approach.

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

A thirteen year-old "poetry prodigy", the distinction confirmed only by her father, had apparently been accepted to UConn and then denied admission over controversial black nationalist poetry. Later, UConn claims she never even applied, leading one to believe that her rabble-rousing father fabricated the story as a means of pushing the oppression narrative.

She does appear very bright and mature, but we have no independent confirmation of her intellectual gifts. We have her animated poetry readings; though her poetry is akin to the spoken-word or slam poetry popular amongst black bloviators. Slam poetry is poetry for (black) people who can't write real poetry, but can talk real good and stuff.

The media's coverage of this story, especially the black media's fawning over it, fits well into the "Great Race Search" for individuals who very much defy racial stereotypes. To name a few: "Great White Defendant", "Great White Terrorist", "Great Muslim Moderate", "Great Asian Athlete", "Great Black Physicist", "Great Black Intellectual", "Great Black Non-Criminal", and "Great Latino Immigrant". When ever one of these appears, the media jumps on it (see Duke Lacrosse, DSK, Jose Antonio Vargas, Toni Morrison, Myron Rolle).

Emptiness of Modern Work(er)

It took me awhile to fully comprehend what I find off-putting about modern work, but a recent post over at flavia's Revolt Against the Modern World crystallized it for me. In the post, flavia juxtaposes pictures of yesterday's workers, using their hands and getting dirty, with those of today's worker, crammed into cubicles dealing only with the abstract. She sums it up wonderfully:

We are completely removed from what our work produces. Then again, what exactly does one produce in an economy based on consumerism and Ponzi schemes?

It is perhaps the work of modern society that has lead to the vapid status game plaguing our upper and middle classes. Pride derived from meaningful work is far easier to experience when the labor of that work sits directly in front of the worker. He can feel his accomplishment in his own hands, he can understand the product of a good day's work because he was present for every step of the process. Now technology has made much of physical labor unnecessary, pushing us into the air conditioning in front of our computers. Nonetheless, the nature of today's work has separated man from the tangible products he creates. He no longer has direct experience with his own work, his labor done within faceless large groups, his insights passed through an unknown number of higher-ups.

His work no longer provides a palatable means of pride for today's worker. He needs a proxy source of pride to satisfy his emotional desires. Instead of direct accomplishments, he gravitates towards ultimately meaningless, but socially viable indicators of achievement: the car he can drive, the beautiful women he can attract, the clothes he can wear, and the succinct credentials he can flaunt in conversation. These status symbols provide direct satisfaction and ultimately a verifiable corroboration of his labor.

Clearly, I don't find these vacuous metrics of status valuable. And it's why I've always revered the framer and his trade. Now I would last maybe a day on a farm, but I've always viewed the framer with a genuine romanticism for his rolling, pristine domain, his diligence, and his independence. The farmer represents the antithesis of the modern cubicle worker with the distinction as follows:

Office Worker: You do something for someone else (your boss) so that someone else (your boss) can do something for you (pay you) so that you may do something for yourself (buy food to eat).

Farmer: You do something (plant crops) for yourself (to eat).

Perhaps I'm being too hard on the modern world flush with undeniable technological benefits over the rural industries of our past. But as we've expressed previously here (consistent with the general theme of flavia's blog), modern society has unfortunately replaced much of yesterday's romantic spirit with empty status-mongering.

[Relevant study: City life marks the brain.]

Stupid Men Commercials

The left often mocks the notion that white men are a victim group. When one looks at who "runs" everything and who comprises the productive working and middle classes, it would appear that white men have no problems. But such a short-sighted conception of "victim group" ignores the very important cultural means by which white men are demonized. In sum, "success" doesn't reduce merely to quantifiable measures, but rather exists as an amalgamation of practical and social metrics. We can't judge the health or vibrancy of a society, the latter defined as the ability of a society to offer its citizens meaningful experience, merely by charts and numbers.

With this mind comes the current prevailing commercial trend of goofy white beta males shown as incompetent and immature. Today's commercials, an undeniably integral aspect of culture, reflect the central premise of old maid Maureen Dowd's book, Are Men Necessary? So while white men probably write the actual commercials and make this society go, they must endure a culture that views them as dispensable and generally dull. Take this recent Chevy car commercial:



Let's recap:

Two nerdy, weak-looking white male SWPLs exhibit an extremely immature fascination with their car started by remote control. Of course, they don't have any control over the car, this ceded to a pioneering businesswoman girlfriend. The commercial ends with said woman toying with the men, clearly illustrating where the power lies.

And that's about the narrative of liberalism right there. Women as the staid and informed, white men as the irresponsible and naive, with the latter needing the former to keep everything running smoothly.

Now one could dismiss these kinds of commercials as innocuous fun. But this message, one so at odds with real life, permeates the entirety of our culture (think stupid, fat father/hot wife sitcoms and see this AskMen article with other commercial examples). When such a pattern emerges, one can't merely ignore it as benign because it affects the social landscape. And it affects it in such a profound way that I don't want to live in a culture that champions such values.

[I previously discussed another leftist themed commercial for DJ Hero 2, that one celebrating multiculturalism and minority vivacity.]

Attracting Women to the anti-PC Blogopshere

Saturday Audience Participation

The anti-PC blogosphere has a woman problem - primarily that there's not that many of them around these parts. Now there are some places, like The Spearheard or Roissy's comment section, that attracts or caters to members of the sphere who get off on excoriating all women. They express legitimate women hatred, not just anti-feminism, support for the patriarchy, or a return to pre-"grrl power" norms. No, they (hilariously) think men should have essentially no contact with women at all.

But here at OneSTDV, we love you bitches. And by "bitches", I mean sweet, kind-hearted women with a pleasant disposition. We at OneSTDV want this archetypal feminine woman back, not the mannish feminists who can't ride in an elevator or hear a caustic joke without launching into a diatribe about male privilege. Roissy recently made this exact point a couple days ago, ironic on a site that attracts so many men who view women as a vagina surrounded by unnecessary appendages:

Men are attracted to a woman’s looks first and foremost, but after a while — a few weeks to a few months — a woman’s other assets become important to men, especially men seeking long term relationships. Is she sweet and affectionate? Does she like to cook him dinner? Is she nurturing and does she coo over other women’s babies? Is she an animal lover? Does she prefer to avoid getting into arguments? Does she frequently cede decisions to her man? Does she shy from logic and debate? Is she quick to tear up during sad movies?...Most men, their curmudgeonly ribbing to the contrary notwithstanding, really do love these attributes of the feminine woman.

But the alt-right hasn't done a great job of attracting women. Of course, I don't think we should alter the message nor moderate the anti-feminism to do so. Yet it's interesting to note why women don't come to these blogs. I have a few obvious ideas: online political commentary is almost exclusively male, women are joiners and this blogosphere opposes mainstream conformity, and the anti-feminism and sexual realism turns some women off.

So today's questions: Why don't women participate very much in this blogosphere? Should we do anything to attract women? Is anti-feminism a problem for women? Should we do more to expunge the legitimate women-haters? Thoughts on the dichotomy of those (like me) who want feminine women and those who think women are inherently evil and should be put in societal cages? Is support of the pre-60s patriarchy as anathema to women's participation as some of the anti-women whining at places like The Spearhead?

I need a new celebrity who typifies the sweet feminine archetype (I can't keep using Taylor Swift), any ideas?

[I'll mention a few female bloggers: dana, hbdchick, Flavia, and Sofia.]

This Week in Positivity: Keenan Cahill

The blogosphere often adopts a negative frame, so sometimes it's good to switch things up and present something positive.

If you haven't noticed, I watch a lot of YouTube videos. This means I'm aware of most viral content, even if primarily confined to YouTube and not the general interwebs, ala Rebecca Black's infamous "Friday". Last year I came across a teenager named Keenan Cahill who makes videos of himself lip-syncing to popular songs. Now, about a year later, Keenan has gone viral with almost 500,000 subscribers and his videos linked all over the Internet. Even better, many of his new videos no longer show just him messing around in his bedroom, but include celebrities like 50 Cent, the cast of Glee, Katy Perry, and members of the San Francisco Giants.

So what's the big deal? Well, first off, Keenan has a sort of infectious spirit without any semblance of normal teenage self-consciousness. He knows that perhaps millions of people will watch his videos, yet he seems completely at ease in front of the camera. But honestly, I'm not into lip syncing videos from 16 year-old kids and I don't particularly find his content that great.

Nonetheless, Keenan is a great story because he has a rather serious disease that's obvious to anyone who sees him. Here's a video from a local news show in Chicago telling his story:



As everyone knows, the Internet is full of very mean people. Anyone who puts up a video on YouTube gets an inexorable amount of "hate", much of it the sort of vile insults that truly string, especially for a teenage boy who admittedly looks odd. But that didn't stop Keenan from putting himself out there, even when he has to endure surgeries and medical treatment, along with just being a regular teenager. To put it bluntly - the kid has massive balls, a sort of brazen confidence that we should all find inspiring.

When one encounters a story like this, especially for the jaded amongst us, we reflexively dismiss it as yet another mawkish human interest tale. Sure we've seen these sorts of things before and sometimes we ignore them because we can't stand seeing the same saccharine narrative told over again. But sometimes these sorts of stories do have value, they do inspire, they do make us feel good because they illustrate something transcendent about the human experience. So I say bravo to Keenan, for his courage, his effervescence, and his big middle finger to the hataz.

"Diversity Manuals": Money Wasted and Use of Language

Omaha public school districts have spent their stimulus money on "diversity manuals":

The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive.

The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people,” that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should “take action for social justice.”

The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and “ableism,” defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.

Yada yada, you've heard it before. I advise you not to read the article in detail unless you have some masochistic desire to frustrate yourself. Instead of arguing against the ideas presented, I'll briefly comment on two important issues related to this story.

First, notice how they use the taxpayers' (stimulus) money. They bought indoctrination material instead of hiring more five more hall monitors for discipline, new computers, better gym equipment, or better food lunches. None of these apparently productive uses of the money could overtake the importance of "diversity manuals", supported unanimously by the Omaha public school board. It doesn't get said enough:

Spending money on these sorts of programs, intended to denigrate whites and close the persistent racial achievement gaps, is equivalent to burning money.

I'm not trying to be cheeky here, I really mean it. We spend so much money, including a significant portion of stimulus funds, on these wasteful initiatives that will have absolutely no effect on any outcomes. We would accomplish the exact same thing by burning the money or flushing it down the toilet. In the end, this crap affects small communities and really does add up over the entire country.

Second, the artful creators of such "manuals" rarely express their anti-white hatred explicitly. They use euphemism and evasive, ambiguous language to promote their hatred. I do have some admiration for the efficacy of their tactics, a societal level program that has completely devastated whites as a cultural collective worthy of respect. They have perfected the subtly of hate-mongering, to the point where only discerning individuals like myself and my readers can understand the real message.

Below, I copy the phrases and terms used in the article common amongst anti-white leftist propaganda. Essentially every single quote below should be translated to (a good summary of modern race leftist thought):

White people are a socially constructed collective of which each member is nonetheless indebted with the sins of his father. Whites have erected oppressive societies, stolen all their good ideas from people of color, engaged in racial nepotism, and unfairly championed their own traits as emblematic of beauty, success, and valor. White people must understand that everything they own is due to white privilege and not their own hard work nor the collective industry of their people. White people deserve whatever injustices people of color impose upon them, whether benign such as in pop cultural representations or violent such as in murder. White people are morally impure unless they do whatever they can to absolve themselves of white sin, including pursuing careers in social justice, volunteering in the inner city, giving all their money to charities benefiting people of color, and informing others of the horridness of white people and their culture.

I originally started the above paragraph as one sentence, but it grew longer. I think it's important that race realist conservatives understand the true nature of what the racial left believes. Their doctrine is literally based on hatred of whites and their success. Encountering this in such explicit terms, such as in this video showing a man only a few degrees worse than Amy Biehl's parents or supporters of OJ, illustrates that truth. Now the quotes:

-channel wealth and power to white people
-take action for social justice
-acknowledge historical systemic oppression
-must raise their cultural awareness to better serve minority students
-"The book is intended to open a dialogue."
-see that people come from a multitude of different backgrounds
-treating all people equally
-cultural proficiency
-cultural sensitivity
-acknowledge the existence of white privilege in America, that “white” is a culture in America and that race “is a definer for social and economic status”
-group identity of students of color should be recognized and esteemed
-some issues in the book are considered “challenging” and “taboo,” discussing them is important to break down barriers to educating every child
-cultural competence
-recognize and demonstrate understanding of white privilege
-“intercultural sensitivity” and “cultural intelligence”
-make teachers more aware and respectful of children of all cultures
-make sure tests are valid and address the diversity of students
-there's no hidden agenda with the book study
-conversation starter on topics such as social equity, cultural understanding and racial justice
-What we're saying is let's explore this whole concept
-culturally responsive teaching
-develop an understanding and appreciation for diversity in the classroom, school and community

And the kicker:

“The rich life experiences of a diverse classroom contribute to an excellent education. It's an education that helps prepare our kids for a world they're going to live in, an increasingly diverse world,” Edick said.

Here's a link to the pictures of the Omaha School Board. Hmm, anyone else starting to rethink that whole 19th amendment thing? (Just kidding...mostly)

Medical Industrial Complex, Societal Hypochondria, and Women

In previous posts, I've covered the Medical Industrial Complex that continually peddles "remedies" to the public, whether they need them or not. Big Pharma, the liberal vegetarian mafia, and big government have colluded, in both overt and subtle ways, to induce a societal level hypochondria. One notes this in helicopter moms and their War on Childhood, in which scratches require full-on bandages and coughs mean a visit to the emergency room. (I criticize helicopter moms a lot, but I'm mainly averse to their political meddling, not the genuine love from which much of their hysteria results.)

An AlterNet article wonderfully summarizes the strategies Big Pharma uses to scare the public.

That’s when the drug industry began debuting the concept of “treatment resistant depression.” It wasn’t that their drugs didn’t work (or you didn’t have depression in the first place), you had “treatment resistant depression.” Your first expensive and dangerous drug needed to be coupled with more expensive and dangerous drugs because monotherapy, one drug alone, wasn’t doing the trick!

Once upon a time, when depression was neither seasonal, atypical, bipolar or treatment resistant, it was considered to be a self-limiting disease. In fact, just about the only good thing you could say about depression was it wouldn’t last forever. But now, the drug industry is giving depression the don’t-wait scare treatment like coronary events (statins), asthma attacks (”controller” drugs) and thinning bones (Sally Field). If you don’t hurry and take medication, your depression will get worse!

Depression may masquerade as headaches, insomnia, fatigue, backache, dizziness, lightheadedness or appetite problems mongers the article. “You might feel queasy or nauseous. You might have diarrhea or become chronically constipated.” And here, you thought it was something you ate!

Essentially, Big Pharma casts almost everything as a potential problem. Every normal ailment a person experiences is listed as possibly leading to a more serious problem - for which a drug undoubtedly exists. So depression has evolved from an emotional problem legitimately affecting a small portion of the population to a one-size-fits-all explanation for laziness, mood swings, and, of course, back problems. Go to the doctor for back stiffness and you leave with some Cymbalta; makes sense, right.

But the hypochondria doesn't stop there, it permeates essentially every aspect of mainstream health and nutritional rhetoric. Ever heard of "toxins", a farcical medical chimera concocted by the "alternative" medical community, e.g. Gaiaist quacks. Apparently, toxins fill your entire body, as in the religious notion of sin applied to health. Going further with the analogy, it would appear society believes everyone is born physically impure, with each of us on the verge of catastrophic disaster unless we do every single thing "they" tell us to do. Good idea to go on one of those "cleanse" diets popular amongst celebrities; it will release those darn "toxins" from your body.

I would be remiss to ignore the gender issue here. We already know the liberal-based underpinnings of the vegetarian diet, with meat-eating in part viewed as a reflection of the patriarchy. Additionally, one notes the sensationalism of standard medical advice. The media and medical establishment bombard us with these problems, with the clear implication that disease is inevitable. Sure, we should know about the current health epidemic, but I don't need a reminder about statins and erectile dysfunction every time I turn on the TV, open up a magazine, or watch the news. Of course, this affects women more because they tend towards histrionics easier than men do. With modern feminism imbuing women with undue confidence, they feel compelled to aver this hysteria both individually and collectively. That means husbands must suffer nagging about going to the doctor and not eating meat (oh the irony!). It means you can't get a McDonald's hamburger in San Francisco and kids will grow up without Happy Meals.

Going further, women, the credulous beings they are, have a faith in expert advice without any ability to confirm their advice independently. Roissy once described arguing with a woman as follows:

I hurled facts and figures at her, the holy water to the emotionally vampiric female soul. She reacted as a startled vampiress would; shrieks and bared fangs, her pallor drained from her face in shock at my bombshell impudence. “Why is he not kowtowing to me?”, I could practically hear her hamster morse coding to the nether reaches of her brain.

It is rare to find a woman who has the ability to rationally consider statistics and facts. With the feel-good Gaism (another female phenomenon), exaggerated rhetoric, and expert authority that supports much of mainstream health advice, the task becomes that much more formidable for them. So we must listen to women who mindlessly regurgitate whatever misleading or downright false findings Big Pharma, liberal academia, and big government advertise this week.

And because I care, here's three studies I found recently:

Evidence of Human Adaptation to Increased Carnivory
Fiber Does not Prevent Cancer (H/T: Keoni Galt)
We Evolved to Eat Meat - Direct Evidence of Prehistoric Meal

"Nothing to See Here": Racial Crime Edition

First, black news site NewsOne (anyone want to guess the racial composition of their programmers and technical staff?) lauds Chicago for combating crime:

Police in the nation’s third largest city say overall crime was down 4.2 percent last month compared with a year ago, making it the 30th consecutive month that most categories of crime have dropped in Chicago. Preliminary data released Sunday shows that homicides fell by 14.4 percent last month compared with June 2010. There were 31 fewer killings.

They act as if this is something to brag about - "ey look, ain't hardly nobody got they asses kilt' this monf". I've said before that the decrease in crime largely results from a corresponding increase in prison population, a more aggressive police presence, and the diligence of law-abiding citizens (read: whites) in avoiding criminals (read: blacks) and their terrain. The short-sightedness of the article is twofold. First, NewsOne surely hates prison and police, seeing them as perpetrators of the oppressive American system. Second, someone is losing here - primarily the people that must (white) flight from high crime areas in cities that they built and fear whatever feral black mob might come around the next corner.

Second, we all know about the prevalence of black violence, but what about the concerted effort of the elites to massage data. In the Emily Guendelsberger case, police recorded it as a single assault and robbery, instead of a mob attack of 50-60 "yoofs". Similarly misleading reports have surfaced in other cases, including police assertions that race is never a motive. And what about the white crime rate? Well, the government has a rather expansive definition of "white", including Arabs and many Hispanics in the category. This becomes especially important for enumerating various disparities, such as crime. For example, the police classify this man, who beat a two year-old to death, as white - picture speaks for itself (link to pic).

Finally, in the Bronx, a man was beaten in an obvious hate crime. Apparently though, the perpetrators yelling "white boy" and "cracker" doesn't suffice for categorizing it as such, even in a society that hastily offers judgment on race matters. The summer of black mob beatings continues. Now why am I highlighting yet another race-based attacks from a group of violent blacks? We've seen it before right. Well, I'm delving into the comment sections to evince the notion that the people may disregard the MSM's purposeful obtuseness. The following comments come from just the first few pages:

Hmm funny that this story has NOT been made public via other media? I wonder why?

Cops are just "thinking" it was a hate crime? If those racists are not charged as that, then the whole law should be thrown out.

I suppose Mr. Sharpton has nothing to say about this. I assume he's not "outraged", because its ok for minorities to pick on whites, but not the other way around.

According to the justice Dept, 1 in every 4 Black males between the ages of 20 and 29 is currently in prison or on probation or parole. A Black person is 66 TIMES more likely to attack a White person than Vice Versa. Of course it's not a hate crime. Statistics don't lie while all the black racists on this site condone what happened. These same losers will wonder why peaceful muslims don't speak out against extremists.

If it's black on white, or anything on white then it can't be a hate crime.

God forbid, your car breaks down in the wrong "Hood", and you are white. You may never be found. Regardless of what city in America. Black on white hate crime is alive, well and swept under the rug. Can't say anything publiclly, or so statisistics. Just imagine what would happen!

this stuff is getting worse with our present DOJ knowing it is "his" people and wont prosecute "his" people so seems that crime against white people is escalating.

Blk people are always claiming racism but when in fact there are the most racist group there is. Always claiming racism when cops stop them many they get stop bec your are more likely to commit a crime or do be a menace to society

Of course this isn't being investigated as a 'hate crime'. Only whites beating up blacks & Latinos are considered 'hate crimes'.

The fact is that Blacks are stupid and violent...so why do MRIs show Blacks have smaller brains? Blacks have no neanderthal DNA. African Blacks score borderline retarded on IQ tests (70).

Blacks, without the help of White people would still be running around in loin cloths with bones in their noses, eating each other during "Happy Hour".

In sum, people know the truth and they know the media downplays it. HBD blogs might comprise a small niche of the blogosphere, but comment threads on these race stories are indistinguishable from those of race realists sites. Note though that the motives in these cases should not matter as much as the evident racial composition of the criminals. I don't really care why they do the crimes, I just care who keeps doing it and how to stop them.

So what's the connection between these three stories? Our government and media act like Leslie Neilson in Naked Gun - "Alright, move on, nothing to see here...nothing to see here." But the people have stopped listening. They know who does the crime, why they do the crimes, and, increasingly, why the media won't talk about it. In fact, I predict many news websites will close open comment sections in the near future. Merely posting an article like the Bronx beating allows regular people to proffer a conclusion and not members of the media priesthood. The left surely can't want that.

One final thought: has the left effectively shamed the Right from discussing crime, casting it as the purview of paranoid and uncouth extremists? Perhaps they have, as even the Blogfather of race realism, Steve Sailer, has yet to comment on this summer's flash mobs. Has he deemed such content not worthy of serious journalism? Who knows, but his silence sure is perplexing.

Vile Leftism and their Inconsistent Logic on "Gay Therapy"

I've been hesitant to note the disparity in crassness between the political aisles. But this week's Real Time with Bill Maher sort of undermines my proposed judiciousness (audio: NSFW):

MARC MARON, COMEDIAN: I don't want to be crass but I just hope that Marcus Bachmann takes all that, you know, rage that comes from repression and denial and brings it into the bedroom with her. I hope he f--ks her angrily because, because that's how I would. And I've thought about it. I just…

SAVAGE: Just so we get, just so you don’t get charges of sexism, because only Michele Bachmann was involved, I sometimes think about f--king the s--t out of Rick Santorum...SAVAGE: …he needs it. So, it’s not, it's not just women we’re talking about f--king. Like, let's bone that Santorum boy...I’m up for whipping up some santorum in Santorum

Wonder why I described all those calls for civility back in January as a leftist ploy for conservative silence? Because liberals will gladly peddle the most subversive and vile rhetoric, yet then demean conservatives for their supposed baseness.

One asks what Michelle and Marcus Bachmann have done to deserve such filthy denunciations. Last week, the liberal media had a fit when they discovered that Mr. Bachmann ran a "pray the gay away" therapy clinic which attempted to change people from gay to straight. Now one could argue against such practices on biological grounds; I've seen and heard RuPaul and Richard Simmons, case closed. But the media largely has decried Mr. Bachmann's practice as morally reprehensible because it reflects an intolerance towards homosexuals. Liberals rightly contend that implicit to the therapy is the notion that gayness is something to be cured and thus a negative aspect of one's person. Attempting to "cure" homosexuality is a tacit condemnation of it.

However, most gays freely admit the obstacles and struggles caused by their sexual orientation, this often being the primary argument against the "choice explanation". In this rather mawkish piece, radio host Michael Smerconish quotes a gay colleague saying this:

And he wonders who exactly you think would "choose" to be gay, given the myriad personal, emotional, and legal issues that a homosexual lifestyle introduces.

"If you could simply choose who you were sexually attracted to," Ben wondered, "wouldn't you choose the path of least resistance? Being gay creates problems and obstacles in life that no one would willingly choose."

So most gay men will admit that they wouldn't have chosen this path in the first place. I've read this countless times. Perhaps Mr. Bachmann's efforts will prove futile due to biological obstinacy, but his intention to rid people of something they don't like about themselves should be celebrated. He is trying to dampen something even gay men themselves see as an unenviable and unwanted part of who they are. It might not work, but why not try; we sure do so with every other biological trait. Of course, the left hates this therapy primarily because this is the PC/diversity-racket topic of gayness and not fatness, though I guess feminists have been making headway on the latter as well, i.e. "fat shaming".

What Men Actually Want

In Thursday's barrage of gender links, I included this one on hot actresses bragging about their nerd credentials:

And so Brittany Snow admits she's a "shy nerd" -- while falling out of her sheer bra on the cover of Maxim. Megan Fox calls herself "the biggest nerd" because she loves "comic books and stuff like that" -- after FHM magazine names her the Sexiest Woman Alive. ("Stuff like that?" I'm convinced!) Kristen Stewart says she's "a dork" -- for her cover of Vogue. Jessica Alba likewise says she's "dorky." Reese Witherspoon? Another "big dork." Keri Russell? "I’m just a nerd ... I’m the opposite of cool." I'm sure they all look exactly like the Mathletes team in your home town.

One would presume these women use such fabricated nerd-dom as a marketing ploy to attract more male fans. After all, nerds comprise a large segment of the buying public, especially for sci-fi movies and products like Maxim magazine that peddle a risible type of masculinity. These actresses, or more appropriately their publicists, believe that nerds will become infatuated with them because they share common interests. One imagines nerds getting excited about Megan Fox playing Halo or Kristen Stewart reading comic books.

In another post last week on ugly or mannish women generally considered "hot", a number of commenters broached the idea that nerds, or more generally lower beta males, can be inculcated with this perverse standard of beauty:

It might work on nerds, though, because nerds construct their entire identity from pop culture.

Women love it, nerds can be talked into loving it, and the rest of us have to put up with it.

Here's popular YouTube news vlogger, 'sxephil', praising actress Alison Brie for her humor (yea, LSFW):

Alison Brie is in my Top 3...Hot, funny chick, done

Here's a survey of undergraduate men ranking desired qualities of a potential romantic mate.

Men are increasingly interested in an educated woman who is a good financial prospect and less interested in chastity. Other desirable characteristics: ambition and intelligence.

Here's a a nerdy atheist salivating over some female blogger, complete with the most beta form of communication, an emoticon:

Nerdy, sexy, crazy, perverted as a free bonus : that's it, I'm officially in love. ;-)

Another recent example is the show My Boys about a tomboy hanging out with men and writing about sports.

The connection: nerds and lower betas convince themselves that the "modern woman" and not physical attractiveness piques their sexual interest. We know that man's sexual interest is primarily physical, as illustrated by the structure and ubiquity of porn. Porn is exclusively physical sexual acts with purposefully submissive women who largely match the hourglass figure. Its popularity reflects the fact that men find it appealing to their inherent sensibilities. Sure, men will lie about what they like in public, just as women do, but in the privacy of their bedrooms with a wide range of options, they have overwhelmingly chosen the traditional female form as beautiful.

So how did this bizarro world come about? Feminism, unsurprisingly, that sought to normalize sexual deviancy and undermine standard notions of beauty. Feminism is largely the domain of ugly and marginalized women who have little social capital and sexual marketplace value based on their lack of beauty. To gain social status, they champion the sorts of traits they themselves embody: ambitious, career-driven, masculine. And they denigrate or completely reject the primary basis of male attraction: physical beauty. One notes the histrionics engaged in by these women if someone barely "sexualizes them as a woman", this being a means of shaming men for expressing sexual attraction and buttressing their own extant desire for such objectification. In other words, these feminists want everyone to notice someone finds them attractive, but they also don't like "objectification" in general because it rarely ever happens to them.

So today's men increasingly believe, in opposition to what their erections tell them, that they like the pugnacious career woman who cracks dirty jokes and watches sports. I'd actually argue that it's exactly the opposite, similar to women who clamor for a "Nice Guy" then have rape fantasies and read romance novels with Fabio on the cover. I recall at age 15 telling a female friend what I looked for in a girl:

Preferably kind of stupid and with low self-esteem

I'd say most men simply don't care about intelligence or confidence. In fact, most men likely prefer a ditzy damsel in distress, not the Amazonian Xena Warrior Princess who spits and knows more about football then them. But feminism continues its push, with its gender perversion reflected in pop culture like GI Jane, Kick-Ass, and Buffy. We've come a long way since Popeye; today, Olive Oyl would brandish a weapon and beat up bad guys instead of shouting to her hero for rescue.

I'll finish by noting the picture above. Anyone interested in her college major or her favorite NFL team?

Sci-fi Stuff

Saturday Audience Participation

I never really discuss it here, but I've always been fascinated by sci-fi stuff. I don't read the books because I largely dislike fictional texts, but I'm always watching TV programs and, prior to this blog, I used to peruse the science blogs daily. Obviously, I spend most of my web surfing time now looking at political and cultural content. In a way, I do regret venturing away from the fantastical notions of science fiction/reality, like wormholes, time travel, aliens, and the like.

Randall Parker at FuturePundit posted this article about the multiverse:

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the idea that all possible alternate histories of the universe actually exist. At every point in time, the universe splits into a multitude of existences in which every possible outcome of each quantum process actually happens.

So in this universe you are sitting in front of your computer reading this story, in another you are reading a different story, in yet another you are about to be run over by a truck. In many, you don't exist at all.

This implies that there are an infinite number of universes, or at least a very large number of them.

At James Randi's skepticism conference, zealot atheist liberal PZ Myers (or, more appropriately, PC Meyer) discusses what aliens would actually look like, a refreshing change from his usual strident commentary on political issues:

Why do we think that all intelligent tool using beings have to look like us? PZ’s now going to inform us with how aliens ought to evolve, starting with the idea that aliens evolving to be human-like isn’t totally crazy. That’s because of convergence – that when two divergent species have the same niche to fill, they tend to evolve similar traits independently. But they still inherited the same initial toolbox of genes, so there’s not much choice about what potential traits can evolve.

So basically this is an open thread for your thoughts on these subjects.

Some questions to motivate discussion: Do intelligent beings exist? What do they look like and how more advanced are they? Why do so many astronauts claim to have seen them during their spaceflights? If aliens do exist, what are the religious implications? What is the universe or the multiverse? If there is a multiverse, how exactly does this make you feel (an odd question perhaps)? If you could time travel, would you? Are we destined to destroy ourselves before we can attain technology to travel to far-off stars (if we could ever do so)? Some at SETI think we'll find an alien signal within 50 years, thoughts? Any interesting theories on colonizing new worlds?

Moral Argument for Racial Homogeneity

In an anonymous comment to one of my posts yesterday, a reader relays an interesting tidbit on South Africa's "Architect of Apartheid", Hendrik Verwoerd:

His lecture notes and memoranda while working as Professor of Sociology at Stellenbosch shows that he rejected the notion of biological differences between the big racial groups. He added that since there were no differences ‘this was not really a factor in the development of a higher social civilisation by the Caucasian race’.

Given the wretched current state of black-run South Africa, one presumes any champion of apartheid would have used racial differences as partial justification. As such, it's incredibly surprising that the leader of apartheid would reject such an obvious fact of man. But in effect, Mr. Verwoerd found the right to self-determination far more meaningful in justifying his preferred system of governance.

By repudiating race differences in conjunction with celebrating a separate civilization for whites, Mr. Verwoerd eschewed the overly pragmatic arguments that often accompany HBD. In debating Latino illegal immigration or multicultural government programs, even reactionary commentators rely on practical arguments to support their position. I often hear about increased job competition from illegals servants and the business problems caused by language barriers. Or, appropriate given Mr. Verwoerd's position, the criminal problems associated with Hispanic 2nd generation immigrants. In sum, the overly practical HBDers envision a functioning society based on racial proclivities, not necessarily as the right of a racial or ethnic collective.

One often encounters the phrase "right to self-determination" in international law, but only exceedingly brazen individuals like Geert Wilders couch European cultural morality in these terms. This concept mirrors my own concept of "white moral autonomy", which I defined previously:

Whites' denunciation of racism can not stand by itself, the independent collective opinion of whites must be corroborated by some external racial entity. Racial and religious minorities are considered the ultimate arbiters of moral transgression.

In other words, whites (like Asians, blacks, and Latinos) should have the freedom to define their own nations as they see fit. Clearly, the concept of racial moral autonomy exists for all groups except Western whites. So should HBD drop the pragmatism and instead countenance the notion that whites deserve collective freedom? That whites should possess the moral standing to define their own societies? That whites should have the right to determine their own culture and people?

By abandoning or at least downplaying empirically based arguments, HBDers do undermine one particular advantage of race leftists - statistical lies. Both sides can go back and forth forever showing "research" that substantiates their claims; yet, the authority usually given to overwhelmingly leftist academics often wins out. Further, the moral argument explicitly points out leftist hypocrisy on racial issues, an oft-cited and important idea amongst the race-conscious Right.

Lots of Gender Miscellany

Bunch of links, some new some old, on gender-related topics:

----------------------------------------------------------
Woman cuts off her estranged husband's dinga-ling.

After she laced her husband's food with an unknown drug or poison, he lay down, believing something was wrong with the food, according to police reports. Her husband then woke up tied to the bed as Becker cut off his penis with a knife. She then threw the genitalia in the garbage disposal and turned the disposal on, Lt. Jeff Nightengale of Garden Grove, Calif. police, said.

Everyone remembers the Bobbitt case from awhile back. What you might not know - she was found not guilty by reason of insanity since he abused her. She spent 45 days in psychological evaluation and that's it. The obvious question - if she has no control over herself, why then is she allowed out in a free society? Also, as in the story above, notice how the primary story revolves around the motive. For the Bobbitt case, the defense focuses entirely on Mr. Bobbitt's abusive history, as if cutting off his member could ever be justified.

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

Found this on an old Bill Simmons mailbag.

So I'm up late on Saturday night watching MTV's "True Life." It's an episode in which it follows two people who aren't happy about their gender. One guy is super excited about getting his boobs so he can start the process of becoming a woman. He gets his new boobs and when we finally get to see them, they are blurred. Wait a minute … isn't he still a guy? What's the difference between this and anyone on "The Biggest Loser"? Also, it follows a girl who is getting her boobs removed. They show her in the operation room and when her boobs are getting cut out, there is no blur to be seen. Six weeks later, they pull off the bandages and there they are. All stitched up for me to see. No blurs to be found.

So MTV is really really gay. No surprise there. I still don't understand though why transgender people get lumped in with gays and lesbians. To me, it seems a wholly different sort of mental oddity. And seriously, does anyone actually feel comfortable around trannies? I don't even think other gays actually like them, a topic one Feministing.com author took up awhile back. She chastised anyone who refused to date a tranny based on their (birth) gender, contending such "discrimination" belied ones acceptance of gender pliability.

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

In other Feministing news, they're pissed at Google+ for their gender options:

Users are required to provide two pieces of information: their name, and their gender. And the gender options are Male, Female, and Other...But plenty of people don’t fit into the categories Male and Female. Google+ acknowledges this somewhat, but damn, Other is such an offensive way to do so it might hurt more than it helps. People identify their genders in a myriad of ways, and “other” is just as valid a label for someone to claim as genderqueer, gender non-conforming, trans, two spirit...

My favorite part is all the names trannie-lovers have come up with: "genderqueer", "gender non-conforming", etc. They're lucky though, since my social network site would have only these options: "Male", "Female", "Pick one of the above. What the hell is wrong with you?"

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

Very rarely does any woman admit to the Roissy doctrine of sexual attraction, summed up by the aphorism: "chicks dig jerks." Here is a random YouTube video where a pretty girl admits this much (@ 0:40):

I got this girl at my high school and I've liked her for a long time, but she only sees me as a friend. How should I change things around so she will go out with me?

Be mean to her. Or, like, act uninterested.

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

Salon.com reports on hot actresses who claim to be nerds.

And so Brittany Snow admits she's a "shy nerd" -- while falling out of her sheer bra on the cover of Maxim. Megan Fox calls herself "the biggest nerd" because she loves "comic books and stuff like that" -- after FHM magazine names her the Sexiest Woman Alive. ("Stuff like that?" I'm convinced!) Kristen Stewart says she's "a dork" -- for her cover of Vogue. Jessica Alba likewise says she's "dorky." Reese Witherspoon? Another "big dork." Keri Russell? "I’m just a nerd ... I’m the opposite of cool." I'm sure they all look exactly like the Mathletes team in your home town.

Nerd-dom is not actually defined by interests, but rather social status. Vin Deisel, the uber-alpha movie star, plays Dungeons and Dragons but no one considers him a nerd due to his alpha-male status. These hot actresses can play all the nerd games they want, but their looks will always win them social capital. I wonder how many real nerds actually fall for this marketing strategy. But really though, why would this be a selling point anyway? As Jerry Seinfeld exclaimed after meeting his presumed soul mate, "I can't be with someone like me. I hate myself."

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

Here's an artist's portfolio entitled "A Girl and Her Room." (H/T: hbdchick). Perhaps the human behavior that most baffles me is interior design. I just don't get it. Never will probably. My living spaces consist of essentially no ornaments. I not only feel most comfortable in that environment, but I also wouldn't know where to begin in decorating my space anyway.

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

Finally, here's superstar singer Beyonce's latest offering: "Run the World (Girls)". Men do stuff, women brag about it (or organize fundraisers!).

Thoughts on Race Discussions in the Blogosphere

The perpetual tiffs of the anti-PC, race-conscious blogosphere continue. HalfSigma breaks up whites by intelligence, asserting that the bell curve precludes some intra-racial common ground. At In Mala Fide, WN Kievsky thinks whites should completely separate themselves from blacks. In the accompanying comment thread, the Men's Rights activists get all pissy because someone dares challenge their Rainbow (Male) Coalition. In a comment at my site on Saturday, 'Ryu' thinks whites should all just get along:

A little tolerance for your mates who help create a working society is in order. There is no man who can perform every function in the best way possible. I'm 100% sure that even in your own family, there is variance in IQ. I'm sure you wouldn't abandon your own blood. I'm also sure that if you had a child with mental retardation, you would be able to talk to him and spend time with him. This is what WN is about - race as an extended family, everyone having strengths and weaknesses. A little cordiality and you can get along with anyone.

In every post and comment sections cited, a palpable reaction underlies the arguments. When I say 'reaction', I mean that most commenters espouse a position that reacts against an out-group or at least implicitly defines his collective in opposition to anyone outside it. HS derides low-IQ whites as "proles", Kievsky thinks every black person sucks, and Ryu wants to extend the idea of family to literal strangers, exempting those of different racial constitution. Once again, we note the negativity of the alt-Right blogosphere. What some have deemed "despair-porn" reigns, the sentimentality for yesterday absent, replaced with never-ending fatalism.

So what then should we champion? Is Ryu's sort of "whites triumphantly marching" narrative appropriate or how about HS's cognitive elitism that heralds intelligence as the primary and perhaps only measure of a man? I've supported a mildly similar concept to Ryu's before, celebrating a Manifest Destiny type narrative, such as that used currently by the Israeli right. But I differ from him that I view it as a societal level ethos, not one that demands personal friendships entirely based on race or rejects those with similar individuals of another race, e.g. token, American-born Asians.

Ryu wants something that HS explicitly rejects: people of the same race bonding merely on race. I agree with HS that this will never work, but to propose a society based entirely on some human metric, such as intelligence, ignores the genetic basis of civilization. As Sam Francis has noted:

The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.

White Americans need a collective narrative, but it should be a pliable one that glorifies the general hegemony of European civilization. That way we needn't pretend that a mechanic will often find friendship with an Ivory Tower professor, but both can understand their respective contributions and historical analogues in Western society.

Further, note the often explicit way American whites define themselves - as not a minority. Many anti-PC voices seem content to bash blacks and Hispanics without also understanding that not being something is nothing. This is where mainstream conservatism succeeds while the alt-right fails; it celebrates patriotism as a value and end itself. It doesn't need a racial or intellectual foil to celebrate America. Now, I'm not criticizing the fastidious documentation of black violence; in fact, I sincerely appreciate those that do it and provide incisive analysis on the matter. Instead, I'm encouraging a complementary ethos that wants conservative improvement alongside criticism, perhaps one that sees prole whites as depressingly dysfunctional relative to their industrious, salt-of-the-earth forefathers or admires the advances of some Asian nations.

Finally, what then of "the blacks"? I've expressed my anger over the recent spate of violent beatings. In fact, I've never felt such anger writing about any other topic. And surely I encourage anger as a justified response to their subhuman behavior. But has the race-conscious Right become too preoccupied with blacks as a foil? No, not entirely. Black-Run America, both the direct concessions as in Paul Kersey's argument and the notion that liberalism exists as an excuse for black pathology, still dominates discourse. We need honesty on that subject for both politics and personal safety, even if it comes from wet blankets.

But I'd also like to see a return of the approach taken by 19th century whites (minus slavery part!) - content to keep their distance and only aggressive when needed. They viewed blacks as garrulous and energetic, but as this summer has showed, prone to uncivilized behavior in large groups. Their writings on blacks reflect an interest in evident race differences, but a largely unemotional and scientific interest that one could sum up as, "oh those silly Negroes." We need a little more of that back (and I have to write this disclaimer), minus all the "blacks are morally worthless" garbage.

Ugly "Hot" Women

Awhile back I had a post on Transformers actress Rosie Huntington-Whiteley in which I stated she legitimately looked like a man. I also wrote another post on Cameron Diaz's disturbing musculature. Well she's not alone in a category one might deem, "ugly girls everyone stupidly considers hot."

I read Hot Clicks on SI.com, basically a daily aggregate of viral links with a "Lovely Lady of the Day" pictured in each column. Given the content of the column and the overall site, one presumes the target audience is almost exclusively heterosexual men from age 18-49. Their tastes would be a putative reflection of society's conception of female beauty. But something weird often happens. We get fawning over women such as these two (both featured within the last month or so):




Other than the absurd breast implants, I don't even know where to start with these two. How exactly can any heterosexual man find them attractive? (The second girl has a pretty face though.)

My favorite Internet personalities are Internet Males who never seem satisfied with any woman, no matter how attractive she may be. One can often find them complaining about the paucity of attractive American woman, lamenting the warpigs, whores, and heifers that populate the sexual marketplace. I don't share their cynicism, primarily because attractive women still exist in the middle and upper classes. Fatness and divorce are almost exclusive to the lower classes, so just stay out of that pool in finding potential mates.

So while I don't subscribe to the fatalism of many Internet Males, something is going here. How the hell does media, male media at that, champion such women as worthy of sexual lust? Maybe we don't have an explanation (gays don't write for Maxim); just chalk it up to another oddity of modern society.

Race in 2050 America: White Hispanics to the Rescue?

Just about every week, a burst of articles emerge about the coming white minority. I've explained previously why the media continually pushes this same story over and over again:

By constantly discussing the coming white minority, they make it seem inevitable.This implies the 2050 white minority timeline is unavoidable, no matter what. They have these fancy graphs and lots of numbers. It all looks very official, with a very scholarly feel to it. And the incredulous public, the apathetic masses, believes it because the experts have divined it as such. They believe that all those graphs are set in stone, due to the authority conferred upon our academic and media classes proferring this information and the constant stream of stories telling us that's the way it will be.

But there's actually good news for those wishing to avoid Brazil 2.0: the media is lying. In a shocking twist, the media skews a story to present a narrative consistent with leftism rhetoric. In sum, the march towards our multicultural utopia, mostly a result of Hispanic fecundity, carelessly classifies all Hispanics as a monolith. Many Hispanics are actually white, with European heritage primarily from Spain. AlterNet reports:

While the Census projects that white people will make up 74 percent of the U.S. population in 2050, non-Hispanic whites will represent 46 percent and white Hispanics will represent another 28 percent. Suggesting that the latter are “minorities” defies both common sense and simple English usage.

If we include white Hispanics like Cameron Diaz, Martin Sheen, and Raquel Welch, then the white population of 2050 America will be about 74% instead of 46%. Good news?

Maybe. White Hispanics are largely the sons and daughters of Spanish parents born in Central or South America. Think Mexican telenovelas, which some have described as seemingly imported from Sweden due to all the blonds. If one considers genetics an immutable construct of man and the foundation of any civilization, then white Hispanics should fit into the average white population quite well. I surmise we should see very little difference, as quantified by such metrics as educational attainment, crime, teen pregnancy, between white Hispanics and native white Americans.

But, as we consistently focus on here, such sterile indicators of success do not define a society. We can't merely gage a society's vibrancy by noting their math test scores; we need a better, perhaps more nebulous, more controversial means of describing nations. In essence, I believe we need to consider the cultural ramifications of the white Hispanic boom, taking into account genetic predilections but not entirely blinded by such statistics.

So what of the white Hispanics who have an immediate identity rooted in Latin America, yet an ancestry in the heart of Europe? Unfortunately, I don't foresee complete cultural immersion for white Hispanics. I don't foresee white Hispanics seamlessly integrating into the majority because they share European ancestry. While genetics play an important role in motivating one's loyalty, immediate familial bonds and childhood sentimentality (for those born outside the US) often supersede the role of race. Many white Hispanics will hear Spanish at home, adhere to Latin American traditions, and feel an attachment to their parents' home countries. Their immediate cultural surroundings will be decidedly foreign; as such, this aversion or ignorance of native American customs does not portend good things for a cohesive society.

Further, and most importantly, mainstream America denigrates whiteness as empty, bland, and lacking any valuable tradition or history. Whiteness, its collective accomplishments once lauded, has become an invective, its cultural traditions now reduced to nothingness. To declare appreciation for America as a daughter of Europe marks one as a jingoistic prole and a boring loser unwilling to open himself to new experiences. Mainstream society glorifies foreign cultures and non-whites, the mystical sagacity of Asians such as Mr. Miyagi, the sexual zest of Latina women like Jennifer Lopez, and the facile coolness of black men like Jay-Z. All the positive traits of man are depicted as solely the domain of non-whites, with whites the goofy losers or nefarious evildoers.

Why then would white Hispanics willingly express their whiteness? Why would they present themselves as belonging to this maligned group? Why would they choose to assimilate with native white Americans when doing so brandishes them culturally empty? They wouldn't. Instead, they'll stick with their foreign background, language, and customs. They'll use this for social capitol, a white person who somehow eschewed the culturally enervating landscape of the West. Take Christina Aguilera, a half-white Hispanic who recorded her second album in Spanish - even though she doesn't actually speak the language. Or Selma Hayek, who plays up her Mexican heritage despite being half-Lebanese and half-Spanish. Here's a list of more white-Hispanics. Notice also that 66% of white Hispanics born in the US marry another white Hispanic, with only 28% marrying a non-Hispanic, white American.

So these white Hispanics won't commit crime or do poorly in school unlike their mestizo and indigenous peers. But their gross numbers will perhaps contribute to the increasingly globalist, multicultural, non-American culture currently championed.

The Housewife Paradigm

So I'm one of those "misogynists" who literally thinks women should go back to the kitchen. I don't say this sarcastically just to showcase my purposeful subversiveness. No, I really mean it - women should return to the home. Women should forgo the modern rat race and instead tend to their homes, their husbands, and their families.

Now I've just committed sacrilege against both the mainstream feminist doctrine and the modern notions of success and happiness. The latter demands that a career defines our value not just as practical cogs in the machine, but also as people living our lives. We apparently owe it to ourselves to pursue a career without hesitation, putting forth all our energy into something that somehow defines us as an individual and satiates our emotional desires. Women and men alike accept the idea that a career satisfies us like no other pursuit can. And of course, feminists see housewives as typifying the patriarchy - the Mad Men wife stuck in a loveless marriage without freedom to pursue her own ends, ostensibly those being in the professional world. One can never question the appeal of wage-slavery for women, as such skepticism would be an unacceptable step back in our gender progress.

But why should women leave the home? Why should they delay marriage and a family to pursue their career? Why should they spend their days working instead of cooking, cleaning, nurturing their children, and socializing? They should not, as the working world gives them something far less valuable than that offered by being a housewife.

Most women don't end up working on the Hubble telescope or curing cancer (but they sure can set up 5K's and fundraising drives!). Most women end up doing nothing more than fetch their boss' coffee. I say "fetch coffee" as a general, and purposefully insulting, term to describe almost all wage-slave jobs like administrative assistant, sales, and bookkeeping. Then you have the rabble-rousing HR harpies who do nothing but grouse or disrupt. And finally, perhaps the most popular job for young women - raising other parents' children: teacher.

So the vast majority of women leave the home to do what: fetch coffee, take phone messages, babysit, and complain. Or, they could tend to the needs of someone they truly love instead of their irascible boss. They could prepare a nice home, pristine and comfy for their husbands and family. They can be present when their children arrive home from school, for emotional support, advice, homework help, and general supervision. They can spend many of their days socializing with other neighborhood housewives, fostering communal bonds amongst nearby families who ultimately become close friends.

Instead, we encourage women to slave away in a cubicle, convincing them that such empty work offers them satisfaction not available with her own husband and children.

Let me qualify this by saying not all office work leads one into a Fight Club like stupor. There are undoubtedly interesting jobs out there and good for those who find them. But in the end, especially for women, professional accomplishment won't do it. It will feel good and it's something to be proud of, no doubt about it. But something will be missing.

Attracting an Audience to HBD

Saturday Audience Participation

Once-frequent commenter 'The Undiscovered Jew' seems to have soured on my blog. In the comments yesterday he writes:

Btw, why aren't you writing for libertarians and high IQ Republicans like Half Sigma does? I've noticed that most of the other HBD commenters have stopped showing up to comment on this blog. Maybe you ought to go back to writing for HBD libertarians and Jews so that your comment section won't be filled up with "Anonymous" posters?

WHO are your readers intended to be exactly? Who are you writing for? Half of the time I can't tell what your point is because you keep going into long winded essays about "zeitgeist". The other HBD commenters seem to have stopped commenting on your blog and even White nationalists don't seem to be coming here much. Who is your target audience?

In previous correspondence, he offered this advice:

Right now, it seems your blog posts have more appeal to more moderate paleocons, and Auster's conservative Christian audience. However, the libertarian demographic has the most potential as a foundation pillar that we can build off of in the future because the original HBD demographic is well educated, metropolitan, and young and energetic.

Could you try experimenting with attracting libertarians by blogging more about the topics Randall Parker and Half Sigma do by blogging more about science , electronics, elite schools, and economics and less on politics (I think you are already blogging sufficiently on pop culture topics)? Because electronics, economics and science attract more libertarians than politics.

So TUJ doesn't like my content nor does he think my content attracts the "right" kind of people to HBD. He contends the "right" people are libertarians and Republican yuppies, a group that IMO differs little from the SWPL cohort mocked mercilessly around these parts. Ironically, In Mala Fide contributor and moderate WN 'Ryu' mentioned me at M4Monologue, offering a decidedly different characterization of this blog:

I like Steve Sailer and OneSTDV, but their material is too high brow.

Interesting that two different people put me in the opposite group.

I agree with Ryu that my material is high-brow and I also agree that any movement, leftist, rightist, or whatever, surely helps itself by convincing the masses. But when I say the "masses", I don't mean trashy proles who put truck nuts on their cars (I need another obvious indicator of the white lumpenproletariat); I mean the Tea Party's main constituency of venerable, working-class, salt of the earth types who wouldn't feel comfortable at a cocktail party or discussing Proust, but nonetheless make good neighbors and friends. Basically, the "Then" people in Roissy's post.

TUJ doesn't care for them though; he wants yuppies interested in investment banking, their Princeton eating clubs, and Brooks Brothers shirts. He wants high-intelligence libertarians looking to make money, living in the cities, "young and energetic". TUJ covets the high-class and thinks my content doesn't attract them to HBD because I don't cover topics like, "Your Child Must go to Dalton or Exeter," and "Your Life is a Failure without a Summer House on Cape Code."

As alluded to there, I don't consider liberatarians and high-intelligence yuppies anything but status-mongers who chase ultimately unsatisfying social capitol and offer no help in preserving Western culture. Sure, their aims might mesh well with those of HBDers on the surface, but libertarianism fails because it lionizes the individual and his own status above all else. It says nothing or cares nothing for collective culture, nationalistic sentiments or narratives. And this is the primary reason why I believe TUJ has soured on my site - I focus too much on cultural conservatism instead of nerdish or elitist niches which he views as sufficient for a vibrant society. Ostensibly I disagree here, with my perspective being that a widespread and strong cultural ethos must first exist for any societal vitality to arise and for pathology to disappear.

TUJ laments my "long-winded essays" on the prevailing "zeitgeist" because he doesn't see value in anything besides the apparently pragmatic, a staple of tunnel-visioned libertarians and RINO NYC elites who get sentimental at the Euro failing but not when the Star-Spangled Banner plays. Quite simply, I don't want liberaltarians and yuppie Republicans who care nothing for Western and American culture, who don't view pre-60s America romantically, who consider an elite degree and common success instead of family and country as the ultimate avenues to happiness.

I don't want them and further I don't think they will come anyway. Perhaps they would accept the undeniable statistical arguments, but what then? Will they attack the media, big business, the government while profiting off these institutions? Will they attack the prevailing zeitgeist :) that denigrates Western culture and its peoples? Will they really attack the noble lies explaining crime, poverty, and dysfunction? Will they attack pathology and general social decay? And finally, most importantly, will they attack liberalism as an almost evil ideology that castigates whites and men for all the world's problems, that celebrates the American noble savage and excuses his moral sins, that seeks the destruction of Western nations, culture, and productivity, that champions many of the ideals undermining this nation, that essentially denies the humanity of whites? I don't see it.

This turned into more of an essay than I intended, but let's get to today's questions: Should HBD/race realism seek out libertarians and yuppies? Will they be of service or will they do nothing, as I argue above? Is the content of this blog "bad" - as in do I not write about the "right" sorts of things (define "bad content" and "right" as you wish)? Should I focus on nerdish topics and elite status climbing instead of cultural conservatism and the underpinnings of liberalism, per TUJ's argument? Do you agree with me or TUJ concerning the ultimate goals behind HBD? Have I lost sight of writing for a particular audience, as TUJ claims?