Smoking is Cool

Ahead of new graphic warning labels required on all packaging by late 2012, Time quotes US FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg on smoking:

Kids who are under the impression that smoking is cool or glamorous will be confronted by a very different reality.

I'm sorry, but did this woman ever attend high school? Or even watch Mad Men? Smoking has always been marketed as an epitomizing aspect of "cool", illustrated by sultry 1920s starlets, Marlboro frontiersmen, and Joe Kool camel. Cigarette companies promoted their product as such because it worked. The images of leather-wearing badasses, industrious cowboys, and enterprising businessman won't fade as fast as Ms. Hamburg probably imagines.

As far as kids, the intellectual class once again shows its distance from everyday life. Teenagers use smoking as an indicator of their anti-establishment cred, perhaps the most important quality of teenage "cool." Further, the notion that scare tactics such as packaging will undermine teenage cigarette use appears tenuous at best. Teenagers are known for their lack of future time orientation and most will choose in-the-moment social benedictions conferred upon smokers over protecting themselves from lung cancer in their 40s. A gross image won't do too much to dampen this teenage recklessness.

In the end, is this a bad idea? No, but I just don't think it will do much of anything. Plus, if someone doesn't know smoking is unhealthy by now, then maybe we should just hand them a Darwin Award and skip the graphic labels.

Race as a Personal vs. Abstract Concept

Last week, two black subhumans executed a nice (you can just tell from their picture) young white couple taking a nighttime walk in Tulsa. I will not comment on the specifics of the case or the unbelievable subsequent actions of one of the men as detailed in the linked article. We understand the unparalleled ubiquity of violent evil amongst blacks and we needn't repeat this scientific fact any more.

As usual, the alt-right sphere has done its diligence in covering yet another story of anti-white black violence largely ignored by the mainstream. Of course, I believe these stories must be made public. The facts of race and racially motivated violence against whites must be propagated to the masses. Everyone knows blacks commit more crime, but complacent white suburbia does not understand the level of animus many blacks feel towards whites. In their very own country, whites harbor a hostile minority that views them as the primary source of evil, with this perverse notion dominating mainstream popular culture as well.

Yet, I often feel a little uncomfortable using the personal for political aims. We need individual cases to establish a pattern, but in the end, we should not reduce the couple's memories by pushing political propaganda or making them martyrs for a racial cause. They are unique individuals, not mere political weapons. Taking advantage of such an individual tragedy, affecting individual people and individual families, seems a little invasive and disrespectful of the victims. Further, it mirrors the sort of sterile, Alinsky-type strategy employed by liberals who seek political victory at any cost. For example, at HuffPo, an example of OneSTDV's Law of Black Intellectualism uses the John Anderson racist murder as justification for censuring a white racist society. I ask, has he missed the entire summer of black on white racist beatings and mob attacks, including one this past weekend in Philadelphia?

In essence, I'm criticizing the inclination for race advocates, both left and right, to deal too much in the personal rather than the abstract. I'll illustrate with an example. Race undoubtedly matters as it underlies civilization as a whole. One can not untangle society from its majority demographic. Yet when I think of Western Civilization, I revere the abstract foundational ideals, institutions, and historical traditions of society rather than the racial groups which have supported them. Perhaps a subtle distinction, but nonetheless an imperative one. Instead of considering race a deterministic indicator of value (as in both WNs and liberal creationists), I see race as more of a collective phenomenon. Race is surely intertwined with civilization, but one must earn any corresponding distinctions through action as opposed to nepotistic inheritance.

Race exists and that alone should justify both the moral and practical autonomy of a given group. But I prefer considering race as it connects to a civilization, not to individuals. Thus, in cases like the one discussed, we focus on the pattern of black violence and not the tragedy of these individuals' deaths. Maybe we cede some emotional power underlying our arguments, but by doing so, we do not diminish their individual personhood.

Absurdity of "Back-Alley" Abortion Argument

Pro-abortion advocates have come up with some pretty dumb arguments. My favorite is the "the violinist" summed up as follows:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

A precocious twelve year-old could figure out the obvious problem here - the above analogy is only applicable for rape. Yet somehow, amongst the shrill pro-abortion advocates, this argument persists as a go-to response.

My other favorite (and the topic of this post) is another one of the most common - referring to the inevitability of unsafe "back-alley" abortions. The World Health Organization uses it in a recent paper:

Ending the silent pandemic of unsafe abortion is an urgent public-health and human-rights imperative. As with other more visible global-health issues, this scourge threatens women throughout the developing world. Every year, about 19–20 million abortions are done by individuals without the requisite skills, or in environments below minimum medical standards, or both.

Legalisation of abortion on request is a necessary but insufficient step toward improving women’s health. Access to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live. The underlying causes of morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortion today are not blood loss and infection but, rather, apathy and disdain toward women.

Back in the 70s, during the Roe v. Wade battle, the pro-abortionists use the following language:

The term “back alley abortion” describing illegal, unsafe, and often self-induced abortion became a household word in the early 1970’s, as Roe v Wade descended from the Supreme Court. The threat and fear of back alley abortions, with mental images of coat hangers, became the primary argument of legal abortion advocates, including Planned Parenthood and women’s advocacy groups.

In sum, we should legalize abortion primarily because women will seek out unsafe alternatives if no legal avenues for abortion are available. Thus, by legalizing abortion and ensuring ample access to these services, we ensure these women will not put themselves in danger by getting abortions from untrained individuals.

As usual, the pro-abortionists completely disregard the moral aspect of life, instead diverting the conversation to ancillary issues not relevant to the most important question. With their blabbering about women's health, rights, and sex education, abortion advocates refuse to acknowledge the tenable notion that life begins as conception and that any proceeding demarcation is wholly arbitrary. In continually re-framing the debate away from the definition of life and consistent with society's glorification of female choice, the abortion advocates end up supporting some idiotic ideas.

Imagine this argument applied to other immoral acts. I present two generalized versions of the abortion argument, with examples following (some apply to the converse):

(1) We must legalize/permit an immoral act because if we do not, people will find an alternative option that is illegal, unsafe, and more dangerous. (Equivalently: We must legalize/permit an immoral act because if we do not, people will engage in even more destructive behavior.)

(2) We must legalize/permit an immoral act because if we do not, negative consequences will occur.

If we legalized murder, then no one would have to kill witnesses. (1)

If we legalized rape, then far fewer men would kill their rape victims. (1)

If we legalized murder, then murderers would not have to waste time covering up the crimes. (2)

If we legalized murder, then there would be less people in jail, thus undermining the Prison Industrial Complex. (2)

If we legalized drunk driving, drunk drivers could be more relaxed, thus driving better, because they would not worry about being caught. (1)

If we legalized assault-based muggings, then muggers would engage in far fewer armed-robberies and connected murders. (1)

If women would just relax and let it happen, there would not be so much vaginal injury during rape. (2)

If all women would agree to sex with any man, then men would not have to resort to rape to get sex. (1)

If more 13 year-olds in America agreed to sex, then men would not have to spend all that money to go to Thailand to find willing adolescents. (2)

Basically, all the arguments above are absurd because the initial premise (legalizing some horrible act) is indefensible. In each situation subsequent evil will often occur in the absence of legalization (e.g. killing witnesses), but we do not legalize an act merely as a means of avoiding subsequent evil. So while coat-hanger abortions are surely something we want to avoid, permitting abortion/murder is not an acceptable trade-off.

Whites Stealing Black Achievements

The more extreme ideologies always enjoy engaging in conspiracy theories. It goes something like this:

Our group is superior to other group. But our group has less power than this other group. The other group, fearing an upheaval from our group, engages in surreptitious methods to undermine our group.

Now I don't want to reject conspiracy theory type thinking altogether, as I have a good deal of sympathy for "conspiracy-lite". This less nefarious type of collusion isn't entirely conscious; it instead arises from individuals sharing particular ideals and acting upon their independent motivations. These ideals often arise from societal-level cultural phenomenon, meaning these individuals come to their values independently yet simultaneously. Their group efforts then appear indistinguishable to the undiscerning outsider from a conspiracy, though, as noted, the standard definition would not apply.

Amongst the more strident anti-racists, the "White Man" conspiracy theory is quite popular. In addition to structural racism, whites also created crack, AIDS, and prison sentencing all in an effort to keep down minorities, especially blacks. If one excuses blacks for all their personal failings, I suppose such a viewpoint would appear tenable. After all, these individuals blame whites for everything bad in the world, so why not do so for unprotected sex as well?

Yet, they don't stop there. Anti-racists then argue that whites have created civilization entirely on the work of blacks and other minorities. And don't think this type of thinking is exclusive to Internet cranks (guess who will show up in this post's comment thread?). Here's a Berkeley student named Keith Africano (I didn't make that up) on the white man's pilfering of black genius. The context is Berkeley Republicans holding an affirmative action bake sale whereby they charge whites more than minorities, perhaps the most overdone campus protest out there.

If you're going to compare the Bake Sale to Affirmative Action…the only way it would be comparable is if the flour, oven, and all baking materials were stolen from the people that are required to pay the lowest prices. And if the baked goods from all prior bake sales were made for free by the minorities while white students reaped all the profits…which resulted in unequal opportunities to purchase baked goods in the current sale.

In other words, blacks and other minorities have done all the work in this country and whites have taken credit for it. In the slave-South, maybe one could get away with such an argument. Blacks did most of the labor, at least on large plantations. Yet even then, the structure of society, including national and local government, the day-to-day organization of schools, churches, and trade, and technological advancements prior to the Industrial Revolution were all pioneered by whites. After the Industrial Revolution, when intellectual fortitude became supplanting physical strength as the most valuable commodity, blacks have contributed essentially nothing. In addition to the working masses, an insignificant percentage of great American achievements were developed by blacks or another minority (oh wait - the Supersoaker and the stop light!). Watt, Ford, the Wright Brothers, Gates, and the Google guys were all white men. Maybe there's a black guy locked away in Steve Jobs' basement giving him all his ideas? If not, the claim that whites steal minority achievements appears rather dubious.

Yet this sort of idiocy persists, with even a Berkeley student championing it (I guarantee he's an example of OneSTDV's Law of Black Intellectualism). While we can surely point to hatred making people crazy, I think something perhaps more sinister is going on here. Due to the fabrication of white privilege, these liberal creationists actually believe that whites can not accomplish anything. It's not only that whites have unfairly succeeded due to their skin color, but they also could not have done so without that advantage. Further, blacks have this dormant potential that whites have not only kept down, but also have used for their own advancement.

And thus we get:


[Note: Upon reading the quote again after writing this post, one could argue the writer was referring to slavery and not current labor. However, I have seen the interpretation I argue against put forth quite often from other individuals. If you can find a more direct quote, please link to it in the comments.]

Positive Mood Technology!

Saw a commercial for Welltabs late one night:

Their website describes the product's effects:

Welltabs are the result of years of research and combine the best, clinically evaluated, natural ingredients from around the world to:

* calm and refresh your mind and body
* help you feel physically & emotionally energized & stronger
* promote an overall sense of well-being
* promote a positive mood
* help you feel your very best, both physically and emotionally

But if you're not convinced yet, let me inform you of their seminal breakthrough:

Welltabs are the only product available with Positive Mood Technology^TM.

Can someone tell me who actually falls for this crap? In general, I think people actually don't listen to what others say. Advertisements then capitalize on this by including vague buzzwords and hoping snazzy images do the rest of the work. This type of advertising strategy underlies almost the entire self-help/New-Age industry. For example, I recently came across the phrase "Power of Possibility". It sure sounds good, but it really doesn't mean anything. Perhaps the efficacy of these campaigns illustrates just how irrational humans are.

Though, maybe a lot of people realize the stupidity, yet simply don't care. I mean, if my massage therapist wants to burn candles because it "invigorates one's aura", I'll smirk and let her do it. Sometimes we just like to escape and don't really care what illogical means get us there.

Internet Gossip about Real Life People

Saturday Audience Participation

I almost always try to avoid the type of socializing that often arises on the Internet, especially within niche spheres of discourse. So I never get into flame wars, challenge someone to a physical altercation (is there anything more ridiculous than this?), or gossip abut other bloggers. Avoiding flame wars isn't that hard since I know it won't really do anything but exacerbate someone's animus towards me.

But I have often consumed Internet gossip because the anonymity of online interactions makes one wonder who's on the other side. It's natural to imagine the words and ideas coming from an actual person, with real life responsibilities, acquaintances, and motives. And whenever that portal to real life opens, even if just the wild suppositions of other commenters, it gets sort of exciting.

The blog formerly known as Roissy is the source of much hypothesis in this part of the web. There are all sorts of theories about the site, the person writing it, the addition of extra authors, and the motivation behind the name changes. Admittedly, I've always been quite interested in who writes the blog and how people seem to know about who writes the blog.

Today's questions: Do you often wonder about online acquaintances in real life? Any person in the reactionary sphere who you think you definitely have figured out (Do not reveal others' personal information, will be deleted!)? How many people write for Roissy/CR/Heartiste? What's with all the name changes? Who writes for Roissy/CR/Heartiste and does this include the original author? Why do so many people think the original author left?

[Disclaimer: I understand that a specific "outing" has occurred. Any link to that information will be deleted. Hypotheses about Roissy/CR/Heartiste must not include any personal information such as street addresses or full names. If the blogger(s) in charge of Heartiste ask me to take down this post, I will do so.]

Rick Perry on Immigration

Rick Perry has jumped the shark. He's totally on board with illegals:

Mr. Romney sought to capitalize on the concern among many conservatives about Mr. Perry’s position on illegal immigration, harshly criticizing the Texas policy that allows illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities.

Offering an impassioned defense of that policy — and receiving boos from a segment of the audience — Mr. Perry did not back down, saying, “If you say that we should not educate children that have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought here by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”

Mainstream conservatives, like the insufferable Allahpundit at HotAir, couch their opposition in pragmatic terms, both excusing Perry's prostrating as strategizing for the Latino vote and arguing against illegals due to some tripe about "our laws." But here at OneSTDV, we understand that a compromise must exist between tangible, practical options and those of a less quantitative bent, such as the importance of culture and nationalism. Note that Perry tries this, eschewing policy debate on subsidizations by trying to elicit emotional sympathy towards the illegal children.

And who doesn't get teary-eyed thinking about Jose, the little cholo that could, just trying to make it in this big bad world? Well, not me. But I don't care that much about the wasted tax dollars; it's likely not too substantial given the other racial wealth distribution already happening in (BRA) America. Instead, I'm far more concerned about the social and cultural impact of nurturing a generation of illegals. It goes without saying that American exceptionalism can not work the kind of miracles expected of this country nor do I want a multicultural brown utopia anyway. I summed up my position on third-world immigration two years ago:

It doesn't make sense to import entire groups of people who can't create productive countries themselves.

As for Perry's main stance, oft-repeated in the mainstream, that we should not punish children for their parents transgressions. While uttered by a conservative (extremist?) like Perry, the notion derives entirely from liberal thought - that any inherited "problem" should be rectified by government or some other external entity. So the stupid must become smart, the fat beautiful, and the unsuccessful rich. Can some people ever just get the short end of the stick? I guess that only applies to crack babies, though liberals have somehow not blamed the drug abusers for that problem as well.

In the end, American citizenship is not a birthright, even for those born here. The mainstream will never be able to articulate an argument against anchor babies because it refuses to adopt the correct vocabulary and narrative. They refuse to acknowledge anything besides negative incentive and economics in challenging illegal immigration.

Finally, I ask why is it such a punishment to deport illegals or to oppose legal immigration? Aren't their home countries full of vibrant People of Color without the white man oppressing them? Aren't these countries the preferred destination spot of excited young SWPLs looking for a personally edifying experience away from home? Maybe we reduce the potential immigrant's autonomy, but surely staying at home surrounded by all those awesome black and brown people must provide just as rich a quality of life? In fact, dare I say it's RAACCIISSTTT that so many pro-immigrationists exult America as better than third-world countries. (Feel free to troll lefty sites with that argument.)

Real Life Examples of Game

There's significant interest amongst the reactionary sphere in Game; though I prefer we call it "sexual realism" as to delineate between practical romantic advice and scientific facts evinced by Game's effectiveness. In general, I read Roissy not for advice on how to "open" an "HB7" in a "set" while demonstrating "DHV" and escalating "kino" until at least a "number close." I'm not saying it doesn't work, it's just that I read Roissy (the only Game blog I read) for an unrestricted view of how women act. I find his content both absolutely hilarious and, somewhat frighteningly, all true.

Now why do so many bio-conservatives have an interest in Game - primarily because it dismantles the pristine image of women. Liberalism lionizes women as the responsible gender, unlike the aggressive, shallow, and dumb man. Yet male attraction is quite simple and straightforward, largely based on evolutionary indicators of fertility. Until feminists tried to convince everyone career ambition superseded physical attractiveness, male sexuality was considered healthy. Now men are described as "creepy", while the media sympathizes with women just searching for a "nice guy" who will treat her right.

Game, and moreso Roissy's unabashedly anti-PC version, rejects this premise, instead offering a narrative of sexual relations that depicts women as emotional, vindicative, and acting entirely based on urges emanating in their hindbrains. It's this correct analysis that makes Game discourse so wonderfully interesting and it largely depends on the scientific basis of the content.

I always get very excited when I encounter Game in the "wild". Salon.com has an advice column that reads like it's straight from Roissy's blog. I copy excerpts from a number of recent columns below:

I'm through dating jerks but nice guys bore me:

I worry that I just don't like these nice guys and I know that's f-ed up, but this is what's going on. Right now, I am dating an extremely nice man. We had a really, really fun first few dates. He's extremely good to me, if a little cheesy/overzealous. He's a self-professed dork and sometimes his insecurity (ironic, huh?) gets in the way of our actually connecting, in my opinion...He just sent me a sweet email saying one of the sweet overzealous things he says, and whereas before I thought it was kind of goofy but nice, now I'm not feeling much.

A bisexual sociopath wrecked my life:

I recently broke up with a boyfriend of two years, and though I know it was for the best ... I can't seem to move on. I clung on to this man longer than I should have, and made him the center of my universe and now my center is gone. I don't know how to move on and I don't know how to be alone.

This man is charming, and he showed me a way to live a fun and exciting life like I've always dreamed of. I've always been the responsible one. I'm a lawyer and mother and though I dreamed of having a crazy party-driven life, I never really tasted that life until I was with my ex-boyfriend. I derived my sense of self-esteem from him, because he was so handsome and so charming and I couldn't believe such a handsome man would be interested in me. [Lots more in this one!]

My sister's husband put a loaded gun to her head:

My sister has been married for two years and within weeks of the wedding her husband and mother-in-law started emotionally and verbally abusing her. I don't believe there has been any physical abuse but her husband has pointed a loaded gun at my sister's head...The problem is currently my sister and her husband are getting along great according to them. He has said he recognizes he was wrong and that my sister was wrong but that they now have had a good relationship for two months.

My sister insists that part of their problem stems from us not being nice to him but I don't know how to be nice to someone WHO POINTED A LOADED GUN AT MY SISTER.

He dumps me, then says, Can we be friends?:

About six months ago, the man I thought I was going to marry left me unceremoniously for another woman. During the aftermath -- the moving out, the settling of affairs -- he acted cruelly and horribly, cementing the split and making damn sure I didn't come back. I spent much of the next few months depressed, having constant nightmares about him, unable to get out of bed and constantly self-medicating, because the reality of my situation was too much to face...I started dating a nice man who makes me feel loved and is kind enough to both give me my space and be there to help me heal.

And then I received an email from my ex nonchalantly asking if we could be friends again...In a way I hadn't before, I miss him desperately. I wake up every morning wishing he was next to me. I've shut everybody out again, stopped looking for work, and spend most of my days sleeping, yet again. I'm lost and I don't know how to pull out of this again. Although I know with every fiber of my rational mind that I should not contact him and that no good can come of having him in my life, I am overwhelmed with these feelings that I can only explain away as female biology. My brain is trying to find ways to rationalize the following statement: "If he is no longer with her, it stands to reason that he should be with me again."

Once again, as in women who try to conceive over 40, I don't know whether to laugh. OK, admittedly I laughed hysterically reading every one of these, but I didn't know whether to feel bad about it. Some say Game is a necessity in order to reign in women as a collective, with that meaning ensuring women willingly enter into stable family life, motherhood, and nurturing the next generation. Until that becomes reality, when betas realize the futility of "nice guy" supplication, men like those profiled will perhaps increase their monopoly on attractive, young women.

[Disclaimer: We here at OneSTDV do still love the bitches anyway.]

The Craziest of Feminism

Earlier this year, Jessica Valenti quit Feministing.com, the young feminists site she founded in 2004. I read Feministing daily because it provides perhaps the best representation of leftist insanity. But apparently that's not good enough for some people. I described this phenomenon in a post entitled Race to the Intellectual Bottom:

In the more insular of environments, this desire [to push the envelope further] 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.

At a post on Womanist-Musings, one of the more popular feminist blogs, the author harangues Ms. Valenti for all the stuff Ms. Valenti supposedly supports. Trigger warning - the most insane crap you have ever read.

Let's be clear shall we, Feministing has a history of transhphobia, classism, lesbophobia, racism, and cissexism.

I suggest that Jessica has trotted to the top of the line on the backs of marginalized women. Do you think if Valenti were lesbian, trans, of colour, or disabled, that she would be where she is today?

The minute I heard that she was pregnant, I knew that it would not be long before she started adding her special spin to motherhood. There isn't a female identity that the woman isn't willing to profit from. You know, part of giving up privilege and making room for others involves shutting the hell up.

I am tired of White women being made the standard and being allowed to speak on behalf of all women.

Do we really need another straight, able bodied, White cis woman of class privilege, giving us her view on motherhood? A simple glance at the books on feminist motherhood at seal press reveals that Valenti fits right in. The truth is, I could give a fuck about hearing what another White woman like Valenti has to say about being a mother.

Goodbye, Jessica, and I hope not to see or hear your voice again. I know that this is wishful thinking because your history has made it clear that profiting when others are struggling is something you hardly find problematic.

In essence, the author argues that Ms. Valenti, on the account of her race, sexuality, and "able-boded-ness (?)", has no authority to speak on anything. Now imagine trying to argue with this woman. Even speaking or making eye contact while she fulminates about "privilege" would be considered some "-ism" in her eyes. As I've said before, if they want to complain, let them. But I'm done hearing it and I'm sick of society trying to placate intractable personalities such as the one profiled above. They can concoct whatever "ism" they want to, yet fewer people will listen to their incessant whining. Sooner or later, even the sympathetic will tire of these blowhards' unending discontent.

In general, it does appear that this sort of insanity, often obscured by academic rhetoric, is most common in organized feminism. While we can chide this woman for her ostensible insanity and rage, one wonders how far from mainstream feminism does this woman reside?

I first discovered the twilight zone of academic leftism during an elective seminar in college. The professor was a crusading campus liberal, though she ran a very good seminar class and discussion. She looked at issues rather judiciously and seemed open to opposing points of view. I knew she was a liberal, but I respected her. Then, about 3/4 of the way through the semester, the week's reading was on a number of her published articles. I sat in the library to read her articles and about halfway through I simply couldn't contain myself. I wanted to show this crap off to everyone else.

Now, I've imbibed so much feminist literature that their insanity has become mundane. Yet at that time, the idiocy left me completely perplexed, thinking "does anyone actually believe this crap?" Sofia actually came across the same idea I did in her feminist studies class:

“For example, the terms power and potency refer to both state capability and male virility. Military force depends on phallic objects — weapons designed to shoot projectiles, penetrate targets and explode.”

My professor argued that fighter jets were anti-woman due to their phallic shape. It took me a few seconds to register what exactly "phallic" meant, but as soon as I understood...It occurred to me that despite taking her class and hearing this woman lecture for almost an entire semester, I still had no idea what kind of inanity lurked below the surface.

College: Then and Now

One could argue that modern liberalism has its most potent effect during college, both inside and outside the classroom. Liberal professors get to the kids during the day, while liberal-supported hedonism dominates the night. As colleges have become more egalitarian (can't wait till HYP goes to open admissions like CUNY), letting in kids with no academic potential and little interest in such pursuits, the campus culture has become increasingly less serious. Further, campus social traditions have been rejected as archaic, replaced by diversity initiatives and gender-neutral programming. No longer nurturing dignified young men of either intellectual fortitude or upper class lineage, colleges now house average people looking to "get so fucking wasting" before they drop out after 1.5 years. Principally, drinking, fraternity/social club/sports initiations, and general teenage adventurousness no longer resemble the previously healthy, though slightly rebellious, activities once intended for bonding amongst friends.

Then (from Rick Perry's Texas A&M college yearbook):


Now:

Race Realism and Intellectuals

I came across a funny article from The Onion entitled Educated Bigot That Much More Terrifying (H/T: Mangan's):

FAYETTEVILLE, AR—After arguing with a well-read, articulate racist Wednesday, area man Daniel Truett described the experience as "bone-chilling," telling reporters it was far scarier than any encounter with an ignorant bigot ever could have been. "I've met some intolerant assholes in my time, but never one who could quote passages from Booker T. Washington's Up From Slavery to make his point," said Truett, who raised objections to the man's racial prejudices, but found his opponent was able to anticipate each of his arguments and counter them point by point. "And the most terrifying part of all is that he's obviously intelligent enough to know he's a hateful, bigoted person, which means he must actually be okay with that fact." Later that evening, Truett felt even more conflicted after hearing the very same bigot perform an exquisite and nuanced rendition of the Dvorak cello concerto.

While having an undoubtedly liberal bent, The Onion does often present incredibly funny and sometimes poignant content. The above article points to a genuine phenomenon, one likely encountered by the astute individuals who frequent this blog (you're welcome). American race-conscious reactionaries don't fit the standard media mold of "racist": the bucolic hick with no education or dignity. Besides the often genuine admiration of Asian societies, race realists express (or at least should express) an informed opinion on race matters, supported by knowledge of relevant studies and social patterns. In other words, our arguments don't reduce to indiscriminate hatred, but instead depend on a spiritual defense of traditionally white nations coupled with an understanding of demography and destiny.

Yet, this false characterization of HBDers like Sailer and Jared Taylor persists. In a recent video, Mr. Taylor explains the importance of white identity. In a post on the video, Mangan asserts that "Ordinary white Americans need to see this video." I understand Mangan's point that white America must "wake up" to the increasingly hostile culture and nation in which they reside. However, I hesitate in championing a fully populist message of race realism, at least until the message reaches critical mass amongst the intellectual class.

I've spoken before about "social proof" in regards to supporting positions antithetical to the liberal doctrine. In sum, anti-PC opinions are best promoted by individuals who have public authority independent of their political views, such as Nobel Prize winner William Shockley and brilliant sci-fi writer Michael Crichton. In the context of race, Yalies like Taylor and astrophysicists like Michael Hart really do scare preening liberals because they should "know better." And the fact that individuals like Taylor and Steve Sailer don't "know better" means that indoctrination of the intellectual class can sometimes fail.

But what happens when the message of race realism gets to individuals who lack the intellectual acumen of my readers (you're welcome again). Will the message get lost amongst slurs and illogical arguments? Will the message be undermined before it can even start spreading amongst the intellectual class, a process undoubtedly underway due to the existence of websites like this one and growing college groups like Youth for Western Civilization? Race realism, once an axiomatic fact of humanity, needs a renaissance. It literally needs to be reborn in the cultural and intellectual sphere. Is it better to incubate the "movement" amongst academics and highly educated individuals, like JP Rushton, Michael Levin, and Richard Lynn, in order to legitimize it before spreading it to the public? While some will dismiss my misgivings, I know that HBD statistics and arguments can be misused or combined with uncouth rhetoric that just has no place in a dignified (majority-white) America.

In brief, I envision two means of combating the anti-white political and cultural landscape. First, the intellectual elites, such as Taylor, continue offering the same erudite content, hoping that more Ivy Leaguers get the message. Do not underestimate the power of a "fancy" degree in affecting public discourse. In this strategy, the message trickles down from society's appointed authority figures. Race realism takes advantage of our oligarchic system by using credentialism and automatic intellectual prestige afforded to academia. In addition to the trivial matter of being true, HBD could take hold as a bizarro incarnation of 1960's campus leftism, whereby crusading college students rejected the status quo and viewed themselves as impactful rebels. I know personally I get a real thrill out of telling someone, "no I hate libertarians; I'm a hardcore right-winger and I like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage".

Or, a populist message, not unlike the Tea Party or a slightly more pointed defense of America as an extension of European society, could take hold. Mirroring a nonviolent underclass uprising, the "people on the street", those who watch anti-white TV, get bashed for going to Tea Party rallies, and have to go to school with blacks and Mexicans, start throwing their collective weight around. Any successful political ideology must convince the people and, as Bill Buckley famously avered, I'd rather be governed by the ordinary than by the PC-stupid "extraordinary." The elites can undermine the organizing efforts of the masses, as in media censorship of this summer's flash mobs, but that can't last forever. Something has to drop and perhaps the direct efforts of the voting population will ultimately do it.

In the end, I imagine a two-pronged approach will work best (see Communism). We'll see though as 2012 may give us more insight into the evolution of race in America.

Raising Children with Traditionalism vs. Game

In yesterday's comment thread about the Amish, "Joe Schmoe" details the Amish-lite way in which he raises his children:

I'm trying to emulate the Amish. We live in Los Angeles, but we are trying to raise our kids in the most traditional environment possible. Obviously, this means private school or homeschooling, rejecting most of popular culture, and carefully choosing the experiences they will have...Everything that our kids read, play, and do is carefully selected to protect them from the toxic popular culture.

Mr. Schmoe envisions a better future with traditionalism making a comeback:

I do think that eventually, the majority culture will right itself. Eventually the people who choose to drop out will become the majority, and once that happens the popular culture will start to reflect their values rather than be antithetical to them.

His comments got me thinking about how we ought to raise our children (primarily boys) in the midst of this depressive cultural landscape. Most would presume the primary difficulty is sheltering children from all the filth in popular media, from salacious content to anti-American leftism. This will undoubtedly present a challenge to the conscientiousness traditionalist, but a closely guarded childhood may do the trick, a fact Stalin once famously expressed. So if we can create a suitable environment in which to raise traditionalist children, then what drawbacks may arise in such a situation?

While I applaud Mr. Schmoe's efforts, I imagine it won't prove successful for everyone. We live in a connected world and thus a complete isolation from the mainstream's growing hedonism may often fail. In essence, instead of inculcating our children with traditionalist values, should we instead just give in to the system and "enjoy the decline"? I don't like it because I prefer a Normal Rockwell conception of America, but if others refuse to participate, is such iconoclasm from modern orthodoxy worth it? Will our children (especially boys) ultimately find more happiness in a system that they understand given the reactionary's better grasp of gender and social relations?

In sum, I admire those that repudiate modern norms, instead pursuing a way of life far healthier than the malaise of modern liberalism. But revolutionaries often must endure the most struggle. In the end, the masses will laud their bravery, yet most simply don't want to wait for only future benefits.

In responding to my "traditionalist manifesto" Roissy indirectly gives his answer to this dilemma:

The gears slicked with the sweat and blood of obedient middle class beta fodder have already been set in motion, and the machine demands tribute. Trying to stop and reverse the gluttony of its belching maw is a fool’s errand. There is but one tried-and-true solution: nuke the beast from orbit.

In the meantime, I’ll be poolside, getting my tan on.

In other words, "screw you, I'll get mine before the shit hits the fan." I'm confident in asserting that Roissy has genuine sympathy for traditionalism, yet he figures it's better to milk the system (e.g. naive women) than live a sexually ascetic lifestyle as a means of motivating social reform.

So in raising our children, should we teach boys the tricks of Game and social dynamics, knowing that the corresponding tactics undermine the society we aspire to? For example, I don't want my kid selling pot, but I know it will make him popular and give him a 'badass' reputation with middle and high school girls. I don't want him being an all-around asshole to everyone, but I know it will afford him social status amongst other kids. I don't want him dressing like a New England prep schooler or a ghetto wigger, but I know it will get him positive attention from certain groups. I don't want him vandalizing property or shoplifting, but it's an extremely easy way to attract girls with a bad boy fetish (read: almost all of them). I don't want him wasting money for college on his car, but nice cars work great on a Friday night out.

If we, as those who use evo-psych for "evil", actively promote these behaviors or do nothing to dissuade him from doing so, we've failed in raising the next generation for a traditionalist renaissance. But our children will undoubtedly reap the benefits of our transgressions. And isn't that the most important thing - to provide the best for our children, our very own children and not those of larger society?

The Amish

Saturday Audience Participation

For some reason, I don't recall ever seeing a discussion of the Amish in the reactionary sphere.

Today's questions: What are your general thoughts on the Amish? Ever met or spoken to an Amish person? Why do almost all of the Amish return after rumspringa? Are the Amish "missing out"? Would you feel comfortable in such an isolated environment?

Hypothetical Health Insurance Question and Conservative Compassion

The big controversy from this week's Republican debate revolved around a hypothetical health insurance situation.

"A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?" asked host Wolf Blitzer.

Ron Paul gives the correct answer, albeit after a predictable poke at government largess:

"That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks."

One of my favorite movie quotes, spoken by a man in a green suit and mask, comes from the first Spiderman movie:

In life, we are who we choose to be.

But I won't pretend that this isn't a tough situation. I think people are ultimately responsible for themselves, an ideal I support completely independent of political bent. But I also won't belittle those rueful emotions when we look back and wish things had gone differently or that we had done something else. We all have regrets. I ask should one pay the ultimate price because of a wrong turn born of an impetuousness we all suffer from occasionally?

Since this is a political debate, we must consider the practical here - where the money comes from, forcing doctors to work, and pushing out the people who actually pay for their care. Life is undoubtedly unfair, but it doesn't mean we celebrate that inequity as much as tolerate it. Of course, the audience didn't exactly react in this manner as many appeared to actively champion the man's death. Many Tea Party audience members enthusiastically yelled out in favor of the hypothetical man perishing.

Noting this, sanctimonious NYT pundit Paul Krugman opines on the ostensible lack of compassion amongst conservatives:

Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.

Unsurprisingly, partisan hack Krugman uses this article as a harangue against Republicans, though he does sort of have a point. The Tea Party has seemed to embrace a sterile form of small government politics. While those like myself look at small government as a practical necessity for both economics and our basic freedoms, we still understand the apparent benedictions of free healthcare, welfare, and the like. In other words, these programs are horribly expensive and unfair to taxpayers, but at least one can sympathize with the ultimate objective - helping out those with a justifiable need, e.g. the guy who goes to work every single day to flip burgers.

So while maybe I'd let the hypothetical guy die, I surely would feel awful about it. This compassion now appears absent from the most ideologically pure conservatives or more likely just the libertarian wing. As I've written before, these libertard zealots have little besides some vague notion of freedom to both underpin their values and to display their conservative bona fides. Cheering for a man's death, even if by his own hand, is partisanship at its very worst.

Healthy Diet Propaganda

In an odd coalescence of far-left and far-right skepticism, AlterNet.com has recently been pushing the paleo diet quite strongly, in addition to their worthwhile criticisms of Big Pharma. Unsurprisingly, AlterNet castigates corporate interests as primarily motivating this junk science and wildly successful marketing schemes, a cogent argument that does however leave out the leftist underpinnings of vegetarianism. But if we merely resolve to save lives, then I'll gladly focus on corporate rapaciousness in order to support this odd union of interests between the paleo-reactionary camp and the "all-natural"-leftists.

In addition to a post entitled "The Paleo Diet: Should You Eat Like a "Caveman?", AlterNet has a comprehensive history of the modern breakfast. The "heart-healthy whole grain" mantra of Kellogg's and other sugary breakfast cereal companies surely departs from the initial motivation of Mr. Kellogg himself:

Seeking to provide sanitarium patients with meatless anti-aphrodisiac breakfasts in 1894, Michigan Seventh-Day Adventist surgeon and anti-masturbation activist John Kellogg developed the process of flaking cooked grains. Hence Corn Flakes. Hence Rice Krispies. Hence a rift between Kellogg and his business partner/brother, who wanted to sweeten Kellogg's cereals in hopes of selling more. Guess who won.

Kellogg's anti-masturbation campaign mirrors that of Asian monks who imbibe soy to inhibit their sexual desires. No wonder so many SWPL men who drink soy milk come off as effeminate, even to their female vegetarian peers.

We see here the ubiquitous connection between food and social behavior, with SWPLs downing arugula, sushi, and hummus as evidence of their rarefied status. While I don't agree entirely with their focus, AlterNet does appear to understand the substantial and often subtle relationship between what we eat and who we are. Generalizing, the desire for personal wealth and status arises in almost every human endeavor, even in purportedly scientific enterprises like nutrition. Continuing with other staples of a "well-balanced meal", AlterNet discusses the history of orange juice, yogurt, and coffee:

"Cold cereals are an invention of vegetarians and the health-food industry, first through Kellogg's and then through C.W. Post, which steals all of Kellogg's ideas," Smith explains.

As is orange juice, another breakfast contrivance marketed as healthy for kids. Media buzz about vitamin C and advances in pasteurization spawned the orange-juice industry in the 1930s, turning an obscure luxury into a household necessity...Hamilton is outraged that commercial orange juice is "advertised as pure, fresh, and additive-free. Those who buy orange juice buy the stories that the industry tells."

Traditional elsewhere, yogurt was considered freakish in the US when General Mills began promoting it heavily as a "health food" in the early 1970s. The US yogurt industry is now worth over $4 billion a year. A single one-serving container of General Mills-owned Yoplait fruit yogurt contains 28 grams, or seven teaspoonsful, of sugar. (Health food?)

Before Starbucks, "coffee in America was generic. It didn't have to taste good. But now everybody's talking about this special blend that just came in yesterday from Guatemala."

Very interesting stuff as it shows how the modern notion of "health" derives not from science but from clever marketing strategies designed to fool an incredulous public. Now let's see what breakfast previously looked like at a time when today's standard fat person would be considered a circus freak:

Pre-industrial Americans loaded up on protein-rich eggs, sausages, ham and American-style belly-fat bacon along with ancient carb classics: mush, pancakes, bread.

Sounds pretty paleo to me, especially if you consider how much grains have changed just in the last century. In a book entitled Wheat Belly, cardiologist Dr. William Davis argues that wheat causes almost all of modern disease, so much so that he considers it even worse than sugar. He relays the history of wheat and how what we eat today is a heavily modified version of the wheat our early agriculture ancestors harvested:

Bread and other foods made from wheat have sustained humans for centuries, but the wheat of our ancestors is not the same as modern commercial wheat that reaches your breakfast, lunch and dinner table. From the original strains of wild grass harvested by early humans, wheat has exploded to more than 25,000 varieties, virtually all of them the result of human intervention.

Hybridization efforts of the past fifty years have generated numerous additional changes in the gluten-coding genes in Triticum aestivum, most of them purposeful modifications of the “D” genome that confer baking and aesthetic characteristics on flour. It is therefore the the “D” genome of modern Triticum aestivum that, having been the focus of all manner of shenanigans by plant geneticists, has accumulated substantial changes in genetically determined characteristics of gluten proteins.

Yet the "heart-healthy" diet persists with the help of government, corporate, and academic propaganda. In general, I haven't focused much on propaganda despite corporate interests doing such a fabulous job of marketing their products. These days, some entrepreneurial company could market dog droppings as healthy given snazzy packaging adorned with buzzwords like "organic", "all-natural", and "no added preservatives." Use a picture of some quiet pasture with a fabricated Eastern background to the food and you're all set.

I don't know though whether the spread of this BS derives from the plain stupidity of the American public, self-important SWPLs included. Corporate and government entities put forth a consistent message about what to eat. Other than those of a decidedly skeptical bent or those with serious health problems like celiac disease, most people just don't have a reason to not believe. And it would simply be bad business for some company to go against the grain (no shame with such a fantastic pun).

"Daggering" White Cops and America's Cultural Racial Hierarchy

The following video (link for better quality) originally from race realist black video site WorldStarHipHop.com symbolizes so much of what's wrong with America today, especially in the context of our cultural racial hierarchy. The video is Less Safe for Work as it includes a Caribbean "dance" move called "daggering" defined as below:

Some call it “dry sex” on the dance floor of a dance or party, but daggering is where a man and woman are dancing in a sexually provocative manner, which usually includes them simulating various sexual positions, and often times, rough sex, to the beat of whatever music is playing at the time.

Daggering is a Jamaican term used to describe extremely rough sex where the penis is used in a dagger like fashion to repeatedly stab at the vagina in violent and plundering manner.

The video follows, with a Trigger Warning for corpulent West Indian women with less clothing than inhibition.



One first notices the unsurprising display of feral sexuality in such a public setting. Long known for their "freak dancing", blacks have somehow taken simulated sex to another level. As usual, blacks have little recourse in expressing their carnal desires for all to see. Even 19th century race realists (read: everyone) noted this ostensible lack of inhibition likely deriving from a relatively heightened carnality present in the average black person. Quite simply, many blacks simply can't help themselves because their biology demands they act as such.

Of course, our culture implicitly condones such behavior and thus blacks have no motivation to stop what they're doing, or apparently even try to tone it down. After all, welfare motherhood, out-of-wedlock babies, sluttiness, heck maybe even STDs are all inventions of the racist white patriarchy and anyone who finds the above video deplorable is an ignorant hater. Continuing with this notion, the video is a vivid representation of America given the race and status of the men.

The men are members of the NYPD likely present to discourage the mayhem that occurs when almost any large group of blacks congregate. Yet instead of providing a calming and authoritative presence, the white NYPD cops attempt to curry favor from the black crowd. They do so by mimicking a cultural behavior popular amongst the black parade participants. The positive response from the black crowd is met with satisfied smirks and evident appreciation from the white cops. This perverse role reversal typifies our larger societal racial hierarchy in that "we" view blacks as the arbiters of culture. Depicted as culturally empty, whites are told via commercials, TV shows, and general media that whatever blacks are doing is innovative and cool. And thus whites must adopt black mannerisms, dress, and behavior to have access to any cultural vigor.

As a result, whites lose authority to police (see what I did there :) ) depressive cultural trends amongst blacks and other minorities. So instead of keeping everyone in line (read: no shootings), the white cops try to ingratiate themselves to the ultimate leaders of society, a power blacks in the BRA now have even over government authority.

Reflexive Political Ideologies

An article posted at Jezebel summarizes a recent study on happiness. In opposition to the delusions of Jezebel's resident harpies, the unhappiest person in the world is a feminist's worst nightmare:

A survey of such folks reports that the least happy among them is "a 42 year old, unmarried woman with a household income under $100 thousand, working in a professional position (i.e. as a doctor or a lawyer)."

But you probably saw that coming. Instead of discussing that, let me highlight two comments from the post whereby stay at home mothers lament feminists persistently denigrating their traditionalist choice:

Not to mention...since when is "Mommy" a job deserving of ridicule? I've been a SAHM for ten years now, and I think it's a ton more important and valuable than lots of outside-the-house jobs. I had babies. I decided that having had them I needed to be there for and with them every day. It had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with me feeling that--for me, personally--it was more important that I be there with them than to be in an office making just enough money working in customer service to pay for daycare.

I decided when I got pregnant that I'd be doing a new job: "Mommy." I really can't see it as somehow less valuable than answering phones for a credit card bank.

I especially love that second comment, as I made an almost identical point recently. Note here the purported discord between feminism and a traditionally feminine lifestyle choice. One wonders why, if feminism celebrates gender freedom of choice as the preeminent value, do they consistently grouse about stay at home mothers who appear content with their decision. Feminists simply can't stop bashing these women, mothers, faithful wives who reject mundane office paper-pushing for the more emotionally fulfilling "work" of raising a family.

Yet if feminism merely demands that women have choice above all else, then what's the problem? In sum, feminism is what I've deemed a "reflexive political ideology" concerned more with criticism and cynicism than erecting a viable cultural and political environment. In only seeking to normalize the abnormal (e.g. trannies and fatties), feminists attain political power by constantly moving the goalposts and never explicitly defining what type of society they would actually find suitable. Feminism is forever in a state of despair, with implicit offerings of commiseration aiding both a large scale political strategy and an effective marketing campaign for incipient zealots.

Unsurprisingly, this sort of "despair porn" works on both sides of the political spectrum, with many content to merely antagonize rather than criticize with a specific goal in mind. I've covered Ron Paul's libertarianism and Matt Taibbi's "fuck everything" rhetoric as prominent examples of this mindset. So clearly those that merely want to "watch the world burn", to quote The Dark Knight, reside in every political camp. I won't belabor a point I've made a few times before though. Basically, I know that a moral, social, and cultural foundation must exist for criticism to actually have any valuable consequences. Those that hate everything and everyone aren't the sorts of individuals I want in my utopic community nor do they have much to offer besides an all-consuming pessimism with an attractiveness that diminishes given maturity and a deeper understanding of society.

American Patriotism and Racial Identity

Yesterday saw an outpouring of American patriotism, with USA chants at NFL stadiums, solemn hymns sung about this great republic, and flags waving in our hands and outside our homes. While this type of unbridled nationalism appears almost exclusively around July 4th, occasional moments of rah-rah-America sentiment pepper our daily lives. Almost all of us bow our heads during the national anthem and realize the blessings of this nation while viewing foreign calamities. But amidst the rhetoric, the platitudes, and the symbolic gestures, how does the populace actually view this nation? And further, what of the reactionary who revels in his iconoclasm and dares reject modern PC collectivism?

A few years back, Jared Taylor and Steve Sailer had an online debate over "white nationalism", with Taylor, editor of AmRen, taking the affirmative position. Taylor summarizes Sailer's dismissal of explicitly pro-white politics as follows:

1. The natural object of our loyalties should be the current citizens of our country, and their interests are served by restricting immigration.

2. Whites will spurn any movement (including immigration control) that is based on an appeal to racial solidarity.

3. They do this for two reasons: They are idealistic and consider such appeals beneath their dignity, and secretly they do not think non-whites are going to take their jobs.

4. White racial consciousness must at least imply hostility towards blacks, and mobilizing hostility is a waste of effort that should go into immigration control.

In another post, Taylor outlines why colorblind politics have failed, at least for whites:

The whole idea of the Civil Rights Movement was for everyone to dismantle racial consciousness and become a happy band of brother/citizens. American whites made a genuine effort at this—at least they passed legislation and struck public poses consistent with it—but no one else did. When whites abandoned their collective interests it was unilateral disarmament. Every other group rushed to exploit this weakness.

In sum, Taylor and Sailer's primary disagreement stems from the practical rather than the philosophical. Both seek a nation with an understanding of race differences that ultimately undermines our current anti-white political and social environment. Sailer argues that we should avoid explicitly pro-white initiatives, while Taylor sees this as the only option given the past fifty years of increasingly aggressive identity politics. While both present tenable arguments for their respective sides (IMHO - Sailer tries too hard to maintain whatever mainstream credibility he currently has left), only Sailer seems justifiably concerned with how white Americans actually view their nation racially.

Amidst all the flag waving and bromidic speeches about "freedom" and "liberty", there exists only an undeniably vague conception of what America actually is. It's three colors, we know that. It's about "freedom" and "responsibility" and "being the greatest country on Earth" - but the rhetoric of today's patriotism never quite makes anything explicit. We dare not laud our military hegemony. We never celebrate our native academic, scientific, and technological preeminence. We refuse to make explicit comparisons between us and other nations, such as, "We're simply better than you." Yet we still engage in these ostentatious displays of patriotism, celebrating something that exists but we can't really even define.

Of course, as with all nations, this comes to down race. In essence, is American patriotism now just the empty slogan of a disjointed collective? The cry of an enervated people who have little to unite them besides sterile propositions and philosophical ideas? In the aforementioned debate, Sailer argues that white Americans' idealism towards our multicultural nation will undermine any attempt at an exclusive white nationalism. And isn't he correct if we think about what American patriotism has become? Even buzzwords like "traditional" and "ancestral" have become taboo and rife with all sorts of anti-PC undertones. We can wave flags, but we can't make our loyalty explicit in anything but a globalist context.

So where does this leave the race-conscious reactionary? Does he give up on the country he founded, the country inexplicably linked to his genetic lineage? Perhaps the previous discussion would have one presume otherwise, but I say no. All too often amongst the alt-rightosphere, commenters seek to criticize and lament the current situation. And since much of this despair is entirely reflexive, they repudiate mainstream patriotism as well. Further, they argue that America has been lost to inimical political and cultural forces that stigmatize whites (men).

Of course, I've done much to advertise how liberalism has co-opted our traditional institutions in order to antagonize and undermine whites (men). So then how can one also "root" for America when that entity no longer exists as it once did? Because that historical narrative specific to America means too much to forget. That narrative told by the hard work and bravery of white Americans (men) can not be thrown away due to this current attack. The collective pride that motivates old and young must live on. I do understand the pessimism regarding how liberals have perverted the flag, but it still very much means something to me. And I hope that in pockets around the country, it still resonates and represents the traditional society of America's past.

This Week in Positivity: Surprise Return

Just something to put a smile on your face.



Sometimes we need to remember what politics and culture ultimately give us - a chance to find happiness in our personal lives, however we may chose to do so.

Online and Offline Social Spheres

Saturday Audience Participation

Amanda Marcotte (yes that Amanda Marcotte) actually wrote a worthwhile post about the distinction, or lack thereof, between our online and offline lives. She argues that despite common misgivings about Internet addiction and the soulless nature of technological communication, the Internet is ultimately positive for social relationships:

I think it's troubling to continue with the assumption that there's a meaningful distinction between online and offline life. And it's particularly troubling to believe that time online is time spent away from our loved ones or time spent away from engaging meaningful with people. Beyond that, people use the internet to enhance their social life more than to escape it. I keep in touch with friends and family better because of it and have met some of my best friends through the internet. But it's more than that---the way that the internet and real life blend makes "stay off the internet" just plain stupid some times.

So seriously, let's stop with the false assumptions that being online is somehow anti-people. In many cases, it's made being around people exponentially easier.

As someone who spends a lot of time online, mostly writing this blog, looking at pictures of pretty girls, reading the news, reading political commentary, and checking sports stuff (I generally avoid e-mailing), this is a topic that interests me. Further, since my online interests are rather taboo in real life, I do sometimes have to distinguish between the two. Sometimes though, I find myself encountering a real world situation that has been discussed on a site like Roissy and immediately thinking of online discourse. But enough about me - onto the questions.

Today's questions: Do you separate offline and online parts of your life? How has reading reactionary and Manosphere blogs seeped into your real life? Do you take precautions, such as obsessively clearing your browser history, to ensure no one finds out that you read anti-PC sites? How do you use the web for socializing - Facebook, Twitter, Myspace (just kidding on that last one)? Have you expanded your social network via new social media or made real life connections that sprung solely out of online correspondence? Should people make a concerted effort to separate real life from online pursuits? Do you wish to connect with online correspondents (e.g. others who frequent anti-PC sites) or do you prefer to keep that strictly online?

[Hilarious but sad cautionary tale from Chuck about online socializing.]

Miscellany on Guilty Pleasures

Matt Yglesias wrote a short post on guilty pleasures decrying the entire concept:

I don’t believe in guilt! It’s all pleasure. But I like Katy Perry and Lilly Allen.

I know it’s just a turn of phrase, but I think the whole conceptual framework of “guilty pleasures” speaks to some weird underlying puritanical elements in American life. Despite the whole “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” thing in the Declaration of Independence, our public culture is very resistant to the idea that people should try to spend more time doing things they enjoy or that producing enjoyment for others is a good thing to do in life.

Yglesias blames the notion of "guilty pleasures" on "weird underlying puritanical elements in American life", a somewhat odd target given that I'd focus on social status as the primary motivation. Yglesias castigates some ambiguous "public culture" that frowns upon some particular interests and in doing so, he seems to falsely believe American culture derides frivolous pursuits. But are guilty pleasures necessarily frivolous? I mean, would most in our society consider The Godfather a guilty pleasure? Probably not, but besides some rather weak concept of iconic culture, what's the grave importance of liking that movie?

However, Yglesias does actually get the point of a guilty pleasure as evinced by his examples - Katy Perry and Lily Allen. A guilty pleasure is liking something that lowers one's social capital due to status by association. It's also why so many suburban kids like rap; they associate with a hyper-masculine art form and hope to have those aspects rub off on them, or at least have others unconsciously attribute those characteristics to them independent of actual observed behavior. I'd say the most common guilty pleasure occurs when straight men like something ostensibly female, like watching Gossip Girl or listening to Lady Gaga. Not sure if guilty pleasures even applies to women, likely due to the fact that female social status is almost entirely dependent on looks and not perceived social dominance.

Myself - I do have one absurd guilty pleasure that I will never speak about on here. I've mentioned watching Glee and believe me, it's probably even worse. In general though, I have no problem admitting my interest in vapid and obvious popular culture, especially movies. While many of my socioeconomic class feign interest in such fare as Memento and Donnie Darko, I fully admit to hating such abstruse works. I like movies with special effects, straightforward, chronological stories, and pretty girls. Simple as that. If I want to do a puzzle, I clear space on my floor, not open up the DVD player. Clearly, I like to keep my entertainment and intellectual stimulation entirely separate.

Thinking then about the notion of intellectual guilty pleasures, with certain social pressures extant amongst certain intellectual peer groups, can one extend the notion of guilty pleasures past stuff like Katy Perry and reality TV? And how does the SWPL notion of "ironic interest" connect with guilty pleasures? I'll leave that for the comments.

Racial Views of Old Dead White Men

I found this article from TheRoot.com entitled Races: Are We So Different? It summarizes an exhibit from the American Anthropological Society that's one big Lewontin Fallacy in its many forms. Note here that the AAS sponsors the exhibit, once again illustrating why we can no longer trust government agencies to provide accurate information.

In sum, as with most other race liberal works like Fatal Invention and The History of White People (IMHO, one of my best posts with lots of debunking info), the exhibit argues that anachronistic white people created race for political purposes. Europeans crafted a narrative that fabricated race out of thin air then attributed all positive aspects of humanity to whiteness, with notions of Asian intelligence and probity conveniently ignored. Here's the author of Fatal Invention, Dorothy Roberts:

I can say very definitively that race is an invented political system; it is not a natural biological condition of human beings. The human species is a single race. It is not biologically divided up into distinguishable races.

Studies show differently, from UMich professor Noah Rosenberg (this undermines the entire exhibit, oh well):

In one of the most extensive of these studies to date, considering 1,056 individuals from 52 human populations, with each individual genotyped for 377 autosomal microsatellite markers, we found that individuals could be partitioned into six main genetic clusters, five of which corresponded to Africa, Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas.

Loosely speaking, it is these small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance—across oceans, the Himalayas, and the Sahara—that provide the basis for the ability of STRUCTURE to identify clusters that correspond to geographic regions.

Fittingly, whenever we encounter some old dead white man pontificating about racial differences, race liberals tell us to understand the cultural context of such thoughts. When we read some 19th century naturalist or intellectual enumerating the behavioral patterns of blacks and whites, race liberals tell us to reject these ideas as influenced by a false cultural environment. When we read seemingly scientific analysis of gender or racial differences, such as skull shapes, race liberals tell us to understand how these scientists could not escape the cultural pressure of presumed European superiority.

Yet one asks what if these scientists and intellectuals thought and wrote independent of their cultural surroundings. What if they, gasp, actually believed what they said about blacks and that this type of candor is absent from today's discourse solely due to our own social pressure. What if we live in the time of deceit, not our purportedly uncouth forebearers.

So how could one go about proving this? Perhaps we can look at known iconoclasts, individuals who forthrightly went against the prevailing wisdom of their time no matter the personal cost. These individuals would have not been afraid to question whatever cherished ideals existed and thus their writings on race should represent honest observations. If a man risks his life for one particular truth, then he nothing stops him from doing so in other areas as well.

Let's first look at Charles Darwin, saint of the anti-Christian liberals. He was so afraid of religious opposition to his theory of natural selection that he waited almost two decades to publish his opus. Here's his view of racial differences [updated: replaced falsely attributed quote]:

The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

How about another saint of liberalism, Abe Lincoln, the man who started an entire Civil War and abolished the centuries-old practice of slavery, something half the country surely did not like. This apostasy later cost him his life. Here's his view on freed slaves:

I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.

And finally Gandhi, yet another patron saint of liberalism who lead his country to independence from the British. Here's his extremely negative view of blacks. (One could argue that the British gave Indians these ideas, yet Gandhi clearly opposed to British predominance.)

Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals... The kaffirs' sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness. They're loafers... a species of humanity almost unknown among the Indians.

That's three men who fought against entrenched ideas of their time, yet for some unknown reason (\sarcasm), they all held onto these seemingly false racial views. This racial obstinacy does not mesh with their very public displays of heterodoxy and thus the notion of an omnipotent cultural zeitgeist affecting their writings appears greatly exaggerated.

40-something Fertility: How Dumb Can Some Women Be?

With all its blathering about social construction, feminism has created a generation of stupid women. Now, nature has imbued women with "eternal solipsism", so feminism has a good basis on which to work. But the level of stupidity expressed by this Sex and the City generation could not have possibly arisen organically. Here's an article profiling SWPL New York women on how their age-declining fertility contradicts their youthful outward appearance:

FORTY may be the new 30, but try telling that to your ovaries.

Advances in beauty products and dermatology, not to mention manic devotion to yoga, Pilates and other exercise obsessions, are making it possible for large numbers of women to look admirably younger than their years. But doctors fear that they are creating a widening disconnect between what women see in the mirror and what’s happening to their reproductive organs.

The NYT actually found women who allowed their inanity to be printed:

“Everyone in my life told me how young I looked for my age,” she said. “I assumed it was the same on the inside as it was on the outside.”

“I watch what I eat, I don’t drink, I take extremely good care of myself, and I come from a very fertile family.”

“I’ve spent hours of my life and a lot of money making sure I was healthy, and that my hair was shiny, my teeth were white and my complexion clear,” said Ms. Foss, a magazine editor in New York City. After all, she noted, those same traits of youth and beauty “are all the hallmarks of fertility.” “I’d based a lot of my self-worth on looking young and fertile, and to have that not be the case was really depressing and shocking,” she said.

A recent poll conducted by BabyCenter.com, a parenting portal with an average of 25 million visitors a month worldwide, found that 74 percent of the poll’s 1,900 respondents thought that looking and feeling good and being healthy over all was as important as biological age when trying to conceive.

“I have patients who say: ‘I’m 48 but everyone thinks I’m 38. Shouldn’t I be as fertile as a 38-year-old?’ ”

Should we just laugh at them? Laugh at how these idiots bought into feminist garbage about age being merely a number imposed upon them by the patriarchy? Laugh at how these women chose a "career" in fashion design and party planning over having a child and now must face the biological consequences? Laugh at the utter stupidity of these women who think that Mother Nature will wait for them to finish their mojitos and their ride around the man carousel? Maybe we should say, "I told you so" to these deluded women who thought Botox would save them and worshiped the unrestrained lifestyles of 40-something Hollywood.

I usually try to understand the other side. I try to sympathize with liberal/progressive/female delusion primarily because I know we all suffer from insecurities. So I've conceded the underlying motivations of fat acceptance, helicopter parenting, and female career ambition as partly justified. (Of course, understanding their motivation does not equate with condoning their societal-level initiatives as I vehemently oppose almost all of their nefarious programs.)

Yet in this case, I'm really having trouble being sympathetic. I don't want to see a 40 year-old women cry because she really did want a child and waited too long to have one. But in life, we are the choices we make (I think that was from Spiderman, the 2002 movie). And unfortunately, these women have allowed their own solipsism to predominate.

Nice White Lady Teachers Going Galt

Last month, I advocated that whites pack their stuff up and "go their own way."

Whites need to simply go their own way. I'm not just talking extreme white flight. I mean, boycott McDonald's for their 365Black garbage. Do not work in occupations that primarily cater to black and Hispanic communities. Do not buy products that will profit, including in a social context, blacks and Hispanics. Do not go to restaurants with entire wait staffs of Mexicans. Do not give money to charities for "poor people". Do not go to a "diverse" Church.

Enough with the incessant complaining from blacks and Hispanics. If they don't want to live under the evil white man, then we'll grant them that wish. But they should not expect help from all those benevolent whites who have now "gone Galt" due to their unending discontent:

If blacks and Hispanics want to complain incessantly about white racism and oppression, then give them what they want. Whites are dropping out of society and going their own way. "Underperforming minorities" can have their own schools all to themselves. They can have their own neighborhoods, their own businesses, and their own cultures. They can live without those white interlopers stealing from them. They can live their lives free of those evil white people. Let's see how they like a de facto segregated society where whites simply ignore their unending petulance.

Shockingly though I'm not alone - professional race-baiter Dr. Boyce Watkins (see OneSTDV's Law of Black Intellectualism) of Syracuse University thinks nice white ladies should not teach black and brown children. Dr. Watkins rants about the low expectations of culturally ignorant white teachers after a first-grade teacher in New Jersey described her students as "future criminals." He begins with the standard gambit concerning whitey keeping tha brothas down:

While O’Brien’s frustration is certainly understandable, it’s not difficult to see that her comments are rooted in the same racial bias that destroys so many Black and brown children in America’s broken school system. Although Ms. O’Brien would like to believe that these six-year-old children have already routed themselves to prison, the truth is that she herself has incarcerated her kids in the prison of low expectations. Instead of spending her time trying to elevate their minds to become doctors, lawyers and professors, Ms. O’Brien seems to believe that the most she can do for her six-year old’s is keep them out of jail.

But then, per his more extreme race hustling, Dr. Watkins champions race-based teaching positions:

If Ms. O’Brien can’t handle little Black kids, she doesn’t need to be teaching them. The school district in Paterson would be wise to realize that there are thousands of highly-qualified Black and brown teachers, consultants and counselors who know how to handle Black children. Unfortunately, the overseers of our educational systems would rather have the Black/brown inner city children poisoned by the white female teacher from the suburbs than to have that child exposed to someone like myself or Dr. Marc Lamont Hill at Columbia University (you know, those controversial and “dangerous” Black men). So, in some ways, even as adults, many of us are still being treated like the children in Ms. O’Brien’s class – “at risk Black boys” simply receive a label transformation into “dangerous Black men” when we enter adulthood.

So let's give him that wish. How about we fully segregate the classrooms too? And for consistency, I also don't want my white child learning from a black/brown teacher who lacks the cultural fluency necessary to teach well-behaved suburban white kids from two parent homes.

Anyone else want to guess what would happen if schools fired all those nice white ladies? Dr. Watkins actually believes that these nice white ladies are "poisoning" the minds of these potential black doctors with their suburban voodoo and insidious whiteness. From my vantage point, it would appear these nice white ladies provide just about the only stable authority figure present in these kids' lives; unless we consider an incarcerated baby daddy a proper parental role model. But perhaps my judgment is clouded by white racism, right?

Per Dr. Watkins risible animosity, one notes the incessant unhappiness of black America no matter how much whites try to help them. These suburban white women spend their entire day babysitting black/brown America's recalcitrant little "angels" and Dr. Watkins only sees fit to complain that Ms. White Lady can't turn all of them into physicists. Further, Dr. Watkins never considers that perhaps she's right - that maybe these kids are misbehaving independent of some magical white evil perpetrated upon them. And that maybe, just maybe, these Facebook rants reflect an exasperated, but honest teacher and not a hateful bigot.

Finally, I wonder how many nice white lady elementary school teachers become race realists after front-line duty like this? Is the teachers lounge at PS 100 on Martin Luther King Blvd a veritable haven of race realism? I've always thought that none of these anti-racists could have possibly attended public schools, as there's no better argument for HBD than a few years in a "diverse" environment. While teachers get little support within the reactionary sphere, I've always believed their stubbornness resulted moreso from the travails of daily life in the "blackboard jungle" rather than greediness.