The Wickedest Links

1. Bruce Charlton wonders if the perpetual lying of the ruling elite is having a biological effect on their brain wiring.

After years and years of conditioning in dishonesty, the typical modern intellectual (whether journalist, scientist, lawyer, teacher, doctor or whatever) becomes physically unable to think straight.

Thus the lack of common sense of the ‘Clever Sillies’ who rule modern societies and are driving them into suicide and self-destruction may, in practice, be intractable – short of mass repentance and long-term rehabilitation and retraining of neural pathways and connections.

I can think of another method that would work to wonderfully focus the mind and bring common sense back.

******

2. A study from June 2012 finds that porn was a direct cause of 10% of all divorces in the US in the 1960s and 1970s.

We test whether pornography causes divorce. Using state-level panel data on the divorce rate and sales of Playboy magazine, we document a strong cross-sectional and time-series relation between lagged sales of Playboy and the divorce rate. The simple correlation between divorce and sales lagged two years is 44 percent, with a T-statistic of 20. This large correlation is robust to using only the first half of the sample, adjusting for all state-level heterogeneity and for any time trends by including state and year fixed effects, and using an instrumental variable to correct for any possible endogeneity in Playboy sales. Divorce rates are also significantly correlated with sales of Penthouse but they are not correlated with sales of Time magazine. Our overall estimates suggest that pornography probably caused 10 percent of all divorces in the United States in the sixties and seventies.

Options = instability. Porn isn’t a male sexual market option in the traditional sense, but it is an option in the hindbrain sense. The viewing of porn satiates the libido and tricks the gene’s prime directive into believing — that is, biochemically reacting as if — it has been fulfilled. Married men who watch porn are, in a truncated fashion, having dalliances with hundreds of sexy mistresses. Combine this phantom psychological grooming of feeling like one has limitless high quality mate options with the bursting female obesity epidemic that took off right around the same time porn ejaculated onto the cultural mainstream, and the only surprise is that the deadly one-two punch didn’t directly account for more than 10% of divorces.

In case you’re wondering, yes, female porn — aka pulp romance novels, celebrity tabloids, and soap operas — which coincidentally also took off as a cultural phenomenon in the 1960s, has likely contributed to marital dissolution as female consumers feed their growing hunger for alpha male love and drama and consequently drive a wedge of dissatisfaction between them and their real-life beta male spouses.

******

3. Chinese aren’t on board with the whole “democracy is great!” Western line of thought. Fancy that! Human population groups aren’t fungible, in either capability or sensibility. HBDers will nod knowingly at this latest revelation into real diversity, but the ruling elite, steeped and suffocating in a stinking silo of their own shibboleths, will grapple with this unsettling information the best way they know how: By silencing discussion.

******

4. Speaking of silencing discussion, it appears that the Left is now fully committed to the principle of speech restrictions. Ah, the Left. Remember those lovable guys? The ones who used to whine about witch hunts and censorship by the antediluvian Right? Yeah, well, times have changed, and victory in the endless war over less enlightened white people requires a… reassessment… of battle tactics. Now that the truths being uncovered are discrediting just about everything the current incarnation of the Left believes, and that the Cathedral is being mischievously subverted by agents provocateur who don’t fear them and in fact love taking a steaming dump in their faces, cherished principles will need to be adjusted to accommodate some progressive speech suppression so that no one’s feelings are hurt, except for the feelings of those implacable moral reprobates who don’t toe the party line. Naturally, the leftoids are confident they can pull off their inspired con, because the top of the rank is filled to brimming with the sorts of people who evolved an exquisite verbal facility for sophistry.

******

5. Boys with sisters are more likely to be Republicans. Correlational? Causative? Who knows, but this does hint that men who are exposed to female nature early in life and continuing forward are inclined to drift to the political right. The reason for that should be obvious: The earthy, organic right is where a realistic appraisal of the world substitutes for idealistic zeal in the perfectibility of humans. Or: Sisters be keepin’ it real, yo.

******

6. This is the closest to realtalk anyone on Fox News has ever come. But Bill O’Reilly still can’t pull the shroud all the way back and confront the id head-on. He blames the destruction of the nuclear family for blacks’ failings, failings to which, admirably, he gives a clean airing, but the truth goes a bit deeper, and a lot uglier. As some liberal Cablinasians will inform him, black family dissolution likely has a cause itself, an intractable cause that originates in the neural gears, and that, when left to grind mercilessly and free from cultural constraint, ultimately propels the social dystopia of sky high single momhood rates and parasitic criminality. The fear to face the id by the left and right is understandable. Blame the family breakdown, and you leave hope that amelioration is possible. But admit that dark, ancient forces woven into the architecture of the brain itself are at work, and all hope is lost. And when hope is lost, what is there left to meddle in for morally posturing and preening leftoids?

I have a suggestion for discouraged leftoids with nothing Left to do: Ban soda! Obesity is a more recent emergence, and preaching fire and brimstone against refined grains, sugar and soda can go a long way to beautifying the country.

******

7. For purposes of artistic license, I was a little glib in my assertion above that the reversal of black (and white) family breakdown isn’t possible or will have no effect on overall social dysfunction. Of course, this is not true. Contra some trailblazing determinists, the relatively ahistorical recent rise of single momhood proves that it has a social component as well as a genetic one. But without a realization by the ruling equalism-adhering elite that underlying human mental algorithms which evolved over tens of thousands of years manifest as social phenomena, there can be no effective policy crafted that will competently address the problem of black, and now increasingly, white dysfunction. But in order for a pro-nuclear family policy to find success, it must violate in some way the liberal ur-moral aesthetics of harm and fairness. That is, no public policy with the goal of constraining and redirecting evolved social preferences that are at odds with advanced civilization will work unless, to put it metaphorically, the lash is taken to delusions about untrammeled individualism and nonjudgmentalism.

For a real world example of what such a policy would constitute, consider the following: There once was a time when a relentless shaming campaign to stop jaywalking was public and social policy. And it worked. Jaywalking dropped precipitously. We can do the same with single moms, thuglets, fly-by-night cads, and blubbery fatties: Mock them. Mock them until they are on the verge of self-deliverance. Mock them until their pain is so acute and palpable that it serves as a warning to others contemplating the same life paths. Humans are at heart a social species, and nothing clears the mind and alters the behavior like a scorching psychological scaphism in the town square.

Will some people’s feelings get hurt? You bet. But there is more on this moral earth than is dreamt of in the cramped, claustrophobic moral attic of tunnel-visioned leftoids who can only see a fatty crying but miss a nation groaning under the weight of millions of fatties.





Comments


  1. The welfare state really set off the rot. Once you free people from needing to fend for themselves — give ’em three squares and a cot, so to speak — they rapidly descend into their more feral natures. So give a naturally lazy and unambitious black male the ability to NOT work, and he won’t. It’s really that simple.

    Unfortunately, the people that run and pimp for the welfare state — high IQ whites and Jews — cannot themselves comprehend minds so dull, so they assume blacks are just like them. Must be something else making them so lazy and…. RACISM!

    On top of this, layer a relentless media disinformation campaign about white privilege, black oppression, yadda yadda and you create the perfect storm of shiftless blacks and browns and a gigantic eco-system of white enablers and excusers.

    Nature always takes its course unless whipped into shape (we call that “civilization”). Blacks CAN be turned into at least reasonably civilized people, but it takes iron-clad societal willpower. And yes, that means shaming and threats and even executions when needed. What, you don’t think lynching served a very valid purpose? Of course it did (lots of white hoodlums were lynched as well).

    Sadly, by letting the rot fester for so long, we’ve made the problem far worse, as the welfare culture also spawned a typical African Big Man culture (aka Alpha a-holes) and they, in turn, spawned more of the spawn. My guess is that the typical black today is less intelligent and significantly more violent/impulsive than the typical black of fifty years ago as a result of the government’s multi-trillion dollar dysgenics program.

    Like


    • In fairness to these black, and increasing white men, who don’t want to work, remember, the jobs they are likely to get, are much less pleasant than the jobs the elites end up with. You really have to be motivated, by discomfort, to get up, and go do some of these jobs.

      Like


      • on July 23, 2013 at 3:06 pm Zombie Shane

        > “The Wickedest Links”

        The Taiwanese dudes have made a parody of the Kate Middleton labor and delivery:

        Having watched that video, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that those dudes are at least lurkers in the manosphere.

        Or however you translate “manosphere” into Koumintang.

        They even have the Duke of Cambridge getting Steve Nash’ed.

        PS: Speaking of Steve Nash, it turns out that JJ Redick signed a legal contract with his girlfriend in order to have the product of their miscegenation murdered in an abortuary:

        http://deadspin.com/j-j-redick-and-his-ex-girlfriend-had-an-abortion-contr-883029608

        Sigh.

        End Times.

        Like


      • Lara provides yet another data point, as if any more were needed, that women should not be allowed to vote.

        Sweetbuns, until LBJ’s War on Female Chastity, men had to work at these unpleasant jobs and women had to find a man to care for them and their chilluns, or else nobody had food to eat or a pot to piss in. Now, Uncle Samantha acts as unrequited beta-male orbiter who gets to pay the rent for bastard spawn, yet never gets to lay any pipe in his bitches.

        Really, any woman on welfare of any sort should have to be available for one (1) fucking per day from one (1) man who actually works for a living and pays his taxes. It’s just equitable, right? I mean, he’s holding up his end of the bargain, paying you to exist, so doesn’t he have a right to your vaj? Oh, yes, he does.

        Like


      • I always thought that should be the trade off for women who get birth control/ prophylaxis from the gub’ment. I mean hey, they Us to pay so they can have safe sex, so they are kinda in a similar stance to women who are paid to have sex. women on welfare for more than a short-term basis should just be sterilized ( maybe save the eggs beforehand for women who can’t have kids and would support them via a family if they could).

        Like


    • I’ve had people, who work office jobs, tell me using your brain can be just as exhausting. I know a man, who did both, and he said, no way, once you’ve worked a demanding physical job, you will never complain about an office job again.

      Like


      • on July 23, 2013 at 5:46 pm Modern Primitive

        Yep, 100% truth.

        Like


      • Try doing something with high-level calculus and physics (say, college classes), Then tell me that.

        Like


      • Try spending twelve hours a day on your feet in 100 degree+ heat, lugging very heavy objects from one place to another as fast as you possibly can. Try getting off work and being caked in grease and dirt and having your back, arms, legs and feet be so sore that it’s a struggle to climb into your car to drive home. My dad did that type of work for over thirty years. His body is so torn up that he can no longer make it up the two steps onto his front porch, or get up out of a chair without help. I’m not saying your job isn’t hard. But exhausting? You don’t know the meaning of the word, son.

        Like


      • Consider yourself told. My professional life revolves around engineering calculus and scientific programming. Indoors, in an air-conditioned office. It beats the hell out of working outside.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 11:33 am Hugh G. Rection

        Yup. Aside from boredom which I find absolutely mentally draining it’s easy going. Beats lugging trashcans around.

        Like


      • I’ve done both. Trust me, sweating your ass off is much harder. There’s a reason I work a desk these days.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 8:38 am Dan Fletcher

        Having done physical labor in extreme heat when I was in school and now having a cushy programmer office job, I agree.

        That’s not to downplay the mental exhaustion that comes with cognitively demanding jobs. My brain is mush after a long day of programming.

        Still, their are days when I yearn for the simplicity and immediate gratification of manual labor.

        Like


      • “nobody knows de troubo I feels, nobody know but jeebus” –white people.

        LOL

        Like


      • Which is why I have a hobby farm. After ten hours of brain frenzy “working from the neck down” is a welcome break. But note that cutting and stacking firewood that you will one day burn in your own stove is WAY BETTER than cutting and stacking firewood for someone else for $10 per hour.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 10:58 pm Hugh G. Rection

        Physical labor definitely has a satisfactory component to it, something I sometimes find lacking in my desk job. Like for example the feelings of actually getting something useful done.

        Like


      • The expression “It sucks, but it beats digging a ditch for a living” didn’t come from nowhere.

        Like


    • Yep. White bastardy was loping along at circa 2% and black bastardy had declined to less than 20% when LBJ launched his War on Female Chastity and Probity, after which black bastardy skyrocketed and white bastardy began a slow climb. Blacks now are about 80% likely to be born without a daddy and whites are almost up to 50%. Essentially the welfare state pays for women to have bastard spawn with alpha badboy losers, and anytime you give people money to do something, you’ll get more of that something, duh, QED.

      Oh, and did I mention these single mommies will vote Democrap again and again and that their bastard spawn will almost certainly follow in mom’s footsteps and also be loyal Democraps? You betcha.

      Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 7:09 am Zombie Lyndon Johnson

        > “Oh, and did I mention these single mommies will vote Democrap again and again and that their bastard spawn will almost certainly follow in mom’s footsteps and also be loyal Democraps?”

        By design, young man.

        By design.

        MOO HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

        Like


    • yes. the ruling class are misguided
      altruists.

      also the day of the rope cant come soon enough.

      Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 11:35 am Zombie Shane

        > “the ruling class are misguided altruists.”

        No they aren’t.

        The ruling class is a bunch of nihilists who are [currently*] using their propaganda techniques to fool idiots like you into believing that they are nothing more than “misguided altruists”.

        But, in reality, there’s nothing altruistic [misguided or otherwise] about them at all.

        They only bother to fool you into believing that they are “misguided altruists” because it’s a technique which has worked pretty well for them over the last few years [or decades].

        On the other hand, the greatest mistake which you can make – if you find yourself in any sort of a pseudo-intellectual pseudo-argument with these nihilists – the greatest mistake which you can make is to force yourself to adhere to Marquess-of-Queensbury rules and to engage the enemy as though it were SINCERE in what it was saying.

        *And just as soon as the patina of “misguided altruism” loses its appeal [to whomever it needs to appeal], they’ll flip on a dime, and adopt some other technique – “misguided totalitarian butchery”** – or whatever it takes.

        Remember, you’re dealing with nihilists, and, ultimately, all they care about is the destruction and annihilation and eradication of YOU.

        **And after watching the shenanigans of Bill Clinton and Eliot Sptizer and Anthony Weiner and their ilk, I’d say that “misguided altruism” is slowly evolving into something like “misguided would-be porn star satyrism & associated cult-figure celebrity idolatry”, or similar.

        Meaning that a guy like Anthony Weiner might actually be FAKING all of this shiznat, under a theory which holds that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity”.

        Like


      • The ruling class is Machiavellian. Their grey haired, cat lady, unitarian foot soldiers are the misguided altruists.

        Like


      • @ Zombie – True. “Don’t bother to examine a folly – ask yourselves only what it accomplishes.”

        The liberal elites are nihilists, since the philosophers they study are nihilists.

        Like


    • You are spouting just as much ignorance as this media disinformation campaign you alluded to. Except those who run the media know that they’re spouting lies and have an agenda. You, on the other hand come across as just another pawn in the global elite’s game of white supremacy.

      Like


      • If this nameless, faceless, “name the disease but don’t you dare name the germs” global elite of yours is, in reality, playing a game of white supremacy, they’re making a dog’s breakfast of it, I’d say.

        You coloured fairy.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 8:29 am Dan Fletcher

        “You, on the other hand come across as just another pawn in the global elite’s game of white supremacy.”

        Comedy gold.

        Like


    • Unfortunately, the people that run and pimp for the welfare state — high IQ whites and Jews — cannot themselves comprehend minds so dull, so they assume blacks are just like them.
      —————————————————————————————

      Managing black behavioral pathology is the functional equivalent of “three squares and a cot” for liberal whites and Jews.

      So give a naturally lazy and unambitious WHITE PERSON the ability to maintain black dysfunction in exchange for a pay check, and he WILL. It’s really that simple.

      “My guess is that the typical black today is less intelligent and significantly more violent/impulsive than the typical black of fifty years ago”

      Cui Bono?

      Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 3:55 pm Judah Ben Hur

        Which is why I say the welfare state creates more poverty than it solves. No wonder, some 75% of welfare expenditures goes to administrative costs. We’ll make you a Republican yet!

        Like


  2. on July 23, 2013 at 2:30 pm RappaccinisDaughter

    The lefties have been on board with censorship for a long, long time.

    It’s just that they are being forced to act in more overt ways now. Back in the days when the only sources of news were three major networks and your daily paper, censorship was so easy that it was possible to be subtle. Rather than out-and-out lie, you could simply bury the lede 10 paragraphs down and after the jump. Or choose not to run a particular story at all.

    Now that alternate points of view and stories they would prefer to ignore are being aired for free on the Internet, they’re starting to panic and show their hands. But despair not; all of this is good news. The fact that they’re being this open and vitriolic about their attacks on the First Amendment is indicative of just how frightened they are. And it’s becoming harder and harder for the squishy middle to ignore just how hypocritical and morally bankrupt they are when it comes to free speech.

    Like


    • There is no censorship in this age of hyper-connectedness. Even with all the breathless praise of the “information superhighway,” we regularly underestimate the true power of this revolution.

      Having the world of knowledge inside a device that can instantly recall anything, while being small enough to fit in your hand, is a potential we have only tapped 1% of. Now add to precise geolocation, infinite networking capability, and the total takeover of our social spaces, and no one knows just how much our culture will be destroyed and reshaped.

      Censorship is impossible now. But the left lives in the postwar bubble, a state of suspended animation in the 1960s and 70s. They brought us the post office and Social Security. They have no idea how to live in a world of the iPhone and devolving political subsidiary. They are a giant edifice on a pedestal of spindly legs, and those legs are being knocked out one-by-one.

      Of course they fantasize about censorship. It’s not even about pursuing an effective power over others. It is about projecting their impotent fantasy of power as a means to express their religious zeal. Being efficacious is beside the point of a church hymn.

      Whether they can or can’t practically stop free speech is beside the point, just as whether Obamacare can or can’t practically deliver good medical treatment is beside the point. What matters is their willingness to sacrifice large sums of other people’s money as a sign of how serious and dedicated they are to perfecting the world in their SWPL image.

      Matt

      Like


      • on July 23, 2013 at 3:31 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        “What matters is their willingness to sacrifice large sums of other people’s money as a sign of how serious and dedicated they are to perfecting the world in their SWPL image.”

        And that, of course, is the bad news. From an economic and demographic perspective, we’ve just managed to cross the terminator into a world in which 51% of the population can vote themselves pay raises out of the pockets of the other 49%. Forgive the conspiracy theorizing, but I suspect that this is the end game of a strategy that’s been unfolding for a long time. To wit: http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm

        Like


      • And somewhere, as the US continues it decline, De Toqueville is knowingly nodding in affirmation of his prediction that democracy inevitably fails for exactly this reason.

        Like


      • We are not a democracy. The 20% lead the 80% in every regime, no matter what label you staple to it. The Deutsche Demokratische Republik put the lie to those name games. We are a res publica, yes, but successful republics are directed by a patrician class, whether that be a natural, official, or contrived elite. Right now we happen to be top-heavy with credentialed anti-meritocratic retards who regard their sentiments as superior to reality.

        So put the scare stats down, Sarah Connor. You’re betting on the wrong terminator. One man with conviction makes his majority. Come with me if you want to live.

        Matt

        Like


  3. “We can do the same with single moms, thuglets, fly-by-night cads, and blubbery fatties: Mock them. Mock them until they are on the verge of self-deliverance. Mock them until their pain is so acute and palpable that it serves as a warning to others contemplating the same life paths. Humans are at heart a social species, and nothing clears the mind and alters the behavior like a scorching psychological scaphism in the town square.”

    And nothing soothes a wounded spirit like the balm of free money for one’s own bad choices. You can mock single moms and fat people all you want (not sure exactly what you mean by cads and thuglets) but if the government is subsidizing their bad judgment, they will always have strong incentive to keep doing what they’re doing.

    Like


    • In the case of fat, the government is not only funding the bad judgment, but attempting to enforce it. It is very hard to get food that isn’t tainted.

      Eating right is a good step forward, but if what you’re getting is badly genetically modified and coated in estrogenic compunds, you’re going to get fat, cancer, organ/hormonal problems, or a combination of those.

      If the shaming is going to escalate, I think it should heavily include things like pressure to eat naturally and vote for a natural food supply.

      At this point the fat are not just a few people with an eating disorder or sedentary occupations. It’s normal, and the reason it’s normal goes far beyond individual choices.

      If what you’re shaming is just the fat, you run the risk of feeding patients to Obamacare who are going to need long term treatment. It’s what’s happening with the national insurance here. They are cleaning up because after you get the surgeries, you’ll have to eventually be treated for malnutrition, especially if you’re in the majority who don’t have eating disorders and whose adjusted stomachs never expand again.

      Now there are also new drug treatments where they basically give you pregnancy-like hormones.

      You, the taxpayer will be funding all of this if you don’t put the pressure on natural food, and instead, just focus on the fat.

      I know few people if any will care since most people are stupid, but I had to say it.

      Like


      • on July 23, 2013 at 5:24 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        The problem is that the natural food supply cannot feed the earth’s current population. In order to have food sufficient for seven billion people, we have to deal with genetically modified, hormone-treated, antibiotic-rich meats and grains.

        I know this is going to get me in Dutch with the natalists on here, but what we need is fewer people, not more. Fewer mouths to feed. Fewer resource-suckers. Fewer people to do the jobs that, given our current technology, need to be done to sustain a functioning society.

        There is no need for any…ugliness…in order for this to happen. All that has to happen is that the machinery of the State needs to stop subsidizing population growth with social safety nets, and that birth control should remain cheap and easy to get. The demographic trends endemic to a first-world, information-based society will take care of the rest.

        Like


      • Overpopulation is a myth. We could feed everybody just fine naturally. The shortages are manufactured.

        Like


      • I agree shortages are manufactured by liberals wanting to control resources and the population for their own self-interest. We have enough space and food to feed 10 times the current population. But, I agree with RP that we can’t do it without technology that produces large quantities of food. Just growing food naturally as they did back on farms and plantations isn’t going to cut it. In fact, there are many more technologies coming down the pike that most naturalists won’t like. But we can’t stop progress. If you don’t like genetically modified, just buy organic for now. Eventually, it will all be sorted out as technology develops.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 12:58 am Hugh G. Rection

        It’s not about space or even food, although it would certainly become a problem. It’s about energy.

        Like


      • “It’s about energy.”

        Hell, yeah; it’s all about energy!

        However, even shortages in energy are all hyped. We keep finding new sources of fossil fuels all over the planet, especially deep in the vast oceans. We have enough oil for centuries. In addition, there is a new theory floating out there that oil doesn’t come from fossils at all. It’s endlessly produced deep inside the earth.

        Either way, I don’t trust warnings about shortages made by liberals. They all have social and political agendas as to why they make their claims, so their assertions are worth shit. Don’t fall for their claim of shortages.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 10:00 am Hugh G. Rection

        I think you have a very rosy view. Oil being endlessly produced sounds neat, but it also sounds more like alchemy than actual science.

        And energy prices speak for themselves, but I guess that’s also a big conspiracy?

        Like


      • Maybe I have a rosy view, indeed. However, I just don’t buy into liberal claims without concrete proof. Liberals misled and deceived us too many times to continue falling for their chicanery. If you study history, you would notice that every decade or so the liberals say ‘we only have energy left for 50 years’ or whatever. Then, we find out we have a lot, lot, more than they predicted and we’re not running out. Until, they make their next fear mongering claims, of course. Shortages to me is like global warming. There is no concrete evidence to global warming, and yet it’s being touted as the gospel. Liberal scientists even got caught forging documents to make global warming look like true science. Bottom line, you can’t believe anything coming out of liberal lips. It’s all loaded with half-truths, omissions, and lies.

        “And energy prices speak for themselves,”

        That’s because oil is controlled, so too much doesn’t flood the market. Combine that with warnings that oil is limited and about to be depleted, and the result is you hike its price. It’s a type of oil PR. Every product needs PR to justify its price.

        “but I guess that’s also a big conspiracy?”

        I wouldn’t say it’s a conspiracy. It’s more of a collusion between oil producing countries and various corporations controlling oil by not overproducing so that prices stay up. If you were in their stead, wouldn’t you do the same? This is why I just tune them out.

        Then, you have ultra-liberal governments like the Obama administration that have other reasons to control energy consumption, oil in particular. They need to peddle global warming and environmentalism, or they like to limit consumption of whites in favor of blacks because of social justice nonsense and “leveling the playing field” clichés. Everything the liberals say or do is in the shadow of such considerations.

        Like


      • “All that has to happen is that the machinery of the State needs to stop subsidizing population growth with social safety nets, and that birth control should remain cheap and easy to get.”

        The problem with that is that only white people are encouraged to use birth control. Brown people continue to procreate with no interference whatsoever. On the contrary, white people are encouraged to stop having kids in favor of adopting children form the 3rd world. I’m all for the State discontinuing to subsidize population growth for brown people, as well as blocking immigration altogether. But, this is a white country and the welfare of whites should be paramount, as opposed to the interest of other races. That’s why I don’t like the State involved in birth control.

        That said, I’m not worried about the number of people on the planet. The human race will find a way to navigate the issues that will arise due to supposed overpopulation. When we face real-world problems, we find solutions and evolve to be smarter. Where there is a will there is a way. So I’m optimistic, just as long as whites are not turned into the problem or get the short end of the stick, which is what liberal governments in the developed world seem to be doing. Whites are the driving force behind human development. Who in their right mind would choose Mesoamericans or blacks over whites? Self-annihilating mentally sick liberals.

        Like


      • Browns and blacks won’t complain about doing minimum wage jobs . Other people will complain because of their high sense of entitlement.

        Like


      • on July 23, 2013 at 9:00 pm Judah Ben Hur

        We have a hostile elite in the US. Perhaps this deliberate choice of Blacks and Mesoamericans in the US and in Europe, of Africans and Muslims over whites, is done deliberately so as to create a sense of division among whites and to weaken their position of power and dominance in their own countries. Who would do such a thing? You would have to control the the film, news, advertising and the banking system to do such a thing as well as have an innate hostility to the culture you live in. No one comes to mind…

        Like


      • I see what you did there. 😉

        Like


      • Yeah, you saw exactly what’s in your pea-sized brain. Both you and Hur should be sitting in the conspiracy theorists ward in the loony bin.

        Like


      • And you should take the violin, to give your jaw a rest.

        Why’d you come back? Honeymoon over so soon? Or did Cass see what a pathetic job Metro Onan was doing, so he asked you to try again?

        You Sunstein fairy.

        Like


      • “Why’d you come back?”

        Why’d you stay? Still nothing better to do when dried-up ole’ wify doesn’t give you any action? At least Nicole is keeping you gainfully employed, I mean engaged. Hehehe….

        Like


      • You keep bringing up fishwife stories about my “wifey”… it’s bad enough when you project your mental state onto others… try not to channel projection now from your own father’s misery.

        Like


      • Really, Lily? You think that only White ppl are encouraged to use birth control? What about the China, where the current situation is mandatory birth control or abortion for any woman who has more than one child?

        Like


      • “Really, Lily? You think that only White ppl are encouraged to use birth control?”

        Pay attention. I spoke about western governments and their liberal agenda. Whatever China is doing to its population, while I find immoral as a God-believing person, isn’t at the top of my list of worries. I do worry thought about the negative measures governments in developed countries are taking against their white populations. Somehow, only whites are asked to carry the burden of liberal mumbo jumbo like overpopulation, resource and energy shortages, economic downturns, and emerging wars. When are blacks going to be told to work and pay taxes, stop having kids out of wedlock, and stop being bums that commit crimes? When are Hispanics going to be halted form immigrating here and taking jobs and resources form Americans? When is affirmative action going to end, and worthiness judged on the merit, not race? When are china, India, and other 3rd world countries going to be forced to sign the Kyoto Protocol? When are Muslim countries going to be held accountable for exporting world-wide terror and violence? Why is it always whites that carry the burden of going without, or consuming less, or contributing money, soldiers, and resources so that browns get to have what whites discovered, developed, and paid for? This is what I meant by Self-annihilating mentally sick liberals.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 4:14 pm Judah Ben Hur

        Lily, I’m a tribe member myself, but you have to admit Kevin MacDonald has a point. There’s a point where we have to give up the charade and come clean. The Goyim are people too, after all. If we cdontinue down this path it will not end well for our people.

        “This suggests the fascinating possibiulity that the key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong identity towards altruistric punishment by convincing them of the evil of their own people.”

        “The best strategy for a collectivist group like the Jews for destroying Europeans therefore is to convince them of their own moral bankruptcy.”

        Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique.

        Like


      • “Lily, I’m a tribe member myself, but you have to admit Kevin MacDonald has a point.”

        Well, I’m not a tribe member, and I think Kevin MacDonald and his ilk have NO point. They are in a long line of men who hate the tribe because they are not Christian, and because they have succeeded beyond any other white group, excelling in all areas. This brings lots of jealous hate upon the tribe. Is it their high IQ, is it something inherently different inside of them that helps them accomplish amazing things, or both? Whatever it is, it rains jealousy upon them.

        Where I do agree with men like Kevin MacDonald is his criticism of the tribe for being too liberal. It’s true, most J is the US are liberal, and that’s because they are not religious and have intermarried with non-J. They bought into the new religion of the west, and gave up old-fashion J values that are very similar to old-fashion Christian values, which we call collectively Judeo-Christian values. But, then he should be criticizing all liberals for the same things he criticizes the Js. He doesn’t. His whole problem seems to be just the Js. Therefore, he has no credibility. Same thing with guys like Greg Eliot and the other antisemites that post here. They all have a beef with the Js, but let off the hook other white liberal groups who engage in the same lefty shenanigans.

        “There’s a point where we have to give up the charade and come clean. The Goyim are people too, after all. If we cdontinue down this path it will not end well for our people.”

        You act as if there is a J conspiracy to destroy white culture. You’re crazy. It’s not a J thing, it’s a liberal/lefty thing. How many liberals and lefties do you know in politics, media, business, the arts? Lots. They all think the same, J or gentile. Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O’Donnell……there is no end to this list. All of these men have contributed to the demise of America in some way, not to mention supported Obama, but the Kevin MacDonalds of the world say nothing against their evil behavior. Hell, a lot of them are even catholic. Why because both the Js and the Catholics have bought into liberalism. In fact, Js and Catholics are very similar politically, and they are both highly educated groups.

        Look, I know a lot about J culture. We lived in their neighborhoods, and my family made lots of money with them. My dad went into ventures with J partners. They are smart and honest, and you can depend on them. Most importantly, they’re very compassionate, which works both for and against them. That’s why they erroneously root for the underdog, even if it’s to their detriment. It’s not true that the Js want to destroy white culture, as Kevin MacDonald says. They simply root for the underdog, however misguided it is, and often to their detriment. They’re not as the resentful and disgruntled Kevin MacDonald paints them. He has an axe to grind – didn’t his son not get into university and he blamed the Js?

        In addition, Goyim is not a derogatory word. It’s used by antisemites to indict the Js, but it’s very unfair. First, Goyim means nations. It’s used in the Bible by God himself to mean nations. Second, God calls the Js themselves a Goy (a nation) when he says to Abraham I will disseminate your seed among the Goyim (the nations) and your seed will mingle within them, and I’ll make you into a large Goy (nation).

        Fair-minded people who don’t have an axe to grind with the Js, don’t resent them or feel inadequate because of them. We can be a little bit envious of them because of their success, but the best thing to do is learn from them and emulate their success. That’s why I agree more with people like Steve Sailer and his approach to the Js, than with people like Kevin MacDonald and David Duck. They miss the whole lesson of the Js – preaching mindless hate and disseminating slander. On the other hand, Sailer says he is a fan of their success and advices whites to emulate the Js. So no, I don’t think Kevin MacDonald has a valid point. He has made a name for himself (with the antisemite crowd) solely based on J hate. If he genuinely focused on real issues, maybe he would have done better for himself.

        Like


      • Same thing with guys like Greg Eliot and the other antisemites that post here. They all have a beef with the Js, but let off the hook other white liberal groups who engage in the same lefty shenanigans.

        Typical air-headedness from inhaling your own bloviation…

        Many’s the time I’ve said the thickest ropes and highest lampposts are reserved for the traitors of our own (s)kin.

        Coloureds and the Sanhedrin are our natural enemies, and so merit the same consideration as the opposing army, to be dispatched post haste w/o overmuch rancor, when war wages outright.

        But a special section of hell is reserved for traitors.

        Try to have this point stick in your tiny mind so I don’t have to slap you down again months from now on the same issue.

        Like


      • “Coloureds and the Sanhedrin are our natural enemies,”

        No one is our enemy. Our job is to teach and civilize the Coloureds, and emulate the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin know a thing or two about success. You sound like some envious evil-eyed toothless white-trasher red-necked loser who thinks he’s in some war of the worlds. Get a grip, nutcase.

        In addition, a special place in Hell is reserved for
        1) J haters because such people go against God who specifically said the J are his first chosen people. Sorry Eliot, you can’t pick and choose your scriptures.
        2) For people who covet other people’s wife or property. Coveting is very similar to envy. A special place in hell for envious coveters.

        Wow! It seems you satisfy both of these conditions. Your sentence in Hell will be double. Therefore, let me tell you: “Try to have this point stick in your tiny mind so I don’t have to slap you down again months from now on the same issue.”

        Like


      • War is the driving force of human development. Europeans thusfar have been the best at waging it on a large scale. As that changes, you will simply have to get used to being regarded the same as the rest under whoever becomes the next.

        Like


      • on July 23, 2013 at 6:42 pm Hugh G. Rection

        What exactly do you mean by natural food? Beware of the naturalist fallacy.

        I’m not sure shaming works on a large scale, or is even possible these days. You can hardly shame people for being average.

        Like


      • By natural food, I mean food that isn’t over processed. If it wasn’t food 200+ years ago, it’s not food now.

        People should also be encouraged to grow their own, and small farms should have where to sell. There should be a market in every town that is accessible by public transportation.

        One may not be able to shame people for being average, but social engineering efforts of the past have proven that what is average can be changed. All it takes is marketing.

        It may be evil of me, but I’ll tell it…

        Where most social revolutionaries go wrong is that you think in terms of all or nothing. If a person isn’t ____ then they are utterly worthless. If they want to be worth something, they have to change to ____. If the first blank is something in their past that can’t be changed quickly and relatively easily, then for all they care, it may as well be an accident of birth. Nobody will be saved because they’re unsalvagable.

        A woman can’t un-have her babies. She can’t revirginize herself.

        The reason that Islam wins in this is because, aside of those streams that are mostly ethnically based, they not only forgive you, but they find a way for you to have a life despite whatever wrongs you’ve done in the past. This is why it is one of the fastest growing religions. If you are a single mother with young children, you’re bringing yourself plus the kids to the feet of Allah, and they find you a husband maybe not as rich, but far more alpha than you would probably get if you were still a Christian.

        So as a secular and semi-Christian movement, the salvage of western civilization must have repentance and must have attractive benefits to salvation.

        “We can’t erase your past, but we bring you a better future.”

        You have to make whatever suffering they’re going to do for going against the stream worth it. What they don’t get elsewhere, they need to get here.

        To do this though, you can’t sit poolside. As much as I hate to agree with Matt, you have to exemplify that better future. You can’t be the guy to shag them without a commitment and then shame them for it. By being overly moralistic, a good chunk of the movement has alienated the would-be mothers of their next generation: the women who need men, know they need them, and are pissed off that they ever got duped into behaving otherwise.

        There’s a saying that every revolution has within it, the seeds of its own destruction. This one’s seeds destroy it out of the box because its followers are unwilling to adhere to the principles that would create the change, even on a small scale, that they wish to see in the world.

        It is a bang bus with no wheels, surrounded by human farms under construction…stuck in place until the men decide they won’t just mimic alpha, but actually create a legion and then a legacy.

        Like


      • Growing your own food is a good thing; it makes you more independent, closer to Mother Nature, and gives you an appreciation for what it really takes. And there’s really nothing like home grown tomatoes and peppers. But it’s a labor of love. I weep every time I walk into Wal Mart in the summer and see beautiful uninfested ears of corn at five for a dollar.

        Like


      • Sieve, in northern Europe, Pagans became Christians initially for one of two reasons: literacy and war. They were very often forcibly converted, and a great many of those converts were murdered for having different views on Christianity than whoever was ruling at the time.

        For some, Christianity was viewed as progress, while for others, it was an in some cases remained the religion of their oppressors who, as soon as they were able, they freed themselves from. Ask Varg Vikernes.

        Christianity ushered in feminism and the nanny state. Such things never would have happened under Heathens. Before Christianity you were men who worshiped Gods who considered your manhood important. Now your manhood is a sin.

        Since interpretations of the Bible are flexible enough for you to extrapolate a Hell and a Satan, you should interpret it flexibly enough for a person to need to actually right their wrongs.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 6:06 pm Sieve of Eratosthenes

        Don’t take this the wrong way, but I consider this to be bullshit from top to bottom. The few statements you make that aren’t -entirely- factually incorrect are oversimplifications to a grotesque, and truth-distorting, degree.

        Like


      • The few statements you make that aren’t -entirely- factually incorrect are oversimplifications to a grotesque, and truth-distorting, degree.

        Noticed that, did ya?

        LLOZOZLZLZOZOZLZLZLZOZOZLZLZOZOZLLLLZOZOZOLL

        Like


      • Sieve, I invite you to be specific.

        You see, often I’m disagreed with because of feelings and not facts.

        We look at the same set of facts, and I see nations destroyed and enslaved by Christians as a bad thing, while you’d call it “progress”.

        It’s funny how some of you even view the destruction of Native American cultures by Christians as bad, but don’t see how the same methods used on your own Ancestors as equally bad.

        …then you call me anti “white”.

        Strange.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2013 at 2:08 pm Sieve of Eratosthenes

        Nicole,

        First, let me stress that I am not accusing you of dishonesty. You have simply been misled by a long line of scholars tracing back to a group of men in the 18th century who set out to rewrite the history of Europe. They were successful beyond their wildest dreams. Virtually everyone in the modern world has fallen prey to them.

        Historical lies are rarely constructed by outright falsification of facts, for this is too easy to spot. Rather, it is through the mechanisms of proportion, selection, and tone.

        Hilaire Belloc:
        “First, as to selection. The telling of any story what-ever is a matter of selection. If you select so that the truth sought is not revealed, then your selection, though every fact you present be true, is in its sum-total an un-truth. What facts we choose to tell, and in what order, determine the picture we present.

        Now, as to tone. I would like to emphasize in this matter of tone in history something which a good deal of detailed work has taught me but which, I think, is not sufficiently appreciated. It is this: tone or atmosphere in history is not a vague unseizable thing. It does not escape analysis. You can, if you will carefully go through a passage, exactly noting the adverbs and adjectives used, the type of verb also, and even, sometimes, the substantives, put your finger upon what gives the particular tone and say: “That was the way in which the lie was told.”

        Thirdly, proportion, the respective amount of space and weight given to various parts of your story, is the final element which determines the whole. It is’ not the same as selection. Two men may select the same dozen facts to relate and each relate them, yet arrange a very different proportion among them of length, emphasis and weight. ”

        There is truth in what you say about the conversion of heathen Europe. But it is not the whole truth, it is not even the better part of the truth. It would be much more accurate to say that the heathens conquered the Church, and were then conquered from within, culturally and spiritually.

        “Christianity ushered in feminism and the nanny state.” It is painful to read statements like this. No consideration of the age-old struggle between nominalism and realism, or of the destructive legacies of Descartes and Kant (which have shaped our world enormously), or of the effects of the occlusion of Medieval scholasticism by Enlightenment thought, or the death of the sacramental worldview.

        “Now your manhood is a sin. ”
        A sentiment not found in orthodox Christianity.

        “Since interpretations of the Bible are flexible enough for you to extrapolate a Hell and a Satan, you should interpret it flexibly enough for a person to need to actually right their wrongs.”
        You always seem to see the Bible, and Christianity for that matter, through a fundamentalist lens. That’s perplexing to this Catholic, for whom none of this applies. We don’t see the Bible as an authority unmoored from that granted to the Apostles and their successors.

        Final thoughts from Chesterton:

        The only really fair way of considering the fashionable subject of the crimes of Christendom would be to compare them with the crimes of heathenism; and the normal practice of the Pagan world. Christianity no more created the medieval tortures than it did the Chinese tortures; it inherited them from any empire as heathen as the Chinese.

        Like


      • Much as you hate to love to agree with me, you love to agree with me.

        The reason that Islam wins in this is because, aside of those streams that are mostly ethnically based, they not only forgive you, but they find a way for you to have a life despite whatever wrongs you’ve done in the past.

        Lolwut? Christianity invented that way of living.

        This is why it is one of the fastest growing religions. If you are a single mother with young children, you’re bringing yourself plus the kids to the feet of Allah, and they find you a husband maybe not as rich, but far more alpha than you would probably get if you were still a Christian.

        You are confusing decadent American mainline faggotry with Christianity rightly understood.

        And the problem isn’t with religions finding husbands for fat mothers with multiple oopsie bastards. The problem is with the single moms themselves. Institutionalized support for betas raising other men’s children is a solution to nothing, and western women would have none of that patriarchal oppression anyway. Not when they can suckle without shame from the public tit. They sure as fuck aren’t going to wear the beekeeper’s outfit that Allah demands. You’re mixing together a lot of different, unrelated factors into a stew of surreal optimism.

        An obedient sinner seeking forgiveness will get no greater reception than from the Christian community. But not the uppity godless cock hopper demanding entitlements. There is a much better solution than your imaginary Islam’s destruction of fatherhood, manliness, and natural families: the system of Catholic orphanages that took in the no-hopers with no relatives, and the laypeople who contributed to that system’s functioning.

        Matt

        Like


      • Matt, in my opinion, Christianity goes too far. They go too far in the forgiveness, and too far in the enforcement of a self and other destructive morality that does not take human nature into account. This is why uppity godless cock hoppers do not find real redemption in the church. They just become uppity fake cock teasers who end up shagging a preacher.

        Islam is only slightly better in the realism department, but that bit is good enough to be attractive to women who really do want to turn their lives and be dedicated to God, albeit a bite sized one. When a woman converts, she is assigned a family, and the patriarchs of this family take charge of the path of her life. She is not left to her own and expected to magically shift her behavior because “God has made her a new creature…” That creature is whipped into shape until she becomes a woman at least worthy of being someone’s second or third wife.

        Of all the Black women complaining about a lack of good men, you don’t see Muslim women in that crowd. They’re surrounded by them.

        I personally believe that Asatru/Odinism/Heathenism are much better in this way because there is no such thing as forgiveness for your sins, only doing enough actual good to make up for the damage you’ve done.

        You don’t have to actually be Odinist to adopt this aspect of the belief system. It is very much in line with some of the Paulean guidelines, just a bit more severe in the deeds department. Just visualize your more northern Ancestors in a harsh, cold environment…the ease of the Mediterranean way does not suit you and will, as it has, lead your people into co opting the wrong…vibration of redemption.

        Odinists of the harder core also don’t leave women who’ve converted in wafting in the winds, especially not the “white” nationalist streams. Asatru are a little looser, but dudes will take a woman under the wing with just a whisper of consent. It’s just a matter of picking which one you want to be your new daddy or big brother.

        Christian groups who do that not only have better outcomes in children of recruits and waywards, but usually get them married off easily.

        You personally may be like this and get all up in people’s business, but most are not.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 3:02 pm Sieve of Eratosthenes

        “Matt, in my opinion, Christianity goes too far. They go too far in the forgiveness, and too far in the enforcement of a self and other destructive morality that does not take human nature into account. This is why uppity godless cock hoppers do not find real redemption in the church. They just become uppity fake cock teasers who end up shagging a preacher.”

        That is by no means all of Christianity, nor is it characteristic of Christianity throughout the ages.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 3:11 pm Sieve of Eratosthenes

        “The New Paganism is no longer new, and it never at any time bore the smallest resemblance to Paganism.

        There is only one thing in the modern world that has been face to face with Paganism; there is only one thing in the modern world which in that sense knows anything about Paganism: and that is Christianity.

        One of the chief claims of Christian civilization is to have preserved things of pagan origin.

        Pagans were wiser than paganism; that is why the pagans became Christian.

        Neo-pagans have sometimes forgotten, when they set out to do everything that the old pagans did, that the final thing the old pagans did was to get christened. ”
        – G.K. Chesterton

        Like


      • For all your dilating on occult irrelevancies like “Asatru/Odinism/Heathenism,” you know jack shit about the dominant religion on the planet. Take after Eratosthenes there and brush up your Chesterton.

        because there is no such thing as forgiveness for your sins, only doing enough actual good to make up for the damage you’ve done.

        Have you encountered the Christian concept of “penance”? “There is no such thing as forgiveness” is the exact falsehood that makes monsters out of pagans.

        Your focus on the supposed manliness of paganism is so far from the point that you can’t help but wander past me into the land of the irrelevant. Untempered manliness is a world-historical problem, perhaps the world-historical problem. Manliness is power, and power can be wielded towards the good or — the default in the Kingdom of this World — the evil. Christianity “gentles the condition” of unchecked savagery, which means women like you get to be not an object of infinite rape, your irreducible animal instincts notwithstanding.

        The liberals killed God and thought they could make a Tower of Babel up to perfection by their own hand. Yes, like everything else in the modern world, the good and the bad, “feminism and the nanny state” — indeed liberalism itselfnecessarily must be a product of Christendom. But this is Christianity without the Christ. Of course it would inevitably be twisted toward evil ends.

        You have an academic problem of being unable to separate Christianity’s influences and perverse manifestations from Christianity per se, from Christianity’s ends, a disability which derives from your seeming comprehensive ignorance of the universal church, in philosophy, in practice, and in history.

        Matt

        Like


      • Matt and Sieve, I simply do not buy your NACALT excuses.

        What ever the two of you may believe and practice as individuals, or what ever small groups of gnostics and “roots Christians” (which would include my parents) may do, does not negate the savagery and damage done by the popular streams any more than the peaceful, or at least non enforcing or proselytizing nature of modern Paganism negates any of the savage practices of the past.

        Humans are the most beastly of the beasts, and you are correct that this has been so since before Serapis was a twinkle in a Greek social engineer’s eye.

        However, it is incorrect to claim that Christianity has nothing to do with the current state of decadence in the west. It built the foundation for it by creating legions of blind followers without personal accountability. Under only one bite sized god, it is easy to sell the idea that there is only one legitimate way to view anything, and then of course one human who knows what is best for everyone all over the world.

        You don’t see how this screws people’s minds because you are currently in bondage to this “ideal”.

        Certainly there was tyranny before, but Christianity made it that much easier.

        Any universalism will.

        Heathenism may be largely reconstructed, but Vodun and Hinduism are live faiths that have been alive since before whoever Abraham was. They stress the importance of the Ancestors and kin, and this is one way they survived. You can’t be a good practitioner of Vodun and forget your Ancestors or put others above your kin. This was so for the Germanic and Slavic as well before Christianity.

        Since Christianity, the church has come before Ancestors and kin. This opened the way for a whole host of mental pollutions. Perhaps what was wrong with Europeans that allowed this came before, but nobody can honestly say that Christians did not exploit this weakness.

        All I’m saying is that even if you’re going to keep worshiping the magical Jew, who we in Vodun view as good an avatar of Obatala as any, so long as you keep your head on straight and don’t get deceived (which the vast majority of you are), you should remember the things that kept you going before. No surviving non Christian ethnicity tolerates loose women running around. Loose, unaccountable, unsupervised women are death…so much so that even in fairly newly converted villages, they accuse them of witchcraft at the first misstep and have them killed.

        I’m not saying this is right, but it is certainly understandable, and indeed one of the savage things Christianity supposedly saved you from: a brutal but natural social check against home wreckers and bitter hags.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2013 at 8:37 pm Sieve of Eratosthenes

        “Matt and Sieve, I simply do not buy your NACALT excuses.”
        I never said that NACALT. I said your premises are false.

        “What ever the two of you may believe and practice as individuals, or what ever small groups of gnostics and “roots Christians” (which would include my parents) may do, does not negate the savagery and damage done by the popular streams any more than the peaceful, or at least non enforcing or proselytizing nature of modern Paganism negates any of the savage practices of the past.”
        This isn’t about _my_ beliefs or practices, it is about _the_ historical Christianity. You made claims about the effects of Christianity on history, I countered those claims. It has nothing to do with me, or with any splinter groups. Sects have been hiving off of the Church since the time of the Apostles. The Church remains.

        You blamed the Church for what it did (in your view) to the old heathens. I pointed out that the old heathens did the same things (and worse), and yet they receive no blame from you. By any standard, that is unfair.

        When I use the term “Christianity”, I have something specific in mind. When I use the term “Christendom”, I have something specific in mind before I start typing out my thoughts. I use those terms consistently throughout my argument, unless qualified. The study of philosophy has made that reflex automatic for me. You, on the other hand play fast and loose with terms. When you say “Christianity”, you could mean the religion as you have seen it practiced, you could mean the dogma taught by Church authorities, you could be referring to personal interpretation of scripture, or you could mean the bad behavior of anyone who has been baptized. Equivocation is fallacy.

        “However, it is incorrect to claim that Christianity has nothing to do with the current state of decadence in the west. It built the foundation for it by creating legions of blind followers without personal accountability. ”
        You must realize that I don’t agree with your depiction, it is contrary to both Church doctrine and history, so you are begging the question.

        “Under only one bite sized god, it is easy to sell the idea that there is only one legitimate way to view anything, and then of course one human who knows what is best for everyone all over the world.”
        Aside from some pretty blatant question-begging, you seem completely unaware of the intellectual and philosophical history of the Church. “There is only one legitimate way to view anything”, well, that’s a pretty vague statement, but even a cursory knowledge of the Scholastic philosophy makes the charge sound silly.

        “You don’t see how this screws people’s minds because you are currently in bondage to this “ideal”.”
        This is genetic fallacy, but if you want to bring it to a personal level, I will say this: I was not born Catholic, but came to it, by reason, at the age of 40, at the end of more than five years of study and reflection. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. I have perhaps 200 books on all manner of religious topics, from the Eastern to the Western, and some that don’t fit into either.

        I did not _want_ to be Catholic, but in the end I knew I had no choice, since I had become convinced that the Church was who she claimed to be.

        “Certainly there was tyranny before, but Christianity made it that much easier.”
        No, it made it harder.

        “Heathenism may be largely reconstructed, but Vodun and Hinduism are live faiths that have been alive since before whoever Abraham was. They stress the importance of the Ancestors and kin, and this is one way they survived. You can’t be a good practitioner of Vodun and forget your Ancestors or put others above your kin. This was so for the Germanic and Slavic as well before Christianity.”
        What you are describing is tribalism, and orthodox Christianity is not conducive to it, for sure. I won’t apologize for that.

        “Since Christianity, the church has come before Ancestors and kin. This opened the way for a whole host of mental pollutions. Perhaps what was wrong with Europeans that allowed this came before, but nobody can honestly say that Christians did not exploit this weakness.”
        You are question-begging, with the implicit premise that Christianity is false. And are we talking about the Church and/or people whose actions actually represented traditional Christianity, or are we talking about people who happened to have been baptized?

        “All I’m saying is that even if you’re going to keep worshiping the magical Jew…”
        A question-begging epithet. It seems like whenever you get wound up about Christianity, you start slinging them about like the village atheist, whose stock in trade is insults. This is slanting, pure and simple, it is not admirable, and the only thing it will convince any intelligent person of is that you don’t know how to make an argument, or that you don’t love truth.

        Like


      • Sieve, perhaps I should have made myself more clear. I am not anti Christian in particular. I am anti universalism.

        Different people in different regions with different backgrounds have different needs in a culture and by extension, a religion. Any religion that presumes that the world would be a better place if everyone followed the same, is making the Babylon mistake, and this will lead to problems.

        I don’t expect you to see that even though the evidence of it is all around you. Perhaps if you stick around here for awhile, you’ll get it. I am probably not the messenger for this particular message. Too many lines get blurred because of my background, and partly because I’m of mixed ancestry.

        I stand by my statement though, that Christianity opened the way for feminism, the multikult, and a host of other problems in the modern world. If you want a snowball’s chance in hell of fighting any of them, you can’t remain overly loyal to ideas that are self destructive, no matter how many famous writers and preachers promote them.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 10:25 am Hugh G. Rection

        You gotta stop taking all that shit so serious. 9 Paragraphs in response to two sentences? Get real.

        Like


      • Just because I take this topic seriously doesn’t mean I take you seriously, child.

        Like


      • I, for one, wish she would take things seriously, instead of using each and every excuse to open the floodgates of her inane folderol and disingenuous sophomoric babble.

        Like


      • Whenever you post, Greg, I think of that part in Brokeback Mountain when the guy says, “I wish I could quit you!”

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 11:20 pm Hugh G. Rection

        Awww, she calls me a child. Most droll.

        Like


      • I’m embracing my age.

        Now run along while the grown folks discuss ways to get this bus full of wannabe berzerkers rolling towards somewhere that has a future.

        Like


      • Never saw the movie… not surprised that you did, though… as well as remembering salient lines therefrom… anything to “stick it to The Man”. llozozozlzlzozozlzlzlzlzl

        Like


      • Greg, my point is that you should get over me. There is nothing for you to gain from these exchanges except to further my point that you have no real argument, and simply don’t like the way I view things because it challenges your psychological and spiritual enslavement.

        The reason you pay attention to me at all is because something deep inside you wants to be free, but you don’t want to admit it. So you keep challenging, hoping that someday, I’ll say the one thing that will force your eyes open and disable them from closing again.

        I have some sad news for you: I can’t force you to be free. If you are determined to stay a slave, or incapable of being otherwise, there is nothing I can do for you.

        Like


      • Whenever you post, Greg, I think of that part in Brokeback Mountain when the guy says, “I wish I could quit you!”

        That’s quite a coincidence… whenever you post, I think of that Nat Geo special on the Nile, where the hippo tries to show dominance by seeing how wide it can open its mouth.

        Like


      • Greg, I somehow doubt I’d have to open very wide to dominate you.

        It’s kind of funny really. I barely have to post, and have certainly never had to open my mouth, legs, anything, and here you are following like a puppy…breaking your word, having to ask the blogger to stop you when you slip and everything.

        I’d be flattered if I didn’t understand that you hate yourself and are attempting to make me a reflection of that.

        Thing is, Greg, I love an honest, aware, rowdy Heathen as much as I like an honest, aware, literal spear chucking African or tomahawk throwing Native American. So as close as you’re going to get to hate from me is just pity.

        Your roots, Greg. At least get back to the ones that made the church a tool instead of being tools of the church.

        Like


      • You’re a legend in your own mind, you big bowl of chocolate puddin’.

        When I merely agree with another poster in his evaluation of your inanity, you take that as some form of validation.

        Here’s a hint for you, Hattie… we’re laughing at you, not with you.

        Like


      • Like a drill sergeant, Greg, if you like me, I’m not doing my job very well.

        So laugh, but drop and give me 1000.

        Like


      • Drop it like it’s hot, Mama Thornton… I’ll give you hell and call it 1000. llzozozlzlzozozlzlzlzozlzlzl

        Like


      • Even according to your Bible, Greg, an honorless Christian will be in purgatory/hell longer than an honorable Pagan.

        Like


      • on July 26, 2013 at 9:17 am Hugh G. Rection

        Gotta post again, just so I have the last word.

        Like


      • Ha. A “pagan” metal band who named themselves after a fake mountain in a fairy tale book … written by the ultra-Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien.

        Some revival. I feel faintly sad for them, though. Jesus Christ has insinuated himself into everything. What’s a guitar-strumming self-styled neo-Viking supposed to do?

        Matt

        Like


      • Neo-Viking?

        I thought it was that guy Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds… he hasn’t landed a role in awhile, so picking up a few drinks and ham n’ egg money at the local live houses is kinda/sorta a way of keeping a hand in… in this business we call Show.

        llozozozlzlzozozlzlzozozlzlzlzozozlzlzll

        Like


      • Matt, are you implying that my argument has ever been that Christians never produced anything good, just because I accept that they have done a lot of wrong?

        If so, that is rather dishonest of you.

        Like


    • Conservatives wouldn’t dream to shame women as a group for their behaviors and choices. They are hobbled by their own obsolete sense of chivalry and will themselves be shamed for committing thoughtcrime.

      Like


  4. Slut, single mom shaming is not feasible anymore…. when you take into account who is in power, and who the ruling elite is.

    I like your posts man. They make sense. Shame sluts and fatties by all means. Except, your advice on the political front is as impractical as your advice on dating front is usable and practical. I say this with full understanding that shaming is an effective method. But I also know that it isn’t going to happen.

    Like


    • It will happen on a small scale that might grow if they manage to breed, but on a large scale…there’s the saying about people who live in glass houses.

      If you are fertile and having sex outside of marriage, you run the risk of making or becoming a single mother.

      If you divorce a good woman, you’re making her a single mother without her consent.

      People doing the things they’re shaming others for get called out eventually, and this is why it’s not going to happen. The only people who have place to talk trash to single moms are those who are living traditionally (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or otherwise). Otherwise, you should shut up and pay the taxes that support your right to shag without papers.

      Like


  5. What a beautiful picture.

    Like


  6. Those people who swear by Democracy are surely the same people who think that the Lottery is going to bring them wealth.

    Like


  7. Boys w/ sisters could be more likely to be Republican simply b/c religious conservatives and Red Staters are more likely to have more than one child.

    A more interesting comparison would be boys with a sister to boys with a brother. This controls for # of children, and since gender of child is basically a coin flip, this is one of the rare cases where you can have a ‘controlled experiment’ in the social sciences.

    Like


    • The study has done what you suggested. From the paper link-

      “In both datasets, we find that having sisters rather than brothers makes young men butnot young women more likely to express conservative positions on gender roles and to identifyas Republicans”

      They compare a group with brothers and a group with sisters. I think they only compare families of the same amount of children with each other (did not read enough detail but that was my sense from the intro).

      Like


      • This is off topic, how did you get a picture to appear with your comments? II could not find how to make this happen for me.

        Like


    • Gilmartin’s book on love-shyness from the ’80s also stated that boys with sisters were a lot more likely to have relationships with women and get married than those with only brothers.

      Like


  8. The current situation has been made possible by post-War prosperity and then a 1990s-present debt/credit bubble, and printing of money. It is already bursting in China and is likely to continue to work out in Europe and here. Detroit could be joined by over 100 other cities — Meredith Whitney was right just right “too soon.”

    Sustained hard times and the collapse of the Welfare State as seen in places like Spain, or Greece, will organically under extreme pressure make single mom-hood and thuglet / thug-man nature a losing hand. Likely to get those engaging in it starving as the money runs out.

    If you agree with Jayman’s and HBD Chick’s assessment of clannishness, Jews have done something very interesting. Become far less clannish and far more universalist and utopian, as they switched from cousin marriage to out-marriage, largely of gentiles/non-Jews and sometimes Asians.

    Jews are very interesting because they are the flip-side of the Black population; a very high IQ group also no longer under any selective pressure and it is fascinating to see their very identity eroded under massive outmarriage and often even Asian outmarriage. It is also interesting to see Jews basically flee the sciences for finance, business, law, politics, and the media.

    Like


    • “…Jews have done something very interesting. Become far less clannish and far more universalist and utopian…”

      Lozlozlozlozloz!

      Like


    • on July 23, 2013 at 5:48 pm Judah Ben Hur

      They are victims of their own dogma and initiatives. These social engineering programs have way of backfiring on the engineers. However, this is not true of the 1000 or so people who lead us around by the nose. They don’t practice Cultural Marxism, that’s to undermine the Goyim.

      Like


  9. Guillotines might be as good, unless it isn’t the “long drop: which breaks the neck so they strangle slowly.

    Correlation != causation. I doubt porn causes divorce, but is merely an early symptom of wife problems. Something like saying “couples who visit the courthouse regularly are likely to be divorced soon”. But the divorce is why they are visiting.

    As to the genetic view – I don’t recall reading in any of the reports on Africa that the “primitive” tribes or cultures or the rest looked anything like Detroit with its 70+% out of wedlock birth rate, or even obesity.

    Like


    • on July 23, 2013 at 3:26 pm RappaccinisDaughter

      I also have my doubts that pr0n causes divorce. I’d think, if anything, it would help shore up marriages in which the husband is having trouble containing his impulses to cheat—it seems pr0n would serve as a “safe” outlet for those urges.

      [CH: But wives don’t like their husbands “cheating” on them with porn, either.]

      Like


      • on July 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        @CH: Sure, some women see pr0n as cheating—I’ve spoken to a few who felt that way. Some women just don’t understand the reality of how powerful men’s sex drives are, and the importance of visual stimulation. It’s a matter of solipsism, being unable to think outside your own box.* Women’s sex drives aren’t as intense, so it’s easier for us to content ourselves with what a lone sex partner can offer us. And when we do decide we need a little more, it’s easier for us to take care of that business using our own imaginations—no pictures required.

        The good news is that it’s nothing a little education can’t fix. I have personally talked three women out of freaking out on their SOs about the pr0n they accidentally discovered on the computer.

        *U C WUT I DID THAR?

        Like


  10. 1) I’m not sure if the brain is actually rewired by extensive functioning in PC environments- it’s more that the environments (academia, government, elite bubbles of extreme wealth) are isolated from traditional real-world constraints- artificial and conducive to various types of magical thinking and separating actions from their traditional consequences.

    2) Playboy is porn? Really? It’s not that different from the topless Page 2 girls in the UK. Certainly by the 70s, far raunchier stuff was available. Also, Playboy was around from the early 50s on, yet the study only picks up in the 60s, after major social/generational change was already underway. I detect sample-selection bias/distortion. Yet the larger point is somewhat true- porn may weaken the monogamous bond through fantasy. However, an argument is regularly made that it also reduces sexual assault and frustration by giving single men an outlet they would otherwise not have. Which is a net social positive, whether or not there is a direct 10% influence on divorce.

    3) Western democracy rests on specfic beliefs and institutions in Western history going back to the Reformation. Other civiliations lack this history, or only share it incidentally (Russia, Turkey, etc.) The colonial era grafted a thin layer of Western-thinking elites onto third-world societies, but over time these faded away or were violently dispatched. Western foreign-policy therefore mainly functions in a kind of bubble of unreality: policies are conceived and executed in a domestic-political framework, with little to no accommodation or even awareness of the often completely alien political priorities, calculuses and contexts of the foreign societies and governments. Hence the regularly recurring disasters. The Tiananmen Sqaure demonstrators, like the more recent ones in Tahrir sqaure, represent a tiny westernized elite that is unrepresentative of the larger society.

    4) Lefties stifle debate-? Stop the presses! I posted some thoughts on this to the Orwell post of a week or so ago.

    5) This is a somewhat surprising result- given that society (and parents) promote a relentlessly feminst point of view, it would seem that girls in the household would increase the parental emphasis on that way of thinking, which the boys would then absorb. Or maybe that’s the point- though I have doubts it extends through the entire population. Maybe it’s a sort of proxy white-knighting- boys with sisters (and the girls) grow up with an exaggerated sense of protectiveness toward women, which translates into more socially traditional politics. A little of each might be true.

    6) This phenomenon was comprehensively described for the political class in the Moynihan report of the mid-60s, so it’s not exactly new. It was exacerbated by the horrible urban-planning and social disasters of the 60s and 70s (projects, public housing, permissive social and drug culture.) Nothing new, and Charles Murray recently showed how deeply the same phenomena have become entrenched in working-class white America. But it’s good to point out the failings of the black leadership, who fall back on tired cliches from the civil rights era in this completely different era. So thanks, Bill.

    I think the pendulum *can* swing back, in a generational rhythm- once the sanctimonious Boomers die off, and stop viewing race through the prism of their own childhood first impressions, the more realistic GenXers and Millenials may impart a different view on the culture and media. Reversals have happened before: the 20s and early 30s were viewed as an era of immoral youth: more casual sex, new jazz music, gangsters/bootleggers, dirty literature, even a eugenics vogue. Yet by the 50s, when this same generation were the old men, you had a completely different social contract. The national trauma of war and depression led to great social cohesion, conformity, and shaming of aberrant behaviors- in parallel to pro-natal and pro-working-class government programs like the GI Bill, public works, and suburbia. I think we’re overdue in this country for a similar large-scale crisis, which might have a similar effect on our polarized society and culture of self-absorbtion. Recall the mood immediately after 9/11. How many were surprised by that-? A lot, as I remember it.

    Like


  11. “The finest points of a serious morality are usually less powerful than those belonging to satire; and most men are scolded by nothing quite so well as by the portrayal of their faults. It is a great blow to vice to expose it to everyone’s laughter. We can easily stand being reprehended, but we cannot stand being mocked. We are willing to be wicked, but we will not be ridiculous.”

    Moliere, Preface to Tartuffe

    Many of the great minds throughout history layout some realtalk.

    Like


  12. That must be why the elite are out to destroy the honest hormone of testosterone. They are jealous.

    Pity those poor *ethnicity that shall remain nameless*.

    Like


  13. “Unfortunately, the people that run and pimp for the welfare state — high IQ whites and Jews — cannot themselves comprehend minds so dull, so they assume blacks are just like them. Must be something else making them so lazy and…. RACISM!”

    That is only true of the useful idiots. At the top they knew and wanted exactly what would result from getting everyone (to some extent) dependent on government.

    Like


    • Agreed (that was me you quoted). But then, you can’t deal with every nuance in a single comment. But you know the old saw: “The difference between a Liberal and a Communist is that the Communist knows what he’s doing.”

      Like


  14. I almost pity the poor Leftoid bastards (almost.) The Left is triumphant as far as the eye can see. They control the media, the universities, the government, and the culture. Music, art, literature, TV, all of it uniformly leftist and equalitarian in their worldview. And yet the more tightly they squeeze their grip the more crimethinkers slip through their fingers. They can now detect racism in a stiff breeze or sexism in a blade of grass or heteronormativity in puppies and duckies. They’ll never know any measure of peace because for them life is a never ending struggle to prove that they are smarter and more tolerant than the wrong kind of white people.

    Like


  15. on July 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm Sieve of Eratosthenes

    It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.
    – G.K. Chesterton

    Like


  16. on July 23, 2013 at 4:10 pm Judah Ben Hur

    “The Culture of Critique” by Kevin MacDonald was recommended here a few days ago on another thread. I bought it and it is brilliant. It is the last set of pieces for the jigsaw puzzle, provides copius proof and leaves no question as to the true identity of the Lords of Lies. It is a revolutionary work and will change how you perceive the world. Very scholarly and well written. Highly recommended.

    Like


  17. on July 23, 2013 at 4:23 pm India_landoofRapes

    British Women fighting jihad with muslim terrorists

    Like


  18. My guess is that porn led to divorce because men stopped caring so much about appeasing their wives. This led to relationship instability. Access to internet porn is probably leading to even more divorces, and making single men less compelled to get married. I don’t have much trouble getting decent women, but, in the end, I’m not sure if porn isn’t a better option. I dated an HB9 for a few years, but after year two, I was often choosing porn over sex. If porn wasn’t available, I probably would have married her. I wonder if this has anything to do with why the English PM is restricting access to internet porn.

    Like


    • My guess is that porn led to divorce because men stopped caring so much about appeasing their wives.

      Uh… wait, what?

      Yeah, porn definitely wrecks relationships and marriages, but not for the reason you think it does.

      Like


    • on July 24, 2013 at 1:02 am Hugh G. Rection

      I hear they usually don’t tip or don’t tip well so what’s the difference…

      Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 7:33 am RappaccinisDaughter

        I waited tables through high school and college and…uh, yeah, that stereotype didn’t come from nowhere. There were exceptions, of course, especially with the military guys.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 10:34 am Hugh G. Rection

        As it is with most stereotypes.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 11:06 am RappaccinisDaughter

        Yes, most stereotypes have at least a kernel of truth at their center. But there were—dare I say it?—nuances. Military dudes, especially officers, were an almost universal exception. Black cops also tended to be excellent guests. Furthermore, one or more Black guys dining without women were generally good for a decent tip as long as I provided good service. (Which I did. For the record, I treated all of my guests with the best service I could provide regardless of whether I guessed they’d give me a good tip.)

        What gave me a case of the cringes was when I’d get seated with a Black couple or a table of Black women. That was when I knew I was in for a nightmare.

        First, there was the game-playing. They’d run me ragged on purpose (wait until I’d brought the drinks, then demand napkins. Deliver the napkins, now they want condiments. Deliver the condiments, now ask for more drinks, lather, rinse, repeat). Then they’d complain about their food (but only after telling me it was fine during my quality check and licking the plate), trying to get their meal comped. Then they’d go over the check with a fine-toothed comb and bitch when I charged them the full drink price instead of the Happy Hour price (never mind that Happy Hour was over before they even sat down).

        Then there was the rudeness. They’d make fun of the way I speak, often right to my face. (There’s nothing odd about my speech; what they were mocking was my polite and formal diction.) Or they’d make fun of the way I look…lots of jokes about how skinny I was/am. Then they’d loudly discuss how $5 on a $60 check was WAY TOO MUCH tip, making sure I’d overhear.

        Then there was the out-and-out theft. Frequently, the man in the party would leave me a cash tip and the woman would filch it out of the check presenter when he wasn’t looking. Sometimes the women would call my manager over and lie about the service I’d given them, trying to get meals or drinks comped. Or they’d just dine and dash, which came out of my pocket.

        Wow, I didn’t mean to go off on five paragraphs’ worth of ranting. I guess I’m still a little bitter.

        Like


      • I know. I doubt any waitstaff was fooled by the Trayvon excuse.

        Like


      • What you saw was the fruits of envy, pure and vitriolic. They know that the gap between your SMV and theirs is vast.

        Like


      • How the fuck do they justify taking the cost of a dine and dash out of your pay? Are you supposed to be a security guard and a waitress? Lame.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 1:09 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        The justification they give is that the dine n’ dash must be the server’s fault for not keeping an eye on the table. The real justification is usually that the restaurant is running on a thin profit margin.

        Like


    • It’s never right to be rude to someone who’s not rude to you, but payback is a bitch.

      These people did not tell themselves that slavery and legal discrimination was something that all European Americans are responsible for. They don’t come up with this strange idea that there are no poor European Americans except junkies, from nowhere. They’re taught this, and this is what they’re reacting to.

      Sheeple gonna sheep regardless of their color. Sorry for the bad news that being of African ancestry does not endow a person with superhuman independence of thought or compassion for those they view as their enemies.

      I have yet to see any major news outlet to print a word on what this case means to the legal definition of self defense. Anyone of any color perceived as a threat can be followed, accosted, beat up, and then shot if they attempt to defend themselves in Florida now.

      …but nearly everyone wants to make this about race, when it could just as easily be about gender or orientation because…they’re sheep.

      Like


  19. on July 23, 2013 at 4:50 pm Uncle Elmer

    The horror, the horror…

    Like


  20. Yup. Something needs to be done about all these rampaging fatties. They’re driving up the prices on the few available women actually worth a glance.

    Like


  21. As much as it is easy to despair on account of the cultural hegemony of the left, know that the silent majority, with enough courage, can always make itself heard.

    Cultural leftist thought has always been sustained artificially, and once these artificial constraints are removed, society will find a way to right itself.

    http://occidentinvicta.com/2013/07/03/the-pendulum-effect-what-russias-story-can-teach-the-west/

    Like


  22. Also, as all of us within the sphere already know, while Western women (particularly of the leftist variety) are awful, they are only that way because us men do not hold them accountable.

    As Bill Burr once put it, we men never call women out on their crap because we want to f*ck ’em!

    Fortunately, as various other cultures demonstrate, women can be loyal and proper if they are reared in such a manner.

    http://occidentinvicta.com/2013/07/08/women-and-culture-where-western-women-fail-miserably/

    Like


  23. I might have responses to these when I have more time, but you might want to add this one to your list, the story of the distinct American Nations:

    Flags of the American Nations | JayMan’s Blog

    Like


  24. Agree that the welfare state is definitely a huge part of the problem. But CH point that genetics is the elephant in the room is spot on:

    “But without a realization by the ruling equalism-adhering elite that underlying human mental algorithms which evolved over tens of thousands of years manifest as social phenomena, there can be no effective policy crafted that will competently address the problem of black, and now increasingly, white dysfunction.”

    The genetic pool of poor black America is the result of generations of female led households and unrestricted access to alpha thugs. White america is following suit. Regular readers understand this.

    But CH, you should take this argument a step further.Observe how the Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse have radically changed white society in just a few generations.

    Similarly, hundreds of years of slavery, an abrupt and uncoordinated end to slavery then generations of legal conditions that made it exceptionally difficult for a Black Beta Male Provider to even exist has contributed to an avalanche of social factors that stoked the basest genetic dispositions in black america.

    Policies that reverse this avalanche and stem the avalanche in white america are are hindered by the belief that blacks are ‘genetically inferior’ when the truth is more nuanced: the gene pool of ANY population–black, white, chinese, korean, Russian, Saudi–will go to shit when policies create conditions that favor women over men and disadvantage beta male providers.

    The solution: in white america and ESPECIALLY black america…tether public assistance to provisos and stipulations that aggressively favor and encourage beta male providership.

    A few ideas:

    1. End child support rights for women that were never married to the father.

    2. Make child welfare benefits contingent on marriage. Nuclear families can use government support to ‘get on their feet’. Broken ones don’t get a cent.

    3. Put decently paid male teachers in schools, separate the classrooms by gender and end social promotion.

    4. Shame thug cads

    5. Start teaching trades early

    6. MAKE FOOD STAMPS ONLY APPLICABLE TO NUTRITIOUS, WHOLE FOODS to put a stop to the marriage killing, beta male hope squashing, obesity epidemic among poor women.

    Like


    • on July 24, 2013 at 8:26 am Dan Fletcher

      “The genetic pool of poor black America is the result of generations of female led households and unrestricted access to alpha thugs. White america is following suit. Regular readers understand this.”

      While I agree that the dysgenic effects are taking place in both white and black America, it is important to remember that the matriarchal tribal society we see in America’s black communities is how things were run in Africa for thousands of years. They have merely reverted to their default state.

      “then generations of legal conditions that made it exceptionally difficult for a Black Beta Male Provider to even exist”

      Not sure about this. I would have thought post-slavery to pre-welfare conditions would have favored beta providers? Not that it would be enough time to undo their predisposition towards matriarchy, but still.

      “Policies that reverse this avalanche and stem the avalanche in white america are are hindered by the belief that blacks are ‘genetically inferior’ when the truth is more nuanced: the gene pool of ANY population–black, white, chinese, korean, Russian, Saudi–will go to shit when policies create conditions that favor women over men and disadvantage beta male providers.”

      Over a long enough time frame, sure. But Africa was already fucked before outside intervention. You have to remember that the natural environment of Africa itself has provided “conditions that favor women over men and disadvantage beta male providers.”

      So in short:
      -Welfare policies sure don’t help but they are not 100% to blame for black dysfunction.
      -Welfare policies have not been enacted long enough to account for a significant genetic shift towards matriarchal type societies.

      Like


      • Please do not fall for the feminist hype.

        There is a big difference between matrilineal and matriarchal. Nowhere in west Africa or almost anywhere else was secure or isolated enough to sustain a matriarchal society. There were a very few matriarchal societies, but most of these were legends of evil amazonian types they used to scare girls into eating their vegetables or something.

        The only matriarchal societies now are those that are so ravaged by war that there are few or no men left.

        Like


    • on July 24, 2013 at 8:47 am Uncle Elmer

      Do away with “food stamps”. Make them line up outside for a ration of cooking oil, flour, and salt pork.

      Like


    • Female led households are a result of the welfare state, not the cause of it. The government is providing what men used to provide, which marginalizes men. If the government somehow provided men with unrestricted access to strings-free sex, we’d see marriage become almost completely obsolete.

      Like


  25. The left is not individualistic. The left is collectivist. The breakdown of the family is not an unintended consequence of the left policies, it’s the intention. The breakdown of marriage and fatherhood is seen as the liberation of women by leftists. The United States had much less government and thus was much more in line with the values of true individualism when a two parent household was the norm. This is where the right mess it up, they think the solution to the problems caused by left wing government coercion is right wing government coercion rather than simply less government and more freedom and personal responsibility. Leftists are not merely hedonistic individualists doing their own thing, rather they are mentally deranged control freaks.

    Like


    • The left is not individualistic. The left is collectivist.

      Liberalism is both. It’s individualistic, in that it disapproves of top-down rules based on traditional morality (such as gay marriage being not just evil but absurd), yet it’s collectivist because whatever the majority votes for is automatically good and what must be followed. Oh, BTW, “majority” doesn’t have to be the people itself, as SCOTUS — and supreve soviets — also count.

      Like


      • I think that whatever emphasis leftists put on individual rights is mostly a smokescreen to hide the fact that they’re really just socialists. Like how they call themselves liberals even though they’re against just about everything classical liberalism, which was an individualist doctrine, was about. The social norms they work to obliterate are ones which I suspect came about organically as they best serve the interests of the majority of people. The leftists have to socially engineer our natural tendencies out of us through constant propaganda from the government run school system and mainstream media. A free market system which respects individual rights brings about a natural aristocratic order in society based on merit that the leftist feels the need to overthrow by coercive government action. It’s about the religion of egalitarianism, not really individualism in my opinion.

        Like


  26. Another great post

    Like


  27. Nothing beats a piece of pussy! Cept maybe the Indy 500

    Bunny…..

    Like


  28. O’Reilly telling Krautcrapper we should focus on ‘peer pressure’. The loop is closing. Possible CH reader?

    (Krapper crapping on the idea, of course. He’s Cathedral. Education monies. Always about the programs hey Crap? Btw Kraut, you should know this: How many para’s caused by your wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?)

    Like


    • on July 23, 2013 at 7:19 pm English Dude

      Fucking hell, the comments on that make me RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE. There’s far too many for them to be trolls too:

      “Sad. It is cruel for a husband and father to set up an obviously exhausted new mother whom he is supposed to love to humiliate her publicly. He knew she was exhausted and cooped up all day cleaning, cooking, and raising their child and puts his own needs above hers. He knew all the buttons to push to upset her. A man that truly loves his family takes the time to nurture, not destroy it. New mothers are running on empty with little sleep the first couple of years after childbirth. This is the kind of man that doesn’t know the meaning of what it means to be a man. He is self centered. He basked in her pain and loneliness while smirking. He thinks he is a superior person, but the opposite is true. He has no honor.”

      What in the holy fuck? The guy works SIXTY hours a fucking week, and all she can do is act like this because she wants to spend his “petty money”? Imagine if HE was the one thrashing around and shouting because he didn’t get his own way, 100-fucking-percent of people would be condemning him. Argh *eats a full bag of blue pills.

      Like


    • on July 24, 2013 at 7:40 am RappaccinisDaughter

      Cluster B personality disorder.
      Don’t stick your dick in crazy, guys. And if you do, wrap it up first.

      Like


  29. I haven’t spent all that time commenting here, but I’ve been around this blog for over 2 years now.

    I’d love to thank the Chateau for offering up Realtalk on a regular basis.

    Like


  30. “For purposes of artistic license, I was a little glib in my assertion above that the reversal of black (and white) family breakdown isn’t possible or will have no effect on overall social dysfunction.”

    The rate of white broken families is rising, but we know that white people lived thousands of years while maintaining nuclear families through thick and thin. We’ve never actually seen that blacks can do this. African societies did not adhere to strong nuclear family units and what we call broken families is what they call normal.

    Within the last century, supposedly 2% of blacks were born out of wedlock. The crime ridden ghettos we see now descended from those 98% in wedlock births. What we know is that under serious white paternalism, blacks could superficially maintain nuclear families for a few decades before it fell apart. We don’t know if it’s possible for them to do it for a few hundred years in a row within a society we could recognize as free.

    Like


    • Blacks are the canary in the coal mine. The canary has been keeled over for several decades now, yet people just don’t get it.

      Like


    • Nuclear family units are foreign to Africans because we are used to extended family and clan. It is not broken. It is just not as individualist. When you force people who are adapted to clan to fit themselves into nuclear, things fall apart.

      Like


  31. It’s ironic that some on the left want to restrict free speech because it allows speech that “dehumanizes” minorities. Having codes in place that ensure people say only what’s acceptable to the speech arbiters, essentially making them their robots, is as dehumanising as it gets.

    Thankfully, going by the comments under the article, many leftists also disagree that we need babysitters telling us what to say.

    Like


  32. Psh. China can eat a dick. The pendulum of proper social justice has swung slightly to the left. So what? It’ll swing back soon enough. The ideals to which the United States has aspired are the correct ones, we’re just currently mired in a relativistic sludge.

    The general idea was to allow sustenance and assistance to people who made mistakes — single motherhood, early adulthood poverty — or who were victims of circumstance — bad education, poverty, bad neighborhoods. The problem is that a lot of individuals want to embrace those mistakes and bad circumstances as socially “good” or “equal.”

    Welfare state + social shaming = incentives for redemption.
    Welfare state + everyone is a special snowflake = blah.

    Like


    • But Western democracies are broke, socialist, dysfunctional, feminist welfare states full of whiny losers who have lost the capacity for hard work (吃苦 as it were) who have destroyed traditional family values. Why would the Chinese (or anyone else) want to fully emulate us? The Asian development path has not yet included Western liberal (liberal in the traditional sense not the contemporary American one) democracy as an end point. It’s like a North Korea -> Singapore/South Korea/Taiwan/Japan continuum. None of those latter are really liberal democracies. And they’re probably correct in not being such.

      “Allowing sustenance and assistance to people who made mistakes” is an inevitable consequence of letting everyone be fully enfranchised and having no limits on government power or taxation.

      Like


      • Ya, well full enfranchisement does fit in with the whole founding ethos of this country:

        “It appears to general observation, that revolutions create genius and talents; but those events do no more than bring them forward. There is existing in man, a mass of sense lying in a dormant state, and which, unless something excites it to action, will descend with him, in that condition, to the grave. As it is to the advantage of society that the whole of its faculties should be employed, the construction of government ought to be such as to bring forward, by a quiet and regular operation, all that extent of capacity which never fails to appear in revolutions.”

        And the government’s scope should extend as far or narrow as near to accomplish that goal — constant tinkering. Ultimately the American experiment has always been about presuming the best in people, or at the least, giving them every opportunity to demonstrate their worth. Have some faith…

        Like


  33. Charles Murray: The Rediscovery of Human Nature and Human Diversity

    OR

    The Rise and Future Fall of the Equality Premise

    Like


  34. on July 23, 2013 at 8:31 pm suppressedtruthsociety

    Re: 4. Who the hell gets to decide what constitutes “hate speech?” Because certain, umm, factions slap that label on anything they disagree with for a quick and easy path to perceived moral high ground. Also, I must have missed when the first amendment was repealed.

    Just how biased and slanderous was the Zimmerman trial coverage?
    http://suppressedtruthsociety.wordpress.com/

    Like


    • I wish Walter Cronkite was still around to pronounce “Carlos Danger” with the gravity it deserves.

      Like


    • “Who the hell gets to decide what constitutes “hate speech?”

      Jewish groups.

      The entire idea of “hate speech” comes from Jewish groups who want to ban anything they don’t like.

      Like


  35. I’d like to see CH’s take on Anthony Weiner game.

    Like


  36. on July 23, 2013 at 9:16 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    …the Cathedral is being mischievously subverted by agents provocateur

    Please keep using the term “The Cathedral,” despite the naysayers you once mentioned. I’ve noticed that as the influence of the Catholic Church waned, the new “nuns” that came up to scold us on our alleged transgressions were feminist and other leftists.

    So the phrase “The Cathedral” is perfect. People seem to need some sort of elders to tell them when they’re good or bad. What’s changed is that these so-called leaders are now in the secular field, not the religious one. But you can bet that a feminist will scold you for the sin of lust just as a nun would have. (Interestingly, both factions are largely made up of lesbians, but I digress.)

    Like


    • The results are in, the Catholic Church was right about everything.

      Like


      • Shh. You’ll make his conspiracy castles in the sky come crashing down. It all just fits so “perfect”!

        These poseurs yap so much among themselves that their waking visions become more real to them than the landlord banging on their basement window. “People seem to need some sort of elders to tell them when they’re good or bad” … except for PA, of course, who presents himself as fiercely independent and a moral law unto himself.

        Meanwhile he’s trapped in half-century-old transgressive “truth” telling, taking arms against all the marginal people in this sex-drenched culture who quaintly still “scold you for the sin of lust.” Just let your freak flag fly mannn is ancient history appropriate to a dead age and today is so redundant that it does nothing so much as flush the chumps into the open who are perpetually reliving yesterday’s triumphs with their online enabler buddies.

        And the idea that feminism per se scolds anyone for lust is risible. These supposedly organic, spontaneous, separate movements on the left are all the same poison fruit from the Social Marxism tree. Feminism is fundamentally dependent on the sexual revolution, confused anti-porn womyn activists notwithstanding. What dupe expects those hairy-armpitted cunts to be philosophically consistent with their ideologies or actions?

        That’s right. It’s the same dupe who seeks freedom in license and “scolds” the world for being insufficiently prescient and therefore independent from the patriarchy like him. Not foolin’ PA with no echoey cathedral talk, nuh-uh, no sir.

        Juggalo, please.

        Matt

        Like


      • “The results are in, the Catholic Church was right about everything.”

        At least it was before Vatican II and Nostra Aetate.

        http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/07/leon-de-poncins-the-problem-with-the-jews-at-the-council-part-i/

        Like


      • Ah, the things you’ll see when you have a magic eye. Unfortunately, everybody thinks you’re mad.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 2:55 pm Sieve of Eratosthenes

        I don’t.

        Like


    • Stop smelling Moldbug’s farts. Give the ethnic composition of the ruling class, particularly in banking and media, “Synagogue” would be far more apt.

      Like


  37. “The upper crust keeps its head down for good reason. Who would put themselves in the way of the free-floating ill-will, seething class envy and accusatory economic bitterness that poisons The Guardian’s letters to the editor? Contrary to their anachronistic reputation as civilized and polite, the modern British can be some of the nastiest, most resentful people on the planet.”

    From: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/opinion/britains-baby-bump.html

    Like


  38. on July 24, 2013 at 12:04 am Eastside School

    Don’t use the obnoxious and inaccurate term “The Cathedral” to refer to the hostile elite.

    Like


  39. It amazes me none of the alphas have started shooting yet. The founding fathers did leave us the Second Amendment for a reason you know.

    Like


    • Alphas are getting a lot of aggression-reducing pussy.

      Like


      • and so was Thomas Jefferson.

        Like


      • on July 24, 2013 at 11:26 am Hugh G. Rection

        Leader of men

        Like


      • An “alpha” who can be unmanned by a surfeit of cooze is an AINO. It’s a form of pedestalization.

        Not that there’s much real-talk about that here. The big-fish blowhards are too paranoid of appearing insufficiently studly or cunt-crazed, figuring that the only reason one would refuse to be led by pussy is because “he can’t get any” (“dick’s too small,” the litany) and other shaming tactics.

        Like


    • They’re swallowing a lot of their aggression… along with a lotta pizzas, heh, heh!

      Like


  40. -Obesity is a more recent emergence, and preaching fire and brimstone against refined grains, sugar and soda can go a long way to beautifying the country.-

    Good luck on preaching the gospel against grains; you’ll certainly need it! Grains have been the staple of civilization since way back in Mesopatamian times, and they don’t look like they’re going away any time soon; so long as civilisation remains feminised. Women prefers carbohydrates (like bread and sugar) to men who prefer protein. That’s why you get women and children eating tubs of Hagen Daz covered in sugar syrup, and men eating steaks. If civilisation takes a turn for the masculine then you should see that wheat fields are replaced by grazing pasture for cattle.

    Like


  41. I predict that of the groups you mentioned, the fly-by-night cads would be the most resistant to social shaming. They will thrive as long as the primary food source (sluts) remains abundant.

    Like


  42. OT but this girl I’ve been texting is being really flakey when I try to set up the second date. I invited her out for some drinks and she has just replied with the usual “sorry I’m busy every day this week, we should definitely get together some time” bullshit response with a couple of smileys thrown in for added insult.

    I was not on my best form on the first date, although IOIs looked very good (I went for the kiss but after a few seconds she put up some “I’m shy” resistance and acted all surprised that I liked her). I think I may have failed a couple of tests and squandered some initial attraction. You live and learn.

    What’s the best Hail Mary response to her message? I’m thinking “gay” is perfect here, but also like the idea of “it’s ok. i believe you” which I’ve seen on CH and I find hilarious in its hamster-baiting sarcasm. I’ve used “k” and “lol” in previous messages where she’s been flakey so don’t want to re-use those. “Lame” doesn’t seem as good as “gay” to me. Also, what’s a good time to wait before replying? YaReally? Guys?

    Like


  43. Number 5, boys with sisters, the article that reported this tried to say that because the sisters did all the household chores, the boys grew up to feel entitled to a free ride and thus conservative Republicans. This is the exact opposite of my life experience. Anyone who has ever lived in the same house with a woman, sister or not, should know better than that.

    Like


  44. I literally started laughing when I got to the “getting a masters in women’s studies” part http://www.houseofflout.com/how-to-not-sexually-objectify-or-subjectify-your-barista/

    Like


    • wow, just wow.

      Like


    • “Before working at Starbucks, I was getting my Master’s Degree in Women’s and Gender Studies at Brandeis … There’s no doubt in my mind that homophobia played a role, and that many of my customers would stare at me while thinking, “dat faggot’s makin’ mah drank!””

      I’m shocked to see the racist, sexist attitude of intolerance apparently inculcated at the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies at Brandeis. For shame, Brandeis, for shame.

      Like


  45. on July 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm Goose Gander

    From the President on down our leadership has no clue how to deal with the problems in the white community. Some have intimidated the “conversation” turning any valid criticism of Anglo-Saxon culture into charges of racial bias. Many in power simply walk away leaving millions of law abiding Anglo-Saxon Americans to pretty much fend for themselves. It is time for some straight talk and I hope the President is listening, because we need him to lead on this issue. Steven A. Cohen’s firm, SAC, was accused of insider trading because circumstances got out of control. He was scrutinized by the SEC because of the way he looked, not necessarily his skin colour, there’s no evidence of that, but because he was dressed in clothing sometimes worn by Wall Street white collar criminals. It was wrong for the SEC to confront Mr. Cohen based on his appearance, but the culture that we have in this nation does lead to criminal profiling, because middle-aged men are so often involved in white collar crime. The statistics are overwhelming. But here’s the headline: white middle aged men commit insider trading at a rate of 10 times greater then blacks or Hispanics combined. When presented with damning evidence like that FOX News looks away or makes excuses. They blame the fraud on computers, MBAs from Wharton, or a surplus of seven-figure investment banking jobs. Rarely do they define the problem accurately. The reason there is so much deceit and greed in America is an intractable cause that originates in the neural gears, and that, when left to grind mercilessly and free from cultural constraint, ultimately propels the social dystopia of Enron-sized fraud and parasitic white collar criminality. The fear to face the id by the left and right is understandable. Blame the Goldman Sachs’ elevator culture, and you leave hope that amelioration is possible. But admit that dark, ancient forces woven into the architecture of the brain itself are at work, and all hope is lost.

    ***

    I took some artistic license in writing the above, but my core message should be evident to those who have watched the Bill O’Reilly video referenced in the original post.

    If it is true that the equalist philosophy is inherently flawed and that Richwine is correct that an individual’s genetic make-up will in large part dictate intelligence, sociability, and propensity for violence (among other things) and that race is an indicator of a group’s particular genetic make-up then this concept needs to be applied to all races, not just blacks and Hispanics.

    Hispanics as a group are not as intelligent as Northern European whites and blacks are more violent than whites. These propositions are supported by statistical analyses, which shows that Hispanics are more likely to score poorly on standardized tests. Similarly, as Bill O’Reilly points out, blacks in America are more statistically likely to commit violent crimes than American whites.

    In each case the Richwine anti-equalist argument is that these statistically significant differences between races are a result of the genetic hard-wiring that manifests itself in groups which have similar genetic make-ups (such as people of the same race). While not completely dismissing nurture, the argument is predicated on the fact that genetics (and its corollary, race) is the more significant driving factor. Statistics are then used to drive this point home.

    Statistically speaking, white, middle-aged mean with at least a university degree are far more likely to commit white collar crime, particularly insider trading. To argue that these white men commit insider trading because of circumstance, milieu, access, ability, and culture as opposed to innate genetic factors (as evidenced by race) while at the same time arguing that blacks commit violent crimes because of their inherent racial make-up as opposed to circumstance, milieu, access, ability, and culture would seem to be the height of hypocrisy at worst and a failure of internal logic at best.

    I want to be clear here: I’m not arguing that the anti-equalist / Richwine camp is wrong. I’m simply trying to demonstrate that if it is true that race plays such an important role in vital social functions and that as a result America should enact and implement policies based on race, then white America needs to be held accountable as well. The argument that whites do have genetic tendencies, but that they are all positive traits, while all other races have predominantly negative racial qualities is an argument I do not find particularly compelling and undermines credibility.

    White America’s “genetic vices” seem to lean towards the duplicitous. Whites have a natural affinity for deceit and deception the same way that blacks have an affinity for primal violence. From the robber barons’ of the 1920s to Enron, to Richard Nixon, to Bernie Madoff – whites’ excel at trickery (perhaps because they are smarter than the other races – see the Chinese for another racial group with the scam gene). Blacks have a violence problem; Hispanics a smarts problem and Caucasians have a lying problem.

    If we are going to enact immigration policies that reflect Hispanics’ lower levels of intelligence and assimilation, enact sentencing and criminal profiling laws that reflect African American tendencies for violence then we should also enact laws which prevent (or at least discourage) whites from holding financial service positions such as traders and investment bankers so as to reflect the Caucasian tendencies for deceit and manipulation.

    So the next time you see a middle aged white man in a suit at the bank or downtown make sure you follow him. Statistically speaking he’s likely a fraudster and you may need to stand your ground.

    Remember though, he can’t help it – it’s in his genes.

    Like


    • Except that insider trading isn’t truly a crime: http://mises.org/daily/5289/

      Like


      • on July 25, 2013 at 8:36 am Goose Gander

        “The argument that whites do have genetic tendencies, but that they are all positive traits, while all other races have predominantly negative racial qualities is an argument I do not find particularly compelling”

        Like


      • on July 25, 2013 at 9:32 am Dan Fletcher

        No one has made that argument you dumbass. HBD people readily admit that Asians and Jews have higher IQs, blacks are more athletic, etc…

        You would know that if you had even bothered to skim the surface of HBD literature, you fairy. But you didn’t because you had already made up your mind (or had it made up for you by years of brainwashing)

        Like


      • on July 25, 2013 at 12:59 pm Goose Gander

        Thanks for you kind words of support Dan! If I’m reading your response correctly you are implying that whites (likes blacks, asians, and other races) do in fact have negative genetic tendencies (in your word: “no one is making that argument [to the contrary] you dumbass”). But it would seem from your other comments below that you do not believe that “deceit” or “lying” is in fact a negative genetic tendency for whites.

        So if “deceit” is not the primary negative tendency of whites but you admit that they do in fact have negative tendencies may I ask you what negative tendencies whites do possess?

        Also picking up on your comment about Jews and Asians having higher IQs: would you advocate for preferential hiring practices for Asians and Jews in fields where a higher IQ is valuable (to the obvious detriment of races with lower IQs)? It’s serious question – I’m not trying to attack you.

        Speaking of attacking I noticed you laced you response with ad hominen remarks in an attempt to undermine my argument by attacking my character and personal traits. While not always the case, such remarks are often indicative of someone who is arguing emotionally rather than logically, or does not have a legitimate rebuttal to the first person’s point and would rather lash out in anger than be forced to acknowledge another person’s view point which differs from their own.

        The reason I re-quoted the passage which you seem to take so much offense from is because while no one is (presumably) arguing that whites do not have negative tendencies there are many who comment on the negative qualities of other races and the policies we should put in place as a result of these innate negative qualities (such as immigration laws which would discourage Hispanic immigration to America) while at the same time there is a dearth of discussion on the negative qualities of whites and those concomitant policies.

        If we are to move towards a sociopolitical environment in which HBD plays a part in developing policy (for the betterment of all, if HBD is in fact true) than it needs to be applied fairly among all the races – this is simple internal logic. If we focus entirely on the negative qualities of certain races while ignoring the negative qualities of other races in discussing HBD’s role in policy we may not be tacitly making the argument that certain races do not have negative qualities – but in essence we are since those negative qualities are: (a) never discussed; and (b) more importantly will not get to play a role in developing the policies to which the everyday person cares about.

        Finally – I don’t know why you are under the impression that I have “made up my mind” on HBD. I have far from made up my mind either way. In fact if anything I would lean towards HBD being correct (to a point). I do however question its application and the general discourse surrounding it. I’m not afraid to point out the failure of internal logic and the perception of bias that is created when the only pertinent discussion of HBD is restricted to a few certain races and not others. While I may not be the HBD expert you would appear to be I am aware that the principle applies to all races, not just blacks and Hispanics and therefore the dearth of discussion on, for example, white genetic tendencies creates the perception that advocates of HBD are not seriously trying to advocate for policies rooted in the real world (i.e. HBD) but are in fact engaged in a deception in which a theology or ideology is used as the public underpinning of a position that is in reality rooted in a more selfish cause.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2013 at 8:01 pm Dan Fletcher

        “But it would seem from your other comments below that you do not believe that “deceit” or “lying” is in fact a negative genetic tendency for whites.”

        Now you’re just flat out lying. Show me where I said that. Post the exact quote.

        Please provide evidence that whites are any more deceitful than other races and post whatever negative qualities you thinks whites have. Would like to hear them.

        “may I ask you what negative tendencies whites do possess?”

        Pathological altruism for starters. Susceptibility to PC brainwashing as well I suspect, though not sure how much of that is innate and how much is culture.

        “would you advocate for preferential hiring practices for Asians and Jews in fields where a higher IQ is valuable”

        I support merit based hiring practices.

        “while at the same time there is a dearth of discussion on the negative qualities of whites and those concomitant policies.”

        There is less discussion since whites are less dysfunctional than blacks, Mexicans, etc… as demonstrated by our drastically higher level of civilization.

        You’ll hear people in the HBD crowd rip on whites quite often actually. In summary, I’d like to know what the negative traits (with proof) you think whites possess and their policy implications. I am interested to know.

        Like


      • on July 25, 2013 at 8:02 pm Dan Fletcher

        A reply is in the moderation queue for you Goose.

        Like


    • on July 25, 2013 at 9:34 am Dan Fletcher

      What percentage of whites engage in white collar crime?

      What percentage of blacks engage in non-white collar crime?

      Like


      • Would you really want to know that statistic?

        I would say it’d be easier to count how many Europeans don’t engage in some sort of white collar crime. In many cases, it’s under the heading of a kind of civil disobedience though. Tax evasion/unreported income are extremely common. Then there are kickbacks, bribes, and other corruption.

        The rabbit hole is very deep and has a vast network of tunnels. If you are an honest guy always dealing honorably and above board, you are the sucker among your people.

        Like


      • The Red Man was correct when he warned us:

        “the white man speaks with forked tongue”

        Like


      • PUH-LEEZE!

        If trying to get a white man to tell the truth is like trying to catch a cuckoo in the woods, then trying to get a negro to tell the truth is like trying to catch the echo of the cuckoo’s call.

        I never saw so much cheating and lying than when I joined the service and lived amongst the coloured.

        Like


      • Says the Greg who can’t keep his word or even be loyal to his fellow wannabe “white” nationalists.

        Notice, he says all this, but if you call him racist, he’ll cry. LOL!

        Like


      • Are you kidding? I never denied being racially-aware, or holding WN viewpoints.

        What I refuse to do is play the game by YOUR ilk’s terms, in which “racist” is Cathedral shaming language… especially coming from you and yours, true “racists” first and foremost… ‘though you yourself attempt much bloviation and inane rationalization to call it otherwise.

        Note too, that unlike you coloureds and the Sanhedrin, we WN’s don’t tolerate everything from our own kind, merely because they are such. If they speak out of line or go too heavy on the epithet-laden screeds, they don’t get carte blanche from us.

        But as per usual, with your handicapped view of logic, and self-styled dictionary denotations of words like honor and loyalty, you imagine yourself to have made some sort of scoring point.

        That’s pretty much the keystone of the enmity between our respective seeds… we police our own, and often more vigorously than when an outsider transgresses against us.

        Like


      • Typical negro-babble from the usual suspect… the most notorious nations of the world for bribery and corruption are not the ones where whites hold sway… and you damn well know it, you disingenuous cow.

        Like


      • The most notorious are not always the most corrupt.

        See what I mean?

        Well, you would never admit it even if you could.

        …because it’s in your genes. You are incapable of seeing the wrongdoings of “white” people as wrongs, even with bodies all around them.

        Don’t worry. We’re learning.

        Like


      • Actually, it’s merely a matter of you pointing out gleefully the splinters in our eyes, and giving a big, fat, black pass to the fenceposts in the eyes of your ilk.

        Having had ample evidences of your ilk’s inordinate projection along those lines, let alone the orders-of-magnitude imbalance of comprehension on ratios thereof, it nevertheless never ceases to amaze me… guess I still can’t fathom minds so opposed to reality, what for all that “we’re all equal under the skin” Cathedral brainwashing of my youth.

        Like


      • In what way do you figure that what you said disproves any of what I, Thwack, or Goose have said?

        In your eyes, “whites” can do no wrong, even when they’re doing wrong, so there is no way to prove otherwise to you. Even when presented evidence that some Europeans have done very horrible things to others based on their ethnicity or simply their inconvenience, you will always find a way to make it an okay thing to do.

        Splinter indeed…

        Like


  46. on July 24, 2013 at 4:46 pm pushbuttonreceivebacon

    >Boys with sisters are more likely to be Republicans.

    I can tell from my own experience that having a sister does in fact teach you a thing or two about female psychology.
    They’re emotional, mentally unstable, often times naive but also gentle, kind and caring if you keep them in line.

    Yes, you need to dominate a sister as you would any other female if you want her to respect you.

    Growing up with a sister of roughly the same age more often than not sets you on the right path with women as you see how one of them reacts to your behavior every day and you learn their behavior.

    Like


  47. Carlos Danger/Anthony Weiner is exactly the sort of politician we would expect in an age of no-accountability elections.

    The ’04 Bush and ’08 Obama campaigns both had significant “we got your back” ranks.

    Why would Danger/Weiner drop out? He knows he can win!

    Like


  48. Empirical evidence of the hypergamous cock carousel.

    http://www.justfourguys.com/study-shows-women-fuck-hotter-men/

    Like