Roman Polanski: Alpha Male

How do you recognize the alpha male? Ye shall know him by the shamelessness of women who aren’t his mother willing to defend his indefensible misdeeds. Despite drugging and violating a young girl like a porn star, feminists, pundits, sanctimonious Hollywood liberals, and even the victim herself have rushed to excuse Roman Polanski’s crime:

In 2003, [the victim Samantha Geimer] wrote a generous Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, saying Polanski should not be barred from receiving a Best Director Oscar for “The Pianist.”

“I don’t really have any hard feelings toward him, or any sympathy, either. He is a stranger to me,” she wrote.

The alpha male is a morally neutral concept. George Washington was an alpha male. Richard Ramirez is an alpha male. The alpha male can be a paragon of virtue, or a demon of vice. More often he is the latter, which tells us something very disheartening about the female psyche.

This is why my definition of the alpha male remains, however disturbing to those who find it necessary to impart moral gravitas to men who luxuriate in the love of women, the most elegant and encompassing description of the species to be found anywhere on the internet:

The alpha male is defined by the hotness of the women he can attract, the strength of their attraction for him, and the number of them who find him attractive.

Childless or dynastic. Death row or duty-bound soldier. Fop or Founding Father. Men at the apex of disparate social niches have commanded the loving sexual attention of multitudes of women. The dispassionate GodGene cares not how we achieve the ultimate mission in life, only that we do.

I wonder if a beta male could get away with the “rape rape” technicality in the court of public opinion?
Rhetorical.





Comments


  1. “The alpha male is defined by the hotness of the women he can attract, the strength of their attraction for him, and the number of them who find him attractive.”

    Something about this sounds a little tautological, but hey, I think that’s partly your point. I’ll go with it.

    Like


  2. Oh, he’s without a doubt an alpha. Read some of his comments on women and he is STILL adored by the most vile of feminists. (To be fair, a rare few IN THE US ALONE have come out against him) Continentals, almost without exception, have been on his side.

    The fact that the LA times would even publish an Op-Ed of the victim shows just how fucking alpha this man is.

    Only a true top of the pile alpha, would get cultural ministers the world over openly defending sexual relations between an inebriated 13 year old and a 40+ year old man.

    Like


  3. Roman Polanski: Most boring man in the universe.

    Like


  4. Compare and contrast Clinton’s and Packwood’s popularity with women and feminists.

    Like


  5. His movies over the last 15 years have sucked anyway.

    Here’s a thought experiment: which famous figure, were he to rape a 13-year-old girl, would receive the total opposite reaction from feminists, pundits, sanctimonious Hollywood liberals, and even the victim herself? Or does celebrity automatically confer some level of alpha-ness on a guy?

    Like


  6. “The alpha male can be a paragon of virtue, or a demon of vice. More often he is the latter, which tells us something very disheartening about the female psyche.”

    top 10 quote of all time. Though don’t let it go to your head! The upper one.

    Like


  7. The Child Molesting formula is as follows:

    Rich + Famous + Jewish + European + molest 13 year old girl = a tortured and creative artistic soul that needs to be understood.

    Poor + Unknown + White + Straight Man + molest 13 year old girl = Fucking White trailer trash that should be executed.

    Like


  8. Now that I’ve read this by Samantha Geimer, I myself want to do terrible and unmentionable things to her ass.

    @tony: Your rating seconded.

    Also, check this out for an equally disturbing perspective on the female psyche.

    Like


  9. I don’t know. Is Woody Allen an alpha? He sleeps with his own pseudo-stepdaughter, and he is still feted around in Hollywood. I think for the rich and famous (and white), the rules are just different than for you and I. Michael Vick kills a few dogs (who are put to death by the thousand by shelters every year), and he has to go to jail. Polanski drugs, rapes, and sodomizes a 13 year old, flees before he actually has to serve any time, and people (both men and women) are pleading for his immediate release.

    Like


  10. “Here’s a thought experiment: which famous figure, were he to rape a 13-year-old girl, would receive the total opposite reaction from feminists, pundits, sanctimonious Hollywood liberals, and even the victim herself? Or does celebrity automatically confer some level of alpha-ness on a guy?”

    Two separate issues. Liberal Hollywood would hate any conservative that raped a 13-year-old. I’m thinking Mel Gibson and Jon Voight, who come across as alpha, but would get crucified for such a deed.

    Like


  11. Yeah I thought that exhibit A in Polanski’s alphaness was the fact that the victim is essentially on his side now.

    When I wrote on it, I asked if she would be so forgiving if it had been an “Average Joe”, who had violated every orifice, as opposed to a famous movie director.

    PA,
    That’s because Bill Clinton was nice enough to tell one of his alleged victims to “put some ice on that”. Packwood was much less considerate.
    /

    Like


  12. Good point on Gibson. GinaTingle-wise, he was to the 1980s what the Baldwins were to the 1990s and Clooney to the 2000s.

    But then he did that Jesus movie and stopped getting the a-list party invitations.

    Like


  13. One of the most feminine countries, France, feels a national gina tingle for Roman! No, no, ‘ee must not be subjected to ze cruel Americain “justice”, m’sieu!

    Like


  14. on October 1, 2009 at 1:54 pm ironrailsironweights

    Polanski lost whatever Alpha cred he might have had when he fled the country after pleading guilty. A true Alpha would have stood by his decision and dealt with whatever punishment he received.

    Peter

    [editor: actually, roman pulled the alpha move. he lived free another day to chase more skirt. your problem is that you are one of those who wishes to impart moral gravitas to the understanding of the alpha male, but reality pisses all over your moral ledger.]

    Like


  15. The victim’s grand jury testimony is essential reading…

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html

    To my knowledge, Polanski has never denied the victim’s version of the events. The director’s defenders cling to the fact that Polanski bargained his guilty plea down to statutory rape, but the victim’s testimony clearly describes forcible rape against her will and her repeated spoken objections.

    I have never heard a plausible reason given that the victim and her mother would have gone to the police to report the incident if it had merely been a consensual encounter, or even a gray-area one. The mother and the victim, in fact, had every personal motivation to give Polanski the benefit of the doubt, or at least to deal with the incident privately in some way. They both hoped for Polanski to help the girl’s career, and the mother’s boyfriend was Polanski’s personal friend.

    The victim’s current defense of Polanski may be explained by the hefty payment surely involved with Polanski’s “settling” of a civil case with the victim a few years back.

    But it’s true that other women are stepping to his defense, even as they call Polanski’s behavior illegal and unethical. Documentary filmmaker Marina Zenovich, in fact, made a feature-length movie portraying Polanski as a victim of a judge out of control. The title? “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.”

    I think that says it all. If Polanski were not wanted and desired? “Roman Polanski: Dirtbag.”

    Like


  16. All these women defending Polanski are not necessarily attracted to the guy. They just approve of teenage assraep.

    Like


  17. To my reading, this definition of alpha male doesn’t actually sum up the sense of the Roissy manifesto. Attracting and banging hot girls is a consequence of alphaness. This makes it a good barometer, but not a definition. If ten strangers end up trapped together in a room, and one emerges as a leader, it’s likely that the other nine would concede him alpha male status even though nobody knows anything about each other’s sex lives.

    Like


  18. I think it’d be rich to see if Cameron Diaz is defending him after her whole “if you think rape should be legal, don’t vote,” brain fart in 2004.

    Like


  19. on October 1, 2009 at 2:12 pm Charles U. Farley

    I’m sorry, but this is one of the few times I have to disagree with our host. Hollywood doesn’t defend Polanski because he is “alpha”, but because he is a member of the “oligarchy”.

    If it were a question of alphadom, Hollywood would embrace Elia Kazan as ferverently as it does Polanski (more so–Kazan is said to pull in more tail than Polanski ever dreamed of, and is arguably the better director). But it doesn’t–it largely despises Kazan because he named names before HUAC in 1952, making him an traitor to the Hollywood Left. Therefore, the phenomenon is social, not biological.

    Like


  20. I’m with Roissy on this one.
    I suspect her neutral response today is a result of
    –healthy psychological recovery. Time heals.
    –perhaps some $$$$ payoff to fundamentally change her life.
    –She derived the secondary gain of feeling special and important. She mattered. Her public letter in 2003, stated, The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity (which made me feel special and important). That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it.(so I will publish this public letter to stir up more attention my way. )

    The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it.

    Like


  21. By this definition then BARACK HUSEIN OBAMA is alpha to the max. Oh wait! He is a liberal! It cant be!

    Cognitive dissonance!

    [editor: no, it’s not. i wrote 10 months ago that obama is an alpha. advice: never open your mouth unless you know the shot.]

    Like


  22. I saw the headline and thought “you gotta be kidding me – Drugging and raping a 13-year old is about as un-alpha as you can get.”

    But then, you reiterated the definition; i.e., pussy magnetism, and it is true that he is alpha by this definition.

    I find it ironic (not to mention damning of the moral vacuity of feminists) that this creepy guy is defended, including by the victim. Judging by her degradation (see previous post of “fat vs. aging” – she’s had both), it was perhaps the best sexual experience of her life, drugs notwithstanding.

    Like


  23. on October 1, 2009 at 2:18 pm Harmonious Jim

    Arty types and media pundits are excusing Polanski’s crime. No big mystery why. (1) Its partly his alphaness, as per Roissy. (2) But it is also something just as basic and biological as sex, namely in-group bias. Arty types and media pundits, for all their culturedness, have an animal brain that goes: “Polanski is One of Us! He’s Our Type of Guy! He’s in Our Tribe. Thus He Must Be a Goodfella!”

    Roissy: not quite everything is about sex.

    Like


  24. I bet Silvio would get away with it too

    Like


  25. roissy:

    I just watched the most interesting piece about our favorite alpha, Silvio Berlusconi. There’s even what appears to be a gina tingle at around 20:57.

    “Europe Correspondent Emma Alberici – who spent her infant years in Italy – is naturally perplexed by Berlusconi’s very tanned Teflon exterior and puzzled by a nation so ready to dismiss their leader’s philandering ways.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2699967.htm

    Like


  26. it was perhaps the best sexual experience of her life, drugs notwithstanding

    exactly

    she then probably married a beta who always took care to be tender with her so to avoid making her remembering her “ordeal”.

    Like


  27. This is just like those single moms letting their children run around alone with Michael Jackson. If there was a father in the picture, you can be sure this shit would not go down. What man would let his nubile young daughter run around alone with any man in the mansion of a movie star?

    Like


  28. “Polanski is One of Us! He’s Our Type of Guy! He’s in Our Tribe. Thus He Must Be a Goodfella!”

    This is what I was getting at. Liberals following and defending their own without any regard for facts, morals or hypocrisy? Say it ain’t so!

    Liberal betas infest Hollywood and the media. All dissenters are personally and endlessly attacked. All believers are worshipped and follow the line.

    If you’re an outspoken conservative in Hollywood/media, you are truly Alpha, because you clearly just don’t give a fuck about what people think of you. Whether you enjoy their craft or not, Mel Gibson and Bill O’Reilly are alpha, period.

    Like


  29. on October 1, 2009 at 2:29 pm BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

    Roissy talking about me again, hey?

    I am too ALPHA for you white Biatches!

    Like


  30. Roman is alpha and proof there is no justice in the world or hearts of women.

    Like


  31. Roissy, I might disagree. After all, women would jump to defend Nobama, no? And he clearly isn’t alpha. At this point, we have to understand that the country elected a weak, beta leader.

    [editor: as much as you or i may find it personally distasteful, the fact remains that obama is an alpha, however badly he’s helping destroy our country from within.]

    I think this Polanski matter is more tribalism than alpha/beta. Celebrities who depend upon Hollywood for fame will defend him, because he is a darling of the Big Hollywood players, because his films garner prestige—and also, he was a Jewish victim of the Holocaust, and many execs and movers and shakers in LaLa Land, being Jewish, have a natural victim-grandfather mentality that leads them to pay homage to him.

    Basically, Whoopi Goldberg and Debra Winger will defend him if there is even the slightest chance that some studio exec who loves Polanski’s oscars will see her defense, ring her up, and offer her a cameo/sitcom/new film.

    More importantly, if celebrities trounce Polanski, they will be exiled from the tribe—no more ring backs from Harvey Weinstein, etc.

    Like


  32. on October 1, 2009 at 2:44 pm The Cock of Obama

    Silly boy.

    Conservative = alpha

    liberal = beta.

    Seriously, you guys are stupid.

    Like


  33. on October 1, 2009 at 2:52 pm ironrailsironweights

    [editor: actually, roman pulled the alpha move. he lived free another day to chase more skirt. your problem is that you are one of those who wishes to impart moral gravitas to the understanding of the alpha male, but reality pisses all over your moral ledger.]

    You’re wrong. If Polanski had remained in California and accepted the consequences of his guilty plea, he would have served a couple years at most and then would have been free to chase all the tail he could handle.

    [editor: by going his route he was able to chase all the tail he wanted without serving any jail time.]

    “Free” is the operative word. By fleeing like a coward, he spent the next three decades with his mobility vastly limited, pretty much restricted to France and Poland – and keep in mind he’s in a field where most of his peers travel all over the world.

    [i’m sure polanski didn’t exhaust the supply of hot willing women in poland or france.]

    Even worse, from Polanski’s perspective, he’s had to spend all this time constantly worrying that U.S. authorities would find a way to get him into custody. Which of course is what’s now happened, and if he ends up in prison it’ll surely be much harder to deal with at his age than it would have been in his 40’s.

    [depends on your angle of perception. i’d rather waste years in jail in my 70s than in my 40s when i’m at the height of my sexual power and free to do something about it.]

    Peter

    Like


  34. I agree with Charles and Lurker.

    This isn’t as much about Polanski being alpha, or even being liberal as it is about him being part of the tribe of the Hollywood elite. Beyond politics, the one thing the Hollywood elite have in common is the feeling that they are smarter/prettier/more artistic than the rest of us, and it is unfair that they should be held to the same standards as us dirty proles.

    If he were apolitical, they would still defend him.

    If he were a homosexual who was accused of molesting a 13 year old boy, they would still defend him.

    Like


  35. Anyone arguing that Obama is an alpha is delusional.

    Look at the very ugly woman that he married.

    [editor: false flag. look at all the hotties who wish they were married to him.]

    Like


  36. on October 1, 2009 at 3:14 pm 54-Year-Old-Virgin

    he’s a jew. jews have a delightful custom:when one of their own commits a crime against one of ours,the lowly goyim,the jews unite and defend their boy. As in Roissy’s alpha male definition,morality,right and wrong.play no role. Defending the jews is the ultimate right. Roissy—do you REALLY think these hairy-faced moldy-pussied feminist goons defend this little rat-faced pig because its an “alpha male’??? LOL!! You think Eleanor Smell,or Smegma,or whatever her name is,is defending this jew dirtbag cuz he’s soooooo cute and adorable??Like she is rubbing her bug-infested cooch and oozing sulphuric,yellow-green sauce while fantasizing sucking this holocaust-surviving perverts snaggly dick? I say this scumbag need to come back and sit his filthy ass in jail for the next 20 years.

    [editor: what if polanski was roman schnerdling, the jewish high school teacher, who drugged and raped a 13 year old? do you think jewish celebrities would be lining up to defend him?]

    Like


  37. MAureen Dowd

    ya dried u old hole,

    roissy already said obama bam bam was a lesser alpha… wipe the estrogen shots out of your eye wrinkles and read it.

    obama was…
    just enough to get elected by the femenist idiot electorate , and just beta enough to get shit all over by all of our enemies, and laughed at and dominated by our (soon to be former) allies.

    Like


  38. Of course Alphas can get away with anything….

    just look at Fox News

    In one corner you have

    Bill O’Reilly = Clearly Alpha

    in the other corner you have

    Glen Beck = Jelly bean eating chubby cheeked beta

    Glen Beck is currently distroyed by the media for every comment he makes…on the flipside you have Bill O’Reilly who has said far worse things than Glen Beck has ever come up with and yet….noone ever goes after Bill O’Reilly

    Like


  39. on October 1, 2009 at 3:27 pm The Cock of Obama

    All those communists are liberals. Hard core liberals. I guess since communists are liberals, they must be weak and not alpha.

    Idiots.

    [editor: so you admit that liberals are commies? we need more bracing honesty like this in politics!]

    Like


  40. “noone ever goes after Bill O’Reilly”

    They do, but not with the same fervor as Glen Beck.

    Plus, its hard to argue with a guy who’s had the highest rated cable show for the past 8 years or so.

    Like


  41. on October 1, 2009 at 3:33 pm The Cock of Obama

    Communism = extreme expression of liberalism. Who is the idiot that doesnt know this? You, roissy?

    [editor: the ideologically commie diaspora, from siberia to san francisco, includes hundreds of millions of people. that’s a lot of extremists.]

    Fascism = Extreme expression of conservatism. Who is the retard that doesnt know this? You, roissy?

    Extremism is NOT ALWAYS a good thing. A pure alpha country will be horrible. So is a pure beta country.

    Like


  42. It’s all Obama’s fault.

    Oh, and Nanci Pelosis.

    And the Jews.

    And the Librul Media!11!!1 because all Libruls are defending him.

    I’m just not in the mood to use my mental gymnastics skillz to show how the above is all true. It just is.

    Like


  43. this does involve a sort of tautology. perhaps polanski is getting a free pass by some due to his alpha status, but he could also be getting it because his supporters think he’s an artistic genius. of course, the two are highly correlated.

    but even whoopi goldberg defended polanski, saying that he didn’t commit “rape rape”. goldberg probably doesn’t know polanski and i doubt she’s supporting him because of his alpha aura. she’s supporting him because the facts of the matter are so sketchy and it happened so long ago under cloudy circumstances.

    Like


  44. TCoB says, “Fascism = Extreme expression of conservatism.”

    Not even close.

    Learn a little bit about Fascist economics and history.

    Like


  45. on October 1, 2009 at 3:42 pm The Cock of Obama

    Hey Dumbass,

    Fascism = right wing = conservatism.

    Communism = leftwing = liberalism.

    Jesus H Fucking Christ.

    Like


  46. “[editor: as much as you or i may find it personally distasteful, the fact remains that obama is an alpha, however badly he’s helping destroy our country from within.]”

    —Roissy, its not about disagreeing with his policies. CLinton is an alpha; Edwards an alpha; Gore an Alpha; Jesse Jackson, alpha; Al Sharpton, alpha. I can recognize alpha status even among the left-wing nuts I dislike on policy.

    Nobama’s actions show betaness. Bowing to a Saudi Prince? Grovelling for America’s actions? Refusing to stand up to Iran’s President—and thoroughly being out-alphaed on the issue by the President of France (!), the U.K, and Israel’s Prime Minister? Having absolutely no plan to have his policies passed, and running away/avoiding the issues when the opposition attacks? Heck, letting Nancy Pelosi run healthcare instead of taking it on himself? When Russia’s Medeved gave him the handshake without even turning his head?

    Many actors/speakers are beta, but the power of the podium fools people.

    We have already had 1 apologetoc, grovelling beta president in the last 50 years: Jimmy Carter. Iran walked all over him too, remember?

    I really do think he is beta. The women defend him because he is the hard-left guy, and the podium effect. But more and more, he is proving to be weak. Sarkozy’s said it; heck, Ralph Nader’s said it. And if Ralph Nader is calling a hard-left president “weak,” then I think there’s some fire under that smoke. Beta fire.

    [editor: relative to past US presidents or current world leaders, obama may be weak. but that doesn’t change his alpha status, which is largely a product of his station and his ambition, and which is in evidence by the hordes of young fertile women who would rather sleep with him than with the average beta bear.]

    Like


  47. The Cock of Obama, wrong.

    Facism, as compared to American conservatism (small government, limited power), is not the same. Opposed, since facism desires more power for the state.

    You’re confusing facist states’ (of the 1930s) nationalism with facist policy. Communism of that time period was also extremely patriotic, but now liberalism eschews nationalism.

    Nobama’s policies are right now borderline facisitic, even if he doesn’t mirror facism of the 1930’s love of country.

    Like


  48. I read somewhere that the girl had sex before the incident — meaning she wasn’t the wholesome example of virginity that many want to portray her as. Not, in any way, defending Polanski since there’s nothing “alpha” about having to get a girl drunk and drugged in order to fuck her.

    Just sayin…

    Like


  49. on October 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Nobama’s actions show betaness. Bowing to a Saudi Prince? Grovelling for America’s actions? Refusing to stand up to Iran’s President—and thoroughly being out-alphaed on the issue by the President of France (!), the U.K, and Israel’s Prime Minister?

    Hyperbole much?

    Like


  50. I guess what I’m saying is that a government leader can be beta—which spells disaster in most cases. All governments, whether monarchist, oligarchies, pure democracies, etc. have the problem of installing a weak leader.

    Neville Chamberlain comes to mind.

    About the only ones that do not are dictatorships, which are defacto alpha-run. but because they crush any opposition, they create a bleak landscape that only whores like the dyke feministrix like.

    A good movie on the subject is the Peter Sellers film “Being There,” where a weak-minded and weak-willed gardener is picked to be a presidential candidate because he can be controlled. President Chauncy is throughly manipulated due to his betaness. Though fiction, it shows how such a situation is possible.

    I fear we have a President Chauncey.

    Like


  51. my bottom bitch:

    “Hyperbole much?”

    —Nope. He bowed to the Saudi Prince. Video is conclusive on the issue.

    His speeches to the UN and abroad show a man “sorry” for America’s actions in general. Grovelling.

    Third, even John “Scummy Stewballs” Stewart on the Daily Show made fun of Nobama for being weak on Iran at the g-20, while Sarkozy, the UK guy, and the ISraeli prime minister blasted Iran sternly. When Scummy Stewballs says his left-wing president is weak, you’re in trouble.

    Like


  52. on October 1, 2009 at 3:58 pm The Cock of Obama

    Lurker…i think you are confusing Bush II(puppet controlled by Cheney) with Obama. Everything you’ve been writing about is a clear description of George Bush the Weak bitch.

    Like


  53. The Cock of Obama, not really. Bush wasn’;t Cheney’s puppet; that’s largely the creation of left-wingers, imagining that granting his Vice President more a voice than most=being a puppet.

    As most bios show, Bush relied much more on Condi Rice than Cheney; rumors once flew that they were lovers, because he trusted her so much and sought her out so much.

    The main proof offered is somehow Bush stumbling when answering press questions, and Cheney being a strong voice. A strong voice does not equal puppet master.

    Obama’s policies in economic expansion are facisitic. Bush’s policies of locking up foreign nationals off American homeland isn’t facistic.

    Like


  54. Put it this way, cock of obama: Iran/Russia/N.Korea didn’t pull this shit when Bush was in office, because they knew the man would blow their heads off. Hillary and MCCain, too, wouldn’t stand for this were they president, which is partially why she’s been exiled from the whit house—she’s got more balls than Nobama.

    Nobama cowers and hems and haws.

    Like


  55. on October 1, 2009 at 4:04 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Lurker has such an amazingly twisted view of reality that I wonder how I let him suck me off.

    Like


  56. “[editor: relative to past US presidents or current world leaders, obama may be weak. but that doesn’t change his alpha status, which is largely a product of his station and his ambition, and which is in evidence by the hordes of young fertile women who would rather sleep with him than with the average beta bear.]”

    —I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I feel hordes of young women want to sleep with him because 1) he is president; and 2) he is hard-left candidate, which young women usually like.

    Much like a rock star/actor who is a beta but yet finds success and fame, it is the stage that granst them the women, not the alpha/betaness.

    Its really the bowing, no face shake, apologetic, weak-words that get me.

    In any case, the fame factor plays to such a small percentage of beta males, its a statistical anomoly if true.

    Like


  57. lurker’s butt boy:

    It’s amazing how you think plain facts =twisted view of reality.

    Must be one of those people who think “nationalized healthcare” has no downsides.

    Like


  58. on October 1, 2009 at 4:09 pm Biting Beaver

    I said it yesterday and i will say it again.

    Lurker….er…loser…is dumber than a sack of wet rats.

    Like


  59. on October 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Lurker….er…loser…is dumber than a sack of wet rats.

    Quit insulting wet rats.

    Like


  60. Roissy, it also may be that you have a skewed sample size, living in DC when the left-wing is in control. The crowd there right now is pretty self-selecting towards left-wing groupies, and they get a jonesing off of politics, too, so Nobama’s like a double shot of cocaine.

    Outside, i feel its different. Heck, even here in deep blue NYC I can find a large number of women who hate him or dislike him or don’t think he’s special.

    Like


  61. Ah, to live in the fantasy world BB and my butt boy live in—-must be great for them to not have to deal with reality!

    Like


  62. I would challenge BB and my butt boy to state some coherent facts to contradict my points.

    Please, I welcome the *snort* challenge.

    Like


  63. on October 1, 2009 at 4:15 pm Biting Beaver

    lurkerboyfriend,

    what do you do when The Loser(lurker) bray out of nowhere like he was getting fucked by a donkey?

    Like


  64. BB, do you have any arguments to make? Or is this going to be an ad hominem show?

    Like


  65. on October 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Outside, i feel its different. Heck, even here in deep blue NYC I can find a large number of women who hate him or dislike him or don’t think he’s special.

    You can find that in DC too you obelisk of brilliance (that’s not a compliment, KJ).

    Like


  66. Butt boy, I was talking to the Master of the Blog, not you. When you understand things like “sample size” and “facts” you can try again, understand, gimp?

    Like


  67. on October 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm lurkersboyfriend

    what do you do when The Loser(lurker) bray out of nowhere like he was getting fucked by a donkey?

    That’s impossible since I’m hung like a horse and The Loser loves it. So a donkey is nothing.

    By the way, lurker baby, the doctor called and said an asshole is pretty resilient. Don’t worry about the leakage.

    Like


  68. @ bitng beaver

    if you masturbate, are you raping yourself?

    Like


  69. Why do I get the feeling BB and butt boy are the same troll changing his handle when he wants to have a friend? is it he who must not be named?

    Like


  70. BB, thank you. i was worried when you shit blood on that filipino child’s face and I had to come in from your mom’s room to see what you were crying about.

    Like


  71. on October 1, 2009 at 4:23 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Why do I get the feeling BB and butt boy are the same troll changing his handle when he wants to have a friend? is it he who must not be named?

    Sadly, we’re not the same. Actually, not sadly since that fulfills your fantasy of getting gangraped, KJ.

    Like


  72. lol BB. Sure you’re not the same.

    Love your obsession with gang rape though. Very telling about your psyche.

    Like


  73. on October 1, 2009 at 4:26 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Very telling about your psyche.

    Yup, spoken like a true KJ.

    Like


  74. Can you morons take your mindless titty-fight elsewhere?

    Like


  75. Um, Roissy, I haven’t gone through all the comments here yet, so someone else may have brought this up: there are indeed some bona fide feminists who are protesting the canonisation of St Roman. There’s a piece in Salon by one of them (easy to find, and I don’t want to have this comment held up so I won’t link to it), and another in DoubleX, a feminist journal, both of which sound a note of sheer outrage that Hollywood is being so kind to Polanski.

    And that brings me to another point: most of the people who are defending the man are those who have had, have, or someday could have professional ties with him or with his friends, backers, or associates. Hollywood denizens are likely to protect their own. Even Mel Gibson was defended by, of all people, Jodie Foster.

    Finally, to PA: Bob Packwood actually did find a few feminist supporters for – wait for it – being so ardently pro-choice. That, incidentally, is the same reason as many feminists supported Clinton: he was “staunchly” pro-choice. The worst thing anyone can do to alienate the chattering classes is to be pro-life.

    Like


  76. on October 1, 2009 at 4:31 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Can you morons take your mindless titty-fight elsewhere?

    Not really. There’s no point to this post, really. Chicks dig guys that rape or kill.

    In other Breaking News, dog bites man.

    Like


  77. on October 1, 2009 at 4:34 pm lurkersboyfriend

    Um, Roissy, I haven’t gone through all the comments here yet, so someone else may have brought this up: there are indeed some bona fide feminists who are protesting the canonisation of St Roman. There’s a piece in Salon by one of them (easy to find, and I don’t want to have this comment held up so I won’t link to it), and another in DoubleX, a feminist journal, both of which sound a note of sheer outrage that Hollywood is being so kind to Polanski.

    And that brings me to another point: most of the people who are defending the man are those who have had, have, or someday could have professional ties with him or with his friends, backers, or associates. Hollywood denizens are likely to protect their own. Even Mel Gibson was defended by, of all people, Jodie Foster.

    SANITY!

    Like


  78. on October 1, 2009 at 4:40 pm Biting Beaver

    The Loser aka lurker likes his “Santorum Slurpee” — The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

    Do you drink that with straw or just straight up?

    Like


  79. poll: bb=he who must not be named, or chicy fuckface?

    Like


  80. on October 1, 2009 at 4:45 pm lurkersboyfriend

    [email protected] Santorum Slurpee

    Like


  81. on October 1, 2009 at 4:45 pm Biting Beaver

    @ GIG. Only if *you* are doing that to your mother while your father watches your dog fuck your sister and poop in your morning cereal before farting in your boyfriend ear.

    Lick my asshole, bitch. Lick it! Lick it cleeaaann!

    G.I.G means “Gay in ‘Gina” or “Gay/Gina” for short.

    Like


  82. BB, are you just picking *any* fight you can?

    I see you have ignored my minor challenge to present facts to contradict my assertions.

    Like


  83. Lurker’s bf, so nice that you’re calling me sane, but I have to congratulate you anyway for something you may not like: you have managed to make me feel agreeable towards Lurker, which I would have thought impossible as little as 12 hours ago.

    Sheesh. What is it with what Lurker would no doubt call you “lefty retards” that you can alienate the very people you claim to agree with, and so easily?

    Like


  84. on October 1, 2009 at 4:52 pm Seeking Alpha

    I would assume Biting Beaver and lurkersboyfriend are the same, bored person. Now would be an excellent time for a little moderation, Big Brother.

    Like


  85. on October 1, 2009 at 4:53 pm lurkersboyfriend

    you have managed to make me feel agreeable towards Lurker, which I would have thought impossible as little as 12 hours ago.

    Don’t worry, that will go away in another 12 hours.

    Like


  86. [quote]How do you recognize the alpha male? Ye shall know him by the shamelessness of women who aren’t his mother willing to defend his indefensible misdeeds. [/quote]
    Which is proven by the equal trueness of its corollary — how do women treat or seek to excuse, praise, justify those who [b]do[/b] deserve their support because they are their children, husbands, boyfriends, taxpayer subsidizers, etc.? In the case of betas, the answer is “exactly the opposite of how they’re treating Roman.”

    Like


  87. on October 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm Biting Beaver

    Gotta Go. Last post for the day.

    But remember, The Loser aka Lurker, the reason why you are soo constipated is because of that lost, x-tra large condoms packed inside your colon. 4 days old.

    Have it check out…unless you prefer it digested. or aspirated through the other end of your digestive system(your mouth).

    Wont surprise me though.

    Hasta la vista, baby.

    Like


  88. on October 1, 2009 at 5:05 pm zunderdownunder

    Getiting a bit of heat eh, Lurker.

    No suprises a limp wristed fag like you would think dub bush a strong leader.

    The guy was a DRAFT DODGER. The ultimate disgraceful betafied wimp act you can imagine.

    Like


  89. 13 or 30, if it was my daughter, I would have just murdered the guy. Fuck the police in such a case. If someone touches one of my kids, he is dying like a dog on his own front lawn. Whatever happens to me after that is worth it just to see his brains spray on the grass.

    I don’t know what his still breathing says about his alpha status, but it says something is terribly wrong with this world.

    Like


  90. Better be careful there, Ghost of Nicole.

    False accusations of child abuse/molestation are easy to make. You’ll never catch me murdering someone mere words alone, even if it was my sainted grandmother making them. She could, after all, be mistaken.

    So while I agree with you on an emotional level, I’d have some evidence before I had so and so’s head. Luckily, with Polanski, we have his own admission to at least some of what he did.

    Like


  91. on October 1, 2009 at 5:18 pm The Fifth Horseman

    The thing is, Michael Jackson was not defended by most of the elite, even though what he supposedely did, molestation, was far short of rape.

    Could it be that Michael Jackson, who is far more famous than Roman Polanski, could not evoke female lust?

    Like


  92. on October 1, 2009 at 5:19 pm The Fifth Horseman

    The guy was a DRAFT DODGER. The ultimate disgraceful betafied wimp act you can imagine.

    That would be Bill Clinton.

    Bush did not dodge anything.

    Like


  93. on October 1, 2009 at 5:21 pm The Fifth Horseman

    So let me get this straight :

    France does NOT extradite to the US? Which other countries that are decent to live in, do not extradite?

    Since women are making a habit of false rape charges, many innocent men will have to flee to a country that will not extradite them.

    Like


  94. zunder the dunder:

    “Getiting a bit of heat eh, Lurker.”
    —from a schizophrenic? Not heat, sheepfucker. Just a loon talking to his alter ego.

    then again, he’s probably the closest thing you have to an equal intelligence wise.

    “No suprises a limp wristed fag like you would think dub bush a strong leader.”
    —-No surprise from a brain dead half-retarded uneducated little dicked dolt like you would think socialism is a great thing and bush was a bad.

    “The guy was a DRAFT DODGER.”
    —wrong, faggot. Once again, you believe the liberal lies instead of the facts. Unsurprising.

    Fact: bush did not dodge the draft. He served in the military during vietnam.

    Case closed, sheepfucker.

    T”he ultimate disgraceful betafied wimp act you can imagine.”
    —-So many ways to go on this, but they will fall on a retards ears.

    better to let him masturbate to tellitubbies and dream of Nobama at night.

    Like


  95. on October 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm The Fifth Horseman

    Now that Roissy has declared Polanski an Alpha (which the FeminOrcs will typically misunderstand as Roissy praising Polanski much like they misunderstood Roissy as praising Sodini), the FeminOrcs are in a bind.

    They find their Ginas tingling to someone who Roissy has declared an Alpha! Shocker!

    Continentals, almost without exception, have been on his side.

    Bull. In France, the average citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of his arrest. Do some research.

    Like


  96. Fifth, extradition isn’t as easy as it should be. France won’t extradite to the US based on the fact that some US states have the death penalty. Even in cases where the death penalty doesn’t apply.

    Extradition is a weird thing, politically speaking.

    Like


  97. 5th horseman:

    come on man. signing up for the alabama national guard (as GWB did) is effectively draft dodging.

    Like


  98. Chuck, no. Did he serve? Yes. Draft dodging would be not reporting or running to Canada.

    You can build a better case on Clinton. But that imputes that everyone in the National Guard was a draft dodger. But they are FAR from being the draft dodgers the canadian runaways were.

    Like


  99. Which is proven by the equal trueness of its corollary — how do women treat or seek to excuse, praise, justify those who [b]do[/b] deserve their support because they are their children, husbands, boyfriends, taxpayer subsidizers, etc.? In the case of betas, the answer is “exactly the opposite of how they’re treating Roman.”

    treat a woman like a princess and she will come to expect it; she will punish you as soon as you show the slightest percieved deviation. on the other hand, if you’re a cad from the start, she will never expect anything else; furthermore, she will treat the smallest gesture of kindness with more appreciation than the grandest show of affection from a beta.

    why? because woman are very good at seeing who we really are and evaluating our behavior based on how much we’re pretending.

    in terms of individual behavior, this is an endorsement for being yourself. and i don’t mean that in the trite, beta-bait way it is often used. what i mean is this: if you’re a natural asshole, then be an asshole and don’t apologize for it. if you’re naturally a nice guy; then be nice, but only to those who deserve it. beta males could improve their lot in spades if they just stopped white knighting and treated women they way their behavior warrants.

    Like


  100. ps – relating what i just said about treating women how their behavior warrants, any woman who supports polanski is basically saying that she wouldn’t mind being drugged and ass-raped so long as it’s by a high-status male. any woman who expresses that opinion should be treated as the filthy whore she is.

    Like


  101. Um, Roissy?

    Feminists do condemn Roman because, surprise surprise, they don’t like rape.

    Feministe has been talking about nothing else for a week. Feministing has a nice roundup of posts: http://www.feministing.com/archives/017998.html. The most ambiguous one is from Pandagon, which is only annoyed at having to be temporarily allied with social conservatives against Polanski: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/note_to_conservatives_thanks_but_your_help_is_not_needed/

    Now, tell me one place where feminists have been praising Polanski.

    Like


  102. Further proof Polanski is (or was) an alpha: he married a 10:

    http://tinyurl.com/y9mv4o5

    Then, he cheated on her.

    Like


  103. And the rape technicality is only a technicality.
    Some 13 year old females already have nice developed bodies and can consent to sex.

    Like


  104. Mothers are soo.. concerned about their kids!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/6251481/Brooke-Shields-photograph-at-Tate-art-belongs-in-an-art-gallery.html

    In today’s article about Richard Prince’s photograph, which features a photograph of Brooke Shields’ a children’s campaigner criticises the Tate for exhibiting the image. The article states: Michele Elliott, founder of Kidscape, said: “Brooke Shields was 10 years old when this picture was taken. She could not have given informed consent to it being used. It must be bordering on child pornography. It is certainly not art.”

    A nude picture taken in 1975 by Gary Gross of the ten year old Brooke Shields is not, by any stretch of the imagination, art. Smothered in oil and heavily made-up, the young Shields self-consciously imitates the pose of a provocative sex symbol, perhaps an idol she might have seen in a magazine or Hollywood film. What makes the picture tragic and poignant, is the tension between Shields’ staged pose and her child’s body, her tiny features, the innocent but intimate bathtub setting of the shoot.

    It’s even more affecting when you know that the picture was commissioned by Shields’ mother, who was intent on turning her little girl into a child star and signed away the rights. This picture is not art, but it does, in one visual punch, stir us to recognise a sickening by-product of the glitzy movie industry and the consumer culture of ‘the American dream’: theft of innocence.

    Like


  105. on October 1, 2009 at 7:07 pm Marcus Aureliette

    And the rape technicality is only a technicality.
    Some 13 year old females already have nice developed bodies and can consent to sex.

    What “rape technicality”?

    In this particular case her age is beside the point: Polanski’s victim did not consent. On the contrary, she objected repeatedly. It would have been rape regardless of her age.

    He’s a turd, and so is anyone who defends him.

    Like


  106. Butters,

    Thank you for showing us once again why Silvio Berlusconi is one of the greatest men alive today.

    The best part of the video was when he said, and I am paraphrasing here, that he has never paid for a prostitute because for him, as a someone who enjoys conquering, the joys and pleasures of the sexual conquest are far too great to ever have to pay for sex.

    Now that is true Alpha.

    Like


  107. “Here’s a thought experiment: which famous figure, were he to rape a 13-year-old girl, would receive the total opposite reaction from feminists, pundits, sanctimonious Hollywood liberals, and even the victim herself?”

    Patt Buchanan, of course.

    Like


  108. Bill Clinton and Roman Polanksi are defended by woman while Elliot Spitzer was criticized by women. Spitzer was run out of office.

    The first two were alphas, and took sex by force or by compulsion. The third paid honestly and generously for sex. A despised beta.

    Any man who respects women is a fool.

    Most men are fools.

    But, anybody who defends a man who drugs and rapes a protesting 13 yo girl is beneath contempt. That includes all liberals, I believe. I can more easily forgive Polanksi, who likely acted on the spur of the moment. His defenders are not influenced by imminent sex with a young girl.

    Like


  109. Oh for Christ’s sake! Samantha Geimer was a kid, not a woman, when this happened. Kids lack the ability to consent because they’re lacking in real world experience, are eager to please adults in general, have undeveloped capacity for judging the future consequences of their actions, and are intellectually and emotionally less developed. So their responses to an adult’s advances in no way indicate “consent”. Even if she happily accepted his advances, it was still rape for all the reasons I’ve just listed. Even mentioning “alpha” in this context is absurd. You can’t be alpha unless your skills compell another adult to comply with your wishes of their own free choosing. This is why the whole evo-psych explanation for human behavior breaks down: you can never completely disentangle the effects of biology from the overlying cognitive/social/cultural factors. Nor should any of us want to. People do have biological impulses, but they also have the ability to override those impulses and follow rules. Many choose not to follow those rules, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t, only that they didn’t want to. Roman Polanski violated a rule society strongly believes in – the protection of children. Then he ran like a coward to France. He’s not an alpha. He’s just a criminal.

    Like


  110. Clarence, of course I wouldn’t shoot a guy on just the word. If I was sure who did it, and that it was non consensual though, they are d e a d. I will execute them myself.

    I have absolutely no moral or ethical qualms about this. A rapist should be put down like a mad dog. If they have any dignity they’ll do it themselves before I get to them to spare their family the sight of their remains when I’m done with them.

    Even if it’s my own child who does such a thing, I would humanely dispatch them for the honor of the woman they did it to.

    Call it barbaric, but it is not a stand-alone deal. There’s a lifestyle of personal responsibility and good sense that goes along with it. When you don’t rely on the “justice” system to take care of these things, you also don’t buy their definitions.

    Gray area situations aren’t enough for someone needing killing. I have a hard time even calling those rape. In cases where both people are drunk or high, whatever the cops call it, I would just call it stupid. Spousal rape…I’d call an unclear situation unless there was some blood shed or drugging to get it done. If the woman consented, but it started to hurt or something, and the guy just didn’t stop mid-stream then that’s not rape really. That’s highly inconsiderate, but not rape enough to need killing…just a good yelling at and thin ice warning.

    So the women in my family don’t put ourselves in situations that are likely to get us into trouble. We know that it’s a grave thing, and if we do manage to get into trouble anyway, we tend to want to take care of it on the spot or by our own resources without someone else getting their hands dirty…don’t want to say more about that.

    Rape, in my and my family’s view is outright forcible sex. If that happens, someone’s getting dead. Well actually, someone has already gotten dead in such a case, and another permanently disabled in a similar case, and the time for those was served.

    We don’t mess around on that subject.

    …and for those wondering, this is how I got to be such a nutbar: my relatives.

    Like


  111. Fabian

    If lots of hot women want to fuck a guy and also reflexively defend his various criminal actions he is alpha in the eyes of the gene-god.
    You are not being asked to like this insight.

    Like


  112. Larry Auster;that chivalric,anti-game, socialcon pile of rubbish defends his soul-brother Polansky.

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014370.html

    If a Lothario “takes advantage” of a bar-fly, Lar gets all indignant and prudish.If a fellow Favorite of Yahweh drugs and rapes a 13 year-old shiksa,Lar can’t seem to understand what all the commotion is about.

    Like


  113. Ghost of Nicole,

    Why should a guy care? What is in it for him? Why should he try to help the woman seek ‘justice’?

    Why should anybody go out of their way to uphold ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’? No rational person can treat a system better than it treats him.

    Like


  114. You’re somewhat off target on this one Roissy. Polanski is being defended by the feminists because he is (a) alpha, it’s true, but also (b) because he is a Progressive icon (Sharon Tate, his movies, political views, etc). Both seem to be required to draw the feminist support. For example, Mel Gibson, even though also alpha, would not be defended by these women if he was accused of rape.

    Like


  115. Rum is right. It’s the way things are, but we don’t have to like it.

    I believe that more socially invested people are more vulnerable to the alpha advantage in “shivary”. It’s true even in relatively primitive cultures where some people cry up and down about family honor, and then turn around and sell their 11 year old daughters to the sheik.

    People who are less socially invested don’t give a good damn who you are if you mess with them or theirs. So people with money and/or fame seek out victims who are, or whose care takers are highly socially invested.

    I guess Polanski felt he could take advantage because the parents seemed otherwise spineless enough that he would get away with it. He was wrong about their spinelessness, but right about others shielding him to some degree from the due consequences of his actions.

    Like


  116. Polanski “confessed” to the girls version of what happened because he understood that a deal had been made that would keep him out of jail and that by not contesting anything there might be some kind of closure. (Shit, I would confess to being a serial-killer if doing so would keep me out of jail. )
    Subsequently, the deal was withdrawn and he was left defenseless for having upheld his half of the bargain.
    I do not know what really happened and neither do any of you. However, there are major hints that the girl still considers it the best sex she ever had.

    Like


  117. I think the defense is tribalism, still.

    Hollywood loves his movies, and its all about networking there; defending him is about making sure they don’t get shut out of an audition.

    If he weren’t a mover/shaker—if he couldn’t get you into one of his oscar-winning movies and get you a nod even if you are a mediocre actor with an ugly face (Brody, Adrian)—they’d be silent.

    You know what will be interesting? Hearing Roger Egbert’s and Leonard Maltin’s and Richard Roeper’s takes. Those are the top 3 highest profile movie critics in the country, with the biggest podiums.

    Egbert especially. He often gives his damn political opinion in his work (he practically blew Obama and claimed that the 2008 election was about “saving the Republic”). So it will be interesting if he either 1) throws his credibility to the wind and declare that Polanski’s art protects him from prosecution; or 2) shows some principle, and declares Polanski should go to jail.

    He’s rubbed shoulders with Polanski before —he goes to Cannes every year and their after-parties.

    It’s interesting to see the divide on the (non-Hollywood) left on this one, as it becomes principled liberals versus our-side-is-always-perfect liberals. I think some liberals (especially feminist ones) are opening their eyes to the true nature of many people they count as allies.

    I think, strangely, this may hurt Nobama, especially if (as I predict herein) he starts commenting on the case—remember, he is dumb enough (skip Gates, Rush limbaugh, Glenn Beck , anyone?) and petty enough to comment publically on issues affecting individuals that don’t affect the country. If he opens his stupid trap—and I think he will—-and supports Polanski in any way—-or is neutral—many people who voted for him might ask—-exactly what does this man stand for?

    Like


  118. Lucifer, when you have children, you’ll understand what’s in it for you seek justice for them.

    Until you do, you can feel free to not seek justice for other females, and probably be justified.

    However, if you and every other man on earth stops seeking justice for any female, then all females will die or be damaged by the males who are not just indifferent, but hateful.

    Then you won’t even have female prostitutes to shag. There will be no women.

    Women need male protection. Without it, we are dead. I’m a pretty strong woman on my own, but my male friends on the same regime, are as strong as at least three of me. So I have no illusions about any lack of importance of men. I’ve sparred with too many of them to be delusional.

    Like


  119. Rum, you’re being extreme.

    “Polanski “confessed” to the girls version of what happened because he understood that a deal had been made that would keep him out of jail and that by not contesting anything there might be some kind of closure. ”
    —-He confessed because he raped her. He did it to a lesser charge. that was the deal.

    “(Shit, I would confess to being a serial-killer if doing so would keep me out of jail. )”
    —and you would be stupid (and your lawyer would be) if you thought owning up to a crime you didn’t commit, and a heinous one, would get you out of punishment. What is that, the Larry Craig defense?

    “Subsequently, the deal was withdrawn and he was left defenseless for having upheld his half of the bargain.”
    —no, he could have withdrawn the plea and asked for a trial.

    The deal was that the prosecution would recommend a low sentence, which is all a plea bargain is—you confess to a lower crime, and the prosecution might throw in a low prison recommendation.

    However, there are no guarantees in a plea deal, because the prosecution doesn’t set the jail time, but the judge does—and he doesn’t have to listen to the prosecutor.

    Here, Polanski got wind that the judge was no longer amenable to the deal, and instead of withdrawing, he ran.

    “I do not know what really happened and neither do any of you. However, there are major hints that the girl still considers it the best sex she ever had.”
    —would that be the time she said no, her attempts to resist, or that she was forced into both vaginal and anal sex?

    Like


  120. Ghost of Nicole,

    I have no interest in the survival of humans as a species, if it does not benefit me.

    Like


  121. Lurker

    Champagne and qualudes do tend to impair the accuracy of memory.
    If she was truthful about being made impaired she cannot be trusted as to the details.
    If she made up the story of being forcibly stoned she cannot be trusted for anything at all.

    Like


  122. On the other hand, 13 year old kids should be allowed to play lots of kid-games in their spare time rather than have to dodge the priaptic intentions of their elders.

    Like


  123. Rum,

    Polanski gave her the drugs/drink deliberately to make her unable to fight back..

    “Champagne and qualudes do tend to impair the accuracy of memory.”
    —it was simple. she said no. That’s not hard to remember.

    “If she was truthful about being made impaired she cannot be trusted as to the details.”
    —saying no and being given drugs to make it easier to rape you aren’t that detailed. Basically, Polanski is in the same boat as guys giving girls “mickeys” or rolhypnol and then forcing themselves on the woman after she says no. They deliberately incapacitate/weaken the girl so she can’t fight back—because they say no.

    “If she made up the story of being forcibly stoned she cannot be trusted for anything at all.”
    —a 13 year old is now responsible for her handlign illegal drugs and alcohol she is not legally allowed to have? That’s out of bounds.

    Like


  124. Here is an article from a women who gained 25 pounds. She thinks the reason her man can’t get it up is for reasons other than her weight gain:

    http://bit.ly/5j3CJ

    Like


  125. Oh the depravity. Nothing Alpha about Polanski.
    He was a complete Beta with Sharon Tate and when she was murdered he became a raging atheist.
    Without any moral compass and a belief in only ‘the absurd’ he gave into animal lust and raped a child.

    This is merely Hollywood protecting its own.

    Because he’s talented. That’s important, you know? If he goes to jail then he can’t make movies and the world will slowly decay without the superbness of his talent.
    Or something.

    Who signed the petition to release him ?
    A lot of French and Hollywood tools who know him personally.
    And from the looks of it its mainly dudes.

    http://www.sacd.fr/Tous-les-signataires-de-la-petition-pour-Roman-Polanski-All-signing-parties.1341.0.html

    A true Alpha, who was once embroiled in his own rape allegation scandal, has a more sensible viewpoint of Polanski:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6252960/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-says-Roman-Polanski-should-not-get-special-treatment.html

    Like


  126. @eddie

    Here is an article from a women who gained 25 pounds. She thinks the reason her man can’t get it up is for reasons other than her weight gain:

    http://bit.ly/5j3CJ

    a great glimpse of female honesty clouded by feminist goo

    “And truthfully, the mean things I said to him had never really mattered. If I had to dream up some ideal sex partner, he’d be less like an image on a page than a character in a movie: sober, droll, funny, resilient, weirdly naive at times, kind of unknowable. Somebody like Alex, with his stinky T-shirts and ruined feet.”

    Like


  127. Eddie and King, in the article it says that she’s losing or has lost the weight, and is becoming more fit as well. Yet he still can’t get it up.

    My opinion: he’s a fat lazy slob himself, and has screwed up his circulation to the point that he can’t function sexually even with a Playboy centerfold straddling him.

    They both need to go on a natural diet.

    Like


  128. @KingLeonidas

    Oh I think she knows. Pretty obvious.

    I don’t understand why women get so upset if their men want them to lose weight.

    If the guy was telling them to get plastic surgery that would seem insulting.

    Like


  129. How is drugging and raping a minor any more ‘Alpha’ than unexpectingly shooting unarmed people in a random killing spree before committing suicide? Suppose Polanski couldn’t flee because the various authorities were hell-bent on extraditing him to the U.S. so Polanski commits suicide because he knows his chances in jail aren’t good what with being a rock spider and all – how exactly would that be ‘Alpha’? Isn’t there a world of difference between an Alpha marauder and an Om3ga random shooter despite both actions are equally immoral? The Alpha is doing so out of strength and the will to dominate whereas the Om3ga does so out of anger at his shortcomings and the rejection from society it brings. So too wouldn’t an Alpha rapist have a backbone and would not care to flee from fear rather as an act of defiance and not submitting to anyone else’s authority and punishment (Alphas engage in thoughtful tactical fallbacks whilst Om3gas merely flee for their puny lives)?

    Like


  130. on October 1, 2009 at 10:59 pm unlearning genius

    Oh, so if you are famous and rich, you can get away with just about anything…. this is an insight? We humans in the rest of the world have known this for a very long time, thank you.

    I guess you Americans are acting like all this is new is because you have had to deal with bad academic social science crap for the last few decades .. glad that you are slowly tuning into the realities of the human condition ..Religion is a good thing, excessive focus on individualism and money is a bad thing … too much aggression is not always a good thing .. uncontrolled generosity and goodness is not necessarily a good thing .. If all these truisms need to be force fed to you via lessons in bedding women at the bars through such simplistic concepts like alpha and beta .. well, i guess learning has to be fun.

    Like


  131. Paul wrote:

    “Rich + Famous + Jewish + European + molest 13 year old girl = a tortured and creative artistic soul that needs to be understood.

    “Poor + Unknown + White + Straight Man + molest 13 year old girl = Fucking White trailer trash that should be executed.”

    Interesting contrasts. I get rich/poor and famous/unknown, but last I checked most Jews are white and a non-negligible percentage of Europeans are straight men.

    Like


  132. Firstly, can everyone stop their petty shit fights and get back to the post.

    Men and women have different definitions of alpha. For women their definition of alpha is the definition roissy uses. It all relates to the gina tingle. This definition is probably true for weak minded omegas and pussified feminist males.

    For most men (and I guess for some women) the definition of alpha is based on leadership and achievement.

    This is why you can have women chasing men that other men see as losers. This is why Obama can create such a stir. To men he is weak, but he makes women’s (and SWPL males) gina’s tingle. Thus he is a poor excuse of a man to other men but an alpha to women.

    Some men can be both alpha to men and women, and I wonder whether this seeming dichotomy between a man who is a man’s alpha and a woman’s alpha is only a modern problem, or at least is something that has only been emphasised in modern society.

    Secondly, in Australia a football (and I mean real football not that pantywaist shit played in Europe) player is currently appealing a conviction for glassing his girlfriend. His girlfriend never testified at his trial (and I’m not sure how much she helped police) but she is currently going to testify on his behalf at his appeal.

    In short, a football player attacks his gf with a broken glass and she is defending him. Obviously this guy is not in the same league of alpha-ness as Roman, but he is alpha enough to have a woman defend his violence toward her.

    I’m sure that we could all find plenty of examples of this sort of thing occurring.

    Like


  133. on October 1, 2009 at 11:08 pm Cannon's Canon

    Nicole, having batted 1 for 1 today, was doomed for a sharp downturn in rationality.

    I forwarded that article to a dozen contacts with the subject line “hilarious!”

    By my math, she gained 25 lbs of baby weight, plus 30 lbs of post-insult trauma weight, and has lost less than 10 lbs since yoga. That’s still one hefty lefty!

    We might also infer that the husband wouldn’t drink or work himself to stress if he had such a Playboy model waiting to straddle him, but that would be a post for another day (Wednesday, specifically).

    Like


  134. Cannon how did ya like the call on yum lol
    Why am I always right?
    Its getting sick.

    Like


  135. on October 1, 2009 at 11:19 pm Willard Libby

    The paradox of the alpha male as you define him roissy is that ultimately his status is woman dependent. Women are the ultimate arbiter of alpha status, they say – Yes, he’s The One.

    That’s one definition.

    But what about males who have alpha status independent of female preference. Are successful serial rapists alpha? Slave owners? Men whose status is based on dominating other men and simply taking their daughters. Ghengis Khan and the like.

    I don’t completely disagree with the women-centric definition of alpha or the techniques of Game. My problem is coming to terms with the ultimate power of women.

    But I’m still not prepared to convert to Islam.

    Like


  136. on October 1, 2009 at 11:21 pm Cannon's Canon

    yes good job there gregi. i’ve retired from that pastime for the time being. maybe in a couple months when things get interesting. for now, i have football to bet on.

    Like


  137. Polanski is a Jew, and therefore a beta. The fact he had to RAPE the girl, exposes his beta-ness.

    F*cking Jew.

    Like


  138. Polanski deserves to go to jail because of a technical violation of the law. He also deserves to go to jail because he is a class enemy (a Hollywood director) who has directly or indirectly harmed this country. Why Republicans have not pushed to legalize Napster and other file-sharing sites to finally bankrupt Hollywood I will never understand.

    The Geimer chick is just another Hollywood whore, whether at 13 or 30. There is no moral transgression of forced sex upon a lower animal like an actress. Actresses whore. That is what they do. How do you think Dakota Fanning gets leads?

    So, if you can entrap a degenerate class enemy like Polanski with a degenerate 13 year old actress…well…all the better.

    Like


  139. true except when I am wrong he he he
    not posting stats till done though I have been wrong on couple “cough”

    Like


  140. I think it’s pretty funny that after he fled to France (age of consent: 15) he helped himself to even more underaged poon.

    Like


  141. Also, Roman Polanksi looks pretty damn good, despite being 76, 5’5″, and having a nose that takes up one-third of his face.

    Like


  142. Staggering that supposed righteous feminist women like Tilda Swinton and Whoopi Goldberg (both hideously nasty let us note), are defending statuatory (at least) rape on the grounds the perpetrator is a *talented artist* and, uh, he survived the holocaust.

    Roissy, they proved you right. Tilda, Whoopi, give the man his props. He knows you better than you do yourself. Seriously, see if he’s available for consultation. Roissy sees through you with Perfection.

    Like


  143. And Polanski was undoubtedly alpha. An unrepentant sexual deviant who relies on his “tragic” backstory for sympathy, but alpha nonetheless.

    I think Obama is like the Kurt Cobain of the political world. The only alpha thing about Cobain was the fact that he had thousands of chicks ready and willing to jump his bones. But in mannerisms, appearances, and personal philosophy, he’s the opposite of all the attributes you would usually ascribe to a an alpha male. Ditto for Obama.

    Like


  144. It’s funny that you never wrote an article on the world’s BEST and I mean BEST playboy ever, a true james bond.

    Porfirio Rubirosa…this guy bedded the HOTTEST women at his time including marlyne monro

    Like


  145. “Porfirio Rubirosa” -pretty cool guy. He ain’t shit compared to Gabrielle D’Annunzio.

    Like


  146. on October 2, 2009 at 2:23 am Cannon's Canon

    Porfirio Rubirosa is G Manifesto’s father… true story.

    Like


  147. What I never understand is how it’s possible for committing a crime, say rape, assault, robbery, murder, in country A while country lets you live there without ever sending your ass back for well-deserved trial and punishment. If Polanski would have done the time for his crime in the US at the time of this crime, he’d probably been out of prison by now, making movies, dating some younger women and enjoying a nice pension with all the wealth he accumulated doing things we’d all like to do.

    Anne Applebaum defends Polanski on the following arguments:

    “He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.”

    Without a doubt, Polanski’s life hasn’t been all laughs. But to use that as an excuse to let him off the hook..? This is a sick, dumb way of reasoning — giving reason a bad name this way. I’d have to ask Applebaum the following: “what if it had been you, your sister or your daughter? She’d probably be less understanding of this guy. And that’s exactly why Applebaum is a stupid woman. She’s not rational on a complicated matter, she just expresses and justifies her positive feelings towards someone she should dislike. Punditry started out as a vehicle for grey wise men to educate the masses. It’s not meant as a gossip column for dumb no-good women.

    Like


  148. And that’s exactly why Applebaum is a stupid woman.

    Patrick Goldstein at the L.A. Times has also defended him. Guess what they have in common.

    blogger Age of Treason has a good post up on Polanski.

    Like


  149. The alphaness of Obama:

    He is not putting down himself, he is putting down America. Observe how he kicks ass when Honduras tries to adhere to its constitution and hold a free and fair election: No constitution for Honduras, if the constitution gets in the way of a lefty being president for life. Russia gets its way, because if Russia is a position to nuke Americans, that helps impose the policies Obama favors on Americans. The left is having orgasms because Obama crushes and humiliates their enemies – which enemies are American.

    Like


  150. on October 2, 2009 at 5:32 am Cannon's Canon

    thanks to this case’s exposure, i learned that (against feminist propaganda) statutory rape DOES NOT have an infinite statute of limitation in most states, and that the time i banged a 16 year old in college at the age of 20 (completely by accident, although i would now probably bang a 15 year old on purpose if she was hot enough and i could establish indemnity)… is now done in a few years….

    hahahahhaha! suckers!

    Like


  151. Cannon, about the fat wife with the impotent husband, I don’t know where she started, so I don’t know what to say about her weight gain. I’ve known women of average height who were underweight at the time of marriage, gained 20 lbs, and this only brought them up to around 125-130. That’s not even close to fat, much less boner killing fat.

    If the woman is up to say, 140, and doesn’t have much more than personality defects, she is being flirted with and maybe pursued by other guys. She has to tell them, “…but I’m married.”

    That gets harder and harder to keep saying if you look better than most women around, and your husband has a Gay fashion designer eye for beauty, or just can’t get it up because he’s donutted his dick to death.

    The truth will come out when she either loses enough weight or bodyfat that the men around her are pursuing her with the same intensity they did when she was lighter. It’s not so far out that the guy is one of those boney chick fetishists, or is physically intimidated by women who are physically strong.

    Her need to get herself in check is one thing, but he needs to check himself too…or he will lose her to someone who likes a little junk in the trunk and finds a woman’s ability to cross her legs behind her head irresistible.

    Like


  152. One of the most feminine countries, France, feels a national gina tingle for Roman!

    how could I let this one pass?

    this is neocon bullshit at its best. Frenchmen kick American men asses hard and fast in any aspect of game, and French women beat American women even harder. Not to say anything about France´s way of living which can be called living, unlike America´s

    France sent her NAMs to her suburbs, the wise thing to, where they be rounded up and contained in the coming civil war. Not to forget that instead of an All-American name like “Lexington” or “Saratoga”, our blog host chose instead something “feminine” like “Roissy”

    The last thing about French effeminacy, AMericans love to pretend that every single male in the US is just Rural Texans. Sorry guys, but when you compare the US and France man by man, and include bastions of masculinity like LA, NY, Boston, we cannot say that France is more feminine than AMerica at all. Given French superiority in game, the opposite is probably true

    Last but not least, Americans came with this “France is feminine” BS by the time the Land of the Free was certain that there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How that war came out? WHich country was right in the end?

    Like


  153. on October 2, 2009 at 8:01 am msexceptiontotherule

    Evidently, the lesson we should be learning from the Roman Polanski situation is:

    In the 1970’s, people did a lot of qualudes.

    And according to the court transcripts for the victim’s very long and quite thorough testimony, which for some reason had many repeated questions to verify what she meant by
    “yes, my panties were off” just to make sure that she really meant she had taken them off and exactly when…had she taken her dress off first, was she wearing shoes, and her sweater wasn’t still on…ridiculously detailed and in pointless directions! – she had tried a qualude that she had found somewhere and thought “hey, I should see what this does!” and took the damn thing when she was only 10-11 years old. This girl knew more about qualudes and how to identify them back then than I have now (without doing an internet search which would be an advantage well over anything that could be compared to with relevance to tech around at the time). This reinforces the lesson that

    Qualudes were really popular in the 1970s.

    And what the hell did Jack Nicholson think about all kinds of people who were apparently going over and hanging out at his place to hang out and party, occasionally using his spa and liquor (won’t say it was his stash of qualudes tho it probably was) to get a 13 year old ready for some double door fun on his furniture – while he was …somewhere? Just where was he off having sex with whatever wild orgy club it was? Probably in some foreign country on a lot of qualudes, that’s where.

    Like


  154. on October 2, 2009 at 8:07 am msexceptiontotherule

    and another thing…

    Who the hell leaves qualudes laying around for some child to pick up, because they are quite likely being driven by the unseen hand of darwin.

    It’s not the adult’s fault that some kids are just too stupid to adapt, thus, it’s totally not at all questioned or worried about there being some reeses pieces trail of qualudes that Roman Polanski uses to get underage girls up to his house….

    because in the 1970s, qualudes were really popular AND illustrated whether someone was going to be important to the world when they became adults. Obviously if they took qualudes as bait and got trapped, the answer would be no.

    Like


  155. Polanski is a Jew, and therefore a beta

    Just like Ariel Sharon . if anything, the Israeli cabinet members have Italian levels of promiscuity with young girls and those young girls have Italian levels of hotness. There are only 4 places on Earth where there are still contiguous populations of alpha whites: Russia, Israel, SOuth AFrica and Southern US.

    There are much to say about Jews, but this line “Jews have big noses and small dicks” will lead you nowhere. Also, Age of Treason is probably the only passable anti-semitic blog in the whole internet

    Like


  156. “Also, Age of Treason is probably the only passable anti-semitic blog in the whole internet”

    Trust you to know that.

    Like


  157. The big betaizer of males is atheism because it promotes cowardice and social polarization, both of which are rooted in a man’s sense of not having a purpose and meaning in the grand scheme of things.

    On the cowardice side, an atheist/agnostic young man will avoid fights and defer to girls, because his m.o. is one of pain-avoidance.

    On the polarization front, he will will both fail to have his buddies’ back and know that he can’t rely on them to have his back. Because in absence of community, he won’t have a sense of fraternal collective.

    Atheism: a world of timid videogamers out for themselves.

    Like


  158. General George S. Patton JR was the greatest man in human history. If alpha in any sense means strength, leadership and power, then he tops all charts. Hes certainly no failure of Alphaness by Roissy’s standards. His wife Beatrice was certainly a HB9 in her younger days when they were first married. And there were rumors of an affair with one of his female staff officers and possibly a reporter. And there could have been more. But in all likelyhood he did not dominate or command the submission of over 10 women. Now Roissy claims to have slept with hundreds of women. I don’t know if thats true. But I’m sure there are Roissys out there who with less intellectual sophistication, live the life described on this blog. Someone mentioned that in his career he is just a DC office worker. I’m sure many of the reallife Roissys out there are far lower than office workers.

    In Roissy’s earlier post on philosophy he claimed that alphaness by his definition of sexual mates, is the only criteria of success. Well Pattons no total failure by that. But would you have me believe that Roissy, or perhaps more realistically some machismo thug in some urban slum in Argentina, somehow have outsuceeded Patton?

    I have the same problem with Roissy’s philosophy that I do with Ayn Rand’s. It highly individualistic and yet it claims to be objective not subjective. I think thats just because objective sounds good and scientific. But in reality any individualistic philosophy is subjectivist and relativist. Not that that has to be a bad thing.

    Its a tautology really. The man who is most successful at spreading his genes, is most successful at spreading his genes. To take anything more out of that statement is simply to apply subjective value judgement. And even by that standard, sexual intercourse or even domination, should not be considered identical with gene survival. As far as I know Roissy has never had children.

    Anyway I don’t see how Patton, is not the ultimate alpha.

    Like


  159. Gig, if you lived here (in Israel) you’d think differently. Americans anywhere there I’ve ever lived beat out Israelis in alphaness by a landslide generally. There are islands of butch, and a few outliers, and this is where the Sharon types come from. The rest is a sea of closet Gays and mammoni.

    The islands are Ashkenazi, Yemenite, and mixed descendants of the founding generation, Russian/Ukranian and Ethiopian. The very few Mizrahim with any backbone when it really counts, had or their parents had a European education. Most of the young men among them are what we call “arsim” which used to mean overly macho, but morphed over time into a generation of half-ass pants wearing, eyelinered, highlighted pot heads who screw each other more than girls.

    Like


  160. I can kind of relate to the Polanski, “tortured soul” makes it different angle. Look I’ll be straight. In my personal life, I treat women far worse than Roissy does. Jerk or bad boy doesn’t cut it. Its not playful, and its only comedy in the crudest sense. From an outsider’s point of view my actions, my foul language, my selfishness, usingness and just meanness is unexcusable. And I’m in the wrong.

    But I think the lesson from Rousseau’s Confessions, is that the inner life does matter. There is the outer personality that the world sees, and mine is pretty ugly. But its shaped by the cruel world that we live in. Thats the difference between me and Roissy. I may in reality and in action be crueler, than Roissy, but if I could live in a world without cruelty, I would take it. Why am I so cruel, in my personal relations? Because the world is cruel. Because those around me just accept it, and don’t understand why I refuse to accept it. If that is their worldview they DESERVE the abuse I heap on them. I’m not proud of being a bad person, the way Roissy is, but its the only way to act in this world. Deep down my soul is far more sensitive, than any of the so-called “niceguys”.

    But if someone is really sensitive, and not just wearing it on their sleeve, than they are going to be cruel in a cruel world.

    Like


  161. on October 2, 2009 at 11:03 am Professional Engineer

    Yeah, I guess Dracula was an alpha. A freaking giant monster but an alpha!!!

    Like


  162. There is in fact a lot of interpretations of Bram Soker’s “Dracula” being an allegory for the vampire being a free-agent ladykiller (heh) whom men in good standing (aka betas) banded to gether to fight under Van Helsing, and women feared but loved, and when in his presence ecstatically surrendered themselves to him.

    Like


  163. “PA

    The big betaizer of males is atheism because it promotes cowardice and social polarization, both of which are rooted in a man’s sense of not having a purpose and meaning in the grand scheme of things.

    On the cowardice side, an atheist/agnostic young man will avoid fights and defer to girls, because his m.o. is one of pain-avoidance.

    On the polarization front, he will will both fail to have his buddies’ back and know that he can’t rely on them to have his back. Because in absence of community, he won’t have a sense of fraternal collective.

    Atheism: a world of timid videogamers out for themselves.”

    So what you are saying is that men whose purpose in life is handed down to them (GIVEN to them) by someone else are somehow more alpha than men who go out and CREATE their life purpose

    Religion = following someone else’s purpose

    Agnoticism/Atheism = Creating your own purpose

    Yeh… atheists with no purpose in life are losers… big revelation there.

    I would argue that a man who has the strength to create his own purpose in life without needing a religious crutch to guide him is significantly more alpha than the man who needs the crutch.

    Like


  164. PA:

    “The big betaizer of males is atheism because it promotes cowardice and social polarization, both of which are rooted in a man’s sense of not having a purpose and meaning in the grand scheme of things.”

    Atheism promotes cowardice about as much as not believing in astrology promotes plague.

    While most of your commentary here is well-received, this trite apology for belief in an all-powerful bearded-man-in-a-nightgown god is beneath you.

    Pat Tillman, well-known atheist and patriot, volunteered for Special Forces and paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan. Why wasn’t he overcome with cowardice?

    If you want a “purpose” and “meaning,” that’s fine, but don’t manufacture it from horse shit like god mythology and complain when thinking people call you out on it.

    The chief polarizing force in our society is that which says when you die, an unseen figure divides you for purposes of eternal reward or eternal punishment, based on what you believed and professed prior to death.

    “Out for themselves” — Herein lies the conceit of modern Republicanism: Whilst claiming to champion individualism and self-interest, they chastise and seek to undermine anyone who actually seeks to live as such. And with a particularly loathsome, petty and shrewish guilt-tripping motif to boot.

    Perhaps you should condemn materialism while you’re feeling so sanctimonious about “the grand scheme of things.”

    Like


  165. So what you are saying is that men whose purpose in life is handed down to them (GIVEN to them) by someone else are somehow more alpha

    Yes. Think about what you wrote for a sec in more depth. WHO hands or “gives” a boy his purpose in life? Some random dude? some college professor? a TV character created by a studio exec?

    No. A man’s identity and puropse comes from the men in his family who came before him. His kin. Such a man is not a leaf in the breeze. He is the living part of those who came before him and those who follow him.

    As Leibach song goes “for the spirit of our fathers, for the glory of our sons.”

    than men who go out and CREATE their life purpose

    As I alluded above, atheists don’t create shit. Atheists are dupes of a con-man who stripped them of their identity and made them proud of this, to boot.

    In fact, a man with faith is in better position to create his own life purpose than an atheist because he is less likely to be gumed up by questions such as “what’s the point?”

    religious crutch

    Religion is not a crutch. It is wings and a sword.

    Like


  166. i was just talking to a friend about andrew sullivan and he said, “i think sullivan would literally blow obama if he could.” to which i replied, “of course, but then that goes for half this city.”

    this leads me the following question: what percentage of the residents of DC, both male and female, would immediately fall to their knees and blow obama if given the opportunity?

    i think the number is well above fifty percent. if you’re only counting NW, it’s got to be damn near three-quarters.

    Like


  167. Psh. Religion can be a crutch, a steady companion, a crippling disability, or wings and a sword. It (or the lack of it) is what you make of it, and that depends on the individual.

    Like


  168. Bonnie, true to a point on an individual level, but case-studies in aggregate effects of atheism vs religion clearly point to greater fecundity, social cohesion, happiness, virtue and courage among the faithful.

    Atheism is a luxury of satiated people, a gross handicap on par with deafness or mental illness for anyone exposed to conditions of strugle.

    Like


  169. on October 2, 2009 at 11:47 am mandy been here a while

    Atheism can only lead to soul destroying nihilism. Fr Seraphim Rose wrote eloquently about the toll nihilism takes on humans society.
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html

    The world view of the atheist is that human existence serves no purpose, has no meaning, contains only a visible or material element, and we are just a bunch of molecules and chemical reactions. There can be higher good worth fighting for or dying for or cherishing. This is not brave, or admirable or inspirational.

    It is also true that false religion leads to the same ends.

    Like


  170. PA: Haven’t seen any such case-studies. Certain (negative) traits may well be more common in atheists as a group. I can only speak from my own experience as a former religious person, now atheist. I felt hindered by religion, now I am free, happy and productive without it.

    “The world view of the atheist is that human existence serves no purpose, has no meaning, contains only a visible or material element, and we are just a bunch of molecules and chemical reactions. There can be higher good worth fighting for or dying for or cherishing. This is not brave, or admirable or inspirational.”

    No. I am an atheist, and this is not my world view. Because I am not a nihilist. They are two separate and different concepts. I know this is hard for non-atheists to grasp, but please try.

    You can be both an atheist and a nihilist, of course, and the two combined are common in depressed people and outcasts from society (omegas).

    I am certainly not claiming I am brave/special for not having any faith or belief in god, a higher power, the supernatural, or human souls. It’s simply what I believe, it’s no more admirable than any other faith.

    Like


  171. on October 2, 2009 at 11:58 am ironrailsironweights

    I’d have to ask Applebaum the following: “what if it had been you, your sister or your daughter? She’d probably be less understanding of this guy. And that’s exactly why Applebaum is a stupid woman.

    Her husband, Radek Sikorski, is the foreign minister of Poland and has been one of Polanski’s leading advocates for years. She did not disclose this fact in her pro-Polanski column in the Post.

    Peter

    Like


  172. PA,

    I think you’ll find that many irreligious bio-cons such as myself are more than willing to respect your choice to believe, and to respect the fundamental, central contributions of Christianity to Western civilization. We can agree to disagree.

    But you embarrass yourself with your diatribe against atheism. It’s Auster-esque argument by assertion and debate as self-congratulation. That you have decided to illogically answer the question “What’s the point?” with the non sequitur “God” is your choice, but don’t pretend it makes you a better man. If anything, it simply shows your willingness, perhaps borne of fear, to console yourself with mantra.

    As I alluded above, atheists don’t create shit. Atheists are dupes of a con-man who stripped them of their identity and made them proud of this, to boot.

    What incredible bullshit. As for the first sentence in this excerpt, try Googling Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin. The second sentence is simply incoherent.

    Atheism: a world of timid videogamers out for themselves.

    Final Fantasy-addicted geeks are not the sort who have devoured Richard Dawkins’ ideas and thought about them endlessly. Your understanding of human diversity needs calibration.

    Patrick,

    I had no idea about Pat Tillman being an atheist. His example goes to show that atheists, being unsatisfied with simplistic, shallow answers to questions of life’s purpose can respond to this existential crisis with acts of great heroism.

    Like


  173. on October 2, 2009 at 12:08 pm ironrailsironweights

    Secondly, in Australia a football (and I mean real football not that pantywaist shit played in Europe) player is currently appealing a conviction for glassing his girlfriend. His girlfriend never testified at his trial (and I’m not sure how much she helped police) but she is currently going to testify on his behalf at his appeal.
    In short, a football player attacks his gf with a broken glass and she is defending him.

    Something quite similar is going on in New York right now. An influential state legislator (a former cop and very much Alpha), Hiram Monserrate, is on trial for charges that he ground a broken glass into his girlfriend’s face. She was cut so severely that bone was visible. Monserrate claims that the girlfriend fell onto a glass on a table while drunk. In any event, the girlfriend is now flip-flopping in her testimony and contradicting things she said at the hospital. She actually was angry that a court order is preventing her from seeing him.

    Peter

    Like


  174. “Out for themselves” — Herein lies the conceit of modern Republicanism: Whilst claiming to champion individualism and self-interest, they chastise and seek to undermine anyone who actually seeks to live as such. And with a particularly loathsome, petty and shrewish guilt-tripping motif to boot.

    that’s only true if by “modern Republicanism” you mean the people who send their kids to jesus camp and david brooks. most of the people now protesting against obamacare seem to really just want to be left alone.

    Like


  175. PA: A man’s identity and puropse comes from the men in his family who came before him. His kin. Such a man is not a leaf in the breeze. He is the living part of those who came before him and those who follow him.

    My Buchananite/Sailerite blood-and-soil conservatism is not something I inherited by my forefathers. My gramps didn’t buy me Buchanan’s books or point my browser to iSteve. I read and thought my way to this worldview just as I did to agnosticism.

    Your statement would preclude a red diaper baby from converting to conservatism, and is therefore illogical.

    case-studies in aggregate effects of atheism vs religion clearly point to greater fecundity, social cohesion, happiness, virtue and courage among the faithful.

    True, but not relevant. The “aggregate” does not apply to the HBD crowd, who are a microscopic, atypical minority. In the aggregate, most atheists are committed liberals and are therefore not convertable to the Right. Those bright men who doubt the existence of a benevolent bearded cosmic Daddy figure will be repelled by a bio-realist right that tells them they’re cowards if they don’t submit to religion.

    Like


  176. A man’s identity and puropse comes from the men in his family who came before him. His kin. Such a man is not a leaf in the breeze. He is the living part of those who came before him and those who follow him.

    yeah, this is highly suspect. what if the men in your family were all deadbeats? you should just resign yourself to be a shitbag?

    Like


  177. Hey Roissy,

    I know this is off topic, but can you tell me if it’s possible to get out of the friend zone? If so, how? I know she has had feelings for me in the past, but she is with a new guy. Is it possible to get this chick’s attention back?

    Like


  178. The biggest reason I didn’t end up like my family is because I looked at them and didn’t like what I saw.

    Miserable, judgmental fundamentalist Christians, yet somehow still mostly liberals. Entire measure of happiness in life is based on their careers, men and women. I’ll pass.

    Like


  179. on October 2, 2009 at 12:41 pm ironrailsironweights

    Hey Roissy,
    I know this is off topic, but can you tell me if it’s possible to get out of the friend zone?

    I’ll take the liberty of answering: no.

    Peter

    Like


  180. Joe, in my opinion, you could do with being less of a jerk if you were more of a snob.

    I have my moments of meanness too, and in a way I enjoy them more since I came to a point of reality and nature acceptance. I understand now that it is neither respectful nor moral or even ethical to coddle people. If they try to harm me or cheat me in some way, they deserve to pay in whatever way is within my means to make them. It will teach them not to mess with people like me in the future, which is an important life lesson. I didn’t need to screw with anyone and get slammed to learn it, but not everyone is me.

    However, until I understood how I was drawing people to me who mistook me for someone they could hurt with impunity, or people who for whatever reason felt they needed to be hurt, I found myself needing to teach everybody around me a lesson. It wasn’t until I became more picky about who I even let get near me that I had some peace. It was one mission of vengeance or maintenance of face after another. It’s tiring.

    It might not be your thing, but you may want to give it a shot. Try shutting stupid people down from the beginning. Don’t let them in your life where you’ll have to manage them.

    Like


  181. The only true religion I have seen is the muslim religion everyone else seems to phone it in. My wife is the only person I have seen who lives according to some sort of inner peace derived from actually believing there might be a god and feels no need to torture anyones soul.

    Everyone else seems to talk a good game sometimes but they still enjoy torturing and destroying other peoples souls no matter how much they talk about how god saves souls.

    Like


  182. Albert Einstein wasn’t an atheist — probably closer to a pantheist than anything.

    Let’s get something straight here: atheism is the explicit rejection of a supernatural being. It is an oppositional philosophy by definition.

    If you dig deeper, most atheists are materialists and empiricists who DO tend toward nihilism by default. (Otherwise they would be deists or at least pantheists.) While some are conservative, libertarian or even anarchocapitalist politically, a large majority are progressives/statists.

    (Lovely definition of pantheism btw on Wiki: “…More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that God is better understood as an abstract principle representing natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that was, is and shall be), rather than as an anthropomorphic entity.”

    Like


  183. If I recall correctly, Charles Darwin was a Christian to his death.

    See Courtney A. on Roissy’s new entry. A victim of atheism.

    Like


  184. “The only true religion I have seen is the muslim religion everyone else seems to phone it in. ”

    Excuse me? Orthodox Judaism/Hasidism is “phoning it in”?

    Like


  185. “I know this is off topic, but can you tell me if it’s possible to get out of the friend zone? If so, how?”

    Easy. Tongue down a chick or three in front of her. She’ll jump you herself.

    Like


  186. Mike —

    It is indeed possible to break from the dreaded friendzone, but its quite difficult, and becomes more so the longer you’re identified as a mere friend.

    First of all, you have to stop being her friend, at least on her terms (this is called respecting yourself). Secondly, you have to disqualify yourself like a motherfucker by sleeping with other women without hesitation and finding creative and insidious ways of making this known to her. Also it couldn’t hurt to totally disappear without a word for a month or so. If she asks, evade.

    The horrific reality of the friendzone is that she knows you’re even less than an average frustrated chump. You’re a needy, friendship-desiring frustrated chump. The best thing you can do in the short term is fulfill your need for friendship with people who aren’t her. Supplicating yourself to her out of need for friendship is tantamount to getting fucked over twice. Not only is she rejecting you as a sexual partner, she’s co-opting the best things about you that are desirable and indulging in them without giving of herself in return. Your attention, creativity, and humor are all being absorbed in a context devoid of attraction, passion and progression. Its win-win for her, lose-lose for you.

    Sometimes a bold confrontation is all it takes. If you believe she harbors an unrealized interest in you, you have to become the catalyst for a reaction which alters the chemistry of the interaction. If you’re accustomed to staying over after a long night of just hanging out, you don’t accept that you sleep on the couch or the other room. Either she ups the ante or you walk. That’s all you can do, and trust me, you’ll respect yourself a hell of a lot more even if she balks.

    If you’re deep into the friendzone, she’ll be upset at your recidivism, but consider it a testament of your manhood. You can be “just friends” with any number of chicks (because they ALL desire a plethora of male friends), and waste the prime of your poon-hounding life appeasing this greedy cohort of usurious women or you can man up and fuck the women you desire, without apology or second thoughts.

    Change the dynamic. Don’t let her frame the discourse.

    Like


  187. PA,

    I should have been more explicit (i.e., direct enough for a todder to understand) in contending that, contrary to your inane contention that atheists don’t create anything, lack of religious belief is the norm for that highly creative segment of people known as scientists. BTW, Charles Darwin probably only feigned Christian belief for the sake of his devout wife, much like Stephen Hawking did until his divorce.

    If you really think atheism is at the root of the sluttiness of Tucker Max’s conquest, than you truly are Auster-esque in your mental infantilism. Feminine-minded people, such as females and yourself, are considerably more, not less, prone to mysticism. This dumb broad fucked Tucker Max not because she lacks the fear of God, or good upstanding Christian men in her life, but because she’s a member of the more feral sex.

    Although I’ve spent my time on this thread insulting you, I do in fact think highly of you and most of your opinions. That’s why, irrespective of your religiousness, your inclination to demean the godless is so disappointing.

    Like


  188. Moralist, you are coming across like one of those sorry, obsessive loser internet creatures who can’t stop thinking about another commenter (me) and keep jabbering some nerdy point you are trying to drive home.

    I glanced at your coment with glassy eyes because I don’t expect that you have anything interesting to say, and my quick scan confirmed as much. The only reason I am responding is that I was amused by being called “Auster-like” and other things you allege.

    Like


  189. PA,

    When you’re capable of defending the following idiotic theories:

    – atheists are uncreative and contribute nothing positive.

    – atheism is is reinforcing beta-ness.

    …at that point I’ll do my best to educate you. Until then, keep playing ad hominem. The insulting tone of my comments is attributable to your demeaning and ignorant characterization of secularists as video game geeks. I stand by my assertions of your resembling Auster: you argue by assertion and claim moral superiority on the basis of believing in the unprovable.

    Like


  190. Moralist

    Your avatar looks like a pussy. I can see both the labia minora, the labia majorem and the vagina, even though your avatar misses a clitoris.

    Seriously, look at your avatar in a sexual mood and you will see THE VAJ

    Ocult forces have pussified you from the very beginning

    Like


  191. …at that point I’ll do my best to educate you.

    gig did even try to educate some english dictionaries yesterday by claiming he knew the meaning of an english word better than they did, so i guess anything’s possible! what a clown….

    Like


  192. “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God” — Charles Darwin

    Like


  193. Patrick, thanks. I don’t tolerate female friends, and I don’t consider her to be mine. I said the friend zone, because after she liked me for a while, she went off with some other guy, and we became buddies for a while. I’ve put a stop to that though.

    This broad sends me mixed signals though, she knows I like her, but she never actually tells me to get lost when I come on to her, she just does nothing, she just ignores it.

    I’ve cut off all compliments, and attention to her, and I’m gonna start talking about other broads again if I come across her. Hopefully this will make me more appealing. I’m working on becoming more confident around her, and make it seem as though I am in demand, and she can’t even get the time of day from me.

    Like


  194. Mike: Better ‘bitches’ than ‘broads’. It’s 2009.

    Like


  195. Moralist:

    I should have been more explicit (i.e., direct enough for a todder to understand) in contending that, contrary to your inane contention that atheists don’t create anything, lack of religious belief is the norm for that highly creative segment of people known as scientists.

    Lack of Christian belief, perhaps. Lack of religious belief altogether, no way in hell.

    Our present intelligentsia is indeed viciously hostile to traditional Christianity, but this doesn’t mean at all that they don’t share their own complex of metaphysical beliefs — whose concrete ideological manifestation is the modern liberalism and political correctness. A truly consistent skeptic could only conclude that these beliefs are ultimately no less arbitrary and superstitious than any traditional religion. And indeed, try arguing some seriously un-PC views in front of these people, and you’ll see all this clearly from their reactions. At worst, you’ll get mindless angry sneering and moral denunciations, and at best, carefully crafted apologetics that evaporate into a cloud of vapid sophistry under any serious intellectual scrutiny.

    The only philosopher I know of who really went on to dismantle all metaphysical beliefs on an equal opportunity basis is Max Stirner. He wrote more than 150 years ago, and already back then he clearly saw liberalism as just another system of metaphysical belief no different in its essential nature from any other religion. Needless to say, the conclusions he ultimately reached would raise the hair of modern “freethinkers” and “atheists” who fancy themselves brave and daring for kicking the body of traditional Christianity that’s already lying on the floor bloody and unconscious — while at the same time professing pious platitudes whenever any PC-sensitive issue is raised and not having the balls to extend any of this hostility to Islam and other non-Western religions.

    Thus, if you want to go for a real, fearless, full-blown Stirnerian critique of metaphysical belief systems, I’ll respect it. However, taking the modern liberal intelligentsia — scientists as well as others — as an example of true free-thinking areligiosity is pathetically naive.

    Like


  196. Vladimir: However, taking the modern liberal intelligentsia — scientists as well as others — as an example of true free-thinking areligiosity is pathetically naive.

    True, but I’m not guilty of this kind of naivete. There is nothing in your comment I take issue with, although I can’t claim any knowledge of Stirner.

    But your comment is not relevant to the dispute between PA and I.

    Even if I grant the argument — which I do — that egalitarian leftism is mystical, egalitarian leftists would still qualify as “atheist” as PA and I are both using the term — meaning someone who does not believe in the existence of a supervisory, omnipotent, loving, afterlife-providing, prayer-answering, just deity that PA believes in.

    My point remains unchallenged. The following statements by PA are not serious: atheism promotes cowardice, atheists are selfish and uncreative.

    Like


  197. Count Vladula was roused from his slumber:

    The only philosopher I know of who really went on to dismantle all metaphysical beliefs on an equal opportunity basis is Max Stirner.

    It’s been a while since I read Stirner, but how could you forget Nietzsche? Especially when N, after breaking IT down, attempts to build IT back up? Better, stronger, flexible…

    Like


  198. Also, Vladimir, thanks for responding to the substance of my argument.

    I reiterate that PA’s contention that atheism is a driving force behind female promiscuity and rewarding Tucker Max-esque A-holes is equally indefensible.

    Like


  199. No. I am an atheist, and this is not my world view. Because I am not a nihilist. They are two separate and different concepts. I know this is hard for non-atheists to grasp, but please try.

    They may be quite different concepts, Bonnie, but the reason it is hard for non-atheists to grasp the distinction is that we cannot quite see how or why atheists are able to form a moral code or philosophy of a meaningful life in the moral vacuum that exists when one is unable to believe in God.

    I know that some principled atheists, of whom I have known many, I should add, respond to these questions by saying that they care about human beings (and, as some would add today, the environment) and derive their idea of the good life from this caring. Thus in their view the good life consists of helping people to live lives of freedom and prosperity without succumbing to wasteful consumption or materialism.

    But there are several problems with this approach. The first is that other atheists of the Ayn Rand type might very well ask, “why should I care about other human beings? Most people are not worthy of my time or interest.” This libertarian approach to morality tends to work against the whole project of civilisation, which requires a considerable level of mutual cooperation in order to make any kind of advancement possible. It is difficult to secure such cooperation on the basis of pure self-interest, because self-interest by its nature tends to place short-term pleasure above long-term gain. Yes, some exceptional people might manage it, but the majority would find it difficult.

    The second problem is that other human beings might well have very different ideas from those of our caring atheists about what the good life is and how they want to live it. Some human societies appear to have greatly enjoyed making war, almost as a pastime – the Vikings and the Iroquois come to mind here. Can an ethics of “caring” accommodate them? And even if it can somehow do so, the very existence of such cultures is a rebuke to the idea, so common among liberal-type atheists today, that human beings share some kind of innate, common morality, perhaps growing out of our evolution as social animals, they might say. It is true that there appear to be certain moral principles shared by nearly all societies. But “nearly all” is not “all”. Moreover, the way in which such principles are actually carried out on both a personal and society-wide level can vary greatly.

    In practise, society-wide atheism is an invitation to moral relativism of a sort that makes it nearly impossible for people to agree on either personal or social goals of a sort that are anything but crassly utilitarian. Britain is in the process of discovering that today.

    As for those who insist religious belief is often harmful to society and to individuals: yes, indeed it is. So is anything about which people care greatly. Passionate love can be dangerous, both to individuals and to society. Passionately-held political principles can be dangerous: there’s your communism and fascism, both of which were particularly appealing to political castes that had lost their belief in God. Is the answer to love less passionately, or to be less committed to one’s political principles? I don’t think so, or at least not necessarily. Nor is it an answer to the dangers of religion to banish it from society.

    Like


  200. Clio,

    The problem with your critique is that arbitrariness of morality isn’t removed by God’s existence. To answer the question of why coveting my neighbor’s wife is wrong by replying, “Because God says so” doesn’t actually answer the question. God’s opinion on the matter could simply be the product of his fickle whims.

    You contend that, in essence, society would be really screwed up if atheism went broad and mainstream. I agree, and so plenty of other right-wing non-believers. But atheism is in no danger of becoming popular. One, understanding why belief in God is problematic and why belief in absolute morality is untenable requires abstract reasoning capacity that most people lack. Two, atheism is too damn depressing for a species that tends to adopt beliefs based primarily on their capacity to make us feel good. Richard Dawkins sells a lot of books, but the only people buying them, reading them, and having their minds changed by them, are members of that tiny subset known as nerds.

    (So, my position is Straussian and utilitarian. I’m OK with the masses being religious because they’d be worse off, and worse-behaved without it.)

    This points to my dispute on this thread. Atheism is not responsible for the deterioration of the West’s morality and masculinity, because atheism simply lacks the influence. You might as well blame society’s beta-ness on Scientology or excess consumption of Nepalese cuisine.

    Like


  201. Tupac Chopra:

    It’s been a while since I read Stirner, but how could you forget Nietzsche? Especially when N, after breaking IT down, attempts to build IT back up? Better, stronger, flexible…

    Nietzsche was a better writer than Stirner, and he also wrote much more and addressed a greater variety of miscellaneous topics, but when it comes to the core issues, Stirner’s insights are much more logical, consistent, and illuminating. Despite his magnificent skill with words and occasional flashes of first-class genius, I find many of Nietzsche’s theses and conclusions badly misguided and based on factually wrong premises. Especially when it comes to dissecting the metaphysical premises of liberalism, Stirner’s approach is far superior in my opinion.

    But more fundamentally, however you turn it, Nietzsche’s attempts to, as you put it, “build IT back up” are just another way of building the protective wall of mysticism to shield us from the cold nihilism that skepticism and materialism inevitably lead to. Just like other famous authors that forcefully attacked traditional religion — Feuerbach, Marx, Russell, Sartre, Dawkins… — Nietzsche couldn’t resist the urge to immediately start espousing a new system of metaphysical belief that would provide meaning and purpose to life once traditional religion has been toppled. I find this fundamentally cowardly and intellectually dishonest; and indeed, to the extent that these people applied their philosophy to real-world problems, they all ended up as uninteresting conformists at best, and deranged lunatics at worst. Stirner is the only thinker I know of who actually dared to stare this cold void in the face without immediately running for cover.

    Like


  202. “I wonder if a beta male could get away with the “rape rape” technicality in the court of public opinion?
    Rhetorical.”

    Lets ask Fatty Arbuckle!

    Like


  203. Count Vladula:

    But more fundamentally, however you turn it, Nietzsche’s attempts to, as you put it, “build IT back up” are just another way of building the protective wall of mysticism to shield us from the cold nihilism that skepticism and materialism inevitably lead to. Just like other famous authors that forcefully attacked traditional religion — Feuerbach, Marx, Russell, Sartre, Dawkins… — Nietzsche couldn’t resist the urge to immediately start espousing a new system of metaphysical belief that would provide meaning and purpose to life once traditional religion has been toppled. I find this fundamentally cowardly and intellectually dishonest

    How so? Would you rather humanity be shackled by beliefs which might have served some purpose at one time in history, some percentage of which might still find utility today, yet presently are no longer compelling?

    While there is much to be said for religion being an effective means for keeping the natives docile and orderly, it also tends to enshrine statis for the sake of stasis. Personally, I am excited about the prospect of genetic engineering. I believe it to be the only path towards some type of real change in the human condition. Yet, the strictures of many religions forbid the sort of tinkering with life that scientists propose. How would you have it be?

    If you propose some sort of compromise position that retains the communal aspects of religion, while allowing for such scientific research, then you are in effect granting that the evolution of religion is a valuable thing. And how different is this from the characterization you give of Nietzsche above? I say it’s a difference of degree. N. was just a little more revolutionary (and insane) about it.

    It seems clear that only a tiny percentage of the population is intelligent and strong enough to act with purpose and hope in the face of the cold black Void. For the vast majority of the left half of the Bell Curve, fairy tales are necessary (until such time as natural and un-natural forces act to exterminate them). So, if we are forced by circumstance to deal with rationally indefensible belief-systems, shouldn’t conscientious people prefer that such belief-systems be life-promoting and progress-oriented?

    Otherwise we are stuck doing things as we’ve always done.

    I want to conquer the word, and give all the idiots a brand new religion…

    Like


  204. Damn, last line should’ve had a tag:

    Like


  205. Clio:

    Passionate love can be dangerous

    Tell me about it, darling.

    Like


  206. Moralist:

    My point remains unchallenged. The following statements by PA are not serious: atheism promotes cowardice, atheists are selfish and uncreative.

    For start, to even claim that there is something wrong with selfishness, cowardice, and lack of creativity, you need a belief system that is fundamentally religious. And if you’re a Western atheist, your belief system is nothing but the residue of traditional Christian Western culture that you’ve soaked up during your upbringing. Thus, one could say that modern atheists, however much they insist on their supposed skepticism and free-thinking, are in fact forced to make an even greater leap of faith than Christians — they want to maintain moral beliefs that are, albeit distorted, still basically Christian, while at the same time rejecting the faith from which these moral beliefs originated. (I’m aware that this view is a bit oversimplified, but I still think it’s fundamentally correct.)

    Furthermore, you can’t possibly deny that our civilization is getting more cowardly and uncreative. To take the most drastic examples, just look at the history of philosophy, architecture, or visual arts in the last hundred years; you’ll find barely anything but degeneracy, lunacy, vulgarity, inhuman coldness, and empty posing. As for cowardice, again, just look around yourself.

    But atheism is in no danger of becoming popular.

    Again, that depends on what exactly you mean by “atheism.” What is becoming popular — and what is in fact the uncontested ideology of our rulers — is the mushy liberal post-Christian belief system, which is still essentially religious, despite being fully compatible with Dawkins-style pretense at skeptical atheism. One area where this belief system is particularly deranged are the relations between the sexes, and it’s easy to see how it leads many women towards the sad and contemptible behavior like that Tucker Max groupie.

    Like


  207. Stone Cold Vladimir:

    Stirner is the only thinker I know of who actually dared to stare this cold void in the face without immediately running for cover.

    He wasn’t the only one:

    http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol1/god_is_dead.html

    Like


  208. Vladimir, i have never met another human being who read max stirner before. the ego and its own was VERY influential on my in college.

    tupac if you are interested the whole thing is online http://www.nonserviam.com

    Like


  209. The problem with your critique is that arbitrariness of morality isn’t removed by God’s existence. To answer the question of why coveting my neighbor’s wife is wrong by replying, “Because God says so” doesn’t actually answer the question. God’s opinion on the matter could simply be the product of his fickle whims.

    But it is not in the nature of God to have “fickle whims”, or at least, that is the conception of God held by Christianity and Judaism. I’m not certain about Islam in this respect, but probably it too shares the view – that God’s laws are not arbitrary but exist for a reason. Coveting your neighbour’s wife is wrong because to nurture and still worse to give in to such desire destroys the “social fabric” of trust.

    That of course is a point upon which an atheist could agree, and indeed most of the ones I know do. A point in favour of the idea of “natural law” and the notion that morality is somehow connected to our evolution? Perhaps. And yet, the fact remains that without factoring God into the equation, it becomes difficult to uphold a moral and social code based on “natural law” (look at the US today!) because so many people will put their short-term desires ahead of society’s long-term goals and end up arguing for untenable moral codes simply because these suit their momentary interests.

    Indeed, I suspect one of the reasons why many atheists insist that God’s laws are purely arbitrary is that in one way or another many of them wish to *challenge* some portion of natural law – for example, the nearly-universal social assumption that marriage exists for the purpose of channeling sexual desire into raising the children who are the products of that desire, whatever other incidental duties it may acquire at different times or in different places. I would be less inclined to think this way of atheists if I could find more of them today who upheld “traditional” sexual morality. Instead, this is one area where atheists, no matter how “moral” in other ways, are nearly always likely to advise that society needs to jettison such morality for its own good, even if their own lives are models of sexual continence.

    The problem, you see, is not so much that people will do stupid things if they don’t believe in God (we do many wrong and/or stupid things even when we believe in Him), but that without God as our moral centre, our pole-star or objective correlative, a society’s entire moral code can gradually become distorted or erode altogether. Those who navigate by the north star may sometimes end up in the wrong place through laziness or greed or bad sailing; those who steer by Mercury are liable never to get to the right place at all.

    Now, I must hasten to add that I am not a utilitarian with regard to religion any more than morality. I do not think that we ought to believe in God because he is such a useful concept. A believer loves God because he is uniquely loveable. Other moral principles, especially those which are not clearly in society’s immediate interest, tend to follow from this insight, not pre-date it.

    That’s one reason why I think arguments for gay marriage, though not exactly in accordance with traditional Christian morality, nevertheless spring from a [distorted] Judeo-Christian vision of justice and righteousness. There is really no utilitarian or natural-law argument in favour of gay marriage, or else the institution would have arisen spontaneously in other societies long ago. But there is one that can be made from abstract principles of social justice and fairness, which are fundamentally Judeo-Christian concepts. Buddhism and Hinduism have little to say about social justice or the morality of the social order, as opposed to personal moral behaviour.

    Sigh. There’s a good deal more to be said about these matters, but this isn’t really the place for it.

    Like


  210. Tupac Chopra:

    While there is much to be said for religion being an effective means for keeping the natives docile and orderly, it also tends to enshrine statis for the sake of stasis. Personally, I am excited about the prospect of genetic engineering. I believe it to be the only path towards some type of real change in the human condition. Yet, the strictures of many religions forbid the sort of tinkering with life that scientists propose. How would you have it be?

    I’ll concede that genetic engineering is a historically unprecedented issue. I was writing from a traditional perspective that doesn’t consider any real possibilities of engineering a post-human future, so you’re correct that whatever I’ve argued breaks down in face of such a possibility. (The only precedent from the past whose impact on human belief systems was anywhere near that was when certain factual claims of traditional religions were falsified by incontrovertible scientific evidence.)

    So, I’ll grant you that if genetic engineering becomes reality, all bets are off. Before that happens, however, it is important to note that all the self-styled free-thinkers who delight in tearing apart traditional religions still can’t resist the immediate urge to contrive their own cozy little metaphysical system that will tell them that deep down everything is still basically OK with the world and divert them from the nihilist abyss. Honestly, I find that this process never leads them to anything more valuable and less dogmatic and self-deceiving than the beliefs that they enjoy attacking. Sometimes, these metaphysical systems are just foolish inanities aimed at justifying the truly dominant dogmatic beliefs of their age (e.g. Dawkins), sometimes they are outbursts of rabble-rousing madness that end up in rivers of blood (e.g. Marx), and sometimes they are complex, seemingly shocking, and hard to pin down, as with Nietzsche. Ultimately — and I say this as someone who passionately devoured Nietzsche’s books at an earlier and more impressionable age — he ends up advocating inconsistent positions based on sheer emotion.

    It seems clear that only a tiny percentage of the population is intelligent and strong enough to act with purpose and hope in the face of the cold black Void. For the vast majority of the left half of the Bell Curve, fairy tales are necessary (until such time as natural and un-natural forces act to exterminate them). So, if we are forced by circumstance to deal with rationally indefensible belief-systems, shouldn’t conscientious people prefer that such belief-systems be life-promoting and progress-oriented?

    I don’t like this sort of intellectual elitism at all. Elites are no less susceptible to foolishness than the masses, and they are in an even greater need of guidance from tradition. Once the intellectual elites start fancying themselves fearless free-thinkers and actually practicing no-holds-barred skepticism and criticism, they’ll end up as deranged radicals and wreak havoc on the whole society. This is as true nowadays as it was true in 18th century France or fin de siècle Russia. Whatever I ever wrote about various totalitarian ideologues and tyrants, I’m well aware that they were way to the right of me on the bell curve by any objective measurement of intellectual ability.

    Today’s world is relatively stable exactly because the modern global intellectual class uniformly adheres to American liberalism and treats it as a sacred tradition and indisputable dogma, just like (say) the Ancien Régime in France was stable as long as Catholicism and divine rights of kings were treated similarly. Our concrete problems today don’t stem from lack of free-thinking among the elites, but from the fact that the established religion to which they sincerely adhere contains a significant dose of deranged radical beliefs that they piously try to put into practice without daring to think clearly about the consequences.

    Like


  211. Basic human moral beliefs are fundamentally genetic, as is a tendency to believe in a higher power and meaningful purpose to our individual existence. It’s how our brains function.

    In all cultures:

    We trust and like those that are most like us, and fear and dislike those who different.

    Family are the highest priority. If Jesus really did love everyone equally, he was the only one.

    People are expected to act for the good of their group and have a personal responsibility to maintain the status quo of their society. This covers cheating, stealing, infidelity, draft dodging (and atheism, if you believe that someone not having a belief in god means they will not fulfill their social obligations and are morally bankrupt, like PA seems to). If someone commits a crime that threatens the stability of their community, they are punished (by low public opinion/refusal to do business, ostracizing, flogging, prison time, the death penalty, etc).

    Non-sanctioned (some degree is always acceptable under laws/customs, because we are a violent animal) assault, rape, and murder are morally wrong and punishable.

    Sibling incest, except among crazy nobility who are trying to hoard wealth/power, is rare and frowned upon (this is true in chimpanzees as well).

    Poop is nasty.

    Like the majority of people, I am primed to want to preserve a stable social group- or at least to maintain the fiction that I do while I exploit others, in order to avoid punishment. This is true with or without a belief in a god/religion/afterlife.

    Like


  212. The Vladinator:

    Our concrete problems today don’t stem from lack of free-thinking among the elites, but from the fact that the established religion to which they sincerely adhere contains a significant dose of deranged radical beliefs that they piously try to put into practice without daring to think clearly about the consequences.

    I don’t have time for a thorough reply, but I would like to point out that the religious nature of the left-liberal-elite worldview is made possible in part precisely because it is just one more variant of (misguided) idealism.

    Group A says: “We can have peace on earth if we obey God”

    Group B says: “We can have peace on earth if we ignore differences among people and strive for equality”

    In both cases there is a refusal to consider reality as it is (for differing reasons)

    Without being informed by an accurate understanding of human nature (evo-psych, HBD, etc.), we will never truly know what social plans are feasible, what constraints we face, what achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.

    Until a critical number of people have the stomach to start facing up to reality (and having their sacred cows gored) we will forever be on this merry-go-round of competing “religions” which flip back and forth as the historical wheel turns.

    But that would mean forgoing idealism (for the moment), razing the bullshit to the ground, withstanding a nihilistic cold snap, before beginning anew and forging something feasible — now informed with a true understanding of the human animal. It may well end up being “religious” in nature.

    But you might say I’m a dreamer.

    Alcoholics Anonymous says people only let go of their addictions when they “hit bottom”. Only then do they truly begin to get their house in order. Perhaps that’s what needs to happen to the world before any kind of real change occurs.

    It might be argued that Christianity (or egalitarianism) functions as an addiction enabler.

    Ok, rambling now. I’m out.

    Like


  213. No one lives for even one second as if the nihilistic void were their personal interior reality.
    No one lives as if they felt no polarites of right and wrong; or that they were not connected in non-material ways to a broader sentience than their own brains.
    This applies to stineroid philosophers as much as to anyone else.

    Like


  214. E.O. Wilson (the founder of sociobiology, the precursor to evo-psych) put it eloquently when he said there are 3 religions in the modern world.

    Traditional religion, marxism and scientific materialism.

    Like


  215. “There are only 4 places on Earth where there are still contiguous populations of alpha whites: Russia, Israel, SOuth AFrica and Southern US.”

    If you can consider heavily shit-stained and soiled white underpants to be white, then perhaps you might consider Israel to be “white” as well.

    Jews are alien slime – plain and simple.

    Like


  216. “PA,

    When you’re capable of defending the following idiotic theories:

    – atheists are uncreative and contribute nothing positive.

    – atheism is is reinforcing beta-ness.

    …at that point I’ll do my best to educate you. Until then, keep playing ad hominem. The insulting tone of my comments is attributable to your demeaning and ignorant characterization of secularists as video game geeks. I stand by my assertions of your resembling Auster: you argue by assertion and claim moral superiority on the basis of believing in the unprovable.”

    His anti-agnostic/atheist rhetoric here reminds me of the how so many left-wing extremists “debate” (in just the manner that was described there.)

    Except instead of illogically attaching a “you’re an -ist” statement to the end of a completely hollow argument, it’s “coward” or “beta” instead.

    Like


  217. Vladimir: Furthermore, you can’t possibly deny that our civilization is getting more cowardly and uncreative. To take the most drastic examples, just look at the history of philosophy, architecture, or visual arts in the last hundred years; you’ll find barely anything but degeneracy, lunacy, vulgarity, inhuman coldness, and empty posing. As for cowardice, again, just look around yourself.

    Correlation is not causation; we’ve had internal combustion engines for about this length of time, but I think you would agree that the two-stroke engine isn’t the fount of degeneracy.

    You advise me to “just look around.” I have done so, and have noticed the same ills. You have yet to persuade me that the causative agent is secularism, which I repeat is confined to a very small, very uninfluential subset of society.

    If society is getting less creative, especially in the scientific and philosophical arenas, this is likely due to their being less answerable questions to ask.

    Some relevant points:

    >Who do I blame for the West’s downfall? I can name a few Christians, even a few of the Papist faith that is so popular among some partisans of the West in the paleocon faction. It is the current and just deceased Pope who tell the U.S. that protecting its borders and enforcing its immigration laws constitute human rights abuse. It is their fellow Papist Ted Kennedy who spearheaded the ’65 Immigration Act. Following in his footsteps are McCain, Lieberman, Dubya, etc. none of whom are atheists. If societal rot starts at the head, this elite sector is avowedly religious.

    >Some on the right blame the entertainment industry, and rightly so. Yet examples of popular works of entertainment that have explicitly advanced atheism as I defined it above are virtually nil. That franchise of fantasy books with the talking polar bears or whatnot did relatively well, but the movie bombed miserably. I cannot think of other examples, but am ready to be corrected. The entertainment complex advances hedonism, crass consumerism, political correctness, and so forth, NOT atheism. In fact, when advancing the leftist suite of ideas, the left usually packages it in religious terms, see Obama and Ted Kennedy’s invocation of Scripture. Obama bragged that they “fear a mighty God in the Blue States.” Is this what you announce to a deeply or widely secularized society? This tactic should tell you something about the appeal and reach of secularism: it’s virtually nil.

    >The moral degeneracy we complain about is most apparent in the black subset of society, which is the most churchgoing, most Bible-believing race in the country.

    Like


  218. jh:His anti-agnostic/atheist rhetoric here reminds me of the how so many left-wing extremists “debate” (in just the manner that was described there.)

    Except instead of illogically attaching a “you’re an -ist” statement to the end of a completely hollow argument, it’s “coward” or “beta” instead.

    Right. When feminists use it, we call it “shaming language.”

    Like


  219. Vladimir: What is becoming popular — and what is in fact the uncontested ideology of our rulers — is the mushy liberal post-Christian belief system, which is still essentially religious, despite being fully compatible with Dawkins-style pretense at skeptical atheism. One area where this belief system is particularly deranged are the relations between the sexes, and it’s easy to see how it leads many women towards the sad and contemptible behavior like that Tucker Max groupie.

    Who made Christianity mushy? Atheists, or actors within the flock?

    I like Christianity’s moral judgmentalism, hence my handle. But I have to blame Christians themselves for degrading their own faith. Richard Dawkins et al no more convinced Christians that promiscuity was A-OK than they convinced Mormons to let blacks be priests about 30 years ago. Religions change for better or worse; you have yet to show that atheists exert the transformation.

    Like


  220. Richard Dawkins et al no more convinced Christians that promiscuity was A-OK than they convinced Mormons to let blacks be priests about 30 years ago.

    What a joke. Christianity only started going soft under the criticism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment figures, most of whom were either atheists, agnostics, or deists.

    Like


  221. I repeat is confined to a very small, very uninfluential subset of society.

    Religion is vastly less important to the average person in the West than it was 100 years ago. In fact, it isn’t very important to the average person at all anymore. That is what is meant by secularization. You are right that outright atheism has not become widespread, at least not not in North America, but that is beside the point.

    Like


  222. Group A says: “We can have peace on earth if we obey God”

    That’s one kind of religion, but it’s not the only kind. The other says that we can somewhat improve our lives if we obey God, but that we will never have perfection on earth until God returns to rule directly.

    Like


  223. I repeat is confined to a very small, very uninfluential subset of society.

    The number of athiests is indeed very small, yes. Uninfluential, no.

    Like


  224. People have stopped believing in Hell, not God. That’s the source of the West’s softness, sentimentality, degeneracy…or its symptom. The majority either believes in God or some kind of “spiritual force”. They’re not atheists.

    But the God they believe in is never the “Old Man on a Throne” (how many people announce that belief as if they’re some kind of rebel? Billions and billions, that’s how many), or even an “eye in the sky” that watches what you do. The modern “God” doesn’t care at all if you masturbate or don’t go to church on Sunday. It (not He, that’s sexist), doesn’t place any restrictions on you at all.

    The modernist heresy, the actual heresy condemned by the Church, is characterized by emancipation–of science from restraint on its investigative freedom and technological innovations, of the state from restrictions on its intrusiveness into all aspects of life, and of restraints on the individual, especially in this last case, the abolition of any restraint of appetites (or “needs” as they’re called today) and of expression of emotions, with which moderns now identify the person completely.

    This is the modern religion Vladimir speaks of, I think. And it is this religion, devoid of moral sense, unencumbered by even the tiniest anxiety about the possibility of post-mortem punishment, indifferent to ritual obligations and contemptuous of behavioural constraints, especially sexual, with vague wispy notions about the desirability of unity with Nature, itself understood as some reassuring comfortable kind of charmingly overgrown garden, not dangerous or mysterious or sublime at all, this religion, I say, this Modernist heresy, is the source or the heart of the decadence of the West.

    Atheism isn’t the problem. It’s as outmoded, as hard-edged and foolishly rationalistic as the most demanding Thomistic philosophy. Compared to the modernist heresy’s philosophy of mandatory comfort, of moral relativism (about all values, that is, but its own), and above all, of a refusal to think there is anything to life beyond this life, anything to persons beyond their feelings and desires, and anything to the universe beyond what they can see with their low-scanning eyes and feel with their soft-skinned hands, well, compared to that, atheism is all glinty-eyed fanaticism and clenched jaws, and an upsetting tendency to get into arguments about facts.

    The modernist religion knows, ahem, feels, that we’re beyond all that. Facts, I mean. We’ve got something more than facts now. We have feelings.

    And that is our decadence. Not Christianity–this heresy is post-Christian to its root–or atheism. The modernist heresy is the emancipation of the individual, and his abolition.

    CS Lewis had a name for us…Men Without Chests. And he didn’t mean the band with that 80s song, Safety Dance. He meant us.

    Like


  225. Rum:

    No one lives for even one second as if the nihilistic void were their personal interior reality.

    Speak for yourself.

    Although I suppose this depends on what exactly one considers “nihilism”. For some theists, living without organized religion is a form of nihilism. But this doesn’t preclude having a personal sense of value, of preference. Of course, going further down the conceptual chain, there is the nihilism of ALL differences and judgement. In that sense you might be correct.

    Remember the old Zen proverb:

    Before Enlightenment [nihilism]: chop wood, carry water.
    After Enlightenment [nihilism]: chop wood, carry water.

    In other words, the Real World (as it impresses upon us its demands) doesn’t change one bit just because our IDEAS about it have changed.

    There is always something to do, something which calls upon us to survive in some form or another. You cannot avoid the terror-ecstasy of existence no matter HOW slick you are in your thinking.

    My man Hyatt:

    ——-

    Nietzsche’s “cure” for the ills of man is a painful one.

    What is this “cure”?

    The realization that mind creates meaning and then forgets its act of creativity.

    Man is a powerful joyous fool. In overcoming himself it appears necessary to forget. In the reality of the moment man is naked. He looks for power over himself and his environment. He is so creative — he invents ideas about himself and nature and bestows upon them an existence independent of himself. He believes his ideas to be true — independent of his need and will to create them. When the forgetting is complete the mortar hardens and he is trapped in the security (and the horror) of his Gods.

    What is the greatness power?
    The ability to FORGET your power

    Man is very creative in the area of metaphysics. He creates beginnings, endings, values, morals, causes, time, justice, things in themselves, laws, order, right, wrong and then forgets that they are his inventions. If he remembered that he invented these “essential” categories of thought his pain would be overwhelming. The formula is: to create, FORGET, and then act as if your “creations” were forced upon you from without — a “necessity.”

    Ideas from the sleeping man become “necessities” that both protect and stifle him. No longer living in the moment, having forgotten to dance, he begs and prays to be free again.

    KILL THE ZOMBIE
    BECOME AN ART FORM

    Be exactly as you are with all your nonsense –. Realize that misfortune is only an event. There are no guarantees.

    Realize that misfortune is only an event — often nothing more than the anticipation of failure — often nothing more than not getting what you think you need — then –.

    Once you know this then you will have to face “nothingness” — nihilism — meaninglessness — the limitation of belief, knowledge and your melodies. Learn to call your errors — truth. This has been referred to as the crossing of the Abyss — sometimes called madness.

    When what you call yourself dissolves — disappears — the whole will still be the whole — filled with rapturous hideous love. The Zombie of Form dies.

    All Division [abstraction and conceptual differentiation] is a device; simply a way of men working “magic.”

    Division is the snare — the illusion of suffering itself. Division is also the means from which suffering itself dissolves. But suffering never WILL dissolve — because men like to Divide.

    We heroes set our own snares — and they are the same ones set by the slaves — except we have not forgotten — we can now do it consciously because we have destroyed all values, all division — only to create them again — laughing and crying — alive.

    The spoiled, the weak — those unwilling to exchange value for value — regard Nietzsche’s “self-overcoming” as compassionless egotism. They have no right to use such words for they have neither compassion nor ego. What they have is need.

    ————

    Back to Rum:

    No one lives as if they felt no polarites of right and wrong

    True as far as it goes. The question however is the foundation for those sentiments.

    On the one hand you can go round and round and round with endless conceptual debate about the propriety of your own personal flavor of the Good.

    Or you can realize that you need no further justification for your preference other than three magic words:

    I. Will. It.

    To bring it back somewhat to the topic at hand — the value of Western Culture, and the threat it faces from multiculturalism, has been debated here and elsewhere — among it’s ADHERENTS. How effective is this debate against its DETRACTORS?

    At the end of the day the only thing stopping white, euro, western culture from it’s self-immolation is the acquisition of a moral backbone and the ability to say that our way of life is good simply because we like it. And don’t want to see it go. And to fight for it. But the self-doubt and guilt (inculcated in no small part due to Christianity) has hamstrung us from being so forthright. Instead we are expected to offer appeasing defenses for what should be obvious. Fuck that.

    Sigh. I don’t know. Maybe whoever it was was right when he said every culture gets the government it deserves.

    or that they were not connected in non-material ways to a broader sentience than their own brains.

    Buddhism is an atheistic “religion” that believes we are connected in non-material ways to a broader sentience than our own brains.

    The interconnectedness of of all life. The thing that keeps our hostile impulses in check. The sense of empathy that resides deeeeeeeep in our sense of self. Buddha was the first Darwinist, much in the same way Nietzsche was the first evolutionary psychologist.

    * yes I am drunk tonight.

    Like


  226. Also-

    I just wanted to say I think it’s great we have a platform here where we have a variety of viewpoints on the world, all of which are for the most part reasonable and thoughtful, even when the debate is contentious. The thinking is all pretty high level yet independent and unique.

    Except for PatrickH. That guy is a total poofter.

    Like


  227. on October 3, 2009 at 8:09 am Cannon's Canon

    tupac, you make my brain hurt sometimes

    Like


  228. the greatest risk of being an atheist is the expected payoff.

    what if God exists? You die and then face eternity in hell? This is why the Papist faith trumps the others. You can sin as much as you want as long as you keep conscious that you are sinning , provided that someday you stop. The will to stop and the acceptance of sin together make repentance

    as a poet said (translation kills poetry):
    Though to irate you, O Lord, so much sinis needed
    To bring back your tender love only a cry is needed

    Like


  229. This is my rebuttal to the secularism-bashers: the burden of proof, in establishing that atheism is the corrupter of the West, is on the prosecution. So far, the prosecution has failed. They’ve been able to show the godless at the scene of the crime, but have not been able to argue for opportunity, nor been able to produce the murder weapon.

    Thursday: What a joke. Christianity only started going soft under the criticism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment figures, most of whom were either atheists, agnostics, or deists.

    Show me the causational path that goes from random Enlightenment dude who only intellectuals can name to Courtney A. slutting it up.

    Many Roissy commentators, including yourself, if I recall correctly, have noted the shallow, childish chivalry and woman-worship of the most Bible-believing, God-fearing, scripturally literalist Christians – Evangelicals. Evangelicals are also quite taken with denying human biodiversity and with U.S. interventionist foreign policy, among other failings that bio- and paleocons complain about. Explain to me how Enlightenment thinkers have seduced this population of Darwin-deniers.

    Thursday: Religion is vastly less important to the average person in the West than it was 100 years ago. In fact, it isn’t very important to the average person at all anymore. That is what is meant by secularization. You are right that outright atheism has not become widespread, at least not in North America, but that is beside the point.

    No, it’s precisely the point. You only manage to show that there is at best a weak correlation between the religiosity of a nation and its degeneracy. North America – what you admit is still the most Christian part of the developed West – is nonetheless a hotbed of sluttiness and feminism; the nadir, or close to it, of female behavior according to the consensus of Roissy readers. Shouldn’t the God-fearing USA be the paradise for men that Brazil allegedly is, given that we’re far less secular than W. Europe? Brazil, heavily Papist, isn’t exactly known for its sexual restraint.

    *****
    An aside: I suspect that the Right (though not my opponents on this thread) is so used to inveighing against “secular humanism” that they forget that “secular” and “humanist” mean different things and aren’t necessarily connected. As a doubter of the supernatural (I call myself an “agnostic”) I am not required to worship humanity or believe in its perfectibility, as humanism is alleged to preach. I think the Right has chosen atheism as the accused because it knows what I have been contending, that atheism, in terms of societal influence, is small and weak and can’t fight back. Some rightists would like to blame women and feminists, but don’t want to be called bitter virgins, so they back off. Or they want to blame blacks, but are afraid to violate the racism taboo. So they turn to the godless as an attractive target, knowing that we have no lobby or constituency to speak of, that we are a hated minority because we are the bearers of bad news.

    Like


  230. Moralist you insist on ignoring the fact that atheist and other non-believers, while numerically small, have exercised a vastly disproportionate (and frequently negative) influence over Western culture since the Englightenment.

    Repeat the following until it sinks in: Tiny minorities can have a vast influence. Tiny minorities can have a vast influence. Tiny minorities can have a vast influence.

    Like


  231. atheism, in terms of societal influence, is small and weak and can’t fight back.

    I am really tired of the atheist/non-believer persecution complex. In elite circles such as academia, Hollywood, or the media in general, being an atheist is no handicap to anything at all, and in those circles it generally works against you to take your religion seriously. Atheists like Richard Dawkins occupy prestigious chairs at elite universities and people like Dan Dennett or Sam Harris have no problem selling their books to prestigious publishers. Nobody is being fired for being an atheist and no one is being beat up or harrassed for being an atheist.

    Like


  232. Thursday: Repeat the following until it sinks in: Tiny minorities can have a vast influence. Tiny minorities can have a vast influence. Tiny minorities can have a vast influence.

    Read and re-read the following sentence until comprehension occurs: Show me how the tiny, despised minority in question achieved what you alleged it did.

    Thursday:I am really tired of the atheist/non-believer persecution complex[…]Nobody is being fired for being an atheist and no one is being beat up or harrassed for being an atheist.

    I alleged that secular intellectuals are the targets of unfair rhetorical attacks by conservatives, not physical assaults or harrassment. Please challenge my actual statements, not those you wish I had made.

    Moralist you insist on ignoring the fact that atheist and other non-believers, while numerically small, have exercised a vastly disproportionate (and frequently negative) influence over Western culture since the Englightenment.

    I don’t dispute that godless people have been influential, I dispute, rather, that they’ve influenced society towards godlessness and the alleged resulting social degeneration. Of course there are powerful, highly placed non-believers, they are the people I cited as evidence against the absurd charge that atheists are uncreative.

    In elite circles such as academia, Hollywood, or the media in general, being an atheist is no handicap to anything at all,

    True, but irrelevant. It is however, a great handicap outside of “elite circles” – general society – the very place where you assert without evidence that the dread spectre of godlessness reigns.

    Like


  233. ””””””””””Tupac Chupra,
    Remember the old Zen proverb:

    Before Enlightenment [nihilism]: chop wood, carry water.
    After Enlightenment [nihilism]: chop wood, carry water.

    In other words, the Real World (as it impresses upon us its demands) doesn’t change one bit just because our IDEAS about it have changed.

    There is always something to do, something which calls upon us to survive in some form or another. You cannot avoid the terror-ecstasy of existence no matter HOW slick you are in your thinking.
    ””””””””””””””””””””

    You can become elightened in this day and age to get to:

    Before Enlightenment [nihilism]: chop wood, carry water.
    After Enlightenment [nihilism]: Nothing at all required for exstance not even chewing.

    Like


  234. If you look around though what is existance nothing. There are some buildings and some people. Not much to the world to even fret about.

    Like


  235. But yea society now is a bunch of pussies. Men who would “say” they would give their life for their families yet have been tested on the most trivial of items and found lacking.

    I have been tested many times and was never not up to challenge. The people I deal with are weak to the point of patheticness. To act out of fear in this world takes a real bitch as what are you fearfull of losing the ability to go out the ability to live in a house.

    Like


  236. Thursday, I’d like to further explore your correct point that certain minorities CAN exert great influence. Let’s play a game of compare and contrast.

    Jews are theorized, by friend and foe alike, to have accomplished this great feat.

    Importantly, this is what Jews have which atheists have never had:

    – the sympathy of the dominant religion in the West — Christianity — especially post-Holocaust.

    -kinship networks, high levels of in-group altruism, a strong sense of common cause.

    -the ability to organize openly and co-operate with groups different from themselves, such as blacks in the civil rights struggle, or Evangelicals in fomenting “Christian Zionism.”

    – frequent flattering portrayals of themselves in entertainment and news media.

    Try as you might, Thursday, there is no comparison to be made.

    Like


  237. True, but irrelevant. It is however, a great handicap outside of “elite circles” – general society – the very place where you assert without evidence that the dread spectre of godlessness reigns.

    Boy you are autistic dingbat. Here’s how it works. Irreligion helps you become part of the elite. Once you are part of the elite, you have status, even among the general population. That status, even among the general population, trumps people’s disagreement with your religious attitudes.

    Furthermore, once irreligion becomes part of elite identity, this encourages many of those who strive after higher status (i.e. most people) to ape people in the elite, including their attitudes towards religion. People tend to both want to be part of the elite and to want the approval of the elite.

    Like


  238. Let’s give a concrete example of the damage an unbelieving post-Englightenment figure can do.

    It was indeed unbelievers like John Stuart Mill who encouraged “experiments in living” and thought emancipation from tradition was such a fabulous thing. Despite being a non-believer, Mill had enough elite cache to be elected an MP among the still generally religious Victorians.

    But, again, it was fellows like Mill not churchmen, who worked to spread modernism and disrespect for tradition among the people.

    Like


  239. This might be helpful too in showing how the ideas of an elite can become widespread:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

    Irreligious Western elites have been unsuccessful in completely doing away with religion because of human being’s cognitive biases towards belief, but they have succeeded in massively weakening people’s religiosity in the West.

    Like


  240. Any comment about Papist influence an d sexual restraint in Brazil should take into account that 50% of Brazil is NAM

    Like


  241. Thursday:

    Boy you are autistic dingbat. Here’s how it works. Irreligion helps you become part of the elite. Once you are part of the elite, you have status, even among the general population. That status, even among the general population, trumps people’s disagreement with your religious attitudes.

    Furthermore, once irreligion becomes part of elite identity, this encourages many of those who strive after higher status (i.e. most people) to ape people in the elite, including their attitudes towards religion. People tend to both want to be part of the elite and to want the approval of the elite.

    You have a grossly inflated view of the degree to which elites are admired or followed. Elites are trashed by the grassroots Left as “the powerful” (in contrast to “the people”), “Republicrats,” and as “fat cats” or some variation thereof. Similarly, elites are denigrated by the grassroots Right as “secular humanists” “intellectual elitists” “bureaucrats” and “Davos man.”

    it was fellows like Mill not churchmen, who worked to spread modernism and disrespect for tradition among the people.

    I’m not denying that they “worked” towards this end, I’m denying that they succeeded. Maybe my autism would assist you in understanding the difference between the two concepts.

    Like


  242. The neocon influence over American foreign policy and over American public opinion for the first few years’of the Iraq occupation, Thursday, is an example of how your correct premise of elite influence doesn’t comport with your conclusion of widespread “secularization” achieved by godless Eloi.

    The neocons, a small band of elitist, atheist, Straussian moral relativists were forced to sell their preferred policy not on the merits for which they personally were committed to it, but in the language of moral absolutes: good vs. evil, freedom vs. oppression, the “American way of life” over “Islamofascism”. The secularized American society of your imagination wouldn’t need this insincere re-packaging. In other words, the language of an unsupervised universe, of moral relativism, does not sell because there’s no consumer base for it.

    Also, the primary salesmen were not the eloquent, egghead neocons themselves, but by their cognitive opposite George W. Bush. The choice of salesperson would be the reverse in a society that admired those who speak like Ivy Leaguers.

    Like


  243. on October 3, 2009 at 2:47 pm Steve Johnson

    Moralist:

    You [Thursday] have a grossly inflated view of the degree to which elites are admired or followed. Elites are trashed by the grassroots Left as “the powerful” (in contrast to “the people”), “Republicrats,” and as “fat cats” or some variation thereof. Similarly, elites are denigrated by the grassroots Right as “secular humanists” “intellectual elitists” “bureaucrats” and “Davos man.”

    What elites do have is full control over all institutions that transmit thought.

    As Thursday points out, the human instinct to believe in the supernatural is too strong to stamp out but what the elites have managed to do is eliminate any systematic religious thought. People then cast about making things up and believing in things on the basis of what feels good: astrology, “spiritual but not religious”, no rules at all Christianity, SWPL progressivism, etc. All of these things give nice psychic benefits to their believers.

    Now, are elites atheists? Well, if you measure them by the standards of 15th century Christendom, yes. By the standards of 18th century Christianity? Yes. Only by defining religious belief as loosely as “there is a God and he has zero influence on the world” is almost anyone today not an atheist.

    Like


  244. Moralist, your example is a perfect match to what I have been saying all along. Neocon foreign policy in the Middle East wasn’t generated internally by Evangelicals or the population in general. It was an idea put forward by irreligious elites who had to sell a bastardized version to the masses.

    Similarly, irreligious elites have discovered by experience that they can’t sell outright atheism to the masses, so they’ve settled on doing all they can to weaken and bastardize religion. Very successfully, I might add.

    Like


  245. Gig, unless you count Hispanics as White, then that’s about the same in the U.S. Almost 50% of the US is non Asian and non White or mixed. Most Black people in the U.S. are also mixed anyway. So having a high population of people with African and/or Native American ancestry isn’t what sluttifies a country, especially since NAM’s who haven’t been assimilated are well known for being extremely conservative.

    Where we get into trouble is when we lose touch with our home cultures. When I was growing up, slutty behavior and premarital sex with someone one wasn’t living with, was associated with White people.

    If my bra strap was accidentally showing, I got “Jap slapped” for, as my aunts or grandma would say, “…running around with your underwear hangin’ all out like a dirty White girl.” Mind you, my family is mixed, so they would know.

    Black and Hispanic women acting like sluts or whores when poverty didn’t necessitate or facilitate it, is a very historically recent thing in the U.S. It’s different in Brazil because Brazil has a different history. So don’t blame Black folks for your problems there. Our White folks in the U.S. didn’t get off on subjugating people as much because they were mostly English, French, and eastern European.

    Spanish and Portuguese people got off on cruelty beyond perceived economic necessity. So the societies they created in South America are just *barely* western. This is one big reason why Whites in the U.S. consider them a separate race, because they are in the true sense of the word. As technically European as they may be, culturally they’re savages by comparison.

    In the grand scheme of things, this “savagery” once balanced out with originally northern European ideas of freedom and justice, may be a good dose of alpha blood in the U.S. However, at the moment, folks on the borders are seeing the darker side of the new world Hispanic tendency.

    So what we’ve got up here is Black people with a smattering of genes from some ethnically easygoing northern Europeans who, as rough as they might get, understand that nobody’s going to reward them for acting like idiots except maybe their gang. So for the criminal among them to be what they are, they have to actually fight social pressure and ideas of appropriate behavior to get there. There’s some actual cost/benefit analysis going on, and the guy usually has an actual choice to make as to whether he’s going to work at McDonalds or be a drug dealer.

    In Brazil, working at McDonalds isn’t even an option. You put your Black populations in shacks on purpose, not as an accident of economic happenstance. Plus, when they’re mixing, they’re mixing with people whose traditional love songs sound like the script of a snuff film. Death metal has nothing on South American folk music.

    So your celebrities’ moms don’t get kidnapped because you have a lot of non Asian minority people. They get kidnapped because for the most part, you are merciless gleeful exploiters who enjoy watching others suffer, and don’t have the foresight to understand that those you stomp on might stomp back from time to time.

    Like


  246. Only by defining religious belief as loosely as “there is a God and he has zero influence on the world” is almost anyone today not an atheist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism

    Like


  247. Vladimir and Clio discuss how modernism crept into the Catholic Church:
    http://aliasclio.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/the-catholic-church-and-the-modern-world/

    Like


  248. ””””””””””””If my bra strap was accidentally showing, I got “Jap slapped” for, as my aunts or grandma would say, “…running around with your underwear hangin’ all out like a dirty White girl.” Mind you, my family is mixed, so they would know.””””””””’

    Wow again so now we know where ya get it.

    Like


  249. You have a grossly inflated view of the degree to which elites are admired or followed. Elites are trashed by the grassroots Left as “the powerful” (in contrast to “the people”), “Republicrats,” and as “fat cats” or some variation thereof. Similarly, elites are denigrated by the grassroots Right as “secular humanists” “intellectual elitists” “bureaucrats” and “Davos man.”

    Moralist, you are one out-of-date agnostic. 30 years ago the “grassroots Left” (whoever they were) might have trashed elites, but the everyday, non-radical progressive movement in the US today doesn’t do anything of the kind. Instead, its adherents stomp and snort around blaming the ills of the US on the “white trash” who voted for George Bush II or admired Sara Palin.

    The educated elites of the US (and in Canada and most of Europe), most of whom are not believers or not very strong believers even if some do happen to be Republicans or right-wing in some sense, form the core of the people who set policies that affect everyone, from the elementary schools to the universities to the military to the media to the actual politicians. And the policies they set tend in general to be, if not overtly hostile to religious belief (which would be politically risky), then accommodating towards religion in a way that flattens and distorts it.

    The media and the leftish politicians have not quite managed to pull off universal gay marriage across the US (to go on with my original example), but I suspect they eventually will because of the progressives’ influence in the schools (which is I assume connected to their predominance in big-city government in the US).

    Another example, and perhaps more german to some of your points about the decline of public morality not being the fault of atheists: one policy that progressives (probably mostly atheistic or agnostic) did manage to pull off, to the great detriment of their intended beneficiaries, was the distribution of welfare payments to unmarried mothers – not widows and orphans, but any woman who became pregnant out of wedlock.

    Moreover, many large-scale political movements of the 20th like Communism and, to a lesser degree, fascism and Nazism, were the work of non-believers who were actively hostile to religious belief and did what they could to crush or suborn it.

    This idea that atheism or simple irreligiosity has had no influence in the public square is simply untenable unless you are completely ignorant of 20th-century history.

    Like


  250. Yeah, Gunny, in my family, when a girl acts like a slut even accidentally, she gets the shit knocked out of her.

    I don’t see this as a bad thing, especially for a Black girl. White folks don’t need more reasons to look down on us. If your women become single parents they’re victims. If we become single parents, we’re statistics.

    If your women go out and act like sluts then they’re modern. If we go out and act like sluts, we’re “typical Black whores”.

    So “Jap slapping” me upside the head was the best advice I ever got from a woman on how I should conduct myself in public. I’m glad for it.

    Like


  251. Clio:

    Moralist, you are one out-of-date agnostic. 30 years ago the “grassroots Left” (whoever they were) might have trashed elites, but the everyday, non-radical progressive movement in the US today doesn’t do anything of the kind.

    I admit that my examples were clumsy, and that non-elite yet activism-oriented Leftists aspire to the approval and company of the elite more than what I called the “grassroots right.”

    To clarify my argument, replace “grassroots left” with the swath of American society that, say, supports government-run health care, is “pro-choice,” and thinks capitalism is rigged on behalf of the rich. This segment of the population does not yearn to be invited to cocktail parties atop the ivory tower. If they, like many people who disagree with them about politics, conclude that a just-fertilized egg is not a full-fledged human* or that a guy named Adam didn’t literally talk to a talking snake, these concepts were not handed down to them by the elites on high. These people are not retards or automatons, and they do not care about, and are often not even aware of elite opinion. When they are aware of elite opinion, they are almost as dismissive of it as are Sarah Palin fans. Average people make up their own minds about philosophical or moral concepts without the help of the elites, even if elite influence is real.

    You and Thursday and Vladimir have in your heads an idea of what real Christian belief and morals constitute, and blame deviance from this standard on the machinations of atheists. You seem not to understand how problematic this position is; I assume none of you are fundamentalist, Biblical literalists, but those who are would charge you with being under the sway of secular humanism because of what I assume to be your decision to interpret the Bible figuratively.

    the policies [Christian Republicans] set tend in general to be, if not overtly hostile to religious belief (which would be politically risky), then accommodating towards religion in a way that flattens and distorts it.

    Let me get this straight – overtly Christian Republicans, many of whom share your theories about secularist influence, aren’t Christian enough for you? They’ve been tainted by the invisible hand of atheist influence as well? I point you to my above paragraph. I assume by flattening and distorting policies you mean some Republicans’ openness to the likes of gay marriage or gay civil unions. Again, how can you demonstrate conclusively that this position is not the product of their sincere and self-generated conception of Christian morality, or for that matter, simple political pragmatism? How do you know with what appears to be certitude that Enlightenment types have influenced them?

    You mention various leftist victories in social engineering, of which the engineers were secularists. I do not deny either premise. I dispute that the policy victories constitute secularization of the governed which are affected by them. When an unwed mother gets a food stamp, she does not necessarily in the same transaction receive Enlightenment values, to say the least.

    The race that in the U.S. is the foremost consumer of welfare state dollars – blacks – is the most Bible-believing, churchgoing, and Darwin-denying. This is the race which exhibits to the largest degree the social pathologies cited by the HBD community.

    many large-scale political movements of the 20th like Communism and, to a lesser degree, fascism and Nazism, were the work of non-believers who were actively hostile to religious belief and did what they could to crush or suborn it.

    As I contended to Thursday, they, especially the Commies, failed. The Soviets tried to crush Orthodox Christianity, but were forced to accommodate it. They, be it Soviet Commies or American progressives always fail, because people are not required to accept a godless universe along with social welfare benefits. Your example actually argues against your thesis. The Commies and the Nazis, in their early efforts to subjugate Christianity, had to rely on immense brute force, which progressives here would have to use to achieve the effects you presume already exist. This shows the intense resistance people mount to having their faith repressed. They don’t take to secularization nearly as easily as you contend, to say the least.

    This idea that atheism or simple irreligiosity has had no influence in the public square is simply untenable unless you are completely ignorant of 20th-century history.

    I started this skirmish in response to PA’s assertion that atheism had not only gained deep and wide purchase in society, but was responsible for sowing in it effeminacy, cowardice, and selfishness. This was a positive assertion that I have successfully shown is rather lacking in evidence. With the above quote, you’re asking me to prove a negative. I’ve nearly pulled off this nearly impossible task, if only in comparison to you and Thursday’s insistence on conflating the heavy presence of secularists among the elite, and their success in implementing their preferred policies on the one hand, with their alleged success in disseminating their atheism to general society on the other.

    We agree on society’s symptoms, so it’s useless to re-iterate them. We disagree on the diagnosis.

    Like


  252. ”””””””’Ghost of Nicole
    Yeah, Gunny, in my family, when a girl acts like a slut even accidentally, she gets the shit knocked out of her.

    I don’t see this as a bad thing, especially for a Black girl. White folks don’t need more reasons to look down on us. If your women become single parents they’re victims. If we become single parents, we’re statistics.

    If your women go out and act like sluts then they’re modern. If we go out and act like sluts, we’re “typical Black whores”.

    So “Jap slapping” me upside the head was the best advice I ever got from a woman on how I should conduct myself in public. I’m glad for it.
    ”””””””””””””’

    Yea but none of it matters. There is nothing here.

    Like


  253. Everyones doing there theories out of books because there is no longer any real life to live or love to give. Watch movies maybe you can pretend to be a hero that is all there is left. Everyone went pussy and those who didn’t go to jail. Weakness hopefully will be exploited by another country so that the land can be cleansed of all the filthy humans taking up space. Let some real men and woman in to work the land.

    Like


  254. If I am forced to live here I can see lasting maybe 6 months before I blow my head off with money or without. It is a human wasteland.

    Like


  255. Gunny, closing your eyes just makes things invisible to you, not nonexistent.

    Like


  256. well I wasn’t here for last 5 years so yea didn’t quite know extent of just how bad it is in us. Now after having talked with those guys and being a participant in the sytem this shit is completely fucked. Of course money still owns but who gives a fuck.

    Like


  257. You have a grossly inflated view of the degree to which elites are admired or followed. Elites are trashed by the grassroots Left as “the powerful” (in contrast to “the people”), “Republicrats,” and as “fat cats” or some variation thereof. Similarly, elites are denigrated by the grassroots Right as “secular humanists” “intellectual elitists” “bureaucrats” and “Davos man.”

    Oh lots of people will say they don’t like the elites, but people say all sorts of shit. How people really view elites is told in how they act towards them. Try dropping the H-bomb on a girl, left wing or right wing, and watch her eyes light up. Going to an Ivy League school, writing for the NY Times, working on a Hollywood film or having a show on CNN are all very high status thing to do and will open all kinds of doors.

    Let me get this straight – overtly Christian Republicans, many of whom share your theories about secularist influence, aren’t Christian enough for you?

    Most of the powers that be in the Republican party aren’t actually that religious themselves. They may like to have religious voters vote for them, but most of them don’t believe that stuff themselves. They are quite happy with modernity.

    Like


  258. their alleged success in disseminating their atheism to general society on the other.

    I never said they had any success in disseminating atheism among the general society. Quite the opposite.

    Steve Johnson nicely sums up what I have said:

    “As Thursday points out, the human instinct to believe in the supernatural is too strong to stamp out but what the elites have managed to do is eliminate any systematic religious thought. People then cast about making things up and believing in things on the basis of what feels good: astrology, “spiritual but not religious”, no rules at all Christianity, SWPL progressivism, etc.”

    Irreligious elites have found that destroying traditional Christianity is quite sufficient for their own purposes, and have wisely declined to try to impose absolute unbelief on anyone.

    Like


  259. Oh dear, Moralist, where to begin? I have a strong feeling that we are talking past each other, so I’m not certain that it’s worth trying, but I’ll give it one last shot.

    To clear up one thing first: I certainly don’t believe that atheists or atheism are primarily responsible for the growing “effeminacy” or “cowardice” visible in modern society. That, of course, was PA’s point. I on the other hand think that it’s as likely that the mere fact of increasing safety and physical comfort for all have done as much to undermine the old heroic virtues as anything else. And if I’m right about this, I can hardly regret it too much. I mean, I’m not the kind of person who rejoices in suffering, my own or other people’s, for the excellent effect it will have on our characters.

    Having cleared that up (I hope) I wanted to remind you that I was challenging your contention that atheism is relatively powerless in modern society because so few people are atheists. I agree with the second part of that statement – that few people are atheists – without for one moment being able to agree with the first. Atheists and agnostics and other kinds of secularists tend to occupy positions of considerable influence, and are thus able to have a powerful impact on society as a whole even if society as a whole remains relatively detached from or even hostile to their beliefs.

    To take the case I already mentioned, and to which I don’t think you responded – what about the transformation of the welfare system in the western world? Isn’t that one area in which elite views and opinions have had a great, and generally negative, impact on society, in this case the authority of the family? I know this is a complicated issue and that there was more at work in the decline of paternal authority, in particular, than welfare policy – but I don’t think that the impact of such policies was negligible, either.

    What about immigration policy? That’s one area in which elites and their attitudes have been able not only to set policy in defiance of popular opinion, but to manipulate the political system (by importing immigrants who support immigration, I mean) so that key regions become strongholds of pro-immigration sentiment, ensuring that the policies are almost impossible to change?

    You keep roaming off into abstractions, and accusing me of doing the same. How about addressing some of the issues I raise here? Please understand that I’m not saying that these complex matters were entirely the result of elite manipulation, or that elite manipulation in these cases was directly connected with atheism – only that elite influence was important in altering policy and that for some reason it appears to be very difficult to change the policies I mention, even though popular opinion is largely against them. As for the connection with atheism, as I said, it isn’t direct – but the elites in question do generally have a very secular view of the world, and have tended to be dismissive of the idea that it matters whether welfare recipients are married, or whether immigrants happen to be of Christian background.

    Like


  260. Moralist:

    You mention various leftist victories in social engineering, of which the engineers were secularists. I do not deny either premise. I dispute that the policy victories constitute secularization of the governed which are affected by them. When an unwed mother gets a food stamp, she does not necessarily in the same transaction receive Enlightenment values, to say the least.

    Funny that you mention that. Have you ever heard of the 18th century German counter-Enlightenment author named Justus Moeser? In 1772, he penned an interesting essay named On the Diminished Disgrace of Whores and Their Children in Our Day, in which he denounced the contemporary trends towards destigmatization of illegitimacy. I don’t think the essay is online, but here you can find a blog post in which some obnoxious lefty academic is jeering at it:
    http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/11/on-the-diminished-disgrace-of-whores-and-their-children-in-our-day/

    Now think about this for a moment. When this was written 237 years ago, Moeser and the Enlightenment philosophes represented the right and left sides in the mainstream intellectual controversies of the day. But imagine someone seriously advocating Moeser’s positions nowadays! As exemplified in the above linked post, our present intellectuals, whether liberal or “conservative,” can only look at him as a bizarre madman, scarcely able to understand how someone like that could ever have been taken seriously — as if the entire world in the past must have been in the grip of some mental disease or demon possession that we’ve fortunately managed to escape only in recent generations. That’s why they call it “Enlightenment,” after all.

    So, yes, this unwed mother’s lifestyle is very much a product of Enlightenment thinking and its subsequent development. (Was it Steve Sailer who recently remarked that these days, even widows with kids often refer to themselves as “single mothers,” apparently feeling no urge to differentiate themselves from out-of-wedlock mothers?)

    Like


  261. The individual person must be the focal point for existential survival. Saving western or any other social order is a way distant second priority. Indeed, saving “society” is utterly irrelevant if the individuals within it are left doomed to live in an ice-cold ontological vacuum.
    OTOH, if individual persons can find some real ground to stand on, the whole culture has a chance to float right-side-up.

    Like


  262. archetypes connect the collective, transpersonal unconscious with the individual psyche. expressing archetypal precepts is a solid basis for living as a fully differentiated sentient creature.
    The most basic archetype is the Hero. Take that seriously and it will eventually cost you your life and also let you find it.

    Like


  263. You mention various leftist victories in social engineering, of which the engineers were secularists. I do not deny either premise. I dispute that the policy victories constitute secularization of the governed which are affected by them. When an unwed mother gets a food stamp, she does not necessarily in the same transaction receive Enlightenment values, to say the least.

    I had missed this part of your previous comment before, Moralist (reading with too many interruptions, like real life…), but it sort of illustrates that we are indeed talking past each other. Neither I nor Thursday (don’t know about Vladimir) are trying to tell you that atheists, liberals, or seculars have succeeded in somehow “converting” the masses to secularism, by means of food stamps or anything else. I agree: the masses are not secularized; food stamps didn’t do the job. But there is a portion of the underclass that has been literally “demoralized”, partly thanks to the social engineering of welfare-statists, who probably never intended any effect of the kind. They become, as a result, ever more indebted, as clients, to elite patronage.

    Welcoming the stranger, feeding the hungry and tending the sick are clear Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) duties, but when they are separated from other elements of Christian morality – as post-Christian secularists have tried to do with them – they can become monsters.

    Like


  264. @ Nicole

    According to th US Census Bureau, America needs some 70-80 million NAMs (hey Seeking Alpha, need working harder!!) to reach Brazilian levels of NAMfication.

    Like


  265. tupac, you make my brain hurt sometimes

    Relax…it’s just a little pinprick…

    Like


  266. Tupac confessed “Relax…it’s just a little pinprick…”

    Wow! Most guys aren’t comfortable saying that.

    (sorry I couldn’t resist) 😉

    Like


  267. Neither I nor Thursday (don’t know about Vladimir) are trying to tell you that atheists, liberals, or seculars have succeeded in somehow “converting” the masses to secularism

    I would say that irreligious elites have succeeded in making religion, particularly traditional organized religion, vastly less important to the average person. But they certainly have not come even close to eliminating belief in the supernatural.

    Like


  268. on October 4, 2009 at 1:20 pm You Know I'm Right

    In the USA, the only people who are defending Polanski are other Jews. All sane and non-biased people believe he should go to prison or even be executed for his egregious crimes.

    Once again it is the [Jewish-run] mass-media/Hollywood complex vs. the rest of America – http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Polanski.html

    Like


  269. on October 4, 2009 at 1:27 pm You Know I'm Right

    Roissy:”what if polanski was roman schnerdling, the jewish high school teacher, who drugged and raped a 13 year old? do you think jewish celebrities would be lining up to defend him?”

    You’ve never heard of the Yankee Jew carpetbagger named Leo Frank who was lynched down in Georgia in 1915 for raping a young White girl? Big Jewish money and Jewish lawyers poured in to Georgia to defend him during his trial, and Jewish newspapers nationwide write article after article trying to defend his supposed innocence too – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

    Coincidentally, the little White girl who Leo Frank raped AND murdered was also 13 years old, just like Polanksi’s victim.

    Like


  270. As concisely as I can state it, here is my position:

    – The Elite will to power over people’s values is not the same as acquisition of power over the same.

    – The increased incidence of bad behavior cannot be equated with “secularization” The two can be the same, but that needs to argued with evidence or logic, not just asserted.

    – Even if we agree that degraded behavior and values do constitute secularization, this in itself does not comprise evidence that the elites did it to the masses, instead of the masses doing it to themselves. Secularization, like any kind of social change, doesn’t need to be “top down.”

    – Secular elites have changed policy for the worse. But as for changing hearts and minds, elites have that effect mostly on each other, and kid themselves that regular people pay much heed to that which isn’t backed by the force of law or violence.

    It appears that Clio and I are basically in agreement on anything we care to argue about. Vladimir and Thursday, though, think because I doubt elites’ success in changing hearts and minds, that therefore I remain innocent of elites’ values and aims. They are too quick to dismiss the difference between wards of the state on one hand, and heathens on the other. They do not entertain the possibility that people reject rules and customs because they are found to be ridiculous or too difficult. Whereas Clio acknowledges “increasing safety and physical comfort” as possible corrupting influences, Vladimir and Thursday have yet to concede it’s anything but those dastardly philosophes.

    For them, Courtney A. spread for Tucker Max because, from across the ages, Voltaire poured poison in her ear. (OK, I’m exaggerating here, but come on Vlad and Thurs.)

    Like


  271. “But they certainly have not come even close to eliminating belief in the supernatural.”

    Pupu suspects that would be a mission impossible. Here is her possibly over-simplified view:

    1. The motto of Enlightenment as defined by Kant was to “have courage to use your own reason.”
    2. Yet, reason/logic alone, as proven by Gödel, is incomplete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem
    3. The Enlightenment may have marked a drastic shift in the ratio of reason-and-belief applied in human thinking.
    4. The incompleteness of reason alone would deem it impossible to eliminate belief.

    Like


  272. Steve Johnson:

    As Thursday points out, the human instinct to believe in the supernatural is too strong to stamp out but what the elites have managed to do is eliminate any systematic religious thought. People then cast about making things up and believing in things on the basis of what feels good: astrology, “spiritual but not religious”, no rules at all Christianity, SWPL progressivism, etc. All of these things give nice psychic benefits to their believers.

    Nor have they extinguished belief in the “supervisory, omnipotent, loving, afterlife-providing, prayer-answering, just deity”which I defined previously as the converse of atheism. For the third time, I will point out that this old-time religion is most prevalent in the most misbehaving, underperforming race in the U.S.

    You state that “the elites have managed to[…] eliminate any systematic religious thought.” Define the concept made up by those last three words. Here’s how I would, similar to my above definition: a perfect creator of the universe who metes out punishment and reward in accordance with Judeo-Christian morality. Americans still overwhelmingly believe in this “systematic religious thought” yet they slut it up anyway.

    Like


  273. For them, Courtney A. spread for Tucker Max because, from across the ages, Voltaire poured poison in her ear.

    What can I say, ideas have consequences.

    Like


  274. 1. Sailer has a nice piece on elite lib, which traditional Christianity is definitely in the way of:
    http://isteve.blogspot.com/search?q=elite+lib

    2. Steve pointed out to me that while some more religious groups, like blacks, may behave better than other less religious groups, like whites or asians, within all those groups the more religious tend to be better behaved.

    3. Neither I, nor I suspect Vladimir, would deny that material factors like increased prosperity and greater physical safety have contributed to the decline of traditional religion in the West. But ideas have mattered too. The prestige that used to be attached to sexual restraint by the elite is gone and with it a significant brake on lower class bad behavior. Not to mention elite decisions to alter social programs to allow, for example, unwed single mothers to collect welfare, all in the name of reducing the stigma on sexual bad behavior.

    Like


  275. Mike–

    Patrick, thanks. I don’t tolerate female friends, and I don’t consider her to be mine. I said the friend zone, because after she liked me for a while, she went off with some other guy, and we became buddies for a while. I’ve put a stop to that though.

    This broad sends me mixed signals though, she knows I like her, but she never actually tells me to get lost when I come on to her, she just does nothing, she just ignores it.

    I’ve cut off all compliments, and attention to her, and I’m gonna start talking about other broads again if I come across her. Hopefully this will make me more appealing. I’m working on becoming more confident around her, and make it seem as though I am in demand, and she can’t even get the time of day from me.

    If the later bits I’ve bolded work to motivate you, ok. But it’s not gonna happen.

    There are circumstances in which “just friends” can become lovers but they are limited ones.

    In brief those circumstances are either 1) where there was mutual attraction from early on, but social rules/circumstances prevented one or both of the pair from acting on it previously; or 2) where the woman decides on accepting a non passionate companionate stable relationship as the best thing for her growing older and mother roles (pre-exisiting or now or never).

    I.e., you can never create sexual passion from a former male/female only feeling like friends interaction. (Yes from only ACTING like friends, but not from her only feeling like friends.)

    Yes that’s almost 100%. Yes it’s iron clad.

    Exception could be that you became famous or otherwise had a HUGE increase in status (not just money) in the interim. You showed HUGE value increase. (Huge increase in money might influence her, but only in that settle, act like a mommy not a lover, companionate kind of way.)

    Still, in that case you’d be SO much more attractive to other girls who are hotter, sweeter, and more into you than your old unrequited love interest, that you’d be reverting to beta/omega big time to go back to try to mine her interest then.

    Like


  276. Spanish and Portuguese people got off on cruelty beyond perceived economic necessity. So the societies they created in South America are just *barely* western. This is one big reason why Whites in the U.S. consider them a separate race, because they are in the true sense of the word. As technically European as they may be, culturally they’re savages by comparison.

    this is why I love this blog.

    Portuguese and Spanish people have been able to build two-storey buildings since the bronze age. Hey, they even had alphabets since then!!! We can’t say the same thing for any place south of the Sahara until the XXth century

    If South America is barely Western, Africa and Detroit are barely Neolithical. In Detroit people are moving relatives out of cemiteries and many parts of the city are being taken back by mother nature. Without white/chinese assistance, Africans are unable to keep electricity running!!

    also, and this is a gig’s favorite, Portuguese and Spanish people are able to produce beautiful daughters. if anything, Latins (South Europe + France and their descendants) have a much clearer view of AFricans than Northern Europeans, who are probably a lower-testosterone people with obvious fetiches for b lacks.

    it is amazing that an America that is still 70% white, and if you count high_IQ asians as white and consider the white ancestry in Blacks and Hispanics, America is still around 80% non-NAM, has credit, m onetary and fiscal policies muchworse than Brazil. Let those Northern Europeans deal with a country that is 40% NAM and then we will compare who is superior, Southern European Whites who deal in SOuth America with 40, 50, 60, maybe even 80% (Bolivia’s case) NAM populations, or Northern Europeans wh are screwing themselves with a fraction of the NAM population Sotuh Americans have dealt for centuries

    Like


  277. on October 4, 2009 at 7:11 pm msexceptiontotherule

    I love when I read stuff where guys refer to women as broads, cunts, bitches, sluts, whores, and mommy.

    Ok maybe not the last one.

    Like


  278. I am rather surprised to see an immoral, racialist reprobate “player” like PA defending an egalitarian, morally rigorous religion like Christianity. I wonder PA, having read many a number of your posts here, how would you reconcile your race-based social theories with traditional Christian doctrine that recognizes no distinctions among men (“all created in God’s image, there’s neither Jew nor Greek, etc”) excepting that of believers and heathens, the pious and the profane, the saints and the sinners?

    Like


  279. “The alpha male is defined by the hotness of the women he can attract, the strength of their attraction for him, and the number of them who find him attractive.”

    This is actually quite an inelegant, vague, and tautological statement. The number/hotness of women who are attracted to a man, etc. is but one barometer (albeit an important one) of his alpha-tude, not the definition. (By the way, if a hot woman wants you, the plain women will want you too, and if a plain woman doesn’t want you, chances are your “number” of women across the board is low.) High social status (i.e.,alpha status) comes first, and then the women; not the other way around (and not simultaneously, either).

    Your statement also conflates separate and different aspects of what motivates a woman’s willingness to submit her body sexually to a man. You use the blanket term of female “attraction,” but it is confusing what you mean by this. You say that the number of women are important, but then you also say the “strength of attraction” is important. Which made me wonder, “What does it matter how strongly she is ‘attracted’ to you so long as she’s willing to sleep with you? What, now it also matters that she be really eager for you? Next thing one knows, you’ll be wanting her to love and adore you too.” Then the answer hit me: Of course that’s what you want. I’m not saying that your readers are looking to stoop so low as to love any particular woman (gasp, how beta!), but they certainly want to make women swoon with adulation for them.

    So how to accomplish this? I’ve said it before: Women want leaders of men. Those men are the true alpha.
    A guy who is able to lead/dominate other men might not always get the full measure of alpha-tude he desires (he won’t fully get the numbers/kind of women he wants), but one thing is for sure — if a guy cannot lead/dominate other men, then he is not alpha. To the extent this guy is able to pick up desirable women in a club by using your “game” teachings, he is playing pretend alpha.

    If that’s all he wants, then more power to him. But please recognize that teaching “game” to non-alphas is teaching them only ways to get women to infer that they are or could be leaders of men. Nothing wrong with that, per se. In fact, I think there’s great use to your teachings, insofar as it can help a current emasculated non-alpha find and develop his inner alpha, as it were. But again, I would suggest that you keep clear the distinctions between “alpha” and “player of game/pick-up artist.” Yes, there’s overlap and relatedness between the two, but they are not wholly co-extensive, as you seem to suggest. Be precise with your terms.

    To further demonstrate the existence and additional character of this distinction, I will point out that there is a category of men who aren’t alphas but get tons of hot women. They are known as extremely physically beautiful men. Out of necessity, this group of men are young (and/or look it), for two reasons: (1) youth is always more visually appealing; and (2) a lack of material resources / significant occupational accomplishment will not be considered a strike against them. Using your definition, these men are alphas. So why aren’t you including tips on plastic surgery on your blog? Sure, good plastic surgery is expensive and uncomfortable, but once a guy has cleared those hurdles, it’s all easy. Throw in some leg-breaking height-enhancing operation in Europe, and you will have no better guarantee of achieving alpha status, by your definition.

    Of course these young gorgeous males are not “alpha,” not really. We see them as just at the starting gate of the race in life to achieve status/alpha points, along with all other males of same age. Yes, their looks give them an advantage in this race, but, by the time a man reaches his mid-30s, the number of points he has accumulated (or failed to accumulate) will be seen to have obvious and ever-increasing bearing on “the hotness of women he can attract, the strength of attraction…” etc. From that point forward, his ability to make women (hot ones and the rest) want him is largely determined by where he places on the male leadership/domination hierarchy.

    Like


  280. @ Dwayne Mayor

    Since I tend to agree with PA in those matters, I´ll answer for him.

    I said here, repeating whaT a portuguese priest said about what he saw in the war in ANgola: “the Negro is our brother in Christ, but he is our younger brother and it is up to us to lead him to avoid harming us, and specially himself”

    Segregation as it happened in South Africa and Southern US is wrong and evil. Period. But if Catholic morals are enforced throughout society, only the 99th percentile of blacks will ever have sex with white women, as it happened throughout the Latin world.

    And yes, you are right, I am deeply hypocritical. For me, paradise would be a place of outstanding beauty, like Rio or California where everybody was white and sexual mores degenerate and then, at my early 30s, moving to a deeply conservative and Catholic place that could well be multiracial to raise family.

    Like


  281. Interesting perspective, gig. You’re an honest hypocrite and I suppose that counts for something.

    Like


  282. how would you reconcile your race-based social theories with traditional Christian doctrine that recognizes no distinctions among men (”all created in God’s image, there’s neither Jew nor Greek, etc”)

    There are no distinctions between Christian souls in God’s eyes. Christianity is not meant to be a suicide cult, which is why its proper full expression is a sword in one hand, a cross in the other. Like Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski.

    Segregation as it happened in South Africa and Southern US is wrong and evil.

    Yes and no. Segregation and Apratheit had their obnoxious aspects and were unfair to the better blacks, but they were in essence a quaranteening of barbarism, which allowed whites who were surrounded by blacks to live unmolested by people who would otherwise be raping and murdering them.

    Is today’s South Africa an improvement upon what it was before? it is only if you find savagery and ugliness snuffing out civilization and beauty an improvement.

    Of course, neither Apartheit nor Segregation woudl have been necessary (and they WERE necessary) if the early Dutch and English colonists of thier respective continents weren’t importing cheap African labor.

    Like


  283. FWIW, I voted for Obama. Polanski’s a child Rapist and Im glad to see him prosecuted. Also, I date a nice liberal, Jewish girl. She’s disgusted by Polanski. So is all her extended family. They’re also disgusted by Madoff.

    So, Paul at 1.30 on Oct 1st, go fuck off now please.

    Like


  284. Christianity is not meant to be a suicide cult, which is why its proper full expression is a sword in one hand, a cross in the other.

    Some consider traditional Christian doctrine suicidal, and indeed it is referred to as the religion of the martyrs. But if you feel the need to introduce innovations and change it into something more suitable to your racialist values then why defend Christianity at all? Why try to make what is by its nature incompatible, compatible? Christian teaching is very clear on this issue. Sexual mating is subordinate solely to religious considerations. “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?” 2 Cor. 6:14

    To the contrary, your racist social philosophy subordinates sexual mating to consideration of race.

    Is today’s South Africa an improvement upon what it was before? it is only if you find savagery and ugliness snuffing out civilization and beauty an improvement.

    It depends on how one defines civilization. If you are merely speaking of the mechanics of civilization (government, trains, planes, automobiles, markets) then sure, perhaps apartheid SA was better. If civilization is defined by higher, abstract values of truth, justice, beauty, humanity then certainly the vicious, unjust treatment of Negroes and other undesirables, the abject cruelty and hatred of others made apartheid SA a hellhole of barbarism. “For one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions” Luke 12:15 Nor does the quality of civilization reside in its material prosperity, but rather rests on a foundation of social and economic justice, of empathy and a respect for human beings, and of a hatred of cruelty.

    There are no distinctions between Christian souls in God’s eyes.

    There is no distinction period between human beings who share the Christian faith. “Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Acts 10:34-35 Christian doctrine has always recognized the obliteration of the relevance of racial and cultural distinctions that divided pagans, and made Christian unity the primary and supreme social value. The Church Fathers universally attest to this radical egalitarianism.

    “Let him know that all men are begotten alike, with a capacity and ability of reasoning and feeling, without preference of age, sex, or dignity…Are you elevated by nobility of birth? Do you praise your parents? Yet we are all born with one lot; it is only by virtue that we are distinguished.” Octavius, 200 A.D.

    “At the same time teaching not to wrong any one belonging to another race, and bring him under the yoke, when there is no other cause to allege than difference of race, which is no cause at all, being neither wickedness nor the effect of wickedness…And we admit that the same nature exists in every race, and the same virtue. ” Clement of Alexandria, 195 A.D.

    “This is clear to you, O King, that there are four classes of men in this world:— Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians.” Aristides, 125 A.D.

    Lactantius, who wrote the first systematic theology of Christian doctrine, the Divine Institutes in 300 A.D. wrote of egalitarianism: “The other part of justice, therefore, is equity; and it is plain that I am not speaking of the equity of judging well, though this also is praiseworthy in a just man, but of making himself equal to others, which Cicero calls equability. For God, who produces and gives breath to men, willed that all should be equal, that is, equally matched. He has imposed on all the same condition of living; He has produced all to wisdom; He has promised immortality to all; no one is cut off from His heavenly benefits. For as He distributes to all alike His one light, sends forth His fountains to all, supplies food, and gives the most pleasant rest of sleep; so He bestows on all equity and virtue. In His sight no one is a slave, no one a master; for if all have the same Father, by an equal right we are all children. No one is poor in the sight of God, but he who is without justice; no one is rich, but he who is full of virtues; no one, in short, is excellent, but he who has been good and innocent; no one is most renowned, but he who has abundantly performed works of mercy; no one is most perfect, but he who has filled all the steps of virtue. Therefore neither the Romans nor the Greeks could possess justice, because they had men differing from one another by many degrees, from the poor to the rich, from the humble to the powerful; in short, from private persons to the highest authorities of kings. For where all are not equally matched, there is not equity; and inequality of itself excludes justice, the whole force of which consists in this, that it makes those equal who have by an equal lot arrived at the condition of this life.”

    Christianity is the foundation of liberal egalitarianism and yet here you sit defending it to your own harm (according to your racialist philosophy). Without Christianity, there could have never been an abolitionist movement nor the Civil Rights revolution. Trying to bend the pacific, unifying Christian religion of Jesus to your cultural preoccupations is a fool’s enterprise and can only lead to the same failure that British colonialists, American segregationists, and German imperialists experienced. Why do you think the Catholic Church is the most vociferous supporter of illegal immigration?

    The teaching of charity and love at the foundation of Christian dogma is simply too embedded to hope to blend it into your warrior tribal values of blood and soil.

    Like


  285. I believe that a formal and harsh system as it was devised in South Africa and the Southern US is wrongbecause it effectively deifies race. It wasn´t a surprise that the Reformed Dutch Church saw africaners as a chosen people.

    the thing is, unless blacks are propelled by some other force, they will naturally occupy the lowest positions in any society where there are also non-blacks. Remove afirmative action, defund the government and blacks will gravitate to their natural ocupations, largely menial services for whites. This has a side benefict that in this way whites will not be forced to subsidyze the reproduction of blacks since their relationship will direct and paternalistic, as it should be, without a government funding the demographic explosion of blacks

    the HBD crowd says that the higher birth rates of blacks are dysgenic. I say they are anti-aesthetical. They hurt the world by making it uglier. Yet I am prepared that the upper echelon of blacks, the 99th percentile, will have sex and maybe children with white women, what SOuth Africa and South US would never accept, because without a cultural/societal enforcement of black supremacy, those are the only blacks who will manage to do so. In that scale, I believe miscigenation improves female beauty.

    Like


  286. Gig, you really, really need to get out more. Your, uh, ideas are entirely too well thought out. No one who can obsess over race that much can be truly alpha.

    Like


  287. Let’s take a time out, twilight zone style.

    Explore archetypes in the zone.

    The Alpha. The sneaky fucker, who has no social dominance, but who gets painted onto cave walls as kokopeli. The Beta-provider, who imagines himself as the uber-cock of economic prosperity. The geek who no one knew had a skill that was econmic. That girl and her friend who had a hand in playwriting.

    A time out.

    in the zone of alternative strategies. Where any strategy has merits and deficits. It’s the zone of game.

    It’s game strategy.

    Like


  288. @ moloko

    3 Catholic guys, who may or may not follow the Church´s Moral code entirely yet accept it as the true moral Compass of the world, are discussing a Catholic approach to blacks that will leave our daughters unraped, ourselves un-robbed and still let the Gates of Heaven open for us.

    Obviously such a discussion cannot happen without a patronyzing tone. And shockingly un-PC comments.

    Like


  289. Gig, this statement:

    @ moloko

    3 Catholic guys, who may or may not follow the Church´s Moral code entirely yet accept it as the true moral Compass of the world, are discussing a Catholic approach to blacks that will leave our daughters unraped, ourselves un-robbed and still let the Gates of Heaven open for us.

    Obviously such a discussion cannot happen without a patronyzing tone. And shockingly un-PC comments.

    Does not disprove this previous one:

    Gig, you really, really need to get out more. Your, uh, ideas are entirely too well thought out. No one who can obsess over race that much can be truly alpha.

    No matter how you rationalize it, moloko’s right. Get out more. You’re on the road to Sodini-ville.

    Like


  290. Gig, what ‘force’ propelled Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Bob Johnson, and Barack Obama to the top echelon of society?

    You gonna tell me these were all AA hires? Gonna tell me they couldnt have made it without AA?

    You gonna tell me the blood from Barack’s mother sent him to the Presidency?

    Baracks black father had a PhD in econometrics. It aint bean-bag.

    Only blacks rape and steal? From a Catholic, on a Polanski thread. Really?

    For the sake of conversation, lets suppose The Bell Curve is psychometric gospel. There would still be 6-8 million black geniuses in America. Yet, we dont see there impact on society. Why? Complex answer, with a heavy mix of black pathos to be sure, but making a statement like ‘blacks will always occupy the lower strata of society’ is blatant ignorance.

    Like


  291. Get out more. You’re on the road to Sodini-ville.

    Obsidian was saying similar things. But I can sniff out a bitter-nerd HBD’er very easlily, and I do call them out on it on occasion. And Gig really doesn’t come across that way.

    Per his comments, he’s a recent college grad in a line of work where extraversion is necessary, and he goes out and parties with guys every weekend, and credibly relates his stories of gaming girls.

    Like


  292. Apartheid

    While segregation was decidedly lighter than South African apartheid, one could argue that it’s in the English setter colony tradition of displacement of the natives. For all intents and purposes, the South African blacks are essentially in the same role as the native populations of North America with the exception that they didn’t die off from exposure to European diseases, nor was there much in the way of interracial relationships. South Africa is what the United States could have easily developed into had our Amerindian population not died off, and subsequent white immigration was not high enough to swamp their numbers, while Mexico is the United States with a similar situation, minus the de facto warehousing of natives on reservations.

    Remove afirmative action, defund the government and blacks will gravitate to their natural ocupations, largely menial services for whites.

    I fail to see how such a society is sustainable in the medium to long-term primarily because you’ll have an alienated group that will become resentful of the “rich” majority.

    Like


  293. the South African blacks are essentially in the same role as the native populations of North America

    David, I may be incorrect on this, but I believe that much of South Africa was uninhabited or very sparsely inhabited by native Africans prior to European settlers’ arrivas, and Africans were brought in from other areas over time as labor, not sure if paid or forced.

    you’ll have an alienated group that will become resentful of the “rich” majority.

    Not necessarily, if the lower class developes its own culture and things to be proud or even chauvinistic about. One thing I notice that is different between United States vs. Europe or East Asia, in my obseration, is that U.S. (white) blue collar workers, construction workers, etc., are very proud of who they are. Much more remarkably so during the 1980s when white blue collar culture was not yet confronted with Latin American competition.

    For example, American road crew guys look very strong and confident. I’d guess that an American construction worker will feel superior to, say, an accountant for reasons of his won.

    In contrast, Euro or Korean laborers look smallish and sort of embarassed to be doing “demeaning” work, per my anecdotal observation.

    Like


  294. The bantu speaking peoples migrated down into south africa well after the dutch began colonizing and expanding, they are no more indigenous or native than the boers. SA was sparsely inhabited by tiny bands of huntergatherer khoisan people when the dutch landed.

    Like


  295. PA:

    The Cape area was sparsely inhabited by Bushmen before white settlers moved in. Blacks, who are racially separate from Bushmen, did not live there until after whites had settled. The land in the Cape was not suitable for the kinds of agriculture that blacks practiced, so only the hunting-gathering Bushmen lived there.

    However, the majority of present day South Africa was inhabited by blacks. White South Africans made a huge mistake in moving beyond their own area and trying to rule over the large black populations inland.

    Like


  296. PA –

    Obsidian was saying similar things. But I can sniff out a bitter-nerd HBD’er very easlily, and I do call them out on it on occasion. And Gig really doesn’t come across that way.

    Per his comments, he’s a recent college grad in a line of work where extraversion is necessary, and he goes out and parties with guys every weekend, and credibly relates his stories of gaming girls.

    Who cares what you think? All you need to give ANYONE a vote a confidence is that they’re angry, pro-white and anti-black. That’s IT. So pardon me if I don’t really care what you’re opinion is on this issue. Your simplistic criteria leaves much to be desired.

    Like


  297. Who cares what you think?

    Joe, buddy, I usually ignore you because you are a jabbering scold at my heels and I read blogs for fun and knowledge, not to be lectured by “Some Guy on the Internet.” (TM)

    But I’ll reply this one time: Who cares what ANYONE thinks about some internet character opining on this or that?

    Take a deep breath and chill out, it will make you feel better. And stop thinking about me so much.

    Like


  298. Now it is time for me to concede defeat. Colin Powell has been mentioned. That guy managed to to define a “Powell Doctrine” saying that if you have time, you should employ all the resources you have in order to win the war. According the mediums I consulted, dead (and undead) white males said the following about such doctrine:

    “I would have won in Russia if I had known the Powell doctrine before invading” Adolf Hitler

    “Me too” Napoleon

    “It is cool when both sides play the Powell Doctrine and the other side has less resources” Ariel Sharon

    “When you also do a girl in the ass, you are actually applying the POwell Doctrine into her” Roissy

    “2 guys applied the Powell doctrine into me last night; my count is on 105 now” Poetry of Flesh

    “when you buy a Ferrari, you have applied to Powell Doctrine into cars” G Manifesto

    Like


  299. Gig, the Powell doctrine was using ‘Overwhelming force’ in any confrontation. As opposed to this silly business about proportionality, and Rumsfeld-esque light and fast war.

    Seems right, if not exactly groundbreaking.

    Provide a link, if you could, supporting your embellishment add-on phrase of ‘if you have the time…’.

    None of this diversion, scuse, reframe, you put up buttresses your assertion that blacks will always occupy the lower strata. And then you tack on the self-negating phrase ‘where there are also non-blacks’. What does that mean, non-blacks in the lower strata, or non-blacks in the society at large?

    If its the former, by contradiction you’ve said nothing at all. If its the latter, you’ve never been to Appalachia, or in any town outside the cosmopolitan areas of the Mountain west. So again, you’ve said nothing.

    Like


  300. gig

    “2 guys applied the Powell doctrine into me last night; my count is on 105 now” Poetry of Flesh

    This is useful, applicable statistics going beyond just airy, academic, ivory-tower theory.

    I presume you mean her count of 105
    correctly applies only to DPs.

    mout

    Like


  301. moloko, all the guys you cited except Thomas depended fully on AA to reach the positions they eventually reached. Obama in particular depended not only for himself, but in AA for a whole chain of parasites like Henry Gates who by their turn enabled the MEssiah´s victory.

    suggesting that rape by Catholic priests and Black males is comparable is beyond ridiculous.

    the Powell Doctrine is an example of how the standards are lowered so that people may rejoice themselves that a black man was capable of formulating a doctrine. Even formulated in your terms, the Powell doctrine is ridiculously stupid. So I joked with it, making what Joe (my greatest groupie here) calls “snarky comments”, because there ain´t much else I can do

    Like


  302. Yea Gig, you’re right. Black males sometimes have to smackem first. Catholic priests have got their victims lining up at the door, just waiting for instruction, with a team of apologists waiting in the wings, with transfer to a faraway parish already written.

    The point, your holiness, is that your faux concerns about rape and other pathos are not contained only within blacks, nor only within the lower class. You’ll need a bit more waterproofing on your White-nation justification.

    Entrance to Harvard Law on AA, maybe. Editor of Law Review on AA, no chance.

    You dont know who Bob Johnson is, do you?

    Gig, im going to bet you’ve never:

    fought in a war
    commanded men
    studied biology above undergraduate level
    studied sociology above undergraduate level
    studied classical Piano (Condi Rice has affirmative activated fingers)
    been the CEO of a business (A white Man gave Bob Johnson his business so he could feel better about himself)

    Like


  303. it seems Roissy has checked out of this post some time ago. that sucks, cause I’d like to hear his thoughts on this.

    first, though Roman Polanski may well be an alpha, it certainly isn’t why sanctimonious Hollywood liberals have rushed to excuse Roman Polanski’s crime. sanctimonious Hollywood liberals have rushed to excuse his crime bc Polanski is one of “them”: a Hollywood insider; the highest form of human being, i.e. an “artist”; someone who (presumably) shares their worldview, value system, and politics; someone who has furthered the careers of some of their brethren. all this makes him someone for whom the wagons must thusly be circled. Debra Winger literally could not have said it any better than when she claimed Polanski was the “victim of a Philistine collusion.” don’t you know, anyone outside the rarified Hollywood elite is a Philistine? that’s why Hollywood has sprung to his defense. granted, high powered Hollywood ginas might have been less energetic in his defense if he was a lickspittle beta, but defend him they would have, bc he’s one of them.

    this thread brings up the old argument again: what is an alpha? Roissy has stoically stuck to his guns by defining the alpha as, essentially, “he who can get the most pussy.” here, I think though, Roissy mistakes correlation for causation. (in fact, Roissy’s definition seems tautological: alpha = getting the most pussy. alphas get pussy bc they’re alpha. therefore, alphas get the most pussy bc they get the most pussy.) if getting pussy is the end game, Roissy’s definition doesn’t account for WHY the pussy wants these supposed alphas. I guess Roissy would say that it doesn’t matter “why”, all that matters is that the pussy is gotten, period. I think that’s wrong.

    I believe, and I guess this will be one of those rare instances where I disagree with Roissy, that an alpha is defined as a male who dominates other males, plain and simple. getting pussy is a BY-PRODUCT of this ability. yes, such an alpha will get “the most pussy”, but it’s not the act of getting said pussy that makes him the alpha; rather, his alphaness is WHY the pussies want him in the first place. they want him because he has demonstrated that he is powerful; his genes have displayed dominance over the genes of other, competing males, and thus signal to the female that those genes will equip her offspring with the best chance of propagating her genes–and the species–into the future. dominance is power, the signal of alphaness.

    now, in human societies, we can’t (legally) just go around beating the shit out of each other and forcibly stealing each other’s women. if we could, the liberal gene (think: Conor Friedersdorf) would’ve been bred out of existence countless generations ago. but since human societies are beholden to laws, power, then, can be mimicked to exist within a society’s rules. what is power? power is best defined as “the ability to do what you want.” and what enables humans to do what they want? money. fame. political power. call it “the money/power paradigm.” these three things beget each other. they are inextricably linked in human society. if you start with only one, the others will follow. this perfectly explains why a feckless, beta pussy (pun!) like Barack Obama can score countless vaj if he chooses to: he has that political power, power which mimicks the ability to ensure the survival of a woman’s offspring. by Roissy’s standard, Obama is an alpha bc he can get the pussy; but by any biological standard, he is a lowly beta pushover. he has successfully mimicked the attributes of an alpha (i.e. his political power), and could thus enjoy a surfeit of fresh poon if he so chose, but let’s not get it twisted: an alpha he is not.

    game is another means of mimicking alphaness, of mimicking power. it works brilliantly, better even than money (though not as well as fame. you could be running the tighest game ever on an HB10, but if Brad Pitt walks into the bar and beckons her, you no longer exist).

    if Roissy can convince me I’m wrong, or can point out a glaring hole in my logic I’m just not seeing (it’s happened before), I’ll be the first to admit it and stand corrected. but I think my definition holds more water than Roissy’s. (come on Roissy! when you find Barack Obama fitting your definition of “alpha”, it might be time for a review and a rewrite!) that said, it might be the case that–maybe–you can only be so low on the beta scale and effectively learn or use game. there may be some sort of innate alpha minimum required in order to run game. so, perhaps there is some overlap between how I define an alpha and how Roissy does. that, however, is a-whole-nuther can of worms.

    but, at the end of the day, I presently can’t see it any way but this: an alpha will ALWAYS be able to get pussy whether he exists within a society of laws or in an environment of pure anarchy where no rules can protect him. an alpha-mimicking-beta, however, could potentially score plenty of pussy within a society of laws, but should the world descend into anarchy, his little beta nuts are gonna run for the hills and the only moisture the tip of his dick will ever see again will be the droplets of piss leaking from it when the real alphas come treading through his turf.

    Like


  304. Joe–

    Who cares what you think? All you need to give ANYONE a vote a confidence is that they’re angry, pro-white and anti-black. That’s IT. So pardon me if I don’t really care what you’re opinion is on this issue. Your simplistic criteria leaves much to be desired.

    What do you want Joe?

    Race war?

    How long do you think the current constellation at the top will hold if that starts coming down?

    I’m at the top Joe. I’m a huge earner. I’m in a V. high status place. I’m infiltrated Joe.

    Like


  305. You’re becoming a parody of yourself Doug.

    Like


  306. good one.

    Like


  307. on October 8, 2009 at 5:26 am msexceptiontotherule

    That leg breaking procedure can’t really give a person more than 3/4″ each time they have it done, takes a while to heal enough for another round, which is going to be a pretty painful experience that leaves a person with uneven legs. There’s nothing sexy or alpha about a permanent limp.

    Wait..crip walkin’ is kind of like a limp, but not in the tiny tim on crutches way. Not sure if “gangsta” is considered alpha, but I bet the president does it at home when no one is looking.

    Like


  308. ”””””””””Rum
    archetypes connect the collective, transpersonal unconscious with the individual psyche. expressing archetypal precepts is a solid basis for living as a fully differentiated sentient creature.
    The most basic archetype is the Hero. Take that seriously and it will eventually cost you your life and also let you find it.
    ””””””””’

    It doesn’t cost you your life to be the hero though that is the pretty lie. cool toughts though. The sad part is the hero is denied his heros death and forced to go on living having achieved the ideal but not the demise.

    Like


  309. affairs with minor age women is a greyzone completely, im sure it wasnt rape what he did, and I have to let my mind flow on my thoughts here to explain my point of wiew.

    Biologically we are set to be able to reproduce around then around 12-15 some woman even earlier, Beeing able to have sex is possible even much earlier. For some reason, community somehow rationalized into a sin, for im sure there where some reason why this occured, im not totally sure why,but its impregnated into peoples mind that this is not good, what actually then happens is sadly not second questioned. Im not a big keeper of the law, I think it makes a good backbone to society but its like the bible, it’s based on good beliefs but one must not take things literary, I know you understand this.
    So,,based on our society belief’s the underage women is not “socially” ready but biologically yes.
    It’s very much a parental issue, you raise your child aware about these circumstances, and as a guy, you should mostly just not go there….. of course, i do think some of these circumstances are just to god to leave out, when both wants it and the gain benefit is far beyond better then actual not doing it. It comes with a risk, and in the Roman Polanski somebody did mess up, perhaps the girl did, perhaps Polansky was it, or the mom that put her nose into things and escalated it for god knows what reasons! (the mothers action could be further discussed)
    The ugly side of this whole underage issue, is that there are a lot of sleezebags out there that runs over and into the core soul of a woman that just starts to explore her feminity, even if a girl is flirting and etc, im not always sure that she understands what signals she sends out, she is playing, where she has no clue what buttons she pushes. Its still a greyzone where the girl/woman dreams about a charming prince on a white horse slash, in comes reality and some booze and one things lead to another and all the suddenly you lost your virginity on not those circumstances you kind of imaniged, but thats also a parental issue, you raise your child aware about these circumstances. Sex with a minor can be both beautiful and ugly, depending on circumstances.

    Like


  310. Reminds me of a quote from “Army of Darkness.” Or was it “Evil Dead?” I don’t remember.. The hero kills a bunch of enemies and one observer asks if he’s a good-guy. He responds:

    “Good.. bad.. I’m the guy with the gun.”

    Could equally be, “Good, bad… I’m alpha.”

    Like