What Will The World Look Like When (Not If) Equalists Accept HBD?

I say when, not if, because equalists WILL accept the premises of HBD (human biodiversity), whether their acceptance comes willingly or at the behest of the smoking ruins which will be the eventual consequence of studiously avoiding the truth and wallowing in lies for personal profit.

Hot on the heels of leftoids having another satisfying public hate session (do they ever tire of their self-grooming hysterics?) over Jason Richwine’s (UPDATE: Jason Richwine has resigned from the Heritage Foundation. Score a win for the lying filth) mortal sin of observing the world and reporting the facts, GLPiggy commenter “lords of lies” wonders what America would look like if the Cathedral finally realized the truth of HBD, openly admitted its descriptive and predictive power, and began to tailor their policies accordingly. Would policy tilt more left-wing or more right-wing? The answer is not as obvious as might appear.

a case could be made for either outcome: more left-wing or right-wing policies.
regarding the former, the thinking by leftoids would go like this:

1. ok, people are genetically different, and unequally able to succeed in a modern, information- and abstract symbolism-heavy economy. therefore, we need to make life as comfy as possible for the left side of the bell curve (which we now believe in).
2. it’s not FAIR that people and groups are born with better or worse abilities and temperaments. ergo: massive redistribution.
3. this redistribution will take the form of direct payout (really, bribery to abstain from rioting), rather than feelgood policies like NCLB intended to close the gap, (which we now know can’t be closed).
4. we must encourage miscegenation so that the good genes filter down into the populations with the bad genes. (this is already happening. see any cathedral agit-prop)

regarding the latter, the thinking by rightists would go like this:

1. ok, group differences in IQ and other important traits are finally understood to be real by those in power. therefore, we need to end quotas, set-asides and affirmative action now because they only punish people who, through no fault of their own, were blessed with the right recombinatorial soup at conception.
2. it might not be FAIR, but no one said life was fair. children demand fairness to the exclusion of every other consideration; adults accept that unfairness is a part of living in the natural world. we should do our best to avoid deliberate unfairness, but accept that organic unfairness isn’t going anywhere, and that efforts to ameliorate organic unfairness will often lead to worse, intentional unfairness.
3. any redistribution (as a form of danegeld or preventative so that bleeding heart liberals won’t have to witness the poor dying in the streets from starvation and chaotic violence) should be coupled with eugenic social planning. e.g., any amount in govt largesse received over X would require the recipient consent to his or her reproductive incapacitation.
4. nominal rightists like Charles Murray could also make a case for encouraging miscegenation so as to avoid inequality boosting and culture severing cognitive stratification. but the more likely response would probably be active anti-dysgenics policies. i could see the widespread emergence of shaming campaigns against lower class white women dating outside their race.

“Of course, the iron rule of Progressivism is that if you never, ever say anything bad about minorities and women you can get them to vote for you no matter what your actual policies are. Therefore the reaction is political rather than policy-based and certainly few people who matter are actually interested in the truth.”

it’s a dangerous game, to run as one thing and govern as another. but in a riven society like ours, it makes some sense, because competing tribes will vote more on emotion than on rationality or interest for the common good. you tacitly suggest the right could take a pointer from the left and mouth all the anti-racist platitudes, but then govern like realists. however, that is exactly what the right has been doing for a long time, minus the governing like realists part. and what has it gotten them? nothing but their capitulation and kow-towing.

no, if the right assumes the tactics and mantel of the left to win votes through subterfuge, all that will happen is that the teat-sucklers will demand more promised concessions, and the real left will give it to them. playing perpetual catch-up is no way to win this war. and a war it is, let there be no doubt of that.

If CH had a son, he would sound like “lords of lies”.

It’s possible that, given open HBD acceptance, the leftoids may double down on their anti-white male animus by clinging ever more bitterly to their “institutional racism” shibboleth, on grounds that humans evolved dysgenic traits under discriminatory pressures. (Of course, this argument, like most equalist arguments, is easily refuted.)

If that were to happen, all bets are off. A healthy civilization can only sustain so much delusion, weaseling, sophistry and lies from its ruling class before the whole thing implodes as the rickety foundation gives under the weight of its prettifying ornamentation.

So… either the status whoring, sermonizing Cathedral is going to WAKE THE FUCK UP and do an about face as they discard their cherished pretty lies, or the ropes are going to grow in number and creak ever louder as they swing from the gallows waiting for justice.

Read Full Post »

Tamerlan’s Tsarina And The Perils Of Love Marriage

So Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older Muslim Boston bomber brother, had a loving white American wife of WASPy lineage who donned his approved Islamic head coverage and bore him his hell-spawnage. Some have asked, where was Katherine Russell’s father during her descent into badboy servitude? If the photo of the dad after news of Tamerlan’s death is any indication, the guy is giddy that his son-in-law is no longer for this world.

Arranged marriages don’t sound like much fun, but one problem with moving as a culture toward exclusively love-based marriage is that it neuters the ability of parents to exert any control over their daughters’ instinctual romantic compulsions. The ancients knew that women’s libidos were dangerous when left unchecked. But a culture that prizes doe-eyed love as the be-all and end-all of legitimate marriage must come to terms with the fact that many women love the wrong kinds of men. It’s in their genes.

When lust-fueled love as a basis for forming putative lifelong marital unions crowds out all other considerations, the influence that parents wield over their daughters’ mate choices gets winnowed as well. After all, who is a parent to say what his or her daughter feels? Love knows no reason. And so what you get is fathers like the one above, powerless to stop his daughter’s stupid decisions, and overjoyed when fate steps in to excise the cancer from his family that he wished he could excise himself, but never had the guts nor the informal societal support to do so.

Love makes betas of men, in more ways than one, and it would be wise to remember that some of those men are fathers whose authority has been gutted by the awesome power of love.

Read Full Post »

One Blessing Of Outbreeding

The Boston Marathon Muslim bombers (see what I did there?) were identified and corralled relatively quickly. The reason for the quickness is this: Outbreeding.

To put it more conventionally, a cultural-cum-genetic predisposition toward love-based monogamous marriage that strengthens outbreeding and restricts inbreeding is what helped authorities identify and track the bomber suspects.

By limiting inbreeding, a phenomenon which usually occurs via cousin marriage, the circle of trust is widened. When police ask for tips, this built-in higher level of trust is effectively an enlarged witness pool, ready to jump in with assistance.

Clannish societies, like Chechnya, are more inbred societies. People there look out for family first, the general public good a distant second. Had the Chechen Muslim brothers (see what I did there again?) committed their murderous act in Chechnya, where clan blood is thick and civic-mindedness is thin, it is likely that they would be on the run for a long time, because family members, 2nd, 3rd, or 10th removed, would be all omertá and the cops, such as they are, would get nothing but cold leads.

America has, until lately, been an outbred society (but still mostly inbred as a continental race). White Americans are mutts of mixed Northwest European ancestry. The circle of trust is generally huge in Anglo nations, and that’s why cops can do their jobs there. Family is still important, but there’s a greater degree of cooperativeness and fellow-feeling than would be found in places like, say, Iraq.

That of course, is all ending now. Diversity and the resentful enclaves spawned in its wake are destroying fellow-feeling. Clannish people are setting up shop in the most American of towns. Cognitive and cultural stratification as described by Charles Murray in Coming Apart is further contributing to the shrinking circle of trust.

Soon now, very soon, the day is coming when future Tsarnaev brothers will get to enjoy a life on the lam in America for many, many years, protected by inner circle insiders who don’t give a shit about the fate of America as a cohesive nation.

PS One curse of outbreeding: Pathological altruism. The kumbaya genes spread out of control until wishful thinking, instead of reality-based thinking, push the stricken population into self-destructiveness.

Read Full Post »

White On White War

Some leftoid SWPL freak is bitching about “white male privilege” and the unequaaaaal treatment disturbingly white American society supposedly accords white bombers and Muslim bombers. Never mind the fact that his premise — that white terrorists are quickly labeled “lone wolves” while arab muslim terrorists are “existential threats” — is a pile of horse shit. After each shooting spree with a white assailant (the number of which are proportional, it should be noted, to the percent of whites in the total population), the Cathedral spins into a frenzy happily deliberating for months about the existential threat of right-wing/anti-government/white supremacist extremist groups. In contrast, muslim terrorists, like the Fort Hood shooter, get shoved down the memory hole or dismissed as one-offs. Worse, they’re used as props by Army brass to agitate for more diversity.

The point of this particular self-annihilating white leftoid’s screed is to forewarn against any notions — lest you be thinking impure thoughts, bigot! — of closing off the border to muslim immigrants. The Equalists and ruling class Status Whores will stop at nothing to swamp flyover white country with battalions of uruk-hai; anything less would be too civilized for their exquisite gated community sensibility. The leftoid creeps don’t care that blocking all muslim immigration indefinitely until or if such time that the religion of peace is pacified by its own internal progress will reduce the threat of terror bombings on American soil. They give no quarter to the logic that keeping out people who comprise a disproportionate number of America haters with a penchant for visionary jihad and strip clubs will lower the risk of future terror attacks at home.

All they care about is more non-whites and non-Christians in America. The more of them, the cheaper the labor for their esteemed oligarchs, and the more neutered the political and social power of the hated Wrong Kind of White class.

This is the “”"nation”"” we live in now, for worse or worser.

Hilariously, the Salon leftoid quotes noted anti-white quasi-white man Tim Wise:

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise.

Ah yes, Tim Wise would know quite a bit about “white privilege”, wouldn’t he? Timmy boy, how’s it going in that 97% white neighborhood where you’ve sequestered yourself? There sure seem to be a lot of perks that come with preaching about unearned perks.

Read Full Post »

North Korea

Perhaps I’m overly sensible, but why exactly does the US need to get involved defending South Korea from an attack by North Korea? Would your life appreciably change for the worse if those two duked it out on their own terms?

Last I checked, South Koreans hated America, and protests against our military presence there are a regular occurrence. It used to be the Code of the Tribe that when another tribe ostensibly under your tribe’s umbrella of protection hates the living fuck out of you and your kind, you at the least stop protecting them if no natural resource they own and which you use is in danger of mass disruption.

Given the anti-white male animus that percolates like boiling magma through every corridor of the Cathedral, it’s a wonder there are white men left willing to fight for the US of Majority-Minority. I’d call them fools if I didn’t think there’s still a chance they might see the light one day. And by “see the light”…

Read Full Post »

Black Men Have Much To Discuss About Murderous Crime

Imagine if White American men and boys were committing hundreds of murders month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that White Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Brunswick, GA shooting of an infant took place and White American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.

But when the criminals and leaders are black men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.

A disproportionate number of all of the murders in this country in recent centuries — not just Brunswick, Washington DC, Essex, Milwaukee, Old Bridge and Manchester — have been committed by black men and boys, who are seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide. Yet when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), led by black men, held a news conference after the Manchester massacre – oh wait, the NAACP had nothing to say about the Manchester massacre.

Unlike white male Americans, black men are not used to being singled out and pilloried. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.

When black men try to divert attention from gun violence by talking about white racism, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a privileged white male patriarchy problem, or flawed social systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces disproportionate black violent crime.

But women and girls living under the white male patriarchy are not picking up handguns and shooting sideways at gang members and infants. Non-black immigrants who voluntarily immigrated to a land of white male oppression are not committing 85% of the black-white interracial crime every year that blacks commit. Latinos who crossed the unprotected border by the tens of millions to live under the thumb of white male oppression are only continually committing violent crime at three times the white rate. Good on them.

Each of us is programmed from childhood to believe that the bottom group of our hierarchies — and in the U.S. culture, that’s black men — represents oppressed peoples, so it can feel awkward, even ridiculous, when we try to call attention to those people as a distinct group and hold them accountable.

For example, our schools teach revised American history as the history of everyone in this nation. But the stories we learn are predominantly about evil slave-holding white men and Emmett Till. To study the history of other white groups who actually built the nation from the ground up, people have to take separate classes, such as unrevised American history, European history or home schooling. And if we take “White American History,” we don’t expect to learn “Asian American History,” because a class about anything but the real history of America is assumed not to be inclusive of the Ming Dynasty.

This societal and cultural programming makes it easy for tribalist, black-male-led groups to convince the nation that an organization led by black men, such as the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus, can represent the interests of the entire nation when, in fact, they predominately represent only their own egos and bank accounts.

If life were equitable, black male violent crime exculpation-rights advocates would face some serious questions to assess their degree of credibility and objectivity. We would expect them to explain:

What facets of black male culture create so many homicides?

Why are so many black men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent gangsta rap and other media?

Why do black men buy, sell and steal guns for killing; attend gang initiation drives; and demonstrate for unrestricted white male culpability disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

Why are black male congressmen leading the fight against black violence control?

If Americans ask the right questions on violent crime issues, we will get the right answers. These answers will encourage black men to examine their role in their own culture and to help other black men and boys become healthier and less violent.

This article reprinted with permission from its original publication in the Washington Post.

keywords:

white intraracial status whoring, white liberal self-annihilation, diversivibraunistrength, cat ladies, closet lesbians, old spinsters who hate white men because they were once sexually rejected by a white man, , 

Read Full Post »

CPAC In A Nutshell

Ever have a girl try to copy a porn move on you that she once saw, except it was one of those disgusting porn moves, like spitting for lube or gag drooling during a blowjob, that no normal man really likes?

Yeah, that’s what comes to mind reading about CPAC speakers and attendees dancing to the leftoids’ big tent tune.

Look, fudgePACers, you can yap all day about dropping social issues and appealing to Hispanics’ “natural conservatism”, but the unavoidable fact is that you either stood by or abetted the traitors as the doors to the country were swung wide open to permanent demographic replacement. No matter how far you bend over, you will never outcompete the leftoids on the appeal of their leftoid message to two giant underclasses and one giant hypocritical status whoring gated community class. So you may as well begin the process of carving out a new party and starting from scratch.

PS A slow and steady blowjob, lots of soft lip but with no phony gonzo drooling, is really sexy.

Read Full Post »

Older Moms And Divorced Moms Raising Generation Of Psychopaths?

Adam Lanza, the school shooter, shot his divorced and single mom — the mother who raised him — four times in the head before embarking on his journey of mental disassociation from reality. Her face must surely have been rendered a mash of unrecognizable pulp.

Four times. Point blank. In the head. You don’t do that unless you possess some serious unresolved rage against the mother. This kid hated his mom with a passion, and we can only guess why now that he’s dead. But clues abound.

First, older moms are more likely to spawn autistic kids. Most autistitards are harmless, but some with severe handicaps to relate as normal human beings are powderkegs in an increasingly atomized society that they find impossible to manage or even comprehend.

Second, the mom was divorced. Children of divorced parents and female-headed homes are at much higher risk for delinquency, jail, and violent crime. Lanza’s pop was paying his ex-wife a tidy some of money (which she did not earn, let’s not forget) to keep her spendthrift ass afloat. We can surmise that the mom was so fucking crazy that the father had no choice but to get away from her, or that he was SO BETA she pulled the trigger on the divorce and cast Adam’s father to the modern equivalent of the icy wastelands. Single moms be warned: If your kid thinks you gave his dad a raw deal, he is going to resent you for life. Maybe a few of those kids of divorced moms lack the normal social outlets to release that building resentment, and it comes out all at once in a violent episode.

As the child of a divorced, single mom, Adam Lanza had the deck stacked against him.

Studies cannot prove conclusively that fatherlessness—or any other factor—actually causes people to commit crimes. For that, you’d have to do the impossible: take a large group of infants and raise each of them simultaneously in two precisely equivalent households—except one would be headed by a father and mother and the other by a lone mother. But by comparing criminals of the same race, education, income, and mother’s education whose primary observable difference is family structure, social scientists have come as close as they can to making the causal case with the methodological tools available.

This isn’t entirely a story about genes, either. Single momhood has skyrocketed in the last forty years, and there is no allele that can account for that. Such a rise in a short time is driven by cultural and social pressures.

The answer to the Adam Lanzas of the world is not gun confiscation, that fool’s panacea so beloved by the cathedral leftoids who would like nothing more than a completely defanged white middle class and working class. (Hint: Adam acquired his guns illegally.) The answer is not easy, but it is within sight. A multifactorial approach that re-institutionalizes the primacy of the two-parent biological nuclear family and the social nee genetic cohesion of the nation, and which discourages late-in-life strugglepreggers by aging SWPL moms is some of the harsh, potent medicine that will begin to fix the ailing body politic.

I won’t be holding my breath for any member in good standing of the snarkerati to grapple with this medicine in any meaningful way. Which is why I remain, respectfully, toes a-dippin’, poolside.

Read Full Post »

How To Reframe Against Leftists (And Women)

A commenter at Mangan’s linked to a recent 60 Minutes segment which discussed study findings that babies are born with a moral compass and innate biases against people (or things) not like themselves. In short, it would appear that in-groupism, and hostility to the Other, is inborn in all of us.

Favoritism for one’s own kind and racism are, not to put too fine a point on it, a property of human nature and not something “taught” or constructed out of whole cloth by mean parents, the KKK, or afrocentric studies professors. This property can certainly be amplified or dampened by cultural intervention, but it cannot be eradicated or wished away.

In-groupism has evolved for a reason, and that reason likely led to an increase in reproductive fitness for those humans who had the gene(s) for in-groupism. In-groupism is, from the gene’s point of view, a GOOD THING. Now whether in-groupism is still as fitness maximizing today as it necessarily has been throughout human history is another question, but no one can seriously argue that it’s a pointless emotional reflex only designated “bad people” (read: working class white men) possess. If you need the dots connected, tribal favoritism is as natural as love.

As I am a person who generally prefers to not make life miserable for the mediocre masses who are just trundling by trying to eke out a slice of joy without stepping on my toes, I instinctively recoil at those self-righteous social engineers who would attempt to reprogram certain classes of people (read: working class white men) to betray their essence as human beings in order to more properly mouth the hypocritical bleatings of the gated-community pompous elite. So, inevitably, when some malevolent leftists seize on these studies and deliberately misconstrue the message they should be taking from them to further their anti-human status whoring agenda, I draw my sword and level it at their throats.

Since beheading of one’s ideological enemies is not yet (again) in fashion, we must settle for the weapon of our words, and no verbal artillery is more powerful in today’s snark-soaked society than the insouciant reframe. A successful reframe will win friends and influence people, and, best of all, it will drive your foes insane with impotent rage.

To wit: the commenter at Mangan’s worried that our leftist overlords would misuse this study for their nefarious ends, instead of taking the proper lesson from it that their unpracticed worldview is a mile high pile of horseshit.

Babies are born to be biased against the other. And to listen to these PC Marxist Professors going ‘Oh no, we have to train these people out of this’. Instead of saying wait a minute–maybe I’m wrong about political correctness.

How would your typical ankle-grabbing rightie like, oh, say, Rich Lowry, reply to a ruling class leftist who asserted that any proof of hard-wired racism meant that emotionally torturous reeducation must continue until morale improves? Likely, he would comply that steps must be taken to reduce the chance that inborn racism would lead to immigration restrictions, but that we must also be careful not to place any blame on [white men] for their regressive views because, after all, they were born with this original sin, blah fucking blah.

No doubt the mass of mainstream “”"conservatives”"” would fall right in step with their leftie tormentors’ frames, presenting their chafed rumps for yet another humiliating ramming.

Now how would this conversation go if the ruling class leftie had to confront an aloof asshole like yours truly who didn’t give a shit about clinking glasses with rancid anti-white leftoids at stiffly polite cocktail parties?

Leftoid: “Oh no, we have to train [white men] out of this.”

Demon’s Herald: “Sure, and while we’re at it, what do you think of training gays out of their homosexuality? It’ll cut down on the AIDS if the studies are to be believed.”

The masterful reframe uses the momentum of your enemy’s thrusting knife against him. Your goal with any reframe should be to either divert the withering mockery of the audience toward your opponent, or to ensnare your opponent in a logic trap which forces him to defend whatever blithe inanity he intones to lubricate his limbic folds.

It is similar in function to seductive reframes with women: you either redirect a woman’s alpha probing into self-conscious insecurity where she will revert to defending her attitude and become psychologically conditioned to perceive you as higher value than herself, or you make her feel the burn of mockery that is the undercurrent of teasing foreplay leading to sexual relinquishment to your obvious dominating presence.

Here’s another example. A commenter at Larry Auster’s accurately imagines what a typical anti-white leftoid (in this case, John Podhoretz) would say to a realist schooled in the facts of intransigent human nature and the evolved preference for tribalism:

You [Auster] wrote:

“But humanity does not consist of universal individuals. It consists of various cultures, ethnicities, and races all of which have particular identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas which are different from those of the host society. As a result, the mass presence of those different groups in the host society, far from advancing right-liberal equal freedom, empowers their unassimilable identities, characteristics, ability levels, values, and agendas, and thus changes the host country from a right-liberal society into a multicultural, left-liberal, racial-socialist society whose ruling principle is equality of outcome for all groups.”

To which Podhoretz pere et fils would surely reply, “Why do you hate freedom?”

How does a weak-willed, supplicating, betaboy “”"conservative”"” like, oh, say, Jim Geraghty, respond to this all-too-realistic, imagined Podhoretz coercive frame? Probably something like this: “I don’t hate freedom! Really, I don’t! Look, some of my best friends are freedom lovers. And I promise never again to use the word slut, no matter how applicable it is. Be kind to me?”

Lame. Podhoretz owns the frame, and Geraghty is just playing within its bounds.

Now how would this imagined yet highly probable conversation go if Podhoretz were trying to box in a mischief maker like yours sincerely?

Pod: “Why do you hate freedom?”

Demon’s Padawan: “Why do you fellate goats?”

Leftoid’s frame destroyed, razed by brutal and vicious ridicule, and, should the demonic horde so choose, seamlessly replaced with a frame of their comfortable choosing.

Some GOP operatives who shall remain unnamed have written here asking for ideas about reframing against the media-dominated leftism that rules the airwaves and the shit channels. Well, here are some ideas. I could give more, but I don’t feel much like it, mostly because I have my suspicions that the lot of the mainstream right isn’t really interested in LISTENING and WAKING THE FUCK UP, but instead would prefer the glass-clinking route until either the whole thing goes down in flames or they can grab the coattails of a truly brave leader and say “See, I was right there with you all along!”

Fucking puling waterboys. Ass-lapping company men.

Anyhow, I leave you with this final thought: Mockery.

Mockery.

And more mockery.

This is the age of superficiality, of winning through intimidation, and the only way the right is ever going to defeat the left in any meaningful manner is to mock them relentlessly, mercilessly, sadistically. You cannot defeat snark — the leftoid’s debate tactic of choice — with logical exposition or appeals to civility. You only kill it by turning it on itself. If you think this is a sorry turn of events… well, it is, but it’s the world we live in. Abide reality, or abort. The reality is that three huge branches of mind massaging — the media, academia, and government — are in control of the discourse, and it is blatantly against your interests as a realist thinker and lover of truth and beauty.

Appeasement is a luxury of winners.

Even then, even if the right took all my advice and gamed the shit out of their media cockblocks and the LJBF electorate, there may be no saving this sinking ship. Even the tightest game is no match for a demographic tsunami that is constitutionally wedded to the idea of Big Daddy State and Bad, Beta White Man.

As always,

yours in poolside.

Read Full Post »

Why Single White Women Vote Overwhelmingly For Democrats

I left this comment over at GL Piggy’s, on a post about election predictions. I think it is worth reprinting here (with additional commentary) because of its timeliness.

PA: “In reality, young white women’s pro-Obama leanings are a factor of their feminine/nurturer pity for a omegas for which “poor blacks,” “inner city single moms” and other such are a stand-in in their minds.”

There is this. In actuality, I think it is a confluence of three psychological factors that pushes a huge majority of single white women into the arms of Dem pols. (Single NAM women follow the gibsmedat principle almost exclusively.)

1. As PA states, women have an inborn disposition toward nurturance, and the pity is strong in them. I think women get off a little on feeling pity and sympathy for others, and feeling needed by the less fortunate. This is why so many women flock to work in the human despair services fields, like nursing or teaching. Married women also have this nurturance instinct, but it is redirected to their own families, which turns their moral focus inward to the center ring of the concentric rings of genetic distance and moral regard. This in effect makes them more GOP friendly (and more sane from a societal perspective), and we see this reflected in the polls.

2. As Whiskey states (well, speaking on the record, as *I* originally stated), single women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote. You would probably not be surprised to learn that not only do single white SWPL chicks just automatically ASSUME everyone in their social circle is an Obama cultist (yours truly gets a pass because CHARMING BASTARD), the first thing that pops in their heads when you ask them why they’re voting for Obama is usually something along the lines of “Romney wants to take away my birth control”. Yeah, these are educated women saying this. Thanks suffrage!

The fact is, marriage advocacy (and earlier marriage) is bad for young women’s sexual market value leverage, (but good for older married women’s SMV leverage who, it should be noted, were the original pro-monogamy constituents and advocates). A party that embodies the single and seeking alpha cock in the city lifestyle will appeal to them. The party which is perceived (facts don’t really matter in politics) as pushing women to settle down early with a reliable company man and start popping out future video gamers is anathema to the single, economically self-sufficient, white woman sensibility.

3. Finally, and perhaps most saliently, single white women see Big Daddy State as a beta provider husband substitute. This has nothing to do with pity for the downtrodden masses and everything to do with “how much money and services I can redirect my way with an assist from the white knight contingent”. The single white woman who delays family formation finds herself battling her ancient subterranean limbic rhythms which always and everywhere guide her to seek out potential mates who could provide resources for her and her children, particularly when she is burdened by pregnancy and mostly unable (at least as would have been the case in the ancestral environment) to fully provide for herself. The single white woman, lacking the beta provider hubby (ironically, mostly by her own hand) seeks to fill his absence with the alternative — the looming Big Man tribal leader, which in modern America is the federal government, and its shaman is Obama. Women are naturally redistributionist because women are naturally self-aggrandizing and self-entitled, as befits their higher reproductive worth. And, more controversially, a very bad man like myself would say that women are naturally comfortable in quasi-harem arrangements, which is what the single woman concubine-government alpha provider relationship amounts to. And just like an alpha provider/protector, the government is very good at forcibly extracting tribute from the beta male masses.

On this last factor, the American growth industry of single moms is certainly pushing the country in a more redistributionist direction, because no demographic outside of blacks, gays and Hispanics is more generally and reliably pro-government handout than the single mom with kids to feed and no dad around to help out.

Alert the media! The stereotypes are true! Sanitization Protocol… activated.

In effect, Big Government is at once the alpha male tribal leader and the beta provider sucker who happily assumes the cuckold role as step-father to the single mom’s cadbaggage.

Now, the final, and most emotionally laden, variable in this equation is the black man angle. Both sides in this long-running debate have their points. My take from ground-level recon is that the people claiming single white women love alpha black men are overstating their case, and the people claiming single white women would never think of hooking up with “lower class, less accomplished, thug” black men are overstating theirs. White women do find plenty of black men physically exciting. And smarter white women do hesitate to date black men because of a very reasonable fear that, should a warpling issue from the union (this is always in the back of women’s minds, despite the easy availability of contraceptives), the black man will be less likely than the white man to stick around and care for her in her time of need.

As far as a I can tell, contra white nationalist hopes and dreams, single white women have ZERO concept of loyalty for their white men. Try to explain to your typical single white woman about the importance of loyalty to her men and of the idea of genetically preserving the white race’s unique winning attributes, and you may as well be a Martian spurting goo all over her. Now, in practice, one could argue that unmarried white women exercise a de facto loyalty to their men, because most white chicks date white men, and studies have shown that white women are the most resistant to dating outside their race. But how long will this hold? Census data points to a slow but inexorable increase in out-marrying and out-dating by white women (and white men). If there is some subconscious racial loyalty or primal preference acting to steer the tingles of single white women (and I believe there is), it is showing signs of withering under a coordinated cultural assault that has made even broaching the topic the equivalent of condemning oneself to the social gulag.

Btw, from a tingles-first perspective, a lot of white women thought Bill Clinton was way sexier than they currently think of Barack Obama’s sex appeal. This isn’t a looks or race thing… Bill just had more sensual, oozing charm than Barry. Chicks dig charming mofos.

Barring total collapse, I don’t see this trend:

…ending anytime soon. (Nice battering ram arms, Fluke.) So you may as well recline poolside, while the pool is still filled with water and chlorinated.

PS My election prediction:

It’s a toss-up, so I won’t bother picking a winner. I predict the popular vote and electoral college vote will split, with all that entails (yay, riots!)

I will confidently predict that most of the demographic vote ratios will remain roughly the same as they have for the past few election cycles.

Single white women will vote 60-40 Obama.
Single moms will vote 75-25 Obama.
Blacks will vote 98-2 Obama.
Hispanics of Amerindian ancestry will vote 65-35 Obama.
Asian-Americans will vote 70-30 Obama.
Ruling class elites will vote 70-30 Obama.
Libertarians will vote 70-30 Obama (such independent free-thinkers, those libertarians!).
Self-professed feminists will prove their non-conformist bona fides by voting 100-0 Obama.
Single beta males will vote 55-45 Romney (still beta, still white knighting).
Married white men will vote 80-20 Romney (this shift will be bigger than polls are currently projecting).
Married white women will vote 55-45 Romney.
Pickup artists will not vote. They got better things to do.

A lot of white men and white married couples are going to break for Romney, but the social and racial and familial demographics of the country are moving with such force in the opposite direction that the white man vote, no matter how consolidated, is going to eventually get swamped by the undertow and rendered irrelevant for many, many election cycles to come (assuming there will continue to be a country in existence that is capable of holding elections). When the white man “wakes up” to this fact, I predict secession movements will sprout up all around the country, descaling the nation to more socially and tribally congenial entities. But most of us reading this will be dead by that time. And it will be too late, regardless. In the meantime, expect populism to rise again, and tariffs to become the talk of the townhall. A billion Chinese is a lot of surplus cheap labor to churn through before wages equilibrate. There will be blood in the interim.

Read Full Post »