What’s the opposite of Jante Law? Jerkboy Law!
The Undiscovered Jew leaves a comment at Lion of the Blogosphere’s humbly titled blog that draws attention to Utah Senator Mike Lee and his idea for hitting the leftoid Cathedral memeplex right where it hurts — in their wallets.
OT, finally a smart Republican.
Utah Senator Mike Lee will introduce higher education legislation that will break the extreme left’s monopoly power over academic credentialing. His bill makes it easier for online classes to be taken for credit, expand the use of competency based testing and let businesses establish their own vocational certificates and training courses.
Lee even even wants pro-natal tax cuts that will stimulate the white birth rate.
This is how to defeat the left: cripple them through defunding. Mass layoffs of tenured faculty will open the door to sane national policies like eugenics, whites only immigration, and more.
I hereby nominate Mike Lee for president to succeed where his co-religionist Romney failed.
The two best and smartest national Republicans from an HBD perspective (admittedly imperfectly) are Mormons: Defund the left and stimulate white birth rates. We even get more federal regulatory support for flex time as a bonus!
Sen. Mike Lee on “What’s Next for Conservatives”
And so, in the coming days, I will be introducing the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act. Under this legislation, the existing accreditation system would remain unchanged. Current colleges and universities could continue to use the system they know.
But my plan would give states a new option to enter into agreements with the Department of Education to create their own, alternative accreditation systems to open up new options for students qualifying for federal aid.
Today, only degree-issuing academic institutions are even allowed to be accredited. Under the new, optional state systems that my bill would authorize, accreditation could also be available to specialized programs, individual courses, apprenticeships, professional credentialing, and even competency-based tests. States could accredit online courses, or hybrid models with elements on- and off-campus.
These systems would open up opportunities for non-traditional students – like single parents working double shifts – whose life responsibilities might make it impossible to take more than one class at a time.
They would also enable traditional students to tailor a degree that better reflects the knowledge and skills valued by employers.
Innovations in vocational education and training would open new opportunities in growing fields that are hiring right now.
Qualified unions, businesses, and trade groups could start to accredit courses and programs tailored to their evolving needs. Churches and charities could enlist qualified volunteers to offer accredited classes and training for next to nothing. States could use innovative systems to attract new opportunities and businesses, investing in their own future by investing in the human capital of their citizens.
Imagine having access to credit and student aid and for:
* a program in computer science accredited by Apple or in music accredited by the New York Philharmonic;
* college-level history classes on-site at Mount Vernon or Gettysburg;
* medical-technician training developed by the Mayo Clinic;
* taking massive, open, online courses offered by the best teachers in the world… from your living room or the public library.
Brick-and-ivy institutions will always be the backbone of our higher-education system, but they shouldn’t be the only option.
If these new models were to succeed, they would create a virtuous cycle. Traditional colleges would be impelled to cut waste, refocus on their students, and embrace innovation and experimentation as part of their campus cultures.
Chateau guests come for the dark, but stay for the illumination. A positive, uplifting post like this one steels hearts and nourishes hope. The Cathedral can be defeated before events conspire ultimately to end it and sweep everything else in its annihilationist wake.
Defund the leftoids and power down their propaganda machine. Mock them viciously as they slide into irrelevancy and degeneracy, the inescapable failure of the twisted bastard issue of their diseased mental loins belying their every word and shivving their writhing egos.
That’s how you win. Remember to smirk at the moment of final victory. #Alpha’ed
In a recent comment thread, I asked a reader a very simple question, which remains, predictably, unanswered.
A very simple question for the Obamanauts who think their savior deserves the presidency: if he had been white, would he have been elected President? Reaction time in your answer will go toward your final score.
There is only one correct answer: no. There ‘s not a chance in hell Obama would have gotten anywhere near the White House had he been a white community organizer, aka shiftless bum. The beauty of asking leftoids this oh so innocent question with such an oh so obvious answer is that I get to enjoy a spectacle of self-debasement no matter how they answer. If they answer, “Yes, he would have been elected as a white man”, they must betray any belief in their personal virtue to lie so blatantly. If they answer, “No”, they betray their professed ideology and the true motives for electing Obama.
Obama doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of America’s future, because Obama was elected as a fighting symbol for the various warring groups that presently comprise the riven nation; groups who are ultimately driving the cultural and economic trajectory. He was always, and remains so, a totemic symbol with zero substance. Nothing more than a herald for malignant tumult already set in motion by the time he was bounced aloft by the vaporous politics of feels.
- SWPL coastal whites (Yankees in hereditary vernacular) voted for Obama so they could experience a full body orgasm from furiously stroking their tumescent egos for their enlightened attitude. Obama symbolized validation of their belief in their innate goodness.
- Hispanics voted for Obama so they could enjoy the blessings of government largesse. Obama symbolized leverage against more productive and smarter people.
- Blacks voted for Obama because he is (half) black. Obama symbolized the ascendancy of their tribe. (Temperamentally, Obama is about as black as Christian Lander.)
- Native Americans voted for Obama because they were drunk. Obama symbolized another round.
- Asians voted for Obama because he isn’t conspicuously Christian. Obama symbolized the opposite of those antediluvian religious whites who built America from scratch.
- Single white women voted for Obama because he’s the soulful sugar daddy who justifies their lifestyle and stifling conformism. Obama symbolized rebuke of boring beta white men.
- Other voted for Obama because, deep in their hearts, they know he is one of them. Obama symbolized the normalization of deviancy.
- The Top voted for Obama because he symbolized suppression of the Middle. The Bottom voted for Obama because he symbolized ingestion of the Middle.
Obama the Symbol. Obama the Shell Entity. Obama the Therapeutic Cipher. As diversity, both of the elite and commoner varieties, within a nation expands, so too does the need for ever more powerful yet increasingly empty symbols of each tribe’s worth.
What about those whites (aka Cavaliers) who didn’t vote for Obama? Romney did, after all, garner a majority of the total white vote, at levels unseen since the Reagan presidencies. (But, unlike the Reagan years when whites were still a ways from electoral diminishment, Romney couldn’t win with those substantial white tallies against the unstoppable force of demographic shift.)
To those whites not with the program, their vote was a blow against a terrible symbol of antagonism. They saw the bloody banner flapping in the wind as enemy tribes crested the horizon and slowly surrounded them. And they reacted with a swiftness, cleaving to their own symbol, even one as ineffectual and emotionally disconnected as Romney. But their numbers were just too few, and getting fewer by the day.
All you will ever need to know about the imprint that the Obama Presidency will leave on the psyche of this segregating nation was shrieked by delirious followers in the streets on election night in 2008:
Hope and Change!
Like the buffoonish, thin-skinned meathead who loudly proclaims his prowess to a doubtful crowd, the chorus of cultists repetitively singing the Hope and Change anthem till tears welled in their eyes betrayed a deep disillusion with the substance of their yearning. The lesson is unmissable: the more insistent the emotional incantations declaring universalistic hope and change, the more likely the chanters have base, tribal motives. Emotionalism is a hallmark of a people that no longer believe in anything but egocentric validation, and rationalizing by whatever sophistry necessary their will to self-endorsement.
In totally unrelated news, a “group of teens” is at it again! The Cathedral has become such a rank parody that the time is right to tactically step aside and let the enemy discredit itself. Why waste energy fighting a foe at full strength when you can just jeer at him as he punches himself in the nads?
…is keeping her away from her fat friends.
I’ve seen it happen too many times, the slender girlfriend of the happy man — attending an endless procession of house parties with an expanding (heh) circle of girl friends slowly but surely piling on the pounds month by month, year by year — suddenly wakes up one morning to notice her muffin top has rolled over and her boyfriend’s eyes have glazed over.
You have one duty ladies… ONE. Stay thin and sexy. And yet so many of you can’t seem to manage that simple fucking thing. We lenient gentlemen of the jury aren’t asking for much. We don’t care if you drive a sports car. We don’t expect you to climb the soul-killing corporate ladder. We don’t give a flying fig if you went to grad school. We don’t inexplicably lose our interest if you happen to get overly affectionate. We don’t burden you with demands for more commitment or drill you for opinions about how our butts look in these jeans. We instead ask for simple things from you, such as a refusal to turn into this:
Men, you can help your lover stay thin by keeping her the hell away from her fat and feminist girl friends. Her fat friends will infect her with their fat disease, through some poorly understood mechanism of orca osmosis, and like fatty fat fatass pockmarked dominoes one after another thin girl will get knocked down, until not a single height-weight proportionate babe is left standing. You think I’m joking? Nope, ♥SCIENCE♥ has found that obesity is socially contagious.
Her feminist friends will infect her with the mind diseases of nonjudgmentalism, beauty equalism and loathing of male desire, all of which are the psy-ops trifecta for brainwashing a girl against her man and turning her into a ham-shaped self-entitlement cartoon.
Relationship management takes work. But men don’t need to make it harder than it needs to be. An easy intervention that will improve relationship health and harmony is staring men in the face. Give your girl the gift of lithe. Cast her BBBFFers to the icy wastelands.
A smattering of far-sighted readers across the blogoglobe have impertinently suggested the possibility that as America the Disparate breaks apart socially, economically and perhaps even geographically, (a near-certain conclusion given present realities), a “Back to Europe” movement will arise in corners of the stressed population as a means of escaping the spiraling dystopia.
The thought of returning to an ancestral homeland is enticing. It’s been the enlivening cri de coeur of at least one major world religion. If you, as I do, subscribe to the notion that humans evolve in step with their environment, and that this co-evolution of culture, ecology and biology plucks deep, primal rhythms in the heart when the three are aligned in accord with their historical partnership, then it’s not a strange proposition that returning to Europe, the authentic homeland of diaspora whites, might speak to many Americans in the same yearning, nostalgic way that returning to visit the neighborhood and the home in which you spent your formative years produces powerful undertows of wistful longing.
This is the stuff of wild fantasy, but if the bottom falls out from under America it’s not at all inconceivable that millions of internally dispossessed Americans will cast an eye to a long-lost brother across the sea, in hopes of beginning anew what was so recklessly and stupidly squandered here. No one should expect a “B2E” movement to happen overnight; but we live in an accelerated age, and big change, say along a timeline of decades rather than centuries, is capable of sneaking up on you.
Obviously, difficulties in a Back to Europe de-colonization scenario present. Outlined below are a few of the biggest hurdles.
- The narcissism of small differences factor. Would the Europeans want us? Europe is already densely populated, much more so than most of the US, and the addition of 50 million Americans won’t alleviate that. Many continental Europeans don’t even much care for Americans, and view them as a distinct white ethnicity, loud, boisterous, ill-kempt, fat (guilty as charged) and uncouth, like the Dutch might view the Greeks. It would take a lot of convincing to get Europeans to agree to allow mass white American immigration, but if their native birth rates remain as low as they are now (Germany is at something like 1.2 TFR) then they may not have a choice but to welcome their wandering cousins back to the fold.
- The Mad Max factor. Would Americans be willing to leave their military and weapons industry unattended? Can you imagine the US nuclear arsenal in the hands of the left side of the bell curve? *shudder* And the good bet is that the left-behinds will be disproportionately left-curvers, as only the smart will have the foresight to know ahead of time to jump a sinking ship. (This last point is debatable.)
- The mutt factor. The founding stock of America is a mix of predominantly German, English, Dutch and Scandinavian ancestry. Irish, Italian and Polish added their bloodlines to the founding stock in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since then, it’s been all downhill, but the essential biological nature of white America is largely unchanged: Most white Americans are some mix of the above European ethnicities. So where does a Euro-mutt American resettle in Europe? Germany? England? Italy? It’s not an easy question, as the theory of mind that evolution informs suggests that a Euro-mutt will feel ancient pulls toward each of his ancestral homelands. You might, for instance, feel equally benevolent toward the stoicism of Swedes and the lustiness of Italians, or equally comfortable in the mountainous Alps as in the steppes of Ukraine.
- The leftoid factor. Contrary to assumption, I think most B2Eers will be of the liberal persuasion. As Haidt has documented, conservatives possess a stronger moral emphasis on loyalty. It’s conservatives who will stick it out in America till the bitter end, loyal to the last. Liberals will cut and run as soon as their pasty, plush asses are threatened by real discomfort. Plus, Europe has always held more appeal to liberals, who nurse the idea that the continent is filled with sophisticates. To the liberal, escape to Europe is like a hipster backpacker’s dream writ large. Of course, liberals will rationalize their escape as being something like “getting away from those degenerate rednecks ruining America”, but by that time most of us will know the real reason, and it won’t be a secret carefully warehoused by a dying MSM anymore.
- The betrayal factor. To return to Europe is to dance on the graves of the Founding Fathers. It’s to say, “Sorry, old chaps, you bequeathed your posterity a great enterprise, and we made a hash of it. All that revolution for nothing.” Many Americans will have a hard time overcoming this emotional obstacle. Not a few Euros will probably rub it in our faces.
- The culture clash factor. 350+ years is enough time for a distinct American culture to flourish. It’s perhaps enough time for a distinct American genome to flourish as well. Plopping Americans into Europe could create a strain that, coupled with the dysgenic Muslim elements of European society, can’t be managed. But this is pure speculation. It’s just as likely that Americans, once safely in the womb of Mother Europe, will revert to their ancestral pre-American norms and imbibe the best of Europe’s culture while jettisoning the worst of America’s.
- The climate factor. Can America’s white Southroners, acclimated to their subtropical heat and humidity, take to the dryness and cold of continental Europe or the chill winds of the Scottish Highlands? If their genes haven’t changed too much, they can. White Northerners should have no trouble settling anywhere in Europe.
All told, the Back to Europe scenario is less likely than a Retreat to Canada or Trek to Australia scenario. Canada is closer and more simpatico (speak the same language) to American sensibilities, while Australians share Americans’ zest for life and genial brusqueness. If climate warming proceeds as predicted, Canada will become exceedingly friendly as a relocation spot (Australia less so). Regrettably, South Africa is a lost cause, and Russians have too much spooky Siberian blood in them to find enough common ground with Americans as next door neighbors.
For the single American man, the choice of relocation destination in Europe will depend on the beauty of the native women. At the risk of opening the floor to furious but unenlightening debate, all of the East European countries would rank high, along with Italy and France, followed by Sweden and Finland. But don’t stress about it. You’re going to Europe; woman-wise you really can’t go wrong since most of the world’s beauties hail from the land of the ice and snow where Cro-Magnons made inspired interspecies love with large-eyed Neanderthals.
Ben Shapiro, neocon-ish man of the right who specializes in explaining and reframing the leftoids’ control of the propaganda arm of the Cathedral, (aka the virulently anti-white male Establishment), has a dozen or so videos of interviews with Hollywood leftists where they admit to a leftoid agenda. Example:
Hollywood and the rest of the media industrial complex are staffed and run by leftoids. Its product is the result of what I would call an emergent conspiracy, or an informal conspiracy. It’s not a formal, deliberate conspiracy in the sense the word is typically used; there’s no secret council meeting of elders in an underground bunker plotting the best way to transmit their degenerate meme virus. Rather, something resembling a conspiracy develops from the collective actions of an industry in which nearly all of its members think alike, as a hivemind.
Now, as Shapiro has revealed, many of these Cathedral clerics are perfectly aware of what they’re doing. But they act individually instead of at the directive of a leftoid overseer. The problem is that they so vastly outnumber opposing viewpoints that the sum of their individual creative decisions are indistinguishable from a single conspiratorial directive. What few opposition members there are find it easier to go along to get along.
What’s the answer to this propaganda juggernaut serving as an agent of mind infection? Some suggest that wealthy anti-leftoids should start their own media conglomerates and go toe-to-toe with the reigning narrative. But as S. Sailer has noted, many would-be rightist benefactors are blowing their wads on college football programs. Sports are fine spectator fun, but they aren’t going to win the hearts and minds of white suburban women like Desperate Housewives does.
The right simply doesn’t have the taste, nor the skill set, for fighting a full-blown culture war like the left does. The right by and large avoids culture war conflicts, while the left relishes them.
But there’s another problem with the clarion call for anti-leftoids to recreate the media landscape in their image, and it goes much deeper than ill-chosen recipients of funds. The root of the problem lies in the differing psychologies of leftoids and non-leftoids.
According to the Five Factor Model of human personality, leftoids score higher in the trait “openness to experience.” The intensity of this trait expression is multiplied by the exaggerated leftoid sensitivity to the moral concepts of harm and fairness, as described by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind.
Someone who loves novelty and bleeds profusely from the heart will naturally gravitate to the creative fields, where he can get his ego boost feeling like he’s making the world a better place for defectives and whiny man-children.
If leftoids and anti-leftoids simply differ in fundamental biological ways, and occupational ratios reflect this difference, then there isn’t much that can be done to thwart the propaganda machine that rides the crest of civilizational decline. The only hope for anti-leftoids — and it’s a small hope — is to identify and cultivate those few like-minded individuals who peculiarly score high in openness to experience and also have a creative energy that propels them beyond the realm of rooting for the home team. In other words, those who wish to sabotage the Cathedral will need to find rightists who love to fight, fuck and flip the bird to the orthodoxy.
A recent analysis examining the causes of the infamous and demagogically abused “sex wage gap” has found that more than a quarter of the relative improvement in women’s wages is the result of the decline in men’s wages.
In the late 1970s, after a long period of holding fairly steady, the gap in wages between men and women began improving. In 1979, the median hourly wage for women was 62.7 percent of the median hourly wage for men; by 2012, it was 82.8 percent. However, a big chunk of that improvement – more than a quarter of it — happened because of men’s wage losses, rather than women’s wage gains. [...]
This cannot be blamed on economic stagnation. Between 1979 and 2012, productivity – the average amount of goods and services produced in an hour by workers in the U.S. economy — grew by 69.5 percent, but that did not translate into higher wages for most men. Over this period, the real wage of the median male dropped 7.6 percent. This is a new and troubling disconnect: In the decades prior to the 1970s, as productivity increased, the wages of the median worker increased right along with it.
Furthermore, looking at the median wage understates the losses many men have experienced since the 1970s. For men with a high school degree, real wages have fallen by more than 14 percent. It is not the case, however, that men’s wages have fared poorly since the 1970s because men do not have the right education or skills. In the last 10 years, even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.
Nor are men’s losses are due to women’s gains. The forces that were holding back male wage growth were also acting on women’s wages, but the gains made by women over this period in educational attainment, labor force attachment, and occupational upgrading, along with greater legal protections against discriminatory pay, initially compensated for adverse forces. In the last decade, however, women’s wages have also dropped. [...]
The decline in unionization alone explains about a third of the rise in male wage inequality (and about a fifth of the increase in female wage inequality) over this period.
Together, these policies have eroded the individual and collective bargaining power of most workers, depleting access to good jobs. In other words, these policies have served to make the already-affluent better off at the expense of the rest.
As any halfway informed reader will tell you, the supposed discriminatory basis of the sex wage gap so beloved of femcunts for its usefulness as a blunt semantic weapon to cow lickspittles of the Undescended Testes Society into submission, is utter bullshit. Now there is evidence that some of the wage increase women have experienced is less a consequence of GOGRRL ambition than of FUCK MEN economic policies.
Automation, illegal infiltration of cheap labor, outsourcing, H1B insourcing, the move to a service and health economy that favors women’s strengths, cultural derision of men’s strengths… all these things plus more have combined to economically shaft men. Coupled with the declining attraction of self-sufficient women for beta providers, is it any wonder that marginalized men are faced with the stark choice of cadding it up for muff and puss lips, or dropping out entirely?
The answer to this problem isn’t pat, but we could start with these CH suggestions:
- Stop pedestalizing women on a mass scale. This means drop the “lean in” schtick and the “white male privilege” dorm room BS sessions. Embrace the innate biological differences of the sexes and stop bitching and moaning when the consequence of men and women following their natural compulsions leads to organically emergent disparities in pay or social status.
- End all quota programs and affirmative action. Men, and white men in particular, pay the brunt of these redistributionist schemes.
- Ditch the legal concepts of disparate impact and disparate outcomes. These two fallacious theories have exerted more deceptive subversion on US law and government policy than any other.
- Close the borders. Deport the illegals and their “naturalized” children. Lower supply of labor = higher demand for labor = higher wages. Bonus: Revoke the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
- Immigration moratorium for forty years, followed by a restructured immigration policy that primarily favors Northern Europeans. America was largely built from the ground up by a particular group of people. Radically altering the demographics of America assures that the country will change, irrevocably, in line with the abilities and psychologies of the new and different groups of people comprising her. Some people are fine with this, but what those people won’t be able to say is that America will continue to be anything like the America she has been during her rise to world bestriding greatness.
- Decentralization, and how. The federal government has acquired too much power. The IRS and NSA scandals are evidence of a centralized regime attempting to corral too many people of too many differing temperaments, abilities and behavioral idiosyncrasies into a benign, mollified, indistinguishable mass of Pavlovian consumers. The states must grow in power, or the federal government will cede them their power by events out of its control.
- Gut the humanities departments of colleges. These departments and their increasingly malign spin-offs have become nothing more than warehouses for women pursuing useless degrees in feminist boilerplate and discredited blank slatism. A big chunk of the growth in female college grads is in majors like Communications and Women’s Studies which amount to debt accumulation programs and memetic delivery systems for leftoid propaganda. Online education, tenure abolition, and job-offers-per-graduate debt relief loan contracts are all possibilities to reduce the stranglehold that the Cathedral Hivemind has on higher education.
- End international free trade. Two billion Chinese and Indians is a lot of cheap labor to churn through before the markets rebalance and wage labor costs rise in developing countries. In the meantime, a lot of Americans will suffer with no relief in sight.
- Shorten the work week. Rapid automation of jobs previously done by humans and increasing cognitive demands of non-roboticized jobs means an increase in the number of people who are, for all practical purposes, worthless in the economic market. The upside to automation is cheaper products. This means a four-day work week is feasible since employees won’t need as much money to purchase pleasure-maximizing gadgets.
- Reconfigure finance regulation so that the huge wealth inequality that is a consequence of insiders and the lucky high IQ few taking advantage of private equity markets unavailable to the general public is alleviated. This means some “conservatives” will have to abandon their pro-business mentality in favor of a more nuanced grasp of how the free market shakes out when the cognitive elite are permitted to prey on the less genetically fortunate.
- Make welfare contingent on contraceptive use. Offer the option for a guaranteed lifetime income in exchange for permanent sterilization. All voluntary, all eugenic, all humane. No need to worry about a future of Matt Damons blowing up your Elysium.
- The downside to automation is that, eventually, there won’t be anything left for human people to do. You may call this a Luddite fallacy, but the logic is inescapable: Returns to productivity get undermined by ever larger pools of people unable to generate an income stream. You say there will be more need for people to service the robots, but that requires a baseline cognitive profile that is likely higher than what we have now (thanks in big part to immigration-fueled dysgenia), or higher than what we needed in the past when new tech supplanted older tech. The solution to this problem is the consideration of a government guaranteed income, again contingent upon birth control use.
The tsunami of evidence that men, women, and races are fundamentally and intractably different in important and relevant ways to the hedonistic principle — first, do no self-harm — is going to wash over the ruling class so forcefully that they’ll have no choice but to jettison their ballast of lies and rise to the surface, or sink into a murky oblivion weighed down by hoary platitudes of the past. This means equalists will have to become comfortable with the reality that some people will do better in life than other people, and there is no one to blame for this except the distant cosmic overlord.
Men can win again. And when men are winning, women win too. How is that, you ask? Well… chicks dig a winner.
Dear Cutie-Pie (I call you this pet name because I subconsciously know how important your cuteness will eventually be to your future reproductive and marital success),
Recently, your mother and I were searching for an answer on the government spy agency known as Google. Halfway through entering the question, GovGoog returned a list of the most popular searches in the world. Minutes later, my tax return was flagged for auditing. Perched at the top of the search list was “How to keep him interested.”
It amused me. I scanned several of the countless articles about how to be sexy and sexual, when to bring him a beer versus a sandwich, and the ways to make him feel smart and superior.
And I got a knowing look.
Little One, it is, has always been, and always will be your job to “keep him interested.” Just at it will be your future husband’s job to keep you interested. Everyone knows this is true, despite loser mafia protestations to the contrary, and that’s why this search result, the culmination of millions of user search entries, is the first one returned.
Little One, your only task is to know deeply in your soul — in that unshakeable place that isn’t indoctrinated into feminism and resentment and mass media bromides — that you are judged for your worth. (If you can remember that everyone else is judged for their worth also, the battle of your happiness in life will be mostly won. But that is a letter for another day.)
If you can assess your worth in this way, you will be attractive in the most important sense of the word: you will work hard to stay fit and sexy and feminine and attract a boy who is both capable of self-assured masculinity and who wants to spend his one life not secretly despising you for giving up on him and disrespecting his normal, natural desires as a man.
Little One, I want to tell you about the man who doesn’t need to be kept interested, because he knows you’ve given up trying to be interesting:
I don’t care if he puts his elbows on the dinner table — because it’s worse when he puts his eyes on the way your nose scrunches like a walrus sniffing rotten fish in the air when you smile, and starts to hate you. And then can’t stop hating you.
I don’t care if he can’t play a bit of golf with me — because his short game suffers when he’s pissed off his children are ingrates trained by your passive-aggressive style of parenting to despise him and he’s not quite sure one of them is his. Sadly, his daughter is taking after you lengthwise and widthwise and you’re doing nothing to stop it because GRRLPOWER and PATRIARCHY.
I don’t care if he doesn’t follow his wallet — because the money just goes to buy you bon bons and cheesy poofs.
I don’t care if he is strong — because if he were strong he might trade you in for a woman who’s still interested in maintaining an hourglass figure and a sweet heart.
I couldn’t care less how he votes — because the sitting White House occupant is not the one who has to wake up every morning and see your flabby carcass rolling over to refuel with a strategically placed bowl of chips on the nightstand first thing in the morning.
I don’t care about the color of his skin — because your shelf butt is so stupendously grotesque my objections will only fall on deaf ears when you discover your own men don’t want to paint a canvas of your lives with brushstrokes of patience, and sacrifice, and vulnerability, and tenderness.
I don’t care if he was raised in this religion or that religion or militant Islam – as long as he was raised to value the sacred and to know every moment of life, and every moment of life with you, is deeply sacred assuming you wear the hijab and cover your bloated porcine face.
In the end, Little One, if you stumble across a man like that and he and I have nothing else in common, we will have the most important thing in common:
Your physical and temperamental attractiveness.
Because in the end, Little One, the things you should have to do to “keep him interested” are to be sexually experimental, fall within a 17 to 23 BMI and a 0.65 to 0.75 WHR, and treat him like the king he truly, deeply wants to be for you in your lives together.
Only then will you and he be happy and loving and patient and vulnerable and tender with each other.
Your eternally interested man (no creepy incest),
This post is, of course, dedicated to my daughter, my Cutie-Pie. But I also want to dedicate it beyond her.
I wrote it for my wife, who has courageously held on to her slender figure and has always held me accountable to being that kind of “man” that women love — i.e., a man who doesn’t apologize for his desire.
I wrote it for every grown woman I have met inside and outside of my therapy office — the women who have never known this voice of a Strong Father.
And I wrote it for the generation of boys-becoming-manboobs who need to be reminded of what is really important — my little girl finding a loving, lifelong, alpha male companion who demands the best of her is dependent upon at least one of you figuring this out. I’m praying for you. No, seriously, I’m praying. Don’t let me down. I don’t want little manbooblets jerking off into furry costumes or little cuntlets blowing my savings on useless grad school Gay Studies degrees and bowing out at age 38 with an apartment full of cats and a womb drier than Death Valley (apropos).
This article has been featured on Huffington Post. CH is going mainstream!
A reader observes a late-breaking development:
One of the most encouraging things about the whole Richwine and Derbyshire brouhahas is an increased unwillingness to apologize for holding heretical opinions.
A lot of this is just . . . expectations. This is where the left has overplayed its hand. People adjust. The threat of losing your cushy high end think tank or teaching job only has power when you expect to keep that high end job. But people with heretical opinions now expect to lose their jobs. It’s not something shocking and new anymore, so it’s lost a considerable amount of its power.
Game can play into this too. Basically, leftists can take away your job, but they can’t take away your ability to get laid. PC shibboleths don’t cut it down at the bar, or in the bedroom. Women will basically slit their own throats for a chance at high end cock, so if you don’t make it too glaringly obvious that you’ve been exiled from the precincts of good society even SWPL chicks will all too willingly gobble away at your veiny meat monster.
Are neoreactionaries (or neoreactionaries in practice) growing a pair? If so, that’s some hope and change one could support. The bursting of the Dam of Deceit may occur sooner than we think.
The West will be saved only by men with fully descended testicles unafraid to speak the truth when speaking it is anathema to the swarming armies of the self-annihilators. Crush the manboobs, see their pendulous titties swing before you, and hear the lamentations of their haggard feminists. You might be surprised how refusing to appease the loser misfits and snarky nancyboys of the world is compulsively attractive to even the most reflexively left-liberal women. Chicks dig a dude going rogue.
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.