Leftoids Fear Themselves More Than They Fear Redneck Bogeymen

An anonymous commenter at Sailer’s left this interesting remark about the psychology motivating the lords of lies:

“Some of the virulence… stems from an underlying chain of logic in elite thinking that I find scary: If young black males really do tend to be more crime-prone, then…oh, no, the Nazis were right! So if Americans ever become embarrassed by the insipid political correctness we instruct them to spout, they will immediately thaw out Hitler’s cryogenically preserved brain and elect it president. Or something.”

I’ve noticed this for a long time. I can’t claim to have a perfect explanation, but keep in mind that most American lefties tend to embrace (at least implicitly) two key ideas: Utilitarianism and Utopianism.

Look at all the hip SWPL charities that swear their mission is to “End ______ forever!” (Insert “poverty”, “child abuse”, “racism”, “gun violence”, etc.) In contrast, dour conservatives (whether religious or secular) tend to agree with the Gospel warning “the poor you have always with you“.

Similarly, lefties in the USA tend to be basically Utilitarian on most issues- the idea that something should be avoided simply because it is intrinsically immoral strikes most of them as rather quaint, except for issues that don’t really affect them personally, on which they can afford to be high-minded (In fairness, too many conservative Republicans have the same problem, just for different issues). A woman got knocked up by mistake? Sure, abort the pregnancy for her convenience. Dad’s taking too long to die and running up big medical bills? Euthanize him. A jury failed to make an example of an innocent man as instructed? Screw double jeopardy and bring him up on “hate crime” charges.

When you believe (at least implicitly) that 1) Society can be perfected by human means, or at least come reasonably close to perfection, and 2) any practical means to achieve that objective should be seriously considered, the progressive dread of politically-incorrect Hatefacts starts to make more sense. If “genetically inferior” blacks are all that is standing in the way of turning every city in America into a hipster SWPL paradise, what can’t be justified? My theory, then, is that, despite what they say, progressives are not really worried about what crotchety conservatives and religious zealots out in flyover country will do if frank discussions of race become commonplace- they’re worried about what they themselves will have to consider doing. Already, most urban progressives aren’t bothered much by the NYPD’s institutionalized racial profiling, the disproportionate abortion rate of blacks, or sex-ed programs clearly targeted at black teens. How big of a leap is it to, say, forced sterilization? I don’t presume to speak for progressives, but it doesn’t seem like much of a leap to me.

Projection… it’s what’s for dinner!

This commenter is onto something. The progressive aka leftoid (a term of art CH coined to fully capture the anti-human, hivemind quality of progressive psychology) harbors deeply troubling thoughts. Dark intimations swirl in his heart when solitude and a time-out from status whoring allow the full range of his true feelings to command silent attention. These discomfiting brain betrayals of RealThink which flit in and out of the leftoid’s conscious awareness truly upset him. He’s supposed to be The Good Man. Why does he feel so much unease when reality and his rectitude collide?

For some leftoids, self-flagellation cleanses the impure thoughts and offers redemption among peers. But for most, gargantuan egos unable to tolerate pointed self-abasement direct their discomfort outward to animus-bearing stand-ins, i.e. racial cousins, who have been caricatured and, in a way, enshrined as moral infants in need of the leftoid’s divine guidance. It’s in his act as the bringer of phony salvation and the dispenser of righteous judgment that the leftoid maneuvers around his own dangerous crimethink, and continually postpones the day when his superego must reconcile with his id.

When the moment of reckoning arrives — as such moments will when reality weighs down so heavily upon internalized propaganda that its sustenance is no longer possible — don’t be shocked at the depravities the leftoid is capable of summoning. He is a perfectionist, a utopian, and a moral supremacist: A psychological trifecta hitched to a constitutionally unhappy person that can unleash immense evil and even immenser rationalizations for that evil.

So, down in the carbonized core of his arhythmic heart, the leftoid knows he is a Grendel, a monster of the misty night who can’t stand the sounds of normal humanity. His twisted compulsions drive him to meddle in everything that seem not up to the standards of his fantasies, and he suspects he would do monstrous things if the moral winds ever shifted and opened up new utopian opportunity. He suspects monstrous deeds are his tomorrow because he thinks monstrous thoughts today.

A prediction: The first large-scale, mandatory “sterilization for welfare” program will be proposed, framed skillfully in the garb of slippery sophistry and blame redirection, by a SWPL leftoid, and advocated by a SWPL leftoid message machine. You read it here.

Read Full Post »

Orwell, Updated

Male is female. Observation is illusion. Diversity is strength.

If there is hope, wrote Winston, it lies in the proles.

Read Full Post »

Dan And Nadine

Dan readied his stick and plunked a ball in a side pocket. Relishing his fleeting achievement, he raised his eyes to check if Nadine had bore witness to his excellence. She hadn’t. Gruff, caustic Robert, his misshapen nose and squirrel’s nest hair coaxing annoyed leers, was directing to a general audience of three girls a crack about drunkenly seeing twelve holes and the improvement to his game that was sure to bring. Nadine was one of those girls, and Dan squelched a perturbation of despondency when he saw Nadine’s eyes shine for Robert’s boisterous wit.

Nadine was Dan’s project. He met her, he welcomed her friends, he introduced them all to his friends, he slept luxuriously fitful nights imagining Nadine warming to him and reciprocating his feelings. Kind, pretty and, lately, eager to hang out with him and his buddies, Nadine was unassailable. Dan allowed renewed confidence in the value he offered her. Soon, he would ask her out. He just needed a private moment. They’d been out together as a group enough that Dan believed Nadine was hoping he would lurch at a pretext to corner her alone and deliver the magical words she’d been secretly anticipating. Dan occasionally wondered if the moment, when it came, would be so flush with spent resolve that they would seal the agreement with a passionate (but endearingly tentative) kiss.

Dan: “D’ja see that bank shot?”

Robert: “That bank shot wasn’t good…”

PAUSE FOR DRAMATIC EFFECT

Robert: “…that bank shot was GREAT.”

Nadine: *laughs*

Dan: *smiles weakly*

Robert: *touches Nadine’s chunky girl friend with chalky side of stick*

PAUSE FOR DRAMATIC REACTION

Chunks: “Hey! Not nice!”

Robert: “Blame Dan. He bet me I wouldn’t do it.”

Dan: “No I didn’t.”

Robert: “Come on, Dan, you’re always causing trouble. Don’t try to hide it.”

Nadine: “He doesn’t look like the one causing trouble here.”

Dan: “Thanks, Nadine.”

Robert: “I knew there was something between you two!”

Dan had always taken to understand that he was a handsome, if aesthetically understated, man. He certainly saw nothing in Nadine’s limpid gaze to suggest extended exposure to his countenance irritated her. If Dan were to count up the hours spent in Nadine’s company, (an exercise which, in point of fact, he did one evening while nervously fiddling with the bracing decision to text her one mere day after they had spoken by phone, the nerve!), the sum of their unspoken love would add to a considerable investment of life energy.

And so it was with naive expectation that Dan foresaw no interference, nor any of the usual social rifts that erupt when the sexes mix, issuing from Nadine & company’s enfolding. He was therefore emotionally denuded when Nadine’s redirected attention usurped his blueprint of steady bonding. A sickening awareness jammed his guts as he recorded the mounting toll of Robert & Nadine’s wet glances, slithery torso feints, forearm grazing entreaties, and joyously faux indignations, each a sharper dagger than the last. He sunk his last shot, and excused himself to “make a call”, which no one heard, nor needed to hear.

Seven years later, Robert would be married to a svelte, head-turner blonde, and they would reside in a charming suburb. Dan would have moved to another corner of the country, met an uninspiring but trustworthy woman, and married as well, settling in a jurisdiction not known for its disruptive temptations, but not mattering anyway. Government statistics would show that Robert worked in a high-stress field and had one child with his comely wife, and that Dan was a productive contributor to state coffers and had two children by his wife.

Acquaintances who knew Dan would say if asked that he was a happy, well-adjusted man. A real stand-up guy, a normal guy. The sort of guy who had everything going for him.

Read Full Post »

“Back To Europe” Movement

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.

Read Full Post »

Off The Grid Game

Given the recent leaks about NSA and IRS dossiers on American citizens, it makes sense that some people are choosing to opt out of the social media ego stroke-athon for privacy reasons. But how does the womanizing sophisticate who has waved sayonara to Facebook and the rest handle the inevitable questions and objections when girls ask him about his odd lack of online presence?

Women, lovely lemmings they are, don’t like weirdness. Non-conformists give them the heebie-vajjies, until such time that the non-conformist is validated by the wider social group. So the Man Without a Facebook is likely to elicit suspicion, and maybe even irrational annoyance, from women. This problem will be worse for the off-the-grid man who prefers the company of younger women (the kind of woman least likely to care that Big Daddy State is safely in charge of her personal liberties).

Generally, a man should handle the “Why aren’t you on Facebook?” question the same way he would handle any shit test, by using any of the following three tactics:

1. Agree and amplify
2. Dismiss and ignore
3. Ridicule and reframe

Examples:

“Why aren’t you on Facebook?”

“Because I’m wanted in twenty-three states for crimes against humanity.”

“Better question: Why are you on Facebook telling the world all your secrets?”

“Remember when girls had diaries, and they would freak out if their brother even touched the cover? We’ve come a long way.”

“I was. I got kicked off.”

“WUT” {Jeantel Rachel game}

“What a weird question.”

“Hey, you gotta at least get to know me before you start stalking me.”

“Because it’s boring.”

“Because everyone else is doing it.”

“Because I found that the girls on there are all shallow and self-involved.”

“I am. But I’m in the VIP lounge. Zuckerberg invite only. Not open to the public.”

***

Ok, I think you get the idea. The crucial rule to remember about any type of shit test is that it matters less how successfully you hurdle it than how successfully you avoid smashing into it. So as long as you don’t sound defensive or shaky or placating, you should do fine. If a girl is insistent and presses you for a reason why you skip Facebook, tell her “What’s with the third degree?”. The quicker you can get muleheaded chicks like that to defend themselves, the better off you look.

Read Full Post »

The Inner Workings Of The Cathedral

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mUVp5qq3SU#t=20s

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5A8VHTyMzg#t=20s

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.

Read Full Post »

Are Women Winning, Or Are Men Losing?

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.

Read Full Post »