The Mainstream Media Is Beginning To Accept The Truth Of Game

Yahoo, one of the most MSM-y of the MSM outlets, has a dating advice column that lifts techniques straight from the game literature. In order to stay ahead of the PC police, the author couches it in terms of attracting either men or women, but the reality well-known to those who are actually out there mud-deep in the scrum of the sexual market is that these courtship tactics are more effective when used on women. (Ladies, the only techniques you need to attract men for sex are the following: look hot. To attract men for love, you’ll need more than a young pretty face, but that is a discussion for another day.)

Flattery strategy #1: Get specific with your praise
Since daters often feel like they’re just one amongst a parade of people having coffee with you, demonstrate some genuine interest in the next one you meet to help erase that fear. “We studied the relationship between reciprocity and romance and found that if someone thinks you’re attracted to him or her, it increases that person’s attraction to you,” says Eli Finkel, Ph.D., a psychology professor at Northwestern University. [Ed: This is misleading. The studies on reciprocity clearly indicate that while women are attracted to men they think are attracted to them, women are *more* attracted to men for whom they are uncertain about the men’s attraction to them.] On the other hand, “If someone’s attracted to you but getting the sense that you’re attracted to lots of other people, he or she will tend to dislike you.” The upshot? Prove you’re picky (and that this person fits your high criteria). Then you’re well on your way to making this potential amour pick you, too. Reread his or her profile right before you meet up and tell your date exactly why it stood out from the rest and what you noticed first. And nix any mentions of past bad dates or other negative experiences, which can make it inadvertently seem like you’ll give anyone the time of day.

Game concept stolen: Qualification.

Flattery strategy #2: Create insider info between the two of you
You don’t have to be old friends to cultivate a comfortable rapport with someone. “Make references to things you’ve discussed or emailed about,” says dating coach Annie Dennison, Ph.D. “It creates a sense of intimacy and shows your date you’re really listening.” To really drive home that you find your date fascinating, ask for more information on details he or she mentioned in passing (“I know you like Jay-Z. Which album of his do you think I should download?”). Or tie together stories (yours or your date’s) with a follow-up line like, “Wow, that reminds me of what you were telling me about your trip to Costa Rica/your overbearing boss/football obsession.”

Game concept stolen: Secret world. (Most of the attendant advice in this paragraph is shitty, but the core concept is spot on.)

Flattery strategy #3: Congratulate your date
If you want your sweetie to really beam, show you’re impressed by a feat that he or she is especially proud of. “We did a study and found that when people told others about something good that happened to them and the person responded positively, it improved the whole experience,” Shelly Gable, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. So don’t just say “Cool!” when your date mentions a win like getting into grad school, finishing a 10K, or just getting an amazing deal at an outlet store. Get into it and ask what he felt when he got the news, how she reacted, which person he told first, or how long she’d been hoping for it to happen. Answering the questions will let your date relive some of the excitement — and associate you with an unexpectedly happy buzz.

Game concept stolen: Emotional connection. (Ignore the part about congratulating her. Just ask leading questions that get her emotions traveling in the right, i.e. sexual, direction.)

Flattery strategy #4: Compliment qualities that are unrelated to [her] looks
When you admire a not-so-obvious trait that your date has, it makes you seem super-insightful. An easy place to start is by connecting his or her job to a quality you appreciate. Tell an accountant that you’re always especially envious of detail-oriented people; tell a teacher you’re in awe of those who can motivate others. If you like what your date is wearing or how this person decorated his or her home, “don’t compliment the ‘thing’ — anyone can buy a thing — but call out what it says about him or her,” says Susan Rabin, author of Lucky in Love. Instead of the tie itself, praise the person’s individual style; instead of muttering “nice couch,” say you’re wowed by people who have an eye for color and design.

Game concept stolen: Ignore her beauty. Women want to think you are an exceptional man because you notice things about them most men don’t. A more cynical explanation: a man who isn’t affected by a woman’s looks is an alpha male who likely has lots of experience bedding women. And chicks dig preselected men.

Flattery Strategy #5: Emphasize your date’s name in your verbal responses

Game concept stolen: N/A. This advice only matters within context. Don’t blurt out a girl’s name until she has earned your recognition by asking you for your name first, and using it within a sentence.

Flattery strategy #6: Playfully tease your date
If you saw The Departed, you probably remember the scene when Matt Damon asks his date something like: “What makes you think I want a second date with you?” — then bursts out laughing. It turns out those childhood playground tormentors (“Ewww, you have cooties!”) were onto something. “Thinking someone is attracted to you is great, but our research also suggests that not being sure about it actually heightens the excitement,” says grad student Paul Eastwick, Finkel’s research partner at the Northwestern Relationships Lab. Hearing that kind of rejection can spike feelings of anxiety — then fill you with relief when you realize it was a gag. So if you’re sure your date has a good sense of humor, give him or her a little ribbing first: “Oh no, you’re an Aquarius? Shoot, I have a rule about that.” Not only do you get to have an instant inside joke, it sends a subtle message that you’re into your date enough to be comfortable joking about it. Just make sure you don’t tease about something the person’s sensitive about — that’s not flirting; that’s an insult.

Game concept stolen: The neg.

Welcome aboard, MSM! Glad to see you are reading sites like this blog and imbibing its wisdom. Who knows what you’re capable of now! Perhaps an honest look at the negative externalities of mass third world migration. Or tough, no-nonsense reporting about innate sex differences in athletic program participation and upper management representation. The world is your oyster.

Read Full Post »

Beta Of The Month

This guy:

The only thing gayer than inking John Elway’s face inches from his nads would be tattooing a giant, erect prick up his leg. Preferably black.

The display of male superstars’ names in the form of tattoos or jerseys is something that has always perplexed me. As a man, it makes no sense to advertise a much higher status man on your body like a billboard. It screams beta, if not omega. And yet, go to any sports event and you’ll see lots of jock-y meatheads, tough guys and douchebags doing just that. Don’t they realize how lame it looks to women, to boost the competition? The only explanation is that the dudes who do this have no clue how women think.

I suppose there is some evolutionary-based reason for it. Perhaps in the EEA, associating yourself with an alpha male would increase the chance that he would drop some of his sloppy seconds in your lap. But that is not the case today. Sucking the titular cocks of sports stars or rock stars is nothing short of slavish worship, and worshipping another man is the hallmark of the beta mentality.

Wearing the jersey — let alone tattooing his mug on your leg — of some millionaire athlete with a harem of hotties you could only dream of banging is analogous to the cuckold fetishist who sits in a corner feebly stroking it with a pair of tweezers while some grossly overhung studhorse jackhammers his wife into multiple Os. Think about that the next time you’re tempted to feel pride wearing Jeter’s shirt over your manboobs. You may as well be tucking your junk and licking his balls to a polished shine.

Read Full Post »

A Traditionalist Manifesto?

OneSTDV writes:

1) The nuclear family is the bedrock of civilization.
2) Women are valuable as more than just prostitutes.
3) A romantic relationship has more benefits than just physical pleasure.
4) Marriage has risks, but sometimes they’re very much worth it.
5) Fatherhood is a rewarding experience integral to the emotional health of children.
6) (Modern SWPL) Women can be petulant, mannish, and entitled, but also uniquely endearing as only feminine women can be.
7) MRAs express a female-like neuroticism because they whine and focus so much on what could happen.
8) A return to patriarchy should be the goal, not men going their own way.

Point by point, we’ll examine what’s true and false, right and wrong with this traditionalist manifesto.

1. True. Not only does history inform us of the value of nuclear families to civilization, but scientific studies are in basic agreement that kids, and society by extension, fare best when a married mom and dad (or long term cohabiting couple within a homogeneous culture — see: Scandinavia) live together and raise their children as a single unit. Single momhood is the scourge of civilization, and everywhere you look in the world where single moms rule, you see decay, violence and backwardness. Any government policy that weakens the primacy of the nuclear family is anti-civilization, and thus evil.

2. True (and false premise besides for any but the most aggrieved men). Women are the nurturers of the next generation. Men are simply not as interested in the shit work that goes into the raising of children. Sex and children are a woman’s prime directives, but she offers other positive qualities. A woman’s genuine sympathy for a man she loves can be as powerful as her lust for him. Have you ever had a woman cry for you when you were going through a tough time, so completely did she empathize with your pain and so in love with you she was? If you’ve experienced that, you know how much joy a woman can bring to your life as a man.

3. True. Sex is great, but sex with love is transcendent.

4. Insufficient data. If you are not planning to have kids, marriage is a raw deal no matter how you slice it. Long term committed relationships will offer a man the same happiness he can get within a marriage without the knife’s edge of divorce theft at his throat. If you are planning on kids and you are a man, marriage may be for you. However, you may still be better off informally married; i.e long term cohabitation without any contract signing (though femcunts and their lawyercunt mercenaries are currently hard at work trying to change this). Know that when you enter a marriage every conceivable institution — judicial, media, cultural — is arrayed against your interests, male-hating to the bone as they are in the twilight of America’s grand epoch. Go into marriage with open eyes and you give yourself a chance to fight back the grasping reach of its subversive tentacles from your wife’s psyche.

5. Post hoc rationalization. Once you have kids, would you want to accept that fatherhood isn’t as rewarding as you thought it should be? Of course not. What father would admit that those early years of crapping, vomiting, screaming, crying, babbling ingrate tantrums were really a hell on earth he’d have rather spent playing poker with his buddies? After a certain age — say, 9 or so — when kids become old enough and emotionally mature enough to have quasi-adult conversations with them and impart the wisdom of your fatherly experience upon them do they switch from being net buzzkills to net blessings. And then it all goes to shit once again when they hit adolescence. Nonetheless, fatherhood is integral to kids’ emotional health, despite the fact that kids are a huge fun suck for many, many years. So if you are willing to accept the sacrifices, know that your fatherly guidance will help keep your daughters off the badboy pole and your sons out of juvie.

6. True, but irrelevant. It is possible to meet plenty of endearingly feminine women who don’t possess the suite of unfeminine traits that are the battle cry and parasitic infection of the modern careerist SWPL. As a man with game, you already know that being choosy is your right and your duty. And chicks dig choosy men.

7. Insufficient data. Do some MRAs whine? Sure. Just like some (most) feminists whine, or really any identifiable group of people whines over some unfairness, true or not. Anyhow, one man’s effeminate whining is another man’s truth to power. It’s all in the perception. As men are the expendable sex, the perception will always be, by both men and women alike, that men complaining about injustice or unfairness is tantamount to an admission against interest, tautological evidence that the complaining men wouldn’t have anything to complain about if they were winners in the sexual market. In contrast and in accord with evolutionary theory which posits that the woman’s reporoductive capacity is scarcer and thus more valuable than the man’s, complaining by women is something to be taken seriously. Do MRAs have grounds for complaint? They do. Sometimes complaining is the whine of the loser, and sometimes it’s entirely justified. Similarly, the past may not have been as great as we fondly remember through rose-colored glasses, or the past may have indeed been objectively better than the present. So the next time some feminist cackles about whiny MRAs, ask her (while sporting a most devious smile) if MLK Jr. was a whiny little bitch for agitating for civil rights. Use their liberationist icons against them.

8. True and false. Overeager extrapolation. A “return” to an Islamic-like patriarchy would be a disaster for the West, not to mention a disaster for my dating life. The USA had it about right for two hundred years, before the whole thing began to unravel. Decay follows decadence as surely as decadence has followed success. The Chateau has previously outlined a plan for a return to an American version of palatable patriarchy. As for “men going their own way”: it’s almost a malapropism it’s so utterly inconceivable. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a big load of sour grapes in the nominal MRA movement. Men truly going their own, vagina-free, way (and not simply men trying to score internet debate points by claiming to go their own way but still banging on the sly) are likely mating market losers who find comfort in pretending to wish away the allure of women. No one’s buying it, just as no one buys the claptrap by fat feminists insisting that fat women are lusted after by winner men and only social conditioning prevents these men from dating all the grotesque and ill-mannered fatties they really desire.

I give OneSTDV’s traditionalist manifesto a B+. Not that it will make a lick of difference. The gears slicked with the sweat and blood of obedient middle class beta fodder have already been set in motion, and the machine demands tribute. Trying to stop and reverse the gluttony of its belching maw is a fool’s errand. There is but one tried-and-true solution: nuke the beast from orbit.

In the meantime, I’ll be poolside, getting my tan on.

Read Full Post »

Potential Rapist Syndrome

A crooked-faced atheist chick has set the net aflame with a tragic tale of threatening elevator courtship that could rival Caylee Anthony’s death by single mom. According to her, an inept atheist nerd propositioned her in a hotel elevator, which caused her to nearly faint with an attack of the vapors, like any equalist gender-normed feminist would do. In brief, a man entered the elevator with her at 4AM after a “skeptics” conference had ended, and proceeded to awkwardly and nervously ask her out to coffee, which she declined.

Yep, that’s the whole story. Riveting stuff, ain’t it?

But the important thing to understand is how Indignant Atheist Chick FELT. To use her words, she felt

Uncooooomfortable.

Poor dear. And then right on cue a chorus of feminist commenters chimed in with accusations that the awkward elevator man was a potential rapist.

For a replay of the characters involved, here’s a withering rundown of the sordid affair, including links to limp-wristed nancyboys who couldn’t wait to jump like little doggies begging for table scraps from approving feminists.

Potential Rapist Syndrome is a mind virus infecting the brains of put-upon feminists all over America and Sweden. The slightest effrontery by a man not immediately deemed a charismatic alpha male by the woman victim causes the virus to multiply rapidly, resulting in flawed reasoning that imputes the worst possible motives to innocuous, if unattractively nerdy, male behavior. Using the illogic of this mind virus, any action that a man takes in attempt to pick up a woman is potential rape as long as she feels it is.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in the park? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a bar? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out here or there? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a house? With a mouse? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a box? With a fox? Potential rapist.

Richard Dawkins was right. This is female hamster-fueled solipsism to the nth degree. The growth industry of Entitled American Bitches is feeding this female martyrdom indulgence in believing the Western world is out to get them. Only a foul bitch so full of herself, so enamored of her precious biological cargo, could wilt at the imaginary prospect that any man who awkwardly asks her out is itching to rape her before the elevator stops at the next floor. Hey Indignant Atheist Chick, Hogwarts called; they want their magical thinking back.

PRS is very similar to PMS in its symptoms. Women lose all logic and reason to a flood of hormones and emotional hysteria, rendering them unsuitable conversational partners until the episode has passed. Do not under any circumstance try to comfort a woman in the throes of PRS, or otherwise try to redeem your “inappropriate” behavior to make her feel better. She will simply lash out with increased rage, incoherent to everyone but herself, other sufferers of PRS and thimble-chubbed beta wankers hoping to sneak in their pants under cover of empathy. A woman experiencing PRS hates the mass of bumbling men for not knowing how to properly satisfy her desires for interaction with an aloof and charming alpha male. Like the PMS victim, any attempt to assuage her irrational torment will be met with an icy stare at best, and thrown objects at worst. Pointing out the flaws in the PRS sufferer’s anti-logic will be perceived by her as an act of psychological war, an imposition of your rigid male sexuality upon her enlightened female vulnerability and purity. Proceed with indifference.

Maxim #48: The feminist loathing of male desire is at the root of all their complaining about men and the dating scene. Feminists, in their hearts, despise the freedom and longevity of male sexuality. And they particularly despise that freedom when lowly beta males attempt to exercise it.

Thus ends the cultural dissolution portion of today’s lecture, and begins the game portion. Given the above, it will surprise some of the readers that this blog holds little sympathy for Inept Elevator Nerd. Asking a woman out for coffee before you’ve won her interest is bad game. Asking her out in an elevator at 4AM when she has nowhere to escape is bad game. Doing all of it with the nervousness of a beta herb who hasn’t had any for years is ZERO GAME.

Direct game of the sort that elevator dude “ran” is best used in open spaces where the woman won’t feel cornered. It’s good pickup strategy to give a woman the feeling of being able to freely excuse herself if she finds your hard sell lacking. A woman is more likely to allow her intrigue to flower if the man who approaches her with directness knows that she values an easy out should she need it. It’s an implied understanding that only men who have experience bedding women will know, and women know this.

Indirect game is better for enclosed spaces like elevators where the first goal is to make the woman feel comfortable in your presence. (Some pickup artists have successfully run direct game in elevators, but it requires a healthy dose of charisma and cocky humor, as well as the social savvy to defuse the inherent tension of small spaces. For example: “Oh, wow, an awkward elevator ride, just like in the movies. I’m getting off in three floors, so I’d better make my flirting count!”)

A man who directly approaches a woman in a context that offers her an unmessy exit is, in the woman’s hindbrain, a confident man unafraid of potential rejection. This is a tacit demonstration of higher value that will immediately set the tone of the pickup in the man’s favor. In contrast, a man who directly approaches a woman in a context that affords her no quick, polite escape is, in the woman’s mind and likely in reality as well, a desperate beta who needs to corner a woman to win an audience with her. She will easily and seamlessly rationalize this awkward behavior on his part as the machinations of a rapist’s mind.

Whenever you worry that the principles of game will become too well-known and overused by men, just remember Inept Elevator Nerd. The world is teeming with men like him who have zero clue how women work. Your worries that game will increase the competition above and beyond what female obesity is creating for the few remaining slender chicks in existence are unfounded. Inept Elevator Nerds continue to roam the plains in vast, undifferentiated numbers.

When in doubt about the goodness and righteousness of game, remember the fundamental rule of female magical thinking, gentlemen:

Beta = Potential rapist.

Alpha = It just happened!

No further explanation needed.

Read Full Post »

Is Female Careerism A Form Of Infidelity?

Reader Sidewinder writes:

While some degree of the female fascination/obsession with credentials can be explained as projecting onto themselves what they find desirable in men, I think there’s more to it than that. Not all, but a sizeable percentage of intelligent women become obsessed with their school or work. Maybe its just self-centeredness, but many women place their “career” to such a high level of importance that it almost becomes the primary component of their identity. Having read a good deal of marriage therapy literature the past year, some therapists have classified this female career obsession as a form of infidelity to the family and marrage. And its no coincidence that the vast majority of female infidelity takes place in connection with her workplace.

I wonder if in addition to projection, this obsession stems from an unconscious recognition of their declining attractiveness. Its like the 40 year old women at the gym: while they know that men aren’t especially attracted to muscular, hard-bodied women, its really the best option for them considering the alternative of sagging cellulite. Maybe girls latch on to school and work in their 20s because they feel its the only thing they can do to try to mitigate their inevitable declining looks as they approach their 30s and 40s.

Paging Penelope Trunk…

I agree that there is something “off” about women who are excessively devoted to their careers and to obtaining an acronymic parade of pointless credentials. Careerist shrikes are some of the most unpleasant, unfeminine women to be around. They must have more androgen receptors than normal women to be so grating to the male sensibility. Sure, they can fuck like Viagra-laced male pornstars, but as soon as you relieve yourself in them you will feel a second powerful urge to escape their aggro nastiness.

Sidewinder hits on an angle not much discussed in the media (obvi). Women who place their careers front and center are committing a kind of betrayal of their sex’s biological and psychological imperatives. It’s like a big middle finger to everything that distinguishes the feminine from the masculine, the yin from the yang. It’s quite possible that the worst offenders — the 14 hour day lawyercunts and the graduate school hermits — embrace the male-oriented rat race and achievement spectacle because it offers a welcome distraction from either spinsterly loneliness or boring beta male partners who, while intellectually are rationalized as good matches, do not viscerally excite them.

Maybe, too, these careerist chicks see their jobs as a way to enter the world of the alpha male, to have a taste of what it would be like to be part of his life. The office cubes and doormen and glassy skyscrapers have given legions of plain janes the daily stimulation to mentally masturbate fantasy romances with the alpha males who run their companies or the alpha salesmen who greet them at the front desk with a twinkle in their eyes.

Perhaps, as Sidewinder also noted, female careerism presents the illusion of a safe harbor from the approaching wall. When a woman’s SMV inevitably craters in her 40s, her career might be all she has to lift her spirits, especially if she has no husband she loves, no kids, or even just one kid who spends most of his time playing CoD or robbing convenience stores. Women with larger families don’t seem to dread the coming apocalypse of their beauty as much as the quasi-barren SWPLs seem to do, who start using expensive anti-wrinkle creams at age twelve.

The dumbfuck feminists will naturally ask, “Why doesn’t this same theory apply to men? Aren’t they escaping sad love lives by retreating to their careers?”

Don’t you know it’s different for guys? Unlike women, men are evolutionarily programmed to be resource providers for women. It is not a betrayal of a man’s innate purpose in life to ambitiously pursue achievement and accolades. In fact, just the opposite; it’s an affirmation of that ancient purpose. A man turning his back on raising his status is akin to a woman letting herself get fat and slovenly.

The women for whom career success is their comfort and their purpose are some sort of weird, monstrous amalgam of man and woman, halfway between both worlds, their sexual polarity askew. These types tend to attract either intense short term flings with alphas or plodding marriages with dweeby, effete kitchen bitches.

Additionally, it can be argued that a sexual market which favors easy sex (for alpha males only) and a marriage market increasingly against men’s interests pushes women into the careerist mindset, because subconsciously they realize that the guarantee of a strong male provider that was once their birthright is now a sucker’s bet, and one they have convinced themselves they don’t even want. Women, sensing the change in the rules, have responded by storming the state college citadels to earn their communications and women’s studies degrees by the boatload.

Of course, as I always remind the women reading here who complain about the change in the game…

Ladies, you get the men you created.

Read Full Post »

A Blatant Case Of Sex Discrimination In The Law

A couple was arrested for having consensual sex on a public beach in front of people dining in a nearby restaurant. The bail was set at $10,000 for the man, and $2,500 for the woman.

The anti-male commissars infesting our legal system are getting awfully bold, aren’t they? I would like a feminist, any feminist, to explain how exactly this bond disparity isn’t crass gender discrimination.

I won’t be holding my breath.

ps The arrested dude is one ugly mofo, but his face screams aloof asshole. And we all know how much young, hot girls swoon for assholes.

UPDATE

HalfCanadian writes:

The girl had 2 priors that have been posted. DUI and obstruction.

http://gawker.com/5814320/florida-couple-arrested-for-putting-on-surfside-sex-show?comment=40294078#comments

He has priors as well, which include a DUI with drug possession (Mary Jane and prescriptions).

So my original question remains valid. How is this disparate bond amount not gender discrimination under the law?

Read Full Post »

Liberals And The Acceptance Of Biological Determinism

I’ve long believed that when the weight of evidence in favor of some degree of genetic determinism affecting human behavior was so overwhelming that blank slate liberals could no longer ignore it without seeming foolish, they would move to Ego-Salving Plan B and claim to have believed in it all along. Well, Kevin Drum leads the pack in Mother Jones:

I’ve never been either a hardcore blank slater or a hardcore biological determinist, but there’s no question that I have a pretty healthy belief in the power of genes and biology. [Ed: News to his readers, I’m sure.] As Karl says, this belief tends to be associated with conservatives more than liberals, but that’s really very odd. After all, it’s pretty easy to fool ourselves into dismissing the benefits of being raised in a rich, stable culture and assuming that everything we’ve accomplished has actually been the result of hard work and personal rectitude. But what if you believe, say, that (a) IQ has a strong biological component and (b) high IQ is really important for getting ahead in the world? If you believe this and also happen to be blessed with a high IQ, how can you possibly convince yourself that this is anything other than the blind luck of the genetic lottery?

What we have here is a liberal seeing the light and coming to grips with the dawning fact that Great Society-like government largesse is futile in the face of intractable genetic predispositions. But instead of admitting he and his ilk are wrong in their blank slate ideology, he claims to have believed in genetic influence all along. As the science — and daily observation thrown into stark relief by mass third world immigration — continues to flatten cherished liberal shibboleths like a massive, merciless steamroller of galling truth, expect to see more of this backpedaling by liberals intent on remaining relevant in the political discourse.

Well, I suppose people can convince themselves of just about anything. [Ed: You bet!] And certainly a smart person who works hard is likely to do better than a smart person who sits on the couch all day playing videogames. Still, to the extent that you really do believe that cognitive abilities are (a) important, and (b) strongly biologically determined, shouldn’t you also believe that the poor are more unlucky than anything else, and haven’t done anything to deserve hunger, lousy housing, poor medical care, or crappy educations? If genetic luck plays a big role in making us who we are, then support for income redistribution from the rich to the poor is almost a logical necessity for anyone with a moral sense more highly developed than a five-year-old’s.

Long story short, belief in biological determinism should make you into a liberal. And yet, here in the real world it mostly does just the opposite. Go figure.

Also expect to see, among those reluctant liberals coming over to the biological determinism camp, a framing of the issue as one of “blind, genetic luck”. This is how the liberal will make the gene pill go down easy — by couching it in terms of unfairness, a vice the liberal suckles on with hungry fervor to give his life spent posturing about all the unfairness in the world some semblance of meaning. The problem with genetic unfairness is that there is no obvious oppressor one can point to as the cause of the unfairness. How exactly are straight white men going to be blamed for the genetic dumb luck of the poor and indigent? By accusing them of racism for not marrying and reproducing with non-white women? Don’t laugh, it could go in that direction.

Drum deserves credit for at least broaching the subject of genetic predilection, which still gives the majority of liberals the high holy hives. Try dropping a “genes n’ IQ” bomb on a Jon Stewart audience member and you will witness a shrill sanctimony unmatched by the most religious fundamentalists. Drum is right about one thing: plain and simple, genetic dumb luck accounts for a lot of who we are and how successful our lives are. And it goes beyond just IQ and nose shape, too. There is evidence that genes influence everything from political leanings to conscientiousness to ambition to impulsiveness.

So Drum has the diagnosis correct: life is unfair and that isn’t changing anytime soon. Where he fails is in his prescription for curing the unfairness of it all. Genetic luck does not make it a moral or logical necessity to redistribute income from the rich to the poor anymore than it makes it a logical necessity to redistribute happiness from the happy to the depressed (a trait that may also be genetically influenced). In both cases, actively punishing the rich and the happy for possessing mental characteristics beyond their control is just as immoral as punishing the poor for fecklessness and stupidity. The child of smart parents didn’t ask for his smarts anymore than the child of poor parents asked for his dullness.

My advice to liberals who are beginning to accept the truth about human nature and all it implies:

Deal with it.

And get off yer fuckin SWPL pulpit.

Read Full Post »