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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Tamerlan’s Tsarina And The Perils Of Love Marriage

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

One Blessing Of Outbreeding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

White On White War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

North Korea

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

Black Men Have Much To Discuss About Murderous Crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What facets of black male culture create so many homicides?

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

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

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

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

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

keywords:

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

Read Full Post »

CPAC In A Nutshell

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »