Why Obama Doesn’t Matter

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?

Read Full Post »

What Would A Fully Robotized Future Look Like?

I’m thinking that, should some hypothetical, and not altogether unrealistic, robotic future arrive when most jobs which can be performed by highly advanced robots will be performed by them, there will remain a tiny handful of occupations that can’t be outsourced to non-human entities. It’s within these occupations that an elite fraction of humans will be able to find meaningful paid work. The rest of humanity will either cull itself or be placated by endless state-provided hedonistic diversions.

The jobs that might remain solely the domain of humans:

Visual arts
Expect to see the value of visual artists, especially the absurdly abstract post-modernists, go up.

Family doctors
People crave that human touch when bad news is being delivered.

Fiction literature
Entertaining works of fiction seem beyond the ability of even advanced AIs. Key word: seem. A horribly written piece of trash like ‘Fifty Shades of Gray’ could be vomited by an algorithm coded by bindi hacks.

Acting
An emotive cyborg would have to first cross the uncanny valley threshold before the public will entertain it as a human actor substitute. Possible, but unlikely.

Sales
Face-to-face human contact to move product is irreplaceable. Can’t see this changing, even out to the distant future.

Small arts and crafts kiosk operators and SWPL cooking class instructors
This kind of “work” will linger as a human outpost, not because robots can’t do it, but because it will self-select for consumers who want to purchase from real humans.

Notably not on the list:
Prostitution. Sexbots will horn in on that market.
Marketing. Optimists like Cheap Chalupas talk about marketing being the next big frontier of mass human employment, but computer algorithms could easily take over such tasks. Plus, how much value transference can an economy sustain before it implodes from lack of substantive underpinning?
Engineering/law/accounting/finance. The true leap from human to robot will occur when robots can innovate as well as very creative humans in these fields.
Cops/Military. How different are drones from Robocop, anyhow?

The point of this post is to remind readers that soon, perhaps sooner than is comfortable for most people, the availability of paid work will be extremely limited and job requirements for that fulfilling paid employment highly selective. A small sliver of incredibly talented or high IQ people will have real jobs in the far future. Everyone else will be hooked to pleasure tubes or self-delivering from a wretchedly banal existence. ♥♥♥

UPDATE

Martin Ford wrote a book called “The Lights in the Tunnel” in which he reaches the same conclusion as CH: soon, our robot overlords will push us out of jobs requiring mental acumen as well as physical strength. Humans are about to be displaced from the labor market. The future is looking: 1. dystopian 2. stratified 3. culled. Pick your poison.

PS For the Pollyanna-ish anti-Luddites out there, the automobile created a lot of jobs, but it also put a lot of horses out of business. Think of humanity now as the equivalent of a horse relative to the advanced AI which is coming down the pike.

Read Full Post »

Freelance Comment Of The Week: Equalism Logic Trap

From an anonymous commenter over at Steve Sailer’s site:

The military is too male. I don’t have a joke, I’m just really in awe of that phrase. I’m thinking about the length of a journey that a culture must undertake in order for that to stop sounding crazy.

The catch-22 in the leftoid mentality is that when you hitch your ego wagon to equalism, and “progress” can only be achieved by increasing total equality in the world, then you quickly reach a reductio ad absurdum vanishing point of infinite stupidity where continued progress must necessarily be squeezed from more costly (in every sense of the word) increments of equalization. Since true equalization is impossible given biological constraints, the stupidity will just ratchet up with each Pyrrhic liberal victory, and the rationalizations for the stupidity will become more labyrinthine, until civilization is paralyzed into inaction, and then eventual implosion and full regression to a pre-stupidity state. Much avoidable suffering will accompany this trajectory.

But I guess we’re all just gonna have to learn this lesson the hard way, again. Thanks, leftoids!

Read Full Post »

A Vision Of The Future Of America

Imagine an obese single mom head-slapping her racially ambiguous child, watching Lena Dunham’s floppy tit on TV, reading hack erotica about billionaire vampires, gouging the salaries of productive beta males for colorful iphones, soda by the gallon and cable subscription packages… forever.

If you aren’t *shudder*ing, you aren’t paying attention.

Read Full Post »

Do The White Elite Dream Of Mulatto Sheep?

If, as I theorize, extreme racial hybridization leads to racial demoralization, it makes sense that the white ruling elite would want to encourage cross-pollination of their distant-kin maidens with the world’s wretched horndogs. (The elite themselves would never deign to follow their own precepts, exceedingly rare and foolish exceptions to the contrary.) An entrenched power structure primarily fears two threats: attrition by in-fighting, and usurpation by their aggrieved cousins, (or their aggrieved hosts), and it’s the urgency and palpability of the second threat that keeps them up at night in a cold sweat. This fear ensures that the ruling class tirelessly works to promote their interests, which align presently with the total disenfranchisement of their nearest enemy: their racial cousins that until now have served them without complaint or spite. And for the blind proles’ happy help, they are spat upon by ingrates with more money than God.

In this disenfranchisement and dispossession of their sneered-at racial cousin lessers, the white elite also imagine themselves beneficent rulers of a prostrate mass of equatorial poverty projects, serving as redeemers and saviors to teeming hordes that are nothing more than props to abet elite moral preening and imbue them with a dopamine rush of feels.

Outbreeding is the jargon du jour for cross-pollination, and it is becoming apparent based on accumulating research that outbreeding in the old northwest corner of Europe helped advance civilization there, and eventually bestowed the rest of humanity with its blessings of iPhones and foreign aid to shorten the time that subsistence economies reach their Malthusian limits.

But it is also the case that there is a limit to the good that outbreeding can do, and that there is a “sweet spot” where outbreeding is balanced with inbreeding that results in the maximal prosperity, health and, most critically, long-term stability of the nations whose populaces hit that sweet spot. In short, the photo above is a warning, not a guidepost.

Every day now brings fresh reminders that the Western elite, and particularly the American elite, are evil, and act with impure intentions. They will stop, or they will be stopped. This is the path we’re on, unswervingly.

Read Full Post »

Lookism

The marching malcontents have identified a new injustice they seek to rectify: Lookism.

The galloping injustice of “lookism” has not escaped psychologists, economists, sociologists, and legal scholars. Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode’s 2010 book, “The Beauty Bias,” lamented “the injustice of appearance in life and law,” while University of Texas, Austin economist Daniel Hamermesh’s 2011 “Beauty Pays,” recently out in paperback, traced the concrete benefits of attractiveness, including a $230,000 lifetime earnings advantage over the unattractive. […]

Tentatively, experts are beginning to float possible solutions. Some have proposed legal remedies including designating unattractive people as a protected class, creating affirmative action programs for the homely, or compensating disfigured but otherwise healthy people in personal-injury courts. Others have suggested using technology to help fight the bias, through methods like blind interviews that take attraction out of job selection. There’s promising evidence from psychology that good old-fashioned consciousness-raising has a role to play, too.

None of these approaches will be a panacea, and to some aesthetes among us, even trying to counter the bias may sound ridiculous. But the reason to seek fairness for the less glamorous isn’t just social or charitable. Our preference for beautiful people makes us poor judges of qualities that have nothing to do with physical appearance—it means that when we select employees, teachers, protégés, borrowers, and even friends, we may not really be making the best choice. It’s an embarrassing and stubborn truth—and the question is now whether, having established it, social researchers can find a way to help us level the playing field.

Harrison Bergeron, please pick up the courtesy phone.

I have an oh so innocent question for the S-M-R-T SMART leftoid equalists pushing this latest load of reality transmogrification: If, as feminists and their consanguineous misfits (hi, fat acceptors!) are constantly telling everyone, beauty is subjective, socially conditioned, and in the eye of the beholder, how is it possible to make laws that punish beautiful people? If there is no innate biologically-based beauty standard (hi, Naomi Wolf!) that is fairly universally agreed upon in practice (if not in stated principle), then there is no way to know who is ugly and who is beautiful. That job applicant you think looks like a toad could just as well look like a goddess to another interviewer. After all, “you are a big, beautiful woman”. 😆 😆

Maybe the equalists want to gum up the machinery of civilization so badly because they harbor a self-annihilating death wish absent any strong authoritarian figure to dispense the discipline they sorely need? It’s as good an explanation as any. Leftoids are like emo Jesse on a meth bender acting out a “stop me before I hurt myself” tard tragedy.

Try to imagine a world where “lookism” laws were rigorously enforced. Will there be a “Caliper General” of the United States who runs the department assigned to measuring people’s faces for closeness to the golden ratio? Who will be qualified to serve as “Beauty Judge” if beauty is a matter of personal opinion, as liberals and fatties and liberal fatties have been swearing for generations? I can tell you if I were a hot babe I wouldn’t want a jury of jackal-faced feminists sitting in judgment of my pretty face. That’s enough psychotically bitter, self-loathing baggage projected onto me to make me persona non grata at any company afraid of attracting attention from malicious government operatives tasked with creating a better, fairer world.

The opportunity for gaming a lookism system created by liberals chin-deep in their self-contradictions is tremendous. Picture a handsome dude at a job interview or admissions office with a cadre of paid witnesses at his side to testify to his ugliness. “Ma’am, the dude is an ugly mofo. Just look at that jaunty cowlick. Have you seen a more repulsive deformity?”, “I wouldn’t touch him with a ten foot pole. And I know from hunkiness!”, “Ugh, I need a vomit bag. Go ahead. Measure my pupil dilation if you don’t believe me.”

Or maybe an ugly woman will be sitting in an EEOC anti-discrimination government office, and she has brought a penile plethysmograph and a male subject to make her case that his limp member proves she is the ugliest of them all, and she deserves recompense for suffering a lifetime under the cold gaze of looks privilege. Or maybe hot chicks start showing up to job interviews wearing potato sacks. (Won’t help. They’ll still look better than well-dressed fugs.) What will happen when master system gamers bring hard data to the table showing that beauty and smarts and charisma correlate, and thus there’s good reason why people naturally favor the beautiful? Or when the obvious logical connection is made that people shouldn’t be punished for an advantage in life they had no control over receiving? (hi, IQ denialists!)

You can see where this will lead: a mountain of lawsuits claiming reverse discrimination based on a misleading, subjective experience of beauty; an anti-anti-lookism argument, however tactically disingenuous, to which liberals who created the anti-lookism laws will have no counter, without transparently betraying their very own cherished beliefs and principles. Never underestimate the scope of the infinite logic traps into which equalists are capable of boxing themselves. You have entered… The Dissonance Zone.

The only way an anti-lookism legal apparatus could conceivably “work” — that is, operate long enough to generate substantial revenues for interested lawyerly middlemen —  without instantly imploding from internal contradictions is if liberals admit that beauty is objective and thus measurable with precision instruments. Without that cave on one of the liberal core tenets — without that craven loss of leftoid face — an anti-lookism bureaucracy won’t last any longer than the first lawsuit filed by an aggrieved hottie which claims beauty is a personal experience that can vary depending on the person observing it. The platitudes and pretty lies that so entrance liberals will ring like a symphony in the Courtroom of Playing Field Leveling, deafening liberals with their own dulcet ear poison. Oh, the irony, it is delicious.

Even were liberals to happily and expediently kick out a major pillar girding their ideology and proclaim in the interest of wallet-fattening litigiousness that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder but is an objective fact of biology and cosmic law, there would still be no way for “anti-lookism” laws to survive their intrinsic parodical nature. For as soon as liberals admit that beauty has a factual, objective basis they will be forced, by circumstance or by subversion, to also admit that other unequal distributions of favorable human traits have a sound, objective biological basis… and then the whole goddamn house of equalist cards comes crashing down in the ensuing rush for biological inequality reparations and anti-discrimination compensation. And once that path is taken, illimitable chaos must follow in its wake. The body politic will be bled dry, or it will seize a rationale for eugenics.

Coerced eugenics, if you think about it, is the logical end game of equalism.

I predict that the advocate of lookism laws in that article is a beautiful woman who feels guilty for catching breaks in life, and wants to atone for her sins. To satisfy my curiosity, I found her photo to see if I’m right.

Curses! Foiled again!

Equalists, I’ll make this very simple for you: Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Read Full Post »

The Nuts And Bolts Of Cathedral Indoctrination

The Cathedral — the term of art for the social and political apparatuses of equalist progressivism — is mentioned in the abstract quite a bit at Dark Enlightenment idea factories, but seldom are the actual, unholy workings of the Cathedral’s machinery explored in excruciating detail. This post sets to rectify that oversight. Reach for your vomit bag, because what you’re about to watch is a video of the nuts and bolts of Cathedral indoctrination. We are about to descend into the Ninth Circle, a place reserved for the vilest of sinners…

The subject is the Common Core educational reading and writing recommendations for primary age students in the state of Utah. Primary age is first grade — 6 year old children. It’s never too early to infect curious minds with distilled evil.

Right from the get-go, look at that book cover and tally the number of Cathedral propaganda symbols (you could call it Cathedral branding): The rainbow umbrella, the three races of children (and the white representative is, of course, a girl), the invidious title (voices — they all matter!) and subtitle (“good neighbors” — don’t build fences!), and is that black kid wearing a hoodie? 😆

0:39 – “…students use their voices to advocate solutions to social problems”. And right underneath that, where it says “Central Question: What makes a good neighbor?”, it appears the Cathedral wishes to impart the lesson the the most important goal for a six year old child is to advocate for social justice.

The narrator then explains that the book teaches the teachers how to properly brainwash illuminate their charges.

1:24 – Chapter 1: “How to use emotional words… have the students use emotional words to get readers to feel so strongly about the problem that they want to do what is asked of them.” 😯 The Cathedral wants children to dispense with logic and reason in favor of emotionally charged words (i.e. “dat raciss!”) that appeal to the leftoidian exaggerated sensitivity to the moral dimensions of harm and unfaaaairness.

2:34 – “By stating the worst that could happen, if the company builds houses, the writer appeals to the readers’ feelings of anger.” When I first read this, I thought this excerpted red part was supposed to be a message to the kiddies about what NOT to do. Then that sinking feel came over me as I realized it’s actually an Alinskian call to arms to load up the kids’ brains with effective agit-prop. Gotta love the anti-capitalism touch, too.

3:20 – “Emotional Words.” The verdict is out: Education has become a cat lady ghetto. Boys and their unique way of thinking are cast to the icy wastelands, where hairy-armed, manjawed gorgons wielding bullwhips break them over the psy ops wheel until total obeisance to the feminist imperative is achieved. End result: John Scalzi. What is the point of this Common Core curriculum except to train a new generation in the ways of shitlib whining, passive-aggressiveness, and shrieking, womanish hysteria?

5:30 – Assessment Manual. It’s time for the children to try out their street theater tactics on their parents. Yippee! Do the kids even spell?

6:55 – More vibrant cover art. Is there even a token white boy on this cover? I guess we’ve progressed far enough to dispense with that formality.

7:15 – The goal is for teachers to measure students’ “attitudes, beliefs and dispositions”. Goodbye, budding thoughtcrime!

7:47 – “Does the student [ed: note, these are third graders] effectively use the first-person plural ‘we’ and ‘our’ to advocate ways to solve social problems?” The first thing that must die in a leftoid utopia is the individual. Can’t risk any free thinkers upsetting the narrative. The next thing that must die is straight talk.

So there you have it. Is anyone else indulging fantasies of America slipping into the sea and through the gates of hell? I mean, the Cathedral has certainly earned a place seated beside the Lord of Lies himself. It’s as if every lesson the West has learned to teach children to be virtuous citizens the Cathedral rejected and inculcates the exact opposite. Truth = lies. Beauty = ugliness.

PS Homeschool. Your children’s sanity depends on it.

Read Full Post »