Proximity + Diversity = War

Just another day in Diversityland.

I think I’ll make this a regular series, simply because I love shoving it in the faces of the equalist tards and cheap chalupas revolutionaries who have intellectualized their status whoring and moral preening by carefully constructing a mountain of lies over the past fifty years.

Moral of the story: Ignore human nature at your peril. No amount of snark in the world will shield you from that reality.

Read Full Post »

The Most Beta Song Ever

“Calling You”, Blue October.

Here’s a sample of the lyrics:

Theres something that i cant quite explain
i’m so in love with you
you’ll never take that away

and if i said a hundred times before
expect a thousand more
you never take that away

well expect me to be
calling you to see
if you’re ok when i’m not around
asking if you love me
i love the way you make it sound
calling you to see
do i try too hard to make you smile
to make a smile

well i will keep calling you to see
if you’re sleepin are you dreamin and
if you’re dreamin are you dreamin of me
i cant believe
you actually picked…me

Truly puke-inducing. A non-rockstar taking the message of this song to heart would ensure himself years of involuntary celibacy. Shame, too, because it’s a catchy tune. And therein lies its nefarious power. The music lulls you into a false sense of comfortable masculinity while the lyrics fill your head with a message that would shrivel the testicles of a bull moose.

Runner-Up Beta Song:

“She’s So High”, Tal Bachman

Any nominees for most alpha song of all time? And no cheesy tunes like “Born in the USA” or anything by a 1980s hair band singing about banging chicks on car hoods or riding the road alone. Although I would accept “Hot for Teacher” as a legit contender. I got my pencil! Not sure if the early 90s grunge era qualifies. Nirvana and Pearl Jam sound superficially alpha but their messages are borderline limp-wrist. They were the emo prototypes, after all. Music in the 2000s took a decided turn for the beta, which should tell us something about the quality of “men” now populating America. Arcade Fire and MGMT make great music, but let’s face it, they’re kind of faggy. Muse might be the closest thing to an alpha band we have at the moment. (I consider rap and hip hop to be cartoon versions of alpha, which is not as bad as being beta, but not up to amused mastery levels. Rap is like the bellowing douchebag at a bar who assertively but sloppily hits on a girl, gets rejected, and then calls her a bitch.)

It’s looking more and more like the last of the great alpha songs ended sometime in the late 70s. This perfectly mirrors the general decline of America. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Read Full Post »

Why Is The FDA Moving To Ban You From Freely Accessing Your Genomic Data?

An FDA official has been caught on video in a lie under oath making claims about the research being done by genetic testing companies. The FDA is seeking to institute onerous regulations that would ban you from accessing your OWN genetic information without a doctor’s authorization, based on some flimsy justification that the data constitute a “medical device”. This is, in a word, tyrannical.

Any lover of liberty should be appalled by this move by the FDA. They — and make no mistake, the FDA poobahs are firmly entrenched members of the ruling elite; true Phase III overlords — are trying to restrict your access to your genetic profile. Want to know what your genes say? Too bad, you now need a doctor’s say-so before you can see that information. Want to know if that kid is yours? Not until a doc signs off on the testing, which, unsurprisingly, could take quite a long time after the red tape is disentangled and the lawyers have been paid.

Why is the FDA attempting this run-around basic human liberties? A few explanations jump to mind.

1. It’s the smell of money. The FDA wants to hold onto its power as reviewer and arbiter of medical information. Cheap and easy genetic testing by startup companies threatens their stranglehold over the industry, and over your right to know your own goddamned genetic profile.
2. Paternity testing is going to be big business, and the FDA and docs want in on it. As Bill said in a comment over at Steve Sailer’s site, “It’s a backdoor attempt to squeeze more money out of family law/child support issues. If any guy could send in a cheek swab of himself and his putative child to ascertain paternity in an open market, why, that’s hundreds of millions of dollars per year that would otherwise be handled by “qualified medical professional[s]” who would be assured a steady stream of court-ordered tests.”
3. The feminists are grumbling, and that’s all the excuse the power-hungry FDA needs to restrict access to one’s genetic information. As predicted right here at the Chateau, a feminist utopia is one in which quick and easy paternity testing is banned or made difficult to acquire. It’s happening right before our eyes.
4. The government (and this includes the FDA) is deathly afraid of what we all might find out by our sequenced genomes. Oh, it’s not the release of any one individual’s genome that bothers them; it’s the… ahem… impolite patterns and interpretations that can be discerned from the open knowledge of millions of sequenced genomes. The implications of this should be obvious to anyone who understands the fear that motivates the deceitful actions of the tabula rasa crowd.

Email this guy Shuren at jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov, the lead actor behind this push by the FDA to stifle knowledge. Tell him what you think of corrupt, lying bastards who try to suppress truth with the levers of the government.

You know, there was once a time when Americans could, with few exceptions, count on their government and those they elect to work for their interests, and not against them. Those days are long gone.

Read Full Post »

Is This The Future Of Sex Relations?

A reader writes:

Along the lines of the scholarship for white men, I was going into a supermarket on Saturday with a 16 YO guy who is the son of a friend. On the way in, he said exactly what I was thinking when we were approached to buy Girl Scout Cookies: “I only support groups for boys.”

His comment warmed my heart. There’s hope for the up-and-coming generation.

Is anyone surprised at this? Spend forty or fifty years rigging the social, legal and cultural apparatus of a nation to favor the advancement of women and to disparage the accomplishments and strengths of men and it’s just natural that bad blood will begin to course throught the veins of the body politic. Spite and self-interest will supersede trust and cooperation. Good job, diversity mongers.

In related news, the latest equalist howler is a Congressional report concluding that the US military is too white and too male at the top. Left off the report were the following study conclusions:

– nursing is too female
– the NBA and NFL are too black
– surrogate motherhood is too female
– sperm donors are too male
– tyrants, despots and dictators are too male
– China is too Chinese
– white men are too white

I don’t think it’s a good thing for a nation’s esprit d’unite if boys decide it is self-abasing to support girls programs, especially ones delivering a product as tasty as Girl Scout cookies. But it is understandable, and totally predictable, when the blank slate leftie loonies have had the run of the place for half a century and have been wildly successful implanting their brain disease into every crevice of polite thought and public policy. At the rate the anti-white male whores are going, we will be at each other’s throats in no time. Perhaps this is what our ruling elites want, for in the chaos they will opportunistically enrich themselves… until the day the ropes are swinging from the lampposts.

I don’t blame the kid in the reader’s anecdote for scoffing at supporting a girls’ program. In this day and age, it’s the manly thing to do.

Read Full Post »

Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome

This guy draws an interesting comparison between feminism in ancient Rome and present day America, and how the rise of feminism portends a civilization’s collapse. The parallels are chilling. Yeah, it’s Reddit, waddaya want from me? You think you’re gonna get this kind of cutting edge analysis in the New York Beta Times?

Unfortunately, feminism and future is an oxymoron (or fortunately, depending on your point-of-view), as it seems to be unsustainable on the long run.

Based on past history, it appears that a civilization that embraces feminist values will cease to exist in just a few centuries. This is why we have never seen a feminist civilization aside from very short spans at the end of the Roman empire and possibly a few other more ancient civilizations.

Reading the history of the Roman Empire brings such glaring similarities with our own civilization, it is as if human social dynamics are literally stuck in a cycle that repeats every couple thousand years (there were two matriarchical, extremely advanced civilizations: one at the end of the Roman empire, 2000 years ago, one possibly at the end of Babylon, 4000 years ago).

For those who enjoy history, here is a short recap of social changes in Rome, 2 millenia ago (most historians focus on military and political facts, but I find the social aspects just as fascinating):

• ~5 century BC: Roman civilization is a a strong patriarchy, fathers are liable for the actions of their wife and children, and have absolute authority over the family (including the power of life and death)
• ~1 century BC: Roman civilization blossoms into the most powerful and advanced civilization in the world. Material wealth is astounding, citizens (i.e.: non slaves) do not need to work. They have running water, baths and import spices from thousands of miles away. The Romans enjoy the arts and philosophy; they know and appreciate democracy, commerce, science, human rights, animal rights, children rights and women become emancipated. No-fault divorce is enacted, and quickly becomes popular by the end of the century.
• ~1-2 century AD: The family unit is destroyed. Men refuse to marry and the government tries to revive marriage with a “bachelor tax”, to no avail. Children are growing up without fathers, Roman women show little interest in raising their own children and frequently use nannies. The wealth and power of women grows very fast, while men become increasingly demotivated and engage in prostitution and vice. Prostitution and homosexuality become widespread.
• ~3-4 century AD: A moral and demographic collapse takes place, Roman population declines due to below-replacement birth-rate. Vice and massive corruption are rampant, while the new-born Catholic Religion is gaining power (it becomes the religion of the Empire in 380 AD). There is extreme economic, political and military instability: there are 25 successive emperors in half a century (many end up assassinated), the Empire is ungovernable and on the brink of civil war.
• ~5 century AD: The Empire is ruled by an elite of military men that use the Emperor as a puppet; due to massive debts and financial problems, the Empire cannot afford to hire foreign mercenaries to defend itself (Roman citizens have long ago being replaced by mercenaries in the army), and starts “selling” parts of the Empire in exchange for protection. Eventually, the mercenaries figure out that the “Emperor has no clothes”, and overrun and pillage the Empire.
• humanity falls back into the Bronze Age (think: eating squirrel meat and living in a cave); 12 centuries of religious zilotry (The Great Inquisition, Crusades) and intellectual darkness follow: science, commerce, philosophy, human rights become unknown concepts until they are rediscovered again during the Age of Enlightenment in 17th century AD.

Regarding the Babylonian civilization (~2,000 BC), we have relatively few records, but we do know that they had a very advanced civilization because we found their legislative code written down on stone tablets (yes, they had laws and tribunals, and some of today’s commercial code can even be traced back to Babylonian law). They had child support laws (which seems to indicate that there was a family breakdown), and they collapsed presumably due to a “moral breakdown” figuratively represented in the Bible as the “Tower of Babel” (which was inspired by a real tower). Interesting and controversial anecdote: some claim that the Roman Catholic Religion is nothing more than a rewriting and adaptation of an ancient Babylonian religion!

You might say Roman cultural elites experienced Robin Hanson’s switch from a farmer to a forager society. How’d that turn out for everyone?

Let’s examine the parallels more closely.

~5 century BC Rome = ~1700 – 1920 America. The family unit is essentially “father knows best”, and slutting around by women is considered the height of shameful behavior, (as is cadding about by men). Monogamy is held up as the ideal arrangement without exception. (The “Wild West” might be an exception to the general rule of the day, as whoring and hell-raising were widespread in the frontier.) Lessers look up to their betters as exemplars of moral rectitude.

~1 century BC Rome = ~1920 – 1970 America. America is rising to the height of her power, a hyperpower being born. An economic and military power heretofore unseen in all recorded history. While the world digs out from under the rubble of consecutive wars and Communist pogroms, we have a battalion of aircraft carriers, a largely homogeneous population, and cheap housing for everyone willing to put in an honest day’s work. But the poison pill has been swallowed; the suffrage movement achieves its main goal, and the dark shroud of the equalist era is about to descend. In academic halls and classrooms, lessers are pedestalized, while betters are denigrated.

~1-2 century AD Rome = 1970-2000 America. The scourge of single momhood, free and easy divorce, child support laws, majority female colleges, DADT repealed, gay marriage, game, etc etc ad infinitum. In short, the ultimate expression of anti-discrimination, anti-received wisdom, individualist ideology, (ironically buttressed by the groupthink of diversity mongers.) Lessers ignore their betters, who in turn renege on their traditional responsibility to act as examples for the lessers.

~3-4 century AD Rome = 2000-2010 America. (You’ll notice America’s progression through the stages of empire is much faster than was Rome’s. This is the blessing — or curse — of high tech mass communication.) The native stock of America, (specifically, the betters of that stock), have stopped having kids. Vice and corruption are on the rise. (See: Chicago, CRA, Goldman Sachs, neocon lies, Enron, Madoff… I could go on.) Economic and political instability are the order of the day. While America’s presidents aren’t being assassinated, our elections have been nailbiters since 2000, and partisanship is at a fevered pitch. A reborn religion called Islam threatens to co-opt the sympathies of Western societies’ rootless rejects and masculinized women. Except for the thinnest upper class slice, betters now ape the habits of their lessers.

~5 century Rome = present day America. America is ruled by an elite of cognitive jackpot winners who use the President as a puppet. Massive debt and financial chicanery is practically enshrined in law. The army is less and less filled with the demographic slice of American citizens that used to make up its ranks. Mercenaries (UN peacekeepers, bribed warlords, arm-twisted allies, recent unassimilated immigrants, and the desperate, poor and out of shape) now make up a larger part of the tip of the spear that projects American power. America is in the process of slow-motion selling off of the Southwest to appease the millions of peasant illegals it cavalierly allowed to invade and settle in the country.

The Fall of Rome = ? America.

America is having her Tower of Babel moment, and the elites applaud it when they aren’t dithering over tax code arcana or the cultural impact of snarky late night TV hosts. These parallels with Rome’s fall should make you feel queasy about the future of this nation. But you’ll quickly push aside those depressing thoughts and switch on for another lightning round of Call of Duty, figuring it’s not your problem. Until it is. Do you feel lucky, punk?

Read Full Post »

Iron Rule In TV Commercials

From a commenter over at J. Derbyshire’s National Review column:

I too have noticed the “iron rule in TV commercials”, but have refrained from mentioning it to family & friends to avoid being labeled a kook or a crank. Expanding on the rule: If a commercial includes more than one person, there will be “diversity”. The man is always the dupe, hapless moron or jerk. More than one man – it’s the white guy. Only women – it’s the white woman. I challenge anyone to find an exception to this rule!

I accept this challenge, and have enlisted a battalion of Chateau acolytes to watch hundreds of hours of TV commercials in my stead for the elusive exception to the Iron Rule of Dopey White Men in Any Scenario and Dopey White Women in Female-Only Casts. When the elusive exception is found and tagged, there will be a party at John Stewart headquarters where champagne toasts will be hoisted to the continued predominance of self-congratulatory snark.

Read Full Post »

The Psychosis Of Single Moms

What happens when unmarried women chase down noncommittal cads, get knocked up by them, give birth to illegitimate bastards, and then languish in despair as they quickly notice their material well-being, love life, and dating market value deteriorating immensely as single moms? They have mental breakdowns!

This post brought to you by the Committee of Helpful Reminders that a national 41% illegitimacy rate is bad news for modern civilization.

PS The Committee for Proven Solutions as Opposed to Feel-Good Solutions offers the following four-point plan for ending bastardy and reckless single momhood:

1. Shame

2. Ostracization

3. Elimination of all state-sponsored financial support, including but not limited to food stamps and mandated maternity leave.

4. Condoms

In this Christmas season, we should all be so fucking humanitarian as the spirit of this post.

Read Full Post »