Diversity + Proximity = War

In the clearest illustration yet of this infamous Chateau maxim, a new study is out showing how increased diversity in the form of bordered territory is leading to more war.

Wars steadily increase for over a century, fed by more borders and cheaper conflict.

New research by the University of Warwick and Humboldt University shows that the frequency of wars between states increased steadily from 1870 to 2001 by 2% a year on average. The research argues that conflict is being fed by economic growth and the proliferation of new borders.

We may think the world enjoyed periods of relative freedom from war between the Cold War and 9/11 but the new research by Professor Mark Harrison from at the University of Warwick’s the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, and Professor Nikolaus Wolf from Humboldt University, shows that the number of conflicts between pairs of states rose steadily from 6 per year on average between 1870 and 1913 to 17 per year in the period of the two World Wars, 31 per year in the Cold War, and 36 per year in the 1990s.

Professor Mark Harrison from the University of Warwick said: “The number of conflicts has been rising on a stable trend. Because of two world wars, the pattern is obviously disturbed between 1914 and 1945 but remarkably, after 1945 the frequency of wars resumed its upward course on pretty much the same path as before 1913.”

One of the key drivers is the number of countries, which has risen dramatically – from 47 in 1870 to 187 in 2001.

People like to form into competing groups. This natural impulse is encoded in every human being’s DNA. It is a deeply embedded encoding, and can’t be excised. It can only be controlled by authoritarian measures, i.e. ultimately at the point of a gun. More 20th century borders is likely the manifestation of these ancient desires seeking to congeal into ever smaller, and thus more closely related, human tribes, and now being free to do so. It should be no surprise to a realist of human nature that more borders would lead to more war.

Naturally, the hopelessly naive among you might ask, “Why not just dissolve borders like we are doing here in the USA? Fewer borders should mean less war, right?” Incorrect. What instead will happen — and what we are seeing happening today in the USA — is a chaotic scramble — a BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE — to form de facto borders within the essentially borderless nation. (The modern USA is the closest approximation we have to an essentially borderless nation ruled by a legitimate government. There is no way to explain the unsupervised migration of 50 million Mexicans in 30 years that starts with the premise that we have a working border mechanism in place.)

De facto internal borders are based on race, ethnicity, religion, ideology, and social status, just as hard borders. La Raza is an internal border. The Congressional Black Caucus is an internal border. Journalism is an internal border (80-90% of journalists are registered Democrats). Cosmopolitan elites are an internal border. Schools are an internal border (ever notice how students congregate in a lunchroom cafeteria? How about the quickness with which urban white elites set off for the decidedly less diverse suburbs when the kids reach schooling age?). J-Date is an internal border. NASCAR is an internal border. Libertardian blogs are an internal border. Gay Pride and Puerto Rican Day parades are internal borders. Gerrymandered districts are internal borders. Neighborhoods are internal borders. Of course, one notable group has no recognized internal border at all. And we know what happens to undefended, borderless lands: they get overrun.

Active wars of bloodshed might not be the result of such internal border-making (though don’t count your ammo before it’s fired), but all the political machinations and propaganda of hot wars are there in spades in our relatively bloodless diversity wars. The only thing missing is the stack of dead, uniformed bodies. “Uniformed” being the operative word here.

A country as (formerly) gifted with human capital as the USA can live with a little bit of diversity. But like every other nation on earth, beholden as we all are to our Darwinian overlord, it can’t live with a lot of it. We’ll soon find that out.

Read Full Post »

Girl Admits She Loathes Niceguy “Boyfriend”

This email, assuming it’s not fake, has been making the rounds (via Instapundit):

I have been seeing a guy for seven months now. He is a nice guy — probably the nicest guy I ever dated — very caring, respectful and treats me like a lady (brings me flowers unexpectedly, watches horror movies even though he doesn’t like them). Before him, I dated guys who were unavailable or just with me for all the wrong reasons. I started dating him four months [after] a break-up with a guy I was madly in love with and I still think of him.

My problem is that I am not sexually attracted to this nicest guy in the world and I feel super guilty about it. I don’t know what’s wrong with me; I feel like a horrible and shallow person by saying this but I am not attracted to his body type. We haven’t had sex, and we rarely kiss when he tries to make out with me (I usually have to force myself when we do). He has asked me on several occasions if I am not attracted to him and I have always lied and said that I am and that I am not ready to have sex, but the truth is I am not ready to have sex with him.

Recently he has introduced me to his family and has even mentioned the “love” and “marriage” words, and now I am confused and afraid that I am far to into it to just tell him that I am not into him. I don’t want to hurt his feelings as I believe in Karma and think that it will come back to bite me. I want to be sexually attracted to him because I think he will be a good provider and is definitely marriage material but I don’t know how to get myself there. I have read self-help books to try and seek the answer to this question but with no help. I can’t have a conversation with my girlfriends because I am afraid they will judge me. I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to end up alone or realize that he was the best thing in my life after he is gone. Please help. — Not Sexually Attracted

First, let’s get something straight. You haven’t been “seeing” a guy for seven months if you haven’t banged. At best, you’ve been hanging out with him and using him for seven months to meet your nonsexual needs. Like you might do with a friend. Or a puppy. Chicks these days need to stop redefining words that strip them of their implied meanings. That road leads to believing anal sex isn’t really sex. Or purple saguaros are actually back massagers.

Second, any man who tells a girl he loves her and wants to marry her AFTER SEVEN SEXLESS MONTHS is a leading candidate for beta of the year. Such a man wouldn’t know the first thing about how women work, and it’s no surprise that any girl stuck with a clingy loser like that would take advantage of him. We humans are programmed to prey on the weak, and this chick is no exception.

Third, never propose to a girl who writes “super guilty”.

Fourth, as a man with a pulse, you should be able to tell when a woman isn’t into kissing you. If she’s pulling backwards constantly, or making scrunchy faces like she just drank sour milk, you need to find that last ounce of dignity and walk away.

I don’t think there’s any news here that chicks love unavailable assholes and feel nothing in the vageen for genuinely nice guys. We’ve trod this territory plenty of times. Its truth is self-evident to anyone with the eyes to see. The more interesting angle, (again, assuming this email is legit), is the inside look at how easily, and without any apparent remorse, a girl will string along a beta schlub to extract emotional and material benefits from him.

Whenever the traditionalists and fembots pipe up about the innate purity of women’s sexual desire as opposed to men’s creepy and animalistic desire, it’s a good idea to helpfully remind them that the crass manipulation of a lovestruck suitor is an equal opportunity moral failing. I’d go so far as to say that using the opposite sex for favors while offering nothing in return that they want is largely the province of women who, after all, far outnumber the small wedge of alpha males who are able to successfully use women for sexual gratification. On the numbers alone, there have to be a lot more situations where a girl strings along a parade of sycophantic betas in a sexless purgatory than where a high status man strings a harem along in noncommittal sexual pleasure.

My advice to the girl who wrote the email:

Keep using your #1 herb. But don’t push it too far, or he might crack. Don’t be surprised if one day he has a Rainman freakout, his eyes wild with rage and spittle flying everywhere, the vein bulging in his neck, yelling at you for some trivial infraction that finally puts him over the edge.

My advice to the beta protagonist:

Grow a pair. Quit her.

My advice if this email was fake:

Thanks for the springboard.

Read Full Post »

Obama Is Not Dumb

Obama waited to announce a pro-Palestinian/Arab friendly policy after righteous vengeance was visited upon Osama Bin Laden. This timing has inoculated him against charges of being soft on Islamists, and has granted him leverage to push a policy that otherwise would have been perceived as being pro-Muslim, particularly given Obama’s own quasi-Muslim background.

If the right wants to beat this guy in 2012, fist step is to acknowledge that, because of his understanding of human psychology, he will be a formidable foe. Unless gas hits $7/gallon.

*Note: This was not a post about the rightness or wrongness of Obama’s Middle East policy. Just an observation that personal advantage is gained not so much on the strength or morality of logical argument, but by the handicapping of political enemies.

Read Full Post »

Omega Of The Month

Readers who grapple with the concept of alpha and beta sometimes point out that betas can’t be *that* disliked by women, since many of them do eventually manage to marry women on the depreciating side of their sexual market value. That’s true. Although betas struggle through their teens and twenties to get any attention from chicks star-struck by badboy alphas, they simply wait it out and land the chunky princess of their dreams when she’s nearing 30 and fretting about her expiration.

So, no, betas, while not exactly lighting a flame in women’s hearts, are not universally disliked by women. That distinction belongs to omegas.

What is the omega male? This is the man who is so physically or socially revolting that he actively repulses women from all strata of the sexual market. Even the fat chicks and frazzled single moms run away in fear and terror. The omega male is the man who cannot get ANY woman without paying for it, except the absolute filthiest, fattest and fugliest of the dregs. He is almost guaranteed to live a life of involuntary celibacy if he maintains any sort of standards for himself. When he decides that sexual relief is more important than standards, he will hook up with a waddling terrabeast sprouting wiry hair from a chin mole or a leprotic methhead who makes him look normal in comparison.

But why explain it when a picture can tell a thousand words? Behold… the omega male! (Omega female included at no extra charge.)

This photo is from a newspaper story about people who like to dress up and act like infants while they collect disability benefits from the government. (Data point #2,453,789 in the decline of America.) This omega male is nestling, Oedipally, in the blubbery boobies of his morbidly obese “girlfriend” who takes care of him as if she was his doting mother. He sips from a baby bottle and sleeps in an oversized crib (fashioned out of a piano case).

Losers like this are funny to laugh at until there are a lot of them, at which point the beauty is sucked out of the world and lawyercunts start to look like desirable girlfriend material.

I would have to say that for a guy like this, game will not help him. At least, not while a baby bottle is suctioned to his lips. News from the construction workers who had to reinforce their apartment floor with steel rebar is that neither of them has seen their genitals since middle school.

Read Full Post »

The Price Of Female Hypergamy

It was a banner week for alpha males. The Terminator blasted inside a housemaid and had a kid named John Connor with her ten years ago, who will grow up to defeat the evil cyborg governators under whose watch debt and native displacement exploded. The head of the IMF — some feminism-embracing leftie anti-American transnationalist open borders nutjob, no doubt — was arrested for raping a (possibly) AIDS-infected hot Muslim black chick in the mouth. (See pic of her here, courtesy of In Mala Fide.) Is it even possible to mouth rape without some modicum of consent? Women have teeth; they could just chomp down.

I won’t bother getting into the political and ideological ironies of a liberal Republican governor impregnating a Mexican and sticking it to his loyal Kennedy wife, or a good-standing member of the global illuminati raping a third world immigrant. That ground has been covered well enough on other blogs. And anyhow, it speaks for itself.

The Arnie and DSK scandals illustrate an important dynamic that is often missed in these discussions of alpha men behaving badly: female hypergamy comes with a cost. Alpha women (i.e. beautiful, young women) who are able to fulfill their hypergamous instincts often suffer negative blowback in the form of cheating partners, withdrawn love, illegitimate kids and even in extreme cases, rape.

Women who want a top dog for themselves have to be ready to take the bad with the good. Top dogs enjoy plenty of attention from women, all of them potential interlopers, and top dogs don’t face nearly the same obstacles that beta males do in the pursuit of sexual gratification. The result is that many alpha males are going to find it incredibly easy to fuck around, to have kids with maids, and to get away with raping hotel staff (until they commit their rapes in hotels owned by allies of political foes.) In other words, to utterly humiliate their loyal and loving wives.

And yet, the pull of the alpha male is so strong that many of these humiliated wives not only wearily abide the indiscretions, but they defend their cheating bastards beyond all rational reason for doing so.

Women are aware of the downside risk to winning an alpha male’s commitment in the hypergamous sweepstakes, (at least, they are subconsciously aware), and some who have the goods to get an alpha’s putative commitment will nevertheless settle in due time with a provider beta, when their looks have faded and they (conveniently) discover within themselves a well of renewed appreciation for the man who won’t stray or knock up maids. These women merely nurse a sense that sounds something like this: “Sure, my devoted herb hubbie isn’t very exciting, but christ almighty I’m pushing 40 and my emotional sanity just can’t handle another six month fling with a cheating bastard.”

But that is not nearly the majority of women. Most will instead take their chances, should they have the chance to snag an alpha, and some will wind up like poor put-upon Maria… older, wrinkly, man-jawed, no chance now in her deteriorated physical state to meet another man of the caliber of Arnold. Sure, she’ll do like most post-wall victim divorceés in these situations do, and manage to move on with her life and hamsterize that her replacement beta boyfriend is better than Arnold, but we’ll know the truth.

The Arnold scandal is interesting in another way: it holds a mirror up to our discriminatory, absurdist legal system. As Helen Smith says, what if this had been Maria’s kid? In today’s anti-male legal climate, Arnold would have been on the hook for child support if Maria had a ten year old kid by another man on the downlow. The courts and their femcunt foot soldiers would say “in the interest of the children” and “a bond has been formed” and all that self-serving horse shit that is nothing but cover for institutionalizing the second-class treatment of men. And then Arnold, still reeling from the news that Maria had been cheating on him, would suffer the additional body blow of financial responsibility for raising the bastard spawn of Maria’s infidelity.

Of course, no one can picture that same legal fate befalling Maria Shriver. There’s no court in the land that will saddle Maria with an order to pay up for Arnold’s love child. If they did, Oprah would command an army of yentas to storm the Capitol building until legislators changed the law, quaking in fear before all that female empowerment.

And yet, according to most women and their male sycophants, it’s perfectly fine, nay even morally just, to exact this same malevolent injustice upon men.

To that I give a hale and hearty FUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOUUUUUUUU.

The awesomeness of alpha males following the dictates of their genes and behaving badly with impunity is surpassed only by the audacity of feminist hypocrisy when the roles are reversed.

Read Full Post »

Why GSS Sex Questions Should Be Taken With A Flat Of Salt

The problem with sex surveys has been the same since the first white-coated experimenter got it in his head to ask women about their sex lives —

women lie about sex.

Not only do women lie about sex, but their vaginas and brains aren’t even on the same page when it comes to what they find sexually stimulating. Their own vaginas seem to be lying to them.

A study from a few years ago examined this problem and found that women lie worse than men on sex surveys, and lie about a whole host of behaviors that they are afraid might label them a slut:

Women are more likely than men to lie about their sex lives as a study reveals they routinely claim to have slept with fewer partners than they have.

The report points to discrepancies in the results of sex surveys since the Sixties which have indicated heterosexual men exaggerate the number of their partners, with British men claiming an average of 13 over their lifetime.

Yet women in the UK claim an average of nine – leading to the unlikely conclusion that the majority of Britain’s menfolk are having sex with foreign women. Similar studies elsewhere suggest that this is statistically impossible.

Until now, scientists had thought that both sexes were lying – with men inflating the number of partners and women understating them.

But the study reveals women’s embellishments include adding years to the age they claim to have lost their virginity and lying about masturbation and use of pornography. The survey in the Journal of Sex Research quizzed 96 men and 105 women. Some were told their answers were anonymous, some were told a researcher was watching and the rest were told they were being monitored by lie detector.

“Women are so sensitive about being labelled ‘whores’ that they are very reluctant to be honest about their sexual behaviour, even in supposedly anonymous surveys,” said Terri Fisher, who headed the study at Ohio State University in the US.

Women lie to cover up their sluttiness? Who woulda thunk it!

A lot of bloggers like to use GSS (General Social Survey) data to track changes in society’s sexual behavior. Many of these bloggers have found in this data evidence that American women are becoming less slutty in the past ten or twenty years. This does not jibe with my personal experience, so I knew something was amiss. I mused that perhaps American society is bifurcating into two female camps, with the urban blue state camp waving the banner of Team Slut and the religious red state camp hoisting the flag of Team Prude. Since there are more red state godly girls than there are blue state heretic hos, I figured that would account for the overall trend toward less sluttiness.

But studies like the above point out a real problem with sex survey data like that found in the GSS — women just aren’t going to tell you the truth about their sex lives under most normal circumstances, even when anonymity is guaranteed. And that may be the real reason why the GSS gurus are finding chimeras of chasteness that don’t really exist — the data are corrupt.

The only way you are going to get an accurate reading of what kind of sex lives women lead is to secretly videotape the numbers, and types, of men she bangs with her pussy or ass, blows, or pleases with an old-fashioned, because women will conveniently rationalize anything other than penis in vagina as “not really sex”.

Now that’s science I can get behind.

Read Full Post »

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 »