OneSTDV

Kate Upton's Asymmetrical Kneecaps, Ugly Big Toe, and Bony Elbows - Ugh

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:39:00 +0000

This is Kate Upton (LSFW):

Yea. So let's see how male commenters on the Internet react (link NSFW). First up, the pathetic:

SHE WILL BE MINE!!!!!

wank wank wank wank wank wank wank

Came

I would make the mess on her smile.

These people have actually created accounts at the gossip webzine, What Would Tyler Durden Do?, and apparently comment on pictures of almost-naked celebrities. That's barely a step up from 'Liking' YouPr0n videos. But it gets better - behold Internet Male syndrome at its finest:

There are way hotter girls

she is an idiot and walks funny. the only reason she looks good is bc of the angles. i would push her down four flights of stairs.

Dime a dozen. I have neighbors who look better than her.

Must be Kate's asymmetrical kneecaps, huh? This behavior has actually garnered attention from the folks over at KnowYourMeme who have dubbed it "2/10 Would not Bang", described as follows:

2/10 Would Not Bang is an image macro series in which photos of physically attractive women (and occasionally men) are scrutinized for minor or imagined flaws, prefaced by an ironically low rating on a scale of one to ten. The images are meant to parody hypocritical judgments made about women’s sex appeal on the Internet.

From where does this originate? I suppose this is sort of the male rationalization hamster, illustrated in the Manosphere by the strident condemnation of fat chicks. Cast oneself as too good for even women who look like Kate Upton and implicitly engage in bragging about one's own sexual value. Unfortunately for these Internet males, their risible pickiness ultimately proves transparent; after all, men who get women who look even half as good as Kate Upton don't post comments regarding their "high standards."

Marcotte: Pop Culture and Education are Conservative

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:55:00 +0000

I recently wrote a post entitled Arguing with Passionate Liberals is Pointless, in which I noted that arguing with passionate liberals is pointless. Duke Lacrosse Investigator Amanda Marcotte illustrates why. In the linked post, Ms. Marcotte responds to Kevin Drum of leftist site Mother Jones who makes the point that teaching creationism in public high schools really doesn't matter (I made the same point as well). Ms. Marcotte takes issue with this and admittedly makes some good points along the way. But in noting the significance of imbuing children with the proper analytical skills, she makes this mind-boggling statement:

On the contrary, conservatives understand something liberals don't, which is that if you get people while they're young, you usually have them for life. This is also, incidentally, why conservatives pay more attention to pop culture than liberals. Liberals are great people---I'm one of them!---but we have a tendency towards preening individualism and therefore discount the importance of things like what's in the classroom and what's on TV because we personally feel we're iconoclasts who aren't affected by it. Which can, as in this case, cause us to neglect to remember that in fact this is the air most people breathe, and the quality of that air matters.

Read that again. Basically, she's saying that liberals have shown little interest in molding pop culture and educational curriculum and that they have little influence in these spheres, even going so far as to casting herself and other liberals as "iconoclasts." Let that sink in - Ms. Macrotte actually thinks that popular culture is conservative and that school curriculum, centralized around either the Ivory Tower (higher education) or the federal government and national education brands (secondary), is as well. Ms. Marcotte actually, truly believes this.

Once again, passionate liberals are either insane or evil, probably a little bit of both. There's simply no other explanation for this level of delusion.

Rodney King: Black Martyr

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:58:00 +0000

In honor of the death of Rodney King, I'm reposting an excerpt from How to Become a Revered Black Figure:

It appears then that the best way to attain status as a revered black figure is to get murdered by white people or become a professional racial agitator. Very few "greatest African-American" list include people who actually did something. White people make monuments to producers and innovators; black people make monuments for martyrs and rabble-rousers. Ostensibly, blacks have a far more limited class of individuals to choose from, the putative scientific or philosophical genius not exactly a common occurrence amongst blacks. But one imagines that the antagonistic nature of these glorified black figures reflects the primary motivation of the black collective. In almost all these cases, the prominent black figure does nothing but stick it to white people. Thus, blacks don't want to celebrate their own achievements, instead preferring to pay tribute to those who merely antagonize or undermine whites. In sum, it seems that the black conception of their own collective, founded more in hating whites than supporting their communities, is yet another unhealthy reality of modern black America.

While Mr. King didn't explicitly "stick it to whitey", his case justified a movement/riots for these purposes. As with all (mostly black) dysfunctional individuals, the MSM implicitly exonerates the person of any puporseful wrongdoing:

From CafeMom: [I]t's a terrible, tragic end to his very troubled life...His addictions seemed to drive his actions, and repeatedly over the years we saw him involved in a series of crimes and dangerous activities. How much of his behavior was fueled by the beating and the brain damage he suffered from it, we'll never know, because, tragically it did happen.

From LA Times: It seemed from a distance that Rodney King spent much of his adult life on the edge of death, a tragic and symbolic figure unable to cope with life, adversity and fame...a man who treaded life's treacherous currents at times but seemed often to be sinking, never free from the clutches of his many demons.

Every single article I've read on his death bemoans his "tragic" life and "battling demons." Unsurprisingly, the left is reminding America (white people) that we must reflect on the persistence of racism and the unfair stereotyping of young angels with Skittles and Iced Tea.

Cuckolded Men: Pathetic but Praiseworthy

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:43:00 +0000

On the current season of the long-running ABC reality TV show, The Bachelorette, twenty-five men are competing to win the affection of Emily Maynard. Ms. Maynard is a very attractive young woman, though it appears she has gone through extensive plastic surgery to go from country-cute to LA-glamorous. Ms. Maynard was formerly engaged to now deceased NASCAR driver Ricky Hendricks and has a six year-old daughter with her late fiancée. So basically, twenty-five men are actually willfully competing for the chance to be cuckolded.

While Ms. Maynard didn't choose to be a single mother, she is rather sensitive about the subject, as illustrated by her outburst last week. In the linked clip, one of the contestants refers to Ms. Maynard's child as "baggage" and expresses his desire that his fist child would be "his own." Ms. Maynard then confirms that he said this and proceeds to tell him to "get the fuck out."

The rest of the men, beta to the core that they are, were mostly appalled that he would say such a thing; after all, single mothers, from Murphy Browne to welfare moms, are exalted in our nation. It's a sad indictment of our collective male pride that these men would gleefully jump at the chance to raise another man's child. Is there any act more emasculating than that? Is there any better indication that a man acts desperately than courting a single mother and a child that will likely reject him?

Single motherhood persists not only due to the lack of economic incentives, but also the willing men who will take them no matter their "baggage." The radically autonomous 20-something slut knows that, in the end, the beta safety net will ultimately catch her and absolve her of her indiscretions - namely having an out of wedlock child. While woman may not act rationally...well, ever, they do often act in concordance with social pressures. If they know that no man will take them, then they may think twice before having an unplanned child.

But I'll admit that I'm being too hard on the men in these situations. While I find them pathetic, I also find them admirable and worthy of our praise. We need men like this - the kind, caring, and empathetic. We need men who will sacrifice themselves for the good of the next generation. We need men who don't allow their pride to get in the way of performing good deeds. Single mothers will exist no matter what; at the very least, we can celebrate the men who take one for the (societal) team.

The Ironic Tongue: How to be Racist in the 21st Century

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 07:58:00 +0000

The following is a guest post from Prime, former proprietor of the blog Beta Revolution. I have edited it slightly for grammar and clarity. Note that I don't necessarily agree with all of the content; I include a very brief comment at the end.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Google “John Derbyshire” and you'll see articles on his firing from no less than Forbes (Peter Brimelow’s old haunt), The New Yorker, Huffington Post, Slate, Politico, and Gawker. The young Mark Adomanis at Forbes writes:

It utterly baffles me how, in this day and age, anyone, even the most obtuse or egotistical, could possibly think that you would not be put out to pasture for authoring such a humorless, ill-informed, poorly written, and sophomoric screed about the mortal peril that white and Asian children face from African Americans.

And from David Frum for Daily Beast:

A lot of effort has been invested since 2009 to create a narrative of white endangerment and beleaguerment. The Drudge Report showcases selected local police blotters to create an impression of an intensifying criminal rampage by blacks against whites. Rush Limbaugh very explicitly describes the Obama presidency as a project of racial revenge. Fox News suggests the same idea more obliquely. The theme is taken up—with appropriate euphemism—by elected politicians and some conservative writers as well.

What's going on is obvious to all, but of course any mention of what is being done is met with indignant denials. John Derbyshire made the fatal mistake of explicitness. In so doing, he left the editors of National Review with little choice. He'd embarrassed them, and obviously he fully intended to continue embarrassing them.

Let me be Kurt, Mr. Adonis, but Derbyshire's article is anything but humorless; it's dripping with irony. It's also well-informed by the latest social statistics and, though I'm no MFA, I'd say, just a notch or two above sophomore-level writing. He's at least as clear and concise as your typical junior philosophy major.

And as for you, Mr. Frum, I agree. The entire conservative movement's program is one of razor-thin, euphemistic jive-talk. That is to say, nudge-nudge, wink-wink - you know who we're talking about when we say "cut spending on social programs." The blacks know it too.

Derb knows that mainstream conservatives toe the PC fence. He and the HBD/Steve Sailer blogosphere just relish too much in calling a spade a spade. Call it traditional scientific realism or just plain stubbornness, but these (you) guys need to get to the front of the Irony Bus. That Derb's notorious article could be read either way was the problem - like an ironic take on race relations or a racist screed against a black Golem. In the end, it just didn't hit the right notes, at least with respect to avoiding the ire of Beltway intellectuals. It was a little too raw.

Now, to "those who can see" the Emperor's naked body, Mr. Adonis's statements above are pure satire soaked in unintentional irony. He's in up past his eyeballs! He's utterly baffled, and "in this day and age!" I mean we've come so far! And within that set of persons: "even the most obtuse and egotistical"! "Could possibly think", let alone put in print!. White and Asian children should be wary of black kids??! Perish the thought... and the gated communities! And all those “good” schools and “good” neighborhoods!

That those who presently constitute "the alternative right" refuse to play ball with either the euphemistic right or the ironic left makes me think you guys just have a hard-on for being the persecuted underdog. Maybe that's the point. According to Razib's survey a couple years ago, the typical alt-right reader is (no shock) a single, college-educated white male with no offspring. If it's all about who shows up for the future, how about everyone quit complaining and hit the gym, grow a personality, and start a business? And maybe, just maybe get with The Ironic Tongue. I know it's a bitter pill, but being white isn't always Disneyland.

I used to be an "alternative right" blogger. I wasn't too active with it, but I spent much time reading other similar blogs. Too much time. Reading all the news stories about this or that black criminal or how some post-communist professor was offering courses in vaginal theory at Berkeley just got old. The fact is, even before my personal exodus from the alt-right (..quasi-white nationalism..if I may be so bold..) I said to myself, you know, if it weren't for all these blacks, I'd probably be the biggest liberal around!

...I don't have a problem with declining religiosity (I'm an atheist); I don't have a problem with homosexuals getting married or holding hands in public (I'm secure in my hetero status - let them be happy); I don't have a problem with taxing to maintain our infrastructure or to appease the poor; I don't have a problem with free expression or speech such as modern art and ridiculous feminist blogs which I don't read; and I don't have a problem with women moving up in the world, like those who are better at what we do - even though the idea admittedly still stings.

Is fear and distrust of blacks worth all this misery?

No.

Relax. Take a break from the blogs. The intelligence gap will still be there next week, but you may end up with a better life. Maybe one with a fiancee and a house? Or one as your own boss? The sky's the limit for you alt-right reader/blogger. You're young, white, and smart. Maybe you made some bad choices. Who hasn't? But we have to keep going. We can't blame personal misfortunes on the "decline of civilization." Many of us have likely been mistreated or have suffered some slight injustice, but so have most that have walked this Earth. Our ancestors did a LOT to put us in the position we are now. Lick your wounds, white man.

And get with the program. So what if the average black American ain't the smrtest? What are you going to do about it?

Joke about "the ghetto" and "urban culture" like everyone else does. You can do without the "N" word. It's no skin off your back, really. When I'm at Whole Foods in my soccer shorts with my liberal girlfriend picking up some seitan, the last thing on my mind is whether the cashier is a black or a white hipster.

Or if white race fatalism makes you cash, then go for it. But don't pretend you're Charles Martel. (And this is coming from a guy who has read Imperium, Which Way Western Man, White Power, and The Bell Curve).

Bottom line: The new meritocratic elite don’t care about race the same way you do. Multicultural globalism is creating a new worldwide hierarchy. Either you display yourself worthy of the system or you sulk in the corner while better white (and brown) people advance. It’s ironic that multiculturalism would end up eugenic. Think of it as a new selection pressure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Prime sent this to me, he said it would fit in well with some of my recent posts, presumably this one where I call many on the alt-right "miserable" and this one where I mock the blogosphere. If I may offer a generalization of Prime's above post, he seems to be advocating self-improvement individualism above despair porn conservatism. I've made this point more frequently in recent posts, but I don't necessarily agree with such a bent - that of valuing the individual over the collective. Basically, the intellectual stormtroopers, those who relish confronting societal-level malevolence such as race replacement and feminism, are a necessary component in the fight against liberalism. That some may not benefit from avoiding psychotic liberalism or even find such ruminations emotionally and mentally taxing does not diminish the good caused by the perpetually discontented. We simply can't all "go our own way" and try to tune out the noxiousness of liberalism as best we can. We need an impassioned opposition, though I agree with Prime that many would benefit from divesting themselves from the culture war's front lines and try to enjoy life just a little more.

Down There

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 07:53:00 +0000

Saturday Audience Participation

This is not from The Onion. A Congresswoman in Michigan was banned from speaking on House Floor for saying the word "vagina."

I suppose that most people still get a little uncomfortable, at least in polite company, when making explicit reference to our naughty bits (see what I did there). But referencing both male and female private parts is eventually a necessity and one that requires grace commensurate with the social context.

Today's questions: What is the appropriate term(s) for penis and vagina in general polite company? And what about other social situations, e.g. amongst male friends, in mixed company at a bar, with relatives, at work? Does anyone else hate the terms "boobs" and "junk"? What about those people who revel in using very obscure slang terminology?

Dat be Raccciiist

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:04:00 +0000

Shonda Rhimes, the creator of Grey's Anatomy (which features not one, but two genuis black surgeons), is complaining about a lack of diversity on some new show:

Hey @abcfBunheads: really? You couldn't cast even ONE young dancer of color so I could feel good about my kid watching this show? NOT ONE?

Is there some central office that bean counts "colored peoples" on every TV show? This might be a new one though - "dancer of color"; how about "harpie of color", there are plenty of them.

Two thoughts:

-Despite her backtracking, it's clear Ms. Rhimes and all the critics of that overtly racist propaganda show Girls, believes that coloreds (yes I'm going to continue using this term) can't possibly relate to a show with an all-white cast. Perhaps surprisingly, I agree. And it's settled then - the races have intractable differences that wholly separate their experiences. I'll accept leftist grousing on the "lack of diversity" if they accept the implicit notion that the races are distinct in a non-superficial way. I'll gladly make that trade-off.

-I think white people should adopt a new slogan with respect to coloreds: "Please, just leave us alone." Look, I think it's clear that whites want nothing to do with the colored peoples. Whites don't particularly hate all of the colored peoples, but whites don't really want them around. Whites have made this rather clear, as evinced by their exclusionary social enclaves and abandoning entire cities when the "vibrant" populations moved there. So, please just go away.

Arguing with Passionate Liberals is Pointless

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:43:00 +0000

Recently, I mocked the typical alt-right post in which a reactionary blogger finds an instance of liberal inanity, then dissects it by pointing to the logical flaws. Of course, the post was somewhat self-effacing because it's what I've done for the past three years (damn, three years huh?). I haven't really explained the intention of the post since then, other than the apparent attempt at some friendly chiding of my blogging peers. One primary motivation was the rather repetitive nature of reactionary discussions, a characterization that is completely orthogonal to the merit of the relevant arguments. Admittedly, pointing out the idiocy of modern liberalism is a necessary undertaking, but one inevitably leading to frustration and a strong sense of despair. Why exactly do the admirably fastidious efforts and cogent arguments of the alt-right often lead to these final outcomes? To put it bluntly, much of the modern left is psychotic.

When I speak of the modern left, I assuredly do not mean all those who vote Democrat. I need to come up with a good name for this cohort, but I'm speaking of writers and the unfortunately large commentariat at AlterNet.com, Feministing.com, Salon.com, Colorlines.com, ThinkProgress.com, Daily Kos, and other sites. I also speak of the NYT op-ed, MSNBC producers, mainstream political figures like Pelosi, DWS, and Axelrod, mercenary leftists like Van Jones, Sharpton, Tim Wise (there is not a more odious individual alive today), and most of the Ivory Tower intellectual mafia. I'd estimate (pulling number out of the air) that these people comprise about a third of the Democratic party, but they also hold many of the positions of power and primarily drive the discourse. Some idealists are still there and the ignorant Democrat-on-the-street masses remain, but the primary foil for the alt-right are contained with the above cohort.

The alt-right and the mainstream conservative blogosphere in general has spent probably millions of man-hours combatting modern leftism. But is such effort justifiable? Well, do you try to have a conversation with the panhandling homeless man or do you walk away as quickly as you can?

To answer that, consider the discussion in the Colorlines.com article I linked to yesterday. The article argued for reaching across ("around" is probably more appropriate in the given context) the cultural aisle in forming coalitions amongst coloreds and queers. The evident homophobia amongst colored communities, especially blacks, was presented as some nefarious scheme of the Right, not an obviously organic social phenomenon. In trying to paint the evil white man as the primary voice behind anti-gay sentiment, the author makes this statement:

As an organization, we have resisted false assumptions embedded in many debates about race and sexuality. We did not think that black and Latino voters made Prop 8 pass in 2010

For the purposes of the argument I'm making in this post, I'll ignore the rest of the article. Just consider this one statement, that's it. The author claims that Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage ballot initative in 2010, did not pass because of black and Latino voters. That is a statistical statement with a statistical answer. Let's take a look at the actual numbers then:

Considering only whites and Asians, Prop 8 would have failed. From a collective standpoint, the preferred social unit of modern liberalism, it's absolutely undeniable that the black (especially) and Latino vote was the reason why the proposition failed. Put another way, a very slight majority of whites and Asians have properly "evolved" on gay marriage while the black community in particular remains, at least in 2010 prior to Obama waving the rainbow flag, steadfastly "homophobic."

Yet, the author of the Colorlines article makes the indisputably untrue statement quoted above. This statement wasn't about the complexities of culture, religion, or human behavior. Her statement didn't apply to the confluence of factors that shape society and its mores; this was essentially a mathematical statement on a single, very simple event. I'm not exaggerating here - the author basically claimed that 2 + 2 = 5.

I ask then - how can we argue with someone like that? Years ago, the world's foremost champion of atheistic evolution, Richard Dawkins, resolved to stop debating creationists because they simply refuse to acknowledge basic facts of biology. He states that arguing with somehow who engages in the equivalent of holding their hands over their ears has no real purpose. Of course, we in the alt-right have a purpose, namely the protection of traditional society and the benedictions of the relevant structures. And we surely need a dedicated opposition to combat the lunacy shown, but know that you can not win.

Let me give you another example of the liberal mind. I got this tweet awhile back:

@onestdv you do have the blood of Trayvon on your hands! Right there in your tweets! Grow the fuck up, racist simpleton.

Another example from my personal history: I used to frequent a blog with a very active comment section, so much so that everyone knew each other. An extremely astute and articulate (seriously) older black woman would comment there and I genuinely admired her intellect. But once I started championing race realism, mindful to present it as a statement of averages and societal-level phenomenon, she lost her shit. I would tell her in the clearest terms possible, in big bold letters, that I was not speaking about her and that I found her a venerable individual of high intellect. I repeated this literally a hundred times; her response each time: "so you think I'm dumb because I'm black, don't you?"

A final and now infamous example from AlterNet a couple years back showcases the literal insanity of modern liberalism - exonerating your own rapist due to his being merely a tool of the white male patriarchy:

Women are not the source of their oppression; oppressive policies and the as-yet unaddressed white patriarchy which still dominates the global stage are...Not once did I envision myself becoming a receptacle for a Black man’s rage at the white world, but that is what I became. While I take issue with my brother’s behavior, I’m grateful for the experience.

Note that AlterNet is a not a backwater leftist outlet; leftist luminary Noam Chomsky posts there and many articles there are frequently cross-posted at HuffPo and Salon.

What exactly is the point of going through a slightly complicated issue with individuals of this mindset? They will never, ever, ever admit to any mildly contentious issue, like the evidently poor portrayal of men in media as bumbling buffoons. They will never, ever, ever concede the most picayune concept or view your arguments as anything but the rants of a morally diseased bigot. The impassioned leftist's brain is utterly incapable of anything but emotion and often outright insanity.

I suppose we've actually given the modern left a little too much credit; the alt-right actually believes the left is capable of engaging in a reasoned discourse. We actually believe they will consider our arguments in good faith and show a minimal amount of respect for what we value and what we have to say. We present counter-arguments on our blogs daily as if doing so will actually make a difference to these ideological zealots. Maybe I'm a little too much of an idealist, but somehow I actually kept my optimism despite reading pandagon and Feministing everyday.

Maybe pointing and laughing is the better strategy. It will probably accomplish more.

Double Whammy: Gay Colored Peoples

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:49:00 +0000

Another example of the Ragtag Coalition of Leftism: colored people and the gays. This is your America!

Instead of dissecting the article and responding to each section individually, let's just summarize what we all know is the underlying concept - white, straight conservatives are evil. The risible coalition of "coloreds" and queers is championed as a cultural and political opposition against racist whitey.

But the cunning intellectual purveyors of racial and queer leftism won't just come out and say they hate whitey. So they come up with clever ways of dog whistling their intended meaning and the ostensible target of their anger. Going through the Colorlines.com article linked above, let's see how many slogans, phrases, and buzzwords we can find that basically reduce to - white men be evil, y'all:

-racial justice and LGBT rights
-marriage equality
-emerging alliance between racial justice and LGBT organizations on a range of issues including stop and frisk...
-We know that pitting queer people against people of color is a crass and sadly effective attempt to drive a wedge between constituencies that would wield enormous power if they pursued change together.
-racial justice and LGBT people
-protecting the rights of all people
-rights in a racial justice context
-many issues that are particularly important for LGBT people of color, including employment discrimination, military policies and marriage laws
-advanced both racial justice and LGBT equality
-media circus surrounding queerness and race
-multi-dimensional social justice movement
-young LGBT activists in NYC who have fought gentrification, racial and sexual profiling, and helped to create the national network for affordable housing
-advocates on sexual politics and gender liberation in the South, integrating the struggle for racial justice
-Pride celebrations have changed American culture by making visible the hidden
-Those people need political as well as cultural power
-make all the other days of the year safer and freer

But of course, BLT and colored peoples claim that they don't hate all those racist white men; they're merely concerned with equal rights and all that other jazz. I ask then - who exactly is doing the oppressing that precludes BLT and all the other minority sandwich groups from getting their just due? If there exists an oppressed, then there must also exist an oppressor. If justice has been denied, then someone must be actively denying that justice.

Liberals love to claim that their tireless "advocacy" (read: cultural and political shakedowns) harbors no ill will towards the traditional institutions and power structures of this nation. Yet, they sure have a funny way of showing their lack of animus - by incessantly blaming the traditional for their grievances and casting the traditional as the villain in their woe-is-me leftist narrative.

[Sometimes though, they forget to dog whistle and just come out and say who they hate. See the refreshingly honest comment highlighted in this post.]

Fine, I like Unions

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:40:00 +0000

Last week, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker won his recall election. MSNBC queen-of-snark Rachel Maddow blamed this on the lack of money unions have to spend:

The Wisconsin Republicans, under Scott Walker, were using public policy to essentially dismantle public sector unions in Wisconsin. And that — however you feel about union rights in the country — it had one very practical, partisan effect, which is that the unions had been big supporters of Democratic candidates and Democratic causes and had had a lot to do with the Democratic ground game. So if they go away — in terms of whether or not that corporate money that’s disproportionately supporting Republicans can be answered — at least on the Democratic side, before there is some kind of reform, Democrats do not have a way to compete in terms of big outside money in elections. And that is the reality now in Wisconsin. It is the reality in states where they have essentially eliminated unions rights.

It's no secret that Democrats rely on unions and union workers for money and political support. It's also no secret that unions can get carried away and cause all sorts of problems in the job market. The problem for right-leaning individuals like me: I really like the concept of unions. I like the idea of workers having collective power, the only real means of combating the capriciousness of the power-hungry management class. I like that the less naturally gifted but diligent, those for whom burger-flipping is a legitimate occupational ceiling, have some other means of job protection besides their admittedly replaceable skill level. I like that unions do often buttress the rights of workers in unfair situations with bosses looking to cut corners anywhere possible.

It's unfortunate then that unions got co-opted by leftists and avaricious organizers. So imagine a Republican candidate coming out in favor of unions, framing it as I do, a way of protecting the interchangeable masses who simply can't survive in a dog eat dog world. Right-wing doctrine has largely rejected any notion of societal loyalty; they prefer the decidedly individualistic conception of America, a sort of corporation on a national scale. Bowling alone syndrome has seemingly permeated from our social connections to every aspect of life. We seem to no longer have sympathy for those in justifiably tenuous or plain bad working environments because we have no sense of collective destiny.

Don't get me wrong - the Left claims a healthy collective spirit, but we aren't so credulous as to accept it. I don't mean the status-seeking, antagonistic collectivism of leftist identity politics, I mean a genuine sympathy for the vulnerable. Instead, we get blind support for social Darwinism as if meritocracy and every-man-for-himself can save all; they're great, but not that great.

[Every so often, a commenter will claim I'm actually a big government liberal who happens to understand HBD. I don't really care for labels as, in my opinion, conservatism has little to do with tax rates and laws. I discussed this in a previous post.]

Porn as Drug Addiction and Replying to Marcotte

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:12:00 +0000

Duke Lacrosse Investigator Amanda Marcotte responds to a Salon.com advice column on a "creepy" boyfriend who watches too much porn. Marcotte, shockingly, finds a way to spin this into her feminist narrative where almost all men are creepers who prey on sexually naive younger women as a means of satiating their desire for social control as a reflection of male privilege (mouthful, huh?). I won't deign to respond to that; instead let me focus on Marcotte's callous rejection of "porn addiction":

He not only accepts at face value the concept of "porn addiction", but also everything else the letter writer rolls up into it, such as her belief that his "illness" causes him to look at other women and that masturbation itself is a manifestation of his "illness"...

Accepting that this is an illness is all kinds of messed up. What it is would be better labeled as "normal", "human", "healthy", and "get over it". The recently released DSM-V not only rejected attempts to get "sex addiction" or "porn addiction" listed, but in fact delisted the closest thing to it, "hypersexuality", putting it in the index. They should have dropped it completely, but I guess there's still enough Christianists in the therapy world with power to keep some kind of symblic nod to the idea that being horny makes you mentally ill.

Tennis instead directs this letter writer towards anti-porn hysteria, some of it emanating from our friend Naomi Wolf. He even suggests some sex-negative therapists.

In defending hedonistic sexuality (sluttiness is bitchy feminists' only means of garnering value in the sexual marketplace), Marcotte does stumble upon the correct notion that the average man's wondering eye shouldn't be characterized as illness. The willingness of the "scientific" establishment to do so, as in Tiger Woods, is yet another example of pathologizing normal male behavior, a "war on men" if you will. But Ms. Marcotte does not distinguish between healthy testosterone-fueled sexuality and the artificial manifestation offered by Internet porn. She does think men watch porn too much, but look at her reasoning (trigger warning for feminist lunacy):

Now, as will become clear, I do think a lot of men look at too much porn and have all sorts of weird sexual issues. I don't, however, think they're mentally ill. I think they just grew up with a giant heaping of male privilege and its naughty little cousin, anxious masculinity, and they're drawn to porn not because they're horny so much as it soothes them to see women being put in their place, over and over again.

According to Marcotte, men watch porn because they want to keep woman down. Note that she refuses to even consider counter explanations, derisively referring to porn addiction as an "illness", instead proferring this unbelievably short-sighted and biased elucidation. So what exactly explains the ubiquity of male porn "use" and the seemingly common addictive consumption of easily accessible pornography - well, it's basically an addiction with a hit as potent as any drug. And so the term illness would seem to apply.

A website entitled "Your Brain on Porn" is subtitled "Evolution has not prepared your brain for today's Internet porn." Here's their overview, with a few short excerpts below:

Recent research reveals that behavioral addictions (food addiction , pathological gambling, video gaming, and Internet addiction) and substance addictions involve the same fundamental mechanisms leading to a collection of shared alterations in brain anatomy and chemistry. These brain changes include:

Desensitization ("A numbed pleasure response"): Among other changes, dopamine and dopamine (D2) receptors decline in the brain's reward circuitry, leaving the addict less sensitive to pleasure, and "hungry" for dopamine-raising activities/substances of all kinds. The addict then tends to neglect interests, stimuli, and behaviors that were once of high personal relevance.

Sensitization ("A super memory of pleasure"): Rewired nerve connections cause the reward circuitry to buzz in response to addiction-related cues or thoughts. This Pavlovian memory makes the addiction more compelling than other activities in the addict's life.

Hypofrontality ("Willpower erodes"): Alterations in frontal-lobe gray matter and white matter correlate to reduced impulse control and the weakened ability to foresee consequence.

A "binge mechanism" is an evolutionary advantage in situations where survival is furthered by overriding normal satiety.

Click, click, click, masturbate, click, click, click, masturbate, click, click, click. Day in and day out, never taking a break. This can kick your binge mechanism into overdrive. Evolution never prepared your primitive brain for this kind of nonstop stimulation. Excess consumption (food or sex) is the signal to your primitive brain that you have hit the evolutionary jackpot. With continued daily over-consumption dopamine triggers the accumulation of DeltaFosb, which initiates several brain changes, including sensitization.
Overconsumption → dopamine → DeltaFosB → addiction-related changes

With respect to biological and neurochemical responses, porn is, unequivocally, a drug and thus addiction would be an apt description. In my opinion, porn is actually the most widely used and potent drug in America right now. Yet we treat it as a creepy moral deficit instead of blaming society for allowing this disease to proliferate (see my article on pop culture's soft pornization). Ms. Marcotte rejects the notion that one can blame porn, as opposed to male chauvinism, for the misbehavior of men. Of course, men can never be acted upon by an external force, they must always be held accountable for their actions even if said actions result from a debased societal ethos.

I'll finish by playing the man card. Despite her infinite wisdom, Ms. Marcotte is not a (cis-gendered) man. She does not have man parts or react to stimuli in the same manner as do men. She can not speak on behalf of men or understand the biologically-based experiences of men. In presenting her opinion on porn use, especially one dripping with such arrogance, she speaks on something which she, by virtue of her lady parts, is wholly ignorant. I suppose that wouldn't stop someone like Marcotte, but it should.

Reflections on Ferdinand Bardamu

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:31:00 +0000

Blogger Ferdinand Bardamu has retired. His group site, In Mala Fide, and its sister site, the alt-news aggregator In Bona Fide, will soon close. I was actually the first person to comment on Ferd's original site and shortly thereafter added him to my exclusive blogroll, where he stayed until earlier this week. I thoroughly enjoyed Ferd's writing, somewhat inexplicably given the content of this post. I got excited every time I saw a new post from him and I'm not just saying that as a blogging version of don't speak ill of the dead.

Yet I also criticized him often, albeit in a qualified manner because...fine, I wanted the traffic hits (more on that later). We had a brief back and forth on marriage, though our primary discord, at least from my side, was based on Ferdinand's unrepetant embrace of spiritual nihilism. A few excerpts on this issue:

I mentioned in Thursday's post that Ferdinand Bardamu has derisively referred to my "pseudo-Christian moralizing", while I've often characterized his positions as despair porn and lacking any fundamental basis. Like the Joker, those such as Ferdinand seem to merely want "to watch the world burn." Because they derive pleasure from indiscriminate destruction, generally defined, they rail against everything. They adopt a contrarian frame, with little to qualify their anger or opposition.

Ferdinand Bardamu's recent "Generation Zero" series illustrates the complete pessimism harbored by some on the reactionary Right. I've also witnessed an "I hate everything and everyone" meme sweeping through reactionary Right.

And here is where the soft-anarchsim of Ferdinand and his oft-cited ideological compatriot Matt Taibi find common ground with the rioters - they have nothing of substance to champion. They do not support a particular goal or larger objective for society. They merely want to break shit, burn shit, and steal shit. Taibi (and Ferd's) excoriation of any organized system, evinced by their disdain for everyone from elite oligarchs to conservative nationalists to globalist liberals, is exactly the sort of vague anger expressed by the rioters. Perhaps Ferd and Taibi articulate their soft-anarchism in more erudite terms, but the same baseless vitriol towards society and civilization underpin their views.

In short, Ferdinand, the blogging persona, (to put it bluntly) had no principles. Ferd had no underlying objective or societal ideal; he merely wanted to rail against the status quo. Ferd's entire output was built upon a negative frame with no basic conception of how men should actually live or how society should structure itself. He only waxed on how we shouldn't live, what we shouldn't do, and how society has failed, not how it may succeed again. In this, he fully embraced nihilism, not merely the philosophical concept based on scientific materialism, but the social concept that sees nothing of value in anything besides abject pessimism and destruction.

Am I being too harsh on Ferd, an individual who I do genuinely admire in some ways? Not really, here's his reasoning for hanging it up:

I was miserable and cranky, which was reflected both in the name of the blog and my pseudonym. I imagined myself a daring anti-hero, a ruthless teller of uncomfortable truths, a rebel sniggering at the status quo.

Which is normal. All bloggers are narcissists and attention whores, every single one [It's true.]. It’s a prerequisite for being here. We’re all little Stepan Trofimovichs, enamored with the sounds of our own voices.

My problem is that In Mala Fide no longer reflects who I am. I’m no longer subject to the conditions that led me to start blogging to begin with. I’m not in the same state of mind, and I’m tired of keeping up the charade. I’m tired of logging in twice a week and punching up articles in a voice that is no longer mine. I’m tired of the negativity and the bleakness of it all. Writing under a pen name was once liberating and freeing — now it feels confining, a straitjacket asphyxiating me and preventing me from spreading my wings.

Note also the seemingly contradictory opinions he gave voice to, both as guest posters and in his weekly linkage posts. He gave an outlet to anyone who would take it, caring not for the construction of an overarching narrative besides disparaging something, anything. In a way, Ferdinand was the ultimate political whore. It's funny then that numerous bloggers have expressed their genuine gratitude for Ferd linking to them, many even attributing their "popularity" to Ferd's magnanimity. LOL, I can't imagine Ferd ever had any particular affinity for many of these bloggers, he just knew it was a great marketing strategy.

Let me qualify the above a little bit - I don't think Ferd is at all a bad guy. In fact, I imagine we'd be good friends in real life. And I think he's a fantastically talented polemicist. But Ferd obviously got caught up in the Fight Club mentality in which utter despair seems more spiritually uplifting (and easier) than responsibility, respect, and hard work. Ferd, at least the blogging persona, is a product of the Fight Club generation, a generation that has legitimate grievances against the status quo and sees dropping out or celebrating destruction, instead of a cooperative renaissance based in principle, as the better path.

Should we forgive such individuals, living in a world that has, in many ways, abandoned, deceived, and outright undermined them? Or should we decry their nihilism as an easy way out? I don't know, but I for one am also sick of the "negativity and bleakness", the shrill complaints from both sides, the bloviators enamored with despair porn and not much else. Of course, some commenters would gladly put me in the same boat as Ferdinand, pointing to my constant stream of posts lamenting the purportedly inimical aspects of modern society. The difference - I have a (perhaps romantic) vision of society that rests on true equality and cultural health. I criticize from a frame of what would actually be positive and praiseworthy. Yes, I complain about a lot of things, but I ultimately have a positive conception of society on which that criticism is based. Am I still, like Ferd, ultimately dissatisfied with the status quo? In a way, we share a bleak worldview; yet mine comes from principle, not a reflexive rejection of...whatever.

I'll finish by wishing Ferdinand good luck in his future endeavors. Despite our differences, I have thoroughly enjoyed much of his work and hope that he finds satisfaction away from the interminably grousing masses who frequent the blogosphere.

[This is not an attack on Ferdinand the person, just the blogging persona.]

Fatherhood: Gay Edition

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:51:00 +0000

JCPenney put out a Father's Day ad featuring two gay men playing house:

That's the fatherhood promulgated by Big corporate - two gays engaging in buttsecz, raising "their" two multiracial "children." Not playing catch outside or providing a steady presence in the home, now fatherhood is limp wrists and importing playthings from Third-world countries.

I don't want to criticize the two "dads" too much, though one could view them as complicit in the propaganda campaign. Instead, consider what this says about JCPenney and the cultural loyalty of Big corporate. Well, first let's see how the company spins this transparent act:

"We want to be a store for all Americans ... We're proud that our June book honors men from diverse backgrounds who all share the joy of fatherhood."

Much like the post-modern paper generator, we can probably use a computer program to come up with these sorts of purposefully vague, dog-whistling statements from the cultural Marxists. Two keywords stand out: "all Americans" and "diverse backgrounds." How inclusive of them.

But are we, the traditionalist Right, being too sensitive here? Can't we let a bunch of fags (irony!) and their "children" have their day? Must we view every transparent act of liberalism as a pointed attack at the majority or can we just accept their words at face value, that they really just want to make everyone feel welcome? LOL, you actually think the gay mafia and other assorted leftist groups act merely for their own benefit, without an animus towards the "normalized" constructs of society? Leftism only works by destroying the established structures of society, so an evident appeal to "gay rights" is also an explicit attack on standard notions of life and how we live it, e.g. marriage between man and wife leading to biological children.

Finally, note here that it's a large company, JCPenney, putting out this ad. Mainstream conservatives, often harboring a reflexive antipathy for whatever leftists think, support corporations while these same corporations promote globalist and liberal agendas. And these same corporations act together, very often rather explicitly, thereby consolidating power and strengthening the hold of liberalism. So while Republicans want corporations to do whatever they want, the populace then becomes more and more dependent on these globalist institutions - not a good thing. So maybe we should go the leftist route and buy local. (Contradiction alert: am I the only person who actually really likes shopping at Walmart, other than my fellow patrons? They have everything you need.)

Is (2010, Middle-Class, White, Female) Love Colorblind?

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 08:47:00 +0000

In this nexus of race and sexuality, there's a large contingent of individuals, almost entirely white nerds and interloping black men, who view black men as sexual gods. Here's a recent comment from Half Sigma:

It sucks to be the 13-year-old kid who can't get a girl to attend his party. If he had been black, he would have been popular with the girls.

At the RooshV forum, "Manosphere/Game" black guys discuss the latent racism at Game sites and muse on the presumed insecurities of those rayyccciiist white losers:

Blacks are perceived as the greatest threat to them, so they get the most flack. Thousands of instances of this occur in the United States everyday (black + white interracial pairings are among the fastest growing in the country), nevermind the rest of the world. How insecure do you have to be to actually let something like this (the sexual choices of completely unrelated people) make you physically ill?

Exactly. A lot of racism when you scratch the surface is about sexual competition. It's no coincidence that a lot of white males on Roissy's blog feel most threatened by black males having sex with white females. It's always been that way, going back even to slavery. Always an underlying paranoia about black male sexuality. I'm guessing that they just see black men as serious sexual competition.

LOL. Yes, we all have little white micro-penises and our girlfriends, sisters, and other assorted female acquaintances can't get enough BBD.

Admittedly, black men exhibit more "alpha" qualities than do white men, at least in a reductionist sense. They are more physically aggressive and (besides maybe relative to Scandinavian whites) stronger. They are more sexually aggressive as well, many of them mastering the lewd catcall for dat booty. Perhaps nerds in the HBDosphere (wrongly) consider these particular characteristics as the only important aspects of sexual attraction, ignoring other factors and just plain what actually happens.

The general hypothesis is that a significant portion of white women, even middle-class and college-educated white women, are attracted to black men. Two issues arise in investigating this phenomenon. First, what is "significant" in regards to a social trend? If 1 in 10,000 white women are going crazy for DeShawn Juan, is that a significant social trend or just an anomaly? How about 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100 or 1 in 10? At what percentage does one deem a social trend "significant", especially one as inherent to our biology as sexual attraction? Second, we must distinguish between lower-class white "trash", the fatties carting around mulattoes at Walmart, and middle-class white girls from suburbia and on college campuses. Obviously, the rate for fornicating, dating, and marrying black men is different between these cohorts.

(I was going to also write on the conspicuous absence of black men, especially as romantic interests, from SWPL shows like Girls and Sex and the City, but there's plenty of meat in just looking at the numbers. A quick note though: despite pop culture being targeted primarily at women and popular media's ostensible willingness to present spurious racially-based characters, e.g. the black doctor, essentially no sitcoms have middle-class white women going after black men. Preppie banker assholes - always, black guys - almost never.)

We can look at three statistics for trying to approximate the number of white women who are sexually attracted to black men. Below, we consider black male/white female (BM/WF) marriages, cohabitation, and mixed-race births. Of course, this doesn't encompass the entire population of white women who are open to black men, but the numbers should provide a rough estimate.

I'll begin by showing marriage and cohabitation rates, then birth rates, then conclude with class data on interracial marriage.

According to this detailed Pew Research Center report on interracial marriage, BM/WF comprise 1.3% of all newlywed couples in 2010. Adding up percentages of newlywed couples with a white bride (67.1% - I will use this frequently below!), that means about 2% of white women marrying in 2010 chose a black husband. From the 2010 census (which has slightly different data since it's not newlyweds), the overall percent of married white women who chose a black husband is approximately 0.7%.

Continuing with cohabitation, which is a less serious commitment than marriage and thus perhaps more indicative of carnal sexual behavior, the following data comes from the 2010 census. Black-white pairings comprise 16% of interracial coupled households, of which there are 1.2 million out of 6.8 million total coupled households. Approximating that 65% of the total coupled households involve a white woman and 65% of black-white couplings are BM/WF (see Wiki chart linked above), this means that (rounding up) 2% of white women engaging in cohabitation have chosen a black male partner.

As for interracial births, a good proxy statistic for how much various race are fornicating with each other, we can look at both the gross biracial population and recent births. According to the 2010 census, out of 308 million people, black-white biracial individuals total about 2 million (added tri-racial), or about 0.65%, not all which come from BM/WF pairings. Out of 2010 births, this was very difficult to find, but I can make an approximation from the purposefully misleading data given here. For every 100 black infants born in 2010, there are 17 black-white biracial babies. From this, in 2010 there were about 370 white births for 100 black births. Assuming that of the 17 black-white biracial babies, about 12 are from BM/WF, about 3.5% of white women having children this year had one with a black man.

Finally, one must consider the class and economic status of the white women engaging in these affairs. We've all seen the fat, low-class white women who have no recourse but a chubby-chasing black man, so it behooves us to distinguish between the largely desirable middle-class girls and the fat and stupid lower-class. The Pew Research study gives some data on marriage and economic class and educational attainment. According to their data, a BM/WF pair in which both had college degrees comprised only 12.5% of such couplings, compared to 10.2% of black-black marriages. The BM/WF were third-lowest with respect to this metric, beating black-black and Hispanic-Hispanic, making this the least educated interracial pairing. With respect to economic class measured by total earnings, the rankings are identical, with BM/WF making an average of $53,000/year as compared to $72,000 for white women married to an Asian man and $60,000 for white women married to white men.

Given the percentages above and then considering the educational and economic numbers, we can estimate what percent of white, middle-class women are sexually attracted to black men. Or equivalently, for what percent of white, middle-class women should white men be justifiably fearful of black men as sexual competition? Averaging (by eye) the marriage, birth, and cohabitation numbers gives that roughly 2% of white women go after black men. Roughly speaking, let's split the country 50/50 between lower-class and middle-class (though note here that not everyone in the lower-class is a fat whale shopping at Walmart and not every middle-class, suburban denizen is a smart, attractive catch). Assuming further, from the given economic and educational numbers, that about 70% (out of the air, but doesn't matter too much) of white women engaging in affairs for black men are of the lower-class. This means that

less than 1.5% of middle-class white women and about 3.0% of lower-class white women are sexually attracted to black men.

Whopping numbers, huh? Hide your daughters and girlfriends!

Is this a "significant" social trend? I'll let the audience decide if the commensurate attention is actually reflective of a significant real-world phenomenon.

Liberalism and Radical Autonomy: The Savage Within

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:16:00 +0000

VFR links to a few comments at Lucianne.com in which conservatives express some sentimentality for the Bill Clinton era:

Compared to Barack Obama, even Bill Clinton comes off as refreshingly honest.

I miss Clinton … GAWD!

I’m with No. 9. I recall as a golden age, a lost Eden, the time when Clinton was as bad as it got.

Consider the last one in particular, implying that despite eight years of a "conservative" leadership, society has still regressed in the intervening years. For the purposes of this post, let's assume the above characterization is right - we're in the midst of a liberal descent into decadence and societal ruin.

One asks then if liberalism will always win, no matter what. Will conservatism inevitably lose, unable to oppose the increasingly lax and licentious initiatives put forth by the left? Are traditionalists, those of a religious or secular bent, engaging an inevitably futile effort? And if so, then why does liberalism always win out in the end despite the best efforts of the Right?

In essence, liberalism is the pursuit of carnality with no regard for the consequences, both societal and personal. A commenter here, Thordaddy, deemed this concept "radical autonomy" in which an individual acts upon his desires and only his desires. Women want sex without the associated slut label or the "danger" of having an unwanted child. Dummies and liberal arts majors want tens of thousands of dollars in student loans without any question of whether they can pay it back. Gays want unfettered promiscuity with no social consequence and a medical community that cleans up their mess by spending inordinate amounts of money on AIDS.

One could argue that the radically autonomous individual and his never-ending demands on how society must accept his excesses (loosely defined) is a manifestation of the prehistoric savage living in modern society. The savage living within us, largely restrained by the structures of modern society, but omnipresent still in our daily lives. Of course, society exists principally as a means of subduing this "beast". We have organizations and social mores in place that have proven historically viable as a means of motivating healthy behavior, allowing a bunch of civilized animals to live together in densely populated areas.

But liberalism doesn't respect the sagacity of tradition or the associated institutions which, through a historical vetting process, have shaped civilization. They want to dismantle the constructs of society - religion, traditional morality, family, and meritocracy - because they see the radically autonomous individual as the premier value. In essence, they want the savage to come out. Undermining social conservatism, which shames people into good behavior, is their best strategy.

Liberalism has no respect for the general social contract because the Left implicitly rejects the notion of society. Take for example the popular pro-abortionist catchphrase - "my body, my choice", generally used as a pithy "counterargument" against fathers who oppose abortion. The women who exclaim this essentially argue that men and women are complete separate entities with no common bond on which to base decisions. They have divested themselves from society and claim that the decision is entirely theirs. Sure, it's their body, but individuals should have some basic kinship to larger society, especially the father of their child. The "my body, my choice" crowd rejects the notion that society is collectively comprised of individuals, preferring to view each individual as a wholly autonomous entity acting in a self-defined vacuum, both moral and practical.

So will liberalism always win? In a particular way, yes because the savage within is never going anywhere. There will always be liberalism. But can conservatism still win the war??

Who Actually Understands Women?

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 07:46:00 +0000

Guess where the following quotes are taken from:

Not going to happen, nice guy. Don't even think about it; not going to happen.

Girls want something different [from guys who are their friends]. They want confidence, they want cockiness. They want danger.

They want a guy who can be their friend sometimes, not always.

If a girl knows that a lot of other girls like him too, it makes him all the more attractive. They feel like they have to chase him too. They want that mystery.

Nice guys will always finish last.

Girls like jerks.

Contrast Game, pre-selection, chicks dig jerks - must be a Game site, right? Sounds like it was cribbed from Roissy/Heartiste, right? No, it was actually taken from this YouTube video from popular Asian filmmakers Wung Fu. (YouTube put the video at the top of their homepage yesterday.)

Sure, the rest of the video is a saccharine, "nice guy gets the girl" offering with a narrative that somewhat contradicts the above statements. Nonetheless, the above statements reflect the underlying concepts of female sexual realism, a set of truths of which the vast majority of men are ignorant. Take this posting on The Chive site in which a disturbing number of male commenters fawn over a slutty attention whore:

So you're one of the most beautiful girls in the world, every man's dream, and you're changing your image so he likes you? Ditch him, his loss. Call me.

forget this guy, i'll love you!!

Never change yourself for anyone! You will only regret it!

this dude is passing the women of a lifetime. if i were him i would want to be with you everyday.

i would cherish you...

Why would any guy want a serious relationship with a girl who takes half naked photos for random dudes on the internet? [One of the only reasonable commenters on that thread.]

However You my dear are worthy of the world! This guy is a dam FOOL to pass you up

If this guy can't get his head out of his ass and realize you're a 1 in a billion catch and worth anything and everything...then he's a freakin douchenozzle of epic proportions...amazing. I'll marry you if you want!

One wonders how a bunch of brainy Asian guys came to understand women so well. After all, when one imagines the archetypal ladies man who gets women to do whatever he wants, a Don Drapper type comes to mind, not nondescript engineering majors. I explain this in a post entitled Beta Males in Hollywood Understand Women:

It's interesting to realize this - that the men who suffer from failure with women often display the best understanding of female idiosyncrasies. I suppose this happens because those that fail, especially those of an intellectual bent, are spurred to understand their failure. The desire to rationalize rejection from women becomes even stronger when these rejections occur as a result of doing exactly what women say they want - "a nice guy who will treat me right." So Hollywood attracts a certain sort of aggrieved beta male whose history of unrequited affection manifests in cutting tales of female frivolity and shallowness. Perhaps these men create the content above as a means of working through their anger/sadness, getting laughs from something that once caused them pain.

The sexual marketplace's middle-class appears most capable of cutting through the petty lies, not the hapless nerds or the natural alphas, but the nonplussed betas who have enough direct experience to do so. The nerds can't overcome their social awkwardness and resentment, while the natural alphas have no impetus for considering their success. Those in the middle, like the Asian filmmakers above, get caught in the friendzone and wish to forge a way out, the only way to do so being an unvarnished consideration of how women actually act.

[To all the anti-Gamers who inevitably comment on these posts: one can view Game either as a fastidious codification of female sexuality or a practical means of attracting women. While much controversy surrounds the purported efficacy of Game as a practical strategy, the underlying premises and sociological phenomenon are on the most solid of ground. So while the utility of Game remains a contentious subject, the scientific facts are simply unassailable.]

Wes Anderson Sucks

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 09:07:00 +0000

Saturday Audience Participation

Why do I hate Wes Anderson's movies so much?

[I really am trying to adopt more of a positive frame, but damn is it hard.]

Killing Baby Girls - Totally Cool

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:16:00 +0000

One could view the most recent pro-life initiative as calling the bluff of pro-abortionists. Congress voted yesterday on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (Prenda) which sought to ban sex-selective abortions:

The House rejected a bill to ban sex-selection abortions despite Republican calls for Congress to take a stand on a practice that has resulted in the terminations of an estimated 200 million unborn girls around the world.

Thursday’s 246-168 vote fell well short of the two-thirds needed to pass the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (Prenda) under its fast-track, suspension-of-the-rules procedure.

Twenty Democrats crossed party lines to vote for Prenda, as did seven Republicans who voted against it.

I actually applaud the pro-death Democrats here for standing by their ideological paradigm. If abortion only concerns throwing away a clump of cells, like a fingernail or a clop of hair, then any reason should suffice. Any reason whatsoever, from the seemingly rational like not being able to support the child or avoiding some dangerous health situation, to the wholly frivolous, like preferring to conceive on a Tuesday instead of a Thursday or trying to make it to five abortions (and get one free if you keep your card!).

However, while feminists understand that allowing any restriction is a bad strategy and thus most opposed the Prenda law, a majority still actually oppose the notion of sex-selective abortions. Some excerpts from Feministing and Jezebel:

Sex selection is a very legitimate and serious problem, there is no doubt about that, but using this issue to push yet another anti-choice tactic is abhorrent.

Planned Parenthood’s Leslie Kantor and Dr. Carolyn Westhoff made similar points when they describe the organization’s position on sex-selective abortion, saying that “Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias...

Planned Parenthood has responded to the footage by clarifying that sex-selective abortion is "contrary to everything our organization works for daily in communities across the country"

Worldwide, after all, sex-selective abortion is a serious problem. Live Action’s video begins by proclaiming that, globally, 100,000,000 women are missing because of infanticide and abortion.

They've also managed to twist this into a misogyny!!! issue. They basically argue that aborting female fetuses stems from society hating girls:

We condemn the gender bias that can lead to pressure to have a child of a particular sex. We are working against the root causes of abortion for sex selection including son preference and gender stereotypes.

But the talk of gender and fetuses, in conjunction with the underlying premises of pro-abortion death cults, has some very obvious logical problems. First, according to feminists, gender doesn't exist. So sex-selective abortion doesn't exist either; saying that a woman killed her baby girl fetus presumes that sex is biological and that the given fetus would grow up to be cis-gendered. Second, the fetus is not a life and thus not a girl. According to feminists, the fetus is a scab, a piece of dead skin, and thus we can not view it as the death of a girl because it's not a death. "100 million" women are not missing because they never existed in the first place; only a clump of cells in a woman's stomach existed.

As to what motivates sex-selective abortion, primarily of girls - as with everything, there's a related term for it: "gender disappointment":

Katherine Asbery was so depressed that her third child was a boy, she wouldn't even say the sex. She called him "not a girl," and spent hours crying.

She and her husband had even tried different techniques that promised to yield a girl. "That dream of what you wanted is gone, and you have to learn to live with that," she said.

Good mothers are supposed to say they are happy with a boy or a girl, as long as the baby is healthy. But gender disappointment is a very real and heartbreaking issue that affects many pregnant women.

OK good, I'm not a monster. Admittedly one of the foremost reasons I don't want kids is because I really do not want a daughter. I don't just mean I have a preference for a son; I'm legitimately afraid of being unable to love my hypothetical daughter - that's how much I would want a son. Feminists would contend this reflects society's gender value biases and I really can't argue against it, at least with any scientific evidence. At some point, we just have to sigh and lament the absurdity of most of their arguments?

Surplus Social Capital

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Thu, 31 May 2012 08:37:00 +0000

NBA superstar Dwayne Wade wore these pants prior to a playoff game last week:

Of course, in a social sense, he "got away with it." Look at his stride and his forward stare; he absolutely owns the building right now despite wearing the most ridiculous (and gay) pants possible. Sure, his social equals like teammate LeBron James (an old post in which I defend the absurd criticism of him) will engage in some friendly chiding, but I guarantee that not one security guard or team employee made fun of him. Or, more to the point, no one could mock Mr. Wade in a way that lowered Mr. Wade's social status.

In a related story, a 29 year-old female Olympian has made headlines for being a virgin. This story was then connected to the world's most famous male virgin - Jets QB Tim Tebow. Tebow has been very open about his Christian-based virginity and has not shied away from admitting to it in the most public of settings. Yet Tebow still has rabid female admirers and has been romantically linked to some of the most beautiful women in the world. Clearly, being a virgin has not stopped Tebow from being a leader of men (on the football field) and an apex ladies' man off it.

So how do these two men do it? Imagine the average man trying to pull off hot pink pants or admitting to the world that he's never been with a woman at age twenty-four. Doing so would be absolute social suicide; this average man would have absolutely no chance in the social battlefield. A recent commercial shows how it would go. The average man would be ostracized as a loser, immediately a target for rather pointed ribbing from his peers. He would have no recourse, merely put his head down and accept everyone laughing at him mercilessly.

And yet Mr. Wade and Mr. Tebow do no such thing; in fact, their social status has taken no apparent hit. These men are able to maintain their social status because they have such a surplus that these sorts of displays make very little difference. If I have a hundred million in the bank, throwing away ten grand in Vegas doesn't matter, but for the average guy, that's an entire year's rent or a decent new car. Such profligacy would prove absolutely disastrous. This notion extends to basically any social situation - those on top can almost always act with impunity. They have the upper hand not easily undermined by a temporary or less important indicator of low status. In fact, displays like Mr. Wade's choice of apparel are often an ostentatious display of one's status, a way of saying, "I'm so damn cool that I can wear pink and I'm still above everyone else."

[Another example: David Backham's wife on his high-pitched voice - "I don’t really notice that he’s got a high-pitched voice. I just think he’s so goddamn perfect that people have to find something wrong with him."]

Writing an Article on "People of Color"

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Wed, 30 May 2012 09:30:00 +0000

A few days ago, I unveiled the alt-right template for writing a blog post. Today, I give you the racial leftism template by virtue of a specific example at CNN.com. Rinku Sen writes about being a "person of color":

Nearly 30 years ago, I learned to think of myself as a person of color, and that shift changed my view of myself and my relationship to the people around me. My family came to the States in 1972 when I was five, just seven years after Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which removed bans on Asian immigration. My father was a metallurgical engineer and we lived in predominantly white factory towns in New York and Pennsylvania.

All I ever wanted was to be fully American. But everything around me, from the population to the television, taught me that being American meant being white.

Confirm your minority bona fides with a story of your personal background. Subtly whine about growing up feeling like an outsider.

I grew up with the weird mix of pandering (“You’re such a genius like all your people! Let’s skip you to seventh grade!”) and exclusion (none of the white girls showed up to my 13th birthday party, and no, they didn’t call) that I would later learn characterized the “model-minority” experience of many Asian Americans.

Popular amongst anti-white Asians - complain that whites thought you were smart. The horror!

There had been meetings and a rally, and I had skipped them all, just as I had skipped the school’s pre-orientation program for incoming students of color when I entered college. One night I was with my friends Yuko, a Japanese national who had been raised in the U.S., and Valerie, a biracial black and white woman, who wanted me to attend a rally the next day.

I gave them the 1980s version of “I’m not feeling that.” And they gave me a serious talking-to. “You’re not a minority,” Yuko said. “you’re a person of color.” I went to the rally.

Give some anecdote about your realization that whitey ain't keeping me down no more. As in Obama's "Ray" character from Dreams, connect yourself to other "oppressed" groups and individuals.

It was the first time since immigrating that I felt I belonged in an American community.

That was the moment I realized that being an American wasn’t about looking like Marcia Brady.

Take subtle shot at blond women and the "Western beauty standard."

It was about making a commitment to the community you were in, and doing all you could do to make that the most inclusive, most compassionate, most effective community possible.

I have been building multiracial social justice organizations ever since.

Make unbelievable logical error - "most inclusive...community possible" does not include whites. Note the use of anti-white code words like "multiracial social justice."

Long before the press starting talking about changing demographics, community organizers needed to connect the communities that fell under the “minority” rubric. Our specific groups were outnumbered by whites. But when we came together, the proportions shifted in a way that forced institutions to deal with us.

Cast whites as the common enemy of "people of the color."

American racial justice activists, influenced by Franz Fanon, picked up the term in the late 1970s and began to use it widely by the early 80s.

Use more code words such as "racial justice activists."

As an Indian immigrant, calling myself a person of color enabled me to identify with African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans.

The new identity freed me from the model-minority slot that I had been given by the media, politicians and by Americans themselves.

To build a multiracial movement, I had to expand my identity in a way that tied me to African Americans’ struggle to access the promise of the American dream, rather than as the ringer that would suppress that struggle.

Finish by championing the Ragtag Coalition of "African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans" and Asians, using more anti-white keywords like "struggle" (read: whitey is rayyccist) and "identity" (read: I hate all those pretty white girls).

Basically, this woman wrote an article for two purposes: to whine about her purported outcast status (do liberal women ever not write about themselves?) and, as I've been harping on for awhile now, to buttress the Ragtag Leftist Coalition. Ms. Sen is refreshingly explicit about who comprises the coalition and even presents the coalition in opposition to the white majority, i.e. "proportions shifted".

Regarding the "people of color" term - it's another obvious indicator that the person using it hates white people. Only racial leftists use the term; it's not the term in particular, such as "Ice vs Sun people", but rather the people who choose to use it. (For some reason that I can't figure out, essentially any liberal who uses the term "white folks" also hates white people, but the reasoning escapes me.)

Finally, as with every single race article posted on every single site on the Internet, the comment section is full of right-leaning racial opinions. Here's a great comment:

Rinku, Indians ARE a minority in the United States.. Most Americans are Anglos. Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans. Most of the people incarcerated in our prisons are black. These are facts.

This nation was founded and developed by European immigrants and their progeny. Your parents did not choose to immigrate to Africa, China, or South America where they would have been amongst their own majestic "people of color." They chose to immigrate to a country molded by and owned by WASPs. Get over yourself.

Let me very briefly touch upon a related idea: if Ms. Sen prefers the company of other "people of color", there are plenty of countries where she will find those groups. But of course, she doesn't; she wants to stay in the greatest country on Earth which, shockingly, was founded and developed by Europeans. I actually don't fault her and, committing some alt-right sacrilege here, I actually understand why she seeks a more multiracial society in which she feels less of an outsider. But white America also a right to their own autonomy, independent of the wishes of crusading interlopers like Ms. Sen. White America has a moral right to seek their own ends which, given their status as the founding demographic, supersedes the wishes of outsiders.

[Great idea for trolling racial leftist sites: pretend to be an earnest "anti-racist" and continually use the term "colored peoples".]

Are You Miserable?

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Tue, 29 May 2012 06:42:00 +0000

Buttboy liberal interloper 'Dave' has, in more or less words, called me a miserable person. He bases such a characterization on the content of my blog and the evident tone I express in posts. Is buttboy Dave's conclusion on my personal disposition accurate? And even so, does the personality traits of a politically biased individual have any bearing on the truth value of his opinions?

Well, let's turn the mirror around here. Do you read political websites, especially alt-right or far-left sites like AlterNet? Do you write for a political website? Do you comment at political websites? Do you find yourself noting political biases apparent in everyday media, like TV commercials and movies? Do you take great joy in cynicism regarding society as a whole, whether left or right-based? Are you unable to stop yourself from lamenting the downfall of civilization?

If you answered yes to most of those questions, you're probably a miserable person. Put another way - do you think Ryan Gosling is reading political sites and making doomsday predictions on blogspot? Not for everyone, but for the most part, the political blogosphere tends to attract the unfulfilled segment of society, those seeking a higher purpose in which to involve themselves. The political sphere, especially the alt-right and the far-left, is enamored with abject cynicism, so much so that they're essentially unable to see any good.

And those who are unable to see the good are, almost invariably, those who don't have a satisfying personal life. Those who do have a satisfying personal life don't come on the Internet to bitch and moan constantly. They, ya know, have actual lives instead of posting every single day on the Internet. Like making money and banging hot chicks, enjoying the company of good friends, raising a morally upright family, or being a local community leader. The Internet isn't just for fat losers who pleasure themselves to tiny Facebook pictures; it's for slightly less obvious losers who pleasure themselves by mocking fatties (post a picture of your hot girlfriend please) and predicting civil war.

Back to one of the questions posed up front - does the undesirable personality traits of political commenters reflect the veracity, or lack thereof, of what they say? Absolutely not. Despite the bent of many alt-right commenters, including perhaps myself, I forthrightly stand by the overarching theme of the narrative. Namely, we do live in an anti-white, anti-male, overly decadent society in which a cabal of government, academia, and media collude to make us unhealthy, poor, and uninformed. It's just that those who see it and moreso those who go so far as to engage with such vile liberalism on a daily basis, likely have some missing component in their real lives. They need a personal crusade and the vitriolic discourse, much of which is admittedly justified, reflects that desire. The truth is real, but only those who need something gravitate towards it.

A few days ago, a former alt-right blogger admitted to me that he read these sites primarily because he needed something to replace his lapsed Christianity. Sounds about right to me; why care about the unraveling of society if its all going great for me, number one? I've previously criticized this viewpoint, the "by the poolside" detachedness expressed by some alt-right personalities; I again stand by that criticism because we're trying to (re-)build a civilization in which all must participate. But only an emotionally satiated individual could hold that position and surely, given the "doom and gloom porn"-filled sphere, not many fit that description.

Let me sum this up to make my point very clear: the alt-right gets essentially everything right, but only those in need of a spiritual and emotional (safe and self-imagined) crusade would find themselves here.

"Happy" Memorial Day

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Mon, 28 May 2012 08:54:00 +0000

Despite the instant availability of information, it seems like we're completely out of touch with the realities of life and death. So "Happy" Memorial Day, everyone! (Am I being a killjoy? Maybe, but good articles at AlterNet and HuffPo agree.)

Post on My Alt-Right Blog

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Sun, 27 May 2012 08:52:00 +0000

I am writing a post on my alt-right blog. I have just encountered an example of leftist lunacy and I am very angry about it. This post will expound upon the source of my anger by articulating specific injustices inherent to leftism and the likely hypocrisy or downright inanity of the particular item in question. Depending on my mood and the type of readers who frequent my blog, the tone of the article will be fuming exasperation, aggressive enmity, detached amusement, or snarky snarkiness.

Now I will provide some background on the issue, likely including repeated links to other articles I have written in hopes that you will give me more blog hits. The background will include some overarching principle of liberalism, one that has been examined ad nauseum in this sphere and has an associated acronym or catchy neologism. Then I will segue into the particular example by challenging the five liberal readers of this blog, and purported other "haters", to try to dispute the relevant arguments.

I present the link to some article illustrating mainstream liberal bias against whites/men/white men. Now I quote the most important passage:

Race, class, gender are intrinsic to my identity. Injustices of American society coalesce in a furtively insidious manner to undermine the goals of the impoverished and the oppressed. People of Color and other groups must understand the nefarious subconscious intentions of the establishment class and continue to move forward to undermine such inequities. White men suck.

I make some snarky comment here and appeal to the readers to note the inanity of the above commentary. I dissect the above passage by pointing out the logical flaws, including a link to an un-PC study if I feel like it. Continuing, I quote another part of the leftist screed:

Liberal delusions abound in this article. Pretty much the same as every single other liberal article, detailing some imagined problem for which only anti-white/anti-male liberalism provides a suitable answer. In most cases, the animus towards whites/men/white men is bubbling under the surface; in other articles, the condemnation of the "ruling class" is more overt.

Maybe another snarky comment again, depending on the general tone of the blog. I dissect the above passage as well. One more line to quote:

Hate screed ends with some example of liberal delusion, probably alluding to the fact that some aspect of society is too white/male/white male.

Now, expressing my frustration, I lament the psychosis of modern liberalism. Understanding that ten other alt-right bloggers have written on this exact article already and that I myself have written on the theme in almost every other post, I note the concrete strategy pursued by modern liberalism. I then connect it to some larger ideal of liberalism, probably something for which I have deemed a law or borrowed one from a fellow alt-right blogger. I will also probably note the hypocrisy of the author's pronouncements, either by virtue of her own behavior or that of her elite peer group.

I now finish the article with either a defeated tone or some vague call to blogging arms, again depending on my mood and the general bent of the readership. I end the post justifiably convinced that I have disemboweled the liberal author, sort of believing that my incisive criticism will somehow abate the spread of the given liberal intellectual meme.

Fat People

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Sat, 26 May 2012 07:16:00 +0000

Saturday Audience Participation

Fat people are disgusting to look at. I don't mean chunky people - I mean really fat fatties, the kind you see at all-you-can-eat buffets and McDonald's. They're just plain gross, especially if they don't hold their weight well (for a special few fatties, there's less of a blubbery look).

But it's their problem, not mine. Other than the visual pollution, these people don't affect me. Sure, the obesity epidemic is a reflection of our nation's general decadence and sloth, but the fat people themselves matter little on a personal level.

So why then does the Manosphere hate fat people (women mostly) so much? OK, the pool of fat women disrupts the sexual marketplace, so there's that. But the amount of hatred directed at the fatties seems disproportionate.

Today's question: Why does the Internet hate fat people so much? Are fat people really that bad?

Ragtag Leftist Coalition: Immigrants and Gays

noreply@blogger.com (OneSTDV) — Fri, 25 May 2012 07:38:00 +0000

The Ragtag Leftist Coalition is implicit to essentially every liberal ideological statement and voting initiative.

[T]he Ragtag Leftist Coalition acts in a manner that preserves the full minority voting bloc and the conception of white men as the root of all evil; any dissension within the ranks would undermine the group as a whole.

The left wholly accepts, even encourages, outright animus directed at whites or men because it propels the narrative and invigorates the voting base as a collective. Yet antagonism directed within the tenuous leftist coalition would undermine the collective, a mishmash of peoples that must work together to undermine the evil white patriarchy.

In short, minority groups must band together to thwart the evil white man. But sometimes, OK most of the time, the dog whistle approach gives way to a far more "extreme" expression of the minority uprising. Note that the social, cultural, and political freedom to inveigh against an "unjust, racist, and classist" society reflects that maybe the evil white man narrative has little merit; but forget that since self-reflection has never been liberal strong suit.

At ThinkProgress, quickly becoming my new favorite site for leftist psychosis, "legendary civil rights and labor activist" Dolores Heurta (you know where this is going right?) fashions a connection between gays and immigrants:

As a community that has fought and continues to fight against bigotry and discrimination, we understand how dangerous it is to pick and choose who deserve equality and respect. Those of us who have dedicated our lives to working for immigrants’ rights and workers’ rights understand the core American value of equality under the law. A better country for immigrants is a better country for all. A better country for gays and lesbians is a better country for all. We’re all in this together.

The gay rights movement is working for many of the same basic rights and dignities that those of us in the immigrants’ rights and labor movements have been fighting for decades: workplace rights, economic security, access to opportunity. The gay community has been a strong ally for us in the quest for public policy that treats all people with respect and dignity. We will continue to do the same for them.

One presumes that the same enemy is engaging in "bigotry and discrmiination" against both immigrants and LGBT(QLFBUIVG) peoples. Wonder who that might be? The ThinkProgress author dog whistles to this effect:

Huerta also took time to recognize the important intersections between race, sexuality, and gender that are often ignored

If that wasn't explicit enough, don't worry, the first comment pretty much tells it straight:

And it isn't just gays and immigrants who are "all in this together". It's LGBT people, immigrants, people who are profiled as immigrants even though their ascendants have been here for generations, African-Americans, people with disabilities, Muslims, women, people over 50 (or any age), etc. All of us are "in this together", and we need to realize that when any of us are denied our rights as workers, as citizens, and even just as human beings, we are all diminished.

So let's recap: gays, immigrants, second-generation immigrants, blacks, handicapped people, Muslims, women, the elderly, etc are all "in this together". Once again, the left can't even hide the fact that they see white male conservatives as the common enemy and sole perpetrator of social discord. But there's more:

It's what conservatives want...to divide and conquer the groups that their policies oppress...People who are in the know, realize that racism, sexism, and homophobia have been used to prevent people from uniting against the establishment, which knows that the people when they come together are much more difficult to defeat

Anyone want to take a guess who comprises the "establishment" and who comprises the "people uniting against" it?