Sagat wrote:

If the studies are thorough, we will begin to understand differences not only in major continental groups but between ethnicities as well. Will race realists want to discover deficiencies in their group? Will there be group fractures if some ethnicities are more intelligent and less prone to crime than others?

The intra-white gap is rather interesting and always ignored.

The German IQ is a full standard deviation above that of the Serbs. How will the Serbs react when it comes known that the gap is caused mostly by genetics?

We know how Hitler reacted to the Jewish IQ average – by forbidding IQ tests. I wonder if many white groups, those scoring at the lower end, will join Third World crowds in trying to prove that IQ is a social invention that doesn’t really exist.

Thanks to Jay for this:

“Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

In 2010, GWAS fever will reach its peak. Dozens of papers will report specific genes associated with almost every imaginable trait—intelligence, personality, religiosity, sexuality, longevity, economic risk-taking, consumer preferences, leisure interests and political attitudes. The data are already collected, with DNA samples from large populations already measured for these traits. It’s just a matter of doing the statistics and writing up the papers for Nature Genetics.”

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737

Information like this is why I write this blog. I’d like the truth to be known. It really gets to me when the same people who cheer for “race is biological” suddenly reverse themselves and scream that it’s sociological when it suits them, as well as other similar intellectual dishonesty. I see people argue in an intellectually dishonest way and I think of shutting down this blog for good.

Then I get articles like that and I know why I continue to write.

Ultimately race realists will win. Those who are intellectually honest will be proven right by facts. I am done with white nationalism, just as I previously gave up on neo-cons and libertarians.

Staying true to the facts, something none of these can do when they contradict what they want to hear (as is true for the liberals as well), is what race realists try to do. If the response to my posting a peer-reviewed study that blacks have higher testosterone and drawing the obvious observation that blacks – due to testosterone, as the science shows – find it easier to build muscle is to claim that I have a black boyfriend, as racehist claimed, then WN is not worth supporting.

WN’s remember that blacks have higher testosterone when it comes to crime. They remember that T has some positive effects when it comes to attacking feminist claims that women are equally good athletes. But when we apply the same science to black-white difference, there’re childish claims of “you are gay!”, that’s not realism, that’s utter stupidity.

There are differences in intelligence, personality, physical ability. Sometimes, my group will come out ahead and sometimes behind, but I prefer to stay intellectually honest about it, rather than feed myself lies I want to hear.

The Left is probably worst of all. At least WNs support their own, which is commendable. The Left is like AIDS that tries to undermine its own organism. They freely admit, as A Conversation About Race showed, that blacks deserve their athletic success, but not that whites deserve their intellectual and business success.

How the liberals aren’t all suicidal is beyond me. If you are so horrible, such a danger to humanity, get rid of yourself. Or maybe that’s what they are doing when they are not reproducing.

It’s interesting that I got this article as I was watching the show “Meet The Natives”, about Australoid Pacific Islanders coming to the US. Did people really need genetics to know that there are vast differences? Our ancestors knew it just by having a bit of common sense, a quality sorely lacking today.

I just got this map from “White Preservationist”, which has been reproduced on Stormfront dozens of times.

One again, the AS make genetics look like a pseudoscience, undermining race realists. A cluster is just that: a cluster. And that’s what we we see here – a cluster. A cluster doesn’t mean exactly the same, as the pseudo-scientific illiterates will have you believe. My siblings, parents and children aren’t exactly the same as I am. You can tell a difference between my brother and me. But you can also tell that we are related, and the same with my other close relatives. We aren’t identical, but we can be clustered together when compared to those to whom we are not related. By taking away most of the map, the inter-ethnic gap looks bigger than it is, but that’s like not looking at the global population, just at the difference between my brother and me, and concluding that we are radically different and can’t be classified as family.

Here’s the map including all races:

The purple squares on the left are Sub-Saharan Africans. Very distinctly to the side. Sure, East Africans may be on one side and West Africans may be on the other side, but they are all clustered together and away from others.

Yellow squares and Red are Filipinos and East Asians, respectively. Again, they aren’t perfectly aligned with each other, but they are in the same cluster. Sure, the Filipinos are a little higher than the East Asians, but you can definitely see a distinct cluster of them, as well as the Yakuts (the blue circles), the people of Northeastern Russia who are not Slavic.

The light blue are the Pacific Islanders, who are related to the Indians (the light circles). As you can see, the Indians are close to Caucasians, but not exactly there. There’s closeness, but no overlap. Historically, Indians have been very hard to define racially and there was significant debate as to whether they are Caucasian.

But there’s no doubt about American Indians (Native Americans). Yellow triangles and green are North American Indians and South American Indians, respectively. Again, they aren’t perfectly together and you can see that they are somewhat different, but they are definitely in the same cluster.

Just as people historically found it hard to define the Asian Indians, they also found it hard to define North Africans. The orange circles are the Berbers. We can clearly see that they are close to Europeans, but there’s no overlap.

Going back to the Asian Indians, there were historically some groups from India that were classified as white. In gray we see the Kalash people. I am not familiar with them, so I looked them up on Wikipedia. Here’s Wikipedia’s picture of a Kalash man. As Jared Taylor said of another group, “looks white to me.” Give him American clothes and he can walk into the meeting of the Klan without anyone batting an eye. Here’s a Kalash child. Again, if you dress him in American clothes, nobody will have any doubt about his whiteness.

Here’s Wikipedia’s page for the Kalash people. All of them have blue eyes, at least on Wikipedia’s pictures. Look white to me.

The dark blue are Europeans, and the light yellowish squares are the Russians. Again, you can see some distinction, but they are in the same cluster. (It’s important to note, as you will see below, that Europeans aren’t allow the same either. The Irish and the Greeks, the Spanish and the Swedes, and even the Swedes and the Norwegians, are not identical either.)

So where are the Ashkenezi Jews? Smack in the middle of Europeans and Russians. The light blue triangles are the Ashkenazi. Clearly they are within the white cluster. If you draw a map around the Ashkenazi, as the first map above did, you can see some some difference between them and other white ethnics. This can be seen by walking outside. The Jews are different from the Russians in the same sense that the Romanians are different from the Scots. But it’s a hell of a lot harder to tell a Jew from a Russian than it is to tell Barack Obama’s father from his mother, and that’s exactly what the genetic map shows.

My family is not made up of my identical twins, but we are all in the same genetic cluster. Races work the same way. The ethnic groups within a race are not all the same, but they are far closer to each other than to others. Thus, we see a massive gap between Africans and Native Americans, but only a minor gap between East and West Africans.

Did you really need a genetic study for that? Or did you look at Barack Obama’s father and said that as an East African he looks far, far more like Michelle Robinson (a West African) than Barack Obama’s mother?

Here’s a genetic map for Northern Europeans.

If you engage in pseudo-science, you can argue that either the Irish and especially the Finns are not white. In fact, depending on how you cut the map, you can argue that any of these ethnic groups are not white. They are all distinct from one another, as one would expect because you can tell a Dutch person from a Dannish person if you are familiar with how Europeans looks. But they are in the same cluster and much closer to each other than to non-whites.

But unlike with the Jews, the Stormfront isn’t obsessed with disproving what we can see with our own eyes. I highly doubt that the above map will be posted on Stormfront every other week in an attempt to prove that the Finns are not white.

But wait, there’s more. Here’s another map that shows the Finns to be very distinct from other whites, more so than Ashkenazi Jews:

Quick, let’s go post it on Stormfront as the final proof that the Finns aren’t white.

This is a bigger map for all of Europe.

A pseudo-scientific illiterate may argue that either the Spanish or the Romanians or the Russians are not white. In fact, the Swedes are so disconnected from the rest of the Europeans that maybe they aren’t white. A non-white Scandinavians anyone?

The response will inevitably be, “but how could blond Swedes be non-white?” It’s ridiculous, but no less ridiculous than suggesting that Jews are a separate race even though you still can’t figure if Tim Geithner is or isn’t a Jew.

Based on this map, the Russians, the Finns and the Latvians are a very different race from the Spanish and the Portuguese. In fact, all European ethnic groups are distinguishable from each other genetically (as they are physically). Even in Switzerland, the French-speakers, the German-speakers and the Italian-speakers are different from each other, and even more distinctly different from other Europeans.

Using the AS argument against the Jews, one can argue that all European ethnicities are also all different races, and therefore, there’s no such thing as race.

And therein lies the problem with the anti-Semites. As always, they undermine everything race realists try to build.

There’s race realism and there’s pseudo-science, and they are in direct conflict with each other.

Hat tip of Chuck for this:

Is genetic diversity, including group diversity, among humanity’s greatest assets?

Society is ill-prepared for results from genetic research showing group variation in biologically important traits according to Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein in Nature this week.

Studies of human genetic diversity are increasingly finding evidence of biological variation among groups of people, not just among individuals. Some of these traits are superficial, such as skin colour, or non-controversial, such as lactose intolerance, but to ignore the possibility of group diversity is to do poor science and poor medicine, the Opinion authors say.

Scientists are naturally wary of making claims that may be interpreted as favouring one population group over another, especially when it comes to important biological traits such as brain biology. Some have even called for a halt to such studies of genetic diversity to prevent any misuse of the information. See previous forum discussion on Untouchable Science here.

In recent decades, ‘biological egalitarianism’ − the view that human groups have no, or very few, meaningful genetically based biological differences − has emerged as the dominant moral position say Lahn and Ebenstein. The authors argue that this position is dangerous. Instead, they urge the science community to embrace genetic diversity, including at the group level, as one of humanity’s chief assets.

What do you think?

* Are the fears of scientists who don’t wish to engage in this research natural and understandable?
* Will genetic information be misused however the debate is framed by scientists and ethicists?
* Do you steer away from controversial areas for these reasons?
* Have you ever had your work misused or misrepresented?
http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/5623

The problem that people have with genetic diversity is that it results in some people being “better” for some environments and eras. In a post-industrial society, it’s better to be able to do graduate-level science than to be running marathons. Sure, objectively the Kenyans who dominate marathons and the Jews who dominate Nobels are equal. But in the subjective world that we live in, it’s better to be smart than to be able to run.

Whites have more skills that are needed in a post-industrial society. Many of the black skills are not only outdated, but harmful in a modern world. Aggression, for instance, has a purpose, but it’s much more useful in the jungle than a modern city.

At the end of the day, you are better off being a typical white person than a typical black person in a modern society.

Why do I always get sick at the most inopportune times? When I was in school, I’d always fall ill around exam time, and nowadays, I always get sick either on the weekends or on days I already have off from work. Spending a whole day curled up on the couch watching TV and eating chicken noodle soup would be more tolerable if I got to use up one of my sick days for once. The mind is willing, but the body feels like shit.

Eh, enough of my complaining, on to the new guys:

omegaman93555 profiles the omega male.

Mark Baachman dissects common lines that women use on him and writes a slut dictionary.

Dan states eloquently that men and women are equal but different.

sparks123 describes his journey into the world of game.

Also check out Feminist Critics and Renee’s LiveJournal.

And the rest of y’all:

Prime writes on liberal biorealism.

Chuck reports on how commitment causes a woman’s sex drive to drop.

Dave from Hawaii gets disgusted by fatties with FUPAs.

Novaseeker takes down the bogus idea that all of the major religions teach the same thing.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech critiques models of Western decline and brags about how good he has it.

Roissy elucidates how to play the game when you get older.

Obsidian outlines the value of game and writes on the death of the American working class.

Whiskey analyzes the fall of Gossip Girl and Dollhouse and what it means for Hollywood.

Donald Pittenger discusses his issues with libertarianism.

Al Fin states that Detroit is an advance look at what Obama’s America will be like.

Alpha Dominance writes on the controlling and narcissistic nature of modern moms.

11minutes tells of the fall of the greatest seducer he ever knew.

Master Dogen pens a paean to beautiful women.

Anakin Niceguy criticizes evo-psych extremism.

Anoukange applies Jungian categories to men.

Alex Birch mocks the ludicrousness of anti-Americanism in Sweden.

Max looks back at his youth.

From Girl Game: LILGRL gives her recipe for pot roast and Aoefe compares dating to the stock market.

Hunter Huxley states that human nature is responsible for the doom of human civilizations.

Kimberly blames feminism for the inability of modern women to find love.

Khankrumthebulgar posts on how feminism encourages women to behave in life-endangering ways.

MarkyMark dissects an incredible Craigslist post from an incredibly deluded woman.

OneSTDV asks if we can halt the fall of the West and writes a guide to gym etiquette.

Eumaios relates his discovery of game.

Roosh rips into single women who intentionally have children.

Alkibiades gives his reasons for hating sorority rush week.

Aoefe tells the tale of her first love.

Hestia praises The Good Wife’s Guide.

Genius gives his idea for getting more Jews to marry.

Marquis realizes the ridiculousness of the unalienable right to vote.

Robert Stacy McCain defends Twitter narcissism.

Hugh MacIntyre pounds the last nail into the ADQ’s coffin.

Slumlord writes on the dilemma that dominant women face and notes the dearth of good men in the modern world.

Vera reminisces on the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Ross Jeffries blows the lid on seduction community scamsters. (Hat tip: Assanova.)

Guy White explains how Alexa works to his anti-Semitic detractors.

Richard Hoste smacks down Meghan McCain.

Ron Guhname states that abortion has a dysgenic effect on the American population.

Rod Lott lists five books with sexy covers.

Indomitable Thoughts asserts that a female-centric society is a litigious society.

Bryan Caplan gives his thoughts on the twentieth anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s fall.

Lew Rockwell asks why socialism is so popular around the world.

The Chronicle Review asks education experts whether too many people are going to college. (Hat tip: Denis Dutton.)

Agnostic identifies a proven way to empower women that runs counter to feminist claims.

Robin Hanson reports that women are evolving to be fatter and shorter.

Daniel Larison claims that the GOP will not make a comeback in 2010.

Silas Reinagel elaborates on how modern life has destroyed masculinity.

John Robb explains how globalization is changing the nature of loyalty.

Half Sigma debunks the idiocy of the phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child.”

David Goldman explains how the British government has declared Judaism to be racist.

Steve Sailer writes another column on Mad Men.

Tim Mohr reports on how the West hijacked the fall of the Berlin Wall for their own purposes.

Vox Day gets annoyed at women who whine when their men play video games.

New on the roll this week:

Hunter Huxley distinguishes between alpha and beta assholes.

Julian marvels at the cheapness of old religious books.

Sofia is back!

The Liberal Biorealist notes the hypocracy of Richard Dawkins.

Ray Sawhill reviews Sadomania. (NSFW)

Satoshi Kanazawa asks whether women want their husbands to cheat.

Also check out Kathy Farrelly’s and Kimberly’s Lament’s blogs.

Everybody else:

Prime contrasts his grandfather’s world with his own.

Female Misogynist waxes on the “all or nothing” conceit of feminism.

Chuck lays out the concept of “alpha churn.”

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech has fun with a hilarious hater.

Roissy reports on the phenomenon of rude, classless omegas.

The Elusive Wapiti makes observations on his new home.

Zdeno writes on fratire at 2 Blowhards.

Al Fin asks how Barack Obama can be so smart and stupid at the same time.

11minutes reports on the conspiracy against beta cuckolds.

Anakin Niceguy muses on marriage, maturity, and manhood.

Alex Birch writes on exploiting peoples’ vulnerabilities.

Martin Regnen lists examples of how not to be an attention whore.

Double-Minded Man comments on the different ways men and women define love.

Fabius Maximus asks why people should go to college.

Max has a laugh at Walmart condition codes.

From Girl Game: Sofia blogs on the importance of class, LILGRL outlines what makes a woman marriage material, and Aoefe laments the death of discretion.

Josh Xiong talks about his atheism.

Dennis Mangan remarks on his loss of loyalty to America.

MarkyMark takes down a woman who claims to be happier with her husband dead.

OneSTDV analyzes the defeatist attitude of the right-o-sphere. (See Dennis Mangan’s response here.)

Professor Hale gives his take on the Fort Hood shootings.

Roosh explains how rationalization hurts people.

Talleyrand defends assholery, identifies cognitive dissonance in married men, urges his readers to put themselves first, and discovers a way to end divorce.

Coldequation compares and contrasts liberal creationism with conservative creationism.

Hestia outlines the different types of love.

Marquis notes differences in how little boys and girls are punished for bad behavior and how this affects them when they grow up.

Chip Smith reports on the phenomenon of women having sex with their gay boyfriends.

Thursday critiques “liberaltarianism“.

HBD Girl differentiates between fickleness and playfulness.

Obsidian urges men to look at things from a woman’s point of view.

Robert Stacy McCain tells tales of his adventures in the Adirondacks.

Slumlord analyzes The Sex Diaries.

Hugh MacIntyre reports on the collapse of Quebec’s only conservative political party, the Action démocratique du Québec.

Gerard O’Neill speculates that the future will favor men over women.

Tyler details how to get what you want from women.

G Manifesto writes a guide to dating multiple women at the same time.

Unfrozen Caveman relays a comment from a guy who’s given up on women.

Guy White notes the new trend of fugly women being aggressive sexually.

Richard Hoste reviews SuperFreakonomics.

Spoony takes a look back at System Shock.

Bruce Grossman reviews three vintage Harlequin novels.

Bryan Caplan writes on what he doesn’t like about Singapore.

Art Carden deconstructs popular objections to capitalism.

Agnostic asks why college kids are so boring these days.

Eolake Stobblehouse comments on map “trap streets”.

David J. Balan criticizes the logical basis of arguments in favor of disciplining children.

William Lind praises the Swedish military.

Emach mocks a Playmate who claims that posing naked is a form of female empowerment.

Larry Arnhart asks whether might makes right.

Jim Kunstler reports on Goldman Sachs’ government-supported rape of America.

Fjordman muses on the role IQ plays in waging war.

Half Sigma claims that supporting families means supporting abortion and argues that pro-lifers are destroying the Republican Party’s future.

Joe Bageant prints a letter from a brainwashed American sheeple.

Burt Blumert explains how men are losing the war of the sexes.

Mark Richardson posits liberalism as the last remaining extremist ideology.

David Lindsay claims that the rise of Doug Hoffman signals the fall of the GOP.

Will Grigg asserts that new federal hate crime legislation is an assault on liberty and that it will kill more people then it saves.

David Goldman attacks Obama’s absurd foreign policy and states that socialism won’t save the economy.

Ellison Lodge takes a look at the GOP’s idiotic new website.

Steve Sailer analyzes Mad Men.

Tim Worstall writes on the sex tape stupidity of Carrie Prejean.

Peter Brimelow compares the success of Doug Hoffman’s campaign to the ascendancy of Goldwater and Reagan conservatism.

Paul Belien reports on the conquest of Europe by Belgium.

Takuan Seiyo charts the liquidation of the United States.

John Dolan praises Lord Byron.

PLEASUREMAN theorizes why beta males are pro-gay rights and are attracted to left-wing politics in general.

Vox Day attacks the fascism of Apple computers.

Peter Frost writes on the demographic changes wrought by the Roman Empire.

Randall Parker reports on sleep deprivation’s effects on brain activity.

Regarding JC’s comment on my last blog post on “Serendipity” he called me a fickle creature. I brushed it off at first, but now he’s replied with a Roissyism:

[Fickleness] is a girly trait and a symptom of over-estrogenation, but it’s one of womankind’s blatant weaknesses, and should not be encouraged. Just as manly men are prone to the weaknesses of masculinity (war, violence) womanly women are prone to the weaknesses of femininity (indecisiveness, fickleness).

But when I actually went to the referring blog post called “The Perfect Woman” and read Roissy’s laundry list and also his more touching essay. These sections stood out describing a “perfect woman” :

…she understands the spirit of living in the moment and putting aside inconsequential worries, if she never once complains about her sneakers getting muddy or the rain messing up her hair, if she HAS PERSPECTIVE… then she is one step nearer perfection.

…

The perfect woman improvises. If things don’t go her way she won’t bitch and moan; she’ll discover new enjoyment in change. Her will is strong, but not straitjacketed.

Which encapsulates my previous post on Serendipity and what I’m looking for in a guy. Someone that can understand and appreciate living life in the moment and who has the ability to adapt in a positive way.

So, it seems like JC totally misunderstands the meaning of serendipity or is perhaps just trying to “neg” me.

What JC sees as fickleness – is really playful spontaneity, joie de vivre, and curiosity about  life – trying to seek the truth.  Maybe JC can expound more on his thinking process on how he determined that those qualities make a person especially “fickle” and how I, HBD Girl, emulate those qualities.

I guess someone like JC can see only the negative side of playfulness and serendipity — which takes a certain “je ne sais quoi.” Actually I’d call it “rigidity.” Remaining rigid in your beliefs (dogmatic) and not wanting to learn from other points of views would be a sad existence. It’s also not a great way to adapt to waves of life we are given.

The more playful curious side of me allowed me to become interested in the ideas of HBD. It was quite a stretch to push my PC-side (and I’ll admit resistance at first) but ultimately I have an unquenchable curiosity for getting closer to the truth about our world — this is what led me to explore the HBD viewpoint.

There is ying and yang in life. We all live along the spectrum of rigidity-flexibility in our lives. Some live more on the far rigid side (maybe more men as JC hypothesizes) and others on the far flexible side.  A tall bamboo, which is strong and sturdy, also sways in the wind — if it didn’t it would end up breaking with the winds. Likewise, a bamboo needs to have some structure to hold its shape, otherwise it would be floppy and not be able to reach for the sunlight. I hope that I never become rigid in my ways and happy with the status quo. I want to be growing, morphing and changing, and challenging myself. I will also carry my ideas and values that provide structure to my life.

Learn to be here in the present. Embrace what you have right now, be it your friends, your family, your health, or anything else. Make the most of the opportunities you’ve been given, and don’t take your mind for granted. Continue to grow and to create new neural pathways in your brain. Don’t shut yourself off from exploring more in life, from meeting new people, from becoming more engaged in this world. Live life to its fullest as a human being.

Nikcrit wrote: “Guy, the following quote comes from jay on a recent thread; i humbly suggest we use it for the basis of a new thread — as the ambiguity about whether or not HBD is in blacks best interest, or, indeed, it’s hostile to those interests, seems to be unclear and is stated in one or the other opposing ways in quite a few different instances.
here’s the quote:

“If blacks read a scientific HBD site that marshaled vast amounts of data supporting the group differences hypothesis they’d be convinced? I don’t think so.
Is the point that we should create a political alliance between blacks and whites to increase black functionality? Good luck! It’s been tried, and is failing.

HBD/realism isn’t for whites and blacks to form a political alliance so that they can effect some changes which will help blacks to function better.

The political implication of HBD is: Race realist whites have to come to the realization that their very survival in the US is imperiled, and they must organize as whites and fight back. That the survival of the US depends upon them. We won’t have a country that is majority African-Hispanic.

This has nothing to do with “political maneuvering” and making nice to blacks.”
- Jay

This is a good topic to discuss. I am personally with Jay on this one. Consider the other side of this coin. All the peer reviewed data suggests that blacks (with exception of the malnutrioned ones) have higher testosterone than whites. Blacks build muscle faster and it’s more defined.

When I wrote that on this blog, the “racehist” blog claimed that I must have a black boyfriend and I just can’t control my homosexual desire for black men. (Just as in response to my argument on the Jews, Prozium and his bunch suggested that my wife is Jewish. Maybe I am cheating on my Jewish wife with a black guy, I don’t know…)

If the so-called realist blogger (racehist) responds with a ridiculous personal attack, why should we expect a different response from someone who doesn’t even know what the letters “HBD” mean?

Why should blacks ever admit that evidence shows that whites have a higher average IQ when whites don’t admit that blacks are more athletic or that Jews have a higher IQ?

I see blacks denying HBD when they lose just as the WN deny HBD when they don’t come out on top.

About 15 years ago, I remember reading in the US News & World Report (I think) that most blacks believe they are physically superior to whites. I believe that. Blacks who felt they could be honest and politically incorrect with me mostly told me this.

A couple years ago I hired a black personal trainer. After a few weeks I asked how long it took him to get built. He said, “You can’t compare yourself to me. We blacks have much better chemistry than whites.”

“So you think whites have bad chemistry?” I asked.

“No, whites are ok, just not as good as blacks. Asians, they have terrible chemistry. A Chinese guy comes here and starts by pushing 150 pounds with his legs. Half a year later, he’s still pushing 200 pounds no matter what I do.”

So blacks do acknowledge HBD… when they come out ahead. Just as WN acknowledge it only when whites come out on top.

I am not, therefore, not at all optimistic about HBD spreading. I was fairly optimistic when I started this blog, but after my battles on Jewish IQ and black testosterone, I can’t imagine HBD gaining popularity.

People of all races will cherry pick facts to argue that they are the best. As somebody said, every nation thinks it’s the best and all of them are right.

From the new guys:

Obsidian says it’s much easier for women to get laid.

Double-Minded Man muses on his former life as a nice guy.

Sonic Charmer notes the correlation between progressivism and whiteness.

Genius comments on Israeli girls’ lack of femininity, pens a guide to men’s room etiquette, and shares my taste in sexytime music.

Gerard O’Neill writes on the consequences of a potential “grey flight” from Ireland.

Indomitable Thoughts revels in kicking women off of the pedestal.

And the rest:

Cless Alvein coins a new term for our sexual dystopia.

Prime relates what Dr. James Watson has taught him.

Chuck writes on the feminist conspiracy to destroy organized sports.

Dave from Hawaii shares his thoughts on the death of femininity.

Novaseeker reports on two related cases of feminist kvetching.

Roissy takes those who doubt the power of game to task.

The Elusive Wapiti argues against government marriage.

Zdeno pens another guest post at 2 Blowhards on fixing the university system.

Al Fin reports on Europe’s demographic future.

Alpha Dominance details how women misrepresent themselves in order to get men to commit.

11minutes explains why sluts are shamed and studs are saluted.

Anakin Niceguy says there is no such thing as involuntary celibacy.

Alex Birch tells guys to man up and inveighs against Randism.

Frank Azzurro reviews Total Recall.

Φ gives his thoughts on the biopic Notorious.

Fabius Maximus analyzes the collapse of the Old Media.

FeministX tells us why she hates sports.

Fishersville Mike compares Doug Hoffman to Barack Obama.

Three posts from Girl Game: Aoefe talks about kissing, Bhetti writes on temperateness and tempestuousness in relationships, and LovelySexyBeauty analyzes the bitch shield.

Trumwill argues against following your dreams.

Khankrumthebulgar muses on Gore Vidal calling Roman Polanski’s victim a “hooker” and other issues.

Dennis Mangan presents evolution as a asset for reactionaries.

HVanDerMerwe explains why you shouldn’t marry women over 25.

OneSTDV writes on left-wing pessimism.

Rake analyzes a day game approach.

Pons Seclorum criticizes Glenn Beck’s characterization of Theodore Roosevelt as a progressive.

Roosh outlines eighteen reasons why guys don’t get laid.

Talleyrand retells two conversations he had with two different older men.

Alkibiades explains why there is a sexual double standard.

Ben Leonard writes on how sterilization is driving us towards an androgenous world.

Chip Smith questions the facts of the Bill Sparkman murder.

J critiques Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the Frankfurt School.

Assanova calls it quits.

Hugh MacIntyre posits the possibility of a Scottish independence referendum next year.

Slumlord talks about the limits of game.

Dylan Sauders lists the mistakes guys make on Halloween.

Eric Disco explains how to get women to chase you.

G Manifesto distinguishes between “pure game” and “tricking.”

Guy White rolls out a myth-smashing four-part series on Jewish power in the U.S.

The Audacious Epigone presents more evidence that women don’t care about non-biological science.

Tucker Max speculates on why I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell bombed at the box office.

Andromeda argues for the legalization of prostitution.

Archivist writes on how feminist beliefs enable rape.

Robert Franklin reports on the effects of fatherlessness on animal brain development.

Marc Rudov says why the GOP should try to appeal to men.

Agnostic gives a perfectly rational reason why straight guys should hate gay men.

Robert Greene releases an free e-book summarizing his newest release, The 50th Law.

Cassandra Goldman shows how laws designed to protect adolescents end up hurting them.

Emach states why China will not become a superpower and takes down the feminist absurdity of hyphenated names.

Larry Arnhart writes on Darwinism and human rights.

Silas Reinagel details how women are responsible for the current divorce epidemic.

John Robb gives advice to inquisitive youngsters.

Half Sigma opines on Judaism.

Joe Bageant contrasts the American and Mexican work ethics.

Karen De Coster blogs on the Gardasil and Cervarix scam.

Robert Higgs reports on the problems with democracy.

Mark Richardson states that feminists focusing on sex liberation are fighting a losing battle.

Will Grigg writes on how Obama is wrecking America.

John Dolan trashes Thomas Friedman’s The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

ขออภัยด้วยครับ หายไปนาน กลับมาครั้งนี้ขอเริ่มด้วย วันเกิดห้าขวบของจีน่าก่อน

ปีนี้เงียบๆ มาแบบครอบครัวๆ ส่วนตัวๆ  แต่จีน่ายิ้มแก้มปริเหมือนเดิม 

Because I’m far too lazy to keep thinking up puns that involve the word “plug,” I’m sticking with one title from here on out.

New bloggers on the roll include Bob Belvedere, who I introduced in this post. He describes himself as follows:

I like to describe myself as an 18th Century conservative.  I am not an ideologue and, therefore, do not subscribe to any ‘ist’ or ’ism’.  I want to be left alone.  I believe the Federal Government should not be allowed to take any actions not permitted by The Constitution.  State and local governments should, likewise, be bound by their constitutions and charters.  Life is absurd.  Any man who does not have at least one vice should not be trusted.  The 17th Amendment should be repealed [and possibly the 19th].  Thomas Jefferson was a blackguard.

Mr. Belvedere’s blog skillfully blends the high and the low, as evidenced by his strict adherence to Rule 5. I dig it.

Another good site, Fishersville Mike, linked me up last Sunday. The blog consists of pithy observations on politics – the best kind.

I’ve also added Sean MacCloud (who I’ve seen commenting on my site and at The Spearhead), Luv(sic) (same), Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart (linked at Chuck’s place), Joe Bageant (forgot where, but I’ve been meaning to read his book Deer Hunting with Jesus for some time – Fred Reed has a good review), Everyday Thoughts on Life (linked at Novaseeker’s), Instapundit (which I’ve started reading again), and The Sartorialist (again, forgot where). I’m generally free and generous when it comes to linkage, so if you’re a blogger who reads and enjoys In Mala Fide, let me know and I’ll add you to my almighty blogroll (and less mighty reader).

Moving on, Cless Alvein introduces a mathematical way to calculate male attractiveness:

Men can improve their situation dramatically by increasing their sociosexual confidence. It’s difficult to do this, because PUA gimmicks only offer a marginal benefit, but it can certainly be done by improving one’s social skills, learning to tolerate rejection, and developing confidence through experience in all areas of life. A man’s sociosexual confidence also tends to improve over the course of his life. For this reason, although a man’s physical appearance peaks in his late 20s, as it does for women, his overall attractiveness to women is likely to peak in his mid-40s, with his gains in sociosexual confidence sufficient to offset his (mild) physical decline. A man who improves his “game” from a lagging 4 to an average-plus 6, with no changes to his physical appearance, increases his “batting average” by 237 percent. His dry and single spells, if he maintains the same standards, will be three times shorter.

Very cool stuff.

Knack, a Venusian Arts coach, guest-posts at Roissy in DC on gameless PUA instructors teaching useless skills:

That’s one of the things that pisses me off about all these people coming out about “natural game”. 95% of “naturals” are just good looking dudes that girls want to fuck. They have always been good looking and women have been approaching them for sex and dating. Because they have always been approached they have been positively reinforced for sexual aggression (even though they rarely actually start out sexually aggressive). These men can’t teach you anything. Because they never learned anything. It was handed to them. You see, like girls, very good looking men rarely have had to develop an actual personality (the key to pickup).

Also see Assanova’s response.

Whiskey writes on how e-books are changing the media world:

Already e-books are offering fast, and cheaper alternatives to printed books. Project Gutenberg has free, public domain HTML, audio/mp3, and “Plucker” e-books of classics such as Jules Verne’s “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea” and Mark Twain’s “Roughing It.” Plucker which is software available for both Palm Pilots and Pocket PCs, and runs on Linux, Macintosh OS X, and Windows, can read e-books prepared in that format. [Currently the Plucker site is unavailable, Sourceforge.com has various project files available. I have personally tried this with a Palm Tungsten, while offering limited readability, the software and content are free. Iphone owners have the option of using free application “Stanza” to read public domain books.

Another nail in Old Media’s coffin.

Bhanu Prasad posts on how culture affects sporting prowess:

A Culture that encourages competition and risk taking

In addition to sporting institutions, a nation needs to have a strong competitive culture. Competition ensures quality, and quality ensures the steady supply of champions.

There are few eastern cultures that actively discourage risk taking in favour of family and relationships. Such cultures are a death knell to sports. As sporting involves an unlimited success or a spectacular failure, and hence fraught with risk. The classic example is my own culture. Here men prefer stability to glory, wrapping nappies to war etc., No wonder we do not have a single explorer/conqueror on the lines of Zheng He or Belisarius.

He makes a number of compelling points.

Al Fin reports that the rate of evolution has exploded in the past 5,000 years:

One of the greatest intellectual curses of modern day humans is “groupthink”, which includes “political correctness” and excessive deference to authority. Mass incompetence provides groupthink with its power over populations. Mass incompetence is fed by poor childraising, perverse educational practises, a self-destructive popular culture, and the mass indoctrination into the groupthink cult by media and higher academia.

I look forward to the smashing of egalitarian shibboleths in the years to come.

anoukange tells the story of her life in descriptive prose:

If you were my man I would stand before you as an offer.  I would work to know you and dream your dreams with you.  I would vacuum in lace, I would time release my secrets and my desires to extend the ride of intrigue, I would be elegant on your arm and never question you in public, I would whisper dirty deeds into your ear and leave your thoughts to wander, I would keep my wrists skinny through out the years so that you may always pin them down with one hand only, I would give you the pillow you preferred, I will keep my skin firm, my muscles toned, my mind flexible, I would go deep, I would go down, I would cook your favorite foods, I would water your roots and iron your shirts, I would carry myself with class, I would fill your cupboard with Jack, I would kiss you with my hands on your face, I would sneak my foot up your leg under the table at dinner, I would steal glimpses of you in movie theaters and memorize your profile, I would keep my hair long and lush so you could pull it, I would absorb your stress and melt it, I would desire your brain, your ways and your pauses, I would trim your hair with precision, I would never stand in the way of your spirit, I would listen to your stories, I would digest you in inches, I would allow you your space and freedom, I would love you, hold you, fuck you, know you, believe in you, travel with you, stay in with you, drink with you, sleep beside you and live beside you.

Beautiful.

Alex Birch explains what differentiates CORRUPT from other anti-modern groups:

Our positive psychology sets us apart from the rest, because if you think like we do, you can achieve so much more good in life. Think about the whiners who always complain about how violent society is, how corrupt our leaders are, how NWO is controlling us, and how unfair life is. What do they really get done? Not much. Then think about the people who are aware of the problems around them, but believe they at least can change their daily environment. Who do you want to be? What do you want to be–bitter and angry or positive and successful?

The world is fucked. Now get over it and enjoy your life.

Φ reports on divorce statistics:

Taken at face value, the survey shows that either the common belief that women only initiate divorce for really good reasons is far from the reality, or the standard of what constitutes a “really good reason” has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. Conservative commentators have almost certainly fallen victim to the first delusion; however, the latter explanation appears to account for the behavior among women in the broader society.

Talk about confirming everything that the MRAs have been saying for years.

FeministX inveighs against the gay male influence and insistence on excessive thinness in the fashion industry (NSFW image):

But I don’t buy this anymore. These excuses are repeated so often that people don’t stop to think about the baseless nature of these claims. If designers want clothes on hangers, why don’t they just put them on hangers and mechanically lift them onto the runway? And why exactly are the clothes supposed to be on human hangers? In the 80s, fashion models were attractive to normal people and the concept of fashion didn’t collapse because of this. The idea is supposed to be that the clothing becomes fashionable, which means that some real women will wear them. And why do men with no interest in female bodies insist on making careers out of designing/presenting/marketing etc clothing for the female body?

It always amuses me when feminists rant about how starvation chic in the fashion industry is a product of the Evil White Heterosexual Patriarchy, when in fact it’s the fags who are making those girls stay thin.

Aoefe argues a controversial point – women are naturally submissive:

I believe the desire for a woman to be submissive to her man is innate, plus I believe women are wired to be submissive to proper authority in general.    Submissive, as I see it, is described as agreement, respect, duty, or deference.  I don’t personally view it as meek, passive or tameness.   I believe submissiveness is a feminine trait and I believe women have lost touch with this inborn need.

Alias Clio has also prepped a interesting response on her blog.

Chuck asks whether single men or married men are better at sex:

Having relations with a variety of women allows a man to know how to respond to the various sexual tastes of women. Some prefer the long game, some the short. Having the dexterity to handle both facets allows a man to quickly adapt to the given situation. Being with the same woman only lets the man adapt to the facet that the woman prefers. Being with a variety of women lets a man learn different techniques for pleasing women in general. If something doesn’t seem to push the buttons, a man can respond by digging deep into his bag of tricks. He adds to his tool-belt – if you will.

The answer will hopefully not shock anyone.

Gunslingergregi posts a picture of himself with his girl and this note:

Fuck thats hot shit god dang.

Go look at that picture, now. Gunslingergregi is a model of alphatude. He just oozes badass from every pore. Congrats to him and his woman.

Trumwill tells us why it’s not easy being a tall woman:

One of the things that some of the taller guys didn’t get is that it’s different when a tall guy is joshed around with because of his height and when a taller girl is. Tall guys, unless they’re freakishly tall, do not generally have reason to be self-conscious about their height. None of the bullies I ever had made fun of me because I was tall. Maybe it’s because my width was a more obvious point of criticism, but I also think because there’s no percentage in going after a guy because he’s tall. Notably, some people made fun of Clint for being short. But he wasn’t short. He was just standing next to me a lot. For girls, though, it’s different. Being tall is considered unfeminine by some. Some guys do discriminate against them. They are likely to have an even more difficult time finding clothes that fit than a tall guy is and the clothes they purchase matter more. So even lighthearted ribbing on a woman’s height that would be perfectly acceptable on a guy can be more problematic with a woman.

As an aside, the Justin that Trumwill mentions as claiming women prefer men fatter then they are is the same Justin who denounces game as “soul killing poison” (despite not knowing what it is), the same Justin who claims “feminism is a weak force,” and the same Justin who thinks picking up strippers is easy. Just saying.

Kamal S. posts on ways of dealing with penis injuries:

Injuries involving extreme bends – by whatever embarrassing means through which they occur – are best iced down immediately. Medical care should be sought at once. It is possible to, well, break the thing in such a way that it’s shape is permanently affected.

Yeah yeah, I know some of you are laughing, but this is important information.

MarkyMark masterfully tears apart a blog posting by a feminist harpy who presumes that all men are potential rapists:

The reason why guys fail to respect what women say is because what women say is bullshit. For example, they say that they want good, decent guys, yet they take up with the worst jerks imaginable. If your actions are going to constantly go against what you say, then you cannot expect guys to take your words seriously. It’s cause & effect, not that women have a grasp of something so hopelessly obvious.

A great takedown of a terrible piece.

Rake goes out with some seduction community guys and comes to a terrible realization:

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that this sort of an outing is simply an exercise in the blind leading the blind. None of these guys really have any clue what they’re doing. They don’t know what they want to open with, how to transition, how to build attraction, establish comfort, etc. I don’t think any of them really understand how to escalate. I believe I mentioned in a previous post that there are just a handful of guys connected to the Seattle Lair that have any real game.

Yep, that’s the seduction community to a tee.

Talleyrand educates readers on the ways of sociopathy:

Antisocial really is a nonsense term that psychologists use.  It is a catch-all for people that behave the way society does not want them to.  There are hundreds of ways (perhaps thousands) of getting this diagnosis, and it is entirely circular.

Not to mention that women find sociopaths sexy.

Coldequation reminds us that the Axis leadership was completely and totally nuts:

Hitler’s decision to declare war on the US was even worse. He had already bitten off more than he could chew by fighting a two-front war which, as had already become apparent, would be a long slog rather than the quick Blitzkrieg knockout he had expected. What do you do in that situation? Declare war on the country with the largest economy in the world with little tactical benefit when you have no way to even strike at them, of course (there was a minor benefit in that the U-Boats could then engage in unrestricted warfare against American ships that were supplying the Allies, but that didn’t amount to much).

This is a good opportunity to pull out Gary Brecher’s classic column “Why I Hate WWII,” in which he makes a similar point.

Marquis posits an experiment you can run that will both improve your game and allow you to experience what’s like to be a chick:

In going to a gay bar as a male who is good looking or even simply not ugly, you will immediately notice something: eye contact. Guys will invariably stare you down like a piece of meat. These are not the furtive glances by females, particularly hot ones at that, but rather the looks of those who want you to know that they are viewing/checking out your goods. You will also probably have at least a couple guys offer to buy your drinks. Of those offering, the more overbearing, direct, and “won’t take no for an answer” types will be older men and/or less attractive/or drunk. It is so obvious, yet strange to see this in action. All the basic principles of being a woman are in effect, but to experience it firsthand is truly eye opening/perspective changing.

When you think about it, a lot of what comprises game is using women’s own tactics against them.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Jack Donovan, The Spearhead’s newest contributor, Chip Smith interviewed him over at The Hoover Hog:

Can you be more specific — about these “highly questionable assumptions?”

The pursuit of knowledge isn’t the primary goal of any “study” program grounded in feminism. There is an obvious political agenda there. That’s the only reason why these programs even exist. While superficial debate occurs over doctrine and details, if you don’t buy into the primary goal and service the central idea, you are not “with the program.” It’s like arguing with someone who studies theology. God is the ultimate justification for every path of study, for every argument. The theologian’s claim to authority comes from God. If you pull God out of the equation, the whole thing falls apart.

If you don’t agree that creating a gender-neutral society is possible or desirable, then “feminist scholars” and “gender studies scholars” wield no real intellectual authority. If you aren’t prepared to accept on faith alone that sex is just a skin-deep costume, or that human societies have some sort of moral imperative to collectively wish-away or blind themselves to any meaningful differences between the sexes and do away with all gender roles, these people’s criticisms can be evaluated more realistically. They are priestesses and priests, propagandists, political operatives, interested parties. I’d no sooner expect objectivity from Karl Rove or a Jehovah’s witness knocking on my door. I’m familiar with their racket and I don’t find their arguments to be especially convincing based on my own first hand observation of human behavior.

A great read that’s gotten me more interested in Jack’s work. (And Chip, thanks for adding me to your blogroll.)

J dismantles the popular “cold climate adaptation” argument for white racial supremacy:

Polar people, like the Lapps, Nenet, etc. live several hundred kilometers to the North, in much harsher climates, and they are always tested as having one sigma lower IQ than Northern Europeans. Cold climate increases head size but not IQ. There is no correlation between latitude and IQ.

Pithy and accurate.

Robert Stacy McCain has two final postings on his brain-damaged cousin. From The American Spectator:

Meghan McCain would be well advised to stop exercising her First Amendment rights and instead invoke her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, as determined under Miranda v. Arizona. Everything she says can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion.

If it seems like I’ve been linking Stacy a lot lately, it’s because he’s just that good.

Assanova offers advice on how to avoid seduction scamsters:

And when you’re looking at testimonials, don’t trust testimonials for the company, look for testimonials about that individual instructor. If no one is mentioning that instructor’s name in the seduction community, then you can bet that he is either a rookie instructor, or he just sucks and isn’t worth a mention. An instructor for a company can be amazing, and get a great testimonial, but that doesn’t mean that the other instructors are also amazing. Don’t make the mistake of reading a testimonial and assuming that it applies to every instructor within that company.

I’d estimate that most so-called “seduction gurus” are con artists. There’s little you can get from them that you can’t get online for free.

Slumlord has two great posts in which he evaluates game from an Aristotelean and Thomistic perspective, respectively. From the second post:

Now a Christian man is supposed to possess Charity. In the Aristotlean sense, Charity is directed toward the perfection of things. Charity seeks to “un-private” the thing to which it is directed. Now Charity in a man is not only directed to things outside himself but to himself as well. Therefore a Charitable man will seek the ridding of his imperfections.. Hence it would imply that activities directed towards finding a mate are a good, since the remedy of a privation is a good.

It also follows that the “goodness” of a remedy is in proportion to the degree in which it is restorative of the privation. Now as traditional dating advice has pretty much been a dismal failure when it comes to finding a mate, whilst Game has been enourmously successfull, the Christian interpretation of Game is that it is a moral good.

Yes, you read that right – God wants you to have game.

Dylan Sauders identifies the types of women who go to nightclubs:

I met an intelligent, attractive, emotionally healthy college graduate with a propensity for long term loving relationships. To be fair, she doesn’t usually go out, but I’ve found that most people you meet in clubs don’t usually go out – they just happened to that night for a special occasion like a roommates birthday.

There is no such thing as a “club girl.” There is no such thing as a “bar girl.” Those are just false distinctions thrown up by lameasses who can’t cut it in those places.

Agnostic writes on the best way to discipline girls who are acting up:

I paced slowly over to her, set my hand down on her shoulder, and said, “Don’t… Do that… Anymore…” I didn’t have a scowl on my face, nor a coddling or reassuring expression. Just that look like, you’re being annoying and need to knock it off. She stopped horsing around at that point, and when she was about to leave the area 10 minutes later, she tugged at my jeans from the floor and reached up to shake my hand and say i’m sorryyyyy with an honest worried look in her eyes. I took her hand but merely half-smiled and waved her off as though she were overreacting and being weird, which must have fucked with her mind a little more.

Always remember to never take shit from a girl.

emach dissects a blog post in which feminists talk about how to go about dating:

At one point in the history of your genetic lineage, your ancestor was the result of a man exercising his right to be with a woman bceause he’s bigger and stronger.  You exist because a man’s right to have a woman trumps a woman’s right to turn him down.  Men invented rape laws because we are better people than feminists who, if the shoe were on the other foot, would not enact the same laws.  I know this for certain because feminists wrote divorce laws and the no-fault divorce is the closest thing to male-victim rape in this country and the feminists actively sought it and successfully made it legal.

Much comedy ensues.

Finally, here’s something I grabbed from Eolake Stobblehouse’s joint. It explains itself.

What weekend is complete without a round of blogger backscratching?

I recall browsing FeministX’s blog months ago, but I didn’t find it interesting enough to keep on my RSS reader. Yesterday though, she dropped by and convinced me to take another look, and her writing is much, much better now. Here’s an excerpt from her recent post comparing and contrasting alphas and betas in fiction:

In real life too, I find that intelligent alpha males fall into those two types. The silent alpha male is in my opinion more attractive, but I believe that is just my taste. Obama presents himself like the Draper type of Alpha, while Dubya is in the Stark category. It seems that PUA advice steers men towards the extroverted type of alpha personality. Perhaps this is because those mannerisms are easier to learn.

Welcome to my almighty blogroll (and less mighty reader).

Cless Alvein reports on r/K sex selection and how it affects the sexual marketplace:

In general, however, both genders exhibit an r- and K-selective sex drive. The K-selective drives of men and women are quite similar, as both support the same reproductive goal: success of the family and children. Both genders’ K-drives exhibit delayed onset, emerging as two people develop a relationship. Moreover, while women exhibit slightly stronger K-drives than men, the gender disparity is slight. Finally, K-selective attraction is holistic, driven by attraction to the person as a whole, rather than to a set of attributes. By contrast, the r-drive is usually immediate in its onset, is traditionally much stronger in men than in women, and driven by superficial traits– in men, the woman’s physical appearance; in women, the man’s projection of social status and dominance.

The current world is ruled by women’s r-selective sex drive. Game is an adaptation to this reality.

Dave from Hawaii analyzes a conservative women’s group and identifies the problems with their ideology:

The most glaring point for me is the assumption these “enlightened” women advocate – while they oppose the liberal/libertine excesses of modern feminism, that they reject promiscuity as empowering, that they oppose the inculcation of victimology in women, that they encourage their members to revel in femininity and modesty (all of these are good things), they still accept the basic premise that is the foundation for promoting the feminist movement: that women are morally superior creatures to men, that men were oppressive, and that the initial feminist movement was just and necessary because women were in-equal and oppressed in the past.

The rot runs deep, even in supposedly “conservative” strains of thought.

Roissy attempts to discern whether fat or aging has a greater effect on womens’ looks:

We begin the experiment. There are 3500 calories in a pound of body fat, and 200 calories in a Krispy Kreme original glazed donut. Girl A goes on a donut bender and eats 1.05 Krispy Kreme donuts per week per year. 1.05 Krispy Kreme donuts per week doesn’t sound like much, does it ladies? Keep reading. She does not substitute smaller portions in her other meals or increased physical activity to counterbalance the extra calories from the donuts. At this rate of donut consumption, Girl A adds 5 pounds of unsightly fat to her frame every year. Keep in mind, too, that Girl A is aging as well as getting larger.

Obesity: the most misunderstood tragedy of our time.

Master Dogen tells us why David Letterman is a true alpha:

Notice the fine touches. He pokes a little fun at himself, but in just the right way. He makes fun of his midwestern Lutheran, guilt-based upbringing, which is exactly the sort of thing to remind people of when you are being portrayed as a sleazy New York womanizer. He jokes that no one could imagine that he had sex, but of course this is after he’s already established that he has… in fact so much sex that people are trying to blackmail him about it. He’s being charming and self-deprecating, but never once denying that, yes, he’s an alpha male that fucks his cute emloyees.

Potential philanderers ought to study this man.

Martin Regnen comments on a another head-smackingly obvious truth confirmed by science:

The Herald Sun writer thinks all this means that “women drink alcohol before having sex because they lack confidence in their bodies”. I guess that’s why the really hot women who have plenty of confidence and massive egos from dozens of men hitting on them every day never drink. If only uglier women had more confidence then they’d also stop drinking, just like the real hotties. Oh, wait… yeah, that’s obviously bullshit. Women drink before sex for pretty much the same reason most people drink in all kinds of situations – to lower their inhibitions and enjoy life more. Many women are just plain better in bed when they’re slightly drunk, and men might be too. That’s probably why many older married guys drink a glass of cognac or wine every evening.

Alcohol is the lubricant that greases the cogs of male-female relations.

Aoefe offers up her definition of the alpha male:

What alpha doesn’t describe is character*. Character and alphaness are separate entities. Character whether good, bad or indifferent will be present in alpha, beta and omega males. Alpha does not preclude having good character. Period. Some of you believe a good man and an alpha can’t be synonymous and I call bullcrap on that. I say alpha men are powerful, impressive and leaders yet can also be of good character. Men like this often have a strong moral code and a value system they aren’t willing to break emfor the P word. Sometimes it’s religious values that puts the breaks on P access and although they would enjoy the fruits of some 20 year old’s loins they won’t ‘pick it’ because of the sin involved. Others are simply honest; they took their commitments seriously and have honoured them. Perhaps some have been honest with their spouses and have had dalliances with their significant other’s understanding and full knowledge. (That’s a topic for another day)

Sheesh, there’s a lot of alpha talk in this plug post.

Roosh breaks game down into two qualities:

If you are interesting and cool then you’re a man who has a quality woman or fucks a lot of girls. If you’re only interesting than you’re the stereotypical shlub who lands a homely Peace Corp girl with that go-getter attitude (”Must get a graduate degree before we have Connor!”). If you’re only cool then you’ll get trashy skanks or club rats (not necessarily a bad thing).

The fundamentals of game, right there.

Alkibiades relates a disturbing tale of family dysfunction:

By the time George surpassed his father in size and muscle, he decided to go toe to toe with his father in a battle that would have make the UFC proud.  After that, George’s father never laid a hand on him again, but I can’t say the same for George’s sister.  At about this time George found alcohol and women and dove in head first.  As you might suspect, George was a mean drunk and could get quite violent in the depths of his own binge drinking.  Alcohol was to be George’s only friend and constant companion.  The women were drawn to George and the rage that always was just beneath the surface ready to erupt.

Reminds me of some folks I know.

Assanova asserts that the American Dream is responsible for the betatization of American men:

Why are they so masculine? Because they were not denied their rights of passage from boyhood into becoming a man. WHAT. IS. A. MAN? Testosterone. Survival. Fighting for physical superiority. The American dream suppresses all of this. No more wars. No more crazy stunts. And if little Billy gets as much as a single scratch on him or throws one single punch in defense of his masculinity, the entire household shuts down and anyone who may have been involved in placing little Billy in a position to express his masculinity is severely scolded and reprimanded.

Manhood is struggle. The two are inseparable.

Richard Hoste interviews John Derbyshire at his blog:

I myself don’t actually write much about race and HBD topics.  I am engaged (for a couple of years now!) in porting over all my web archives from the horrid old FrontPage format to something crisper and more manageable.  I have written VB (Visual Basic-computer science terminology-RH) routines to do the grunt work, but they don’t catch everything, and each piece needs to be hand-polished. So I am reading my way through my entire output since the 1990s.  Very little of it even touches on these topics.  Yes, I am a race-realist.  It’s not a big part of what I want to write about, though.

It’s a damn good read.

The Editrix takes down the clowns using Roman Polanski’s arrest to attack the supposed degeneracy of Old Europe:

Talking about feminism and back to the children’s beauty pageants: I wonder what those pimpettes mothers who groom their little daughters for such contests have to say about “women’s rights” and the “sexual liberation” of women. I remain adamant that no sane, red-blooded father wants his little girl to pose like that and that they would forbid it, had they only the balls. So I boldly claim that those female corruptors of their own children have very probably the upper hand in the family already, if they aren’t “single mothers” to begin with. But then, I may be wrong here. After all, I was born and bred in evil, sick, degenerate Old Europe and although OUR fathers may be like that, what do I know about the joys of the non-degenerate life of American families.

Both conservatives and liberals mythologize America as a land of puritanism and morality, the only difference being that the former celebrate it and the latter deplore it. They’re all wrong, wrong, wrong. America is the most morally degenerate nation in the world, far less moral than any nation of Europe. The country that spawned the sexual revolution and all of its aftereffects has no fucking right to declare itself moral. Thank you, Editrix, for putting these idiots in their place.

Agnostic posts on the amusing ways in which girls compete:

I’ve seen girls get nastily competitive face-to-face before — seeing who can flip their hair the hardest, or who can give the most pitying look at what the other is wearing. And I’ve seen girls both ratchet up their cuteness when they’re actively flirting with the same guy, or sense that they’re being watched by a large audience. But this time the guy wasn’t even there, just as the girl who the gym rats are trying to impress isn’t there judging their performance. It was the first time I’d seen a purely hypothetical cuteness contest — just to see who would win.

Always remember that the female of the species is as equally animalistic as the male.

Emach returns from hiatus to lambast Generation Y:

I can’t tell you how many of my peers are completely incapable of functioning in the real world because they are operating under a belief in rules that their parents invented, their teachers enforced, and their world ignores, breaks, and mocks at every turn because they are totally contrary to human nature.  How can we possibly be expected to fix the world’s problems left in the wake of our inept parents when we are probably even worse equipped to deal with them than they ever were?

As a GenYer myself, I can vouch for the truth of everything he says.

Robert Stacy McCain, the Hunter S. Thompson of conservative blogging, advises women on how to go about getting a husband:

Still, if it is a husband that a woman is seeking, rather than just another in an endless series of going-nowhere “relationships,” her negotiating posture in the marriage market is greatly enhanced if she avoids giving up the nookie – humping, screwing, fornicating, making the beast with two backs, call it what you will — until she can entrap her prey and drag him to the altar.

I can safely declare that McCain is a Social Conservative Who Gets It. For more goodness, check out his Takimag archive.

Finally, Tucker Max pens a response to the slag who wrote about getting shagged by him, and displays his alpha credentials:

I don’t have any beef with her description of me in bed. I would prefer the phrasing “dominant and aggressive,” but whatever; you call me a jackhammer, the difference is semantics. The thing that pissed me off is that she said she faked an orgasm to get me to stop. I mean — honey, really? Did you think I was paying the LEAST bit of attention to you or your “orgasm?” You know why I stopped? Because I came. That’s always when I stop. I couldn’t tell your orgasm from pixie dust, and neither would make me stop if I wasn’t done, that’s for sure.

Caring about whether the slut you picked up after an hour of banter and drinking has an orgasm = beta.

As a bonus, here’s a comment from that thread that is a must read:

Do you know how comical this is? Consider the incredible hypocrisy in all of this. Take note of the countless women (and severely jealous “men”) who berate Tucker Max for being Tucker Max, who slam him on the Internet, who say this and that about him… yet all and all, there is a never-ending supply of women who simply line up to sleep with him. Nowadays, not only does Tucker NOT have to even remotely “work” to court or pick these women up, he actually treats them like garbage and they STILL line up to sleep with him; Courtney’s story is solid evidence of this; yet another tale of a pattern that repeats itself over and over again in man/ women interactions. 
Blogger comment: “Guys like this are what make women dislike males in general.” 
Oh Please. If that were really true, if women truly felt that way, then guys like Tucker would never get laid at all, let alone have women come out of the woodwork (and get treated like sh*t) to sleep with him. Are you that naive? Do you really think the proverbial “nice guy” has women lined up like Tucker has? Really?
In reality, the blog bashing and negative comments display the feminine (beta) mind at work… Common wisdom dictates that guys that treat women like Tucker does are bad and would never enjoy the forbidden fruit of women given such an offensive and abrasive approach. Alas, the female creature is one not of logic but of emotion… Many of these exact same women who bash Tucker (or men like him), who agree that “Guys like this “are bad and should be avoided, are the exact same women who are lining up in droves to sleep with him/ them. Emotionally, women simply cannot avoid their attraction to this “Bad Boy” persona, regardless of the logic involved. No matter what your female logic says, women are attracted to that type of personality. The proof is in the pudding. 

Instead of downing Tucker for being himself, why not blame the fuel to this whole fire? Where is the outcry on the droves and droves of your peers who are agreeing with you and then jumping into bed with the “Tuckers” out there? Where are female huntresses searching for their “nice guy” to rip the cloths off of? 
Lets come back down to earth ladies…

You’ve gotta love it when reality shits all over morons and their lies.

Silence / me / a green library / exam studies / gratitude / thoughts / wandering / …

Gandhi / well-respected / ALL / World / Religions / his birthday / Oct.2 / …

Gandhi / Mother Teresa / interacted / Christianity / quotes / …

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. If all Christians acted like Christ, the whole world would be Christian.”

-Gandhi. (Delivered by Mother Teresa:)

me / meditating on the words / for years / we / thinking / deep / teary heart /

me / burning / passion / me / you? / we? / …

Gandhi / no right or wrong / beyond the worldly meaning / he / blessing heart /

but / hypocrite’s false claim / his days / as believers? / …

F / O / R / G / I / V / E / no right, no wrong, no judgement / the bottom line / …

World / poverty / needy / hunger / sincerity / commitment / ‘neighbors’ /

JESUS / de-selfishialization / me / extremist / depends / how / u / see /

JESUS / de-selfishialization / us / inside / out / true FOLLOWERS /

JESUS / teachings / LOVE / Respect / passion / compassion / me / we / us! / ..

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

LOVE,

JESUS.

JESUS / Matthew 5:48 / possible? / trials&errors / and sin? / at least / TRY / !!!

CREATOR / of the universe / His big smile / his beloved creation /

blessings / love / penetrating into /

our HEARTS…

Another month down, another round of awards to hand out to the best and brightest patrons of the online pub that is In Mala Fide.

The September 2009 Comment of the Month Award goes to Doug1 for pointing out why quantblogger analyses of sexuality are flat-out wrong:

I read that Agnostic piece contemporaneously in GNXP. I didn’t post anything in comments questioning it because I had no social science basis for doing so. Nonetheless I flat out don’t believe it. Well there IS one thing I do believe. That is that there WAS a diminution of slutty sexual activity beginning it’s commonly said as soon as the 70s were over but really beginning around 1984 or so. When the aids thing hit, and it hit FAST in consciousness as a huge scare when it did. Aging boomer girls were already turning away from casual sex and big into clamping their husbands down from dreams of open marriages and so on, but that was the big thing. It did go down in the second half of the eighties and much of the 90s. Not completely atall and there were pockets, but a lot. Came back in the oughts, or really by the late 90s in NYC.

…

All this GSS and other stuff is based on a house of cards. Those cards are that females don’t lie, or don’t lie much in anonymous as reported surveys about sexual activity including number of partners or incidence of infidelity. I’m here to tell you that girls lie HUGE about such stuff and do so reflexively, as part of their personality almost, and do so so thoroughly that only the most reflective even fully realize how much they’re doing it. I’m talking about the big numbers girls. Girls for whom the answer is 7 or maybe 5 or less probably come in fairly accurately, because they figure they aren’t really even supposed to be virgins anymore, THAT is rather shameful, and anything that’s well within single digits is probably ok for almost anyone but real prude/can’t get sex guys they don’t care about anyway. That’s the urban girl feeling.

But if you think girls for whom the true answer is 15 or more, not to mention 30 or more, give their true answers much at all except possibly to a guy that loves or they believe loves slutty girls, after much showing of same, you know nothing. Because I’m such a guy (who does love the extremes including sluts for some/many things, but hardly for having my babies or committing to durably) and I’ve gone through the process of getting good true slutty stories, and eventually true slutty numbers, out of numerous girls. I know what they say to begin with and I know what they finally say after all that. I know some/many of the rationalizations. (e.g. guys whose names they can’t remember don’t count. Guys who had no emotional impact on them don’t count. Guys they can barely remember at all, and then only with effort, don’t count. Only guys they had a relationship with count. And so on.)

When you’re a calculator, everything looks like a number, and the quantbloggers are living, breathing calculators who think everything can be reduced to a readout on an Excel spreadsheet. Good work, Doug1.

Honorable mentions go to the following:

Good Observation Awards go to Novaseeker for spelling out why any man should pay heed to the words of rakes:

The reason why rakes like Byron are useful for men to understand is because these guys understand the women guys are marrying, too, because in many cases they have bedded them, or at least turned down the dangling offer to do so. Pollitt is right, of course, that female sexuality is an unruly force. She’s wrong, because of her feminism, in thinking that unleashing this unruly force is a good thing, even for women themselves (it does not appear to make most women happy, long-term, to indulge their sexuality). But for men, in a culture which no longer restrains this significantly, it is critical to understand from people like Byron and his present-day analogues just how women, even married ones, behave sexually when the “right guy” comes along.

…z.g. for noting the four factors that have altered the sexual landscape for the worse:

All the theories of the “quantsphere” fall apart when these four are introduced:

Birth control

Condoms against STD’s

Abortion

Child support/State child support/state subsidized child care/birth money

Forget about laws, social support, other supports and welfare etc.

The above four are enough to let women loose from their given by nature shackles.

The rest is also as effective but it is more difficult for the effects of these (laws, welfare etc) to be seen by the q.bloggers in the sexual context.

Millions of years of natural restraints not existing anymore… This by itself is big enough.

…Mike T for this explanation as to why the higher education scheme will soon collapse:

WRT the college scam, the biggest problem is the fact that most of the college graduates have no marketable skills, or they have demands that are completely unrealistic for what they do have. Most liberal arts majors should feel lucky to just have jobs, and most business majors probably don’t know much more about actually running a business than the average manager at McDonalds who worked their way up the management chain.

…Thursday for pointing out how sex ratios affected the sexual revolution:

I have long maintained that the sex ratio favouring men from the 60s through the late 70s helped ease men’s acceptance of the sexual revolution. Michael Blowhard, for example, doesn’t remember anything like the kind of anger on the dating scene back when he was a young buck. The hangover for men really came in force in the 90s by which time the sex ratio had shifted in the other direction.

…and Sebastian Flyte for this note on PDA:

I think excessive PDA is a good indicator that the man has not yet slept with the woman.

Great job, all.

mike wins the Witty Comeback Award for this zinger aimed at haterette shesadandy, who was caught parroting a tired lie about men who date younger women:

Yeah, because when I look at a young fertile girl with tight, cellulite-free skin the first thing I think is “Wow, I’d like to have a conversation with her!”

Technically, mike made this comment in August, but AFTER the comment awards for that month had been issued, so I get to make an exception for awesomeness.

Justin wins the Dunce Cap Award for this spectacularly clueless statement on picking up strippers:

Strippers are not difficult to pick up. They are just always taken. There is a big difference there. In fact, the “always taken” status of strippers is due to the fact that they are not difficult to pick up.

Strippers are easy to pick up IF you have extremely tight game, which ninety-five percent of men don’t, dum-dum. Now, go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.

The Elusive Wapiti wins the Graphic Prediction Award for this remark on Ron Guhname’s comments about his wife:

Yeah, I’d like to see that fella’s stance on how wonderful his sweet wittle woman is if she ever leaves him.

I suspect his being forced to witness his testicles sliced off before his very eyes, his kids kept from him with the approval of the State, and his ass being sold into slavery will force him to eat a lot of crow.

No man thinks his wife will divorce him until the process server shows up.

Sofia wins the Public Service Announcement Award for her advisory on how to avoid sleep deprivation:

Seriously though, over time insomnia will affect you adversely. I had to put up with a lot of crappy, biological issues because of my involuntary sleeping habits. UNFORTUNATELY, I do get panic attacks and most sleeping medications are benzodiazapenes, which I’m pretty much immune to at this point. If you have sleeping problems, and also suffer from anxiety, request barbiturates, though I don’t know if they still prescribe that in the U.S.

Me personally, I prefer OTC allergy pills or Cruzan Blackstrap when it comes to sleeplessness.

RT wins the Tinfoil Hat Award for this insane response to Satoshi Kanazawa’s contention that Asians can’t do science:

LMAO – what a laughable joke!

China beat the West in most scientific inventions (until hitting a cultural cyclic low the last 2 centuries) by centuries. Read “The Genius Of China” by Robert Temple.

And Yoshiro Nakamatsu singlehandedly invented most of our modern technology today – including the floppy disk, CD, DVD, digital watch, etc.

The US took a leap past them in the last 2 centuries due to Asia losing wars and the US winning them. Not to mention secret technology transfers from the Grey aliens. The truth comes out and normalizes over time, though. [emphasis mine - ed.]

Remember to watch out for the black helicopters, dude – the Illuminati’s coming for you!

Finally, dagezhu wins the Creativity in Bigotry Award for “correcting” me on Roman Polanski’s ethnicity:

Polanski is not a Polack, he’s a Jew.

There’s a big difference, one that would have gotten your face beaten in if you said that to the wrong people.

He raped with his Jew cock, not with his Polack cock. Get it right.

That comment cracked me up beyond belief when I first saw it. I’m a very bad person. And I would think that “the wrong people” would be less concerned with my omission of Polanski’s Judaism and more concerned with the fact that I referred to a Pole as a “Polack.”

Coldequation, the world’s most underrated HBD/race realist blogger, disputes my contention that a surfeit of unattached young men is bad for societal stability. He writes:

But large numbers of unattached males were once the rule, not the exception. Here’s a quote paraphrase (you can’t copy and paste from Google Books) from Greg Clark’s “A Farewell to Alms“, page 74, about pre-industrial mating habits in Northwestern Europe:

1. The average age of first marriage for women was late – 24-26.

2. 10-25% of women never married.

3. Ilegitimacy was low – 3-4% of births.

#3 implies that there wasn’t a lot of extramarital sex going on, at least not with unmarried women, given that birth control and abortions weren’t as available, safe, and effective as they are now. If there wasn’t a lot of extramarital sex, then the proportion of women who were married was about the same as the proportion of men who were having sex, outside of visits to prostitutes (making the extremely generous assumption that all married couples have sex). This could be a little off due to the tendency of marriage to involve older men and younger women. This would mean that a greater proportion of men would eventually marry, but at an older age – than 24-26, which by our already standards is already quite old to have sex with somebody you didn’t pay for the first time.

His analysis is flawed, as it considers only the number of single men outside of all other factors. There are three ingredients that must come together in order to create a bachelor uprising:

1) A considerably out-of-whack sex ratio. Coldequation’s data only mentions the number of perennially single women, from which he extrapolates the number of single men. The data in Clark’s book doesn’t contain any info on the sex ratio in northwestern Europe at the time. Given that the only info on womanless men comes from looking at the percentage of manless women, this suggests that men who remained unmarried during that time period did so out of choice, as Peter Frost elucidates:

These examples, however, differ on one point from the new society we’re entering—where over a third of all men will be frozen out of marriage and fatherhood. In the past, a lifelong bachelor was often a self-selected individual with a low sex drive and probably low testosterone levels. As for the immigrant who stays single for 10 to 20 years, he would eventually bring out a wife from the old country—typically 10 to 20 years his junior. Neither example violates the social contract we once offered young men: work hard, obey the law, and you will become a full-fledged member of society.

The problem is that young men in China and other such places are not bachelors out of choice, because not only are there not enough women to go around, the hypergamous nature of women leads them to crowd around an increasingly smaller pool of alphas. The difference is the difference between the voluntarily celibate and the involuntarily celibate.

2) Open polyamory and polygamy. At no point in the history of the West was having a harem considered socially acceptable. Every man was expected to commit to one woman only. Adultery was always an option, but any illicit relationships a person engaged in had to be kept secret. In contrast, concubinage has been a part of Chinese culture for centuries, and is making a comeback.

3) Lack of ways to keep the men occupied. Men who don’t have families to take of need either effective ways to contribute to society, or in the absence of these, bread and circuses in order to remain pacified. As Christopher Orlet writes in the New English Review, many of the artists, inventors, and innovators in Western history were bachelors:

Dr. Burton was neither the first nor the last to comment that marriage is a hindrance to “all good enterprises.” “Woman inspires us to great things,” remarked Alexandre Dumas, “and prevents us from achieving them.” The bitter Friedrich Nietzsche believed marriage (if not women, in general) a distraction from philosophical pursuits. It is a commonplace that most important writers, artists and philosophers have been bachelors, or in the least effectively single in the way Abelard, Franklin, Rousseau, Milton, Thomas Paine and Shakespeare remained. “Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men,” wrote Sir Francis Bacon (not a bachelor, but perhaps wishing he were). H.L. Mencken, who once suggested bringing back the dollar-a-day bachelor tax (it was worth that much to be single) likewise commented on the superiority of the bachelor- only to Mencken it was the bachelor’s great intellect and creativity that kept him single, not the other way round. “The bachelor’s very capacity to avoid marriage is no more than a proof of his relative freedom from the ordinary sentimentalism of his sex, in other words, of his greater approximation to the clearheadedness of the enemy sex. He is able to defeat the enterprise of women because he brings to the business an equipment almost comparable to their own.”

Orlet then lists off the famous bachelors in Western history, including Beethoven, Michelangelo, Newton, and others.

The spirit of individualist inquiry that has thrived in the West and made those contributions possible is nonexistent in China. For instance, as Satoshi Kanazawa has argued (hat tip: Dennis Mangan), East Asians, including the Chinese, lack the ability to contribute to science in innovative ways, due in part to Asians’ inability to break out of the collectivist box:

1. Asians can’t think

And they certainly cannot think outside the box. Miller is correct to point out that East Asians have slightly higher mean IQs than Europeans (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002). However, East Asians have not been able to make creative use of their intelligence. While they are very good at absorbing existing knowledge via rote memory (hence their high standardized test scores in math and science) or adapt or modify existing technology (hence their engineering achievements), they have not been able to make original contributions to basic science.

4. The conformist culture of Asia

Part of the reason why Asians cannot think for themselves and make original and creative contributions to science is because they are too conformist. One of the factors that Miller identifies as a possible obstacle to the Asian future of evolutionary psychology (“academic conservatism”) is actually fatal. Scientific revolutions happen by challenging the established paradigms. No conformists have ever brought about a scientific revolution.

With this option exhausted, the only option is to keep unruly bachelors content with a steady diet of porn, video games, or other distractions. This requires a strong economy, which China (hat tip: Al Fin) doesn’t possess:

The current development of SOEs [state-owned enterprises - ed.] is not conducive to China’s economic structural adjustment. It leads to duplication and production surpluses, not only wasting financial resources, but also increasing banks’ credit risk. SOEs tend to lack any sense of responsibility for society and disrupt the normal market order, as with the “enclosure movement” in real estate. With the advantage of dominance in finance and state favor, they exacerbate unequal social distribution. Their ill-use of economic resources and driving out of private investment inhibit employment growth. SOEs are the dinosaurs of China’s economy, and it is time that evolution began to consider extinction.

There have been no end of reports in the past few months that the Chinese economy is headed for total breakdown:

China’s fortunes over the past decade are reminiscent of Lucent Technologies in the 1990s. Lucent sold computer equipment to dot-coms. At first, its growth was natural, the result of selling goods to traditional, cash-generating companies. After opportunities with cash-generating customers dried out, it moved to start-ups — and its growth became slightly artificial. These dot-coms were able to buy Lucent’s equipment only by raising money through private equity and equity markets, since their business models didn’t factor in the necessity of cash-flow generation.

Funds to buy Lucent’s equipment quickly dried up, and its growth should have decelerated or declined. Instead, Lucent offered its own financing to dot-coms by borrowing and lending money on the cheap to finance the purchase of its own equipment. This worked well enough, until it came time to pay back the loans.

The United States, of course, isn’t a dot-com. But a great portion of its growth came from borrowing Chinese money to buy Chinese goods, which means that Chinese growth was dependent on that very same borrowing.

Now the United States and the rest of the world is retrenching, corporations are slashing their spending, and consumers are closing their pocket books. This means that the consumption of Chinese goods is on the decline. And this is where the dot-com analogy breaks down. Unlike Lucent, China has nuclear weapons. It can print money at will and can simply order its banks to lend. It is a communist command economy, after all. Lucent is now a $2 stock. China won’t go down that easily.

All in all, this spells trouble — a big, big Chinese bubble. Identifying such bubbles is a lot easier than timing their collapse. But as we’ve recently learned, you can defy the laws of financial gravity for only so long. Put simply, mean reversion is a bitch. And the longer excesses persist, the harder the financial gravity will bring China’s economy back to Earth.

So, sans opportunities for individual success or economic placation, the excess Chinese men are not going to “suck it up.” Put a lot of sexually frustrated young guys in an area and impoverish them, and they’ll take to the streets, slitting throats, flinging Molotovs, and destroying everything in their wake. It’s happened before, and it will happen again.

Here’s a change of pace: the Albany Democratic mayoral primary is today, and I’ll be live-Tweeting the action as it unfolds. Given that the only other political bloggers in this loathsome city are a bleeding heart SWPL drama queen and a chick who reads like Christina Oxenberg on smack, my right-wing game/HBD/MRA views are needed to balance out the stupidity. The 140-character or less frivolity begins tonight at 9, Eastern Standard Time. Be there. Or don’t. For my in-depth views on the mayoral race, see this post.

Answer: because someone needs to work to create and elaborate a viable and just political philosophy consistent with likely truths of human biology and evolution.

So far, really only those on the right have embraced what appears to be basic biological facts about human groups and individuals and incorporated them into their political philosophies. Yet those philosophies even at their best incline far too much to a somewhat enlightened, but still effectively callous, form of Social Darwinism. It is easy, morally and intellectually, for those enamored of some stripe of Social Darwinism or a related raw individualism, and mostly indifferent to a goal of a larger social good and justice, to accept genetic differences among people. It is quite another for those who believe that a political philosophy must embody basic notions of the common good and of fairness to all–including, critically, the weaker members of society.

Indeed, with rare exception, those of a more liberal orientation treat human biological differences as anathema. Typically these thinkers and writers will pay lip service to science, and acknowledge that there is at least a real possibility that genetic differences exist on important dimensions. Yet with virtually no exception they either argue or assert or assume or pretend that those differences are, in fact, of no real consequence in scale. That belief may be convenient and agreeable. Yet there is no earthly reason to believe that evolution, infamous in its disregard of the desires of man or beast, has here chosen to prostrate itself to the heartfelt yearnings, and refined if fragile sensibilities, of our reigning liberal establishment.

I believe that it is a perilous thing indeed to cede control and ownership of basic truths to the side one opposes. When the day arrives — as finally it must — that those truths simply can no longer be credibly disputed, it will wreak great damage on the ideology that refused adamantly to accept even their plausibility, consigning that ideology to an indefinite wandering in the intellectual and political wilderness, while their enemies assume the seat of power.

I do think also that the facts of human biology will prove revolutionary for liberal philosophy in a way that it is not for the right wing ideologies which have already begun to embrace them. Those ideologies, again, find these facts agreeable to their pre-existing biases. I regard those areas of apparent agreement as being based on a rather simple-minded interpretation of, and extrapolation from, those facts. What will be revolutionary for liberalism is the elaboration of a scheme whereby basic liberal values are preserved while being mapped onto the complex, and sometimes discouraging, truths of human biology.

I will not pretend myself to have a clear picture at this time as to what that new scheme might be. I see this blog as in large part an effort to settle on some such outline as I (and any others who might contribute via comments or other blogs) attempt to work through the many issues.

I expect over the first number of posts mainly to spell out some of the reasons I have come to accept, as likely true, a number of genetic differences between certain groups of human beings, as well as why I think it’s damaging and ultimately impossible for liberals to sweep those likely differences under the rug.

Given that I don’t plan on turning this into a linker blog, these plug posts will only be on Sunday afternoons from here on out.

First up, Beta Prime has an interesting post on how betas can interact with blacks:

My approach with black females is to treat each of them like they are the hottest white girl I’ve ever seen. They lap up attention like any girl, even if you’re white, but especially if you happen to be a guy who is desired by white females. Females hate all other females. This is even more true when it comes to black female on white female hate. White females have been ‘taking their strong black men’, and they hate them for it.

Ideas good, bad, and weird are contained in that link.

Next up, Default User advises the ladies on how to win over an alpha male:

Let him know those three things. Communicate them clearly in your looks, words and actions. Adore him: he is the greatest and you are lucky to have him. Respect him: you do not always have to agree but never ever put him down in private or especially public. Lust for him: I am not sure what the male equivalent of “gina tingle” is but he should feel it. In less poetic terms: Don’t give backchat but do give blowjobs.

Want to hold onto any man, ladies? Keep his balls empty and his stomach full.

Sofia reminds us all why you shouldn’t drink and blog:

Guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuyyyyyyyyysssssssssss.

Ungh god

There’s also a Carl Jung quote in there, if that’s your shot of vodka.

Roissy has an insightful post on the growing popularity of Amish bodice rippers:

Amish men, listen up! You’ve allowed a sliver of the heathen slut culture to invade your oasis. Your womenfolk are reading crass female porn under their bedcovers. And make no mistake, it is PORNOGRAPHY. Cheap thrills to tingle ginas. It’s just a small step from there to Amish women demanding equality in the fields and nagging you to do more housework. Then comes Amish feminism (6th wave? It’s all the same briny crap) and finally Amish bukkake. Give an inch, and they’ll make you yearn for the relative modesty of Rumspringa. If this doesn’t scare you straight, try picturing a guy like me seducing one of your bonnet-wearing daughters, my hand first touching her forearm, then her thigh, a neg lighting up her eyes, and a makeout behind the hay bales as I promise her a world of adventure and excitement.

As an aside, while I note that social conservatives inveigh against male pornography all the time, I have yet to see one of them say an unkind word against female pornography, despite the fact that the latter is both equally destructive and far more ubiquitous (you can buy it at Walmart, for Woden’s sake). Another reason why their credibility is shot.

Roosh discovers the reason why American women are just so goddamn unbearable:

You will see that the American woman has aquired what I call the Essence Of Man. Her neverending quest for equality has indeed worked, for a part of a man’s brain has sprouted inside their own. Understand: American women are hermaphroditic when it comes to their behavior, personality, and attitude. When you date an American woman, you are dating a part-man and not a true woman. For that you actually need to go abroad.

American chicks – fuck ‘em, chuck ‘em, and find the mother of your children abroad.

Aoefe talks about appearance, imagination and physical attraction:

What I really think happens is they’ve formulated an idea of what the person looks like before they’ve met them. They have ideas of what they find attractive in looks, dress and demeanor. The only thing they’re privy to in dating in the dark is personality and kissing. Not to underestimate kissing mind you but in spite of hot kissing prior to the reveal the actual person’s appearance will stop them cold. One episode had a sketch artist draw what the dates thought their date would look like. They had very real images without even talking to their partner about what they looked like! When they actually saw they looked nothing like they imagined, although attractive, they lost interest. Men in particular would say “she’s not my type”.

Imagination rarely ever lives up to reality.

Talleyrand shows us that being nice isn’t something to strive for:

I repeat, that although men have been taught to be nice, it is not a virtue.  It is in fact the opposite, it is a vice.  An addiction.  Something that nice guys can’t help doing, and continue to do, even though it doesn’t get them what they want, like a junkie or gambling addict, they keep doing more of it until it leads them to ruin.

Niceness != kindness – a distinction most are unable to make.

OneSTDV wraps up his interesting four-part series on education. From the final entry:

While the educational system continually reminds us that education is a requirement of successful people, real world jobs have only a tenuous connection to classroom instruction. Ignoring the numerous counterexamples of autodidacts, one must only look at the daily tasks of salespeople, secretaries, business executives, real estate agents, journalists, and store managers to see the absurdity of stating one needs four years to qualify for these positions. College instruction is often tangential to real world job duties and if necessary, it provides only a rudimentary foundation for future work. In many cases, college work will do almost nothing to prepare a worker, such as teachers who study abstruse sociological theory in order to handle 30 rambunctious nine year-olds.

I’m totally in agreement.

Another MRA blogger, MisAnDrope, takes on game:

Now, there are those who criticize ‘Gaming’ the system from a couple points of view:

1) Isn’t it unethical to pretend to be someone you are not/act in unusual ways to get somewhere with a woman – isn’t it misleading?

2) Isn’t this bad for the men involved, and our culture?

Now I can hear both of these criticisms, and I relate. On #1, it seems to me, a real man would be himself, no? On the other hand, when faced with a blatantly unfair ‘game’ where the other participants are not being anywhere near themselves (lipstick? blush? perfume? hair removal?) and are liable/likely to revert to a much scarier form once they ‘have’ you, perhaps ‘Game’ is very defensible. Especially when the culture/system we are playing into punishes long term relationships by USUALLY taking half of your assets, and potentially half of your income, and your progeny.

MisAnDrope updates infrequently, but his stuff is always worth reading.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech shares his thoughts on why liberating Muslim women from “oppression” is a fruitless endeavor:

Even knowing this why were Iranian women so against the Shah because wasn’t he granting them increased political freedom?  The Shah was doing that, but outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in political freedom.  I was reading another MRA blog recently and someone pointed out how once the government/elites were done taking all freedom away from men, they would start taking away the freedom of women.  Someone else correctly pointed out that women aren’t going to notice or care that the government/elites are taking away their freedom.  Whether its in Iran or the West, outside of a handful of women, women aren’t interested in freedom.

As I’ve written elsewhere, institutionalized polygamy in the Middle East is a paradise for alphas and women, and hell for betas.

Welmer laments the rise of credentialism in our increasingly feminized world:

Unfortunately, our society is becoming more and more obsessed with standardized credentials, even as there has been a broad devaluation of the credentials themselves. This means that although it no longer means all that much to have a higher degree (due to affirmative action, grade inflation and other factors), the degrees themselves have become more of a necessity for even entry-level jobs that require few skills beyond typing and filing. This is preventing plenty of talented people – mainly young men – from obtaining positions in organizations in which they could potentially contribute a great deal.

Credentials? CREDENTIALS? We don’t need no stinking credentials!

Half Sigma remarks on the inability of so many college students to graduate in four years’ time:

Students who attend college but never graduate have the worst of both worlds: they have the debt of college graduates but without the credential. It would be better for everyone (except for people hoping to become college professors) if colleges just flunked out freshman who can’t keep up on a four-year track.

The college scam will soon be undone, and America will be better off for it.

Speaking of unresolvable clusterfucks, Marty Nemko ticks off the reasons why unemployment is not going down:

Time magazine proposes the typical liberal solutions that have already been tried and failed: funding colleges more and job retraining. We already have the highest percentage of college graduates in American history and as discussed earlier, employers are yawning at them because all we’ve done is taken weak high school students, lowered standards in college, but radicalized them to demand the moon from employers. So employers offshore, automate, or temp as many positions as possible. Regarding job retraining, it’s been tried and tried, and those federal training programs fail: cost a fortune per trainee and most trainees don’t land a job in their new career or don’t last.

Always remember, never forget: America is screwed.

Yasha Levine infiltrates a town hall meeting in Victorville, California, and gives us yet another reason to hate the Baby Boomers:

On some primitive level, the old people around me understood what I had not: the fight for healthcare reform is not just pitting the average American against giant health insurance vampires. It is also a fight between the young and the old, between the giant, aging Baby Boomer generation and the rest of us. They understand that we want to have some of what they have. But they are greedy, self-centered geriatric vampires and they do not want to share.

No single generation has done more damage to Western civilization than the Boomers. Epochs from now, history will gleefully piss on their crumbling bones.

Hermes, taking a page out of A.J. Travis’ book, asks whether men or women should be blamed for the current sexual dystopia:

This tendency to blame and hate women that arises in some segments of the MRA/MGTOW community appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. I’m not sure why this is. It could be that traditional society carried an implicit recognition that women were fallen creatures too, but was also resigned to the fact that women were going to do what they were going to do, and given the necessity of men leading and women following, thought it more important to discipline men. (Incidentally, this would contradict the Roissysphere’s description of men as keys who will adapt themselves to whatever shape women choose their locks to take, but that is a topic for another entry.) And it could be that in modern society, even MRAs/MGTOWers have unconsciously absorbed the belief in female equality, so they expect women to make decisions on the same basis as men do, and become angry at them when they don’t.

It’s an interesting thought.

Libertarian Canuck Freedom Manitoba comments on a recent brothel shutdown in Winnipeg:

Because of the prohibited activities that surround prostitution it is difficult to engage in it without breaking any laws. Perhaps that is the purpose that some of these moralists have, to make it more difficult and force their morals onto other people. While it might do that, it doesn’t stop people from participating in it, just makes it more dangerous.

Manitoba – my third-favorite Canadian province.

Finally, the sadly underrated but intriguing Vera offers her sincere thoughts on game and what she looks for in a man:

Familiarity has its degrees, as does attractiveness. My taste is farther out than most, but they all differ a bit. Remember that if women rate you on a 1-10 attractiveness scale some of them will give you a couple more points than you would receive on average. I don’t know how one would go around finding them, though.

Her candid comments are in line with both the beliefs of game and Roissy’s description of Finnish women:

If you think teasing is all part of the fun of flirting, you will not get along with a Finn.  Joking banter that arouses an American girl will send a Finn rearing up with indignation at your effrontery.  You will be left scratching your head at how someone could be so hypersensitive to your playful humor.  I used to call my Finnish girl “finn-skinned”.  She almost cried.  The upside is that a Finn chick is a naif in the art of head games, so you’ll never have to deal with her flirting with other guys in a bar just to make you jealous.  Finns are introverted.  There is a sly Finnish joke that goes:  How can you tell if you’re talking to an extroverted Finn?  He looks at your shoes. But don’t mistake this aversion to sociability for weakness.  Remember, these are the people who held off a much larger Soviet invading force.  And the best sniper in history was this guy.  A Finn girl’s introversion hides a surprising strength of character.  She won’t tolerate her man walking all over her.  Fiercely loyal and commitment-oriented, Finns make fantastic girlfriends.  More than other women, Finns appreciate small gestures like spontaneously buying her a rocket pop from an ice cream truck.  Finn girls smell fantastic and look ten years younger than their age.

Remember that “the best stereotypes are rooted in truth.”

The short answer: No.

Qualifier:  But, I probably wouldn’t be an ideal match for a very religious man. I find most of what is taught in Churches to be silly or at worse harmful.

I really enjoyed the recent discussion on whether HBD or Christianity is more harmful to the Left on Mangan’s blog. I tend to agree that modern American Christianity is “uniquely susceptible among religions to liberalism.”

Why would I want my children to become more susceptible to progressivism by teaching them fairy-tales that suck them in at an early age? I’d rather be exposing them to a nonreligious ethos that would keep their critical thinking skills sharp.

So,  I’m hoping that I can find someone who is similar to me in being thoughtfully secular and perhaps spiritual (atheist or agnostic works too.) My second choice would be someone that is religious — and thanks to David, one of my commenters, I have some new/old religions to check out on that front.

I used to be more of a hard core atheist in my early 20s, but I pendulumed to general atheistic-agnosticism in my mid to late 20s. Over the past year, I read books like  “Molecules of Emotion” and “The Biology of Belief” which changed some of my previous ideas. It was fascinating to learn about the  power of thoughts in controlling our emotions and our entire body.  The many energy fields all around us effecting our lives — energies that we can’t measure. This led me to reconsider my belief that there was no higher power. So I’m open to changing my mind ultimately.

Back to my main point — I think philosophically right now it would difficult for me to become a deeply religious person and hence I think I’d be a poor match for a religious guy.

On top of that,  lifestyle wise I would hate to give up my Sundays to sit in a church pew, singing songs and listening to a lecture/sermon. Although I understand that my preferences are probably geographically and life dependent right now.  I can see how going to Church could become really important when I have small children and I want to become a part of a community, esp in a smaller town.

I recently stumbled across HBD Girl, who could be the solution to our nerdiness problem. Only a couple of entries so far, but she looks promising.

Been noticing blog posts  about one of my favorite writers, Steve Sailer — particularly in “In Mala Fide”

It’s great to see his ideas spreading and being appreciated.

What I really like about him is not just the thoroughness and originality of his research but also his attitude. I can just picture him smiling while writing.

In stark contrast, many trad/HBD guys I’ve come across IRL are so full of hate or negativity.  Their default mood is whining, complaining or anger at the world.  Blech!

BTW, if it’s not already obvious complaining is an extreme turnoff no matter your viewpoint.

I do admire high intellect but not at the expense of a can-do attitude. Negativity can really sap ones energy and for what? I already know the facts and theory of HBD or innate differences between males-females.  You don’t need to drill me with the horrors of what is happening right now. What are you going to do about it?

How are you going to attract someone like me? How are you going to create a better society where you’ll want to raise your children?

I think this explains my long attraction to entrepreneurs (even before reading Atlas Shrugged) —  men that create or push towards something more positive in this world. Not holed up in their homes blogging or in bars engaging in the same masturbatory conversations giving no solution, serving no purpose besides stroking his ego.

So yay to Sailer. I hope that I can meet more HBD trad guys like him!

Yesterday, I had a full and fun day of rockclimbing. My body and hands are paying the price right now — hands and skin scraped a bit, muscles sore all over, but I’m glad that I really pushed myself:  rappelling solo, practicing my anchoring techniques, and climbing two 5.10a-d routes.

I went with my Russian rockclimbing partner, whom I met recently.

Since I’ve moved to this area, I’ve met a lot of Russian guys (not born in the U.S.)  and so far I’ve been pretty impressed with them. They usually understand the idea of HBD and also a bit of male-female relationships.

What I like about Russian guys is that they aren’t afraid of being trad men. The ones I’ve met are usually a bit risk-taking, very smart, like strong independent women, and still treat me like a lady which in turn makes me feel more attractive.

I also love that I can talk about philosophy or ideas with them and that they are pretty engaging and intellectual. Since they escaped a Communist country (as my father did, too) we can share an appreciation for free-markets and a country with rule of law, too.

My sample size is small, so I’m not sure if this it true with most Russian men. Are there any downsides to Russian men or men from former Communist countries?