Don't drink the cool aid? That means nothing.

As a prolific blog reader, especially in the HBDosphere and the game/rooshosphere, I come across a wide variety of blogs.  Two blogs, that I both like and dislike in equal measure, G Manifesto and One STDV, The former I like for his travel, style, and game tips, but dislike for his acceptance of the decline of America, glorification of boxing and a lifestyle that doesn't promote civilization (eg a highly value transference lifestyle (hat tip: Half Sigma) - what does he do exactly?  Drug dealing?  Speculation?  Smuggling?  Human trafficking?). 

But ONESDTV I like for his defense of America, his HBD realist stance, links to great videos of blacks behaving badly, and his more philosophical outlook.  I dislike him for loyalty to the white race, ambivalence to transformative technology, skepticism of gay rights.  


But both readers characterize themselves as rebels.  Onestdv for his rejection of the liberal narrative, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, G Manifesto for his rejection of the 9-5 workweek, American finance, etc...


As in response to my previous post, G Manifesto posts a forum question like this:

Why Do Republicans Hate This?
(Picture of Floyd Mayweather)


But like this?
(Picture of Mitt Romney grinning with cash in a business suit.)


It comes to the heart of the difference.  The first is a gangbanger thug, the second person helps run civilization.  Now, don't get me wrong, Wall Street is far from perfect and I sympathy for Occupy.  But to say that they're thugs is ridiculous.  A country of Mayweathers will quickly become Haiti, while a country of Mitts will become Sweden, or probably Germany.  Big difference.

Now let's look at Mayweather's quote on Jeremy Lin:
Jeremy Lin is a good player but all the hype is because he's Asian. Black players do what he does every night and don't get the same praise.

Now, beyond this being factually wrong (Jeremy Lin is clearly above the average black player in the NBA), doesn't Mayweather realize that this applies to pretty much all black achievements outside of athletics and music?



The problem, is that when you rebel against the system, you have to ignore inconvenient facts, like how backwards the rest of the world is, or how racial differences in intelligence make it difficult to have a more egalitarian society.

On that note, I checked out OneSTDV's blog posting on Jeremy Lin here, where he actually condones the supposed discrimination against Lin in order to show that race stereotyping is ok and is alive and well in sports.  Eventually he admits that it's a feel good story, and I like it to.  It's obvious that blacks are on the defensive when their territory is threatened by an outsider.

The very naive game blogger

Following up on my previous post, I read a recent David Brooks column that reminds me of the rants that I see on Roosh and G Manifesto's Blog.

First, I need to mention that I have tremendous admiration for the former, and appreciation for the latter.  They've contributed immensly to our knowledge of game, travel, fashion, female psychology, etc...

But, I do notice an undercurrent of anti-Americanism and celebration of the decline of America.  Yes, I agree that Americans have become fat and feminism is hurting the market for marriage inclined beta men.  However, in order to criticize, one must have an alternative.  Here's Brooks echoeing the same thoughts:

This seems to be a moment when many people — in religion, economics and politics — are disgusted by current institutions, but then they are vague about what sorts of institutions should replace them. 

There are problems, there are corruption, but what are you doing about it?  Brooks suggests attaching one's self to a counter philosophy:

if you want to defy authority, you probably shouldn’t think entirely for yourself. You should attach yourself to a counter-tradition and school of thought that has been developed over the centuries and that seems true. 

But does the Rooshosphere/Gameosphere have a philosophy other than abandon your 9-5 and try to bang as many chicks as possible?

But rebellion without a rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm. 

That's how I feel whenever I read posts like this, this, and this from Roosh 

Here's some golden lines:

I’m sure you see the pattern. Most of the things I missed were based on our consumer culture: choice, convenience, and selection. Other than that, America has only one other benefit over foreign countries: health care.

Just kidding. There are no other benefits.

 -----

“Americans are lazy but they’re not. When it comes to money they’ll work like fucking mules. You’ll never see someone put in as many hours as an American, kiss ass like an American. They’ll do anything to make that extra dollar to get that plasma television or dine in some frou-frou restaurant that got a good review by some idiot on the internet. They’ll grin and take it in the ass when the boss asks them to stay in on Saturday morning a month before performance reviews are due. They will work and barely complain when you tell them they can’t take a long vacation. Hell, even if you give them a lot of time off they wouldn’t know what to do with it. They’ll take a trip to the Caribbean or some pre-programmed cruise to be trapped with a bunch of whales, one handshake from projectile diarrhea.

------

Nothing has given me the urge to burn my American passport more than the above photo.

-----

 Don't burn it Roosh, there are plenty of starving children in Sudan that will happily take your place.  

You're so special because you don't drink the corporate "Kool aid," Now tell me how we're going to keep people safe, educate children, keep financial markets running, prevent the encroach of Islam, and other problems of state management. 

Because if you read a recent Roissy post, the problems of American feminism that Roosh and the manosphere decry are inevitable given a free society and human genetic tendencies.  Btw, this is one of the most important social blog posts I've read in months.  Give it several reads.  I'll throw out some gems:

Female hypergamy (and male preference for younger women) just IS. It’s a fact of life, and society accommodates it or corrals it depending on its goals. 

So this is what we have to work with.

----

As society relaxes its controls of female sexuality — and unleashed female sexuality is the wilder and more fluid and more dangerous of the sexes — more women rush to the “thug lover” side of the hindbrain continuum, and away from any latent preference for dutiful betas. 

----

Is the consequences of the free love movement.

-----

However, once prosperity and secularism unraveled the cultural expectations, only internal behavioral motivators were left, and the motivations previously dampened and suppressed through practical and social limits could now express themselves.

 -----

Is the consequence of how lack of shaming and the welfare state changed things.

And for the grand conclusion:

-----

freedom and prosperity are the real “culprits” here, and their interaction with natural genetic variation. Not the welfare state. Not the government. Not apathetic elites. Not globalism or “stagnant wages”. Any major reversals in these trends would seemingly require major, forceful social controls, because they are the consequences of a very pervasive kind of individualism and of freedom of thought.

Chew on that. Realize what is being said here. If you do, you should feel a shudder descend your spine. Individualism and freedom of thought are the enemies of the very values and morality which gave birth to them and elevated them to primacy among advanced nations.
What libertarian, conservative OR liberal could read and accept the above premise and not feel at least some elemental — some PRIMAL — part of his worldview shatter into a million pieces. Libertarians: laissez faire means the cementing of intractable human hereditary differences into antagonistic classes and milieus. Conservatives: freedom and prosperity mean a slackening of external behavioral motivators and the erosion of commonality and shared values and the means with which to argue for them. Liberals: nonjudgmental individualism means a collapse of social capital and a surrender of any moral or aesthetic authority.
-----

Devastating stuff.  Could this be the inroad that we need to start promoting the singularity?  If human nature itself makes prosperity an inherently unstable civilizational condition, must we alter nature?


Or, is truth enough to save civilization?  If all of a sudden political correctness disappeared, could the truth save us?


Regardless, one must laugh at the shallowness which the gameosphere attacks Western civilization without going deeper into the issue.  


There is no solution to the gender problem as of yet, without engendering the race problem. 


America is dying. Unless the powerful divest themselves from their voracious egos and accept that they have been steeped in a mountain of lies for 60 years, perhaps 150 years depending on your point of origin, and until that day they reverse the path they have taken this country, America’s slow, asphyxiating dying will finally, unmercifully, reach closure…

What happened 150 years ago?  The end of slavery in America.  Is Roissy saying what I think he's saying?  If so, I'll need to meditate on this one.  I'll have a blog post up soon showing the parallels between animal rights and civil rights.  For now, shudder.


Roosh, you're great at giving game advice.  But your lamentations against the Western culture and America will eventually hit a point where we have some seriously controversial and disturbing topics to address.


Roosh, what is your grand worldview that takes into account all the theories out there?

Brain Science and Islam

The destruction of man as a free, rational agent is in process.  We're starting to be able to explain everything about human psychology, bit by bit.  We're starting to understand man as a biological machine, not as a philosopher.

So I was thinking after reading some articles.  Start with this one on Islam and homosexuality. 

Of the seven countries that impose the death penalty for homosexuality, all are Muslim. Even when gays do not face execution, persecution is endemic. In 2010 a Saudi man was sentenced to 500 lashes and five years in jail for having sex with another man. In February last year, police in Bahrain arrested scores of men, mostly other Gulf nationals, at a “gay party”. Iranian gay men are typically tried on other trumped-up charges. But in September last year three were executed specifically for homosexuality. (Lesbians in Muslim countries tend to have an easier time: in Iran they are sentenced to death only on the fourth conviction.)

When leftist apologists for Islam criticize Christians, they have to realize that Islam is far, far worse on the issue of gay rights.

But what should cause a crisis is homosexuality not being a choice.  

One landmark study looked at gay men’s brothers and found that 52 percent of identical twin brothers were also gay, in contrast with only 22 percent of nonidentical twin brothers and 11 percent of adoptive, genetically unrelated brothers. Heredity more than environment seemed to be calling the shots.

So how does a dogmatic repressive religion adjust to the new science? 

I could understand in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Iran, homosexuals would be condemned.  However, they're doing it in London too.

So what's going through a liberal's head when they read it?  That the protestors are just misinterpreting Islam?  If so, where are the mullahs calling for tolerance for homosexuals?

Personally, I don't mind homosexuals, unlike some other the other reactionaries.  They remove excess sausage, don't commit crimes, allow me to hook up with chicks in their clubs (which have better music), and generally are nice.  I'd take a neighborhood of queers over thugs anyday.  Unfortunately, the "oppressed" Muslims aren't so tolerant.  Ironic, no?



 

An important HBD exchange

On Robert Lindsay's blog.  Read the original post here.  Good food for thought - how a leftie views HBD:

• Robert Lindsay

  September 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM

  Let me ask you something. What if HBD is simply the truth? Then what? What do we do? Is it racist to simply tell the truth. Because this is where I am coming from. HBD is the last thing in the world I want to believe as a Leftie, but after studying it for decades, I come to the reluctant conclusion that it may well be true. I don’t see why I should deny the truth just because it’s ugly.
• louie jacuzzi

  September 11, 2011 at 3:52 PM

  because at worst it degrades the human value of an entire people, it’s a perfect justification eugenics, genocide, racial seperatism, etc. Suddenly, mass expulsions, mass killings, or even race based chattel slavery become “practical” solutions for dealing with people. At best it means there’s a permanent underclass of human beings that only exist to cared for by others, incapable of self sufficiencience, state formation, but let’s at least let’em live, basically a race of zoo animals complete with PETN(people for the ethical treatment of niggers) support.
• Robert Lindsay

  September 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM

  because at worst it degrades the human value of an entire people, it’s a perfect justification eugenics, genocide, racial seperatism, etc. Suddenly, mass expulsions, mass killings, or even race based chattel slavery become “practical” solutions for dealing with people.
  This is true, all of things can follow from HBD, correct. But if it’s true, it’s true and that’s all there is to it. And those things need not necessarily follow from HBD. It’s possible to believe in HBD and have a civilized society.
  Why does it degrade entire races to discuss the differences between them, assuming that they exist (and apparently they do). I don’t get it. Does it degrade different lines of dogs or cats to discuss the ways in which they are different? We are just mammals.
  At best it means there’s a permanent underclass of human beings that only exist to cared for by others, incapable of self sufficiencience, state formation, but let’s at least let’em live, basically a race of zoo animals complete with PETN(people for the ethical treatment of niggers) support.
  Well, are Blacks a permanent underclass or are they not? You are the one that is bringing that up, not me. Are you saying that Blacks are incapable of state formation? Have Blacks not formed some states in this world.
  You are correct though, HBD does imply a permanent Black underclass at least under hardcore capitalism. That’s one reason why I am a socialist. Also if HBD is true, it’s not Blacks’ fault that they fall behind, and the more genetically gifted are obligated to share some of their wealth with those who did poorly in the genetic lottery.

The best way to become an atheist

Is to learn about religion.  I remember reading a quote by an atheist father that he encourages his children to read the bible as the best way to teach them about religion.  I'm pretty sure the Koran will compare just as favorably in that respect.

(Hat tip, Half Sigma) Check out the new religious quiz by Pew.  I got only two wrong, the question on the first great awakening and which day the sabbath begins (most other groups barely hit 50% though, so I can't be blamed).

In terms of who scored the best, it's interesting to note that atheists/agnostics score the best.








Also, for HBD purposes, I would love to show liberals that it's not the evangelicals who are the dumbest in society, it's the black protestants and hispanic catholics.  Ouch.  I suppose they will counter with something along the lines of disparities in the education system that need to be corrected with early childhood education, but it's important to get the message out while pew still has the chart up.  One would be, initially, surprised that hispanics score worse than blacks, but I'm not surprised.  Black religious probably tend to be slightly self selecting for somewhat less ghetto traits.  For hispanics, cultural isolation due to living in the Spanish language bubble probably makes it less likely that they'll encounter information about other religions.

Test away!