Friday, May 04, 2018

Links in a great chain

As someone with high hopes for Nicholas Fuentes, this discussion does not disappoint. Richard Spencer, whose career I've followed for a decade now, is in top form.

Except for when he offers up this canard, that is:



This assertion was initially reported by the US Census in May of 2012 based on population estimates from 2011. Fortunately, the CDC releases actual birth data for the previous year based on all recorded births across the entire country each June. A month after the Census' sensational estimate, the actual figures came out and undercut the incorrect estimate. And that incorrect estimate has continued to be incorrect in each subsequent year.

The following table shows the actual percentage of total births in the US that were to non-Hispanic white mothers by year going back to 2011 (sources for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016):

YearWhite births
201154.4%
201254.0%
201354.1%
201453.9%
201553.5%
201652.1%

Some of these white women are of course giving birth to multiracial babies. For obvious reasons, tracking the mother's race is easier than tracking the father's. By a strictly one-drop rule, the percentage of births to whites is surely below 50%, probably well below it, since baby Elizabeth Warren and Nick Fuentes would be included in the non-white tally by this accounting. It would also dictate we describe the US on the order of 1% or 2% black, since the majority of blacks in America have some European ancestry.

Parenthetically, Spencer's example of Alabama is way off the mark. As of 2016, the latest year for which data is available, 60% of babies born in the state were non-Hispanic white (at the link are pie charts showing the racial distribution of births for all 50 states and the Imperial Capital).

The thrust of what Spencer says doesn't suffer a loss of relevance just because it's exaggerated, but precision is important. So is avoiding unnecessarily ingesting black pills. We're not licked yet.

A primary purpose of the alt right (or dissident right, or identitarian movement, or whatever the preferred phrase) is to change the culture. Celebrating procreation--our procreation--needs to be part of that change.

In his AmRen conference remarks last year and during his speech this year, Jared Taylor expressed regret for not having had more children, noting specifically that the reason for it is that he assumed he wouldn't like fatherhood and nobody ever told him how wonderful it would be--he ended up discovering it later in life.

I understand this rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Hell, it probably rubs most people the wrong way since most white people are below replacement!

It's an issue that gets me fired up not only because it's literally of existential importance but also because I held off, Idiocracy-style, through my twenties. I've never liked caring for pets. What were the chances I'd enjoy parenthood? With the benefit of hindsight, 100% as it turns out. I've now experienced a range of emotions I could not have experienced without having become a father. Unconditional love is reserved for our children, no one else.

Don't read this blog for emotional safeguarding, please. There is no point in fighting for an abstract idea of our posterity if we don't create any actual posterity to fight for.

We talk about the need for self-improvement. To get off the couch and into the gym. To stop drinking from the pop culture sewer and start distilling a salubrious culture of our own. To stop being supine and start standing up for ourselves. The shame we feel when we pass on the potential to grow the tribe is the same sort of shame we come up short on these other endeavors. Pressure to power. Stress to strength. Remember, others have done more with less.

This isn't a blanket call for MOAR WHITE BABIES (though that'd be fine with me). I know my audience. All human behavioral traits are heritable. The personality characteristics that make you a race realist grateful for your ancestors and guided by a concern for your descendents are personality characteristics your children will tend to share. If we don't do it (heh), we'll be relying on the Mennonites and the Mormons to win the future for us.

76 comments:

Anonymous said...

Seeing siblings become enthusiastic spore colonies of late US poz doesn't fill me with certainty that kids wouldn't find being on the side of power and moral certainty rather than a coy dissident a compelling option.

Annatar II said...

I would just point out that you can't use preliminary birth data as not all births are identified by race, for example in 2016 preliminary data, births by race only add up to 3.821m, while total births are 3.941m, the final births by race tend to adjusted later and tend to be in line with the original figure. Hence, the total % of White births once all births by race are identified is likely to be 2.054m/3.821m which gets you 53.8%.

The share of White births as a % of all births has been flat since since 2006 at around 53-54% due to the collapse in the Hispanic birthrate.

For looking at births by race and state I would recommend this site as it contains data going back 20 years by race.
https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/ViewSubtopic.aspx?reg=01&top=2&stop=10&lev=1&slev=4&obj=3

Regarding Alabama, it is one of the few states where the share of white births is growing over time, in the 2006-08 period, 59.7% of all births were white, by 2013-15, that figure was up slightly to 60.3%.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Nothing is certain other than that, to audaciously quote the great Jared Taylor, if we do nothing then we will lose everything.

Annatar II,

Yeah, there's a marginal difference but it doesn't seem to amount to much. Probably should do a little digging and use final numbers for sake of accuracy, though. Just looked at 2015, for example, and the n-H white birth % is the same to the first decimal with preliminary and final (both are 53.5%).

Passer by said...

"White" quite probably includes jews, turks, arabs and some other muslims ..

Audacious Epigone said...

Passer by,

MENA constitutes 1% of the population and some identify as "other" rather than white. And those from the Iberian peninsula, like, say, Fuentes, get counted as Hispanic so it's probably a wash.

At 2% of the population, the vast majority of which considers itself racially white, is another question.

lineman said...

Not only having kids but having the grow up around other kids with the same values and morals is a huge help...So if you don't have that where you are at then you seriously need to consider relocating...Do it for your kids sake...

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Fuentes has a lot of potential. Like all 19 year olds, he does stupid stuff and in this case, he tends to embroil himself in petty dramas. Here's hoping he can outgrow it because if he can, then he has a bright future.

Regarding white birth rates, a lot of it will require a cultural shift. Millennials largely prefer extending their adolescence by a few more years than have a couple more kids. The oldest cohort of millennials are now in their mid-30s and they're still acting like they're 22. Maybe 37 is the new 22 or something, I don't know. Thirtysomething millennials are still drafting off of excuses they dished out in the Obama era, which many of them now are retroactively idolizing now. Their lives are so much worse under Drumpf than Obama, even though many of them have good jobs, paid off all their student loans, and are finally able to live at a place without roommates.

I think the meme generators are doing a good job with memes about raising white families and belittling spinsterdom. Generation Z once again is in the position to learn from the mistakes of Generation Y.

Corvinus said...

"Millennials largely prefer extending their adolescence by a few more years than have a couple more kids. The oldest cohort of millennials are now in their mid-30s and they're still acting like they're 22. Maybe 37 is the new 22 or something, I don't know."

Assuming that your assertion is accurate, especially for Millennial men, then we can lay blame to the Roosh's and the Heartiste's of the world. Their "pump and dump" lifestyles certainly were an attractive feature. Why settle down and raise white children when playing Game is much more up their alley? No kids, little responsibility, just harPOONing.

DreamEater said...

about 40-50 of hispanics self-identify as white, i think the percentage is between that range, especially if you include castizos

216 said...

Corvinus,

Male sexuality is by default harder to control than female sexuality. Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. The modern woman has an unreasonable expectation of "having it all", which includes reckless IVF treatments. Fertility declines with income, plateauing in the range of 125K before increasing marginally at 450K.

The marginal value of beta males has decreased thanks to globalization. The female of the species chooses when reproduction occurs, the male doesn't even choose commitment thanks to the system of child support. Even with declining marriage rates, half of marriages end in divorce. The PUA lifestyle is only achievable by a highly visible minority, the MGTOW phenomenon is the real driver.

Anonymous said...

white non hispanic K12 Public school enrollment, for comparison.

2011: 51.7%
2012: 51.1%
2013: 50.4%
2014: 49.7%
2015: 49.1%
2016: 48.7%

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Z-Man and I talked to him and Henry Wolf for a good hour at the AmRen conference and that's the message he got from all three of us. He's a sharp guy who is aware of his potential. As I've said before, I think he'll calibrate well over time. He sees that identitarianism isn't some flash in the pan--it's the future. He's positioning himself well to take advantage of that reality.

Corvinus,

I'm not familiar with Roosh but Heartiste provides tons of ways for men to make themselves more attractive to women. It's an effective tool he's giving away for free to countless (and his reach is huge) beta males. Heartiste uses because as he sees it variety is the spice of life. Other men use it to improve their marriages or LTRs.

DreamEater,

Yeah, counting someone like Fuentes as non-white feels silly.

216,

In 1989, the first year the GSS asked about lifetime sexual partner counts, 7.0% of men aged 35 and younger reported never having slept with a woman. In 2016, the latest year data is available, that figure is 15.4%. That's MGTOW indeed.

Anon,

I suspect that figure will really start dropping precipitously as time goes on, faster than the n-H white percentage does. As America runs out of white kids to spread around the public schools, more and more whites will end up in private schools to protect themselves from the war zones that are majority Sun People public schools.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

Fuentes, who I've been familiar with for about six months or so, has rubbed me the wrong way. Sort of a know-it-all alex p keaton type. I mean he's 19 fucking years old and For all we know, he could be a commie in a few years. Because people's views change at that age, or at least I know mine did.

I think the fallout with Allsup sort of confirmed what I had suspected about Fuentes. Allsup seems more of a sincere guy to me. Now does that mean we avoid him like the plague the way we would Atomwaffen or TWP? Like, if I was an eceleb and he wanted to invite me on his podcast, I would go on. But being wary is never a bad idea.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

edit: After the TWP? I meant to put the words "No."

Sid said...

Corvinus,

Roissey/Heartiste and Roosh definitely promoted the child-free, hedonistic PUA lifestyle around the turn of the decade. However, they have since toned down the anti-natalism. Heartiste in particular has become ever more solidly white nationalist and an effective white nationalism demands white babies.

Their influence on American culture has been important but limited, and they certainly didn't create the anti-natalism attitudes you see around. In fact, the alt-right has emerged as a force for pro-white natalism. The big problem we have is that white men are making more progress on becoming pro-family than white women are!

I definitely think that teaching Game while encouraging good civic and family values is essential. Not many guys can become ice-cold PUAs with triple digit notch counts, but it's nothing but a good thing to make the average man readily marriageable.

In fact, we probably wouldn't even need Game if our culture didn't force down so much anti-Game on men in its commercials, romantic comedies, campus rape hysteria, etc.

Anon and AE,

Private schools in the US tend to either be religious schools or elite playgrounds, or a combination thereof. The private school tuition can rival that of a university's.

It would be nice if there were "national schools," if you will. Tuition that even the WWC and lower middle class could easily afford. No religious indoctrination, but a willingness to explore the influence the Bible and Christianity have had on Western and American culture. Try to get white students in and let them be raised in their own culture, so no SJW nonsense. Sex ed that is less about learning the trendiest degeneracies and more on biological differences and helping students plan and get ready to produce the next generation. Basic, common sense rule of law, so ne'er-do-wells would not be able to sell drugs on school grounds.

I don't know how to bring such places about, but boy would it be great to have them.

5318Anon said...

Not to offend, but internet people with Big Ideas about new giant institutions, laws and strategies should probably first consider whether they'd be able to get away with saying that, for example, blacks commit 50% of murders in the US into a national news network microphone and camera. It's like people think our intellectual army has aircraft carriers and ICBMs when we're actually digging punji pits; and that's no blackpill, the NVA won to the degree it was conceivable to win.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> I think the fallout with Allsup sort of confirmed what I had suspected about Fuentes. Allsup seems more of a sincere guy to me.

Interestingly enough, Allsup and Fuentes are doing better apart than they were together. They're finding their own niches and seem to be flourishing. I initially had a low opinion of Allsup since it seemed like the most he could offer was low brow takes on events but he has turned that around in a short order. Both of them are young guys with bright futures if they mature in the right direction.

chris said...

"the latest year data is available, that figure is 15.4%. That's MGTOW indeed."

AE, what are the percentages of nubile female virgins?

Corvinus said...

216…

“Male sexuality is by default harder to control than female sexuality.”

No.

“Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.”

Males produce semen which, in most species, contains critical bioactive compounds that presumably are expensive to produce. In fact, the price for a single vial of sperm in the fertility market goes for anything between $370 to $890 dollars. That cost only covers the sperm itself, whereas the browsing, freezing, storing, reheating, inserting, and inseminating all have their own steep costs. While some elements of the process are covered by insurance, the cost of actual sperm always comes out of pocket.

“The modern woman has an unreasonable expectation of "having it all", which includes reckless IVF treatments.”

As opposed to those men who “pump and dump” or who remain commitment-phobes by holding out for the “less flawed” female, or who simply want to remain juvenile well into their 30’s.

“The marginal value of beta males has decreased thanks to globalization.”

Apparently you put WAY too much stock in this social-sexual hierarchy.

“The female of the species chooses when reproduction occurs, the male doesn't even choose commitment thanks to the system of child support.”

That’s not how it works.

“The PUA lifestyle is only achievable by a highly visible minority, the MGTOW phenomenon is the real driver.”



Both of which are overrated and over-marketed.

Corvinus said...

Sid…

“However, they have since toned down the anti-natalism.”

You mean they are slightly less frequent in their posts about the PUA lifestyle. They realize they have little to actually show with no offspring (as of yet) to show for their ruthless efforts.

“Heartiste in particular has become ever more solidly white nationalist and an effective white nationalism demands white babies.”

Actually, some have argued that those specific articles are written by a cadre of authors. It is all marketing, a rebranding if you will, as Heartiste is in semi-retirement. He still pens the Game material, but not the white nationalism screeds. Same with Roosh. They both cater to their audience since each hit the proverbial wall. They realize the jig is up for them.

“Their influence on American culture has been important but limited, and they certainly didn't create the anti-natalism attitudes you see around.”

They assuredly contributed mightily to those attitudes. But they served a useful (idiot) purpose.

"The big problem we have is that white men are making more progress on becoming pro-family than white women are!”

The fact of the matter is that young white men and women today are both on the same trajectory when it comes to marrying and having children. They either choose to wait for a host of reasons or they either hitch up and sire offspring.

“I definitely think that teaching Game while encouraging good civic and family values is essential.”

Right. Every father should pick up “Bang” for their sons.

“Not many guys can become ice-cold PUAs with triple digit notch counts”

Really? Because that is exactly what Roissy and Roosh incessantly promoted;

“but it's nothing but a good thing to make the average man readily marriageable.”



Sure, there are nuggets here and there offered by Roosh and Roissy about the woman’s psyche. But what makes the average man “readily marriageable” is seeking dating advice from their fathers and friends rather than some online personality who creates over the top situations based on the subjective “social sexual hierarchy”.

“In fact, we probably wouldn't even need Game if our culture didn't force down so much anti-Game on men in its commercials, romantic comedies, campus rape hysteria, etc.”

That’s debatable.


AE…

“I'm not familiar with Roosh but Heartiste provides tons of ways for men to make themselves more attractive to women.”

No, to make themselves appear more attractive to women, with the primary purpose to “pump and dump” them.

“It's an effective tool he's giving away for free to countless (and his reach is huge) beta males.”

The socio-sexual hierarchy is artificially constructed and is liberally applied by “special, high status men” who claim to have the special power to label any and all men who do not meet their standards as a “gamma”. See Jordan Peterson be labeled by Vox Day in this regard. It’s a con job.

“Heartiste uses because as he sees it variety is the spice of life.”



Which in the end is anti-family propaganda.

Sid said...

Corvinus,

First, drop the ... after writing a screen name.

Now, onto your points,

"You mean they are slightly less frequent in their posts about the PUA lifestyle. They realize they have little to actually show with no offspring (as of yet) to show for their ruthless efforts."

I don't remember ever reading either of them expressing interest in having children.

"Actually, some have argued that those specific articles are written by a cadre of authors. It is all marketing, a rebranding if you will, as Heartiste is in semi-retirement. He still pens the Game material, but not the white nationalism screeds."

I don't care if Heartiste is a person or a committee. The anti-natalism in his writing has dropped dramatically, and this is good.

"Same with Roosh. They both cater to their audience since each hit the proverbial wall. They realize the jig is up for them."

Banging new girls is fun but gets old after awhile. Nothing wrong with them moving onto more "movement" issues.

"They assuredly contributed mightily to those attitudes. But they served a useful (idiot) purpose."

Yes, I'm sure all the authors of those "Childless couples are the happiest" pieces are red-pilled misogynists.

"The fact of the matter is that young white men and women today are both on the same trajectory when it comes to marrying and having children. They either choose to wait for a host of reasons or they either hitch up and sire offspring."

One of the most insipid things I've read.

What's worth noting is that white men can afford to be childless, get married at 40, and have a few children. Women don't have that luxury. So even if they were on the same trajectory, women will hit their "wall" far earlier than men will.

“Right. Every father should pick up “Bang” for their sons."

You know, I momentarily forgot how you write comments. I'm going to an art show in 15 minutes and am just wasting time in a coffeeshop, so I guess it's ok I'm wasting my time.

“Really? Because that is exactly what Roissy and Roosh incessantly promoted;"

To their credit, they were ruthlessly honest that Game only gets you so far. And even if they didn't, that doesn't subtract from my own point that the PUA ideal is achievable for only a handful of men.

"Sure, there are nuggets here and there offered by Roosh and Roissy about the woman’s psyche. But what makes the average man “readily marriageable” is seeking dating advice from their fathers and friends rather than some online personality who creates over the top situations based on the subjective “social sexual hierarchy”."

No, not necessarily.

Some guys will have dads who will show them the ropes, but many won't.

If you're a nerd and your friends are guess you play Magic the Gathering with, then no, you're not going to get great advice.

Some guys don't have to consciously learn Game, but plenty do.

"That’s debatable."

Which means it isn't.

Theodoric said...

Sid,
I like the "national school" idea, setting funding aside, the two big problems are going to be 1)lawsuits and 2)Colleges putting the application of any graduate from the "racist" school in the trash. Maybe Amren or a similar group can develop a homeschool curriculum and like-minded people could set up homeschool co-ops? Of course, there are fewer families that can feasibly homeschool than in the past-I just realized that my generation (born in the mid 80s) is the last where stay at home moms were the norm.

Audacious Epigone said...

Krusty,

Sure, the caution is wise. But he has a level of genuine charismatic talent that is exceptionally rare. We have lots of solid vloggers and e-celebs. They are almost all replaceable, though. Fuentes is a rarity. He's as talented as Milo Yiannopolous in this regard.

Sid,

There is no book (or collection of books if you prefer) more crucial to understanding the culture and history of the West than the Bible. On entirely secular grounds it should be the most studied literary work in the public school curriculum.

chris,

Corresponding figures for women of the same age are 10.4% in 1989 and 13.2% today. This narrower shit among women meshes with Heartiste's understanding of the evolving sexual market in the West.

Corvinus,

Come on, men can produce the stuff of reproduction every 20 minutes from puberty until late in old age. Women can produce the stuff of reproduction once every month (every 44,000 minutes) from puberty until middle age. Biologically, sperm is much cheaper than eggs are.

Heartiste's writing voice is very unique. It strikes me as highly implausible that multiple writers write under the same name. That knack for neologism generation is similarly very unique. And I interact with him on social media with some regularity. Unless there is a certain person designated to interact with me or the group of writers all follow previous interactions I've had with Heartiste, the conversational continuity doesn't mesh with the idea of Heartiste being other than a single person.

Audacious Epigone said...

narrower shift* heh

DissidentRight said...

Jared Taylor expressed regret for not having had more children, noting specifically that the reason for it is that he assumed he wouldn't like fatherhood and nobody ever told him how wonderful it would be--he ended up discovering it later in life.

I understand this rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Hell, it probably rubs most people the wrong way since most white people are below replacement!


In this case, people need to be rubbed the wrong way. Having children is part of growing up. Only when you children do you truly join the ranks of the West. It is your right and your duty.

This isn't a blanket call for MOAR WHITE BABIES (though that'd be fine with me).

What we can say, at the very least, is that all men of the West must put themselves on a path that involves having many children. Those who tread that path are our brothers. The rest, well…don't get too attached. Most of them will fall away in the end.

Regarding white birth rates, a lot of it will require a cultural shift.

So shift the culture, one step at a time.

No, to make themselves appear more attractive to women, with the primary purpose to “pump and dump” them.

When the Christian Right is telling you that Roosh, Heartiste, et al. are essential reading, you know your argument is invalid. Thank you, Vox Day.

The socio-sexual hierarchy is artificially constructed and is liberally applied by “special, high status men” who claim to have the special power to label any and all men who do not meet their standards as a “gamma”. See Jordan Peterson be labeled by Vox Day in this regard.

The male character traits that coalesce into gamma-ness are all negative, harmful, and woman-repulsing traits. All men who have those traits need to change themselves. I had several of them myself, Vox was the first one to explain it.

216 said...

DissidentRight,

A looming prospect is actually a revival of polygyny, thanks to the winner-take-all bimodal distribution economy. PUAs talk about having "harems" by "plate-spinning" and while few men can actually do this, there are certainly TechBros and StockBros that could afford having kids by multiple women.

The only barrier is that hard polygamy is not recognized by the courts, and remains culturally unacceptable even in black culture. Soft polygamy is common in black culture, and is certainly spreading to White and Hispanic culture.

The Right in the West has the common occurrence of being male-dominated, though exit polls in Italy showed no gender gap. That on paper makes polygyny difficult, while beta males eagerly engage in fin-dom polyandry for tradthots.

Contra Corvinus, men can't be shamed out of PUA and MGTOW back into becoming boring mainstream neoliberals. The egalitarian family structure is both emasculating for men and unfulfilling for women. And it routinely fails 40-50% of the time.

Jonathan Centauri said...

The REAL PURPOSE of "desegregation" and NO WHITES ONLY SPACES is to PROMOTE MISCEGENATION. All those "sports" are a way to get worthless retards accolades and adoration from White girls that would normally avoid smelly dumb trash. This Failed State is crumbling.
Those "unemployment reports" are so full of crap they should be printed on toilet paper. Homeless camps are filling up, and "profits" are all Enron Accounting at this point.
War is now INEVITABLE. Citizen Trump tweeted up a storm and sent a bunch of weekend warriors to the border. The Invaders are ALL ALREADY ACROSS. He has just KILLED HIMSELF. These invaders want him DEAD. He's too dangerous as a sign of hope for Whites to keep around. This guy either gets impeached or gets the Kennedy Retirement Plan. It'd be too embarrassing for this Failed State if he gets offed by invaders.

The System is crumbling. ITS ALREADY BROKE. Citizen Trump isn't shopping for Banker Wars cause Global Hegemony is still possible. They need causalities and a reason to militarise. THEY ARE RUNNING ON FUMES AT THIS POINT.

TRUST ME ON THIS.

BadMoodReflections said...

Comments on these more general purpose, non-quantitative / data topics are unfortunately quite bad.

If the only purpose of the comment is emotional venting, then please refrain from posting.

Jonathan Centauri said...

I suppose that crack was lobbed at me so I'll reply. Its hardly emotional venting. If you have no feelings at all, you must not be involved. Seeing one's homeland reduced to Third World Status is hardly an exercise in arguing mere facts or looking at mere statistics.
People have the erroneous opinion that these things are happening due to mere incompetence and that tweaks or better management will ameliorate them. I hardly believe this is true. No one can be this stupid. California used to be a paradise and now it looks like Mexico or Brazil. Detroit used to be called "The Paris of the West" and now its overgrown with weeds. New management or stupid social plans are not gonna cut it. This HAS to be deliberate. Race is THE WHOLE ISSUE. Whites are LEGALLY BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. This is ACTUALLY ILLEGAL UNDER LAW, and MERE EXCUSES and FAKE HISTORY is all they have to "justify" this...
You can look at the trees and study the soil, but you cannot see the forest and the BIG PICTURE. Its ALL about RACE. Saying "ONLY WHITE PEOPLE CAN BE RACIST" is nowhere in the same world as objective or HONEST.

Realist said...

Why all the head bobbing???

Corvinus said...

Dissident Right…

“When the Christian Right is telling you that Roosh, Heartiste, et al. are essential reading, you know your argument is invalid. Thank you, Vox Day.”



Appeal to authority. Of course Vox Day, with the capricious nature of the social-sexual hierarchy, is going to promote the writings of Roosh and Heartiste because they are useful idiots. But Christian men steer clear of patently blatant sinners, at worst, or make decided efforts to reform them, at best.

“Only when you children do you truly join the ranks of the West. It is your right and your duty.”



Seems like you enjoying a tasty dish of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, you believe white men who sire white offspring become card carrying members of the West. On the other hand, you support white men (although Roosh is actually a vibrant) who do not have children and who engage in clear anti-Western behavior as being part of the West.

“The male character traits that coalesce into gamma-ness are all negative, harmful, and woman-repulsing traits.


With those traits being arbitrary in nature. Case in point—Vox Day unilaterally and automatically labelling Jordan Peterson a gamma.


“All men who have those traits need to change themselves. I had several of them myself, Vox was the first one to explain it.”

If you seemingly agree with a blogger who informs you that you are somehow not measuring up as a man, and you believe him, then something is decidedly wrong here.

216…

“Contra Corvinus, men can't be shamed out of PUA and MGTOW back into becoming boring mainstream neoliberals.”

That would be a straw man on your part. As Dissident Right clearly stated, unless the PUA’s and MGTOW’s put themselves on a path that involves having many children, they are not true men of the West. Dare I say, they are interlopers.

Jonathan...

“The REAL PURPOSE of "desegregation" and NO WHITES ONLY SPACES is to PROMOTE MISCEGENATION.”


You do realize that there are prominent members of the Alt Right who have married and sired offspring outside of their race. Are they “race traitors”? Furthermore, what business is it of yours when men and women make their own decisions regarding marriage and having children with people from different races?

Corvinus said...

Sid…

“I don't remember ever reading either of them expressing interest in having children.”

If that be the case, more reason for married and Christian men NOT to seek their counsel. Both men lack the requisite background and experience regarding married life and how to raise offspring. It would be like a person going to a Ford Dealership and asking it how to maintain the small plane they own. Just because the dealership deals with transportation issues does not mean they are the appropriate place to get the necessary information.

“The anti-natalism in his writing has dropped dramatically, and this is good.”

It’s a brand. Heartiste is catering to the audience merely for blog traffic. If he was duly concerned about the lack of white babies on God’s green earth, he would practice what he preaches. Instead, he sits in his ivory tower and dispenses how OTHER men should have offspring to save Western Civilization. So for 15 years he bangs sluts and leaves them, praying to God that his jimmy didn’t fail him and hoping that her boyfriend or husband doesn’t find him and put him in the hospital or grave. And it is Heartiste himself who has done a 180 on “anti-natalism”, it is the cadre of writers who help to run his blog.

“Banging new girls is fun but gets old after awhile. Nothing wrong with them moving onto more "movement" issues.”


Their sole purpose was to promote the “Enjoy The Decline” movement. Once they realized they were hitting the proverbial wall, and there was little new ground to cover, they began to ride that wave of white nationalism and Alt Rightism.

“Yes, I'm sure all the authors of those "Childless couples are the happiest" pieces are red-pilled misogynists.”

That would be a straw man on your part. Childless couples, to me, make no sense with their decision. But in the end that is their choice, not yours or mine to make.

“Some guys will have dads who will show them the ropes, but many won’t.”

Many fathers today teach their kids how to be a man. Now, what that constitutes differs. The manosphere, however, insists that there is but one path to take. Furthermore, how do you know for certain that sons who play trading card games are not getting insight from their old man about how to deal with the opposite sex? What makes you the savant when it comes to fatherly wisdom?

“Which means it isn’t.”

No, it is debatable. Clearly.

“What's worth noting is that white men can afford to be childless, get married at 40, and have a few children. Women don't have that luxury.”

Actually, men and women can be 40, get married, and have children. But in both cases, there are inherent risks—the rise in not conceiving, an increase in birth defects, and an uptick in older parents who may not see their own children as adult.

“So even if they were on the same trajectory, women will hit their "wall" far earlier than men will.”



No. Men and women hit the wall in the same way when it comes to physical appearance and body weight. Just look at obesity rates. “Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest age-adjusted rates of obesity (48.1%) followed by Hispanics (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (34.5%), and non-Hispanic Asians (11.7%). Obesity is higher among middle age adults age 40-59 years (40.2%) and older adults age 60 and over (37.0%)”.

Jonathan Centauri said...

You do realize that there are prominent members of the Alt Right who have married and sired offspring outside of their race. Are they “race traitors”?

Of course they're traitors Blackbird. Look at that sad sack McConnell. His Chinese wife isn't just for bedding, its for padding his nest with Chinese cash. She's his "bridge" to Chinese deals. She's in the Cabinet and using the role there to purchase Big Money Making Ventures from the Chinese.
FOLLOW THE MONEY. Don't try to use guilt on me boy...

Sid said...

Corvinus,

Your reply had me rolling my eyes the whole time. That was until you argued that men "hit the Wall" the same way women do. That made me burst out laughing.

Are you a troll, or are you for real? I'm amazed by how skillful you are at missing the point of clearly-written arguments. If you're for real I think you could dodge lightning if it were an argument coming your way.

DissidentRight said...

If that be the case, more reason for married and Christian men NOT to seek their counsel

Are you a Christian, Corvinus? The Christian Right is Christian. And we say, learn from Roosh and Heartiste.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Actually, I like the manosphere. It may not be great in a stable society, but we don't have one of those. Nowadays, the only choices that you have is cad or pajama boy. At least cad looks and acts like a MAN.

Feryl said...

Corvinus/Sid:

There is value to male attractiveness. Amorous women sometimes have flings with dudes, who can at times be....Wait for it.....Younger and attractive. At the end of the day, men are on average far more concerned about youth and beauty in their partners than women are, but that being said, it's rather naive to dismiss the idea that women are almost never discerning of male looks.

In the PUA-sphere and elsewhere, the topic of hot-headed thuggish male youngsters being subjected to sympathy and sexual fantasies by women comes up again and again. Indeed, 12-14 yr old girls dig non-threatening effete boy bands, while the prospect of a fling with a thug seems if anything to increase as women age (likely because women feel their clock ticking and nature is telling them to get knocked up by a alpha so as to bless the future with more alphaness).

Also WRT male beauty, it's interesting to note that many popular male actors, and many men considered presidential/prime minister timber, are NOT the thug type, but rather, uhmmm, pretty boys who retain their fan base if they age well. Since women were given the vote at whatever point that was, it's common for the Left party in particular to run photogenic men in their 40's and 50's. JFK in the 1960's (full Celtic hair, outdoorsy and well-tanned, mid-40's during his first pres. campaign), Clinton in the early 90's (full Celtic hair, still fairly robust looking before his sexual escapades did him in, mid-40's in his first pres. campaign), and Obama in the late 2000's (full hair, slender and physically active, later 40's in his first campaign).

It's shown up elsewhere, too, with Trudeau in Canada (who in every way appears to be in remarkable shape for a guy in his mid-40's). Macron in France is a mixed bag; he's young and slender, but on the other hand his hair is thinning and his face is rather haggard for his age.

When it comes to choosing a long-term partner (including Uncle Sam), women go more for a middle aged alpha/beta mix (not too aged, since old men are obviously poorly suited to being around long enough to be worth a woman's time, thus why Trump is hated by most women and why Anna Nicole Smith was widely ridiculed for marrying men on the verge of dying). When it comes to thrilling fantasies, it's hormone overloaded types who dominate other males. I think Heartiste missed the mark with Trump; Trump's PUA capabilities were much better when he was a young alpha, now he's more likely to get gold-digging wenches then women who feel viscerally thrilled by the idea of sex with him. Part of the me-too phenomena is that guys like Harvey Weinstein, as they get into their 50's and esp. 60's, simply gross women out. That goes for Al Franken, too (Franken was a jock as a youngster and probably got used to girls being thrilled by his naughty behavior, but lo and behold as a senior citzen it seems really off-putting to have him touch you.

Swear to god, my middle-aged boss fell for....Marco freakin' Rubio in the last primary. It literally was a beauty contest, with Rubio being the most photogenic and youthful looking candidate although at 45 he isn't too young to not be taken seriously. If Rubio ran for the Dems, he may well have earned the vast majority of female votes in both the primary and the Dem.

Feryl said...

To put a bow on this topic, have y'all considered that "dirty old men" are often scorned and to a lesser degree, pitied? The subject of women aging out of good dating prospects (and fertility) is universally lamented, no more so than in the current credentialist sheocracy that aggressively takes women away from settling down responsibly. Yet it's also rather under-rated how men, as they near 60, gradually become less exciting to women....Especially if they lose their hair and become noticeably less robust. If it's true that women need to find a suitable partner before 40, then it's probably also true to some degree that men need to sow their oats in their 20's, 30's, and 40's, as women will lose patience for male mischief as men inch closer to being seniors...And baldness, sagging skin, and grey hair isn't turning anyone on.

We lament women maturing, but expect aging men, midway thru life, to cut "it" out and become more capable leaders. It's funny how the PUA-sphere is almost entirely targeted at later Gen X and Millennial (and I suppose Gen Z by now) males; those born before circa 1970 already had their moment and (most of them) know that the (sexual) adventure train has left the station.

Feryl said...

Sean Connery had a hair piece as Bond....Nobody buys the idea of a heavily bald man in his 30's (let alone older) being a danger seeker. Virtually all rock stars to come out of the 70's and 80's (when being a badass was "in") achieved and maintained their stardom while hanging onto their hair, which usually was longer to signal their alpha status. Younger men who have really short hair have excessive OCD and probably aren't too interested in exciting girls, said girls will often make the (bogus) claim that crew cuts and shaven heads are "masculine", when in reality romance novel covers feature Fabio style locks, even decades after the last period where male long hair was really popular (the early 90's).

In addition, longer hair often signals a willingness to go against the grain, which is considered an alpha trait, after all.

Sid said...

Feryl,

Male beauty is certainly an important part of attractiveness, but it's different from female beauty in two key ways:

1. Women appreciate male beauty as being one factor among many. If a guy has it, good. If he doesn't, he can still be seen as handsome if he dresses well, carries himself confidently. And if that doesn't work, a strong, positive personality, career success, etc. can overcome it.

In contrast, female beauty is far and away the most important factor in attractiveness. Having a sweet, nurturing personality is second. Everything else is tertiary.

2. Women have a wider range of what they find attractive in men.

In general, if you get a 100 guys together, 95 of them will more or less be able to agree on which girls are hot and which aren't. It's striking how our tastes don't vary all that much. Heck, I remember talking about girls with my Japanese friend in college and we had an easy time talking about which white and Asian girls were pretty and which weren't.

In comparison, women find different looks attractive in men. Some women love short hair; others prefer long hair. Some love light hued men, others prefer darker ones. Heck, I knew one girl who was quite pretty but she turned down offers from handsome guys because she found fat, ugly guys to be cute because they reminded her of her dad.

Don't get me started about the different comments I've heard from women about what I should do with my beard.

So the trick for men is to know what kind of look they can pull off, and run with it. This isn't to say that there are no objective standards for male male beauty - clearly George Clooney is more handsome than Danny DeVito - but men have a lot more room to fall into certain niches than women do.

On the issue of older men in the dating game...

I think men generally fall 15 years behind women. Women peak around age 20, whereas men peak on the dating market around age 35.

Women hit the Wall around age 40 after fast losing their market value over the previous ten years, whereas men hit it around 55 after declining around 45.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Depends on what you mean by attractive, Sid. Women are hardwired for "providers". Gold-diggers are just the extreme end of this biological urge. Feminism and gubmint cheese has messed with this age old need, but its been passed down to the girls in their genes.
That doesn't mean they won't cheat with a "hot bad boy" though. Bikers are perpetually broke and often in the pokey, but a mean tough dude riding a hog is a common fantasy with these broads. They might not want to marry them, but many will take a "ride on the wild side".
Uncle Sham supporting these bimbos has destroyed any sense of shame or sanity you will find. Those welfare queens do quite well with gubmint cheese. Its destroying society, but Feminists don't care much about that. Feminism OPPOSES families and these witches HATE women who Breed with Men.

Feryl said...

"Don't get me started about the different comments I've heard from women about what I should do with my beard.

If memory serves, prior to the mid-90's most, if not literally all, male celebrities with any kind of female following had little to no facial hair. Robert Plant, Harrison Ford, Elvis, Burt Reynolds, Tom Cruise, etc.

Facial hair is associated with striving and inequality. Inequality surged in the 90's and recent decades, thus in addition to the hoi-polloi often having facial hair (as has been the case since the late 60's), it's become increasingly acceptable for professional level people and even high level elites (such as celebrities).

The hair itself has gotten more outlandish and pretentious with each passing decade. In the late 60's-80's, some men had full but usually well-groomed beards and some had straight mustaches. In the 90's and early 2000's, the goatee and variations thereof (with or with/o long sideburns or mustache) came into fashion. Over the last 10+ years, elaborately styled mustaches and heavy beards have come into style.

Far from being "badass", messy beards and goatees look nasty and ugly. If Han Solo and Conan didn't need any facial hair to be cool, then who are these hipster asshats trying to impress? Oh yeah, the last time that so many people were so full of shit was the Civil War era, in which.....Many men had heavy beards."

Beards also cover up much of the face's overall character, making people harder to read and skin quality harder to judge. Neither of which I imagine are all that attractive (thus why male celebrities in the 60's-80's were much more clean shaven then the hoi-polloi, while most middle class people before the mid-90's also usually didn't go beyond a mustache if they had any hair at all).

Jonathan Centauri said...

Feryl, you must be joking. Movies have ZERO to do with reality. Han Solo was actually a criminal. That clean shaven look seemed odd for a guy hanging out with a giant werewolf. I have to wonder how Conan was so clean shaven in the Hyborian Age. He had long hair, but apparently shaved regularly when out riding in the wilderness.
I find those weird neckbeards rather unattractive myself, but it wasn't long ago that all men were sporting a beard. That clean shaven face and suit is more cubicle pigeon than manly man. Metrosexuals can claim to be well groomed with salon hairdos, manicured fingernails and well pleated slacks, but man they are definitely NOT.

Audacious Epigone said...

Trajan vs Hadrian, the battle continues.

Corvinus said...

Jonathan Centauri...“Of course they're traitors Blackbird.”

You’re going to have to include the Alt Right icon John Derbyshire in your assessment here. That won’t get you far in these parts. Best you reconsider here.

“Look at that sad sack McConnell. His Chinese wife isn't just for bedding, its for padding his nest with Chinese cash. She's his "bridge" to Chinese deals. She's in the Cabinet and using the role there to purchase Big Money Making Ventures from the Chinese.”

McConnell isn’t a member of the Alt Right. He’s a Swamp Creature, a mealy mouthed creature known as a Republican. You don’t get out much, do you?

“FOLLOW THE MONEY. Don't try to use guilt on me boy...”

OK, Foghorn Leghorn.


Dissident Right...

“Are you a Christian, Corvinus? The Christian Right is Christian. And we say, learn from Roosh and Heartiste”

You mean Fake Christians learn from those degenerates. Real Christians avoid Roosh and Heatiste like the plague.


Feryl...

“but that being said, it's rather naive to dismiss the idea that women are almost never discerning of male looks.

Strawman. I never made that statement nor implied it. Men and women care equally about having a partner who is specifically attractive to them. Wealthier people and those who are more confident in their appearance have stronger preferences for a partner that is good-looking. And people with desirable traits are in a position to be more selective about what they look for in mate.

“I think Heartiste missed the mark with Trump; Trump's PUA capabilities were much better when he was a young alpha, now he's more likely to get gold-digging wenches then women who feel viscerally thrilled by the idea of sex with him.”

It would appear that Trump desires gold-digging wenches, as he pays them off handsomely to go away. But I thought he was happily married, with the blessing of evangelicals.

Corvinus said...

Sid...

“1. Women appreciate male beauty as being one factor among many. If a guy has it, good. If he doesn't, he can still be seen as handsome if he dresses well, carries himself confidently. And if that doesn't work, a strong, positive personality, career success, etc. can overcome it.”

You are describing women who look at it from this perspective, which is not necessarily the majority of women. Some women certainly look at a guy of he is dapper and/or is well-established as attractive features, but at the end of the day the physical appearance and sexual appeal is key here for them.

“In contrast, female beauty is far and away the most important factor in attractiveness. Having a sweet, nurturing personality is second. Everything else is tertiary.”

Again, for some guys the hotness of a woman is of primary importance. But how a woman carries herself as well as her charm and the way she deals with people are also of major significance. It’s the whole package.


2. Women have a wider range of what they find attractive in men.

“In general, if you get a 100 guys together, 95 of them will more or less be able to agree on which girls are hot and which aren't.”

In reality, guys are more fickle in this regard. It comes down to physical features for men. Guys can generally agree about the baseline hotness, but it comes down to levels or gradations. Men are very particular.

“In comparison, women find different looks attractive in men. Some women love short hair; others prefer long hair. Some love light hued men, others prefer darker ones. Heck, I knew one girl who was quite pretty but she turned down offers from handsome guys because she found fat, ugly guys to be cute because they reminded her of her dad.”

No, men are the same way. Some men want smaller butts, others want more pushin’ for the cushion. Some are breast men, some couldn’t care less about their size. Some men will date outside of their race, others refuse. Some want a more natural, wholesome look, while others want that smoldering sex appeal. Again, men are very particular.

“but men have a lot more room to fall into certain niches than women do.”

No.

“I think men generally fall 15 years behind women. Women peak around age 20, whereas men peak on the dating market around age 35.”

You think. Meaning you are guessing here.

“Women hit the Wall around age 40 after fast losing their market value over the previous ten years, whereas men hit it around 55 after declining around 45.”

No. There is no set “wall age”. Some women hit 25 and its all downhill. Some guys who were strapping and got married at age 27, are shells of their former selves in their late 30’s. Some men and women who are 40 look better than in their late 20's and early 30's. It comes down to genetics, diet/exercise, and moderation of lifestyle.

lineman said...

Love all this fiddling while the world burns around us... Always have wondered if half of the things said would get said in a gathering f2f...

Jonathan Centauri said...

The Blackbird bloviates with the self assuredness of a college professor and about as much experience or facts. He misses entirely my salient point of monetary interest and takes a stab at Derbyshire who went against the shibboleths of his "tribe" at one of the dying fake funny papers of Cuckservatism funded by AIPAC. Do not try to flim flam me Blackbird. You are no Raven, but a stupid fake crow trying to be a scarecrow to guard the PC shibboleths of your doomed group of deluded egotistical "experts".

Sid said...

Feryl,

I think beards got shot down in WWI and stayed out of fashion until the counterculture. Most big stars played it safe all the way through the 80s and stayed clean shaven.

By the 90s, facial hair became commonly accepted and normalized. The big stars of the past often show up at events with facial hair, showing that it's more accepted now than it was in the past. Whether a man should grow facial hair depends on how thick the hair is and what his facial shape looks like.

Women have varying opinions and tastes with facial hair. What's probably safest for men dating today is to have a very short beard (to show a lady he can grow facial hair) and then shave it off once the relationship begins. Unless the woman really enjoys facial hair and wants him to grow it out.

Soyboys and hipsters have terrible beards because they grow them out too long, apply weird greases and gels for terrible styling, and have weak, soft facial features. They don't look any stronger with them - it just makes their overall appearance look incongruous.

Corvinus,

You're wasting your time.

Jonathan Centauri,

"Blackbird" is damn funny. Nice.

Corvinus said...

Sid…

“You're wasting your time.”

All your lies are belong to us.

Jonathan Centauri…

“The Blackbird bloviates with the self assuredness of a college professor and about as much experience or facts.”

Just following your lead, but the key difference here I have substance and you have hot air.

“He misses entirely my salient point of monetary interest…”

I didn’t miss it. It’s just entirely irrelevant here regarding the conversation about miscegenation. Now, if you want to make it count, then you best take into careful consideration, besides Shitlery and her own malfeasance, how Trump as a die-hard member of the elite also made his windfall over the years by way of perpetual Jewish and Chinese aid? Are you going to include him in your list of “sad sack traitors”?

“and takes a stab at Derbyshire who went against the shibboleths of his "tribe" at one of the dying fake funny papers of Cuckservatism funded by AIPAC.”

You were the one insisting that ANY white person, including leaders of the vaunted Alt Right, who race mixes are race traitors. How convenient for you as a White Knight to gloss over this important point. Dedicated to saving your damsels in distress is noble, but foolish, as you demonstrate you are a slave to your own hypocrisy. Are you willing to admit there are exceptions to your rule, or are you going to double-down like an SJW?

“Do not try to flim flam me Blackbird. You are no Raven, but a stupid fake crow trying to be a scarecrow to guard the PC shibboleths of your doomed group of deluded egotistical “experts”."

You are the one trying to bamboozle the readers here. Project much? And what about the Jack Donovans and Milo’s of the world, with their expertise for bedding fleshy men? What say you about the Alt Right who seemingly put them on pedestals despite their own degeneracy and dysgenic behaviors?

My shiv has been deftly placed. Will you seek medical help or slowly bleed to death?

Jonathan Centauri said...

“He misses entirely my salient point of monetary interest…”

I didn’t miss it. It’s just entirely irrelevant here regarding the conversation about miscegenation.

Blackbird, your substance smells like crap, of the bovine variety.

Feryl, you must be damn young. The 80's was Don Johnson and Tom Selleck.
No facial hair? It must be youth.

Feryl said...

"The 80's was Don Johnson and Tom Selleck."

Selleck had a stache, not a beard or goatee. If you read what I wrote earlier, I said little to no facial hair being common among male celebrities before the 90's, including longer sideburns and mustaches. Not that everybody was clean shaven. The "designer stubble" of the 80's was pushing the envelope, but it still wasn't close to the lumberjack hipster beard, or the raunchy long goatee. Kenny Loggins was the exception, not the rule, in the 80's.

"I think beards got shot down in WWI and stayed out of fashion until the counterculture. Most big stars played it safe all the way through the 80s and stayed clean shaven.

By the 90s, facial hair became commonly accepted and normalized."

When people got tired of dog-eat-dog culture in the early 20th century, which elites began to recognize gradually, facial hair went out of fashion. Whereas in the later 19th century, all kinds of elaborate beards, goatees, sideburns, etc. were in style. From the 1920's-60's, most men (e.g not including1%er bikers, or beatniks, or hippies, or college professors) were either clean shaven or had a smaller mustache. By the 70's many Boomer males began to brandish beards, thick mustaches, and wide sideburns as an obvious "take that" at the restrained norms of the earlier Progressive era. In the mid-late 80's, some Boomers did decide to shave it all off.

Gen X-ers in the 80's and early 90's usually were clean shaven, lest they be mistaken for airheaded Boomers. But by the later 90's it seemed like at least 1/5 of X-ers were brandishing goatees...And it's only gotten worse since then.

We'll know things are getting better when heavy facial hair goes out of fashion.

Feryl said...

Movies have ZERO to do with reality.

Yeah, movie characters and popular actors have no relevance to what is considered cool and attractive at that time. Not at all.

The goatees and varying degrees of beard growth commonly seen amongst male movie characters since the late 90's were seldom seen in the films of the 1920's-1960's. The 1970's-early 90's were between the two extremes, though, with the later 80's in particular being a time when many actors were as clean-shaven as Pee Wee Herman.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, James Caan, Jean Claude Van Damme, and Micheal J. Fox were all actors from the 70's/80's who rarely or never had facial hair in their early movies, and per what Sid suggested about public appearances, these actors usually were clean-shaven off-screen too, back then.

It's become increasingly acceptable for even higher level people (who theoretically have lots of responsibilities, image management being one of them) to appear in public looking like a bum. Heavy facial hair is a sign of decadence, whether anyone here wants to admit it or not. Men in decadent times don't have enough respect for civility or camaraderie to bother shaving on a regular basis. When we stop being such narcissistic and status conscious assholes, we'll have enough respect for our fellow man again to shave before we go out in public. That's why police chiefs and military generals are clean shaven or have smaller mustaches, BTW. It doesn't inspire confidence to look like a bum, nor do these elites who want to instill confidence in their subordinates expect to be taken seriously if they rolled out of bed, took a shower, dressed, and said, "that's good enough".

Jonathan Centauri said...

Feryl, you have this backwards. Clean shaven is what girly men do. The homosexuals rarely have facial hair. Fashions are made by homosexuals in Europe. That's why I don't follow fashions. Clean shaven guys wearing hot pink and styling their hair are more bath-house than manly.

Feryl said...

So, men have become more masculine over the last 50 years? John Wayne is rolling in his grave. Manly stoicism went hand in hand with clean-shaven faces from the 1920's-early 1960's. Meanwhile, since the late 60's emotional diarrhea has increased along with facial hair. Coincidence? I think not.

Feryl said...

The Boomers who embraced facial hair in the 70's also....Wait for it.....Worshiped "Mother Earth", were ill-tempered, and hated their fathers. Uh-huh. You know who also are emotionally unstable and have lots of daddy issues? Homosexuals. Who are not known for their classic masculinity.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Feryl, it amazes me you are willing to ignore most of human history where men had beards and claim that a period of American History between 1920 to 1960 proves your point. Was Leonardo Da Vinci a pansy? What about the rugged Scotsmen on the Moors? Were all the Generals in the War of Northern Aggression, or Lincoln's War, pussified girly men? A period of American History between 1920 to 1960 huh?

Corvinus said...

Jonathan Centauri...

“Blackbird, your substance smells like crap, of the bovine variety.”

So all you have left are garden variety verbal assaults you purchased from the five and dime store. Rather than join you in that sewer of insults, let’s focus on substance here. There were several questions I asked. Be an honest interlocutor just once.

Are members of the vaunted Alt Right like Derbyshire “race traitors”? Why? Remember, you were the one who said there were no exceptions, that anyone who marries and sires offspring outside of their race fits the bill.

Is not Trump as a die-hard member of the elite who made his windfall over the years by way of perpetual Jewish and Chinese aid a creation of “monetary interest”? Why?

And what about the Jack Donovans and Milo’s of the world, with their expertise for bedding fleshy men? What say you about the Alt Right who seemingly put them on pedestals despite their own degeneracy and dysgenic behaviors?

Do you have the intellectual tourniquet to stop your hemorrhaging?

Jonathan Centauri said...

I never trusted Trump. He's a con man and big fan of Israel. His warmongering is about to kill his following I'm sure. Trump also waffles more than IHOP. Derbyshire is a conservative that was kicked out for wrongthink. He's not Alt-Right at all really. That freak Milo is a gheyboy that goes after black cocks. He's just enjoying the spotlight. He's not even on the Right. Donovan is a manosphere guru. Those guys are OK, but not really politically oriented, except for Roissy AKA Chateau Heartiste.

Maciano Van der Laan said...

My sister has 3, I have 2 (and me and my wife want a third, too).

Me sister and I both would be up for 4, but, alas, her husband and my wife, think 3 is enough.

Corvinus said...

Jonathan Centauri...

You offered responses that kinda, sort of answered the questions posed. Not much brain horsepower (you are in the 85-90 range) employed on your part, but at least you tried to maximize your innate ability.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Wow, blackbird that's not even CLOSE. So do you always underestimate others by 100% and add 100% to yourself?

I expect so. I can see that "tribal" affiliation of yours just by your ridiculous hubris...

Corvinus said...

Jonathan Centauri...

Pushing yet again on your default button. B.F. Skinner would be proud of you.

Jonathan Centauri said...

Oh come now blackbird, you're a Freudian psychoanalyst. Skinner is a behaviorist. What would Freud have said? Do you HATE your Mother?

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

But I thought he was happily married, with the blessing of evangelicals.

To think the idea that being happily married and having mistresses is inherently contradictory evinces a lack of understanding of male sexuality.

The only thing Jack Donovan and Milo have in common is their sexual orientation. Flamboyant dishonor is a phrase worth understanding. Milo is not alt right, of course.

Also, it's clear Centauri is not a fan of Trump and does group him in with the power elite. He's made that clear multiple times in previous threads.

Jonathan Centauri said...

AE, you should see the pictures of Trump yucking it up at his wedding to his latest trophy wife with Hillary and Bill. He gave her a Cool Million for her Senate run you know. Hillary HATES anyone that stands in her way. Its not necessarily political at all with her. She was pretty Venal against Barry Soetoro. The media doesn't want people to know that Hillary STARTED THE BIRTHER ISSUE. She craves the attention and Dreams of Power. She wants to be THE QUEEN OF THE SUN AND THE MOON AND THE STARS. I imagine she was dressing up her Barbie as the President and made a tiny Oval Office with a crown on her head.

Corvinus said...

“To think the idea that being happily married and having mistresses is inherently contradictory evinces a lack of understanding of male sexuality.”

Non sequitur AND a strawman. A double dose of rhetorical fallacies. They say the recommended daily allowance is four.

Evangelicals supposed tout morality and sexual purity. You know, Ten Commandments stuff. One of the primary reasons for the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1970’s was in response to the “free love with no consequences” mantra of Baby Boomers in the 1960’s. Evangelicals would offer that the clearest evidence of monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two. A man who is married and has mistress is other than happy; they are miserable for pissing on the word of God. So when those evangelicals and other adherents to a faith who claim that monogamy is the foundation of civilization--the lifeblood of nations/races--yet offer their unwavering support to a political leader who repeatedly engages in uncivilized conduct, the proper course of action is social ostracism. That is, an unadulterated, uninterrupted effort to shame the offender, at worst, or ensure that the offender is isolated, at best.

Are you not Christian?

Clearly, Trump’s father lacked the wherewithal to properly curb his son’s rutting instinct. Manly virtue requires men, as the superior being, to exercise complete restraint from mounting any and all women in their paths merely because they have the savior-faire to pull it off. If a man or woman knows that they get sex merely by uttering sweet nothings to their intended target, and they act upon their feelings rather than refrain from those instincts, it is failure upon mothers and fathers. So when to comes to sexuality from an evangelical perspective, men and women are NOT excused from breaking the bonds of holy matrimony merely because they desire to succumb to the urge to engage in unprotected coitus, and perhaps be paid shekels to not divulge the details of their interlude.

Hence, the hypocrisy of evangelicals who voted for, and continue to fellate, Trump.

"The only thing Jack Donovan and Milo have in common is their sexual orientation."

That's patently false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMZ4StQv4JY

"Flamboyant dishonor is a phrase worth understanding."

If that be the case, then why have Donovan invited to speak at the recent Alt Right shin-dig?

"Milo is not alt right, of course."

No, Milo is Alt Right.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jonathan,

Allegedly the first thing she said after being informed that she had been walloped in the electoral college was "I knew they would never let me be president".

Corvinus,

"Evangelical" is not a particularly useful demographic category. I cleaned up in predictit on account of this during the 2016 primaries. The talking heads were stunned--STUNNED!--the evangelicals in South Carolina went for Trump. They'd gone heavily for Cruz in Iowa. What gives?!

The answer, of course, is that ethnicity is more important than religious affiliation in contemporary American politics. The Scots-Irish, evangelical and otherwise, were huge Trump supporters from the beginning. Teutons, not so much.

Secondly, evangelicals such as they are, did not and do not think of Trump as one of them. He is a brash New Yorker. But he was a brash New Yorker who had their backs.

There is not a person alive who does not "bear false witness" from time to time. That's a commandment, too. I guess evangelicals can't support anyone other than Jesus Himself!

As for marriage, Paul saw marriage as a necessary evil to at least fence in sexual lusts, but he clearly thought celibacy was superior. For the viability of the West, it's good few evangelicals feel that way today!

You obviously didn't listen to that conversation (I did when it first aired). On voting, on politics, on culture, on the nature of sexuality, on lifestyle--on none of these things are Donovan and Milo on the same page. I guess you can argue that they both oppose the modern cultMarx left, but that makes a lot of people bedfellows.

If that be the case, then why have Donovan invited to speak at the recent Alt Right shin-dig?

Either that's a typo or you have no concept of Donovan's flamboyant dishonor. Donovan has spoken at Alt Right events. He was a speaker at an NPI (Richard Spencer) conference a few years ago.

Jonathan Centauri said...

The Evangelicals are the perfect place for the GOP. They are the "born again" revival tent religion. A lot of the south of the border invaders gravitate to the new Evangelical Churches that have popped up here. They don't have the nasty tithes and do all their preaching in Spanglish.
The Roman Church seems more of the World than Religion nowadays. When that heretic old poop talks about problems, he goes to the GODLESS United Nations instead of praying to God. They seem to care more about what is Caesar's than what is God's. Tithe means tenth, or 10%. But with the high living of McMansions, maid service, limousines and wine, they need 15% now to support their "Vow of Poverty". Alms for the "poor" apparently. This heretic Jesuit wants to APPEAR more poor by having a small apartment. Its right next door to his Giant Palace.

Corvinus said...

""Evangelical" is not a particularly useful demographic category."

Actually, it is particularly useful. Why do you think this group was heavily catered to by the GOP? Moreover,

"I cleaned up in predictit on account of this during the 2016 primaries."

Every now and then a person can hit numbers and win some coin.

"The talking heads were stunned--STUNNED!--the evangelicals in South Carolina went for Trump. They'd gone heavily for Cruz in Iowa. What gives?!"

Simple. Evangelical voters became convinced that Trump, not Cruz, would best serve their political interests. Trump had gained significant steam. And SC voters tend to buck the trends, so it is other than surprising that this group went with Trump, especially considering he would be running against a woman. It's that male hierarchy at work. Furthermore, because of Supreme Court concerns, evangelicals generally took the position that a Shitlery America would be worse than a Trump America (but not by much).

"Secondly, evangelicals such as they are, did not and do not think of Trump as one of them. He is a brash New Yorker. But he was a brash New Yorker who had their backs."

Compared to the alternative, in this particular instance. Again, it was a choice between a shit sandwich and a shittier sandwich. There is simply no way to square the way the president lives with the cultural vision evangelicals promote. So it's not a matter of him having their backs, but whether God will have their back come Judgement Day. So it came down to a strategic bargain, exchanging their hope that Trump will nominate conservative justices in exchange for abandoning their zeal for morality in public life. Those spiritual compromises end up costing a person's soul. If you are a Christian, and went down this same path, best pray for mercy.

"There is not a person alive who does not "bear false witness" from time to time."

"Time to time" being the operative word here. Trump can't keep his outright lies straight.

"As for marriage, Paul saw marriage as a necessary evil to at least fence in sexual lusts, but he clearly thought celibacy was superior."

He thought celibacy was superior if one was going to be married to Christ. Context is key here. Paul spoke to unmarried men by saying "You know Christian marriage is a symbol of Christ’s marriage to his Church. But there is something even higher to which you might open your heart--the call of the Lord. If you hear His call, forsake marriage for the sake of total dedication to Him".

"You obviously didn't listen to that conversation (I did when it first aired)."

I listened enough to know they are in agreement on on a wide range of issues, it is just a matter on how to get there.

"Either that's a typo or you have no concept of Donovan's flamboyant dishonor."

Now I get it. Thanks.

Regardless, homosexuality is not compatible with restoring the West, and the Alt Right knows it to the marrow of its bone. Again, they serve as useful idiots. So will you be there to defend the Donovan's and the Milo's from having their heads put on pikes in 2033 when the Second American Civil War is in its full-fledged glory?

Corvinus said...

Off topic but relevant.

Now Jordan Peterson has been completely obliterated. Glad to see that the Alt Right had come to his defense.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-dog-whistler.html

"Jordan Peterson is a man without honor. Jordan Peterson is a man without courage, and while I don't think it's true that Jordan Peterson is an anti-semite, I don't think that it is true that Jordan Peterson is a dog-whistler, I think Jordan Peterson is scum. I think Jordan Peterson is a man without balls and I think Jordan Peterson is one of the very last people on Earth that anyone should be listening to. He is not going to teach young men to become men, he is not going to teach men, to become heroes. His path is the path of the rabbit."

So much for not punching to the Right...

Jonathan Centauri said...

You'd have to be on the left to punch right and hit Jordan. He's a cuck in the moldy mold of the National Review apologist team. National Review just started defending Tranny issues. These cuckers do nothing but defend the Left.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

Maybe that's part of it, but I don't think it was simply a rational calculation made by evangelicals in South Carolina (3rd primary) that despite what evangelicals did in Iowa (1st primary) to support Cruz, Trump was the one who actually had their backs. The evangelical vote is small in New Hampshire (2nd primary) which in addition to being a pretty irreligious state also has an open primary so it wasn't just Republicans voting. Cruz won evangelicals in other cuck states later on, my own state of Kansas being a salient example.

Wrt homosexuality, most of the Alt Right has no problem with Donovan's homosexuality. Outside of him concept of flamboyant dishonor, I've heard him talk about it exactly zero times, and he understands the problems not being able to procreate create in a tribe. Milo, in contrast, is flamboyantly dishonorable. He can't shut up about his degeneracy. A lot of people on the Alt Right saw him as a fellow traveler of convenience (and prominence), not "one of us". He has very little support in the Alt Right now. Most people I see referencing him at all are doing so to mock his failures.

Feryl said...

"The answer, of course, is that ethnicity is more important than religious affiliation in contemporary American politics. The Scots-Irish, evangelical and otherwise, were huge Trump supporters from the beginning. Teutons, not so much".

Yes, bed side manner wise Trump was abysmal for the Upper Midwest. That being said, he still did much better than the typical GOP'er would've done in this region because of re-industrialization, and also because he talked smack about Bush/McCain etc.

Corvinus said...

AE...

"Maybe that's part of it, but I don't think it was simply a rational calculation made by evangelicals in South Carolina (3rd primary) that despite what evangelicals did in Iowa (1st primary) to support Cruz..."

South Carolina has historically been a maverick, which includes their evangelicals. They noticed the trend line with Cruz and willingly made a decision to hitch their moral wagon to a man who runs directly counter to what they stand for morally. That has decided consequences. And for what? A promise by Trump to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court.

"Cruz won evangelicals in other cuck states later on, my own state of Kansas being a salient example."

Cuck is an overused term and observably means little next to nothing anymore.

"Wrt homosexuality, most of the Alt Right has no problem with Donovan's homosexuality."

Not openly. And perhaps you mean those Alt Right who is NOT particularly religious or are hardcore zealots when it comes to faith. The open tent to any movement is a noble in theory. But what happens when the homosexual Alt Right types are given their marching orders in the Second American Civil War in 2033? As if this event is even going to occur in the first place.

"Outside of him concept of flamboyant dishonor, I've heard him talk about it exactly zero times, and he understands the problems not being able to procreate create in a tribe."

It makes little difference if he hasn't "talked about it", he remains homosexual and thus a moral roadblock to the rebirth of the West.

"Milo, in contrast, is flamboyantly dishonorable. He can't shut up about his degeneracy."

"A lot of people on the Alt Right saw him as a fellow traveler of convenience (and prominence), not "one of us". He has very little support in the Alt Right now. Most people I see referencing him at all are doing so to mock his failures."

Disavow all you want, he is part of the Alt Right movement, in the same bed as Donovan.

Jonathan Centauri said...

There is religion and then there are "churches". These temple outlets seem to care more about what is Caesar's than what is God's. They should be called McReligion. All freaks welcome, tipping plates, lettuce please, pickled fogies and really seedy sermons. Da da da da da, Gawd's a minority woman. Nanny State and Momma Church. Hell's Bells.