Why The Sailer Strategy Doesn’t Work

Steve Sailer has proposed for the GOP the “Sailer Strategy” of maximizing White votes and not worrying or courting Black or Hispanic votes, on the theory that Whites are still the largest ethnic/racial group, and that furthermore Democrats as the defacto anti-White party will always outbid the GOP. Sailer is absolutely correct on these facts. But the problem with the Sailer Strategy is that it doesn’t work. Because Whites are divided. Deeply and fundamentally on the most important (and undiscussed) issues of the day. Thus America has lurched to an inevitable civil war, a hot one, like Syria, eventually (though it’s probably twenty years off now). While conservatives assail Romney and establishment Republicans for “not fighting.” Of course they’re not fighting, they want to win — and a deeply divided White electorate punishes those candidates who seek to fight; and doubly so against any Black candidate. For the magic elixir of Democrats is a Black candidate. A Liberal Black man is simply unassailable. Not just because the media says so, and slavishly follows someone like Barack Obama around hoping to lick his boots. No. It is because a very large segment of White voters feels that way. And any attack simply turns them off.

We are talking about people like this. White women. A non-trivial amount of whom worship Barack Obama (because he’s Black) as if he is the second coming of Jesus, Chocolate Edition, 100% less Vanilla.

Obama took single White women in 2008, on the order of 70%, about the same as his margin among Jewish voters, but unlike Jews (who are about 4% of the population and simply don’t matter in voting much anywhere — thus the general and inevitable drift to anti-Israeli policies because Jewish votes don’t matter), single White women exist in sizable numbers. Single White Women out-number married White Women by a considerable margin. Late marriage, with its inevitable high divorce rates, pretty much guarantee that. A woman married to her second, third, or fourth husband is not likely to consider him much of anything but a companion anyway, and thus essentially one step above a servant, basically disposable.

The famous Gender Gap exists for a reason. White women, particularly single ones but even married ones, have very different interests and desires than White men.

Take for example, the picture at the top of the post, depicting a White woman begging forgiveness of a Black man for racial sins committed by Whites against Blacks, in Memphis TN to honor Martin Luther King Jr. [Hat Tip John Derbyshire, Takimag, "White People Are Pussies"]

Now, a reasonable man might ask, what does the woman gain, and what does she risk, by being on her knees? Does she risk being thought less of a woman? No. Does she gain scorn, isolation, and disgust among her fellow White women? No, quite the reverse, she gains their admiration and respect, for bowing down to a random Black man and asking forgiveness. Submission and groveling gains her a part in the PC hierarchy, makes the woman a part of the anti-White guy coalition, and indeed stimulates that part of the hind-brain that among women loves submission. See Fifty Shades of Bondage, series 1-3, more than twenty weeks on the NYT Best-seller lists.

Now what does a WHITE MAN risk, and gain, by groveling and submitting. What he might gain, is well, nothing. He being White won’t get any PC goodies. Part of the anti-White guy coalition? He’s White and a guy, he’ll get nothing. He might keep a few things if he’s well connected and powerful, but in that case he would not be groveling. What he would get, guaranteed, is sexual extinction. Its why bad guys in real life and in movies seek to make MEN kneel. To grovel. It is a dominance play, sure and simple that wipes out the man who is kneeling on a reproductive basis. The man loses any sexual appeal, and is seen quite literally as a eunuch. This is why men will very often fight, to the obvious death, because they understand that surrendering will merely make them eunuchs. Often in history, quite literally.

No man kneeling so would gain respect from his fellow men, Black or White. They’d both think he was gay, or totally lacking in courage, self-worth, and decency, and thus worthy of being treated as nothing more than a disposable object. Yes it is true that kneeling, briefly, under chivalry was part of elaborate rituals, but that entailed (very brief and choreographed so as to not engender male resentment and fury) symbolic submission to a lord to achieve honors and recognition as part of the nobility. Needless to say, that sort of thing is not what is happening in the picture of the White woman kneeling before the Black man, begging forgiveness (for things that happened quite likely, long before she was born).

It is an article of faith among conservatives that Republican candidates just “don’t want to win” and have somehow suffered and endured the rigors of the campaign just to be good losers to Democrats. But in fact, candidates who have embraced the Sailer Strategy, have gone nowhere. If it was a path to victory, President Tancredo would be dealing with Libya as we speak. Its a failure, because large portions of White voters, principally White women, and secondarily White coastal elite men and those who aspire to be elite men, support Democratic policies, culture, and social agendas in particular making America White-minority, whole-heartedly.

Bob Dole, in an obvious losing effort, and mocked by the media completely, railed against Clinton every chance he got. He certainly attacked, on Clinton’s moral character (“Where’s the outrage?”) and foreign policy failings, and domestic weakness. Clinton of course, was White. The same can be said about George Herbert Walker Bush, against Michael Dukakis. Or George W. Bush, against both Al Gore and John Kerry, “reporting for duty.” You don’t get more establishment and Republican than both Bushes, and Bob Dole. Well of course, their opponents were White men.

White men can be attacked, any time. Black men, particularly liberal ones, can’t. Because White women won’t stand for it. Simple as that.

There is no magic bullet to be unleashed, by attacking Barack Obama. No doubt both Mitt Romney and John “Maverick” McCain, have extensive internal polling showing that attacking Barack Obama personally will turn off legions of White women. Because for a variety of reasons, White women … HATE HATE HATE White men, generally, and adore Black men. [Not the least of which is few White women have to deal with the average Black man on a daily basis, while the daily flaws of White men are as near as the cube next to them or the pillow next to them.] This is reinforced on a daily basis for the last twenty years, with “idiot White guy” commercials in which stupid White guys are rescued from their own stupidity by patronizing White women and Black men.

Then of course, there is differences in interests. White women (as shown by anything they read or watch) want an aristocratic, hereditary, semi-feudal society based on personal interaction, attractiveness, and charisma. Not nerdy abstraction leading to science-babble stuff about reversing the polarity of the shields and modulating the anti-matter field, or something. White women want bondage fantasies, hunky gay vampires, kings and queens and princesses, while White men want the scientific techno-nerd-cracy of Star Trek. Its as simple as the cross-bow of the Hunger Games versus the phaser of Captain Kirk.

This is because White men are threatening. Very threatening. Since the average White guy has been unleashed, he’s destroyed system after system, by making them obsolete. White guys (taking gunpowder invented by the Chinese but used only for fireworks or very primitive and fairly useless guns) destroyed the feudal empires of Europe. Chivalry was killed, dead, by masses of loosely trained peasants using muskets and pikes. The Printing Press destroyed the Catholic Church and the medieval world, aided by the gunpowder that replaced the castle and romantic curtain walls with the modern, star-fort. The Steam engine made slave empires from the antebellum South to Ottoman and Russian Empires, obsolete. The work of a thousand slaves could be done faster, cheaper, and BETTER by a steam engine. That never needed food or clothing, and could run constantly.

Nerdy White guys invented and perfected the telegram, the telephone, the radio, the television, and the internet, all of which in turn destroyed old cultures, as memorably captured by Barack Obama in “Dreams from My Father: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE” … where Obama talks about how the certainties of the peasant way of life in Indonesia had a certain innate dignity and tradition lacking in the hustle and bustle of modern America, and in his mind outweighed the poverty and degradation found there.

This is an attitude widely shared among certain Whites (particularly White Women), and most of the Third World, and nearly all of the non-White population of America.

If you are a nerdy White guy, you WANT the rules to be thrown out, old empires destroyed, new ones created. You want change, social churning (but not violence, nerdy White guys do poorly among violence by and large), new ways of doing things. By and large, the story of European and American history has been nerdy White guys unleashed, creating new technology that changes nearly everything: mobile radios and the internal combustion engine made WWII vastly different from the largely foot-infantry, horse-drawn artillery affairs of the past War that relied on couriers for commands to be passed around. The West by and large has been willing to live with the chaos nerdy White guys create, because the advantage was so large. Those that industrialized and pushed industrialization further, won mostly. Those that preferred the certainty of the old way of life, innate dignity and all, were losers. And paid the loser’s price in things.

But the change has a price. It means buggy whip manufacturers go out of business, as do custom coach makers. Or Wheel-wrights. Or Blacksmiths. It means the vast reduction in power and influence of courtesans, and mistresses, and wives, of powerful men, because today’s powerful men can be an also-ran in ten year’s time, so rapid can be the social and thus commercial and status-change. Feminine culture always gravitates towards a semi-hereditary aristocracy, because that is where women win: by being maids, washerwomen, and hair-dressers if ugly, and mistresses, concubines, and wives if pretty, for powerful men and their ladies. Women don’t dream of, don’t write, and don’t read, gripping tales of technological races for supremacy through engineering and team building and innate understanding of math and science. There’s not a single female romance novel featuring the battle between two profoundly unsexy men, Edison and Westinghouse, over the standard for electrical current: alternating or direct.

Black men and women know they have as much chance in a world run by nerdy White guys, with a premium on abstract, high IQ, math and science thinking and doing, as the average White guy has of making the NBA or NFL lineup. The same is true for most Hispanics. And White women.

Much of the Democratic policies are aimed at simply stopping White guys. From changing the world any more. Women and the rest WANT IT TO STOP. Largely they’ve succeeded. Underlying the HATE HATE HATE of unsexy White guy nerds (and no one does that better than White guys) is the change they bring, that make women generally losers. Suppose America transitions from a nation of Hollywood, Academia, Government, NGOs, and low-level service to manufacturing and energy extraction? How will that help women? Will they play a leading part in it, as they do Hollywood (particularly TV which is almost exclusively female in audience composition)? Or will they simply stand around and watch like White guys at an NBA game?

The problem with the Sailer Strategy is that it presupposes that most Whites have the same interests that if properly identified would lead to bloc voting the way Blacks (98% Democrat, year in and out) or Latinos (75% Democrat, year in and out) vote. That’s wrong.

Because White women don’t see it that way. They WANT and NEED a non-White majority America. No not all of them. But most single White women, and a non-trivial portion of married White women. Only a non-White majority America can slow the change down, to where they can extract as junior portions of the anti-White guy coalition the maximum amount of resources. Otherwise, in a White majority run nation, they’re going to be standing around watching White guy nerds create new technology that obsoletes everything, and have no role to play in a world filled with Star Trek nerds instead of Kanye West. Most White women would prefer Kanye West, thank you very much, to Star Trek nerds.

This is why, anyone trying the Sailer Strategy flames out in a Kamikaze run. Its why Tom Tancredo is disgraced, out of politics. For his ideas not his personal life or actions. Its why John Derbyshire was fired from National Review. Its why Britain, France, and the US have submitted so completely and totally to Muslims, why Madonna, blurting the truth, thinks its fabulous we have a Black Muslim in the White House. ONLY Islam, in conjunction with massive non-White immigration, which is VERY popular among White women, can slow down the White nerds. And stop them from changing everything again. Hell for women is White nerds, not just the complete sexlessness, as they see it, but the world they create. At least the Road Warrior, or Hunger Games has a very traditional, male-dominant society filled with brutal men, with rules they understand. Not abstract technology that they can NEVER understand.

And that’s why Romney is not attacking Obama. Obama is Black, simple as that. He’s untouchable personally. White women won’t stand for it. Anyone familiar with women understands why: there are rules for Alpha males (be sexy, all and everything is always forgiven) and those for beta males (their existence is an affront to womenkind everywhere). Romney’s play, and he does have one, is to argue that its just a matter of pocketbook economics, Obama can still be their boyfriend but can’t run the country anymore. Because they can’t afford it. This will pull in enough White women, he hopes, along with their beta male orbiters who take their cues, wrongly, from them, to push him over, 51%, to victory. That was McCain’s style as well.

Yes the media attacks any Romney statement, anything he does, but that was a given. Romney well understood that. He’s a numbers guy, for better or worse. He knows because of beta male orbiting, and White Knighting, and self-interest among the coastal elites, the cap he can get among White guys is about 65-70%. No higher, at least thirty percent or more among White guys will vote Obama. Among White women, he hopes to pull about 40% or more, limit Obama to no more than 60% of that vote. To do that, he can’t be attacking their dream Boyfriend who will crush those nerdy White guys they hate.

Is this doable? Perhaps this election. A viable long-term strategy? Probably not. Which means inevitably the nerdy White guys are going to look around. The first group they’ll copy in a struggle for power and arranging society back to their liking, is the gays. At no more than 4% of the population, they got Gay Marriage as the law of the land. Repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t tell. By stuff like punishing Mormons who donated to Prop 8 in California. Using donation records to out them and get them fired, organizing boycotts of businesses that employed them, and the like. That’s right up to the limits of the law on violence, but it worked. Particularly since the achilles heel of women is violence. Or domination. Any group that threatens and dominates, quickly finds women on their side. Code Pink actively supports the Taliban, which makes perfect sense once you know that Feminists just seek the most dominating, old-school, traditional men possible while “outlawing” beta male nerdiness. This is why feminists parading around with plastic pink vagina costumes HATE HATE HATE nerdy White guys operating drones killing Taliban, and love love love said Taliban lopping off girls heads for learning to read. Its all about dominance. Something sooner or later the most beta male white knight orbiter will learn.

And thus the nerdy White guys will gravitate towards first the Gay model of punishing people and screwing people over, and then the Taliban/AQ model of killing people to make their point. The killing of Rushdie’s translators, and the murder of Theo Van Gogh and Pym Fortuyn, made Europeans (particularly the socialists dominated by women) capitulate as fast as they could. Almost aroused by the cruelty and dominance, Europeans instituted defacto Sharia law very quickly. After 9/11, George W. Bush first … visited a mosque. To demonstrate his submission. After that, America elected a Black Muslim President, who is apologizing for ticking off Muslims and instituting slow-motion Sharia here. With the enthusiastic support of feminists and most women, I might add. Who have always HATE HATE HATED free speech as it benefits nerdy White guys not them, for the most part.

Already on the male Left, the habit of stealing and not paying for movies and tv shows has become ingrained. The Nerdocracy endorses the Pirate Party, in Europe, which amounts to the proposition that stealing stuff should be legal, as long as it amounts to movies and songs and tv shows. The Wikileaks, Anonymous, and Lulzsec have been of course, left wing agitprop groups, but there is no reason at all to suggest that this will be limited to the Left alone. Lunatics like James Holmes, Cho Seung Hui, and Jared Lee Loughner had no real ideological agenda save crazy, and the desire to kill someone. A more rational, angry, and pissed off White guy with technical expertise could see the message inherent in capitulation to Muslims and Gays: “Dominate US PLEASE!” and do so. A “conspiracy of one” is almost impossible to catch. I have no doubt that the US has built something along the lines of the “machine” in “Person of Interest” on CBS, and a massive sweep of phone conversations, travels, emails, purchases, and the like by computer has stopped a great deal of terrorist attacks. But a man who keeps his own counsel, who covers his tracks (attacking say the power grid, or nuclear plants, or an ordinary power plant, or the NYC subway system, or any complex system that millions depend upon) is not only nearly impossible to stop, if he is clever, nearly impossible to catch.

That this has not happened already is because of what most nerdy White guys are. Most don’t really want to blow things up, that’s the domain of guys who want to be paratroopers or SEALs. Most hackers, hack, to learn deeper the way things and systems are built, function, and operate together. Most have no intention of doing any harm, they’re just curious. But that does not mean they are not dangerous. Nearly all the infrastructure, which means the water, power, sewage, road, airway, communications, and other systems in the US, depend on a thin group of engineers to keep it running. Those who really understand it, fully, are even fewer. Enough nerdy White guys engage in conspiracies of one, and there will be an active, hot war ongoing. Between those who seek to force bowing down, and those who won’t and can’t submit.

About these ads

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in politics. Bookmark the permalink.

145 Responses to Why The Sailer Strategy Doesn’t Work

  1. CameCaseRob says:

    The imposition of Sharia Law in the West would actually be a GOOD thing. But it won’t happen. Lefties are just supporting Muslim immigration as a part of their long-term goal of one world government, one political system, one culture, and one race.

  2. Robert in Arabia says:

    Bravo.

  3. Whiskey, great essay. I have a question. I am thinking about the election and the idea floating around that it’s political suicide to attack a black man as president because of the emotional attachments of the single white woman voting block. Thus, perhaps, Romney’s caution in attacking. If this all is true, why didn’t someone like Gingrich win the nomination. As far as I can see he should get the nerdy white man vote because they admire his massive facility with logic. He is powerful, he is not at all reticent about attacking, and he supposedly has been a cad in how he treated his first wife. All this should be very attractive to single white women, no? So he would get all the blocks. He certainly is not overtly sexy, but don’t these other things count as a proxy?

    • The problem with Gingrich is that his social dominance does not extend to women, who don’t like him because the press does not like him. Even among Republicans, Gingrich did poorly among women voters who again make up much of the vote in the primaries. Gingrich did draw disproportionately male votes, but did very poorly among women GOP voters.

      • M J R says:

        Hey, ya think Gingrich did poorly among white women because he was so incontrovertibly -lousy- to two of them who had at the time been married to him? Ya think? (“The press” didn’t do that. By the way, I’m on your side, but I had to interject this.)

      • zenocosini says:

        It might be that Gingrich didn’t do well among women simply because he is not very good looking? I don’t believe that much in that alpha/beta stuff (although there’s a point to it), from what I’ve seen what counts more to women is looks, perhaps even more than to men. Romney wins on that count, and also appears as more “moderate”.

  4. Just Another Richard says:

    If your premise is taken to its logical conclusion, helped along with the ongoing assault against the white male, emanating from sundry sources…academia, black resentment and Islamic aspirations, then the ultimate future outcome for women will be “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”, for Islam will have it no other way; and believe me, Islam will be the ultimate winner within that toxic mix. All academic “bitterness studies” will have produced, is its intended outcome, a populace with nowhere to run to and nowhere to hide, but wait for it, at that point we will hear the ultimate feminist declaration of female passion…”at last here are the strong men of our dreams”… before disappearing into total male enforced silence; the mutterings of discontent being quickly and brutally suppressed. (yes, that dystopian nightmare is a way in the future, but eventually inevitable if current directions are not reversed)

    As the self loathing whites seek to utilize the Islamic masses to batter their way to Marxist nirvana, aided and abetted by the the globalist elites, driven by their twin gods…power and money, the pathways to human future look ready to be strewn with the bones of innocent masses once again; should anybody be surprised, it’s the Marxists singular accomplishment in over a hundred years of trying.

    AS academia seeks to re-write the history, it glosses over an inconvenient truth, it is white men, and only white men that tried to eradicate the human condition of slavery; all academic attempts at distorting the narrative aside. I say, tried, as it would appear the slavery is making a comeback, courtesy of Islam, a most damning indictment of human progress if ever there was once.

    The one bright spot in all this mess is that this unholy union is totally unstable, coupled with a looming monetary crisis, which will probably lead to a total re-evaluation of just where we are headed. The post modernist progressives are on a collision course with reality, and that meeting is immanent. The tragedy is that we must all suffer the pain and destruction that will ensue.

    The financial debacle soon to unfold, might just be our saving grace, as a collapse of the world economy will, while unleashing chaos, just stop the momentum for a one world government, as various governments fight to just stay alive in the conflicts which will inevitable arise. We are walking in to uncharted waters now, the outcomes of which are uncertain but for the singular fact that there will be conflict…and a big thank you to all the coked out peace activists and moral superiors now in charge for the unfolding nightmare. Of course, a worst case could unfold and we will be delivered into the brutality of a tyrannical authoritarianism, enslaved to the whim of the most brutal and grasping tyrants able to clime the greasy pole to ultimate power. I doubt any of the current narcissists on the world stage, are prepared for the sheer brutality they are about to unleash.

    As the future unfolds, remember it is mostly women who have supported the socialists in the western world…no, not on their own, there have been many men drawn into the socialist fold of wishful thinking, but women have been the mainstay of socialist / leftist support at the ballot box, returning socialists to power in-spite of their ongoing track record of financial and social squalor. And it is these same socialists that have brought in large numbers of Muslims into western countries for no other reason than to prop up their voter base; a naive ‘useful idiot’ approach, though indeed, some may have had more sinister motives.

    We are headed for a disaster, and Whiskey, as your writing continues to reveal, the ascendancy of western feminist mores is a major prop of the forces which are bringing us this unfolding nightmare.

  5. Dan Kurt says:

    Time to read John Lott’s article on how allowing women the vote has destroyed the USA:

    or
    http://www.peopleDOTfas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

  6. Sailer’s idea that whites form an interest group conflicts with his idea that politics is largely a matter of status. Whites are going to vote Democratic if 1) they see it as in their financial interest or 2) they feel it increases their status. Many whites are government or quasi-government employees, married to those who are, or get benefits from the government. The New Deal bargain of benefits for whites only is long gone, so you can’t really break off government-dependent whites. The whites who work for the government work with a lot of blacks, and accept black dominance every day as the price of admission. Poor whites live around blacks and tend to adopt the hip-hop culture to avoid harassment, as told by Anders Bering Breivik- this isn’t even confined to the US.

    Romney was right about the math- there are just too many people on the dole one way or another.

    • Yes that’s a very good point. I’d forgotten about the dominance of hip-hop.

      • Van Dussen says:

        Dominance of hip hop my ass…maybe from 1994-2005, but started fading in 2005, right around Kayne’s famous racist remarks against Bush. Here are the most recent top 10 songs on the Billboard Hot 100 for the week….Driven primarily by white females age 13-24:

        1) “One More Night” Maroon 5 (Pop rock, funk rock, alternative rock, pop)
        2) “Gangnam Style” PSY (K-pop, pop, dance)
        3) “Some Nights” fun. (Indie pop, alternative rock, power pop)
        4) “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” Taylor Swift (Pop, pop rock, country, country pop)
        5) “Blow Me (One Last Kiss)” P!nk (Pop, pop rock, dance, R&B)
        6) “As Long As You Love Me” Justin Bieber (Pop, R&B, teen pop)
        7) “Begin Again” Taylor Swift (Pop, pop rock, country, country pop)
        8) “Whistle” Flo Rida (Hip hop, dance-pop)
        9) “Too Close” Alex Clare (Alternative rock, Electronica, Dubstep, Soul)
        19) “Good Time” Owl City(Electronica, synthpop) & Carly Rae Jepsen (Pop, pop rock, dance-pop)

        This is the 7th straight week that only a single black musician has made the top 10 on the Billboard Hot 100. Going back to the early 90s (that’s as far as I checked) at least two black musicians have made the top 10, and most often there were 4-5 of them. At one point in 2005, all 10 slots in the top ten where black artists. There is a real possibility in the next chart that all ten of the top 10 will be non-black (PSY is Korean, the rest are white) since “Whistle” is trending downward, and Kesha just dropped a new single which debuted at 13, although Rihanna also dropped one that debuted at 16, so it’s entirely possible that Rihanna will be the sole black musician in the top 10. Either way, we are seeing white dominance at the top of the music charts that has been unseen since???? I just randomly selected the week of September 25, 1971 and there 4 of 10 where black…October 7, 1961 had only 1 black in the top 10, Ray Charles. That’s was an America when Jim Crow was still in full effect, no court ordered bussing or desegregation orders, 99% of whites went to school with other whites, married, worked with, and lived next to other whites…And all the football teams in the SEC sported ALL WHITE lineups, and the NFL, NBA, and all the other college football teams where majority white.

        I don’t know what gives for this, and my only conclusion is that Rap/Hip-Hop culture doesn’t have a monopoly on the minds of young white women…and that young white women will support, listen to, go to concerts of and promote white artists…including white male artists (5 of the top 10). And this is something we should cheer for and encourage, because these songs don’t have as much of a pro-slut, BDSM, drug use, violent, pro-miscegenation and anti-white message as the Rap/Hip-Hop songs. I’m not saying young white women don’t still listen to those songs, just that they don’t as frequently or with as much passion as they listen to the current array of artists. If this trend continues, we could (hopefully) witness the “death” or Rap/Hip-Hop as a mainstream/commercially viable form of music for white people…more likely to become a black only genre the same way Go-Go, Crunk, and Soul are…and Reggae is becoming again. It has already jumped the shark so to speak…so Whiskey please keep a tab on current pop-culture to make sure your references aren’t stuck in the past 5-10 years. Thanks.

  7. Jehu says:

    Ultimately this is all going to be ‘settled’ through violence. Non-elite White males have a supermajority of the total potential military power in the nation but obviously are screwed electorally. When they realize this you have a tremendously unstable situation.

    • Discard says:

      Armed White men are the top predator. Some social critics have used the metaphor of two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner to describe a situation where producers are outnumbered by consumers. But in truth, one wolf outnumbers a whole flock of sheep. White men are the wolves, and don’t need to be a majority to prevail, once they decide to take action. I am too old to see this, most likely, but I think it’s coming.

  8. oogenhand says:

    Anders Behring Breivik is seen as very attractive by many women. It cannot be ruled out that many Muslim women are sexually attracted to ABB, and remind him that Vikings did raid Muslim areas and took female slaves.
    You can AMOG Islam by declaring men can have more than four wives. As WE do the AMOG, the White nerd will get the women.
    As a side note, someone suggested that the CIA pays off Anonymous in sex slaves.

    • Matt Strictland says:

      Anonymous is a cell based, identity based, leaderless thing. It could be anyone and as such while perfectly plausible to pay off a person or two, there is no the there to pay off.

      Like AQ membership is by saying you are a member.

    • Matt Strictland says:

      Sure. You just did. Anonymous cells are just that anonymous. You don’t even have to do anything really though many of them do.

      Anyway it seems like you have your hands full with that new Iblis based religion though. Might want to keep working on that instead.

  9. fakeemail says:

    Whiskey, you certainly have an acute understanding of the inherent betraying nature of women. They are basically capricious and emotion-based children who want kings and queens and peasants and serfs. They want all the thinkers and creators to stay in their lowly place and they want the assholes to rise to their rightful place of total domination. They will always ditch their men in favor of the WINNERS, whoever they may be. They must not be allowed to vote because a nation is created by men who fought for a geographic space in which to work and breed with their women; lest other men conquer them and take their women. The moment women are given the right to vote (among other rights) is the moment they start working for unfair advantages over their men and figure that their men are in fact pussies for letting them vote and want “better” men.

    Your idea that a “liberal black man is simply unassailable” reminds me of a Larry David episode where he directs his perennial worthless black moocher friend Leon to wear glasses because white people will always fawn and submit to this ridiculous bullcrap image.

    Yes, kneeling is BIG. If “Superman II” has taught us nothing else, it is that. But I would much rather kneel to a super awesome bearded Kryptonian than the Leons of the world. I’d also prefer Skeletor.

    Yes, Tancredo was light years ahead of everybody. If there were any sanity left in this country, that man would have been president. His basic platform was “No Arabs and No Beaners.” And guess what? That would solve virtually all our problems.

    I somewhat disagree that the average white guy wants “change” or “social churning”. The ones with the brains to invent things and make themselves rich certainly do; and they deserve to have that power of economic revolution. But the average white guy (including the smart ones) are not going be reinventing the wheel and all they really want is an economic field that is fair to their skills and education and MOST IMPORTANTLY a social field where women are attainable and most of them aren’t sluts, bitches, and lunatics. They want wife and mother material and this country doesn’t make that any more.

    • I would not say women are innate betrayers. Rather, they operate like men but in different ways via different biological impulses. We are all prisoners of our DNA, to some degree. Sperm is cheap. It always will be, and always has been. Eggs are expensive, that’s not changing either.

      Most of the time other women acted as moral/social enforcers and produced unity and social comity while acting as a good prod for social reform. For example, the anti-slavery movement had considerable support from nice Christian women, getting rid of slavery was good not only in and of itself but to kick out a barrier to industrialization via steam power. Ancient Greece in the Hellenistic period had a steam engine. Of which they did nothing because of their massive slave population. Who needs steam power when you have slaves? Particularly as early steam engines were not terribly efficient.

      The sort of women you see immortalized in say, Elizabeth Gaskell’s or Jane Austen’s writings, older, past her sexual prime considerably, using her influence among women to put a rein on hypergamy, to channel it to productive uses, to hold down flightiness and fashion, that sort of woman is gone. Because among other things technology that nerdy White guys created destroyed the village system and physical “in-placeness” that this sort of Aunt figure requires.

      • fakeemail says:

        The “village system” of actual communities where people knew their neighbors and kids could walk safely to their local public school was obliterated loooong before the internet, Whiskey. Chalk that up to the 60s-70s era of integration, forced busing, sexual revolution, widespread pornography, lax crime enforcement, and on and on.

        The dangers of anonymous urban living are a cliche at this point. Bye, bye Miss American Pie, and all that.

        But your point of women as not “innate betrayers” is well taken. And there is surely equal number of men who are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and murder in order to get a leg up on his brothers (of the same race). Yes, we’re all prisoners to our DNA. But women have so willfully betrayed their historic roles as “keepers of virtue” while simultaneously demanding men keep their historic roles and do all the heavy lifting and take all the punishment and pay all the alimony or welfare. . .well, it’s a bit glaring to those who can see.

        So yes, even though sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive, women just have no right to be turning up their nose and ignoring all the decent non-jerk men out there who want (and need) to be married in their 20s as their fathers and grandfathers were before them.

  10. fakeemail says:

    Whiskey, out of a curiosity, is there any experience or moment in your life where you realized the awful truth about women (and how they hate, hate, HATE betas!)? A messy divorce? Bad school experiences? Or was it merely a series of “aha” moments that finally added up to the conclusion about their nature?

    I don’t ask this as a provocateur, but as a fan of your blog!

  11. Tripemaster says:

    Interesting article, Whiskey.

    But really? Are most white men “Star Trek nerds”? Maybe some are, but certainly there are a lot of white men who are not “Star Trek nerds”. The majority of white men, actually, are not “Star Trek nerds”.

    I’m not American; I’m an observer of your blog and I am from Scotland. I have posted comments here before; you might have seen some of them. Whatever the case, I cannot make direct observations about what life is really like in American society because I do not live there.

    John Derbyshire is a pretty cool guy; he writes controversial articles and doesn’t care if people hate him for it.

    How old are you Whiskey?

    You seem to have a complex about women and about race. Clearly, you have a chip on your shoulder about, well, basically just being a white heterosexual male in today’s world. You remind me of a guy called Simon Sheppard who had similar grievances. His website is still out there on the internet for all to see…

    I get the impression, overall, that America is more of a divided and fractured society than the one I live in.

    • No most White guys are not Star Trek nerds. But White guys are the driving force of technology and always have been. On the more plebian or proletarian side, there are many, many guys who tinker with cars and motorcycles and fix them up, enhance them. This goes beyond the Asian-inspired/led “Tuner Car” phenomena and drifting enthusiasts.

      Then there are the open source guys, constantly contributing to one project or another, for the sheer pride of it. The Hackers, who like Kevin Mitnick find status and power for ever expanding “cool Hacks” demonstrating technical and social prowess (the latter by tricking people into giving access). While these guys don’t dominate the White male population, they are far bigger and far more important than their equivalent population in other groups. They are completely absent save a very few unique and isolated individuals among Blacks, Women, and Hispanics. Hell is being born a very intelligent Black person amongst a population that finds Jay-Z “too brainy.” These people exist, but in isolation and therefore lacking network multipliers have no real effect on society.

      Asian nerds abound, but seem to lack the ability to do things that are viewed as “impossible” for cultural reasons. Its no accident that most of Japan’s innovative companies were founded right after the War, when social control preventing upsetting the old social order was minimal.

      I have no complex, merely see what is in front of my nose. The same can be said about the UK, with Pakistani Muslims. Or Sweden, with the same plus Algerians. Or France with Africans and North Africans. A multicultural society benefits women, disproportionately, than White men.

      I can’t say anything about Scotland today (though I am mixed Scots, Irish, and part German ancestry). If you believe David Hackett Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in the US” then from the beginning, the US has been divided between the Norse inflected Anglo Puritanism of the Danelaw in East Anglia, the Saxon derived aristocracy of Wessex in Southern England, the Borderers of the Scots Irish in Northern Ireland and along the Scots-English border, and the Midlands Quakerism.

  12. fakeemail says:

    America has always had a “complex” about race since its very inception and there were black slaves. And it’s reaching a fever pitch now that we have a black president and whites *will* be a minority. A nation *should* have a complex about race. Because a nation entails a certain racial/ethnic/cultural bond. Without that core bond, the nation is or will be conquered. Hence, women shacking up with the foreign invaders. Don’t think it won’t happen. . .Healthy and sane men should have a “complex” about being conquered and emasculated whether it be through outright warfare or more subtle means like cheap labor illegal aliens, Orwellian anarcho-tyranny laws, and media-academic cultural subversion

    This is hardly a call for some sort of Nazi/Hitlerian shout for purity, supremacy, and murder. It’s simply a shout for sanity! A shout for the right of a people to have their country as a man has his home. “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everyone” is unjust on its face. No other race or culture is excoriated for wanting to maintain its home majority except white/western.

    It is the women who have had the chip on their shoulder. If some white men have it now, it is long overdue.

    I believe Whiskey stated he lives in the So. Cal (Anaheim?) area. There is no where more diverse than SoCal so therefore no more divided and fractured. Liberal Harvard intellect Robert Putnam himself was forced to admit this when he looked at his data from the book “Bowling Alone”.

  13. cecilhenry says:

    So, What to do. It seems like this piece condones what it criticizes.

    Do whites nerdy guys and the civilization they built have value? How did it come to be if women don;t like betas. Why did women go along with this??

    As for the fact that women prefer violence and dominance–well, its SO much easier to be a violent selfish bastard and exploit everyone you meet. Why does this not expand to encompass everything??

    Why should I control my impulses and my intense anger at what is been done to my society.?

    Women will reward the violent and shiftless over the controlled and focused—then where are we headed???? I am fed up with the parasites who can vote for leaders to take from producers and give to takers. Obama phones, Obama stamps—its won;t end till the producers LEAVE!!

    Wont scarcity make these ‘bitches’ long for the nerdy tech days??

    After all women NEVER lead, they follow those who can lead and produce. That is clear everywhere no matter what women say.

    • rickl says:

      Wont scarcity make these ‘bitches’ long for the nerdy tech days??

      Yes, it sure will. But it will be too late by then.

      Once the economic collapse happens, a lot of middle aged white nerds will have no interest in white feminists. We’ll smile and wave to them as they’re being gang-raped by street thugs. I sure as hell won’t lift a finger to help them.

      • njartist49 says:

        Amen.
        Hell, I may even volunteer to help erect the “comfort” tents for the invading Russian armies.

  14. Tripemaster says:

    In addition to the Pakistanis and other South Asians, the UK has a lot of blacks. Africans (such as Nigerians) especially have very rapidly increased their numbers through immigration.

    The women that I talk to here in Scotland do not seem to “hate white males” as such, although it is relatively rare for people to use the word “white” as a descriptive term for race, here, or indeed anywhere else in Europe. Of course, people understand what it means but in general the term “white” is seen as American to a certain extent, so it feels a bit strange using it.

    It is my overall impression that everywhere you go in the Western world, it is a lot more common for non-white men (especially black men) to date white women than it is for white men to date non-white women.

    In mainstream politics, centre-left parties are the clear winners. A clear application of Whiskey’s Law can be seen when Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP said that if Scotland were to become independent, she would sign Scotland up to the UN Refugee Charter. If you don’t know about the SNP, it is a left-wing party that wants Scotland to become independent from the rest of the UK. It also is very keen on multiculturalism and political correctness, and recently the party has been saying that it looks at the Scandinavian countries (such as Norway and Sweden) as a model for an independent Scotland to emulate.

    In general, Europeans will describe themselves by their nationality (such as Scottish, English, Irish, German, French, Italian, etc) rather than using the term “white”. Europe’s left-wing governments however wish to redefine these national identities in order to make them no longer synonymous with “white”.

  15. Tripemaster says:

    In many cases, the word “racism” can simply be substituted for “actions, words or beliefs that are tantamount to defending or promoting the sexual-genetic-reproductive racial-ethnic-territorial needs-desires-imperatives of white heterosexual men”. Thus “racism” is really a drive for societal dominance, on both the individual-personal level and at the group-kin level. It is correct to point out that this drive exists due to the knowledge that every one of us is going to die sooner or later, and there isn’t always going to be a tomorrow. The time that males have to dominate, control and impregnate females on this planet is thus limited. If they fail to achieve this, then their sexual-genetic-reproductive racial-ethnic-territorial interests are negated. Thus “anti-racism” is really a love affair with death, on both the individual-personal level and at the group-kin level. The ultimate “anti-racist” act for a white heterosexual male would appear to be suicide. The left’s policies are tantamount to making it harder, and harder, and harder for white heterosexual males to get sex, reproduction, and continued race-existence. Power is accumulated for the sole purpose of achieving more power.

    • oogenhand says:

      Then reversing “anti-racism” would entail increasing the sexual-reproductive interests of white heterosexual males, that is, reversing a double standard, e.g. Dutch men can have sex with North-African women, but not the other way around. But White Nationalists won’t have that. So it is not just the “anti-racists” who are dangerous to their interests.

      • thordaddy says:

        oogenhand,

        There is no doubt room within white nationalism for sexual imperialism. And it does not matter what the biological reductionists (radical liberals) within WN say otherwise.

      • oogenhand says:

        You start to get it. You get the idea of patrilinearity.

      • bluegrass says:

        WN sexual imperialism is a dead end, because we tried and failed that.

        The colonial period was at its most fundamental level the spread of White genes across the planet……..and now, our mulatto descendants are coming home to roost, thinking its time to share the White women like the European men got to share their colored ones.

        The “one drop rule” is the only effective way for ensure European survival in the face of racial mixing. Certain WN are amiable to race-mixing with Asians, while others consider you a traitor if your even 1/4 Jewish; so its clearly a divisive, often personal issue with a diverse range of beliefs for every racially-aware White male.

        On a personal level I’m still partial to views orienting towards the one-drop rule. Perhaps its some strange, non-logical personal bias……..but when I see a mulatto offspring, there’s no way I can incorporate them into an idea of White-European identity.

        It should be clear that the one-drop-rule was not devised out of some irrational fear of “LOSIN OUR WHITE WIMMENZ!”. Perhaps there was quite a bit of truth in trying to isolate alien D.N.A. from entering the White Gene pool.

        For instance: take the pre-civil war south.

        There was massive race mixing between white slave owners and slave women. American blacks are said to be roughly 20%-25% European in ancestral D.N.A.

        How has that affected Black identity in any meaningful manner? Why was it so simple for these slave communities to absorb their mulatto offspring into their African identity? They seem to worship White genetic infusion………”ebony” modeling magazines are full of mostly mulatto women, and in Brazil and South Africa the “coloreds” considered themselves leagues higher in social status than pure Africans.

        Yet, imagine if a White women was impregnated by a Black man in the same time period: Her child is so clearly not White the town would instantly shun and alienate her, not to mention the mob or the state itself would come for her blood.

        Even if White men MURDERED every non-White male in the world, and impregnated every colored female we could find, then we’d simply be overwhelmed by our Mulatto offspring and we’d end up looking like Northern Brazil anyway.

        I do not believe in White Supremacy, instead I believe in White inferiority: A highly recessive, overly altruistic human subgroup easily overwhelmed in genetic character by Asian or African genetic input.

        For Africans to genetically invade the world, they merely must set forth and breed. For Europeans to achieve such a similar task we’d need to be literal exterminationist Nazis. I do not like the latter idea, so I propose a Japan for White people: an hyper-isolationist homeland with a national goal in the continuation of White genetics.

        To defend Whites is to defend something unique and wonderful in a world increasingly hostile to any meaningful human distinction.

      • oogenhand says:

        You do understand that my strategy is retalation for the sexual imperialism of North-Africans e.a.? It seems sexual imperialism did work pretty well for them, at least until my retaliation schemes. The main difference has been that North-Africans e.a. consider paternal hybrids part of their group, while in America the English established a one-drop rule, alienating their hybrid offspring.

      • thordaddy says:

        bluegrass,

        The “one drop rule” is a fantasy as this stage of the game. Biological reductionism is a particular variant of radical liberation. WN cannot be grounded in radical liberation AS DEFINED by the radical liberationists themselves.

        The question isn’t really whether WN should advance and advocate sexual imperialism, only whether they shall prohibit it? But the movement can’t restrain its members if its foundational beliefs are rooted in radical liberation. It seems paradoxical until you understand that you can’t reduce WN to biological reductionism. To reduce WN to such an impossible expectation (biological “purity”) is to kill it from the start.

        In fact, WNs can’t even talk about “racial purity” if they reduce themselves to biological reductionists. At that level, only survival of genes means anything. WN must be more than “survival of genes.” No thinking human being, including the WN, actually thinks in this manner.

        We want WN for a lot more reasons than simply “racial purity.”

      • thordaddy says:

        In fact, there is every reason to suspect that the “racial purists” within WN are actual subterfuge. They are radical liberationists within WN. They proffer a notion of “purity” even as they reduce the individual member to an “organic” robot. A thing ENTIRELY moved by its “genes.” These “genes” of course have no concept of “purity.” Such a things exist in a transcendent realm where the “gene” has never been known to travel.

  16. Dan says:

    I have thought long and hard about demographics and have come to the conclusion that the best path for most ambitious, productive and hard-working among us in the increasingly hostile regime is to have a lot of children.

    This will achieve many things:
    (1) You will somewhat impoverish yourself materially and be less useable as a source of funds in a system that is means-tested.
    (2) Somewhat tied to (1) is that your children and dependents will directly be tax deductions.
    (3) You will be surrounded by people like yourself. This will give you a happier and safer future.
    (4) Much of your work will be doing things for your family: teaching the kids, raising the kids, improving your house, cleaning, doing chores, cooking, gardening and so forth, activities that are inherently untaxable and unreachable by the authorities.
    (5) Your investment will be your children, something that cannot be taken away. (Although they might, alas, become liberal. But they will still be your kids. And most likely a white person in 2040 will not be liberal.) By contrast, if you invest in the market, you have to expect that an unfair chunk will be appropriated away.
    (6) It is great for the demographics of this country.

    If whites are discriminated against and used too much, they can turn their prodigious abilities inward for their own benefit.

    If the government excludes you, just unplug. Let white liberals deal with the mess that will be America. Let them pay the taxes, let them worry about inner city test scores, and let them worry about urban crime rates. Let them try to be the heroes, and let them grind away. A measure of conservatism will win because it is the most economical and government finances will first be brought low. Democrats will be the conservative party (although they will never admit it), laboring like hell to balance budgets and inflate away benefits, as the pie literally shrinks. The Republican party may whither in the long run, but the ideas it represents won’t because they are simply true.

  17. Dan says:

    If you don’t have kids, your work and resources will simply be expropriated in 100 ways for the benefit of someone else’s kids. You as a productive person *will* pay for the feeding, clothing and raising of someone’s kids. The only question is, will the kids you support be yours.

  18. njartist49 says:

    The modern White woman is right back in the Garden of Eden choosing to heed the Serpent: she chafes at being second to the man; thus the “you shall be as gods” appeals to her; and she accepts the seduction/sexual union of the “alpha” serpent to the harm of the true man: thus is Cain, the serpent seed, born with Abel in an act of superfetation, leading to the death of Abel.

  19. Chick Crack says:

    I’ve always said that women long for the days of medieval feudalism. Just take a look at the books they lap up such as Twilight and Hunger Games. They’re all based on an alpha aristocracy lording over a beta peasantry.

    • Mark says:

      When women have these fantasies, they always see themselves as married to the aristocrat, not the peasant. Most women in feudalistic societies lived lives of grinding poverty and the probability of any individual female being in the upper crust would be extremely small. So, of course, women aren’t being realistic thinking they would be one of the lucky few. Women want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the high standard of living that male beta nerds provide but they don’t want to marry them. They can’t have one without the other, though. This has been a golden age for women but it’s ending. The male betas are turning into confirmed bachelor slackers or trying to learn game and mimic alpha males instead of being productive and then just having the fruits of their labor confiscated by a welfare state set up to benefit women.

      • Right: they’re not taking this interest in aristocratism and hierarchy to go study Aristotle or Alexander Pope on the Great Chain of Being.

        If a sincere interest in “olden Times”, be they Medieval or English Regency, provided some sort of imaginative brake on the slippery slope of the hear and now, that would be a positive: but women, even quite intelligent and non-liberal ones, who are committed enough to such interests to make them a *real* standard for judging the present are hard to find. Whether it’s a question of ‘obsessiveness’ or lack of imagination, girls may let themselves get lost in their books for a while, but they won’t take what they get from that and actively use it on their world. Whereas a 14 year-old boy who reads about the Romans in a Penguin Classic will go around thinking, “Seriously, we need to start doing some stuff the way the Romans did. I’m gonna go imitate Caesar”– or Cicero, or Marcus Aurelius. If you find a girl who thinks she’s Elizabeth Bennett, nine times out of ten she’s gonna be *Lydia* Bennett . . .

  20. PA says:

    While, here are some points that balance out your argument:

    – Tom Tancredo was short, timid, and a bad public speaker. That had something to do with his lack of traction.

    – Women LOVED LOVED LOVED Hitler; they love Putin, both being pro-white guy (of their respective country) nationalists. Putin imprisoned neo-aristocratic oligarchs and genocided dominant Chechens much to Russian women’s love.

    – How is Obama — a bookish, skinny guy — sexy? Why don’t actual dominant black guys (Sharpton, Keyes, Kane) ever do well with white women their respective primaries? Hell, white liberal women nominated Dukakis!

  21. angry says:

    Whiskey and other commenters are certainly right about all the internal attacks that will emerge against the system.
    Many of you probably work within a corporate environment. Here is how you gain strength within that system:

    1) Understand that all women and minorities within a corporate environment are your enemies. They will go after you sooner or later so make preparations mentally and finally realize that these people are a threat. Once a threat is understood, there is no sense of guilt or moral limitation to get in the way of protecting yourself.

    2) Wear a wired body recorder. Body-worn cameras are so small nowadays that they can fit under most any type of clothing. Record every interaction you have with every person you meet, including bosses and minority/female co-workers.

    3) Gather as much information about the people you work with that you possibly can. Know where they live, who their family members our, their personal interests, etc.

    4) Look for any dirt. The best are affairs between married bosses and co-workers. If you can afford it, then hire a private investigator to gather unimpeachable evidence about these affairs. Ditto for any other illicit and improper activity.

  22. PA says:

    To stress the point, Obama is also henpecked and publicly disrespect ny his wife. How Is he sexy?

    • CamelCaseRob says:

      Remember FeministX? She used to say his deep voice got her vagina tingling.

    • josh says:

      Obama is a DL Negro. Is there anyone who disputes that? His wife–UGH!She didnt even want to go to Washington D.C.! She said,”Y’all niggazz go to D.C.,ah jess chill right ch’eah!” (right here) Thats a marrriage? They surely dont fuck. Can you imagine? Black females like her have a strange “love” life: They get sexual early,get keeyuds and then turn all their attention to the keeyuds–and their sex life ends. They are attractive to no one except bottom dwelling nigger males,who are far too dangerous to mess wiff. Michelle hasnt ahd sex in years,I’llw ager;probably will never have it again in her life. Barrack? Ha ha ha,he like ta habs his knob polished by soem cute white guy. Like burly black men too. Whats wrong with that?Even Martin,when he wasnt clobbering his women–which Whiskey characteristically describes as white–even he liked some of what the black male is cooking! BTW they seem to have outed Cory Booker,the other Obama from Newark. In a hagiographic piece in a magazine called “DuJour”–Really? DuJour?(btw did you see that NYT piece whre the guy says stop using “really”,its done? He got astroong reprimand from Jerry Seinfeld. )—Cory waxed ecstatic over “mani-pedis” saying that manicures are great(!)but pedicures are “transformative”! Transformative? Really?? Gay much???

      • oogenhand says:

        “They are attractive to no one except bottom dwelling nigger males,who are far too dangerous to mess wiff.”

        And that is why you need friends.

  23. namae nanka says:

    “If you are a nerdy White guy, you WANT the rules to be thrown out, old empires destroyed, new ones created. You want change, social churning (but not violence, nerdy White guys do poorly among violence by and large), new ways of doing things. ”

    or you can go scribble Dilbert with all the new free time.

    Virginia Woolf would be proud of the Fifty shades of Grey, or will she?

    http://egophelia.free.fr/2femme/woolfroomsister.htm

  24. sestamibi says:

    Whiskey, I savor every word you write. Two points:

    1) You described my sister-in-law (and many others I know like her) to a T.

    2) Force works. Absolutely. Everytime it is used.

  25. kristen says:

    I just happened upon this blog via Steve Sailor, so forgive me if I’m not up on whatever you’ve said in the past.

    First, I’m the woman from the 19th century British novels that someone mentioned upthread – 50-something, modest, educated. I’m also divorced and thus fit in the single woman cohort. I vote straight Republican and have an Ivy Ph.D.

    For those men who are younger – 30s, 40s – let me talk, frankly. All sorts of white men are appealing to woman, not just the supposed alpha ones. I think the beta/alpha distinction is rather silly, to be honest. Some men lead quietly … others follow with bluster. It’s not the loudest or most dominant who dominates, but the scheming and clever.

    When a woman is young, this distinction isn’t clear. Junior high girls go for the bad boys. Why? Because, boys of that age put those qualities on a pedestal. Boys admire boys who are insolent, out-of-bounds and authority-challengers. Girls simply pick up on those cues. Jocks and jerks get all the attention … from their male peers.

    By college, most of this has been rubbed away. The tatted, foul-mouthed, jocks are seen for what they are … by girls. Boys, however, still somehow see the bad-boys as strong. Boys rank undesirables as alpha. Not all boys, mind you, but many. Alpha, then, is simply a word for coolness, at this age.

    But coolness, by the time one’s career starts, begins to be measured differently. And, at this time, maturity distinctions – not racial distinctions – emerge. Young men of intelligence and drive marry well, have children and start careers. Young men who are stuck in the high-school/college era remain focused on sports, muscle cars, weight lifting, and other outward displays of prowess. Much changes, at this point. Language, for instance, emerges as a fault line between the less and more mature. Taste in art and music (avoidance of rap, etc.) also emerges as a line between the old vision of alpha and the new one. And more.

    The sort of women who read that book in your article, Whiskey, are stuck, with their menfolk, in the earlier era of life. Some – perhaps, most? — never escape it. Maturity in itself seems to be stunted by our society that rewards that earlier, alpha vision. It’s not an educational gap, or a class gap, or even a racial divide, but a maturity gap which separates men from boys and women from girls.

    Now, having said this, without sounding too HBD, I also think there’s an wisdom and values gap at work. Please note that there are many mature, admirable men in so-called working class jobs who are far more desirable/alpha than some of the immature jerks donning white collars. And wisdom isn’t mere intelligence.

    So, to sum, and I apologize for writing so much, here are the qualities that make a truly desirable man, from a mature woman’s perspective:
    1. intelligence with practicality; wisdom.
    2. pursuing doggedly a clear vision for the future; executing plans
    3. loyalty to wife, first; children, second
    4. mutual support: the willingness to sublimate your desires/career for your wife’s, temporarily, and the humility and strength to let her support and champion you, temporarily.
    5. adaptability; willingness to change course, to wisely turn the vision
    6. courage, particularly during trying times; endurance
    7. the ability to prioritize
    8. optimism; confidence in strategizing

    Hope this helps..

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you. You said what a lot of the 40+ viewers and lurkers on this blog are thinking and observing.

    • Chick Crack says:

      “By college, most of this has been rubbed away. The tatted, foul-mouthed, jocks are seen for what they are … by girls”

      ————-

      Wait, are you saying that college aged girls (the most in-demand group of females) spurn jocks?

    • njartist49 says:

      Sorry, those qualities in a man do not matter to women – except of course to the NAWALT kept in a secret dungeon somewhere in the alps, along with Hitler’s gold – not at 20, and not at 60. Been there.

    • asdf says:

      “For those men who are younger – 30s, 40s”

      30s is old madam. By the time a girl is in her 30s she is too old. Old in looks. Old in child bearing capacity. And who knows how many men she’s had and how psychologically damaged she is.

      Simply put your saying, “after a decade or two when women wise up please accept our sloppy seconds.” By then its already too late for many men. As the kind of man your describing I’ve grown tired of rejecting baby rabbies 30 somethings with way too much baggage.

    • CamelCaseRob says:

      You are confusing the two meanings of “Alpha”, the “leader of men” type and the “cocky, funny, physically attractive” type. The first type of Alpha may not be attractive to women until he’s had time to establish his dominance in the working world. The 2nd type of alpha is always attractive to women but as they get older some, perhaps most, women learn that those qualities, alone, in a man, aren’t sufficient. This is when they begin looking at the betas. Problem is the betas are getting tired of taking type II Alphas’s left overs.

    • anonymous says:

      “3. loyalty to wife, first; children, second”

      A wife is just a random vagina that you happen to own (sadly today with the current regime, its more like a vagina that happens to own you). Children on the other hand are your own flesh and blood. A good woman should want her husband to be loyal to the kids first.

      • Brendan says:

        Agree with this, although it doesn’t help a marriage. The reality is that I am much, much closer to my son (who is really flesh of my flesh) than to his mother, and it has been that way since he came into being. Blood is thicker than water, and also thicker than the silly neurotransmitters in our brains.

    • josh says:

      YOU,Kristen,are a woman I would dearly love to fuck! I had my chance once with a woman like you;MFA,beautiful,older..but still beautiful. Could be had for a song. GODDAMN ME! Ive pulled my dear pud many times thinking of her…

  26. “The Printing Press destroyed the Catholic Church”

    Whiskey, it is still there. Chap in Rome. Hundreds of millions of members.

    Remember?

    • njartist49 says:

      The printing press restored the bible to the believer: the bible was widely read – and literacy was widespread – in the common Latin of the Roman civilization before the its death in the 7th century – caused by Muslim invasion. After that, Rome kept the bible confined to its priest-craft and controlled the populace by keeping it ignorant: the printing press was God’s gift to the True Church.

      • If you want to believe that nonsense, go ahead …

      • njartist49 says:

        For the literate:
        Mohammed and Charlemagne by Henri Pirenne
        Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited by Emmet Scott
        Available at Amazon. Cheap.

      • oogenhand says:

        So Islam did strengthen the power of the Papacy. Jack T. Chick has been right after all!!! Franco as well did use Moroccan soldiers.

      • craig says:

        Even if your thesis were true, the fact remains that if you study the writings of Christians from AD 100-600 or so (e.g., Irenaeus, Augustine, Basil), it is obvious their beliefs shared little in common with reformation-era Protestant beliefs, much less their present-day variants, but almost everything in common with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine. So the printing press did not “restore” the true faith, unless you want to claim that the true faith disappeared sometime before the books comprising the canon of the Bible were identified and agreed-upon (by the Church, no less).

    • josh says:

      The Pope,right?

  27. Chick Crack:

    “I’ve always said that women long for the days of medieval feudalism. Just take a look at the books they lap up such as Twilight and Hunger Games. They’re all based on an alpha aristocracy lording over a beta peasantry.”

    Women like to know exactly where men stand in the hierarchy, and to keep them there:

    http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/

    • Chick Crack says:

      Thanks for the link. When I saw this part:

      “Women will not tell men what really turns women on sexually. They will tell a man that being a “nice guy” works best, because she thereby creates one more nice guy and ensures that he is kept in his low place in the hierarchy”

      I thought of Kristen’s “advice” posted above. Any man following her recommendations doesn’t stand a chance.

  28. Brandon says:

    As a non-nerdy white guy (at least not technical, I’ve failed basic college math twice), I have to say that nerdy white guys have created just as much misery for me as well as whoever else. First of all, they invented liberalism (think Locke, Kant, Voltaire, Mill). They invented the Pill, without which, much your blog would be irrelevant, Whiskey. They are also largely responsible for creating the world in which a book with the title of “THE END OF MEN” could be taken seriously in mainstream society. Their destruction of the old patriarchal order has made life living hell for all white men, but nowadays especially those of us who suck at Math and Science. At least the nerds can still make some money. Anyway, it appears their chickens are coming home to roost. The white nerds have created this postmodern nightmare world so let them lie in the bed they made. They get no sympathy from me.

  29. Not to tell tales out of blogging school, but this is rather a propos of a recent reversal from Ann Althouse, who I read and admire (though disagree with often enough) where, after some stunning recent work holding Obama’s feet to the fire over the Stevens slaughter in Libya, where she considers the administration engaged in a coverup, she suddenly took a fit of liberal vapors over a Rush Limbaugh segment in which he played and replayed the Ohio “Obama phone” lady.

    Althouse even concedes there’s a point in criticizing the lady and those like her, but: she considered it an appeal to “hate” and ugliness, and protested she and other independents wouldn”t vote for Romney if he made them *feel* he was appealing to negative emotions in order to win.

    Of course, her commentariat protested vociferously, on a variety of grounds, not least of which is that Rush Limbaugh surely doens’t work for the Romney campaign.

    Althouse is a brilliant person, frequently dazzling in her parsing of baloney arguments. –But: as her longtime readers know, she can go completely off the reservation of rationality when it comes to these sort of Nice White Lady conniptions. And partially, at least, she’s even self-aware about it. [NB: be it said, she's still tenfold better on this score than, say, Andrew Sullivan or James Fallows] But the self-awareness comes in the form of ‘hey, we’re all emotional beings’-type pleas that are beneath the dignity of someone who can focus such detailed analysis when she’s not keeping moored to the (much-waxed-over) hippie idealism of her youth.

    I think she knows the score; I think she knows where the promises of confident 60s liberalism have simply not come true. But she is too enamoured of the vision of what holding to such idealism supposedly makes her– better, purer, gentler.

    And if she– certainly possessed of erudition and logic where she determines to use them– can’t keep her skepticism in focus, how can millions of women soaked in institutional liberalism who’ve never made the effort to parse one liberal appeal in their lives?

    –In praise of Althouse, I’ll add a good jeer of hers, relating a media anecdote about a retired couple overheard arguing the election on a hiking trail. The man, expressing concern about the economy, is cute short by his wife, who cries: “What about my reproductive rights?!” As Althouse sneered: when do women ever stop putting *their* “reproductive rights” first?

    • IA says:

      Women use the term “reproductive rights” to mask the fact that men are no longer held accountable for making babies. In the old days, before the pill, the honorable man bore 50% of the responsibility for pregnancy. If not, he might be persuaded with a shotgun. A woman’s honor was in chastity and fidelity. Unfortunately, the pill makes a woman 100% responsible for pregnancy. Or rather, it doesn’t. Which is why they (who exactly is “they”? which feminists?) came up with a term like reproductive rights. A claim – not on a man but on society – without reciprocal obligation. In a world of sperm donors, transgenders and gay marriage the idea of male and female honor is about as believable as paying for a free lunch.

  30. WS says:

    Obama [in 2008] performed slightly worse with white women, 39 percent of voters, than Al Gore did in 2000. McCain won the votes of white women, 53 to 46 percent . . Obama compensated for the drop-off in white female support with the strong 41 percent support from white men. No Democrat since Carter had until Tuesday’s election earned more than 38 percent of the white male vote.

    Women follow fashion trends, Whiskey, but who sets those trends?

  31. Matt Strictland says:

    Its not quite as bleak as you think.

    1st, Muslin a birth rates are getting near to those of the West, Asian ones are lower and those societies will be old and before they are rich. Think we are straining? You ain’t seen nothing yet Once China and the Muslims get there, it will be a big mess.

    2nd, Most White men are not that nerdy. We are less nerdy than many Asians. Also in the past we had super high fertility. If we need it we can make the changes by main force and bring our numbers up, well after we clean up the ecology and food supply anyway.

    3rd, technology is a double edged sword. One serious screw up with nukes or advanced biotech can kill everyone. A serious chemical spill can kill species . Heck read Silent Spring. We (Whites here) have come close several times to ending all civilization with nukes during the cold war. So yeah, given the species wide genocide risks engendered by it, its little wonder a certain amount of fear and loathing is in play . You can see why women and some men might not be technological cheerleaders. Since we have virtually no functional ability to build stable societies for long the potential for utter dystopia or annihilation is greater by the day, seemingly greater than the benefits.

    4th, The multi-cult and liberalism requires lots of money. The economic changes are ending that

    5th, The fact that 47% of the population is dependent on Uncle Sugar is not the fault of the Left. Its an inevitable consequences of the choice made by the Right. Marx, while a product of his time was basically correct on this. The only way out is to harness private industry for public good by custom and regulation but that has been rare in the US . The brief reprieve we got was a product of the fear of totalitarian takeover,

    6th People change. Times change and people can decide “boy was that stupid” and move on. They might even decide to end this silly Republic as configured. Who knows.

    • idealart says:

      Who’s going to regulate the regulators?

      • josh says:

        Who’s going to suck the suckers?

      • idealart says:

        @ josh:

        Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
        For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
        And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
        This above all: to thine own self be true,
        And it must follow, as the night the day,
        Thou canst not then be false to any man.

        – Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 3

      • idealart says:

        @ josh again:

        You can’t cheat an honest man. Con artists (political as well as commercial) exploit greed, pride, envy, lust, etc.

  32. thordaddy says:

    whiskey…

    I agree with a lot of what you have to say about the pathological relationship between “white man” and “white woman.” But this pathological relationship is neither a product of “evolution” nor is it ordained by God. It is, in its entirety, socially constructed BY A CERTAIN TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL ACTING COLLECTIVELY. And when one analyzes “it” more closely, observes that this social construction emanates from Hollywood, academia and media, and sees that “it” proceeds under the guise of “feminism” then we can dutifully speculate as to what type of individual acting collectively can and will socially construct a pathological relationship between “white man” and “white woman.”

    Many yell “Jew,” but there is a more fundamental archetype at work here.

  33. josh says:

    One problem with the white woman is she has been given something she dearly loves:She is a Soecial Snowflake–to borrow from CH. Femifuckingnism,or more accurately,the Civil Rites (Bowel)Movement,has given her special status,as a “minority”. Notice how people use the idiotic phrase”women & minorities”,as if People of Color dont have women? White women are the pinnacle of women and they accept themselves as Superior to other women. Women of other hues are sub-women,in a way,almost “female eunuchs.” Like the old nigger woman who yelled,”Aint I A Woman?”. Yes,but,not quite like ME,says the white girl. They are in a bizarre way the last of the White Supremacists,with white superiority of course being relegated only to FEmales–never males. Leroy wouldnt like that!!!! They are -in their reckoning–beautifuller(tho the feminist manjaw pig doesnt exactly shine in that regard) they deem themselves smarter,more modern,more progressive and they are brutally submissive and obedient to PC. Look at that pinheaded Jan Crawford,sounding lie a HS girl,fixing it with all the kids that we’re going to ask Mitt THIS & THIS. Women,alas,are too stupid to look beyond their own self interests to that of the larger society. Given the choice of PC–superior privilege–or conservatism,with all that boring stuff about numbers(look how they tired to make Paul Ryna “sexy”) etc,she will pick PC. But that choice need to be taken away from her. Attacking Asshole Action,at this point looking like Don Quixote mounting his steed,,(or Don Knotts mounting Aint Bee!) is vital. White womens position as the beneficient of Non-Discrimanation,–or as its also known, discrimination,must cease. But HOW? Aye theres the rub!

    • josh says:

      To add a bit,whiskeys idea of ‘social shaming” must be applied. Its used with shocking success AGIN us,we need to use it FOR us. Republicans all seem like pussies,as they desperately suck up to women to gain their approval,kissing their ever-growing assess like mad. Doesnt work. I say lets win the war on women. Attack them mercilessly–its bad to attack a woman but not as bad as attacking a dear Holy Negroid–as the selfish,stupid ,weak,submissive fools they are.Seperate those beyond the pale,the hopeless ones,the Jan Crawfords,from those who actually have a brain.. Ask women the question: Do you REALLY want to be ruled…by WOMEN? Exploit the differences amiong women,and the hate they have for each other. Show the violence that NON’s bring down on women. Show middle & working class women as demeaned and insulted by the upper-crust bitchezz. Take on whiskeys kneeling dumb-ass above and mock her relentlessly. Of course sooner or later you’re going to have to address the black man. Again,show the black woman as being pushed aside,insulted,and abused by the childish black male. Demand that the social contract which states that blacks are to receive endlessly increasing cash from Y-T,which comes out of the white womans purse,be re-written to demand that blacks,esp men,get–well,better. Touch on some deep-rooted values we still have in us. Tell women,if you dont stand by us,you’re no fucking good,basically. And tell negroids,if you cant take crae of yourselves,you’re NOT a man,youre a BOY,as we once called you.

      • thordaddy says:

        “Man” cannot wage a real war on “woman.”

        Only a perverted and corrupt male can wage real war on “woman” and he does so by embracing the homosexual “nature,” first. The male becomes de facto homo. Likewise, “feminism” is a real war on “woman” conducted by the devout dyke. The “heart and soul” of “feminism” is the female’s “fundamental right” to promiscuity, abortion and divorce. These “fundamentals rights” exercised are claimed to be evidence of “female supremacy,” but in actuality, their embrace portends the annihilation of “woman” and showcases female degeneracy Thus, the de facto homos in the manosphere egg on the immature female mind to seek “female supremacy” as they also, along with the devout dyke within “feminism,” desire the annihilation of “woman.”

    • cecilhenry says:

      the focus of the term ‘women and minorities’ is NOT on either women or minorities.

      IT is a focused attack on those who are envied and hated BECAUSE they are envied–namely white males.

      If white women can be fooled into falling for this rhetoric (at their own expense) well, so much the better for the haters.

    • oogenhand says:

      Famale eunuchs?! Sexually invisible? That is the trick of my ideological system. Grab the enemy by the ovaries. Two can play the feminist game.

  34. thordaddy says:

    I don’t at all see that the modern liberated white female seeks the domination of the black man, the jihadist or the alpha.

    One white female/black male pairing I see quite often more or less represents a dominant but compassionate mother and her vibrant black youth of a “son.” I’m am internally embarrassed just to witness the equally divided self-deception.

    Another pairing would be a tiger woods/Elena pairing. This kooks more like an attraction of “equals” more than anything else. Woods’ infidelity didn’t evidence Alpha, it evidenced an identity crisis and his exaltation of the white female. It was a rejection of his mother and perhaps a hidden desire of his father?

    As for white females and jihadists, their stories of heroic escape is all I know.

    • josh says:

      I was at a T—– recently and happened to seea white woman with a black child–a boy. I couldnt help but give her a “look”. Not in any way derogatory–just looking as if to say,”Really?”. Any way this woman made sure to say out loud to the ni–oops,I mean the kid,so that I could hear,”Youre so handsome”!! This is a sick sexual relationship!!

  35. thordaddy says:

    ^^^I’m am internally embarrassed just to witness the equally divided…

    Another pairing would be a tiger woods/Elena pairing. This [l]ooks more like an…

  36. Pingback: Randoms « Foseti

  37. tg moderator says:

    The Sailer strategy might still work but time is rapidly running out. Concentrating on white voters is only part of the strategy–the other half is enacting pro affordible family formation policies. Married white females tend to vote conservative. Single moms tend to vote for pro government policies since the govt. is effectively the husband and provider for their families. Whether they find beta males icky or not may be relevant, but single moms, blacks, and hispanics are voting in their economic self interest when they pull that D lever. Pro family formation polices would include an end to section 8 and a return to giant housing complexes in the hood. A lot of affordible housing would be freed up. Perhaps we could use FEMA trailers? Illegal immigration would be stopped and reversed. Student loan debt might be made bankruptable again. If white people don’t start making babies it is all over for the USA. I know game, hypergamy, and feminism are factors in delayed marriage, but I suspect lack of affordible family formation plays a bigger role than all 3. Young people are not getting married, having kids and voting Rebublican because they just cannot afford to. Btw. I just posted about the failing American middle class and how Americans can no longer afford to visit their own national parks. Kind of relates to this discussion.

  38. Rifleman says:

    Whiskey, I’ve said elsewhere that you think about White women the way an anti-semite thinks about Jews. Your views about White women are bigoted, irrational and rooted in your own sexual inadequacies and your status as an “omega” male with Aspergy/autistic tendencies.

    That being said just as anti-semites are not always 100% wrong about Jews, a White woman fearing bigot like you isn’t always wrong about White women.

    Google:

    Althouse_ _Just How Racist Is the ‘Obama Phone’ Video

    And check out these articles by and about Ann Althouse going all “Nice White Lady” for Barack.

    Truly remarkable.

    You should consider commenting on her site.

    • oogenhand says:

      Anders Behring Breivik gets love letters, Bilal Skaf gets love letters…

      But in a way, obsessing about purity instead of patrilinearity does hurt the sexual chances of White men. This has to be adressed or compensated in other ways.

  39. Father Rodrigo Mendoza says:

    “Your views about White women are bigoted, irrational and rooted in your own sexual inadequacies and your status as an “omega” male with Aspergy/autistic tendencies.”

    Mere insults.But yes,anyone who attended a public school could see that in the eyes of white women, so called latinos or blacks,90% of whites are indeed autistic nerds.And damned proud of it.I don´t have the slightiest intention of giving up my share of the qualities that took us to the moon (the qualities that define humanity).But remember that´s just IN YOUR /THEIR EYES.We are not beta males because,well,we are not chimps.It´s a metaphor.Whiskey handles the right definition of the term:beta as what women deem as beta.Casey Heynes is not a beta male,quite on the contrary,he is probably the strongest motherfucker in the schoolyard.The imprisoned murderers who get tons of love letters from female admirers are not alpha males.It only took a 9 to 5er neigbourhood cop to get them in a cage.Buying a bike instead of a car doesn´t really make you stronger or the leader of an imaginary pack,that´s hapening only in the mind of the chick on the back seat.”You come to this country, take advantage of the system and think because we are tolerant that we are weak and helpless. Your arrogance offends me”.

  40. MarkyMark says:

    What about when Reagan CONSTANTLY attacked Jimmy Carter during the 1980 election? He hammered and hammered Carter, his policies, and his record; he also won in a landslide. Doing things McCain’s way will only ensure a loss, whereas going on the attack will ensure a win.

    • tg moderator says:

      How is Romney to attack Obama? We shall see tonight, but I expect Romney shall blame Obama for the bad economy and offer vague promises to fix it. He will also call for more Bush style tax cuts. Everything else if off the table. Romney can’t attack illegal immigration, high workman’s comp premiums, government run healthcare, the student loan program, high payroll taxes, etc. because Romney has been in favor of all these things. US government policy has been destroying decent American jobs for decades, but the Republicans can’t or won’t talk about the reasons why. Romney is a difficult position because of the Romeny-care plan in Mass. Obama can claim concern for the middle class and offer big government solutions that will make matters worse, but people fall for it. The Republicans have only the tax cut card to play.

  41. odds says:

    white men just need to become more sexy to women.

    the information is out there. its going to happen.

    • Father Rodrigo Mendoza says:

      If becoming more sexy implies playing in a band instead of getting a degree,or dealing with drugs instead of working 9 to 5,as its needed to keep an industrial civilization going,or playing the bad boy in highschool when you should be studying hard,or pretending that we don´t find fascinating how an engine,a hard drive,or the universe itself work well,then,WE SHOULDN´T BECOME MORE SEXY.Should we become a pack of chimps and fight constantly over an imaginary territory,like mestizos or blacks,just to turn the chicks on?I can´t waste my time having a fistfight per day and I just feel no impulse to bully smaller guys.Here´s an alternative plan to rebuild a viable relation between the sexes:

      -Imprison the whole autoctonous thug-bad boy population.They make it very easy,since they have to prove how tough they are.Drugs must stay illegal if only for this purpose.

      -Zero inmigration.Deportation of all those inmigrants who entered your country ilegally (even if they are currently legal).Third worlders are thugs,that´s why their countries suck.Actually,I don´t think they are serious competitors in the sexual market,but they are a bad example.Take,for an instance,the british chavs imitating them.

      -No alimony,no palimony,private property is sacred.We are not in the fifties,there are no limits for a woman who wishes to work.BUT MOST DON´T,unless it´s a fake job for the government.In 2012,divorce laws have no justification.If a woman chooses not to work to live off her couple,AS MOST DO,she must assume a risk,try to make the relationship work and certainly not breaking it a 90% of the times,as it happens with divorces.

      -An inmediate end to government fake jobs in public schools,NGO,and so on.The current crisis is making this happen in Europe.Let women work in the private market as we do and see if they like it.

      Our people will exist in 2050 only if we close borders and deport large numbers of inmigrants RIGHT NOW.And our descendants in 2050 will be the sons and daughters of the few traditional families remaining.My recipe is just to make life tolerable for the majority of people for whom it´s too late.There´s no way back.You can´t pretend that the 39 year old women who are suddenly trying to settle are the love of your life,and that you don´t mind being the 50th dish and don´t worry about the STD´s they might have got in the carrousel or that you think she will remain faithfull and won´t ask for divorce,as the 50% of them do,to kick you out of YOUR flat.You can´t pretend that you like the histerical office partners who phantasize in a loud voice with getting that promotion by just discriminating against you with a quota.You can´t even be very friendly with the female high school mate you find in the supermarket who barely talked to you and your buddies because they only dated guys ten years older.

  42. Lexus Liberal says:

    Yes, and the usually Caucasian eunuchs that are married to these liberal independent feminists are cajoled and nagged to vote liberal democrat. Even though its in their best interest in most cases to vote Republican.

  43. whorefinder says:

    Never date a woman who’s dated a nigger. Hell, if she ever says anything about a black man being attractive, dump her immediately. If she listens to rap, or likes “basketball”, or likes to go “clubbing”, she’s out.

    Nigger-fucking and worthless sluttiness go hand in hand.

    Pump-‘n-dumps, baby.

    • Don Likajuze says:

      What if you are dating a nigger gal?

      • oogenhand says:

        Good question. The hypocrites are constantly denying this possibility.

      • whorefinder says:

        A woman who dates within her own race is not subject to these same laws. It’s only going outside them

        But for a black bitch: if she worships Obama; if she likes rap music; if she goes clubbing; if she likes basketball, she’s out. She’s a slut just like all the others.

        The only black women worth dating are 1) physically attractive (ruling out 99% of black women); and 2) wholesale reject American black culture (usually adopted or off the boat from East Africa/Carribean/Brazil, where being “black” is still rightfully seen as bad.

      • whorefinder says:

        @oogenhand:

        1) hypocrisy? So I’m dating known nigger-fuckers? Really? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

        2) It’s rare for a non-black man to want to date a black woman. Even the very few attractive ones are slutty, dumb whores. Check the herpes rate.

        Moron.

  44. Pingback: Like a rock star: a Romneyiac’s morning after « Lucius Somesuch

  45. yukky says:

    Medieval and ancient Classical civilization is far superior to modern civilization, which gave dominion to the subhuman masses. Death to the “white nerd” (last man). Feminism by the way comes from the 19th century. The new kinds of men Whiskey describes, democratic man, let their women get out of hand; because they weren’t real men.

    The rest about minorities and Islam is sheer lunacy.

  46. yukky says:

    Whiskey’s version of the best society is LEFT WING. He’s a FUCKING LIBERAL!!
    A real right winger (not the pussified American variety) supports monarchy, aristocracy, or, in the modern world, military dictatorship.

    • whorefinder says:

      Yawn. All dictatorships/totalitarian governments are LEFT WING.

      They are LEFT WING GOVERNMENTALLY.

      Now, SOCIALLY, they may be RIGHT or LEFT WING, but by definition, to have absolute or seek absolute power is a LEFT WING movement GOVERNMENTALLY.

      • yukky says:

        What are you talking about, do you know where “left wing” and “right wing” come from? It has to do with the French revolution, and where the different political factions sat in the assembly. Right wing originally meant, and Europe has meant throughout, the party of “throne and altar.” Not “free markets, republicanism, etc.” that stuff is the original LEFT WING. And the modern left wing is socialist. But whiskey (and apparently you) are just old-style liberals, left-wingers. Feminism also comes from that by the way, it’s a whole package. Right wing means support for hierarchy and aristocracy, not for democracy. You have your words mixed up because there has never been a real right wing in American history. America is a left wing country, from its foundation.

        Right wing means one of two things, you support throne and altar (traditional monarchy) or you support something like a Fascist party (radical right wing).

        The real Western culture is the West before 1700 or so. Medieval civilization IS the West. Whiskey and you are American left-wing garbage. And you’re getting your own now, because once you let all the rabble and the trash vote, you can’t really deny the vote to women either. It all comes from the same place.

      • whorefinder says:

        @yukky:

        What are you talking about, do you know where “left wing” and “right wing” come from? >

        —No shit, moron.
        But the French Revolution was about two forms of leftism: economic and social; neither side moved right on governmental power issues. It wanted both to impoverish the then-current aristocrats in favor of the revolutionaries, and socially to overthrow the Catholic-social paradigm in favor of freer sex, destruction of family, etc. Taking down the aristocracy and installing a new one—a left wing one–with the “leaders of the people” in the sinecures then. Much like the Soviets did in Russia, Mao did in China, Castro did in Cuba, etc.

        To even pretend that “right wing” means “monarchism” or “aristocracy” is silly. What right-wing meant in the context of the French revolution was merely a favor towards the older governmental aristocrats and bureaucrats over the newer paradigm—it was a social divide, not a governmental one.

        Remember: no left wing government ever gets rid of power over the people; instead, they merely change the names of the positions (king becomes “commitern” or military dictator, etc.) and installing people loyal to the new party/leader in the positions.

        The French Revolution’s division of right-v.-left wing in politics was based on social and bureaucratic order, not governmental control. Socially, the rightist were right wing. Governmentally, they were not.

        Right wing means one of two things, you support throne and altar (traditional monarchy) or you support something like a Fascist party (radical right wing).
        —Wrong.

        1) Right-wing governmentally means less government. Right-wing socially means an appeal to local religious mores,traditions, positions, and “old order” morality. The two are not the same.

        For example, Rome’s 1st emperor, Augustus was a social right winger, but a governmental left-winger—he greatly centralized and increased the power of government (himself as absolute emperor), but greatly appealed to priests, writers, artists, and philosophers to bring back the traditional religious and social mores of a more Puritan Rome, going so far as to punish his own slutty daughter publicly for her hedonistic ways.

        2) Fascism isn’t right-wing in any way, shape, or form.Fascism is merely socialism with an Italian name.

        You’re confused because we associate fascism with Germany, which favored white straight males in receiving the socialist re-distribution over the non-straight white males, often by violence. And since in America white straight males are the bastions of both social and governmental right-wing ideology in America, it’s easy to think that a system associated with straight white males must be inherently “right wing” by American standards. Germany merely took socialism to its logical conclusion—sooner or later, you’ll run out of other people’s money but still have those people you took from around, so you’d better just choose who is your favored class, and wholesale slaughter those who are unfavored—-no social net required now, and plenty of gold and land for your favored persons.

        Leftists have worked hard, btw, to make your confusion possible. Horrified by what unchecked leftism had done in Nazi Germany, they sought to “scrub” this history by claiming that socialism could not be in any system where white men got the redistribution, and creating the fog of confusion regarding what “right wing” meant. Left-wing thought now exclusively came to mean blaming whitey.

        Another bit of confusion comes from the comparison of vague apples to unclear oranges. A “right winger in X country’s politics” versus a “right-winger in America” means nothing. Many lefties (and righties) will try to draw parallels, but the problem is two fold: a) you can’t judge a country’s “right v. left” ideology based on outsiders; a governmental right winger in the U.K might just want fewer regulations on banks, but still whole-heartedly support government deathcare; he would thus be left-of-center of American right wingers on government. What’s more, again,the term “right winger” is too vague; it is merely an adjective in need of an adverb, since we don’t know whether you’re a right winger socially, economically, governmentally, etc.

        You are a complete ignoramus and ahistorical if you think “right wing” means you must support a monarch.

  47. That photo makes me want to reach for my Wilson Combat .45.

    It pretty much encapsulates in a single image all that is wrong with this motherfucking society.

    I’m pleased to see that the civil war meme is spreading throughout the Nat-Alt-Right-Manosphere.

    Violence–and the inevitable authoritarian government–are inevitable.

  48. yukky says:

    The problem is democracy itself, not feminism. Feminism and women’s suffrage is logical consequence of democracy. An aristocracy doesn’t give women rights. And whiskey’s definitions are all over the place, what’s coming about now is not an aristocracy, but a bureaucratic-mandarin state. Totally different things. Most of the “males” today are not real men anyway.

  49. yukky says:

    whorefinder–you don’t get to have your own definitions. If you support “limited govt.” and less govt. and “democracy” (the two are not the same) that’s all fine, but neither of those things is historically right-wing. They’re left-wing ideas and you’re a leftist. You’re a typical American retard in other words, who has no clue about political history, and interprets every historical regime through the prism of politics in the USA 2012.

    “Right wing” and “left wing” is not even applicable to ancient Rome retard. It’s a post 1789 thing. The right wing in Europe are the people who opposed liberals like you and supported throne and altar. Look it up.

  50. yukky says:

    The problem you guys have is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You think you can have democracy, universal suffrage, free markets, free speech, etc., and then you’re surprised that given the fact that 95% of people anywhere and everywhere are depraved, wicked, stupid, and ignorant, that you get a govt. where the lowest kind of human rises to the top. And then you’re surprised that women get out of hand, well of course they do. This all comes with democracy. Whiskey, aristocracy is the only manly form of govt., particularly military rule. It is not just and right to let the inferior rule the superior (democracy). Feminism came about in the age of democracy for a reason. There were people in the 19th century, real right wingers and anti-democrats, who predicted what would happen.

  51. Father Rodrigo Mendoza says:

    Since ancient times,the West had this particularity of considering women as human beings.What is happening now is not a consequence of this oddity,which even nowadays is still unique in the world,a distinctive trait of evil white males.Nor a necessary consequence of the dammned Enlightment.It´s the boomers and may 1968 inheritance.Period.Beware the connotations of “liberalism” in America.In most of Europe classical liberalism is what we associate with the right.The other half of the political spectrum is occupied by overtly socialists.But,for an instance,if the spanish republican prime ministers showed up here with a time machine,they will shoot modern socialists as traitors to their country.Old commies wanted to rule the country.Boomers,specially after the fall of the iron Curtain,just want to destroy it from within.Many voices told precisely what was going to happen,sure.And the left must have believed those pessimistic voices,since they deliberately paved the way to turn democracy into populism or to turn women in a destructive force for society.If we come to the edge of anhilation,be it being reduced to minority in our own countries and to apartheid status through quotas,be it civil wars against foreign infiltrators,be it a total war against islamic countries…if that happens and we survive,our future political system will bear in mind what brought us there,just as modern constitutions still seem to be fighting the ancient regime or trying to prevent the rise of fascism.Perhaps the constitutions of 2030 will make sure the “no representation without taxation” principle again,ask for three quarters of the vote to allow changes is inmigrations laws,and we´ll see what happens with the vote for women if the inmigrants they symbolically adopted instead of having children set off a couple of nukes in Europe or the States.

    • yukky says:

      Yes classical liberals in Europe are “the right” in the US. But they were the left wing in Europe. That’s my point.

      The problem is much older than 1968, the problem is modern democracy, modern capitalism. These things have “freed” women and made them insane.

      • IA says:

        I’ll agree that modern women are insane. But, its not because of democracy. Feminism and feminized men aren’t interested in mere political power. They must destroy patriarchal Christianity.

  52. Abelard Lindsey says:

    Whiskey,

    You say that innovation, pioneering, and the desire to replace static social systems with increased dynamism is mostly a white male trait, in particular an American white male trait. If so, would not it make sense for the MRA/white nationalist/social conservative movement to promulgate philosophical worldviews based on these traits? The traits/values of the white male as you define are pioneering, dynamism, innovation, free inquiry, entrepreneurship, and productive accomplishment. These values undermine static feudal orders and replace it with a more dynamic system. There are two philosophical worldviews that are based explicitly on these values. They are libertarianism (especially Ayn Rand version) and transhumanism. Both of these worldviews are largely the domain of the type of white males you describe in your post. It seems to me that the male blogosphere ought to be totally on-board with this values. Yet, much of the male blogosphere is actually quite hostile to these worldviews. I find such hostility very puzzling to me and seems to make much of the movement its own worse enemy.

    I will also say that free inquiry, innovation, pioneering, and the general orientation of outward, onward, and upward are inherently masculine in nature. Hostility towards these desires is, indeed, hostility towards masculinity itself. I believe a non-pioneering society that favors stasis is inherently feminine. The full expression of masculinity (in creative, productive manifestation) requires an emphasis on pioneering and innovation.

    • yukky says:

      What a crazy post. So warrior-society Sparta, which remained an order for 800 years, was unmasculine because it didn’t want to overthrow its own social arrangement, but that the US, a collection of chestless mannikins, merchants, engineers, shopkeepers, and other low cowardly types interested in physical comfort is masculine because it “innovates” lightbulbs and other stuff like that, and because it is anti-feudal and constantly changes (giving the poor, retards, women, niggers, etc., more freedom is what you mean by change). This is ass-backwards. A feudal, military society is manly. A society that has *genuine* exploration and innovation is manly, I agree. But not the US and not modern democracies. It is in modern “innovative” democracy that women were “liberated” and society became feminized.

    • Father Rodrigo Mendoza says:

      Abelard Lindsay describes the ABC of the male psychology.We might label all that as psychological aggresivity.Until recently we used to describe it as the human spirit,but it turned out not to be all that universal,wasn´t it?

  53. yukky says:

    A manly society is one where real men rule. Men with weapons and courage, military men. Not one where “nerds” and pennypinching merchants and weak males band together and call it “democracy” and justify the rule of the inferior many over the superior few.

    • Abelard Lindsey says:

      But whats the point of having lots of weapons and lording it over others unless you actually create something or engage in some kind of productive accomplishment? Male gorillas beat their chests and behave like alpha males. Humans are supposed to make things, be creative, and invent stuff. This is the key difference between humans and animals.

      • yukky says:

        And yet until the modern democratic era the West was organized along the lines I’m talking about, including the Greco-Roman world, which was ruled by armed men–craftsmen and merchants were despised. Somehow they were a lot more creative and impressive in their intellectual achievements than modern people are, when you consider their much smaller numbers and more difficult material circumstances. You lack respect for power, might, manliness and magnificence, which is why the West is pussified today.

  54. Father Rodrigo Mendoza says:

    What women and NAMs call being a nerd is what we call being human and not a mere animal.”We’re required to do these things just as salmon swim upstream”.

  55. ConfederateH says:

    Whiskey: I am watching CNBC talking about HP and the 15% plunge since earnings were reported and they are talking about breaking it up. I would love to see you do a post on Whitmin and Fiorinas time at the helm. HP was the quintessential CA tech firm, nurd engineers at all. These bitches muscled their way into this mans world, urinated all over it and destroyed it.

    • Abelard Lindsey says:

      I know a little bit about HP. HP was the classic tech company up until the late 90’s. Around ’97, HP was broken up into two companies. The traditional techy part composed mainly of instrumentation and test equipment was spun off as Agilent. Agilent has remained closer to the techy culture of the original HP. HP itself was then composed of computer manufacturing as well as IT services. Thus, HP came to adopt the IT corporate culture of the late 90’s.

      The only problem was that their stock did not inflate like that of “hot IT” firms. Rather, it remained stable based on the investor’s perception of HP being the safe and stable company it always was. This was not acceptable to the board. The board specifically hired Cary Fiorini in ’99 (the height of the bubble) precisely because they wanted to make HP fashionable and trendy. This, of course, proved disastrous in the long run, which is what people like you and I would have expected.

      HP has never been the same. However, I would argue that HP in its current form was never the company that the original HP was, say, in the 1980’s. That company is Agilent, which is now a part of Danaher, which is another disaster in the making (and a subject of another conversation).

      Yes, Fiorrini was bad for HP. However, it was the board that hired her who is ultimately responsible for the fate of HP.

      • ConfederateH says:

        Didn’t Fiorini split off the instruments business into Agilent? Then she bought Compaq, another nerdy beta-engineer company and what did she do? She bankrupted both. But my guess is that these non-engineering female “executives” also laced HP (and Compaq’s) middle management with other feminist types who probably ended up pushing out or stunting the professions of qualified male nerdy-engineer types.

  56. JAX says:

    Oh noes! The Whiskey strategy of hate hate hating White males may be wrong!!!

    Romney erases Obama advantage among women in new poll

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/09/romney-surges-in-new-poll-makes-across-board-gains-on-heels-debate/#ixzz28oa9nC6o

    maybe obamas can slap michelle around or have a white woman claim to have raped her so he can get dem jungles lovin wimmens’s back!!!!!!

    • fakeemail says:

      That’s because Romney isn’t a beta. He is def. and introvert and bit awkward and corny as a politician, but in reality he is a smart and rich BOSS with lots of kids and grandkids. Romney showcased this side in the debate and it has paid dividents with the hoes for sho.

  57. Abelard Lindsey says:

    Didn’t Fiorini split off the instruments business into Agilent? Then she bought Compaq, another nerdy beta-engineer company and what did she do?

    No. The split had already been done when she was brought on board. The board that later hired her did the split themselves.

    • ConfederateH says:

      Who was on the board? Was it the board that decided to rename the company from Hewlett Packard to HP?

      • I dont know much about the Carly thing except women executives usually screw up a company. (Look at this Indira Noor at Pepsi–and btw I have seen some grotesque “black males-white females should come together” ads for Pepsi. Theyre obv not looking to attract ME.) The only thing I can add is that it was a rare case of Warren Buffet getting pissed off and speaking out against Carly when she pursued the Compaq deal.

  58. angry says:

    I would not be surprised if you could use “women ceo” as a leading indicator of whether a company will decline in value.

  59. Van Dussen says:

    Whiskey, I hope you get a chance to read this: My prediction came true, this week’s Billboard Hot 100 top 10 is the first in DECADES in which not a single black artist is represented in the top ten singles. The 10 slots are composed of 5 songs from white male musicians, 4 white female, and one Asian male. Upon further searching, I did find about 5 consecutive weeks in September and October 1982 where no black artists made the top 10…But AT LEAST since 1992 there have always been at least 2 in the top ten until the past 8 weeks. Some things may be changing in pop-culture…Just remember that these chart toppers are driven by white females 13-24 years old. So maybe they don’t HATE HATE HATE white men AS MUCH as you think they do.

  60. J says:

    I don’t really understand this article.

    The basic premise in it seems wrong. The women mentioned who bow to black men är not going to vote republican in any case. So by being moderate, Romney gains absolutely nothing, and also alienates too many voters for him being able to win.

    He may win 212, but that would be despite his campaign strategy.

    If the Sailer strategy worked, then Tom Tancredo would be elected. That’s what Whiskey is sayng. First off, he has been elected multiple times, to congress. I think it’s very important keep that fact (not opinion) in mind.

    So the idea was if Tancredo was nominated, then the republicans would lose to Obama. Better to nominate John McCain who is for amnesty. Then you win. In reality though, in the real world, McCain lost and lost badly.

    According to Whiskey Reagan could never win an election. According to Whiskey, the flaming moderate republican senator was the good choice for a presidential candidate in 1996.

    What I see is moderates losing.

    But, as I said, maybe I really don’t understand the article?

Comments are closed.