The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness was a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The work was an extended case study of Goddard’s for the inheritance of “feeble-mindedness,” a general category referring to a variety of mental disabilities including mental retardation, learning disabilities, and mental illness. Goddard concluded that a variety of mental traits were hereditary and society should limit reproduction by people possessing these traits.
James Edwards of Political Cesspool is a good and solid pro-White advocate who is also a conservative Christian. Heartiste is the hilariously funny “game” blogger who has human sexual nature down to a science. Both of them have suggested that Roy Moore is an “alpha” – and both of them are comically wrong.
First, let’s get the feminist stuff out of the way. Roy Moore, at 30, courting for marriage women ten or twelve years younger than him is no big deal. In the secular world, if Roy More were say, Leonardo DiCaprio “dating” a succession of young starlets just this side of the legal limit, he’d be the envy of every red blooded man alive. Despite what over the hill cat ladies may say about power imbalances, those are the types of power imbalances that women LOVE. Those are the types of power imbalances that girls and women seek out.
Heartiste himself points out that a White father’s goals for his daughter, from acceptable to soul-thrilling, are either:
3. Date a well-heeled man 10+ years her senior
2. Marry a well-heeled man 10+ years her senior
1. Briefly court then marry an Epic Chad with a square jawline and family money
Moore was described as “handsome” – ok, that’s an alpha trait. But of all the teenage girls he “dated,” the only one that had anything positive to say about him said that he was “sweet” and “played guitar” for her and that her mom approved. That’s not exactly a swooning endorsement for a “handsome” and up-and coming power alpha, the home town boy made good.
That’s the way women describe “beta bucks.”
It hardly matters if the press coverage is slanted against Moore, the basic facts scream “insecure beta.” At 30 years old, he’s prowling the malls and diners flirting with teenage girls who are a captive audience. They have to be nice to him, especially in a culture like Alabama in the 1970s, they can’t say “leave me alone, creep.” At least some of these girls say they complained to their boss to try to get him kicked out of the mall.
Again, handsome 30 year old, more money than average, a powerful political position, and he can’t ATTRACT women, even young women, but instead is forced to prowl around and harass teenage girls who mostly want nothing to do with him. The most he’s getting is polite rejection, “I have a boyfriend.” He even called up one of them at school, talking to her teacher, pulling her out of class, and asking her for a date. She says “no.”
From a Christian standpoint, Moore would have been ready for marriage by, say, 25 at the latest. But Moore didn’t actually “court” these young girls for marriage, apparently. In fact, it apparently took Moore something like 15 years to even find a wife.
And what sort of woman did Moore eventually marry? Surely, a beautiful, blushing Christian virgin a decade younger than him?
Moore eventually, at 38, married a divorced single mom of 24 and adopted her kid. He “manned up and married the slut.” OK, in traditional Baptist churches, divorce and remarriage is called “adultery” and would have both Mr. and Mrs. Moore ex-communicated. From a secular, game perspective?
Roy Moore is a literal cuck.
Who married a mid 20s divorced single mom after spending 15 years hitting on jailbait that did nothing but blow him off for being a “creep.”
It doesn’t get any more “beta” than that.
Roy Moore fails on both counts. From a secular perspective, as far as “game” goes, he’s an insecure and creepy beta with no game who couldn’t get either the hot women his age nor the “younger hotter tighter” gals a decade younger than him.
From a Christian perspective, instead of doing the Christian thing, courting a marriageable woman, he (supposedly) goes without female companionship … until THIRTY-EIGHT … then marries a divorced single mom, thus cucking himself and engaging in decades long adultery.
A loser on both sides of the social fence.
All that aside, if the allegations of sexual assault of minors are true, this does of course make Roy Moore even MORE qualified to serve in the US Congress, as a conservative Republican, in the grand tradition of Dennis Hastert, et al.
(The interview with Becky Gray, a conservative Christian Alabama native saying she got Moore kicked out of the mall, and that he was “creepy” “not Christian” and “not what he claims to be” puts it all in perspective. Not that it matters, of course. Moore’s defenders are like Scientologists, creepy brainwashed fanatics of low IQ and even lower EQ. It is what it is.)
When the Washington Post article came out, I actually read it. Of the four women, three just said that Moore dated, or tried to date them, when they were 16-18. Frankly, I find the idea of a 30 year old man courting – for marriage – an 18 year old woman to be a big “meh.” It may not be something the culture should encourage, as it’s a pretty big age difference, but there’s nothing biologically strange about it and there are plenty of strong, healthy and fertile marriages that have such an age gap.
The only accusation that mattered was that of the 14 year old girl, and her story was somewhat corroborated by two other women, who said she told them at the time that she was “dating” Moore.
For the next 48 hours, Roy Moore issued a bunch of “non-denial denials” which frankly made him seem guilty. Hipster Racist isn’t a court of law, and I frankly could not care less about the Republican party or the Alabama elections, so I’m just calling it as I see it. The woman’s claims seemed quite credible to me, because I’ve had numerous women tell me stories of exactly such behavior on the part of men – yes, even men in socially conservative, Evangelical subcultures. In fact, that is exactly the sort of behavior I expect of men in that culture. No, of course, not all, nor even the majority or a large minority, of Evangelical men are rapists, or chase jailbait, but neither does Christianity or the Evangelical subculture change the nature of men. In fact, I thought that was an important part of Christianity – the idea that we are “born in sin” – and it’s particularly true of the Reformed/Calvinist theology.
Eventually, on Sean Hannity’s show, Moore specifically and categorically denied the accusations of the woman, said he didn’t know her, and I figured that was that. I did expect – and warned – that there were likely to be other accusers, but 40 year old “he said, she said” accusations can’t really be judged.
I wasn’t particularly surprised to see fans of Moore denying everything and suggesting the women were lying, but I have been somewhat surprised by the reaction of many so-called “Christian” conservatives. At least now three times, on Twitter and this blog, so-called “conservative Christians” have suggested that anyone giving any credence to the accusations, or suggesting that Evangelical men aren’t always angels, either:
1. Hates Jesus
2. are sexual perverts and want sexual anarchy, promiscuity, and only believe these women because they don’t want a sexually conservative society.
I think some are protesting too much. I also noted, here and on Twatter, that these reactions are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reactions of Jews and Scientologists. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Jews, the Jewish religion, Jewish power in America, or the Israel lobby, 100% of the time they are met with essentially the same accusation:
“You are just jealous of Jews because of your personal failures.”
Scientologists are trained to ALWAYS respond to any negative critique of Scientology with accusations that the critic is a “suppressive person” and Scientology has a “counter attack” strategy, laid out by L. Ron Hubbard himself, that is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.
I was a little bit surprised to see otherwise normal seeming conservative Christians doing the same thing to me, for the “crime” of believing a bunch of Southern, conservative, Christian women that claimed Roy Moore, the GOP politician from Alabama, sexually assaulted them. All of a sudden it was ME on trial – even though it’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s a bunch of conservative, Christian, southern White women from Alabama – most of them, in fact, Republican Trump voters.
But it’s all so telling that his partisans, instead of dealing forthrightly with the accusations against Moore, or even having the decency to look at their own culture and accept maybe there is some dysfunction, to immediately start accusing others of having immoral motives or … “hating Jesus.”
It’s pathetic, it’s un-Christian, and it really says more about them than it does about the people they are attacking.
Well, what do you know, another woman has stepped forward and gave a detailed allegation of Roy Moore sexually assaulting her as a 15 year old girl. Unlike the 14 year old, Moore cannot claim he’s never met her, because he SIGNED HER HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK.
I find Beverly Young Nelson’s accusations to be VERY credible, because I have heard this story, from numerous women, for my entire life. Including and especially from women from the Christian and/or Evangelical subculture.
Not only have I heard stories, for my entire life, that match Nelson’s story, I practically witnessed it personally, myself, at a church meeting. Once, at a night time event, a young woman, about 16, came running into the church building, crying and hysterical, saying that she was attacked by one of the other church attendees, who was about 18. I knew both of them. The girl was an extremely beautiful and very sexy young woman – to be clear, I don’t believe she went out of her way to be “sexy” or “seductive” – she was just a beautiful and blossoming young woman and even I, at about the age of 12, was utterly mesmerized by her. She accused a young man, of 18, of offering her a ride to the church function, then he parked the car in a dark spot and assaulted her.
The boy was expelled from the church and the church school, although I don’t believe the incident was ever made into a legal case. I heard, through the grapevine, what happened, and it was virtually exactly the scenario that Nelson says happened to her. As far as I can tell, this is a very typical, very common, way that men sexually assault women. I knew the alleged attacker, and was in fact quite fond of him, even though he was much older than me. He was a “sincere Christian,” seemed somewhat like a “leader” to us younger boys, seemed quite serious about Christianity and the Bible, and it was shocking news to us.
But, now, as an older man with some experience under my belt, I think I can figure out what happened. He had a crush on this girl for a year, found her extremely sexy (as we all did) and one night he just “snapped” and made very aggressive sexual moves on her, and when she wouldn’t cooperate, became somewhat violent. His “Christianity” went out the window because his lizard brain – his testosterone, and his evolved biology, took over. Why? Because he was a human man with a strong, overpowering sexual drive and the naive culture he was a part of somehow thought that “Jesus” would prevent young horny teenagers from doing what comes naturally. I do also suspect that the Christian subculture simply had no way of dealing with the realities of sex, simply expecting that “faith in Jesus” would stop him from “lusting” after a highly lust-worthy young woman his age.
I also heard NUMEROUS TIMES of older men – adult men – doing very similar things to young teenage girls in that culture. Women and girls that I knew. They certainly had no reason to lie to me. I witnessed on NUMEROUS occasions very obvious strong sexual tension between adult men and teenage girls – the kind of sexual tension that you can cut with a knife. To my mind, the problem was that adult men simply shouldn’t be in positions of power over teenage girls. In fact, I think co-ed education itself is basically asking for trouble.
I attended an upper-middle-class Christian high school based around a very mainstream, but very conservative, Protestant church. I remember at 15, sitting next to 15 year old girls, in those little school girl outfits, absolutely unable to concentrate on my school work because the slightest flash of leg, the slightest scent of “girl,” the tiniest hint of curves, flooded me with testosterone. It was often PURE TORTURE and it somewhat amazes me that these Christians, supposedly well aware of “sin nature” and lust, nevertheless, forced young horny teenagers together and then expected us to NOT “lust” after each other.
I don’t think at all that Christians are “worse” than the secular world, and I don’t think that the “answer” is “sexual liberation” or the promotion of promiscuity or “safe sex” for teenagers. I think, in fact, what old fashioned and traditional (even Christian) culture did is best for everyone – sexual segregation, a frank understanding of human nature and sexuality, and a restoration of old fashioned courting and young marriage – and by young marriage, I mean that 16-20 year old girls should be married off to 20-24 year old boys. That sort of marriage worked quite well for a thousand years and it can work again.
To accuse me of wanting “sexual license” because I have zero respect for some grand-standing GOP political hack like Roy Moore – and I find the stories of White, conservative, Southern, Christian women to be credible because it’s a completely observed pattern of behavior on the part of men – just shows how morally bankrupt the GOP, as well as the Evangelical subculture, really is.
It’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore. It’s not the Washington Post, the liberal media, or the Democrats accusing Moore – it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore.
It’s just that the Evangelical subculture can’t deal with biological reality because they have their heads in the clouds, expecting “Jesus” to fix everyone’s problems and keep everyone “free of lust.”
Which is, of course, highly ironic because Jesus Christ himself, in the Bible, said the exact opposite of that. The Evangelical cult, and “conservative” American culture, lost the culture war, and lost their culture to the sexual revolution, precisely because they didn’t even read their own Bible.
So much great stuff here.
Paglia theorizes that men’s sexuality is intimately connected with the hunter/hunted predator/prey instinct. How anyone can observe human, even pets, or read a book, a bodice ripper, watch a romance film, and not understand this is shocking. As Paglia has often complained, a lot of these academic types are simply ignorant outside of their own extremely narrow field. Paglia tends to take her ideas from the perspective of the entire sweep of human history, from caveman times until today.
Peterson points out that those who accept “PC” political correctness doctrine have specific psychological traits. One, typically women – it’s women that internalize PC doctrine. This isn’t a surprise. Second, men and women with stereotypically “feminine” personality traits tend to internalize PC doctrine. Also, not a surprise.
But third, women with personality disorders tend to internalize PC doctrine. So we are not talking about healthy, psychologically adjusted women, but women with personality defects, women with difficulties in interpersonal relationships with men and women, women who are highly neurotic, paranoid, etc.
Again, this isn’t really a surprise to anyone but it’s nice to see it spelled out.
Of course they are politically timed, and of course his political enemies are the ones promoting the story, but that doesn’t change the fact they are almost certainly true.
According to the story, at around 30 years of age Roy Moore courted a number of young women from 16-18. He eventually married a woman 12 years his junior. This is normal male behavior and it’s clearly a pattern for him.
One of the women, 16, wanted to date him but her mother forbade it because he was too old for her. Another of the women, 17, did date him, described him as “romantic” and her mother said she was “lucky” to have his interest. Moore was an up and coming politician, a home town boy made good, and was described as handsome. There’s another incident of him chatting up a girl at 14 then asking her out later at 16.
The real scandal is the 14 year old girl at the center of the scandal. He meets her when her mother is waiting for a child custody hearing at the courthouse: in other words, the alleged 14 year old victim came from a broken home. Exactly the sort of girl that would be a target for predation.
She claims he picked her up “around the corner” from her parent’s house. Unlike the girls he was actually courting and considering for marriage, he allegedly drives the 14 year old girl straight to his house, gives her alcohol, strips her down to her bra and panties, feels her up and tries to get her to feel him up. He does not rape her, he doesn’t go “below her underwear” and drives her home when she asks.
This makes the story much more believable because “heavy petting” would be exactly the “line” that someone in that culture wouldn’t necessarily cross. Two other women, friends of the alleged victim, went on the record saying that she told them she was “seeing” an “older man” and at least one said she named him: Roy Moore.
We have no problem believing all the stories about the Hollywood moguls like Weinstein, the “male feminists” and their bizarre and passive aggressive behavior towards women, and no one is at all surprised that Kevin Spacey likes “chicken” and is aggressive and engages in assault – and years ago an internet commenter on reddit claims to have witnessed him engaging in sexual behavior with very young “pubescent” boys in Thailand. Spacey was also on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” plane.
Few have expressed doubt that Bill Clinton may have been having sex with Epstein’s teenage prostitutes/”sex slaves” – we’ve seen the picture of Prince Edwards with the then 16 year old Virginia at the center of the Epstein case. Few expressed doubts about this because it fits exactly the profile of these people. This is exactly how we expect “male feminists” to behave and it’s how we expect wealthy sociopaths like Bill Clinton to behave.
Well, this behavior fits the Christian conservative subculture that Moore is a part of. The choice of targets, the fact that it didn’t escalate beyond “heavy petting.” The fact is that Moore’s entire political shtick has been using a particular version of “Christian” sexual “repression” – that is virtually a mirror image of the “male feminists” the “Jewish moguls” and the “liberal’s” version of “sexual liberation.
Watch this famous video of an Evangelical preacher in Alabama named Paul Washer. Notice that sexual shaming used against teenagers just on the cusp on adolescence when they are first starting to develop a serious sex drive.
There is no healthy sexuality here. There is no promotion of marriage. There is no acknowledgement of the sex drive as “God’s plan for marriage.” Instead, it’s literally making horny teenagers feel bad for being horny teenagers. In fact, after watching a number of Paul Washer videos, my impression is that he is a typical sociopath, a high functioning emotional “abuser” (for lack of a better word.) He’s highly emotive but in way that seems clearly feigned – and highly practiced. Remember, sociopaths are often far more charismatic – and far more “sexy” – than emotionally normal people. They do not have normal emotions and no empathy for others, but highly functioning sociopaths are often quite good at feigning normal emotions.
Roy Moore’s pattern of behavior – and the behavior he is being accused of – matches PRECISELY with the negative sexual patterns of conservative Christian subcultures. It is not the same as the negative sexual patterns of feminists, homosexuals, the “sexual liberated” nor Jews with hostility to “shiksas.” No, this is the negative sexual patterns that are common to conservative subcultures.
Growing up, I have not only witnessed this exact same pattern of behavior of conservative religious men towards teenage girls, I’ve heard numerous stories from teenage girls and older women from that subculture describing this pattern of behavior from older conservative Christian men.
If she had claimed he took it out and jerked off into a potted plant – that would totally be unbelievable. If she said he held her down and raped her, that wouldn’t have been believable. If she was, say, a black prostitute that claimed Moore had paid her to pee on him, that would sound like a political hit.
But an up and coming powerful man with a pattern of courting teenage girls and women, who engages in “heavy petting” with a particularly vulnerable girl – but doesn’t actually rape her and won’t even take it to the level of sex (only “above the underwear”) – that fits the pattern.
Monogamy was always a balance of the sexual and reproductive interests of men and women. Young marriage is a good and healthy social practice – and a man like Moore marrying a woman a decade younger than him is not particularly scandalous to my mind.
But the problem with Christians (and considering the previous post, I’ll include Mormons here) is that they often can only rely on shame to repress young sexuality. They have no way of discussing sexuality and thus revert to a very simplistic mechanisms to keep teenagers from doing what comes naturally. It typically worked – when you have segregation of the sexes and young, companionate marriages.
But add in a power imbalance and an inability to deal forthrightly with biological reality, and you have just the situations that Moore is accused of engaging in. It’s understandable too that Moore is being attacked by the people most opposed to his conservative sexual morals, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he is being accused of is precisely the type of behavior one would expect of just such a man.
Catholic priests were able to get away with buggering the altar boys for close to ONE THOUSAND YEARS, and despite dozens of reformers, dissidents, and actually chaste Catholics complaining about it, it was only AFTER the “gay liberation movement” forced the uncomfortable issue into the public discussion that the victims could, in fact, complain about it, be heard, and believed.
Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. Of COURSE plenty of Southern plantation masters had sex with the prettiest of their black slaves. The power imbalance makes the sex ULTRA-HOT.
Of course Weinstein liked to humiliate “shiksas” that needed him to help their careers. Of COURSE some goofball like Louis CK likes to jerk off in front of women. Of COURSE “male feminists” are some of the biggest creeps – and rapiest rapers – of all.
And of course powerful men in sexually closed religious subcultures are going to be attracted like moths to a flame to vulnerable young girls – the power difference makes it all so ultra-hot.
The solution is NOT “sexual liberation” nor is it “sexual repression.” The solution is a frank recognition of biological reality, and a civil society that recognizes that biological reality, and can steer these natural biological forces into socially productive – and biologically reproductive – ways.
If the Christian sexual repression was a workable system, it wouldn’t have been overturned so easily by the sexual revolutionaries and the pornographers. And if sexual liberation was a workable system, we wouldn’t see the barely 50 years old sexual liberation movement collapsing on itself over and over again.
If I was creating a religion from scratch, it would probably look a lot like Mormonism. They get all the key features right:
1. Early marriage of young couples.
3. Just-this-side of explicitly White.
4. The right amoung of mystery and ritual and a hierarchy that is kind of secret.
Interesting line, the interviewee suggests that religion makes people slutty, and the interviewer agrees and says “it worked for me.” This is a post-hoc rationalization of what actually happens – what actually happens if the early sex drive is not steered into marriage, it will go crazy.
Since anecdotes are evidence to these people, my own. One girlfriend and I actually staged a “wedding” after we had been together for a year. It was very paganish. She had her bridesmaids and I had my grooms, it was in an amazing part of nature. It was utterly sweet and extremely erotic.
Neither of us had the experience of the traditional build up to a young marriage – we were both sluts at that point and were living together and decided to do it on the spur of the moment. Our sex life was uber-fantastic but both of us – apparently – were yearning for something a bit more. Some ritual, some commitment, some “magic” in the antropological sense.
Like a bunch of pagans, we immediately retired to a tent and consummated the marriage with just the slightest hint of privacy.
She wasn’t religious at all, and I had abandoned religion years before. It wasn’t religion that made us slutty, it was in fact the lack of it.
I find it interesting how HATED the Mormons are by the secular culture. The Vice interviewer even mocks a Mormon anti-porn conference as “a thousand white people who claim to not masturbate.” (NOTE how the attacks on Whites are paired with the anti-sex attitudes of replacing sex with masturbation.) Just watch how hostile Vice is to the Mormons while in another video they absolutely fawn over the Sascha Gray porn star.
Vice lies and conflates “anti-porn” with “anti-sex” which obviously just isn’t true. Porn does not equal sex. In fact, as porn has become mainstream – teenagers are having LESS sex than ever.
(Also note the appeals to authority, “the psychiatric community finds no harm in porn” – which is not true. Scientific studies have shown that porn IS addictive by the same mechanisms that various other drugs and vices are addictive. It just shows how fragile the anti-sex, anti-monogamy left’s consensus really is.)
Interestingly too that the pornographer they interview:
1) Literally finds the Mormon marriage rituals to be highly erotic. There goes the idea that they are “anti-sex!” Do leftists even TRY to make sense?
2) The pornographer is a dyke, and I’d bet is extremely masculine looking/presenting. So it’s pretty obvious that all those pretty blonde girls in white dresses she is filming is just her making up for all those pretty blonde – and straight – Mormon girls that wouldn’t dyke out with her in high school. Porn is her way of getting back at all the normal people. Pure resentment. If she was a man, the rad feminists would call what she is doing “misogyny.” She’s the lesbian version of the Asian manosphere “Supreme Gentleman” that murdered all those people in California.
3) She tries to imply something sinister about Mormon male authority figures – OF COURSE.
I think it’s pretty obvious who has a healthy sexuality and who does not. Mormons marry young, are extremely PRO-SEX, and have big families.
Vice Media employees watch porn, masturbate, have OBVIOUS hang ups about sex, and have a TINY fertility rate. They probably have more abortions than live children.
Mormons are Pro-Sex, while Vice Media – and the anti-white left – are ANTI-SEX. They are like something out of 1984’s Junior Anti-Sex League.
This is an aspect of the culture war that the pro-whites and “the right” (whatever that means) could WIN. But they don’t have a rhetoric about sex in the modern era. Partially, because before the sexual revolution, they didn’t need one. The sexual revolution hit and they just did what conservatives do, tried to ignore it, then made some concession, then ran and hid.
That’s why you need Hipster Racist, who knows how to take on the anti-sex forces of the sexual revolution. The pro-white “right” needs to explain how utterly PRO-SEX we are, and how the entire purpose of the Politically Correct, anti-White left is to spoil healthy fun sex for everyone.
Reddit.com is going through another bout of censorship and it’s typical – “Nazi” subreddits are being banned, the minority of “right wing” and some principled types are complaining that Communist and other radical left subs and comments – often openly encouraging violence – are still being allowed.
But one new development is rather interesting, some transgender activists are demanding a radical feminist sub, https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical, be banned for “transphobia.” GenderCritical is a “radical feminist” sub that does not accept that “transwomen” are real women, rejects the entire “trans” movement, and posits that “transwomen” are really just men, dressing up or otherwise mimicking women, in order to invade women’s spaces.
The intersection of radical feminism and traditional (Western, Christian) morality has always fascinated me. In the 1970s, feminists and Christians both fought against pornography and the sex/prostitution industry.
Another interesting development: in England, a feminist conference was violently “protested” by transsexual activists that have weaponized the term “TERF” – Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The trans activists made the simple comparison: TERFs are “Nazis” and since it’s ok to punch a “Nazi” it’s ok to punch a “TERF.” One proceeded to do just that – a man wearing a dress punched an elderly woman feminist in the face, and the trans activists justified it because TERF=Nazi and it’s ok to “punch a Nazi.”
Reading the GenderCritical subreddit is fascinating, you have the same bizarre mix you typically see with feminism. On the one hand, there are silly girls being bitchy and obvious man-hating shrews moaning about the patriarchy, and the ever present leftists trying to pair Black men and “women-as-a-class” as being “oppressed” by the White Male Patriarchy.
But you also have some quite sensible women making quite sensible points – why is it that “liberal feminists” are siding with radical Islamics, perhaps the most openly “misogynist” culture there is? You have quite sensible women decrying prostitution and the sex industry, the recently deceased (bisexual CIA lackey) Hugh Hefner, and very legitimate normal seeming women decrying boorish behavior on the part of men. All perfectly understandable and even a “right wing” liberal racist sexist like this author finds myself nodding in agreement with half of what these women are saying.
I came across a fascinating site, https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/ which is a radical lesbian separatist feminist site that has some very interesting biological analyses about sex – literally, on the cellular level. In this analysis, maleness itself, the Y-chromosome, is a sort of parasite. I don’t know enough biology to properly judge how much of this is true or false, but some things that stuck out for me:
– Semen: Men’s Chemical War Against Women. Past Evolutionary Context for Seminal Engineering: how females not signaling estrus trumped males.
It’s been discussed that semen has “calming” – or in this analysis, paralyzing, effects on women. Semen is a way for the y-chromosome to inject itself into women, turn off one of the x-chromosomes, and actually inhibits parthenogenesis – the creation of a baby without a male “sperm donor.”
– The invention of the birth control pill coincided with the mainstreaming of oral sex
This seems to be somewhat of E. Michael Jones style coincidence-shopping, but it’s still rather interesting. Spermicides and birth control and other ways of killing sperm/preventing impregnation of women were followed quickly by men figuring out other ways of getting semen into women. The vagina can be a very sperm hostile place and “sperm competition” is an evolutionary explanation for a lot of seemingly unintuitive aspects of human sexuality. The author notes that injecting sperm into a woman’s throat is a way of getting semen into a woman’s body which, while not making her pregnant, does in fact have some of the “calming”/”paralyzing” effect on women. It makes women “docile” – it’s like a species that has a toxin that paralyzes its prey, but in this case, it perpetuates the y-chromosome.
The author also notes that anal sex is now being mainstreamed, another way of getting semen into a woman’s body that, while obviously not getting a woman pregnant or perpetuating the y-chromosome, does allow semen into a woman’s body to work its paralyzing effect. We’ve seen studies showing that genetic material from sperm shows up in women’s brains.
She also notes that the porno mainstreaming of “facials” and otherwise ejaculating on women is yet another way to get the chemicals and hormones found in semen into women through their pores! For these lesbian separatists, semen itself is a sort of toxin – talk about “toxic masculinity!” There’s also some interesting discussing of female/males of other animal species. To her, semen itself is toxic (it certainly is a carrier of disease) and the “male hormone” testosterone is the obvious “cause” of violence. Feminists are completely correct that women are – “as a class” – at the mercy of male violence (as are other men, of course.) Testosterone makes men fight other men and then they inject that “toxic masculinity” into women, perpetuating the y chromosome.
This is sort of a futurist “evolutionary end of men” type thing, but it would be pointless – and rather girlish – of “manosphere” types to get angry or outraged by this stuff; I find it really quite interesting and as a “race and sex realist” and someone who thinks evolutionary biology can likely explain the human condition more than anything else (religion, metaphysics, etc.) I’m looking forward to reading her new posts:
* The Chicken IS the Egg. Parthenogenesis and the Mysterious Evolution of Males.
* Testosterone: What it Does.
* X-Inactivation: How Dudes’ Dying-Y-Asses Get Saved as One of Women’s Two X-Chromosomes is Turned Off for Life.
* Female Bonding/Female Trashing: Chimps, Bonobos and Homo Sapiens
I also found out that the first “manosphere” post that I ever made – the one that had me libeled by the male feminist manboobz.com and made me a two year long hit on the reddit.com manosphere subs – actually has scientific proof for what I posited: it’s called the “Cheerleader Effect.”
I suggested that men in groups – the “mannerbund” – made men more attractive to women, and what do you know – it does. And women in groups – like a cheerleading squad – also makes women more attractive to men.
To finish off, here’s a kind of interesting “male feminist” media analysis of the “Born Sexy Yesterday” trope. It’s Beta Male Geek Fantasy – some alien/robot with a woman’s body but the naive mind of a girl falls in love with geek boy who gets to introduce her to the wonders of sex – and he’s the Alpha Male for her because she knows nothing of the world. It’s really just the male version of 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight. In 50SOG and Twilight, Alpha Male CEO Businessman – or Sexy Supernatural Vampire with Magical Powers – falls head over heels in love with Average Everygirl.
But of course the purpose of the “deconstruction” of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope is simply to sell cuckoldry to men, the male feminist ends with demanding that sci-fi media creators stop selling youth and virginity and chastity as sexy, and instead tell men that “experience is sexy” – i.e., Man Up And Marry Those Sluts – and that any man who wants the youth, chastity, virginity (and by extension, fertility) of a woman is just “fearful” and “scared” and “insecure” – he’s just afraid that her former lovers may have had a bigger dick and be better in bed.
Both sides – the radical feminists and the liberal male feminists – as well as the “dudebros” and pornographers and Hugh Hefner Playboy PUAs – want to continue to destroy monogamy, thus the nuclear family, thus humanity itself – but they always “just happen” to only target Whites, of course. Monogamy – patriarchy – is a delicate balance of women’s and men’s evolutionary interests that preserves the recessive traits of Northwestern Europeans and gives men an incentive to invest in their children (and the mothers of their children) – thus creating White civilization. So of course it is constantly attacked. Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the European Catholic Church comes into play here (and it’s not at all a completely pro-Catholic analysis either) – but for 1000 years it was Christianity that spread the monogamy of the Roman Empire to Europeans generally, thus had a significant impact of the genetics of the White race.
Born Sexy Yesterday
By the 1990s, the AIDS scare was over and everyone realized that the plague was confined to male homosexuals, needle drugs, and Africans. The sexual chill of the 1980s was over: the popular culture of film and music had continued to get more and more explicit – some would say “degenerate” – even while people’s actual behavior had become puritanical. The social shift was centered around the mainstreaming of condoms. The official story was that teenagers were going to have sex anyway so they should use condoms to avoid AIDS and pregnancy.
While the first sexual revolution of the 1960s still had double standards and jealousy, the second sexual revolution had shifted. If everyone was promiscuous, then no one was a “slut.” Since no one was getting married or having children any time soon, teenage relationships were by nature temporary and among peers partners were swapped: Jane dated Billy for a while, then Jane hooked up with Billy’s friend Mike while Jane’s friend Sally started dating Billy. The timeline simply got shorter and the number of partners increased.
So it was only a matter of time until the timeline of the relationships got shorter and the partner swapping more immediate. High school parties where couples would disappear into a bedroom simply evolved into high school parties where more than one couple would be in the bedroom, or on the same bed. Or where there weren’t couples as much as groups.
Still, there were some lines that were simply not crossed, at least in the 1990s middle to upper middle class Washington DC suburbs of the 1990s. The rules were essentially non-negotiable:
1. No coloreds. Maybe a half Korean girl would be in the mix occasionally, but like an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog, this was a very White affair. Washington DC, even in the 1990s, was most certainly a racially diverse area, but integrated schools had not led to integrated social circles, and rarely intimacy. All throughout the 1980s Black and White couples were lauded by the media (OJ & Nicole) and the United Colors of Bennetton had spent a decade trying to push a slightly less sexual version of the Abercrombie and Fitch orgy aesthetic, but to no avail.
2. No fags. Male homosexuality was simply not tolerated. This was an era when gays were “coming out of the closet” and TV shows like Friends made it clear that “homophobia” was uncool. Nevertheless, teenage boys, even if they talked the talk, were simply not going to walk the walk. They may not have been going around queer bashing but neither were they going to invited suspected gays, much less out gays, to their parties. And the occasional friend, suspected or known to be gay, that was invited to a social party were simply never invited to the after parties.
Of course “bi-curious” girls were not even considered “lesbian,” merely a form of exhibitionist foreplay.
3. No rape. This was the era of third wave feminism. It was not cool to do something to a girl who was passed out – that passed out girl was your friend. It simply was not considered manly and a rough form of “consent” was expected. Of course “peer pressure” wasn’t considered “coercion” and it would be another decade before concepts like “rape culture” would be popularized – quite possibly precisely because a decade or so of these attitudes created a backlash, and the teenage girls who organized these parties had to regain some plausible deniability.
4. No jealousy. Of course people did get jealous, but no one owned anyone and when people did pair off and form serious couples, they simply didn’t go to the parties anymore. This was in a sense, “sexual utopia in power” and F. Roger Devlin might say. Women – really, girls – were the organizers here. They decided which boys to invite and it was their consent that powered the whole culture.
The style was rave, baby doll dresses and neo-bohemian. The soundtrack was electronic dance music and alternative rock. The drugs were alcohol, marijuana, and MDMA. (LSD and mushrooms were quite often the initiation into the scene, but those aren’t party drugs.)
No one knew anything about “BDSM” or even what it meant, the blindfolds and bondage were simply party favors, a natural development. There was always a certain “switch” dynamic – both boys and girls could be the one being blindfolded and “worked,” but the few times when an actual male submissive would want some sort of humiliation play, it would skeeve the girls out; he would be labeled a “creep” and no longer invited to the parties.
The age to play? 16.
Of course, as always, standards began to slip after the first generation. LGBT became more militant. Consent became blurry. Jealousy, always present, became more pronounced as “experimentation” morphed into “lifestyle” and the window of opportunity to leave it all behind got smaller. It you’re in the scene from 16-26, you’ve had a decade of experience at temporary “relationships” and zero experience with keeping anything permanent. The color line started to blur, which ruined the entire concept of consent, as consent is a cultural norm, shared among those with the same race and culture. Little sisters were not rebelling against the sexual chill of the 1980s as their older sisters had done, thus had a “starting point” that was much further along than their older siblings.
The impact of internet pornography started to be felt. Before, the parties, the social scene, WAS the initiation – it WAS the porn. Once hard core internet pornography went mainstream, boys – and girls – already had expectations, and the expectations were no longer set by peers in their own social circles, but by professional pornographers and pimps from Los Angeles, always eager to “segment” a market in order to micro-market to fetishes with pin point accuracy.
There’s all the difference in the world between BEING the product, and watching a product being advertised.
What finally killed it off was camera phones and social media. Rumors can be denied, video evidence broadcast instantly to thousands could not.
As the Unabomber Ted Kazinsky might say, technology affects everything and society gets further and further away from the natural order. Only an industrial society would postpone marriage and family formation long past a biologically appropriate age in order to spend the youth’s most productive years learning to run the machines and push the paperwork. Feeding the machine becomes more important that reproducing the race; the machines become more important than the biology. So society will go back and forth between repression and degeneracy as long as it suppresses biology.
The Onion: Teen Wastes Prime Childbearing Years Going To High School
Clicking around I wound up on the ISGP again and read their breakdown/debunking of “Pizzagate:”
While they debunk the particulars of “Pizzagate” and suggest it was a partisan psy-op against the Clinton campaign (very likely) they do not discount the notion of high level “sex cults” which may include pedophilia, torture, and perhaps even actual murder.
It seems quite likely that such “elite” cults do, in fact, exist. But the “conspiracy theories” of such cults are likely an example of regular people displacing their own demons, as it were, on the elites.
People are greedy; greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Average normal people are greedy, but their greed is small, because their lives are small. Therefore it’s normal and understandable. The rich, the Wall Street elites, they are greedy too, but of course their greed is much larger in scope, much more flashy, much more ostentatious.
As no less than Adolph Hitler pointed out about Communist propaganda: people might be skeptical of a little lie, because in their lives they tell little lies all the time. But they wouldn’t imagine telling big lies – lies as big as the Communists told – because those aren’t the kind of little lies they tell in their own lives.
There’s an amusing song by country singer Hank Williams called “Naked Women and Beer.” Some of the lyrics:
Now we have got some strange laws
The most hypocritical thing around these days
Cause where I live in Tennessee
Why an auto parts calander
Hey thats pornography
But go right down the road, read what the sign says
Naked women and beer
We got it all in here
For your eyes and your ears
They show it all in the clear
Way up north and down south
Whoo, somebody shut my mouth
If you want to find a “cult” that engages in public sexual acts, where women’s youth is fetishized, women wearing schoolgirl outfits, something that may even include a little “kink” and a little S&M?
You don’t have to look to the wealthy elites in Manhattan and London. Just go to any suburb anywhere in America and go to your local, working and middle class strip club. It’s all there.
Exploitation of youth? Strippers are at the height of their demand the day after their 18th birthday – that’s a teenager. Child molestation? What kind of girls become strippers and porn stars anyway? The stereotype is that they were molested, likely by their father, step-father, or an uncle. Stereotypes exist for a reason.
Some women may claim to have been sexually absued by a powerful cult of politicians, “high society” men, and elites – but the more likely case is that it was men of their own class, their own social circles, and their own families.
But it’s comforting for people to project such things on far away “elites.” Their sex clubs are likely cleaner with better lighting, and the participants better dressed, not the run down strip club in a warehouse district on the wrong side of town.
But isn’t the substance the same?
The feminists in the 1960s and 1970s rebelled against beauty pageants, complaining that women were lined up “like cattle” their bodies judged on their “parts” like a side of beef. Weren’t they right? Isn’t that exactly how it operates? Feminists complain that men “objectify” women’s bodies – isn’t that true? The neurology shows that men’s brains light up in the same places when looking at women as they do when contemplating … power tools. They are literally thinking about them objectively and how they will “use” them, as tools, for a specific end.
Traditional societies have always understood this, and Western societies in particular have always understood this, which is why sex was deemed a private affair, why monogamy was encouraged, why boys and girls were raised separately, why segregation of the sexes was the rule, and pornography and sexual imagery was forbidden. Why women and girls were to dress modestly, so as not to tempt men and boys.
When I was young the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, a little six year old girl, was the tabloid story of the year. What made the story so salacious is that her parents – an upper class family active in local GOP party politics – had entered her in “baby beauty pageants” which were considered by most to over-sexualize little girls. Yet the participants – the mothers, usually – seemed to be fine with this and encouraged and/or forced their daughters – children – to participate.
In 2017, the Current Year, more conservative leaning mothers are constantly complaining that they can’t even go to the mall and find modest apparel for the daughters, even daughters many years away from puberty. And anyone who has ever known a teenage girl going through puberty knows that you essentially have to FORCE them to wear modest attire, because they want nothing more than to show off their new bodies and get the attention of boys, and men. Men objectify, and women want to be objectified. It starts the summer boys start growing body hair and girls get their periods.
The sexual revolutionaries were completely correct that there was a “double face” regarding sex, that underneath the pleasant and modest public faces humans are a cauldron of sexuality. But there was no hypocrisy here, the public and private spheres were kept separate precisely because of the power of sex.
“Liberals” love to complain that American TV shows a lot of violence but won’t allow a woman’s bare breast on TV. But those differing standards for sex and violence exist for a reason. Little boys will start play fighting as toddlers – and that play fighting can turn to real fighting at the drop of a hat. Boys are taught to control their violent urges from childhood on – we use sports as a way for boys to channel their violent and competitive urges in a safe and socially constructive way.
We put our daughters in ballet, gymnastics, and dance classes to channel their own sexual – and competitive – urges in a safe and socially constructive way. We try to postpone sexual maturity for our children as long as possible so their brains have a chance to catch up to their bodies. There is nothing hypocritical about this – it’s the basis of civilization. It’s what makes us different than animals. The evolutionary reason that human babies are helpless at birth is so mothers can pass a child through their birth canals while the baby’s head is still small – child bearing is painful enough as it is. This allows humans to develop bigger skulls that house bigger brains.
Of course “the elites” engage in “Eyes Wide Shut” style sexual parties. Of course the elites recruit young girls – very young girls, teenage girls – as sexual objects and sexual playthings. It’s not because they are elites – it’s because they are humans. Average regular middle and working class men do the same thing when they have a chance – and average, regular middle and working class women fantasize about being those sexual objects and sexual playthings.
And of course, quite often, these normal sexual dynamics are sometimes perverted into the fetishization of youth and the sexualization of violence. In BDSM it is called “power exchange” because – just like electrical current – the potential difference is what makes the electricity flow, the potential difference is what causes electrical current – just like the power difference between men and women is that spark and the charge of sexuality. The fact that a man is so much stronger than a woman is what women find sexually appealing in men. The fact that a woman is so much more vulnerable – and delicate – than a man is what men find sexually appealing in a woman. S&M is just that dynamic with the addition of costumes and props.
But when one class is much higher on the power scale than another class, the inevitable happens – instead of companionate marriage, the powerful men use the women of the oppressed class as concubines. The moronic “right wingers” who are constantly opposing “egalitarianism” will simply or ignore or excuse this. When a King of England did NOT have mistresses, his subjects assumed he was a sodomite. Where does socially conservative monogamy go when the elite class uses the women of the lower classes as, essentially, sex slaves? That is how you get a degenerate elite. That is how you get – in 2002 Italy, in fact, when Burlesconi was President – poor men pimping their underage daughters off to lecherous old wealthy men. That is how a girl’s youth becomes a product to sell, a way to feed the family.
Is that was the “anti-egalitarians” want? Which NRx “neo-reactionary” “social conservative” father is the first to auction his teenage daughter’s virginity off to the “God Emperor King” because “monarchy is better than democracy?” Which “conservative right wing” man is going to hold his shoes while walking around the castle as the King gets first night privileges with his new bride?
All of a sudden “all men are created equal” has something to recommend it, yes? All of a sudden the idea that the law binds both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, has a certain logic behind it, does it not? If that is not what right wing religious people mean by “objective morality” than what good are they? If the gods are not just, why worship them?
The origin of sex cults, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual exploitation, and the fetishization of youth is when there is TOO MUCH INEQUALITY. When societies are divided among the powerful and the powerless. In fact, one of the reason we need to have mono-racial societies – even mono-ethnic societies – is precisely because races, ethnicities, and individuals are NOT, by nature, equal. So separating these unequal humans into their own tribes where there is some semblance of a rough equality is the only way to protect your daughters from sex cults, pedophiles, and pimps.
Equality is what makes your daughter a wife, not a whore. Racially homogeneous – and roughly egalitarian – societies are what gives your daughter the chance at being a respected mother as opposed to a disposable concubine. It’s what allows your son to have an exclusive wife and not another man’s sloppy seconds.
And it’s what allows your grandchildren to be citizens, not slaves; heirs, not bastards, patriarchs, not cannon fodder.
When I started this blog, the manosphere anti-feminist stuff was just starting out and there was a rather large faction of the White Nationalist movement that were “white knights” and loud mouthy feminists who just happened to not like blacks and browns. 50 Shades of Grey had become a phenomenon, and manosphere writers like Heartiste were pushing pro-white ideas among young white men.
I didn’t start off as a manosphere writer but my first few article on the topic received huge hits from reddit subs like /r/TheRedPill and they even featured me on the “male feminist” site Manboobz.com. Plus I attracted a small but loyal following of bitchy women that loved arguing with me and reading my spanking stories.
But it got kind of boring: manosphere ideas and the “red pill” about women are enlightening when you first understand them, but women are not “broken” and need to be fixed. Evolution made women what they are for good reasons, it’s up to men to understand and adapt, if they want a woman. But too many young men in the manosphere think that they are supposed to “fix” women and the spend all thenir time just whining that women are into the “wrong kind of men.”
Women are so shallow they are into guys who are handsome, have big muscles, and are manly. Unlike men of course, who aren’t so shallow and totally don’t care about looks and bodies, right? Come on.
But now over the last few years, since I’ve started this blog, there are thousands of new white women on the blogs and twitter pushing pro-white memes and “tradwife” type stuff. These are not boys posting “White Women in Wheat Fields” these are women posting pictures of their “1950s Household” style fantasies complete with a traditional “head of household” husband and cute white babies. I’ve discussed the “1950s household” “fetish” before – it’s HUGE in the “BDSM community” – but at the end of the day it isn’t a “fetish” at all, it’s simply what most White women prefer but can’t get.
The White “tradwife” types of course, are still women, so they love social media, posting memes and pictures, and love catfights with anti-white women.
So why bother with the manosphere type stuff anymore? We basically already won. I’m never going to be as good as Heartiste at that sort of thing, and frankly I don’t really want an audience of young incels with a chip on their shoulders because they can’t get a girlfriend.
So now, on Twitter, I made sure to re-tweet all the White Tradwife types posting their segregation 1950s household fantasies and cute white baby pictures. Back during the Hipster Intelligence Agency experiment, my (white) BDSM authoress proved that women are very drawn to this sort of thing, and so women that are openly pro-white should be supported.
“White sharia” is for losers and Jewish trolls like (((Weev))) – we already have our traditional way of dealing with women, and women love it.