Reporting from St. Petersburg, Russia, Vincent Law describes life in a high-trust, low-crime ice city. The chicks are anarchists, the bros are business-owners and the Danes are still pussies. Plus Greg Ritter interviews a Serbian war criminal.
Game is worshiped on our far corner of the internet. And rightly so, there are few things as powerful as a Red Pill suppository to shake a man out of involuntary celibacy and set him on the path to self-improvement. But Game is not the end all be all panacea it is purported to be. Game can improve your chances of getting laid, but it does not improve quality of the pool of women you have to choose from, nor does it necessarily diminish the risks of scoring the lay or address the very real logistical difficulties of scoring.
Many young men have realized this and have simply opted out of the game altogether. Hell, they donâ€™t even need be MGTOWs, but simply Not Employed, in Education or Training.
But letâ€™s step back a bit to explain why.
Men intuitively know from many of their failed hook-up experiences how hard it can be to coax a woman into bed with them. The slightest hiccup in a Manâ€™s game plan can give the wriggling Id of the women a chance to rationalize not sleeping with him that night. Since you are trying to create an emotional state of â€œyes, yes, yesâ€ compliance and ease, the late Uber driver on a cold winter night can really throw a wrench into the gears of your well-thought out plan.
Roosh- to his credit- talks about the mountains of logistics that must be overcome to score the lay, let alone the elements of Game that come into play. So letâ€™s step back and examine some of the more mundane logistics at play here.
1) If you live in an American city, chances are you will need a car.
American cities are notoriously hard to get around in. Why? Because most decent families ran away to the suburbs and only the hipster enclaves and gentrification toe-holds remain. To get to where the action is at, you almost always have to head downtown. How are you going to get there? Well, you either Uber or drive. Make sure to take about 15 dollars for parking if you choose to drive by the way.
2) It is extremely expensive once you are there.
Wages seem to have not gone up enough in relation to soaring Long Island Iced Tea prices. Never offer to buy the girl a drink initially. But chances are you will have to end up buying her at least one drink as the evening progress. And God knows you canâ€™t just go in sober, or stand there empty-handed. So itâ€™s a drink for you and eventually for her- at a minimum. Maybe youâ€™re at a slightly cheaper bar, so letâ€™s say that you only end up spending 12$. Oh and the Uber too, how much was that again? Well, depends how far out you liveâ€¦Letâ€™s remember that you probably spent 12$ just getting there.
3) You have to be 21.
This point seems to be often overlooked. There are many budding disciples of Game that cannot get into bars and must rely on College parties. More than that- they need to pay cut-throat rates from sketchy homeless people, older siblings or upperclassmen to get their hands on booze. Social networking is key. Cold approaches simply do not work in a college environment. This is because the cold approach relies on subtle visual, subliminal, and verbal cues to signify high status. In college, or in any social environment where you are not surrounded by strangers, these cues can be faked, but they can also be verified. Not only that, but some social circles are more exclusionary than the most high-end clubs with velvet rope and lines out the door. To be quite honest, these young men would be better served learning how to get in with the right people, competing at a college sport or dealing drugs than spending hours practicing and refining their cold approaches.
4) Being a young man in a bar is like being a freshman in high school.
Bottom of the totem pole. Why? Because 21 is the cut-off age, and that means most of the girls there will be your age or older. Most of the men however will be older, and as students of the Crimson Arts know, chicks dig older guys. Especially when itâ€™s their first couple of times out on the bar scene in the big bad city. And get this! Most of the women will be older than you! Cleverer guys can lie- if they have the facial hair to back up the claim. But being caught lying about your age is the closest thing to a Cardinal Sin a man can commit while doing a pick-up. My baby-face does me no favors as I try to say that I am a 27 year old man with a straight face.
5) You almost definitely will need to go to multiple places in one evening.
Are you a firm believer in the â€œVenue-change/ isolationâ€ move? Venue-changes work and they work on many levels. They can work to break up a gaggle, create emotional commitment and spice up the evening as you take the girl to a more familiar place. Going to the club for a dance is a great way to start getting more intimate with your Kino. But cover fees? Another drink for you and maybe her? Letâ€™s say another 15 dollars. Hell, even without the girl in tow, say youâ€™re not doing well in one bar. Well that means finishing your glass and heading to yet another place..
6) You need a place of your own to get the lay.
If you live with your parents, you canâ€™t get laid. Sure, sometimes you can head over to her place. But on the first date? Girls have this psychological hold-up about sleeping with you at their place on the first night. Itâ€™s too intimate, her place lets you get too close to her, and she doesnâ€™t want that. The lack of a decent pad to go back to is a huge hurdle for young guys. You gotta either do it in a bathroom stall, in a car (see point 1) or just be content with a number and a hook up. Who knows, maybe you can meet up with her againâ€¦and face the exact same logistical hurdles.
And What is the Payoff?
Put simply, a lay. Chances are it wonâ€™t be a 9 (regardless of what you tell your buddies the next day). But you get your dick wet, with a girl that is willing to put out on the first night. Again, if you are a young man and live in a college town or university environment. The midday text with a smiley face thanking you for a good night weighs heavily on your mind.
You must secure it or be damned. Youâ€™re in uncharted waters, at the complete mercy of the girl you just banged.
You hope that she didnâ€™t have the herp or that she wonâ€™t have buyerâ€™s remorse the next day. You nervously scratch your nether area as you clamber into the shower and turn on the hot water. â€œWas it worth it?â€ You might ask yourself.
And you wouldnâ€™t be alone.
The Mentality of the NEET is a direct product of Late Western Society
There is an entire generation of men that has done the math and decided to sit this one out. The women are not that attractive, the ratios are not that favorable, you have to hustle and spend nights out on the prowl playing the role of clown just to get some action. By the way, you probably spent around 50$ for a night out and if you didnâ€™t get laid, then it was for virtually nothing. Two nights of that will set you back 100$ and thatâ€™s not an exaggeration. Sure you can work more at your job, but wouldnâ€™t that leave less time to go out?Â It shouldnâ€™t be that hard for you to put yourselves into the shoes of these young men. Getting the next lay is hard, it requires stuff that many young men simply donâ€™t have; like say some spending money, a bed that isnâ€™t in your parentsâ€™ basement, a good downtown area to go to or a wide social circle you can rely on.
The Best a Modern Young Man Can Do
You spend your time working out to get fit. You learn the ropes of game. You work a shit job (thanks boomers) because the good jobs are fewer and further between. Your women donâ€™t respect you and donâ€™t respect themselves enough to look good for you. You then go out and stake your claim to some sub-prime poon estate, and pray for deliverance the next week.
But wait thereâ€™s more!
And letâ€™s say you take the Red Pill to heart. Start questioning Feminism, the Liberal hive-mind and the sanity of your peers in supporting a Third World Flood of Biblical proportions, and see how many of your social circles, how many of your friends and peers suddenly accept the new you. Chances are, you might even lose your job, get kicked out of University, or develop a reputation as an Evil Misogynistâ„¢. Not all of us can reach Heartistian levels of poolside ambivalence to the situation that modern Western society finds itself in. Time, energy, and money. Thatâ€™s the theme of this post and donâ€™t worry, weâ€™re going to bring it all together now.
Can you really blame young men for giving up on getting laid in the West?
Some have tried shaming NEETs into rejoining modern society. But really, how can you shame the shameless?
Video games and porn beckon for some. Asceticism and meme-ing for Trump beckon to others. One thing is for sure, all these young, dispossessed men with no creative outlet for their energy except 2d waifus or occasional forays downtown are checking out of society. And really, who can blame them?
Modern Western Society has created the NEET and now it doesnâ€™t know what to do with it. On the liberal side, they continue to kick a dog thatâ€™s already down. On our side, we try to convince the NEET to go about the difficult task of getting laid. While the Red Pill approach is infinitely better for the well-being and short term happiness of the NEET, it is still an incomplete answer and one that doesnâ€™t address the fundamental societal shortcomings that have led to NEETdom. Un-becoming a NEET takes re-engaging with a society that one has already disconnected from. You must slog through the trenches again, and for rather ephemeral benefits.Â I leave you with this thought, the drive to get laid is important- hell its incredibly strong… But it may not save the NEET.Â
Maybe, its because the NEET doesn’t want to be “saved.”
Ethno-nationalism is all well and good, but it won’t take hold with the plush SWPL-class here in the USA.
Â They become Lolbertarians.
Â An ideology of Robber Baron economic policies mixed with the best of (the current year’s) progressive degeneracy. Shallow sophistry is about all we can expect from the bow-tie sporting, tassel-shoe wearing, salmon-pink khaki buying, cock-sucking class of aristo’s that we are stuck with.
Â And really, hasn’t it always been like that? Decadent aristocrats preening and posing as the power that they used to wield slips between their fingers and as their children turn into insufferable faggots…
Â Look, I am all for moral authority and strict hereditary structures within a society, but the problem of the corrupt aristocrats has not been solved yet in any society to my knowledge.
Â There needs to be a new elite- a new class of meritocratic integrity possessed with true feelings of attachment to the fatherland, rising to take the mantle of cultural elite.
Â A Yeoman class.
Â A permanent cadre of free men, allowed to bear arms, self-govern and occupying a permanent place of cultural prestige in the cultural psyche.
Â Think Cossacks or Cowboys.
Homogeneity in a culture never lasts, and at the risk of coming off as a Marxist… Class differences do rise.
See, the 14/88 crowd tends to forget the Socialist element of Nazi Germany’s policies. And for that matter in Mussolini’s Italy. There was a serious resentment against the ineffective leaders of Germany that Hitler tapped into. Yes, yes, we all know about the Jews, but we must not forget German elite’s complicity and participation in the plunder of their own country…
All to live the high-life at the cabaret.
Any true revolutionary movement that does not tap into the resentment that the lower classes have against their own traitor ruling class is missing a key ingredient.
How does that old saying go?
“If I had but one bullet for the enemy from without, or the enemy from within…”
Rebellion taps into youth discontent, but it cannot be directed at a group that most people do not even see in their day to day lives- like say the Ewjays.
Â But point out the massive brown horde of invaders, feral chimps in the inner cities or decadent aristos carousing while Rome burns and all of a sudden you’ve got a rebellion.
Â The youth of any society look for
- either a great national culture to partake in
- inherit the cultural class of their family
- create their own sub-culture in rebellion to the status quo
We can BE that rebellion.
We just have to be more nuanced than “White is Right.”
If we have to throw the Sophistos, the Castrati and the Eunuchs that comprise our ruling class onto the funeral pyre of Weimerica, then so be it.
Even if they are Huwhyte.
PS- I have been told that in the USSA, there are no more true WASP’s, but I swear most of them looked like they have been plucked straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting. Time to re-ignite the old WASP or not debate?
In these degenerate times, even to speak of love is to invite scorn, to be called a sentimental fool or a pathetic beta male. But it was not always so.
Love has been a central topic of discussion in Western Civilization. The early Greek philosopher EmpedoclesÂ gave it the status of universal force. Plato, too, and the neo-Platonists dedicated many works to the topic. The myth of Eros and Psyche was a perennial theme of art, and the Grail legends still have cultural influence today. Similarly, our movies and television shows are pervaded with romantic themes. However, similar to Greshamâ€™s law, paltry conceptions of love drive out granderÂ ones. IÂ shall not examine the decline here, but merely present some defense of the more noble conception of love.
This ideal of love isÂ beset from two sides: that of the bro and the intellectual, as I shall call them. I hope to show that both positions, while understandable, are wrong-headed. Briefly, the bro position attacks love as mere beta male pussy nonsense while the intellectual holds that it is a puerile and mawkish idea. I will freely admit that in disproportion and in severance from real-world particulars it can become those, but it is not essentially that way. Ideals need defending from the cynicism and extremism of a degraded culture.
To address the bro criticism let us look briefly and from a great height at the Middle Ages. One cannot doubt, in general, the dominance of patriarchy in this period. Conflict is common, man and nature are more dangerous than at present, and human muscle is the main driver of production. This too, on the other hand, is the age of chivalry and of the troubadour. Men utterly dominate the scene, yet (excessively) romantic notions of love are rampant. This is because, contrary to the narrative, it is the male that is the romantic, not the comparatively anaesthetic female. (Of womanly notions of love, I have little to say. It is a more concrete thing – tied to the more practical affairs of life, security and safety not least.) Â To address a familiar theme, the male is the agent of romance, the female the object. The minds of men are more easily enthralled by abstractions, including ideals. When we rule our own societies, an abstract feminine is a motivating ideal whether she be a Helen or a Mary, a Gretchen or a Beatrice. Biologically, we crave the female, spiritually â€œthe eternal feminine draws us on.â€
From the other side we have the sneering (((intellectuals))) and the jeering intellectuals. They constantly try to deconstruct or otherwise undermine the idea of love. Think of Lucretius and his flatulent Venus. I am sure a fair few of you have some Mencken quotations to hurl at me, but they do not bite in light of his Sara Haardt. The intellectual has more than his share of self-awareness. This causes both baseless romantic ideation as well as virtual paralysis in cases of real potential romance. This no doubt leads to embittered intellectuals. Among his peers, this creates an arms race for greater and greater cynicism. It is a situation made all the worse by the need for many intellectuals to seek novel views as well as to separate themselves from the rubes back home by disparaging their time-worn and hokey ideals. It is no coincidence, either, that the hipster must assume a tiresome aura of irony in his otherwise rabid quest for authenticity.
Both the bro and the intellectual are bitter, their jadedness no doubt hard-won. Our culture still has the vestiges of white civilization; the idea of love is still out there. We see it in our movies and our television shows, especially older ones. A formerly common plot involved the discovery of old love letters or poems, for example. That plot still makes sense today, but it cannot be about today. At best it belongs to our elderly, but even that becomes less and less true. Similarly thousands of romcoms feature the â€˜meet cuteâ€™ but that requires a functioning community and inviting public spaces. Can we really imagine our malls, train stations, bus depots, airports, parks, town squares and so forth as viable spaces for love? Of course not! Mugging and murder perhaps, but not love. Many such spaces are unsafe, unpleasant, and downright uninviting. Even those that are tolerable lack the social infrastructure to be relevant to non-utilitarian activities.
Our culture still indulges white ideas of love, but this just sets up white men for failure. Those ideas have no vital relevance. The failure that results when white men do what they feel they are supposed to do (and moreover what is instinctual) causes much sorrow and anger. We then turn to game blogs out of desperation, or become male feminists hoping for pity sex, or become embroiled in relationships that our culture actively wishes to fail and which sadly often do. The result is a lot of meaningless sex, a lot of failed relationships, and a lot of ruined lives. Women turn to pharmaceutical intervention while men turn to mechanically banging club sluts, and those are the â€˜luckyâ€™ ones! The man thinks of some sweet girl he once knew, the woman of the sweet girl she once was. That is if either can feel anything at all, beyond some vague hope that the next little death be a final death. The unlucky ones end with porn addictions and body pillow waifus or short blue hair and extreme adiposity. This is a profound disaster for our people, men and women alike.
I will not speak of this not-so-little rift within the lute without offering some notes of hope. One must first understand that I paint a far bleaker picture than is yet real. There are still safe and lively public spaces as well as happy and loving couples. We must not kid ourselves that these are not under heavy attack though. Our neighborhoods and our marriages are ravaged by our increasingly alien culture and laws. Awareness, a much-ballyhooed and misused word, is our greatest friend in this moral war. The recognition of our own values is of paramount importance. Love, like beauty and truth and freedom, is a core Western value; we should not so easily surrender it. The subversive nature of love has long troubled the utopians. That is until they hit upon the idea of rotting it inward until it molders away. They have replaced it with a mere simulacrum â€“ an ersatz love that is solely sex. We have not lost yet, though.Â
We still have some of our ideals and our ways of life. To counter our enemies, the sexes must work in unison. So go fall in love, itâ€™s the white thing to do.
Vince and Greg discuss Jewish influence on Russia. Stalin, Solzhenitsyn, Bezmenov–who was on whose side? Whose side are we on? Stop the spies and save the huwites, it’s time to reassess the Ruskies.
Topics: American misperceptions of russia, hypocrisy on elections, the mental jujitsu of YuriÂ Bezmenov, the mysterious death of Michael Hastings, ZOG at State, and the Jewish influence on the early Soviet Union.
Plus: Shaykh Mo is pissed at you Crusaders, and Hitler reads von Mellenthin’s Panzerschlachten.
The alt-right has really come into its own over the past couple of years and with this comes growing pains. One trouble we face is the integration of women into the movement. Many alt-righters had manosphere days and many of us former libertarians have seen what happened with female entryism there. In normal times, it is fair to be skeptical of women in politics, but we are not in normal times and we are beyond politics. It is not simply a political movement that has arisen; it is a rational desire for an ethnostate and for the restoration of a white way of life. It should be obvious that a white society requires white women, but I intend here to assuage some legitimate concerns.
Before delving into specific comments, I feel that it is necessary to address a fundamental fact. Our (((enemies))) actively wish for the destruction of our people. Divide and conquer is a time-tested and effective strategy. Our enemies know this and have used it to devastating effect. The rise of (((feminism))) and its (((backlash))) have brought much ruin to our people. These ideologies (feminism and masculism) are truly foreign to our people. It is sad that some would elevate one putrid semitic religion to counter the poison of another. Do not mistake me for engaging in egalitarian nonsense. I support the truly Western notion of sexual complementarism: the sexes require one another to be a complete whole. Too many accept Eve or Helen as their level of anima, but to save ourselves we must seek Sophia. And so, let me now white-knight for waifus.
â€œWomen who are into politics are nuts.â€ This may well be true, but consider the following: Jared Taylor frequently mentions how much more sane people with our political views are on average with the rise of the internet. Yes, the current crop of known alt-right waifus are probably abnormal by woman standards, but that does not mean they are completely off their rockers. My suspicion is that they fall into three kinds: 1) those red-pilled by male influence 2) those who are sperg-lasses 3) and those red-pilled by life. Of the first, little need be said. These girls were well-raised or have good taste. Obviously we should support them and ideally wife them. Of the second, we should not be surprised that slightly more autistic girls would be much more likely to abandon the ((((Narrative))). Of the third, we can imagine some lady faced with a frightening experience and then turning to, say, Coontown (RIP) or some other outpost of truth in the safer parts of the web. From there, we should hope she comes to us.
â€œWomen should be making huWhyte babies.â€ Duh. Of course. But how much time does it take to send out a tweet or post a comment, or even join a podcast? We shouldnâ€™t be watching TV or the like anyway. We moderns have plenty of free time, we should use it to good ends. I donâ€™t think anyone is arguing that women should abandon their children to engage in online political activism. As for doxing, well, thatâ€™s a chance we all take.
â€œWomen shouldnâ€™t be leaders.â€ Thatâ€™s reasonable enough, but donâ€™t let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If a female-led party is the rightâ€™s best hope, so be it. As for leadership in the alt-right, that seems a curious notion. As we are not a formal organization we do not have leaders. What we do have are content producers. Donâ€™t like some ladyâ€™s content? Donâ€™t support it. Disagree with it? Go make your own. And donâ€™t whine about gals getting more support, you arenâ€™t in competition!
â€œWomen rent-seek.â€ Does anybody expect to make money off the alt-right? Some of our more talented content producers do need funds for their projects, and some of them will be women. Again, if you donâ€™t like it, donâ€™t support it. If you donâ€™t like that other men support them solely because theyâ€™re thirsty, well, change human nature?
â€œWomen and men are just different.â€ Again, this is true, but I think this is more of an argument for women in the alt-right, not against it. Men and women have different strengths and we should exploit that. Women are probably better at red-pilling other women. Even if they arenâ€™t, the endorsement of our ideas by women gives them a normalcy that they would otherwise be denied. It is easy to attack a bunch of men as pathetic losers who masturbate to anime all day, but that becomes more difficult with women around. Also, if we wish to be degenerate, we can leverage attractive waifus to manipulate thirsty guys. Every movement needs cannon-fodder; we canâ€™t all be philosopher-kings.
â€œWomen suck.â€ Have you seen any men lately? We are all in bad shape. Ours is a degenerate age. Women are like amphibians: a bellwether for environmental destruction. They are also less able to engage in cultural defection, pulled down by the stinging bitchiness of their fellows. Degenerate women abhor good women and will bring their entire cold arsenal to bear in an attempt to drag them down to their level. None of us can engage in total unilateral cultural defection, but women need more help to de-poz themselves than men.
â€œI donâ€™t want to wife some â€˜recoveredâ€™ degenerate.â€ So donâ€™t. No one sane is asking you to. I am asking that we remember the poisonous society we all come out of. If someone makes a good faith attempt at reform, we must allow them. Letâ€™s not get caught in the sort of holiness spiral that afflicts SWPLs. We cannot afford to turn away those who repent. But you probably shouldnâ€™t marry them.
â€œWomen are just not as important politically.â€ Angry young men control the politics of a collapsing society – that much is obvious. But what are angry young men fighting for, if not for wives and girlfriends and mothers and so on? Much anger stems from the degraded quality of women, giving them a promise of good women helps bring them to our side.
â€œThe Mannerbund.â€ Yeah, what of it? The existence of women does not destroy male companionship. It is true that the presence of a woman can disrupt a male space. The sexes do need separate spaces but we also need a commons. We arenâ€™t just discussing pension structures or the benefits of light, we are trying to save ourselves. As the physical commons falls further into darkness, we shall badly need our digital spaces. Also, much of the fixation on this topic is predicated on some silly ethology. Humans (and dogs and wolves for that matter, to address some silly analogies) do not have rigid hierarchical structures (chickens do though). Dominance is primarily a pair-wise affair as well as being environmentally mediated. It need not be commutative nor does it always go from A to B. Humans have troop aspects but we also have pair-bonding aspects, especially whites.
â€œWaifus.â€ The identification of alt-right ladies as waifus is a good way to frame things. These women either belong to alt-right men as actual wives or girlfriends or they belong to the community until such a time as they can be united with their one true shitmate.
â€œIâ€™m just angry/sad that I donâ€™t have an Aryan QT3.14/88 by my side.â€ Arenâ€™t we all? Either keep your whining to yourself or go out and make one. If you find you cannot, accept that the love-based northwest European marriage pattern involves high numbers of those who never marry. Devote your time instead to the cause, not moaning about bitches on the internet.
AI Academic Interview Series 7: HBD Pacific Rim. Ritter interviews Storminnorman on the anthropology and genetic history of Australia and the Americas.Â How did the Aborigines get to Australia? Did they interbreed with earlier hominids like homo erectus? Also, severalÂ waves of migration entered the Americas before Columbus. What can genetics tell us about the Amerindians?
For the new recruits. A short primer on the “cuckservative” meme.
What is a cuckservative? Its an amalgamation of the terms cuck and conservative. Conservative is clear, so lets start with the term â€œCuckolding.â€ Here is the first mention of it that I encountered as the newest, hippest, sexual fetish of intellectuals. (Its real, I just dont want to give them clicks, so have a pastebin instead.)
The next time I heard about it was “the Cuckening”, a revelation on 4chanâ€™s /pol/ board that revealed that the founder of the board, Christopher Poole or â€œMootâ€ had been cheated on by his SJW â€œgirlfriend.â€ At the time, GamerGate was unfolding, and it was rumored that Moot had gotten cozy with the liberal samizdat and was planning a purge of the politically incorrect board on 4chan to make it more appetizing to potential buyers. Moot did in fact purposefully destroy the old /pol/ board, right around the time that rumors of his â€œcuckingâ€ were circulating. This event eventually left to the schism, and the Exodus to 8chanâ€™s /pol/ board and the birth of the â€œcuckâ€ meme.
You really canâ€™t understand the story without some meme history:
On the 7th of December, 2014, Ben â€œZyklon-Bâ€ Garrison threatened Moot with a lawsuit unless he took down /pol/. Since â€œthe CEO of Troll, Inc.â€ who was now an official SJW, couldnâ€™t take the problematic /pol/ anymore, so he purged it. First by deleting the capcha and letting in waves of /b/tards, furries, autists, /a/ and /lgbt/. He then proceeded to replace words that users typed such as â€œ/b/â€ and â€œn***erâ€ with â€œtumblrâ€ and â€œcrackerâ€ respectively. Marquees displaying [trigger warning] show up on all posts, wordfilters are abundant, and the board has the title â€œThe 8 steps of cuckoldingâ€ with subtitle â€œ>she does it for funâ€. /pol/acks from all over were chased out of their homeâ€¦ Encyclopedia Dramatica
Its a lot to take in if you are not steeped in meme lore, but basically Moot was fed up with /pol/ constantly calling him a cuck and wanted to get rid of the problematic politically incorrect board. So he changed the name of the board to â€œthe 8 steps to cuckoldingâ€ and put an audio file on loop, with some dominatrix talking about the subject.
Finally, a short explanation of Ben Garrisonâ€™s role in the affair: Ben Garrison was a libertardian artist whose reputation was dragged through the mud because of some modified photos that /pol/ created, in which all original references to illuminati or the FED or Pyramids, was replaced with â€œle happy merchant meme.â€
These photoshops caused Ben Garrison to lose his cool and to loudly threaten to sue Moot for what /pol/ had done. Instead of ignoring a few autists on the internets playing with their dank may-mays, Ben sperged out and brought a lot of attention to himself. Naturally, the trolling only intensified, until Zyklon Ben became a big meme.
After /pol/ harbor (the destruction of 4chan’s /pol/ board), and the exodus to 8chan, Ben garrison had a reconciliation with the new 8chan /pol/ and the site administrator, Hot Wheels. In a surprising and frankly, heart-warming exchange, he even agreed to create some original content per /pol/ users requests:
Finally, on 8chanâ€™s /pol/ board, an interesting development occurred when one anon discovered a sinister, and subliminal cuckold plot in the new Nickolodean show, â€œBella and the Bulldogs.â€ ED take it away:
The showâ€™s creator, Jonathan C. Butler, also directed a film entitled The Cuckold and is a known cuckolding fetishist. Bella and the Bulldogs contains many of the same themes as his previous works, with Bella being attracted to a strong black boy whose team number is eight, while a weak white boy is the butt of many jokes and has a team number of ninety-nine. Bellaâ€™s hair constantly covers the â€˜dogâ€™ portion of her jersey as well, since â€˜bullâ€™ is a term referring to the black male who breeds with the white wife in cuckold relationships. Imagery of bulls are prevalent in the series itself as well. Of particularly note is a scene in the pilot in which the white female protagonist bumps into her black teammate and starts blushing, saying aloud â€œyouâ€™re a big guyâ€œ, to which the black teammate responds â€œfor youâ€, as the audience makes â€œooooooooohâ€ noises. -Encyclopedia Dramatica
/pol/ was at the forefront of the unveiling of the conspiracy theory:
/pol/ has been throwing around the term â€œcuckâ€ for months now, using it as an insult, and injecting it into all sorts of political discussion and commentary. The final stage in the evolution of the meme came with the NY Mag article about a man getting cucked and announcing it to the world to declare his PC credentials. This coupled with Trumpâ€™s announcement of his candidacy and the ballsy Realtalk emanating from his numerous interviews, speeches, and twitter statuses, began to rain hammer blow upon hammer blow upon the American psyche. His alpha-ness made his opponents seem weak and whipped by comparison, especially on the topic of immigration, where he rained fire and brimstone on his opponents in the GOP, who could only feebly bleat that he did not represent the Republican party. In a mewling attempt to distance themselves from his crazy and far-right notion that a sovereign nation should have functioning border control, the GOP began to attack Trump as well, joining sides with their supposed opponents in lambasting a candidate for being a â€œracist.â€ The comparison was just too juicy and ready for public consumption. The logic was simple; the republicans were a party of cucks, too afraid to stand up to leftist open border and universalist rhetoric, and willing to sacrifice all their â€œconservativeâ€ ideals on the altar of appearing kosher, PC and inclusive.
Now the term is trending, with Realtalk sites like Heartiste, Radix and Amren, to name a few jumping on the trend, and adding their spin to it. They have taken to the term â€œcuckservativeâ€ and are rolling with it, to great success. Apart from a few squabbles among the alt-Right about who was the first to use the term, its been universally hailed as a positive development.
Here is the Radix definition of a cuckservative:
Very basically, the cuckservative is a white gentile conservative (or libertarian) who thinks heâ€™s promoting his own interests but really isnâ€™t.Â In fact, the cuckservative is an extreme universalist and seems often to suffer from ethnomasochism & pathological altruism. In short, a cuckservative is a white (non-Jewish) conservative who isnâ€™t racially aware. -RadixJournal
The commentators at Chateau Heartiste are having a field day with the â€œShit Conservatives Sayâ€ list, adding their own colorful variations to this new meme. You know you are talking to a Cuckservative if you hear the following:
â€œAmerica has always been multicultural â€¦â€
â€œâ€˜It was the Democrats that supported the Klan and the Confederate flag â€¦â€
â€œIsrael is the only democracy in the Middle East.â€
â€œIsrael is our only ally in the Middle East.â€
â€œThatâ€™s just another â€˜tax the richâ€™ scheme.â€
â€œI believe in liberty!â€
â€œTerrorist threat level is orange todayâ€
â€œIâ€™m not opposed to illegal immigrants as long as they assimilate and respect the Constitution.â€
â€œIran is a threat to world peace.â€
â€œWe donâ€™t want to be like old, decaying Europe.â€
â€œItâ€™s about culture, not race.â€
â€œI donâ€™t have white interests. I have the Constitution.â€
The GOP itself feels threatened by this term:
And threatened they should be. For too long the GOP has ignored the concerns of its key constituency and has benefited from the fact that most conservatives would do just about anything rather than, say, vote for Hillary or her equivalent in the next election cycle. But the Republicans backpedaling and refusal to stand up for any real conservative values other than not taxing the rich and giving weapons to Israel has lost them several elections already. Republicucks are going to be hearing a lot more of this term, and they are going to have a hard time shaking off the label in the months to come. I can only see this as a positive development, a rude wake up call to a party of cuckservatives, that has ignored its key voter base for too long. Its about time they heard what their constituents think of them.
There’s a lot of Trump love on this blog. With the Iowa Caucus results in, it’s time to refresh everyone’s memory why we support Trump for God-Emperor.
The more I watch Trump, the more I am impressed. The media tries to shame and take the moral high ground in Every. Single. Interview. They set up rhetorical and logical traps for the man, and he falls for every single one of them. And you know what, no one, least of all Trump, cares. This juggernaut of a man just plows ahead and keeps impeccable frame, nothing seems to phase him. In every speech, he’s up there with no teleprompter, just talking off the top of his dome, and people LOVE it. They call him a racist, he plows on. He gets death threats, he plows on. He touches the sacred cow of John McCain’s “heroism,” gets crucified by the media, and still holds his head high. What can you throw at this man when he’s already got money, a gorgeous wife, and is beholden to nobody? What can you try to shame him with, when he just doesn’t give a flying fuck? I disagree with many of his foreign policy stances, and he’s a good goy when it comes to Israel, but I give credit where credit is due, the testicular fortitude of this man just steals the spotlight from every single cuckservative running for the presidency. Never thought I’d say this, but: Can’t Stump the Trump.
Let’s talk about viable alternative for a second. Are you ready? Take a deep breath, exhale, and done. That was quick. Who else is there to even seriously consider for a moment? Rand Paul? I admit that I got excited about his announcement, mostly because of his father, and didn’t check the facts. That mistake became crystal clear when I saw him speaking about the Confederate flag. Rand Paul flew his own cuckservative flag high and proud when he agreed that the flag was rayciss and had to come down. If you are a Paulbot, this is the point where you say that he was just “playing the game, man.” Yeah right. At some point, you have to put aside the crystal ball and stop trying to divine the inner thoughts of a candidate and look at what they actually say and do. We’ve given Rand the benefit of the doubt for long enough because of his father, and even if you do not want to take Trump as your personal lord and savior, you can still hop off the Paul bandwagon and take a good hard look at some of these tweets.
I have yet to see any cuckservative come out and address the spectre of black on black and black on white crime. Trump comes out with a heaping dose of Realtalk everytime he takes to twitter, and for that, again, he wins major points. If you are an accelerationist then Hillary is obviously your choice. If you are a blue-pilled kind of goy, then by all means, vote for Sanders.Â But for me, for election, my first by the way, I will be voting for Trump. My voting will on the basis of sound foreign policy. I have long given up on that idea, and most of the red-pilled crowd has as well, if they are honest with themselves. Rather, my vote will go to the candidate with the highest T-count. I’m not throwing my vote away on that vile eunich Lindsay Graham, who will come out of the closet sooner rather than later. Or that droopy-faced doofus Ted Cruz.
Jeb Bush? His wife is an immigrant, which is not really a problem outright in my book, just one that looks like well, this:
Ehhhhhh, no thanks, I’ll pass.
I’m serious, there are two reasons that I will vote for Trump. One: his testicular prowess. The sheer ballsy-ness of a man who’s crown jewels loom over every other Republican candidate, the way you’d think of God’s as big, and whose unbridled red-blooded rhetoric promises to curb stomp the jelly-spined republican contenders in any televised debate. They can’t stump the Trump by removing his donations, or by lambasting him in the media, I’ll bet they can’t stump the Trump in a debate either, because the man comes out fists swinging and doesn’t apologize!
Second, and most importantly: the Great Southern Wall. Trump promises a giant wall along the southern border. How basic and yet how absolutely necessary. Demographics matters first and foremost. It is the bottom-most rung of the Maslowian hierarchy of needs for a functioning first world nation. No other candidate touches this issue, which shows me that no other candidate cares. I actually like most Mexicans, but like most white’s, I secretly prefer that America stay white for a long while longer.
If the man does nothing else but build that wall and start kicking some of the illegal immigrants out, I will consider it a successful presidency. And since I came here legally, looks like the Trump and I both share a disdain for illegal immigration. You see, you will find that very often, legal immigrants hate the way that we are equated with illegals. We went through the process, our families were let in on working visa’s. We contribute to society, pay taxes, try to integrate, eschew forming ghettos and as you can well tell, we try to learn the King’s English. Trump is right in saying that he will win the immigrant vote, the LEGAL immigrant vote that is.
“Make America Great Again” needs to be reworded though. Not snappy enough for a guy who wants to breathe some fresh air into the American political system. Like I alluded to earlier, why not just, “Can’t Stump the Trump?”
Leftists, and (((high verbal IQ))) types, love to create semantic traps whereby they can control,Â or â€˜frameâ€™, the conversation. A favorite is The Social Construct Trap, which works by giving us realists nearly irresistible bait–the claim that â€˜X is a social constructâ€™. (Where X is almost always race). Let us imagine a typical scenario, one which Iâ€™m sure many of us have lived: A couple of university students are discussing the role of poverty in life outcomes. One of them dares to venture that race has a role to play. The other student, recoiling in horror, invokes that talismanic phrase, â€œRace is just a social construct.â€ Our friend denies this. From there the conversation devolves into mere argument. Where did our friend go wrong? He forgot the rhetoric-dialectic distinction and he took the bait.
What, you may ask, is the problem with arguing against that stance, that race is a socialÂ construct? There are two subtle problems. The first is that this claim is simply a non sequitur. The example conversation is about the correlation of some phenomena â€˜life outcomes/povertyâ€™ and â€˜raceâ€™. It is not about the ontological status of race, no more than it is about the ontological status of poverty. Our friend is as justified in saying, and perhaps more so, that poverty is â€œjust a social constructâ€. He may respond like this: â€œYou say race doesnâ€™t exist because it is a social construct. Well, I think poverty doesnâ€™t exist because it too is a social construct. You say humans have clinal variation, hence race is socially and arbitrarily constructed. Well, wealth and income show continual variation, so it too is socially and arbitrarily constructed.â€ This may be a fun rhetorical gotcha, but it hardly advances the conversation, given that some progtards would probably accept the non-existence of poverty, the non-existence of anything, just so long as they donâ€™t have to accept race. Never mind that you are leaving some good arguments unused.
In many cases like this, our opponent is likely to let that word â€˜justâ€™ do most of the argumentative heavy lifting. â€œRace is just a social construct.â€ But what could it possibly mean to be just a social construct? Iâ€™m not sure we could say even unicorns are just a social construct. Horses exist, as do horns. This word â€˜justâ€™ or sometimes â€˜merelyâ€™ is a major weak point, for all the work it does, like the reactor core on the Death Star. They probably mean to imply that what we call â€˜raceâ€™ has no basis whatsoever in reality. Assuming they have any reason left, they should accept that skin color does exist, and that this has something to do with what we call race. If they accept this, then they must see that race isnâ€™t just a social construct.
Race might, one must now admit, be considered, along with many other things like colors orÂ money, in some sense a social construct. That is, human needs and capacities modulated through the medium of language give some shape to our world. The colors we perceive have, most assuredly, physical and biological foundations, but there are cultural variations in the number of color words. There is, supposedly a rainforest group that has many common words that pick out a wide number of shades of green. This should not come as a surprise considering their environment. Though English has phrases such as â€˜forest greenâ€™ or â€˜spearmintâ€™ etc. these are more the talk of paint companies than of everyday life. My point being that many of our concepts have some aspect that might fairly be called social construction to them. (For more on this sort of thing, Google around for John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality; Berlin and Kay, Basic Color Terms; and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.)
Lucky for us the social construction of race is not the significant part of their argument. EitherÂ they think social constructs arenâ€™t real (whatever the hell that means), in which case ask them for all their money or they think racial divisions are arbitrary, in which case ask them to take a step. The first part we dealt with, letâ€™s look at the second. They argue that because there is no distinct or objective boundary between races there are no such things as races. As an analogy, blue and green do not exist because there is no set point at which blue becomes green. This some may recognize as the sorites or continuum fallacy. To use the famous example, I start with a heap of sand and slowly remove grains of sand one at a time. No single grain removal causes the heap to go from heap to non-heap; therefore, no matter how many grains I take away I always have a heap. This is obviously ridiculous, and yet this fallacy is one of the most common of our public discourse. As for asking them to take a step, we all know that that is impossible under our Zenoian physics, an analogous problem applied to distance (see theÂ famous example of the tortoise and Achilles). (That was sarcasm, folks.)
The fundamental problem with people who argue like this is their childish selectivity. If theyÂ were acting as a modern-day Parmenides, fine. But they are not, they are engaging in selective and self- serving skepticism. They arenâ€™t acting as disinterested philosophers, but as motivated perpetuators of foolish ideas. The say race doesnâ€™t exist, but happily endorse the notion of color, or of distance, or of time. The philosopher David Hume wrote, â€œPhilosophy would render us entirely Pyrrhonian, were not nature too strong for it.â€ That is, we would be completely skeptical of absolutely everything, but the demands of life prevent it except as philosophical exercise. But when one hates nature and is always in revolt against it, what is left but as much madness as the unkind intrusions of reality allow? What to do with these people? Hume provides, more or less, the answer: â€œCommit them then to the ovens: for they can contain nothing but sophistry and delusion.â€