Feed on
Posts
Comments

The Great Men On Americanism

H. P. Lovecraft (the same early 20th Century fright-fi writer whom modern day SJW wikinerds are trying to obliterate from the historical record) wrote a treatise on what it really means to be an American, and it’s chock full of so much shitlordery source-pool realtalk it could double as Trump’s first martial law decree. H/t:

It is easy to sentimentalise on the subject of “the American spirit”—what it is, may be, or should be. Exponents of various novel political and social theories are particularly given to this practice, nearly always concluding that “true Americanism” is nothing more or less than a national application of their respective individual doctrines.

Slightly less superficial observers hit upon the abstract principle of “Liberty” as the keynote of Americanism, interpreting this justly esteemed principle as anything from Bolshevism to the right to drink 2.75 per cent. beer. “Opportunity” is another favourite byword, and one which is certainly not without real significance. The synonymousness of “America” and “opportunity” has been inculcated into many a young head of the present generation by Emerson via Montgomery’s “Leading Facts of American History.” But it is worthy of note that nearly all would-be definers of “Americanism” fail through their prejudiced unwillingness to trace the quality to its European source. They cannot bring themselves to see that abiogenesis is as rare in the realm of ideas as it is in the kingdom of organic life; and consequently waste their efforts in trying to treat America as if it were an isolated phenomenon without ancestry.

“Americanism” is expanded Anglo-Saxonism. It is the spirit of England, transplanted to a soil of vast extent and diversity, and nourished for a time under pioneer conditions calculated to increase its democratic aspects without impairing its fundamental virtues. It is the spirit of truth, honour, justice, morality, moderation, individualism, conservative liberty, magnanimity, toleration, enterprise, industriousness, and progress—which is England—plus the element of equality and opportunity caused by pioneer settlement. It is the expression of the world’s highest race under the most favourable social, political, and geographical conditions. Those who endeavour to belittle the importance of our British ancestry, are invited to consider the other nations of this continent. All these are equally “American” in every particular, differing only in race-stock and heritage; yet of them all, none save British Canada will even bear comparison with us. We are great because we are a part of the great Anglo-Saxon cultural sphere; a section detached only after a century and a half of heavy colonisation and English rule, which gave to our land the ineradicable stamp of British civilisation.

Most dangerous and fallacious of the several misconceptions of Americanism is that of the so-called “melting-pot” of races and traditions. It is true that this country has received a vast influx of non-English immigrants who come hither to enjoy without hardship the liberties which our British ancestors carved out in toil and bloodshed. It is also true that such of them as belong to the Teutonic and Celtic races are capable of assimilation to our English type and of becoming valuable acquisitions to the population. But, from this it does not follow that a mixture of really alien blood or ideas has accomplished or can accomplish anything but harm. Observation of Europe shows us the relative status and capability of the several races, and we see that the melting together of English gold and alien brass is not very likely to produce any alloy superior or even equal to the original gold. Immigration cannot, perhaps, be cut off altogether, but it should be understood that aliens who choose America as their residence must accept the prevailing language and culture as their own; and neither try to modify our institutions, nor to keep alive their own in our midst. We must not, as the greatest man of our age declared, suffer this nation to become a “polyglot boarding house.”

The greatest foe to rational Americanism is that dislike for our parent nation which holds sway amongst the ignorant and bigoted, and which is kept alive largely by certain elements of the population who seem to consider the sentiments of Southern and Western Ireland more important than those of the United States. In spite of the plain fact that a separate Ireland would weaken civilisation and menace the world’s peace by introducing a hostile and undependable wedge betwixt the two major parts of Saxondom, these irresponsible elements continue to encourage rebellion in the Green Isle; and in so doing tend to place this nation in a distressingly anomalous position as an abettor of crime and sedition against the Mother Land. Disgusting beyond words are the public honours paid to political criminals like Edward, alias Eamonn, de Valera, whose very presence at large among us is an affront to our dignity and heritage. Never may we appreciate or even fully comprehend our own place and mission in the world, till we can banish those clouds of misunderstanding which float between us and the source of our culture.

But the features of Americanism peculiar to this continent must not be belittled. In the abolition of fixed and rigid class lines a distinct sociological advance is made, permitting a steady and progressive recruiting of the upper levels from the fresh and vigorous body of the people beneath. Thus opportunities of the choicest sort await every citizen alike, whilst the biological quality of the cultivated classes is improved by the cessation of that narrow inbreeding which characterises European aristocracy.

Total separation of civil and religious affairs, the greatest political and intellectual advance since the Renaissance, is also a local American—and more particularly a Rhode Island—triumph. Agencies are today subtly at work to undermine this principle, and to impose upon us through devious political influences the Papal chains which Henry VIII first struck from our limbs; chains unfelt since the bloody reign of Mary, and infinitely worse than the ecclesiastical machinery which Roger Williams rejected. But when the vital relation of intellectual freedom to genuine Americanism shall be fully impressed upon the people, it is likely that such sinister undercurrents will subside.

The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself. Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

This country would benefit from a wider practice of sound Americanism, with its accompanying recognition of an Anglo-Saxon source. Americanism implies freedom, progress, and independence; but it does not imply a rejection of the past, nor a renunciation of traditions and experience. Let us view the term in its real, practical, and unsentimental meaning.

-from the United Amateur, July 1919

Executive Summary: Diversity + Proximity = War. Also, Cognitive Stratification + Noblesse Malice = Anti-Americanism.

America: A gift in the process of being squandered and sacrificed by the ingratitude of her soft, effeminate, decadent, virtue signaling inheritors. What would Lovecraft have thought of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act and the resulting third world bazaar America has since inevitably become? He’d probably say, “holy fucking hell, and I thought the micks were bad news”.

Programming note: Joyce Carol Oates greatly admired Lovecraft. I wonder if she knows about his unauthorized thoughtcrimes?

***

PS As TOG put it in one of his classic rants, “White people need to realize its not the Ice Age anymore and we are now dealing with the threat of diversity”.

Scanman posits three rules of dating in post-America:

A few gems of sage advice that I will pass on to my sons —

1. If a woman has ever been photographed wearing a crown or tiara on her birthday, she is likely a shit human being.

2. Ditto for any woman who has referred to herself or her friends as a goddess.

3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.

I find nothing objectionable in this crib sheet. If you just want a simple guide to girls that requires the least bit of pattern recognizing effort, steering clear of tiara girls, “goddesses”, and avowedly altruistic women is as good as any dating guide you’ll find in laddies mags.

The beauty of Scanman’s rules for red pillers is that following them effectively screens out the worst of the post-America girls: the pathological narcissists and ¡lookatme! attention whores. It also screens out a lot of fatties, because I can’t help but notice a calorically-dense number of broads who wear tiaras and refer to themselves as goddesses are fat fucks.

The last rule might invite skepticism — after all, women as a sex are more empathetic than men and can thus be expected to have stronger urges to “help people” — but understand that there’s a crucial distinction between the typical sappy woman and the virtue signaling SJW urbanette who makes a big show of her altruism. Aggressively empathetic women can be as dangerous as aggressively cold-hearted men. More dangerous, actually, as ruthless men aren’t likely to flood their nations with millions of incompatible mud worlders just for the self-righteousness high.

***

Commenter chris adds labcoat context to the third rule.

“3. Women who claim to “love helping people” are invariably manipulative, untrustworthy and usually treat their own family like shit.”

There is a scientific explanation for this.

Basically, doing things that are regarded as ‘moral’ makes people feel like they have built up a ‘moral credit’ that they can draw on in the future to offset any immoral behaviour or ‘moral debits’ they engage in.

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/PSYCH_2015072217203971.pdf

Nazis by Kraut: A Playful Application of Moral Self-Licensing

Abstract:
Doing something moral gives one a license to do something immoral. This form of moral compensation is called “moral self-licensing”. Interestingly, the moral behavior can take place in another domain than the subsequent immoral behavior. For example, buying eco-friendly products gives one a license to steal. This article is based on the idea that a healthy diet has a moral dimension. As a consequence, consuming a healthy product should give one a license for immoral behavior. This research supports this hypothesis on a playful study. This study shows that drinking sauerkraut juice contributes to a stronger support of Nazi-esque right wing ideology than drinking either nothing or a less-healthy beverage (Nestea).

Avowedly, assertively altruistic women (or women who claim the altruism mantle) are probably sluts with a well-fed rationalization hamster ready to justify their future infidelities.

Memory Loss Game

I remember reading a long time ago a story in a local magazine about a young man who had been in a bad car accident and sustained bouts of memory loss from it. I wish I could find a link or a publishing date/name, because the article was astounding confirmation, in a roundabout way, of the effectiveness of Game. (An association I hadn’t made at the time reading it, but upon recalling the article realized it was there.)

Buried in the middle of a winding bio about the car-struck man was a funny aside he admitted regarding his post-accident dating life. Paraphrasing, he said that he was dating more girls than before his accident, and it surprised him because he kept forgetting their names, faces, and the circumstances in which they met. He said a girl would call or text him (this was long enough ago that calling was still a thing) and he would have to ask her name and how they hit it off. If he initiated the follow-up call or text, he’d scan his phone for newly added numbers (which sometimes had the girl’s accompanying name entered as “BAR X GIRL”), and have to ask the girl to remind him where, when and how they met.

Hilariously, he said that this ordeal became so taxing that occasionally he’d just come right out and say “I have you as BAR X GIRL in my phone. I have memory loss from an accident, could you tell me if you were the girl I met at BAR X?”

His eureka moment came when, after months stumbling through his strange new memory-less dating landscape, he realized his inability to remember girls’ names or important facts about them had no effect on his love life. If anything, he said his dance card was more full than ever. He said girls would be offended at first by what they thought was his lack of consideration for their worth, but wind up making out with him at the end of the night anyway. Crucially, he mentioned he rarely told girls about his accident because he didn’t want his dates turning into sexless sympathy hugs. He’d just say he forgot this or that about the girls, and carry on as if nothing was amiss between them.

The lesson is an ancient one: chicks dig men who act like they have a surfeit of snapper options. And one way to signal your desirability to many women is to sometimes forget their names and favorite colors.

The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement provoked a whitelash from a few put-upon White shitlords-in-training, who answered with the more universalist (and cheeky) ‘All Lives Matter’ riposte. After all, who can argue against all lives?

Well, blacks can. ‘All Lives Matter’ really bugs blacks and virtue ejaculating fagwhites. I don’t recall exactly from whom I heard this, (I think it came from president Gay Mulatto xirself, but it easily could have been any random dindu), that the reason ‘All Lives Matter’ is, despite the innocuous message of the slogan, a slap in the face to Our Unsullied Underserved is because it belittles the “special vulnerability” that blacks experience in their violent, crime-ridden communities and to the police that are tasked with the thankless (and life-threatening) job to keep order there.

Apparently, to our aggrieved half-blood president and sun-dried blacktivists, only blacks have a special vulnerability to black violence and to police abuse of power. But the reality is, as usual, 180 degrees removed from the Numinous Negro Narrative; if anything, Whites have a special vulnerability to predatory, violence-prone blacks. Even after controlling for relative population sizes and frequency of inter-race contact, black-on-white crime is disproportionately more common than the inverse. And police shootings disproportionately involve White suspects. Those are two big media-manufactured anti-White whoppers debunked by stone cold data.

What is going on here is pure psychological projection. Blacks and their perpetually pissed mulatto mouthpieces and libfag White patrons know deep down that EVERYONE ELSE is especially vulnerable to black predation; it’s not just blacks who can’t relax around other blacks….. no one can. So when a black hears ‘All Lives Matter’ he is reminded that once again Whitey is not giving him the MUH RESPECK he feels in the haze of his tumescent self-esteem he richly deserves. Blacks, especially the talented tenth ones, get that their race is a stand-out menace, and that’s what motivates projecting their failures onto the White Man, who serves as the shame-magnet for black dysfunction. To be rudely informed by the implications in a harmless and inclusive platitude that black lives are not uniquely vulnerable to police misconduct or violent crime is a Bled Pill too ferric to swallow for a race so thin-skinned they kill if you dawdle while handing over your wallet.

You’re on a first date with a girl. During the date, she conspicuously scratches and rubs her nose. Red-faced, she explains that when she’s nervous her nose twitches and itches uncontrollably. You reply:

A. Warm smile: “Aw, don’t worry about it. My nose itches like that when I’m nervous, too.”

B. Sly smirk: “I see that charm school tuition really paid off.”

C. Frown: “Damn, gross.”

.

.

.

.

.

The astute reader will note the given replies are representative of the major dating male archetypes: the beta, the charming jerkboy, the asshole. Two of those three you don’t want to be (and one you definitely never want to be). The lesson here is that newbs often confuse jerkboy charisma and assholery as the same thing, when they are very different, in execution if not in substance.

Days of Broken Arrows writes,

I’ve noticed that no one — and I mean no one — despises Trump quite like barren older women. As with Sarah Palin, they seethe with envy because fertility. The biggest anti-Trumpers I know are dried up old tarts.

I think this is right. Basically, Trump’s biggest haters are TheCunt’s biggest supporters. Which is fitting. This epic cage match is, when you boil it down, a war between White self-annihilators and proudly fertile Whites (using fertile in both the biological and cultural meanings). Existential, you might call it.

There are some aspects of Game that qualify more as art than science. Everything is reducible, but the poetic oscillations of life most strongly defy digestible truncation. Seduction has those poetic parts that emotionally resonate but yield little to logical examination that the limbic system hasn’t already deduced.

This came to mind in a recent post about a reader who tried to pique the curiosity of a hindquarter-flaunting attention whore over (I presume) Tinder. I gave him some advice, but in the end he lost her with this line:

i fucked up by asking her “isnt it past your bedtime?”. the broad didnt reply

As I explained to him, I would’ve warned him (if I knew ahead of time) that that line was a tingle stopper. Girls hear that and think “creepy beta trying to keep me up all night talking sex”.

But why, exactly, is that line icky to girls, but a similar line that is CH-approved —

“go to sleep stalker. i’ve gotta get up tmrw”

— is alluring to girls?

We can all feel in our bones how awful that first line is, but what precisely is it in that combination of words in the original iteration that curdles cooch? If chatting with Tinder girls is an art impregnable to deeper scrutiny, how is a man supposed to know what will work and won’t work?

I’m about to ¡SCIENCE! this bitch all up in here. The first line – “isn’t it past your bedtime?” – suffers from two pussy-parching flaws:

  1. It’s a question asked far too early in the interaction (immediate questioning puts the man in the unsexy chaser role, begging for scraps of info from the girl)
  2. The word choice, and the innuendo ejaculating from the sentence, trigger a girl’s anti-slut defense system. She hears “bedtime” and thinks “sexytime”. She also feels the question implies she’s staying up just for him. Nothing wrong with assuming the sale, unless you pull that card too soon and without sufficient confidence in your hand.

The second line – “go to sleep stalker. i’ve gotta get up tmrw” – solves these problems. It’s a statement, not a question. And it avoids ASD-triggering sex words. It also assumes the sale, but less cloyingly; the facetious “stalker” accusation is a false disqualification that makes girls’ hearts race. The second line insinuates that the man is the “chasee”, and that perception influences how she will feel toward him (intrigued), but the insinuation is couched in a cocky jerkboy dismissal rather than a yearning horny inquiry.

On a whiteboard, the two lines aren’t all that substantively different. But in the realm of pickup, seemingly trivial word choices can accelerate, or blow up, a rolling seduction.

Melania’s speech was a better remake than ghostbusters.

Heh. As most of you know by now, Melania’s uplifting speech at the CuckNC convention contained a few lines apparently ripped from a Macaque Obama DNC speech. Cucks, naturally, were besides themselves, lathering into a high dudgeon about Melania’s writer lifting lines from Michelle’s writer, (while continuing to evade realtalk about black crime).

I would have dismissed this non-event as incompetence on the part of one of the Trump campaign’s speechwriters, until I found out there was also a Rick Roll meme-egg buried in the speech. That sealed it for me: a saboteur was working from within Trump Central to humiliate him and his beautiful, classy wife. This could not have been a mere cohencidence. And I’m not the only one to notice the workings of a mole.

Let’s get one thing straight about the anti-Melania hate: It’s the domain of ugly women and the effeminate beta manlets who see Melania as every girl who ever friendzoned them. Which means just about every feminist, male lapdog, and cuckbot in existence. Shitlibs and cucks don’t sincerely believe the plagiarism kerfaggle is a great moral failing; if they did, they’d have feverishly flapped their limp wrists in the direction of Gay Mullato, Joe Biden, and Martin Luther Kong Jr., all violators of the Credentialist sacred commandment to cite original sources of sappy bromides.

(I’ll plagiarize myself from Twatter: The wages of #credentialism: Fags more hysterical about source of anodyne convention speech than they are about massive demographic change.)

Back to the Trumpentraitor mole. It was either a physically sickly Dem operative or a balloon-faced cuckservative. The hate for Trump is equally intense in both groups. My bet is that the mole is a cuck. SJWs and the rest of the degenerate freak mafia will go on protesting and gathering shekels during the Trump Rule, but cucks will lose everything. They are discredited now; they’ll be out of work once Trump is elected and exacts his justified revenge. Cucks/neocons have nothing to lose by pulling every dirty trick in the book to prevent a Trump Ascension. Expect to see this and much worse in the coming months from snakes and saboteurs slithering out from the GOPe stool-warming machine.

So what should Trump do? He takes my advice, so here it is.

If there’s an anti-Trump mole:

1. Caving to cuck need for apology/admission: BAD

2. Quietly firing mole while publicly trolling cucks: GOOD

And on a more personal note, Donald if you want this, you have to vet your insiders under the assumption that all of them are potential elements of subversion. Due diligence. This applies to Mike Pence, too. The stakes are higher than even you know.

There is a great deal of cucking in a nation.
– Elder Smith

***

Someone named John Robb adds,

She had an NYC author she knew edit the speech. That’s how the sabotage and the rickroll were inserted.

Isn’t it just like a (((Manhattanite))) to prey on the innocence and trust of a comely )))woman(((.

***

As is his wont, The Trumpening masterfully reframed this “”””controversy”””.

Good news is Melania’s speech got more publicity than any in the history of politics especially if you believe that all press is good press!

How can you not love this guy? Oh I suppose if you tendered your balls to the cuck altar, you might not be able to love Trump, but that’s a lonely price to pay for MUH TRUCON PRINCIPLES.

The Don Will See You Now

Zero integrity spergratsnake Ted Cruz betrayed his pledge to endorse the GOP nominee and soapboxed tonight about his “conscience”, refusing to endorse Trump in a speech that was delivered in draft format only two hours before Cruz’s scheduled podium time.

The Trumpioso family sat in the audience somberly listening to Cruz’s speech, each of them looking like they were about to give the kiss of death to Scruz’s political career.

thedonwillseeyounow

In order:

Disgust, Anger, Contempt.

All three are vital emotions that have been sorely missing from the American Right, and never more needed than now.

Ivanka’s expression is the most soul-killing. That’s the look a woman gives to a man who proves himself a coward.

thedondondon

You’re fired….from life.

It bears repeating that this is the greatest US election season in living memory. And the fun is only just beginning. Wait until TheCunt is squarely in Don Trump’s cross hairs.

Within these hallowed stony Chateau halls, scribes once labored to define for a general audience the characteristics of the alpha male, the beta male, and the rest of the men who reside somewhere along the SMV (sexual market value) ball curve of male desirability.

Due to this enduring confusion about what makes an alpha, I submit the following system, in the form of a handy chart, to help clear the air.  It hits on the three major factors influencing male rank — how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.

Keep in mind that there is no line in the sand that separates betas from alphas — the distribution of men by their attractiveness to women follows an uneven continuum where at the extremes a small percentage of alphas monopolize an immense number of quality women and a much larger blob of omegas struggle to rut with warpigs.

It was an accurate definition that by dint of its perspicacity was also arid. Many house guests felt intellectually nourished but emotionally disconnected by an explanation of male attractiveness that lacked sensate grounding to earthy personal observation. With that shortcoming in mind, I present a more poetic definition of male sexual market value: The Beach Body Metric. The sorting remains the same, but the measurement has changed.

Omega male: Girlfriend is never beach body ready
Beta male: Girlfriend is beach body ready in the summer
Alpha male: Girlfriend is ready for the beach year round

For those of you (newbs) who thought “beach body metric” referred to men’s physiques….HAHA much to learn you have. In the realm of romantic desire, men are visual; women are holistic. This means a beach body ready woman is likely to be dating a HSMV man, but the inverse — a beach body ready man — is not necessarily as good a bet to be dating a HSMV woman.

More succinctly, female beach body beauty is a LEADING INDICATOR of female romantic success. A hot woman with a perfect 0.7 waste-hip ratio and a BMI in the 17-23 range is as good as a royal flush to win the love of winner men.

Male physique is more accurately a LAGGING INDICATOR of male romantic success. That is, men who have the full suite of attractiveness traits that women love are likely to be confident men who think too highly of themselves to let their body go to shit.

The Beach Body Metric reasoning is simple:

A low value man will be stuck dating no one, or dating only fat and ugly women who have no intention, nor motivation, to shape up and re-assume a natural hair color. A man on the beach in the company of a land whale is almost guaranteed to be a loser.

A middling value man will be with a girl who still feels enough self-esteem to at least try and look good when it matters (such as on the beach). The problem for the middling beta male is that the circumscribed and temporary allegiance of his girlfriend to shaping up is a telltale sign she’s more interested in looking good FOR OTHER MEN. The rest of the year she proves by her lack of interest in looking good that she doesn’t much value her beta boyfriend’s needs.

A high value man will be with a girl who looks beach body ready ALL THE TIME. She rarely has a downtime (maybe for a few days after popping out his alpha triplets). Her commitment to looking good year-round is a major cue that she’s primarily interested in looking good FOR HER MAN, fearing (rightfully) that if she lets herself go, he’ll let himself go away. She RESPECTS her man’s sexual desire, and strives to fulfill his desire’s preconditions. Anti-feminist? You bet! Pro-healthy relationship? You bet! No accident feminism and healthy loving relationships are diametrically opposed.

If you are a man with a GF who’s never beach body ready, kill yourself.

If you are a man with a GF who only frets about her figure when summer approaches, learn Game.

If you are a man with a GF who tries her darndest to look good all the time, pinch the iota of baby fat on her ass as a gentle jerkboy reminder to keep it up.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Also reachable over Tor: roissyrwpgxawb3etwznvay4eelbws4lkdtr4tt2r7wxb6adq6pajtqd.onion