A Simple Advice for a Boy

Good teachers have an ability to wrap complex ideas in a few simple, memorable words. A friend I talk with about Alt-Right politics has that talent. You appreciate it when someone who isn’t familiar with our ideas but is interested asks him a question, which he answers with a zing! that makes the concept clear.

Imagine a scenario in which you are mortally injured and you only have a minute to tell your ten-year-old son, who’s right next to you, everything you know before you lose consciousness and close your eyes for good. Your kid knows you love him, but you can tell him that anyway. But what else do you tell him? Haze settles over your thoughts.

Or, you are a high school coach. Your team just won the final game of the season and as you congratulate these bright-eyed teenagers, one of them asks “coach, got any advice for us—I mean, in general?” That advice, simple and comprehensive, good for a teenager or a child, is encapsulated in these three points:

Fear God. Respect good men. Believe in yourself.

This advice happens to follow Christ’s directive in Luke 10:27, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” Here, however, I say fear rather than love on account of the latter word’s contemporary churchian corruption. The young man will also take the word fear more seriously; it will make him think.

About that first instruction, to fear God—”But isn’t religion superfluous?”—asks an agnostic. To that, I can reply: there are things that are greater than you. Give them their due and your life will be better.

Now, on to the second point, respecting good men. This helps you avoid being a Gamma male. Just as importantly, sincere respect for men of character—as well as for men who had mastered a skill or overcome challenges, or are simply older than you and have given you no reason to hold them in low regard—teaches humility and self-knowledge.

Finally, believing in yourself helps you trust your instincts and gives you the courage and dynamism to take what you want from life.

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “A Simple Advice for a Boy

  1. The issue at hand is that “we” exist in a post-Christian/post-liberated, radically autonomous society such that “fear,” “good”, “men,” and “self” are all irresolvably contentious “things.” So, where a liberal “fears” God because He is “evil,” a Christian fears God because He is Perfection AND SO “fear” is the wrong word to use UNLESS you are trying to convince your son that God is “evil.” Likewise, “good” to a liberal is one who embraces “equality,” ie., rejects Perfection… BELIEVES God to be “evil” and worthy of fear. Furthermore, “men” now include out and out homosexuals. Thus, those homosexuals who fear God because He is “evil” are “good men.” Which brings “us” to your hypothetical son’s “self.” Which way does he go in this total psychological confabulation? Your last words AT THIS TIME AND PLACE should AIM to resolve a young white boy’s identity crisis… To set in stone a true self.

    My philosophy to my boys is such…

    Put your mind on objective Supremacy.

    Train your upper body as though you are to be crucified.

    And work that lower body as though you were to be a beast of burden.

  2. Considering that all these kids have, or the majority of these, have family and friends who are in the right path. I could imagine this in the middle of a Chrustian, beautiful, rural neighborhood.

    A diverse, urban area is a different story.

    The former would be America in the future in the best case cenario. The late would be America in the worst case cenario.

  3. I’d tell my son, “Protect your mother and sisters. Don’t follow the herd. You’ll see me again, boy. I love you.”

  4. Great article, PA – and I don’t mean to split hairs – but is “believe in yourself” more the kind of platitude that America didn’t hear much of until the early stages of America’s descent into the feelings-obsessed, Oprah-fied, hyper-feminized cucknocracy we have today? Every time I hear that phrase used around kids today I feel like wretching, it reminds me of Jesse Jackson and his “I am somebody!!” bullshi**.

    Prior to that great fathers would’ve certainly taught their son to do that, but without stating it in so many words.

  5. Any thoughts on my point in the original post?

    Well, it’s hypothetical for me—– but I really liked Philomathean’s riff: sweetly profound and concise…… my apologies for being a bit scattered and intrusively off-topic yesterday; it’d be nice to have a reference post to dump ‘post’ suggestions into or something along those lines; that way, one could have their suggestion felt out but not interrupt things.

  6. “Train your upper body as though you are to be crucified.

    And work that lower body as though you were to be a beast of burden.”

    I may regret asking, but here goes: What do you mean in the above quote?

  7. “Fear God. Respect good men. Believe in yourself.”

    Very good. I would modify a slight bit, by having the last phrase be: “Believe in yourself and your people.”

  8. Isn’t it the case though, that children can only learn by example?

    Any advice that they hear is going to be understood along the lines of available examples.

  9. Nikcrit…

    The base assumption is that the father desires the perfect son and the son desires the perfect father. And so from a mutual desire for objective Supremacy, both within and without, are the commensurate consequences DUE a radically liberated society.

    These fathers and sons who seek objective Supremacy are bound for crucifixion, mostly psychological and yet perhaps literal, and in general will be put to the plow by a mad mob of liberationists. So physically, training your shoulders as though you were to be hanged by your impaled palms makes for quite the striker prepared for the gob of goons And of course, because one desires Perfection and the inherent perpetuation that characterizes its existence then training as though one was mandated to pull the plow readies one to endure the suffering of his desire for objective Supremacy.

    It should be ever clear by now that “our” side loses because it does not want to fight… For Perfection or itself. I want to teach my sons to fight for their perfected self because self-annihilation is the only other option.

  10. I like to think that having grown up early under the plague of single momhood, when most decent White people didn’t understand my experience yet, gives me a lot of valuable insight. Nevertheless, wrapping the things it took me decades of suffering to learn the hard way into neat little packages is the challenge. I have a young man I care about deeply; what do I wish I knew when I was his age?

    Women and girls are human “beings”. Boys and men are human “doings”. You will never be valued and loved just for being yourself.

    Bravery is the keystone of manhood. Failure is a reality of life and is no big deal. Cowardice is far more more shameful than failure. Any woman who sees you afraid, even once, will never want to have sex with you again.

    People, especially girls, assume you are the best judge of yourself. Humility is morally righteous but it will destroy you, because only wise men understand it. An idiot who thinks he’s a genius will do far better than a genius who thinks he’s an idiot.

    The sexes are not equal and it is biologically impossible for women to love you in the same nurturing, protective way that you feel towards them. Your love for them is similar to the way they love their children, but they can only “love” you kind of like the way you love your parents. When was the last time you worried about your Mom or Dad’s needs? You simply feel that they naturally exist for your benefit, and can only appreciate what they do for you through conscious effort. It doesn’t matter how unfair it is: your love for them is based almost entirely on your need of them. That’s how girls feel about you, so in this society where the needs of women are all taken care of, most men will never be loved. Women can love men selflessly, but only through subservience, so the only men who can be loved by women are the ones who can rule them as they rule their children. A child/woman “loves” a parent/husband who has no power over her as you and I “love” the air we breath, the electricity that runs our computers, and the water that comes out of the tap. Until it’s gone, we don’t. You and I can’t have it until we burn it all down and take it with might, and vengeance, and courage…

    See, I can’t make it concise, and it’s a good thing.
    Maybe it’s better that he probably won’t listen to someone who had already gone MGTOW before he was even born. I wonder at what point it isn’t better than he doesn’t know. I don’t want him to suffer like I have. I know so much he needs, but too much for his and my own good. How do I know where to stop?

  11. I think so, PA.Thanks for asking.
    I’m still well respected and somewhat liked by my direct subordinates and indirect colleagues as far as I can tell. Part of my power strategy has always been trying to secure their loyalty. But based on my last jobs, this is right around the part in the timeline where it starts to go sour though, and I’m not that great at reading people.

    I don’t say, “If you could do X, that would be great,” like Lumbergh anymore, thinking I should put on a facade that following my instructions is voluntary. I say, “Employee, can you please do X?” Expressing my authority directly got easier with practice and I can tell it’s better. I still need to work on eye contact. I have a useful (low SMV) Asian lady that is super submissive and obedient to me to the point it’s almost embarrassing. I almost feel bad for the White husband who ordered her off the internet. I am finding Western females are much more pleasant and cooperative to deal with than even a year ago, and I had a mid-SMV Asian female who hasn’t been westernized yet are actually come on to me directly last week. And I had put on a few pounds over Christmas.

    Way things are going right now, that’s not my major concern anymore. I think that’s an indicator of success. I’m more worried about dealing with my superiors, though I’m usually pretty good at handling them. I keep learning that Game concepts work, but they’re hard to keep up. I can’t remain vigilant 24/7. While tired and frustrated the other day I let some of my passive-agressive Gamma slip out in a way that could come back to bite me.

    Thing is I actually have a direct superior who I genuinely respect based on merit, and genuine understanding of the difficulties I face. Even though I rarely deal with my direct boss, that has a massive benefit to my job quality. As always, though, the idiots at the top keep making unreasonable decisions that seem retarded to the people in the trenches. I keep failing to understand how these companies keep managing to not sink. Then I keep remembering the public is even stupider.

    Something I wanted to say since you ask though, is I had no idea what to comment about “Knowing my Place in the Hierarchy”. I’ve been stewing on it for a while.

    Genuine Sigma as a child (lots of girlfriends, played with my first p***y at 5 years old with another girl the same age, far less impressed with the authority of adults than anyone else), Omega as an adolescent despite being good looking as even I could only deal with so much abuse before breaking, Gamma as an adult after some healing. (e.g. I know I am still the subject of most of my own comments and can’t help it.) That’s my best guess but I don’t know if the model fits for me very well because it depends on the situation. What seems to work best for me is to try and fake Delta or Beta for men and women respectively.

  12. My advice to a boy would be

    You go to live with your father now.

    At the age of 10 or 12, or approximately whenever.

    It is pretty obvious, really. Those ‘forms’ are understood by most traditional societies, and they are enacted with some ritual or another, and the boy becomes a man.

    In our modern society, for the most part that does not happen. But everyone knows about ‘becoming a man’ on an instinctive level, and there are emergent rites and passages, but they leave a lot of boys and probably most of them, on the sideline.

    The best example of such an emergent rite of passage is the football team, as in ‘going out for the team’. However, not everyone goes out for the team. Most healthy guys want to participate in sports, and if they don’t qualify at the selective level of the traveling squad that goes on to become the varsity team, then they still might go out for one of the second-tier sports such as swimming or cross-country or track, and if not that, then hopefully at least one of the third-tier activities such as band or chess club.

    All those activities call to mind 50s America, and for that matter 80s America in which i grew up, during which there were residual adumbrations of the aforementioned forms. See for example the Breakfast Club with the first tier athlete jock and the third tier “but still social” chess club mathlete, and the other representatives. Great movie of course, featuring for a themetrack the memorable if however sentimental goth power ballad by Simple Minds.

    But that is all topical along the topical topic lines of Advice to a Boy. What those high school heroes are doing is struggling to become. Without getting sidetracked into that movie, their portrayal is ultimately optimistic in that it all ends on a good note. The 80s were still an optimistic time. It might have been a more serious and better movie had it somehow foreshadowed something else. But then it would not have the breakfast club.

    But the topic of The Breakfast Club is in fact SENTIMENTAL to me and my generation. Sentimentalism is a deep topic, … man.

    I read an interesting comment by the oracle Janos over at Kunstler, which commenter there is the only reason to bother with that board, where he noted that a good percentage of people and he used Mark Twain as an example – peak in childhood and or adolescence and their life becomes about that, and the constant reframing of their experience, then. That comment cuts as i spend a lot of time looking back. Real men however are living in this day. They are doing things.

  13. It is NOT just about DOING things, though.

    The nature of life is balance and holistic. The best men are complete, and they are reposed as well as active.

    Someone such as Trump is not necessarily a WHOLE man, he is 100 per cent yang and the antidote for our times, but.

    Is it known whether or not Trump is circumcised?

    That is a sensitive topic, but it too is topically topical on the theme, of Advice for a Boy.

  14. I resent having had my penis mutilated.

    Without getting into “wow that really hurt” simply consider that it makes sex a less sensual experience.

    The obvious implications into pair bonding and emotional attachment and family formation and development and stability, are so obviously obvious that we don’t talk about them not because they are too obvious but because it is embarrassing and shameful.

    Oh, by the way, sorry about that.

  15. Heretic Phi — Genuine Sigma as a child (lots of girlfriends, […], far less impressed with the authority of adults than anyone else), Omega as an adolescent despite being good looking as even I could only deal with so much abuse before breaking, Gamma as an adult after some healing.

    Obviously it’s unreliable to “rank” someone you don’t know personally, but I would guess that your baseline has always been Delta — siding to very low Delta in what you call your Omega years, and then to actual Gamma, to take your word for it.

    Most people who describe themselves as Sigma, then or now, probably weren’t, even if they think so sincerely. Sigmas are very rare; one way to put yourself into a Sigma’s shoes is to imagine having near-zero need for social approval. I don’t mean some kind of a defiant goth posture, but an almost autistic-like indifference to what people think of you, positive or negative. As comparison, even an Alpha wants social approval — in the form of deference and respect, to be sure, and in the form of respect from even-greater Alphas.

    Omegas are similar to Sigmas in that sense, in their social-outcome independence. Omegas don’t really suffer in their outcast state. If they do, they are probably not Omegas, but introverted Gammas or heavily underperforming Deltas.

    Many men who think about Vox Day’s hierarchy have a aversion to Delta, picturing them as docile and dull sort of followers. A corrective to that mindset — besides understanding that most men are Deltas — is to think of a Marine combat platoon, full of cocky, wisecracking but loveable assholes. Tom Hank’s character in “Saving Private Ryan” was a Delta. Or a team of Apollo mission engineers. Yes — barring the rare natural leader or Casanova, they are all Deltas. As I described in the “Assess Your Place on the Hierarchy” post, Paul McCartney is a great example of a maxed-out Delta who couldn’t quite break into the Beta ranks. All of those examples are good company to find oneself among.

    I would also guess that people who recall anecdotes of charming the pants out of girls are talking about episodes of peak-performance as Deltas. Higher Deltas do well with women, they just don’t get the first tier women that Alphas or Sigmas do.

    In the many stories of self-improvement-through-game we’ve read on PUA sites, rising from lower to greater Delta is where all the action’s at.

  16. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Stupid is Evil is Stupid Edition | Patriactionary

  17. Camlost — but is “believe in yourself” more the kind of platitude that America didn’t hear much of until the early stages of America’s descent into the feelings-obsessed, Oprah-fied, hyper-feminized cucknocracy

    I hear ya, yet I think that in certain circumstances, “believe in yourself” transcends pop sentimentality. Taken the right way, it relates to Jesus’s “thyself” part of the “love your neighbor as thyself.” As in, Christ’s entire directive for dealing with other people rests on a solid regard for oneself. It also relates to Shakespeare’s “to thine own self be true” advice in Hamlet. The point of those lofty comparisons is that there is in fact depth to “believe in yourself.”

    Peterike — I would modify a slight bit, by having the last phrase be: “Believe in yourself and your people.”

    I was aiming for simplicity, as we can endlessly tack-on advice, like “also – don’t forget to neg chicks. Lift weights. Oh, and don’t forget to….” My hope is that “believe in yourself” will take the kid to believing in himself in his full scope as a human being, to include his identity.

  18. What PA really means when he says “believe in yourself” is to “believe that you have the right to exist.” At first glance, this seems so trivial until the phenomenon of high IQ “white” male self-annihilators comes to your attention. Ergo, that core of the alt-rite/Neo’s reaction who author the reactionary narrative DO NOT BELIEVE in their right to existence from conception. Thus, no matter how truthful their message, the messenger is a stunted and pathologically infected “spirit.” His claim to a new collective order is rendered ABSURD when recognizing his base assumption. And because all sides reject objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, AND the alt-rite/Neo’s reaction ARE THE SAVVIEST AT HIDING this anti-(white) Supremacy THEN said movement is the most “successfully” diabolical maneuver towards mass “white” self-annihilation. To be a “racist” anti-white Supremacist IS TO BE zeitgeist 3.0.

  19. Thordaddy: “believe in yourself” is to “believe that you have the right to exist.” At first glance, this seems so trivial until the phenomenon of high IQ “white” male self-annihilators comes to your attention. Ergo, that core of the alt-rite/Neo’s reaction who author the reactionary narrative DO NOT BELIEVE in their right to existence from conception. Thus, no matter how truthful their message, the messenger is a stunted and pathologically infected “spirit.”
    Guilty. Working on it. Good show.
    And because all sides reject objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, AND the alt-rite/Neo’s reaction ARE THE SAVVIEST AT HIDING this anti-(white) Supremacy THEN said movement is the most “successfully” diabolical maneuver towards mass “white” self-annihilation. To be a “racist” anti-white Supremacist IS TO BE zeitgeist 3.0.
    Lost me here…

  20. It also relates to Shakespeare’s “to thine own self be true” advice in Hamlet. The point of those lofty comparisons is that there is in fact depth to “believe in yourself.”

    You know, if there’s one beef I have against alt-right bloggerdom it’s that we participants don’t look to the classics enough as a guide to our own lives. (and I say “classics” more in the looser sense of the entire Western canon, from Homer – Aristotle – Virgil – Augustine – Bacon – Shakespeare – Hobbes etc. etc.) But this “game” crap has gotten really out of hand and I think there’s a growing, almost hypocritical disconnect here.

    And I’m not claiming that I’m always as high-minded as I should be, either, but if we endlessly praise the superiority of Western civilization and knowledge, maybe we should probably expend more effort into constantly exhibiting what it’s taught us about proper behavior and masculinity for thousands of years. But, PA I think you’ve done an excellent job yourself of keeping your own blog classy and always promoting and exhibiting the “best of the West” in terms of ideals and culture.

    For instance, I mentioned classical stoicism in a post the other day. In lay terms, it teaches us how to be composed, mature and unflappable – in other words, how to act like a f***ing man (as Don Corleone would say). But instead of talking about lofty ideals, we look silly giving an ear to Heartiste while he provides high schoolish advice on how you should engage chicks in childishly crass text conversations where you allude to your wang 8 times… and this is right below a different post where he just talked at length about dindus and how 3rd world civilization sucks. And the post before that had the nerve to talk about “red pill/blue pill” theory, while also going on to lambaste clueless white males who haven’t woken up and subscribed our highly principled movement.

    If you’ve really got to resort to all of this to get laid are you really that much of a man? Shouldn’t we be teaching that if you compose yourself like a real f***ing man (and not some pitiful chameleon attempting to put on airs and run sad game schemes) then you’ll attract the women who like real men? In other worlds – if straightforward, honest and noble manliness was good enough for our forefathers, then why isn’t it good enough for us?

    PS – and I’m not really understanding what over-21 white chicks (with an actual, real job/and or education) are actually falling for the bulk of the crazy buffoonery that “game” often proposes, but that’s a completely different topic.

  21. Camlost, thanks man. Positive words truly appreciated. More on Heartiste in a moment, but here is an early insight of his that has stuck with me: the Jumbotron Test. It means that whatever you say, write, text, etc., imagine that it’s flashed up on the stadium jumbotron. Are you gonna be embarrassed or ok with what’s displayed? With that in mind, I write the way I do because I don’t want to be embarrassed by the things I had written, for example when my son reads this years from now.

    There is also the doxing factor. While I doubt I’m on any SJW’s radar and I don’t get into personal feuds, you never know which way technology goes. You can’t rule out a mass-market app that I.D.’s the author of anything that anyone had posted online. But here is the important part — there is no need to be shy about the actual ideological content of what you write, because being “just a little anti-PC” won’t save you — so you may as well write what you honestly think. George Zimmerman was what made me not care about how many PC idols I smash. There was a tri- (quadro?)-racial man with perfect diversity credentials, who likely never wrote a single racisss word in his life, and yet look what they tried to do to him. So it’s only the style, not the content, that I police myself on.

    As to Heartiste, he’s not for everyone. For example, there is only one guy in real life I know personally who reads my blog. He’s an Alt-Righter like me, but he said “I’m not into your site. You’re kinda a windbag like Heartiste. I like short and to-the-point writing like at ROK.” Well, after kicking his ass for the impudence, I thanked him for the unintended and undeserved compliment (CH is a brilliant prose writer) and explained to him that some people like meaty or elevated prose, just as there are different styles in music. He’s an engineer though, so his Spartan taste is understandable.

    Re. your specific objections to Heartiste, I understand, but his work is revolutionary. He was the first to connect the mechanics of seduction with the larger political picture by pointing to, and showing how to dismantle, the same superstructure of lies that had governed the average White male’s dispossession on the dating market and general White dispossession in politics. He’s also a grenade lobber (when he’s not doing a surgical-precision shiv), so some of his posts will be dead-on, others off-mark but even his more crass material comes from the spirit of “be confident.”

  22. “But instead of talking about lofty ideals, we look silly giving an ear to Heartiste while he provides high schoolish advice on how you should engage chicks in childishly crass text conversations where you allude to your wang 8 times… and this is right below a different post where he just talked at length about dindus and how 3rd world civilization sucks. And the post before that had the nerve to talk about “red pill/blue pill” theory, while also going on to lambaste clueless white males who haven’t woken up and subscribed our highly principled movement.

    If you’ve really got to resort to all of this to get laid are you really that much of a man? Shouldn’t we be teaching that if you compose yourself like a real f***ing man (and not some pitiful chameleon attempting to put on airs and run sad game schemes) then you’ll attract the women who like real men? In other worlds – if straightforward, honest and noble manliness was good enough for our forefathers, then why isn’t it good enough for us?

    I’ve had similar sentiments but usually refrain from expressing them because i look at that blog as a alt-right ‘piss-n-vinegar’ bonding place that doesn’t need some polite outlier/outcast’s five cents worth.

    But man, there are moments where i wonder the critical self-examination is at that place. For one, going by the pscyh-ops principles of game touted by that very blog, WTF impression do you think women get when they read all that exaggerated and caricaturized and outright fearful diatribing about ‘mudsharking.’ Talk about creating intrigue and obsession where perhaps none previously existed, damn!

    I too think CH is a clever and nimble writer. IMHO it the comments section that needs some reconsideration there; some of the familiar faces there need to be a bit less so, says my humble five. They’re hurting both the blog’s rep and often the very point of that particular post.

  23. Heretic Phi…

    The core of the alt-rite are the “white” nerds of GenX (a double redundancy now obscured by total liberation). And this core JUST IS anti-white Supremacy EQUAL TO the dindu… And the Jew… And you? “Race-realism” is the stuff of statistic and “science”, ie., HBD (Have Been Duped; no free will for white man)… AND NOT personal experience AT A YOUNG AGE either in the classroom, the courts and fields or the streets. Non-nerds GOT “race-real” A LONG TIME AGO!!!

    So now “we” have a “white racist” anti-white Supremacist in the guise of “alt-rite…” Something akin to a “perfect” imperfectionist… A Jewish “Supremacist…” A lesbian “lady…” A homosexual “man…” A “moderate” jihadist… A “good” nigger… All radical autonomists cloaked in various oxymoronic conceptions for the purpose of maximizing one’s personal autonomy within an understood collective chaos.

  24. We are trying to correct the course of things, and at the same time get our dicks wet in good with vagina juice.

    So yes the juxtaposition – of the sacred and the propane – is the source of some skepticism, yup.

    “Be a fucking man.” – wasn’t it Phil Leotardo who said that though, to Vito’s son, after killing his father? Remember that scene, over ice cream, and Vito’s kid has gone goth and Phil was trying to straighten him out.

  25. nikcrit, Camlost, i would join in your chorus of criticism, but can’t find the right note right now.

    The angle to approach it from, is WHY is CH so popular – and realistically, at this point, famous.

    Real quick. On the positive side, there is a lot of fluid intelligence there. On the negative side, their approach is lacking for humanistic balance or whatever the hell.

    MPC is the definitive source for criticism of CH, the manosphere, red pill, whatever. I wrote some thoughts down here on this blog, jokingly referring to the Great Schism, between the philosophers on the one hand, such as Matt King and others including me; and on the other and the lounge lizard clowns, who are quick witted as well but limited from the vantage poolside. Ultimately that vantage is limiting. You want to have something to say, about life? you have to have the experience of it. That includes … all of it.

    You can’t come up with meaning from meaningless-ness. DF Wallace gave it a try, and it didn’t work out. Tom Wolfe basically answered about all that too.

    **************

    Whatever. Old man versus young man, that is part of it. Once someone is no longer having to look for a person with whom to do it, his perspective changes. I can’t do justice to the topic, not now. It is a book length topic.

    Placing CH and the larger scene in context, needs time and consideration. But consider: Who is addressing our concerns. No one is addressing our concerns, which is why we are here.

    Which leads me to my second point. Sailer in his coverage of the Great White Death, went over a NYT article on the topic, which article contains the phrase,

    How is your life going?

    The answer to which is suggested as a key to understanding what is going on with the White Death rate.

    Well i must say that i asked that question, that i considered the White Death rate in those personal terms, and more or less used that exact phrase, at 28Sherman and i think here too – emphasizing how these macro trends are OUR LIVES WRIT LARGE.

    It is an obvious association, and yet it still needs to be made.

    That can be read as frustration at being marginalized. As in writing here at this blog, as opposed to having a platform of respect. I am absolutely convinced that the best writers in this part of the web are being read by force multipliers. It is too obvious. If there is a better place for opinions on our situation, our current ‘scene’ – let me know and i’ll go there.

    See how i did that – you can’t suggest a better place because if you could you would be there too. I am not trying to flatter anyone, it is just a statement of fact, that our concerns are ‘marginalized’. And that is a funny word which is why it is in quotes, but it is a funny situation.

  26. There is a huge opportunity for everyone reading this, to participate in creating the “new stuff”, as Peter Gabriel might have put it.

    But you know what i mean – if you are reading this, you are looking for someone to help talk with this situation we are in. It is frustrating.

    I am tired. Literally tired from another fuckin day. Being downtown and on the bus, what a fuckin steamroll shitjob that all is …

    But just seeing all that, the scene and what it’s become, and this is the playground of our lives?! – and then to add insult to injury, the Jew York Times is going to explain to us about the White Death.

    Those people are going to put in terms for us to talk about. I don’t think that those there terms will be adequate.

    I look out at the street, Hennepin Avenue waiting for the number 6 to take me south, and i am the white man on the scene. Little old me, the white man on the scene – well that’s fucked up in more ways then one. First of all, where are all the other white men.

    And second, anyone wondering why certain people – say WHITE people – are not living long and prospering – well LOOK AROUND! The street is full of hostile interest groups, and there is no structure – no Intentional Superstructure – with which to construct our lives.

    Who will prosper under these conditions. These are not the conditions of a traditional white society, and traditional white men are not going to prosper!

    I saw that movie last night, and it was a failure on the book, however it was a good movie and it gets 1 out of 2 stars (it was good not great, and not a goose egg) and it had a line that i don’t recall from the book but it must have been in there because it was pretty faithful in most details.

    Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is lamenting his failure to keep back Chigurh, and his uncle says to him, in the penultimate scene, “You can’t stop what’s coming.”

    Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is us. He was outmatched, and but it is a larger conflict. That book was set in 1980. Who has that country now?

  27. Quite simply, we want to be part of something.

    But it turns out that we are all dying early, and all the others are living longer.

    Maybe the Jew York Times will tell us what that’s about.

    Or maybe we might figure it ourselves.

    I have asked for your story. Not necessarily in a series on this blog thread, but somehow else then.

    I have more to say about that, but what more is there to say. In a sentence – the narrative arts but forget about film. Film is the finishing touch, but it has to be put all the way on the backburner, until everything else is prepared.

    But we have to create our Identity with our stories, and with what has happened to us. And forget about film school and that gay approach.

    Alternately we can create an identity by bonding together and killing a bunch of people – that is how it usually is done. But i don’t want to do that and neither do you, wink wink.

  28. “then to add insult to injury, the NY Times is going to explain to us about the White Death”

    I gotta admit, i almost posted a link to that article here the other day; the writer actually found a way to put partial blame to this sad trend on …. yep, ‘white racism’—— or at least old-school white racism.

    To wit:
    And here is one solution to the death-rate conundrum: It’s likely that many non-college-educated whites are comparing themselves to a generation that had more opportunities than they have, whereas many blacks and Hispanics are comparing themselves to a generation that had fewer opportunities.

    There is probably some purely empirical truth to such an assessment. But Geez! Talking about kicking a man when he’s down, damn!

  29. The line from the Jew York Times article that is really outrageous, is this one,

    But we size ourselves up based on more than just our parents. White workers historically have compared themselves against black workers, taking some comfort in seeing a group that was doing worse than them.

    As a commenter at Unz put it, “Maybe Professor Cherlin has some basis for this claim. Or maybe he offers this gratuitous insult to lower-class whites, simply because he can.”

    It is a baseless claim ultimately, and how insulting. So lower class whites felt good about themselves because they could look down on blacks. Huh? The author needs to be held to account, for that statement. To suggest that white people feel good about themselves by looking down on blacks, is projecting the worst type of sentiments. Maybe the author feels good about looking down on people.

    Of course at the Jew York Times, they all like to look down on everyone, so it’s par for the course.

  30. And notice the sleight of hand – “But we size ourselves up” … and then it becomes “White workers historically have compared themselves against”

    So the author starts with a general statement about a general we, and since everyone is part of some we, so he is qualified to talk about that perhaps. But then he goes on to use that credential (of being part of a we) as the basis the make a slight against whites, who are now someone else.

    What is the author’s qualifications to speak on the identity of whites?

    I am belaboring the point, because it is so typical, and so important. This topic of group identity – of who we are – is a touchy one. It’s a little fucking gay.

    But that doesn’t stop they Jew York Times from getting their hands all up on it. They can’t get enough of that topic, of who whites are, or is it who we are?

    That quote was called to account by Sailer’s commenters, and it really is a great example, of how they work to define us, and then define themselves as those who look down on us, and part of that looking down is defining us as well.

    The level of presumption and arrogance is astounding. They will not stop with it.

    Somehow we have to define ourselves on that super-personal level. And again, to repeat – somehow doing so, and even just broaching the topic, is difficult and uncomfortable. But notice how often they, those fags at the Times and the political speech writers, are on about it. They can’t shut up about “who we are”.

    The simple reality is that people are defined through their stories. That all sounds kinda drama club gay – but it’s the fact that’s it’s been turned into drama club gay that is the problem.

  31. “It is a baseless claim ultimately, and how insulting. So lower class whites felt good about themselves because they could look down on blacks. Huh? The author needs to be held to account, for that statement. To suggest that white people feel good about themselves by looking down on blacks, is projecting the worst type of sentiments.”

    Well, it’s definitely a sentiment that can be manipulated for 1001 persnal needs and agendas, but such a supposition and theory is longtime staple of academic socio-poli-sci theory —– that political and economic exploitation of lower-class whites is easier when those whites have a social ‘other’ doing worse to compare themselves against. That’s also a big component of classic Marxist theory, with various European subcastes taking the place of blacks in said theory applied overseas.

    Clearly, for much of this country’s history, blacks were a ‘symbolic index’ for whites to measure the distance between themselves and absolute poverty. it’s a ‘theory’ that can make use of numerous races and ethnicities for its components, so it’s misleading to present such theory as a solely white phenomenon.

  32. “But we size ourselves up based on more than just our parents. White workers historically have compared themselves against black workers, taking some comfort in seeing a group that was doing worse than them.”

    The contentious part of the JYT article is bolded. Am i making too much of it?

    The context of contemporary political science that nikcrit cites sounds right.

    But the larger consideration is that it’s quite a statement, and it turns out that it IS completely unverified and unverifiable. It is a statement entirely argued by assertion.

    How would anyone know what this or that group of (white) people was feeling or taking comfort from.

    Then again, maybe they were: “At least we’re not a bunch of niggers.”

    That’s the mentality that is being projected onto the white folks. It is a pretty base mentality. A base mentality meaning low and ungenerous and unsympathetic and who needs people like that.

    There will always be a myriad and a spectrum of attitudes that a people share and encompass, from generous to miserly, from helpful to spiteful, from sinister to saintly. And so therefore characterizing them as this or that is pretty meaningless – or rather it is not at all meaningless – it has everything to do with meaning: it is defining them. Such characterization is not meaningless, rather it is MISLEADING.

    So apparently some hillbillies looked down at some niggers and spat and had a laugh and said at least we aint them. No doubt that played out.

    But it becomes a question of taking that specific incident, one thing that happens among the billions things that happen every day in history, and making that into a characterization and a … wait for it … a definition. See how whites are being DEFINED, and so casually and misleadingly, and so uncharitably.

  33. I think that i got to the point pretty well, in my previous post. I would need to be rewritten for clarity, but the idea is that one tendency among the million attitudes that a people has during the millions days that make up life, is taken to represent and define them – or at least to characterize them anyways.

    Who whom. Who is characterizing whom.

    So some white people were glad they weren’t blacks – but what does that mean in terms of the question that the article is supposedly about, which is why white aren’t doing well in their life expectancies.

    It would seem to be suggesting that white people were more content when they had blacks to look down on. That is exactly the sort of miserly attitude that is NOT about what white want, and who they are.

    It was never a source of satisfaction, for white people to have blacks to look down on. That looking down on blacks is such a slim sliver of the white pie of perspective, such a small part of it. On the other hand i didn’t grow up in the antebellum south as a sharecropper, so maybe not. Maybe it was all about not bein a nigger. Maybe they are right, and as long as we had niggers to look down upon, we could look up to the skies and thank god for that.

  34. I should have gone into the identity politics game. Maybe it’s not too late.

    The problem is that people who aren’t broken, don’t so much need an identity.

    That’s a joke, but there’s a catch-22 in there somewhere. Until we are broken, we can’t represent (ourselves), because we don’t know what it is to be whole.

    You dont know what ya got til its gone
    just like every cowboy things a sad sad song
    and every rose, has it’s thorns

  35. “But it becomes a question of taking that specific incident, one thing that happens among the billions things that happen every day in history, and making that into a characterization and a … wait for it … a definition. See how whites are being DEFINED, and so casually and misleadingly, and so uncharitably.”

    Yes, that’s why I felt compelled to point out that the components for such ethnic-and-class warfare are socially interchangeable. Politicians pit groups against each other all the time. But it’s suspect if its only and always whites being called out for said action.

    I just felt it was ultra-ironic to be doing a story about a misfortunate trend among lower-middle-class American whites —— a rare enough feat in today’s media —— only to have the racism charge be played here, of all places. (Actually, the other theory on cause cited in the story, e.g., the recent of rise of pharmaceutical opiate abuse, has more speculative merit IMHO)

  36. In a previous post on this thread i referenced the line said by the uncle to Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, “You cant stop what’s comin.”

    That book is was made into a movie by the chosen Coen Brothers. And of course. And it is the movie that most people see, but it is the book that counts. No Country for Old Men.

    But of many themes, the one that summed up in that scene is that Ed Tom Bell is struggling with defeat, of having been outgunned out-generalled outmatched and beaten. And his older and maybe wiser uncle, wheelchair bound, puts his problems into context.

    Well that is the context of our lives, fighting this losing battle. Ok yeah of course, first of all, everyone is always fighting a losing fight, and that is what heaven is for, or Valhalla if that is more to taste. But in this life, the fight wants girding with Intentional Superstructure.

    I came up with the phrase Unintentional Superstructure to describe the shape of things that seems to guide us, and so now its compliment would be Intentional. An intentional culture which would guide us into a meaningful life.

    That Superstructure can only be grasped very vaguely. Because of the internet and all the consciousness expanding that has been going on with the surplus of people and abundance of time and energy (and drugs), it is no longer esoteric knowledge that extended metaphors are the key to healthy living: extended metaphors in the form of stories,

    So i was at the store and this HB 8 was at the checkout with a smokin ass and i double plus negged her …

    Those are not the stories that will do the trick, … but that might be how they start?

    These blogs, will fade out if they are not the basis of something else and something more. And it has to be some traditional form of expression. Basically stagecraft.

    It will be plays and stagecraft and locally constructed and performed, that will save us. What else could it be? It has to be live action and real people, it cannot be reduced to the computer screen and digital technology.

    If we are going to be traditional, well that would be the traditional form with which convey meaning. What meaning to convey then.

    The meaning can only be expressed in the aforementioned form. If it could be expressed otherwise, then it would be.

  37. People want real culture, the actual experience of it.

    Without the reinforcement of real culture in our day-to-day lives, or least once a season or however often, we do not even exist.

    That might as well be an axiom. By what other than cultural artifacts do people exist?

    Just being alive and going through the motions and breathing air and the rest of it, adds up to nothing.

    It’s all dust in the wind, but scale down the timescope of our consideration, into what we can grasp as humans, which is the span of some generations, and maybe some people can see a bit further.

    Within that timescope our lives can have meaning, but they will require monuments of un-aging significance.

    Does anyone read the Greek plays. I will aspire to read those. That would be classy, to be able to drop references into this conversation, then i could up my status.

  38. But advice for a boy is best transmitted with a story, so that’s how this is all topical.

    But let me say, one more time, that there is a huge opportunity for any one reading this, to take it to the next level and make it real. And yeah of course i am trying to take my own advice.

    I said upthread that CH is probably famous now. It is probably legitimate to call him famous. Is Roosh famous. He is a little bit famous. The official famous of celebrity is one thing, but isn’t the case that this is something separate but no longer entirely underground?

    Or am i mistaken about that, probably a little bit delusional?

    So it is entirely an echo chamber, well ok so be it.

    ***************

    By why is CH famous, even if it is an underground internet celebrity famous, what does that mean.

    It means that a lot of young men with liquid intelligence are dissatisfied with the the workings of the sexual market place. That is a pretty basic and safe conclusion to be drawn.

    If a man does not get his share of pussy, his life is limited. A lot of men do not. Most men do not. How much is a man’s share?

    That is the variable in the whole damn dynamic, that upsets everything: what is a man’s share.

    Life has always been unfair, and i don’t want to get into set theory or whatever would be necessary to describe how the mating game sorts out these days. That has been done and at length.

    My advice to a boy, is not to miss out on that high school pussy.

    By the way. The age of consent ought to be the age of majority, which should be 16 but with a qualification.

  39. slightly O.T. suggestion for Sub_elk:

    The literary critic Harold Bloom wrote a great short book called “How to Read and Why” about ten, fifteen years ago; it goes over literary trends and topics of the age, and near its end, has a chapter on then-prevailing authors who Bloom felt were particularly worthy of consideration: Among this subset, he put Cormac McCarthy at the top of the list and went on in a quite a bit of detail explaining why. Actually, some of your praise here detailing McCarthy’s worked was cited by Bloom as well. Check it out; you could probably get a used copy on Ebay for a buck or two at this late date; it;’s one of my favorite books in adulthood.

    btw: since I’m tangenting on books for a moment, let me recommend another book for the music fans, as pop-songs are favorite tangent on this blog: Ben Ratliff’s “Every Song Ever” is a critic’s guide on how to enjoy pop music in this unprecedented age in which virtually every song of any time is damn-near instantly available at our fingertips; it’s a true ‘poverty of abundance’ that myself and others have noted here in off-topic comments; Ratliff, a NY Times music critic I had vague acquaintance with actually turned the treatise into a full-blown book, which is very good, though I haven’t finished it.

    check it out:

    http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/how-to-listen-to-music

  40. The literary critic Harold Bloom wrote a great short book called “How to Read and Why” about ten, fifteen years ago;

    Is that the one where he talked poorly about the new higher education obsession with Angelou, Morrison and some other lefty literary icons, in favor of all of the old dead white guys from the main canon ? I remember a small firestorm of controversy and him being called a Nazi, reactionary racist Republican and such and saw the poor guy on NPR fumbling nervously and explaining that he was a lifelong socialist and Bernie Sanders lover whose political background could prove his SJW and “anti-racist” chops.

  41. “Is that the one where he talked poorly about the new higher education obsession with Angelou, Morrison and some other lefty literary icons, in favor of all of the old dead white guys from the main canon ?”

    I doubt it; Bloom’s highly known for his anti-p.c. screeds and tirades; he also,unlike you here, makes the very relevant distinction in assessing Angelou’s from Morrison’s work and place in the literary canon; (e.g., to do what you just did would be the equivalent of Michael Jackson and Milli Vanilli on the same talent level). Lol!!

    I could see Bloom backing Sanders; they’re both Jewish, but Bloom is hardly a rote leftie, I could see him voting either way —– but the point here is that he’s very, very capable of seeing contemporary political folly for what it is, left or right or center.

  42. My H. Bloom story: I talked with him at an event in the late 90s and said something about how Camille Paglia speaks so highly of him as her mentor. His face clouded over and the conversation ended.

  43. His face clouded over and the conversation ended.

    You mentioned that encounter at SOBL’s site; i didn’t get the implication? Are you saying he was envious of his protege’s higher media cachet?
    Or that he didn’t like her views and felt embarrassed to be her mentor?
    Or both? Or something else?

  44. No inferences, just an anecdote. I assumed that they had a disagreement or a falling out, but Paglia as far as I know had continued to write well of him.

  45. The intentional superstructure just is objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection. This is white man’s “super intent…” To seek out Perfection is the desire which manifests our ANTI-EGALITARIAN operating paradigm. Now, EVEN THE HIGHEST of high IQ “white” males CANNOT CONCEIVE of their “super intent.” They cannot formulate an objective Supremacy = Perfection. They cannot EVEN FATHOM what Perfection is or a will to perfection… All they know now is their autonomy or lackthereof.

  46. I doubt it; Bloom’s highly known for his anti-p.c. screeds and tirades; he also,unlike you here, makes the very relevant distinction in assessing Angelou’s from Morrison’s work and place in the literary canon; (e.g., to do what you just did would be the equivalent of Michael Jackson and Milli Vanilli on the same talent level). Lol!!

    I stand corrected – I guess I conflated the two of them. I don’t really pay much attention to any literature written beyond 1900 myself, unless it’s Tolkien, lol.

    So which one (Morrison or Angelou) does he rate as canon-worthy?

  47. Morrison in canon-worthy; most of these alt-righters who’re always laughing at black canon inclusions, but then show their ignorance by lumping, say, Henry Louis Gates and Khalid Muhammad together at the same level intellectually. It’s really too comic to get insulted over.

  48. Well, I prefer Cornell West to either of them, anyway. After not getting that inauguration invite he’s spent the last 7 years calling Obama more names than you count. My kinda guy, lol.

  49. Milli Vanilli was overrated.

    The embarrassment to the Oscars isn’t that the act was a fake, it is that they awarded them Best New Artist to being with.

    Girl, you know it’s true!

    That is not a remarkable revelation or anything, but the Oscars committee is really that much of a joke? I enjoy popular music, but don’t follow the industry to comment on their state of affairs.

    So Toni Morrison is worth reading, or is it Maya Angelou getting the recommend. SNL did a pretty good send up of her, when her fame was at its peak and she did the commencement poem for Clinton in 1993, On the Pulse of the Morning,

    A rock a river a tree
    hosts to species long since departed
    marked the mastadon the dinosaur
    who left dry tokens of their sojourn here
    on our planet floor

    Any broad alarm of their hastening doom
    is lost in the gloom
    of dust and ages
    But today the rock cries out to us
    clearly forcefully
    Come
    You may stand upon my back
    And face your distant destiny
    but seek no haven in my shadow
    I will give you no hiding place down here

    You, created only a little lower than the angels
    Have crouched to long in the bruising darkness
    have lain too long face down in ignorance
    your mouths spilling words

    Apologies to Ms Morrison for ad libbing the punctuation and the layout of the lines.

    They would have called her a National Treasure, then, methinks. I guess her heart is in the right place. Judging from those words alone?

  50. The white man’s canon is perception and conceptualization of Perfection in reality…

    The “black man’s” “canon” is HOW TO liberate from the above.

  51. Yeah i knew nikcrit wasn’t recommending Maya Angelou. I will go listen to the rest of the poem.

    Check out Bill Clinton’s goofy face at 1:38. I don’t even know how to characterize his act, then, ‘presiding’ over the reading, and then us all. Was he sworn in yet, at that exact moment?

  52. That is about all of Maya Angelou i need to hear. It is not the worst stuff in the world, though it can be described as frightfully corny.

    The mastodon and the dinosaur
    They were big animals, and sore
    And the Cherokee People bent to their knees
    and the Scotts and the Irish and the Swedes
    The preacher and the jew
    The arab and the rock

    Together they swim in the river
    And each of them all of them
    braving the cold water
    and facing forward
    falling on his knees
    toward the new shore

    The mastodon and the wooly mammoth
    were brothers with the dinosaurs
    and though none of them knew
    their tracks were laid to waste
    in an asteroid flashing in the sun

  53. Her style is meant to be evocative. That is the black style. Colorful and full of feeling.

    But they would have done better simply with a choir. That would have been too obvious of a choice.

    But no one can make those good obvious choices because it’s all Pretense Theater and never from the heart. Maya’s poem is from her purple old heart, but selecting her for the reading was an elaborate swapple pretense. That swapple pretense was back in 1993, so it has been going on for a long time.

  54. So i went to the Mall today. You know how the mall is, during off hours, when “you shouldn’t be there” … it’s full of losers.

    But good god, what percentage of the people are slugs. They look terrible, for the most part. 90 per cent of them maybe. These are young people, for the most part, in their 20s, and most of them are overweight and dress like children. And even those who aspire to some fashion, most of them have their heads up their asses. Is it so hard to get on some elegance?

    But i do have a point, besides complaining, and it is simple enough.

    The state of society, as it now stands, in its structureless-ness and decay – is more of a fun playground for certain types of people, than it is for others; and the fun, or lack of it, has very direct effects on the health, or lack of it, of those groups of people.

    Looking at the people at the mall. Most of the white people look unhappy, and associated closely with that, unhealthy. Whereas most of the black people at the mall, are happier. Their levels of health are all over the place, but truly they are happier looking and generally a little bit healthier (looking).

    (My perception is that blacks can be happy even when they are not healthy, more so than whites can be.)

    That is my observation, of that sample of people: people who are at the mall in Middle America during the workweek.

    This social environment, and the way that our public space is set up and unstructured with any formality or even codes of behavior, is conducive to the health and happiness of certain types and groups of people more so than it is of others.

    That is pretty obvious, and yet it needs emphasis. Methinks.

  55. And so white people retreat to the suburbs or wherever, but want for fun.

    Not getting that fun, is deleterious to their health.

    People want to go walk around their communities. That is basically all that is required for socialization. But they don’t do it around here.

    The places that get maintained and serve as stand-ins for public space get taken over by those who do ok with the general deregulation of social customs and mores.

    And then we are discouraged from and mocked for complaining about it, because we are supposed to be able to get around it or somehow or another be above it.

    I tried to “be above it” by being a tough guy. That lasted for awhile. Eventually you either have to join with Sauron, or get together your own gang. Those are your only choices. If you want to make a claim on the street.

    I am not saying that people don’t come up with creative ways of being that circumvent the aforementioned two options – but such ‘creativity’ is usually a little bit gay. You can’t go out and be a white tough guy … unless you really are … and that is eventually a losing battle, for, certain.

    That was my point with No Country for Old Men. “You cant stop what is comin.”

    I am not being a defeatist, i am just saying that we have effectively lost a lot of ground. Public space, the streets. You can’t go out there and be yourself, you have to go out and fight?

    Yeah, rahowa and all that, i am just trying to get it acknowledged, the situation and all.

    The situation is not acknowledged, in the public consensus, at least especially in the mainstream, but even in the alternative reactionary part of it. It needs to be explicitly acknowledged, what we have lost, of public space, and the direct effects on our health and happiness.

  56. The following comment troll was over at Unz this morning, and apparently it is a copypasta making the rounds,

    “Trump will NOT be the nominee.

    The only people that support him are childless single men who blame society for their own failures (in other words the alt right and race realists)

    Once another candidate drops out Trump is toast.

    The nominee will probably be Rubio.

    In any event, the next president will be Clinton (thank God)”

    ************

    I bring it up as a good example of an argument that is made … perhaps somewhat effectively? … on the level of identity.

    The argument would deny the people described, their most basic interests, which is to represent (for themselves).

    It is funny in that it is somewhat of an accurate characterization, of, ahem, some people i might know.

    But the reply is, so what? Yeah i want a society that will work better for me. The society that we got now is working against me, and i want something else.

    Such is supposed to be how political process works, where people voice their dissatisfaction and interests – but they would not allow us even that!

    Their argument is essentially “you lost now shut up.”

  57. Public space. On the subway here one is treated to sharing the car with pairs or more of “teens.” An alert man doesn’t pick up on malice in them. More like a happy, good natured buffoonery but about as distant from pleasant on the eye AND especially ear as can be. The IQs of the last group I rode with must have been around 70.

    There is also that anecdote of mine in the Freedom post about how I roamed around on Warsaw’s trams at the age of eight. It really is a zero-sum equation when it comes to public space. It’s not even because of one group will actively intimidate the other. It’s simply the natural law that one will feel at ease and the other will always feel like a visitor.

    Those old Civil Rights Jews who pushed desegregation must still be having a wicked laugh over all this.

  58. Public space. On the subway here one is treated to sharing the car with pairs or more of “teens.”

    Even if I’ve shared this MARTA video before I can’t resist:

  59. Cam, it’s vids like that that make me want to fall on my sword & concede defeat…. But then I say, WTF? Me & mine don’t support nor excuse that shite! But after that, just what’s left to say?

  60. LOL, and that is a fantastic segueway to my next point concerning the dreadfully bad rapper (Souljah Boy) who created the song that the lunatic is singing/chanting in that video I posted. I now present you all with this true GEM of HBD content that many may have missed – maybe my location as one of the (apparently) few alt-right bloggers in wannabe rapper dense Atlanta gives me a unique perspective on this.

    Not that long ago rapper Souljah Boy was at the BET awards show answering questions from that idiot Toure, when this exchange occurred:

    The shock statement came when BET correspondent and former Rolling Stone contributor, Touré, asked various stars which historical figure they most hated. After Soulja Boy failed to give a response, Touré tried to prompt him, saying “Others have said Hitler, bin Laden, the slave masters … ” at which point Soulja Boy said: “Oh wait! Hold up! Shout out to the slave masters! Without them we’d still be in Africa. We wouldn’t be here to get this ice and tattoos.”

    bwahahahahahahaha is all I can say.

    http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/nov/04/soulja-boy-slavery

  61. @Cam,
    Ok, I’ll give your point and then some. But consider what I readily conceded in my last comment, then further consider this: when someone on a blog or whatever form of casual social media either overtly or implicitly posts something that’s largely supposed to make a joke or statement or insight into ‘whites’ or ‘the nature of whites’ or ‘white things,’ etc., do you cited as examples, figures such as, say, (and i’m dating myself a bit here to sate my offhand knowledge base) Johnny Rotten, or Gigi Allen or some punk rocker or radical liberationist whose singular point in being a public figture is to incite outrage and dissent beside being just a plain ol’ publicity whore?
    I mean, come on: i’ll take the ‘aggregate dis’ when indulging this endless b-vs-w game; but does, say, Solider Boy, let alone Ghostface Killah, RZA and, for good measure, that ol’ school fool Flavah Flav truly rep aggregate black behavior? Granted, you never said as much—- but i contend that that is often the usaid implication that is posted and allowed to fester.
    And needless to say, I really don’t like it.

  62. I mean, come on: i’ll take the ‘aggregate dis’ when indulging this endless b-vs-w game;

    First of all, is that not a funny and highly relevant quote from Soljuh Boy in this venue, though? C’mon. (especially when this Freudian slip came while talking to none other other than Toure) *** pats self on back for bringing this to the attention of the alt-right *** Just let me know if this is amusing to only me, lol.

    Solider Boy, let alone Ghostface Killah, RZA and, for good measure, that ol’ school fool Flavah Flav truly rep aggregate black behavior?

    Second of all, there’s absolutely no comparison of Soljuh Boy to these other rappers, who surely have some degree of artistic ability compared to this new age of Southern hip-hoppers. I remember when being shocked at the originality and nifty, literary-type themes of “36 Chambers” when it first came out, my college roomie listened to it for 3 days straight. But have you not listened to this new hip hop crap? Rap lost its artistry, self-dignity and any of its claim to moral high ground when it left New York and got absolutely ruined by the West Coast and then the South. Furthermore, none of these guys would’ve made a comment like that.

    Johnny Rotten, or Gigi Allen or some punk rocker or radical liberationist whose singular point in being a public figture is to incite outrage and dissent beside being just a plain ol’ publicity whore?

    Yes, I do actually understand that it’s got to be tiresome for open-minded, pro-Western blacks like you to constantly find themselves in a position where they have to answer for every misdeed of one, with whites not called to the carpet in the same way as racial representatives. I think you’ve earned the respect and appreciation of everyone here by exhibiting the thick skin it takes to put up with our sometimes needlessly vicious bulls**t, because OTOH you can offer unique “gadfly” counter insights that keep the debate lively and challenge weak points.

    And needless to say, I really don’t like it.

    Sorry, I can’t send out stuff like this at work or post it on Facebook, this is the only place can share.

    BTW, if that half-wit Toure can work for Rolling Stone then you surely can, too. He’s a freaking tool.

  63. ,… if that half-wit Toure can work for Rolling Stone then you surely can, too. He’s a freaking tool.

    Speaking of bein ‘Gadfly-ish,’ truth is, i have some fleeting-to-mild acquaintance with that guy, though not for years. Point is, before you write him off as a idiot, remember: we’re all victim the roles various times and professions consign us too. IOW, and to cut it short: it would be very hard for me, him, othiers to get the gigs we got had we been known to be ‘race-realist black writers’ in the cash-flowing, p.c.and rap-zeitgesting ’90s; bottom line: in terms of dialect, level of mainstream education, social perspective, Toure is possibly very, very much like yours truly; we have many mu\tual acquaintances, more than i’d overtly discuss, truth be told…… the times and standards of our times define much of us, and i say by nature more than oppressive cause that that is true more for blacks than whites.

    Toure could hold forth here with ease and comfort, even imparting some fresh views.

  64. to constantly find themselves in a position where they have to answer for every misdeed of one,

    It’s natural and thus to some degree understandable for a numerical minority to be more quickly aligned en masse to a single stereotypical incident socially —– but it is ridiculous to overlook the many deeply ingrained divides and differences that exist in INTRA black America.

    I mean, some here view us all as either ghetto-ites or purveyors within ‘Da Talented Tenth!” Lol!!

  65. Toure could hold forth here with ease and comfort, even imparting some fresh views.

    No way, man. He’s got white man’s oppression on the brain. I’ve seen him chummy with Rachel Madcow on MSNBC , as well as on CNN, and it’s just standard SJW spiel 100% of the time. Why else would he mention Hitler, then Bin Laden, then the slave masters out of the complete blue… at an awards show? Wouldn’t a more logical question at that stage be who his musical or personal influences are?

    If we bothered to phrase things more “gently” he might be able tolerate us long enough to participate, he’d maybe get through one thread before calling Loretta Lynch and demanding an immediate DoJ inquiry.

  66. What is “identity crisis” other than an aversion to radical autonomy… Aversion to total detachment… Aversion to utter indifference… Aversion to absolute freedom? The problem is that those who sense an “identity crisis” WILL NOT entertain THE ONLY SOLUTION to their crisis and those who are quite tolerant of their “identity crisis” just don’t give two shitz about fixing a non-problem. To exacerbate the situation, it is a seemingly solid fact that those who truly suffer the most from the modern “identity crisis” are high IQ “white” males. Which then leaves “us” in a state of unarguable perplexion.

    HOW CAN high IQ “white” males NOT FIND A SOLUTION to the problem of their “identity crisis?!”

    And the answer is that such high IQ “white” males are not dumb, but TRUE self-annihilators. So it is now a generally understood fact that the highest IQ “white” males REJECT their “right” to existence from conception (submissive to the matriarchy). And the ideo-logic dictates that such “white” self-annihilators ARE ULTIMATELY THE TRUE AUTHORS of the Narrative of an impending “white death.”

  67. What are the ingredients to an identity if not “origin” and “destination?” And with that impetus of “universal equality” is a total collapse in the unique particularity of these ingredients to each and every PERCEPTIVE being. And so with a high IQ “white” male, one will get an argument asserting that one’s life DOES NOT BEGIN at conception. He literally has no “origin” to his “beginning.” Ergo, he CANNOT EVEN CONCEIVE a right to existence from conception. Likewise, and because a high IQ demands coherency, no beginning at conception negates a truly final destination. There is only total annihilation… An absolute obliteration of all that was thyself. And having completely submitted to the psychological perversion that is “universal equality” thus consequently destroying one’s own understanding of his origin and his final destination, ie. his identity, one is LEFT to be mired in a radical autonomy… A self-created “identity crisis” FOR THE PURPOSE OF maximizing one’s radical autonomy. A truly vicious circle.

    So at some point… When one knows that his identity crisis must be solved by fortifying his true origin and establishing a realistic final destination AND THEN REFUSES to “see” to these things, he must then be perceived as subservient to the zeitgeist… As one who deceptively uses an “identity crisis” in the game of victimology.

  68. The crisis is in a head divided between those “white” males who can tolerate an “identity crisis,” ie., radical liberationists, and those who cannot, ie., all who are not radical liberationist. And it is those who cannot who can only imagine a weaker adversary of toleration. And it is with this distorted perception that those who cannot tolerate a personal “identity crisis” will subsequently not firmly IDENTIFY those who can tolerate an “identity crisis” UNDERSTANDING that to be IDENTIFIED is equally what a radical liberationist CANNOT TOLERATE.

  69. Pingback: 100th Post – PA

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s