The Wages of Cuckoldry is Scorn

American football star Colin Kaepernick disavowed the U.S. national anthem, and not because of his government’s imperial rapine. Rather, he gave this as his reason:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.

Did Kaepernick’s adoptive parents echo King Lear’s plaint about a thankless child and a serpent’s tooth? Black-fathered bastards or adoptees raised by Whites often embrace their missing father’s African identity. This is understandable given human nature, but what interests me is the spiteful contempt they almost invariably show for their European cuck and wet-nurse benefactors.

It’s been an ugly story, even before the flag flap. Kaepernick’s biological father, true to script, dindu nuffin. His White biological mother, who gave him up for adoption in infancy, attempted to contact her son after he had already become a millionaire and her parents, in turn, hasten to add that they supported their daughter in her obscene pregnancy. Her second son is White; the poor child was delivered from a telegony-stained womb. Kaepernick’s adoptive parents are humiliated and not just by the anthem controversy. This photo is from three years ago and the eyes tell all:


Image credit: (c)

Colin Kaepernick is nature’s instrument of cruel but fair justice. The serpent’s tooth is for the best, a reassertion of the one-drop-rule absent its codification into law. Something always arrests Europe’s tropical drift. As Czesław Miłosz wrote in his poem about rebellion:

And what I have met with in life was the just punishment
Which reaches, sooner of later, the breaker of a taboo.


Hillary’s Alt-Right Speech

Spokeswoman for the criminal globalist syndicate Hillary Clinton has just formally declared her party’s war on White America. She also denounced every man and woman in the West who is disgusted by the dispossession, the ruin, the mass murders, the rapes. She called out White genocide by name and mocked it. She pinned school bullying on White children.

Mr. Trump: she unloaded with all they’ve got. If you are sincere in the beliefs that she ascribed to you, then she just gave you the election.


“Because We Live Here” in Hungarian

Hungarian security forces are affixing eerie masks on their southern border fence to stop migrants from crossing into their country. Predictably (and oblivious to the obvious alternative), the director of the so-called Human Rights Watch strongly criticized Hungarian politician Gyorgy Schopflin of the nation’s ruling Fidesz party and then tweeted: “Refugees are fleeing war & torture, Hungary. Your root vegetable heads will not deter them.”

Mr. Schopflin agreed-and-amplified: “Might do so. Human images are haram. But agree, pig’s head would deter more effectively.”


But perhaps instead of masks, Hungarians could have posted signs in appropriate languages that state something like what I drafted here:

“Dear travelers from the Middle East and Africa, we understand that you have your reasons for desiring entry into Hungary. However, letting you in would subject our nation to one or more of these scenarios: one, having to accommodate your growingly intolerable presence; two, becoming you through the intermarriage of our daughters with you; or three, a civil war. None of those things are acceptable to us because they would inflict preventable suffering on the Hungarian people, and we have nowhere else to go. In fact, we are fond our ancestral homeland.

We also understand that many of you ask for no more than our permission to pass through our country toward your final destination in the U.K. or Germany. On that matter we considered the headaches with the EU and the Americans we’d be saving ourselves by playing the game of “eat us last,” but the answer is still No.

If this forthright message does not convince you to turn away from our border, then we will display creepy masks. Should those fail to make it clear that we don’t want you invading our home, we will enforce our territorial integrity with the use of deadly force. We wish you a safe and pleasant journey back to your homes. Goodbye.”

Nah. The masks already say all of that. As reported:

The account posting the images said that the masks were made in part out of carved sugar beet root and that no migrants had reportedly crossed in the areas where the scarecrows had been put up in the past month.

The Hungarian government understands something I’ve said before: non-Whites are deeply superstitious. Find their button and watch them run. For example, U.S. Southerners used cheesy Celtic rites and costumes to spook would-be black predators during the lawless Reconstruction era.

“I Saw Goody Proctor With The Devil!”

In the previous post’s discussion about a person’s innate disgust being the fount of his political dissent (“The Power of the Weak Stomach”), a reader provides a link to The Daily Shoah’s podcast and writes:

BTW: here is a podcast with Pleasureman in which liberal disgust reactions of the sort I mentioned are discussed from about [1:15:00 to 1:25:00]

Within its roughly ten-minute segment starting around 1:15:00, one of the hosts describes an incident he witnessed within his family circle, involving a middle-class liberal woman’s expression of her apparent disgust with another culture.

I listened to that ten-minute segment. It was fascinating. And sadly, familiar. He vividly described a family gathering in which his female relative flew into inchoate rage, triggered by a fluff-news television footage of a politician doing photo-ops with a group of Southern duck hunters, all of them posing in camo and hunting gear. The podcast’s host made it clear that the woman’s anger did not come from an anti-hunting or an animal rights perspective. She simply despised those people reflexively and out of proportion with any rational cause. When pressed, he said, she was unable to justify her feelings.

Circling back to our discussion of gut-level disgust: was that woman’s vitriol toward a harmless and faraway group of Southron Christians an example of an innate “weak stomach” prejudice against contamination? A case could be made that similar to how conservatives recoil from things such as immorality, liberals innately recoil from displays of tradition. If true, this would complicate my theory that the level of a person’s disgust threshold helps determine his political orientation; specifically, my thought that the higher the threshold, the more tolerant he is of degenerative things and thus he becomes a liberal, while a low disgust threshold leads him to reject those thing and lean conservative. So now if liberals vomit upon seeing harmless Southerners on television, does that make the biological reality of the disgust threshold itself an atavistic relic in its unreliable identification of the unclean?

I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. Rather, I think that woman’s rage came off like it was a product of socialization rather than an inborn reflex — in that sense, the opposite of the disgust-reflex. Going by my own familiarity with similar people, it sounded to me like she had been guided over a long time to redirect her latent aggression, as well as her more rational frustrations with life in a multiracial society, toward a decoy target: working class Christian Southerners in this case. As the podcast’s host put it, her behavior struck him as downright unnatural (meanwhile the disgust reflex is the most natural thing in the world) — and disturbingly sadistic in its intensity.

I’ve seen this more than once. Recently, a woman outside of my inner personal circle but with whom I share a bond launched into an ugly tirade about how only glue sniffers — her words — would vote for that “literal retard” Donald Trump. The girl I’m talking about is a striver with a family. She is a nice person and neither a weirdo nor a hipster, certainly not a Social Justice Warrior, and comfortable but not rich. Avoiding surfeit of diversity, as she’s admitted in the past, is a guiding principle in how she structures her life, just like it is for the rest of us in this post-racial utopia. There is no upside for her, should her attitude find political realization in Trump’s loss. And yet, she rants manifestly at odds with her interests. My best explanation is that this otherwise high-functioning girl and others like her is under the spell of a broad but shallow eruption of mass hysteria.

What could have caused this hysteria, hers, the woman’s in the podcast, and on down to omega-female Trigglypuff?

Similar things have happened before, infamously 300 years ago in colonial Salem. In that particular case, historians have speculated about hallucinogenic effects of mold in their grain stores. You can also point to the female tendency toward ruthless enforcement of in-group conformity. “I saw Goody Proctor with the devil!” That’s how the mean-girl rids the village of that creepy spinster. And you can point to female grudge-holding when she then denounces the goodwife who’s given her judging glares. Tie a noose around her neck too! She’s a witch! And finally, those impulses are wrapped in her solipsistic denial of her own wrong-doing. Formalize those amoral impulses in pseudo-theological language with moral license to condemn innocents, whip up a sense of false clarity from the pulpit, and neighbors hang from ropes.

The pulpit: in 17th century Salem, preachers invoked witches. Today, the girls who’d destroy a group of Republican-voting duck hunters, if they could, have drawn their pre-moral certitude from television outlets like The Daily Show and its former host Jonathan Leibowitz (stage name “Jon Stewart”). Yes, we let them vote.

Why am I bothering to write about this? I am writing about this because we have to deal with these top-down engineered nation-sinking eruptions of treasonous mass hysteria and our future depends on our effectiveness in dealing with them. We’re dealing with nature, its soft uglier face in the underbelly of the female. And you can’t fight nature, and you really shouldn’t desire to. But we have to arrest the influence of those who’d bend its flow to malicious ends. And we have to reassert ownership over what’s ours.

The Power of the Weak Stomach

Why do some of the most highly talented people resist the temptation of being granted status in exchange for serving the neoliberal program? Vladimir reintroduces this question:

[What] accounts for those rare smart individuals who are immune to this pressure? Some years ago you left a memorable comment on Moldbug’s blog that has stuck with me ever since, asking why e.g. Steve Sailer didn’t become a New York Times opinion writer, and Lawrence Auster an Ivy League professor. Both certainly had the talent and opportunity, but instead chose a life of comparable obscurity and low status just because the regular mode of rationalizing progressive dogma somehow doesn’t work with them.

Yes, I remember that thread. Off the cuff, it may help to assume that the kind of a person who doesn’t sell his talents cheaply doesn’t necessarily, fully choose his dissent. It chooses him.

The things that create the dissident can be prosaic, such as an inability to network. But I think there is the genuine Disgust Threshold element at play too. I explored that angle in a post titled Disgust, which features Zbigniew Herbert’s poem “The Power of Taste” in translation:

It did not require great character at all
our refusal our disagreement and resistance
we had the necessary shred of courage
but fundamentally it was a matter of taste

The power of the weak stomach: it doesn’t even have to be framed in the language of principle. My parents, for example, were upper middle class strivers in a 1960s/70s Poland but they refused to join the Party and they went to church, and both of those things complicated their careers. Later, as a teenager in the U.S., I asked my dad if he didn’t join the Communist Party because he didn’t wanna be a sellout and he shrugged that it wasn’t anything that melodramatic — rather, he said, being in the Party meant that you’d have to spend a lot of time making ridiculous speeches to rooms full of people you couldn’t stomach.

In grad school, I could have greased my way to what I thought of at the time as a promising academic career — I was a popular T.A. and tutor and fancied myself an “inspiring teacher” — but I couldn’t take portions of the syllabus seriously and naïvely, on multiple occasions I discussed my reservation with the profs. They got snippy. I jumped that ship.

An organization I once disaffiliated myself from was home to people I respect as well as to those high functioning, with-the-program progressives. Shitlib faces, as Heartiste calls them, are overrepresented among those featured on that org’s web site. The soft-smug smiles, the “thoughtful” hand-on-chin poses in their professional portraits, the bio statements frontloaded with lib-signaling.

Which things in our progressive utopia make you sick?


(Like a Degenerate: a NSFW parody of Lana Del Rey’s song.)


The Liberal Personality

There is a consensus that a person’s political orientation is hereditary, following the notion that political orientation in broad strokes is a function of genetically determined personality traits. If true, then which personality traits put a person at risk of becoming a liberal?

“Liberal” in contemporary context means being, wittingly or not, aligned with globalism-enabling attitudes such as promotion of the procrustean leveling of differences among men and among nations, an impulse to attack one’s own traditional hierarchy structures, and complicity with forces that corrupt family bonds. Liberalism (or neoliberalism as I sometimes call it here when focusing on its globalist program) is a mutation of Communism.

As I see it, these four personality traits contribute to the development of the Liberal Personality; in their acute expression they create the so-called SJW, or Social Justice Warrior:


People with that Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profile are introverted, reliant on intuition rather than on sensory evidence in forming their worldview, they are emotion- rather than reason-driven, and are passive and open to experience rather than assertive and judging. The quintessential INFP personality profile is the poet. At their best, people with an INFP profile are visionary and loyal. At their worst, they fall into depression and passive-aggressive ways of dealing with others.

A person with an INFP personality gravitates to universalist worldviews, is willing to suspend critical judgment, and is susceptible to persuasion. If his thirst for transcendence is not already quenched with sturdier values, he is a mark for brainwashers in schools and in mass media.

2. Mid-Wit Intelligence

The liberal’s pretense to intellect can almost always be exposed as pseudo-dialectic and whenever engaged by one, I check-mate him in three moves. You know you’ve beaten a liberal in a discussion when one of these three things happens: he gets standoffish or angry, he acts dumb and pretends that you agree with him, or he slips out of the pin with a flippant quip.

Lenin coined the term “useful idiots” to describe his naïve sympathizers in the West. Sincere liberalism is the province of the mid-wit. A person with below-average intelligence won’t rationalize his experience to accommodate a conceptual model and a highly intelligent person sees through liberalism’s internal contradictions. If a highly intelligent person happens to be a liberal, it’s usually for Machiavellian reasons.

[UPDATE: Handle and Vladimir make excellent points in the comments on this item.]

3. High Disgust Threshold

If your disgust threshold is low, you will reflexively recoil from ugliness, habitat-contamination, and immorality. As I recently laid out in my post on prejudice, a person’s moral framework is a function of his visceral response to his environment, and that gut-response guides his judgment before he is socialized into his culture’s ethical system.

The level of a person’s disgust threshold sets the point at which he stops tolerating things that appear to be unclean, such as avoiding literal shit and up to abhorring abstract concepts like dishonorable behavior. The disgust threshold determines a person’s capacity for tolerating degeneration in hygiene, sexuality, aesthetics, and morality.

4. Low Empathy

This one is counterintuitive, with the stereotype of a bleeding heart liberal. In fact though, bleeding hearts are not necessarily liberals — they can be poorly-informed people or posers, often young or female, who’d act on their real views if push came to shove. My empathy quotient score, were I to be tested, would be off the charts. This is why I so deeply hate those who’d harm innocent people.

Having low capacity for empathizing with others is what makes it easy for a liberal to shrug off the evidence of liberalism’s toll on human beings. He is comfortable with breaking the eggs to make an omelet, or imposing an ill-fitting theoretical framework on reality and reconciling its cruelty with its elusive utopian promise. Apostate Communist intellectuals like Arthur Koestler and Czesław Miłosz wrote at length about the leftist’s devotion to ideological abstraction no matter the misery it inflicts on millions.


“Kitsch is the absolute denial of shit,” writes Milan Kundera in The Unbearable Lightness of Being. We scorn kitsch for its exultation decoupled from realism, its lazy pseudo-beauty innocent of struggle. But giving Kundera’s quip more thought, I wondered: what is the opposite of kitsch — in other words, what do you call that which is the absolute denial of anything higher than shit? My answer: the word for that is “pornography” — the salacious kind, along with the other kinds of porn. You know it when you see it.

Someone asked me what I think of the comedian Louis C.K., prefacing his question with “You gotta love his self-deprecating humor, such as the one about his annoying daughter or his rants about being a fat middle-aged man.” “I’m not a fan.” I replied, adding that his act begins and ends on reveling in being a latter-day Ignatius Reilly. The pornographic world of C.K.’s failing fathers and exhibitionistic slobs never transcends mere shit.

So where is that elusive intersection of idealism and candor that is neither kitsch nor porn? You can see it when witnessing greatness, be in in art, in character, even in personal appearance. For example, the Trump family presents itself as aspirational in looking like the best a man, a woman, and even a child can be. This photo was taken at the conclusion of Donald Trump’s formal announcement of his presidential candidacy. Earned pride (and a bit of fatigue in the case of the children) glows on everyone’s face:


But many voters don’t like aspirational. Camlost explains:

Yes, the self-assuredness of the Trumps definitely clashes with the parade of grievance whiners that the DNC threw on camera last night. It was an endless stream of remarks by people whose message amounted to little more than “gubmint ain’t doing enough for me.”

There is a growing chasm between people who want to aspire to a higher standard in the important facets of their lives, and people who see higher standards as an affront to their comfort with low expectations. Camlost continues:

PA’s “aspirational” theme reminds me of the puzzlement that you see from Democratic Party leaders when they talk about rural whites often refusing to make use of welfare and not supporting more the politicians who campaign on expanding big government solutions, when NAMs of their same economic class vote emotionally for the handout -promising politicians every time. Democratic leaders just don’t understand that even the poorest whites are still “aspirational” and want to see an America where the self-made and the hard working are the ones who get ahead, and they regard successful businessmen like Trump as they best of that strain of striving American, even if they themselves aren’t able to achieve as much

Funny thing, how some people aspire to more than feed at the trough. And here is a fragment of Suburban_elk’s comment about a different type of people:

The way that white women of the un-aspiring classes dress now. (An analogous criticism exists for the men.)

“Un-aspiring classes” is a useful neologism. Elk elaborates:

The women are afraid to look elegant, and the men don’t want to look competent. Because they’re not. […] They are not taking themselves seriously. Their lives are not taken as something worthwhile. Someone put up a quote by Auster that said it very well, that people (adults) are not dressing with a “larger sense of self.”

And then points to the larger picture:

In the old days, back before we (as a people) were going nowhere — people had a larger sense of themselves, and where they were going. They were on an adventure of life, and though it was usually and often grim and frightful, and disfiguring and agonizing – there was a sense of something Out There.

Whereas now what is out there, where is there to go?

Good question. What is the answer?