I recognize that I am opening up a can of worms with this post.
The sex/gender related posts tend to generate more controversy and responses than any other topic. But this is an important subject. It is worthy of further exploration.
In the past, I have been cynical about women, not because I am a misogynist per se, but because the Sexual Revolution of the 1970s has drastically narrowed the pool of attractive mates.
American women tend to ruin themselves these days. There are fewer incentives than ever before for a man to settle down with one woman. Marriages don’t last. Divorces can cripple a man financially. It is harder than ever before to raise children in this degenerate culture.
Here’s reality as it exists: what American man wants to settle down with an American woman who has slept with 15+ other guys, who is going to divorce him in four or five years, who is going to take all his money, who has an insolent, self-centered attitude, who doesn’t have the personality required for marriage and childrearing?
Before I go any further, I want to emphasize that I am not talking about women in general, but a socially and historically situated problem that afflicts contemporary American men. The peculiar conditions that modern men are facing are unique to our own times:
– Previous generations enforced strong taboos against frivolous sex. “Loose women” were shunned. “Cads” were frowned upon. Both were stigmatized with bad reputations in their communities. Neither men or women had as many sexual partners as they do today.
– The man used to be recognized as the head of the household. He was a provider. Men didn’t have to compete against the federal government. Women were never represented in the workforce to the extent they are today. They were not idle housewives, but they were not the primary “breadwinners” either.
– Abortion used to be illegal. Previous generations never had access to the methods of modern birth control.
– Previous generations of American women were not brainwashed 24/7 by film and television. Trashy celebrities were not role models. Feminism wasn’t glorified in our culture.
In so many words, the sexual landscape in America has changed dramatically since the 1970s, and this has implications for White Nationalism. The typical White Nationalist clings to the traditional sexual ideal which has become antiquated in contemporary social conditions.
The disconnect between this ideal and reality has been a source of frustration for countless White Nationalist men. There is no consensus among White Nationalists as to what to do about it.
The available options are as follows: forced celibacy, holding out for the right woman, adapting to the sexual marketplace. The latter two options are the most popular.
I’m only vaguely familiar with Roissysphere terminology. I have learned of these concepts second hand through friends who follow Roissy and the Men’s Rights community.
Alphas are men who sleep with lots of women, who are naturally attractive to women, and who can have any woman they desire; Betas are men who are less attractive to women, who pick one woman and have children, and who are the stable household providers; Gammas/Omegas are frustrated men who are not attractive to women and who don’t have any sexual partners.
Traditional American culture used to privilege the Betas. Alpha behavior was punished by an elaborate sexual code of courtship. There were enough women to go around for all but the biggest losers. The typical man ended up with the typical woman.
That’s no longer the case.
The majority of my male friends are married and divorced. Only a minority of them remain happily married. Most say they would never remarry after going through the crushing experience.
As for the women I know, the majority of them always deliberately choose the wrong man and end up pregnant and divorced within a few years. When they are young, they run through men like a deck of cards. Later, they age and become less attractive, and finally grow bitter when they find men are no longer interested in them.
The people I know who are happily married with children are the exception to the rule. In such an environment, it makes sense to be cynical White Nationalist male, and that attitude can persist until the unexpected happens.
So why bring all this up?
What happens when a White Nationalist beta male finally does meet an ordinary, traditional woman who is worthy of more than just passing sexual interest?
9 times out of 10 this doesn’t happen: most American women are some combination of slutty, crazy, dumb, boring, frivolous, self-centered, etc. Sound familiar?
You know what to expect. You know what you are dealing with. You know how far a relationship can go (i.e., don’t get married, don’t get her pregnant, don’t get attached) when you are dating one of these types.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. For every ten women you date, one or two might be worth entertaining thoughts you wouldn’t normally consider.
The danger here is obvious: the Beta instinct is to pedestal and romanticize the woman, fall in love, lose control of his emotions, come on strong, needless to say, the consequences of which can be disastrous.
In such a situation, it would be wise to get a second opinion, maybe even a third opinion. So you introduce your friends to the woman in question. They agree that she is smart, pretty, respectable, and wholesome, not cut from the same cloth as other girls, everything you are looking for in a serious relationship.
You get the all clear.
How do you shift gears though? How do you go from adapting to the sexual marketplace to finding a worthy mate and getting into a serious relationship? It is like the difference between flying and landing.
There are ordinary, traditional women still out there. They are fewer in number, but still exist. What do you do when you meet one?
People keep responding to him without mentioning this, so I will: Spock’s website states that he is an “affiliate” of One People’s Project (O.P.P.), the antifa group that agitates for violence against racially conscious Whites and implicitly White groups (such as Tea Parties).
John Walters says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Here is an issue from my personal life.
I periodically go on Platonic dates with a twenty-something white woman. She is fairly healthy and could bear children. She and I get along well; we have the intellectual respect and deep conversations that are supposed to be part of romantic love. Her ethics are considerably more permissive than mine.
She is not at all attracted to me. I am more attracted to her mind than her body. She fills a wife-shaped hole in my social life, although she does not warm my bed and probably never will.
She is not terribly happy because she feels unable to open up emotionally or romantically to anyone. I am not happy leaving her alone. One way or another, her path and my path will separate. But not yet. Whether this is friendship or dysfunctional malingering, I do not know.
‘How do you go from adapting to the sexual marketplace to finding a worthy mate and getting into a serious relationship? It is like the difference between flying and landing.’
One way or another, I am “serious” about my dysfunctional Platonic friend. That commitment on my part may prevent me from breeding. I am emotional and committed, but emotions and commitment are not necessarily enough to produce a successful marriage.
*******
You are what they call a “Cuddle Bitch.”
And no, you are not going to get the woman. You need to do some work and change your approach.
Also, the term “Alpha male” is NOT restricted to getting women. So in that sense Roisy and thus this essay is misleading, and misleading in a bad way. For example, “Beta males’ have never been privilaged, Hunter. And the best provider will by definition most likely be an Alpha male.
This essay is a good example of how a subject or concept, if misunderstood and/or taken from a bad source (Roissy), can be more harmful than good.
Since you use the terms “alpha” and “beta,” Brutus, why don’t you carefully and precisely define the terms “alpha” and “beta,” and tell us why you believe these are valid constructs.
@ “…That’s a far cry from the ‘here today gone tomorrow’ ‘alpha’ that Roissy and friends talk about.” — Donald
I agree with Donald that from a moral standpoint elevating “degenerate behavior”—what I call Neanderthal behavior—by calling it “Alpha” implies the wrong standard, and that calling men who engage in traditional relationships “betas” is also extremely deceiving.
I have avoided the subject of what is called “Game” because it strikes me as outright degenerate and unworthy of civilized white nationalists (only Judaized WASPs open their veins by playing such a suicidal game).
A few days ago I watched the DVD version of the 1959 film Journey to the Center of the Earth, which I had seen as a child in the silver screen. A deep nostalgia invaded me while seeing how Alec McEwen (Pat Boone) woos Lindenbrook’s niece Jenny (Diane Baker). Paraphrasing Spock I would say just the opposite: for reasonable men the ideal is a woman with no experience, a “clueless virgin” just like the one in the movie I liked so much as a child.
To demonstrate why the traditional marriage is for winners and “sex games” for losers, let’s indulge in the language of science.
In biology, success is measured by the number of descendants that an organism leaves. But since most of all of the descendants of a Don Juan who doesn’t care for his offspring may die prematurely, this definition is tentative and must be modified. Oxford zoologist David Lack argued that, for each species, natural selection favors the size of the offspring that results in the most of them surviving to maturity: a more accurate definition.
But we can further define fitness as the relative (i.e., compared to the other guys, including the so-called “alphas” in game theory) ability of a male to survive and leave offspring that themselves survive and leave offspring. This is standard biological theory, and what matters most is not the actual value of a male’s fitness in terms of the number of his progeny that survive to reproduce, but which individuals have higher fitness than others.
Here’s where Donald is right and “gamers” wrong when applying this definition to Homo sapiens. From the fitness viewpoint, what is the quality of living for human bastards (David Lack studied birds)? In our species fitness is a relative measure, with the fittest humans in a population being assigned the value 1. Alas, our enemies, the Jews, are #1 under this definition. But there’s a positive side to it: Take heed of their lifestyles! Traditional Jews aren’t Casanova-esque alphas!
If the fittest human male in a population is assigned the value 1, I would call that guy Abraham (“I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven”). All other individuals have their fitness expressed as fractions or proportions of 1 compared to the Abraham paradigm, who was everything but a degenerate “alpha” male or Don Juan. One of the reasons WNs must like Hitler and the Nazis is because they tried to turn Nordish people into Number One…
From a theoretical standpoint, it may be most productive to think of “Alpha” and “Beta” as subjective social categories which will vary over time according to which genetic traits are perceived, as being the most positively adapted to their environment.
…and therein lies the rub.
These perceptions are currently being fashioned by the mass media. And I think most of us would agree that our media do not have our genetic interests at heart.
Main criteria of alphas:
“how hot are the women he can attract,
how strong is that attraction for him,
and how many of those women find him attractive.”
Excerpt from:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/defining-the-alpha-male/
“There are ordinary, traditional women still out there. They are fewer in number, but still exist. What do you do when you meet one?”
Everything jews preach is designed around destroying other people’s nations because the more destroyed and corrupted the host nation is, the safer it is for jews. “Game” is just another example and “sexual marketplace” is a perfect example of their poisonous way of looking at things.
Seriously, put yourself in the mind of one of those traditional women and ask yourself how she would view someone who thinks in those terms.
Traditional white society was based on monogamous marriage because it’s the best system for producing high quality human capital (aka child-rearing) and white people evolved under harsh conditions where using the most optimal method was critical.
Our culture has been distorted beyond recognition but those distortions are *unsustainable* over the long-term precisely because what used to be considered “alpha” behaviour now has “beta” consequences – fewer and fewer men (or women) are prepared to engage in white alpha behaviour because that behaviour is punished by the new beta culture and yet the new beta culture is only possible because the traditional white alpha behaviour created such a huge surplus.
Long-term success is all about ploughing back into the soil, all about maintaining, building and improving your nation’s capital, and the single most important aspect of that is child-rearing.
To Hunter, if you happen to be reading this far,
You shift gears down one at time but never go into neutral. Remember, you have to keep running Game, just modify it a bit for a LTR.
That’s the whole point if you accept the Game paradigm. You can’t ever turn it off.
That’s an added cost of marriage, on top of the financial and legal risks you take today, unlike in the 50s.
Spock: “Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, but, fact is people have not changed that much, only how much they talk about it has.”
LOL! Geez, Spock. You really showed me.
If my bubble is ever burst, I suspect it will require a higher octane rating than what you have to offer. There have been massive changes in society over the last several decades. This is provable and demonstrable. There was in fact a “sexual revolution.” All informed people agree upon this, we only disagree on whether it was positive or not. But please feel free to prove your Stuff White People Like posturing. If you could, you’d be a millionaire. So go ahead, prove it.
Why do I have a feeling that all I’ll be hearing is a combination of nonsense and crickets chirping, backed by absolutely no proof whatsoever? Why not take your bullshit over to DailyKos, where the morons will believe anything?
Spock: “Well, there were a few choices which were couples were forced into loveless marriages, back ally or illegal office abortions, or the unmarried knocked up girl was sent to an aunt’s or a home and was forced to give the baby up for adoption.”
Yes, you can paint it as a negative. It can also be painted as a positive: less rape and less abuse for the simple reason that society discouraged women from putting themselves in situations where they are most vulnerable to these sorts of things. Less coarseness, more emphasis on manners. More emphasis on commitment, less on treating others as disposable masturbatory objects.
But, whether one posits this change as positive or negative, the take home point is that it’s been a big frigging change from then to now. Are you so dense as to not understand this? Apparently so. First you argue that there has been no meaningful change…then you list a bunch of changes. You remain utterly oblivious to the ridiculous contradictions in your position, which can be summed up as “There haven’t been changes…but there have been all of these changes, and they are for the better.” Which is it?
Spud: “You didn’t see interracial couples back when because it was illegal, but there was plenty of interracial sex going on!”
I’m sorry, I know Hunter wants us to keep this civil, but your ignorance and stupidity are simply staggering. Miscegenation was not illegal in the 80’s and into the 90’s, the time period that I refer to. It hadn’t been illegal since the 1960’s, and then only in a minority of states. It has been perfectly legal in the majority of states for many, many decades. So I’ll write it slowly so that even you might understand: there…is…MORE…of…it… NOW. This is supported both by census data, surveys, and personal observation. Your ridiculous and unsupported assertions don’t refute a mountain of evidence. Get it? Probably not.
Spud: “Everything is just more visible today.”
Prove it, Spud. There is enormous, quantifiable evidence that refutes your ignorant assertions. You could become a millionaire and overturn decades of academic research if you could prove even a small portion of what you claim to be the absolute truth. You’d quite literally become famous. But again, we know that’s not going to happen, because you are just a poser.
Also, are you a shut in as well? Do you get out at all? There has been a clear change in attitudes amongst the general population. There is no question that the average person is more amenable to degenerate behaviors than in the not so distant past.
Did you ever ask yourself WHY degenerate behaviors would have been less visible in the past? If nothing changes, why would that be? Um… possibly because the culture was different, and certain lowlife behaviors were discouraged by society? Nah!!! That couldn’t be it! Nothing changes…yet there have been all sorts of changes, and they are all for the good. Makes perfect sense.
Trainspotter,
Isn’t it funny how people, like Spock, try to pass off as wisdom the same old leftist propaganda that we’ve been hearing for decades.
For regular readers, some might question why I am being so hard on the utter moron Spock. I usually try to keep things civil, but not here. His schtick is the same thing that we see out of Hollywood, always trying to paint the “good old days” as in fact the bad old days. Always attempting to paint healthy white society as a degenerate and disgusting place, and today’s degeneracy as normal and healthy. Always the total inversion of truth, turning reality on its head.
Therefore, the lie goes, what do we have to be upset about? Why resist? You aren’t being attacked, everything is perfectly normal. It’s always been this way.
Talk about chutzpah.
Whether Spock is a Jew or not, I have no idea, but he definitely spouts off like one. On the other hand, the typical Jew is a lot smarter than he is, so maybe he is just another Hollywood brainwashed goy.
notuswind: “Isn’t it funny how people, like Spock, try to pass off as wisdom the same old leftist propaganda that we’ve been hearing for decades.”
lol Ain’t it the truth? They really think that they are hitting us with something fresh, something that we haven’t considered before. When in fact it’s just the same old pablum that we’ve debunked at every level, in every respect. In all seriousness, it’s like dealing with a rather dull first grader.
Roissy’s laughable so-called “definition” of “the alpha male” is not even remotely well-defined. “Game” devotees throw around the terms “game,” “alpha,” and “beta” with abandon, but they have yet to carefully define such terms or show that they are useful or even valid constructs.
But what message does television offer these days? Life is nothing but an endless series of problems that can never be solved until we admit our prejudices and resign ourselves to wallowing in pity until a strong female figure comes along to take charge and whip us into shape.
Those would be the “positive” shows. Most TV these days relish in the demented and absurd.
I’ve just expanded my previous comment into an entire post in my latest blog entry: here.
Chechar,
Was Abraham really married to his sister, or did he just say that, so he could pimp her to the Pharaoh?
In either case, he is forgiven because after he dumped his other illegitimate wife Hagar, and his bastard son Ishmael, in the desert to die, he then offered his son, Isaac as a human sacrifice.
It almost makes Hollywood pale in comparison.
Jimmy Marr,
I gather you have read the longer version of my comment.
Fitness (“I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven”) is the actual “alpha” marker, even though the Abraham figure could well be unhistorical.
As to child sacrifice, he is still a symbol of emergency. I wrote a whole book on the subject of child sacrifice (the contents page is located: here) and also about Hebrew child sacrifice and how to interpret the Abraham figure (here).
Pretty gruesome stuff…
@Brutus: ‘You are what they call a “Cuddle Bitch.”‘
I would actually be sticking it out if she were willing to cuddle. I am trying to cut loose because I don’t even get cuddled, she and I just talk.
Yes, someone will mention the “emotional tampon” label, I’m sure. I’ve been called worse.
@CaesarTort:
http://uncontroversial.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/caesartort-comments-on-abraham-and-casanova/
I was going to comment on your blog directly, but for some reason the CAPCHA letters were coming up with a broken GIF.
The issue, in the widest sense, is genes – will our genes survive? But the issue, in the close-up view, is personhood – are we addicted to salesmanship like Casanova?
I think Casanova was willing to sell anything – heresy, occultism, quackery, sex, sedition – but he always had to be selling. He was somehow addicted to getting people to agree with him. As with any addiction, it was dangerous and Casanova let it spiral out of control.
One thing I do agree with Gamers on, men need to expand their female acquaintances and not settle for the first girl that shows attention to them like a scared puppy. Often a man, like the one mentioned in a comment here, will invest his time in a dead end scenario with a woman who does not and probably will never care for him as he cares for her. To get what you want you have to seek it out, it rarely will come to you.
“In our species fitness is a relative measure, with the fittest humans in a population being assigned the value 1. Alas, our enemies, the Jews, are #1 under this definition.”
No they aren’t.
From a fitness standpoint the FLDS Mormons and Yemenis are easily superior to even the Orthodox Jews.
“If the fittest human male in a population is assigned the value 1, I would call that guy Abraham (“I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven”). All other individuals have their fitness expressed as fractions or proportions of 1 compared to the Abraham paradigm…”
For all we know there was another man from Abraham’s time with even more descendants today.
Interestingly, there seem to be more Greeks alive today than Jews. Perhaps no one man dominates the pedigrees of Greeks like Abraham supposedly dominates the pedigrees of Jews, but why should we assume that?
According to the Biblical account Abraham got a huge reproductive boost from his children and grandchildren practicing polygamy, but the thing to understand is that the Greeks practiced polygamy at least up to the Homeric era.
Or what about the Irish?
Scientists say Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish King from far more recent times than Abraham, somehow managed to be the direct male line ancestor of as many as 1 in 12 men in Ireland.
*****************************************
“Millions of Men May Be Descended From Irish King, Study Says”
Research suggests as many as 1 in 12 men in Ireland carry the genes of Niall of the Nine Hostages, bolstering claims that the ancient warlord founded a dynasty that dominated Ireland for centuries.
But scientists at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland say a distinctive genetic signature on the male Y chromosome, which is passed down from father to son, leads to Niall or some similar figure.
Niall had 12 sons, according to folklore, and took nine key hostages, including Saint Patrick, as way to subdue opponents and consolidate power.
Writing this month in the American Journal of Human Genetics, researchers said Niall “resided at the cusp of mythology and history, but our results do seem to confirm the existence of a single early medieval progenitor to the most powerful and enduring Irish dynasty.”
The approximate age of the Y chromosome was gauged by looking at genetic mutations that accrue over time. “Mutation occurs more or less like a clock,” Bradley said. “The chromosome’s age was consistent with someone of Niall’s vintage, about 1,700 years old.”
The same chromosome was also found in almost 17 percent of males tested in western and central Scotland and around two percent of New Yorkers of European origin.
The team estimates that two to three million males around the world share this same Irish ancestor.
The study suggests a link between powerful men and a strong genetic legacy, as more powerful men would have commanded access to more women.
“Polygamy was widespread, even in post-Christian Ireland,” Bradley said. “Earlier Irish customs were quite resistant to change. Divorce was allowed, and concubines.”
One 15th-century nobleman with Uí Néill lineage, Turlough O’Donnell, is known to have had 18 sons with 10 different women. His sons gave him 59 grandsons.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0120_060120_irish_men_2.html
@ “No they aren’t. From a fitness standpoint the FLDS Mormons and Yemenis are easily superior to even the Orthodox Jews.”
You missed the key phrase in my comment: “What matters most is not the actual value of a male’s fitness in terms of the number of his progeny that survive to reproduce, but which individuals have HIGHER fitness than others.”
When I wrote the above phrase I had in mind IQ studies. Because of their higher IQ, Jews produce individuals with higher fitness than others. Unlike the prolific Mormons and Yemenis, look at the Jews in the American media, academia and even in both the GOP and Democratic parties. Jews are the most adapted ethnic group because they created a religion based upon ethnicity; and natural selection in tough times created the Ashkenazis.
When eugenic pressure is strong enough, mutations creating higher intelligence occur (I guess this might start to happen to WASPs once they realize in the 2040s that they have been ill served with the population replacement policies pushed by ther natural competitors, the Ashkenazis).
I used the Abraham myth and not the Greek one—even though my real name, that John Walters disclosed above, comes from the Greco-Roman tradition—because after their golden age the Greeks stupidly miscigenated; while the Jews are notorious for preventing it. Also, the Greeks miscigenated for the bad with North Africans, a practice that hardly produces the “HIGHER fitness” in my definition of the successful man above. Conversely, the Ashkenazis miscigenated for the good with Caucasians.
I mentioned Hitler and the Nazis precisely because they tried to create a sort of eugenic ideology, symmetrical in some sense to non-Gentiles’ religion, but for the Nordish people.
It may not be too late to pick up their insights.
MGLS says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Since you use the terms “alpha” and “beta,” Brutus, why don’t you carefully and precisely define the terms “alpha” and “beta,” and tell us why you believe these are valid constructs
This is a fair question, and reading the recent and many threads and posts here regarding the subject and concept, is certainly in order.
We are all actually well familiar with the alpha male, and have been all our lives. There is nothing controversial here. An alpha male, from here on out refered to simply as AM, is/are the males who for whatever reasons, have been those who are more sure of themselves, more assertative in both forming and making manifest thier will, having the inner fortitude and ability to make themselves stand out and ahead of those around them, the ability to take whatever environment, resources, situation(s), etc., and make them turn out more favorable to him.
The AM is up front and doing it, he is not just following the lead or the rest. If there is a job or duty before him, he acts to the best of his ability and does not wait for the others to first set a course to follow. In a group he will be the spearhead or leader, and he does not do this out of ego or vanity, but simply out of nature.
Am’s almost always have more of what we call charisma, and this coupled with what I descibed aboveallows many of the characteristics and specific details as has been discussed recently on this site, e.g., women will be more attrated to him. Most, if not all of your selfmade businessmen, financially well off, etc., are in fact alpha males.
Well, I’m being summoned to leave right now so I will have to continue this later tonight. I want to elaborate more on this. I also want to stress that by no means are AM’s NOT family men or by deffinition excluded from being so, as has been asserted above. To the contrary, they make the best.
More later tonight.
Brutus
Am’s will be those whom other males will often envy, and by envy, it need not be a negative envy, but can be a positive envy, like using the Am as a role model or someone to use as a “guide” to try to be more like.
A few examples are in order here. As I already stated, Am’s are successful in several or most areas of life. The man who rises from modest or even extremely adverse roots to a solid and rewarding adult life. He does this not by being passive, unsure of himself and afraid of commitment to his will and dream, but by an inner nature of confidence and disposition. Something about him sets him apart from the average, run of the mill male. His life is assertive where theirs is passive and hesitent. The Am need not be good looking. He might not even be physically strong. But his personality is. The “bad boy” type, is also almost always an AM. Harley riders, especially the stereotypical ones, are almost all AM’s. Again, though, do not rush to restrict the AM to this and then assert what some on here have been doing and that thus AM’s are this and that and not what a White Nationalist should strive to be. The guy who “gets all the women” is also almost always an AM. He stands apart from the ordinary. He leads and does not follow. He doesn’t care what others think. If he wants to, he will wear outdated clothes and listen to whatever music he likes, Jonny Cash even, before that movie came and it became OKAY to like Jonny Cash, even cool. He wears a “wifebeater” shirt not because he beats women, but because they are comfortable. And if his favorite one happens to be pink, he doesn’t give a damn. So much for being “trendy” and the AM having to keep up with the latest fashion to get the girls.
I could go on, but it should be becoming clear what an AM is. And also what is not an AM, but Beta males and such. Needless to say, or it should be anyway, to claim that beta males make better husbands and fathers and even imply that AM’s cannot is ludicrous and a gross misunderstanding of the concept.
This thread is no longer on the front page and thus I don’t even know if anyone else will look at this, so I will pause here and see if anyone has any response or questions. More needs to be said and this Alpha male thing is important in more ways than one.
“Roissy’s laughable so-called “definition” of “the alpha male” is not even remotely well-defined. “Game” devotees throw around the terms “game,” “alpha,” and “beta” with abandon, but they have yet to carefully define such terms or show that they are useful or even valid constructs.”
This is no doubt true, but as I said, Roissy is himself only giving the terms a definition that suits him. If he starts writing about White Nationalism, for example, and gives it the ADL of SPLC definitions, no one who knows much about WN and who read, particiapated in and heard of it decades before coming across the name Roissy is going to be taken in.
It seems to me that many on this site must not have ever heard much of the terms Alpha and Beta males before someone started talking about Roissy. From the time of the very first human beings people knew their were what we are calling Alpha and Beta males.
I also am strongly convinced that a good many males can more or less become essentially Alpha males with some recognition of mistakes, faults and shortcomings and a willingness to try to change some things about themselves.
“When I wrote the above phrase I had in mind IQ studies. Because of their higher IQ, Jews produce individuals with higher fitness than others.”
That simply is not what the word fitness means. A higher IQ is not necessarily correlated with increased fitness. If it did, the Jews with their high IQs wouldn’t presently have far lower fitness than the FLDS Mormons and Yemenis.
If you want to know what the word fitness ACTUALLY means, look up the works of Charles Darwin and William Hamilton.
“Unlike the prolific Mormons and Yemenis, look at the Jews in the American media, academia and even in both the GOP and Democratic parties. Jews are the most adapted ethnic group because they created a religion based upon ethnicity; and natural selection in tough times created the Ashkenazis.”
Ashkenazi Jews are no more adapted to their niche than Yemenis are to theirs.
Possibly you could argue that they are more adapted than the Mormons, due to the fact that the Mormons are failing to defend their territory in Utah with as much vigor as the Jews are defending their territory in Israel, but the fact remains that there’s no objective reason to say the Jews are better adapted to their niche than the Yemenis are to their niche.
“Jews are the most adapted ethnic group because they created a religion based upon ethnicity…”
So what if they did?
The only possible advantage in fitness accrued from this relate to their ancestors possibly having their gene combinations less diluted in their descendants.
But as you admit, the Ashkenazi have in fact been quite diluted by mixing with European Caucasians.
So where is the mythical advantage in fitness you allude to?
“Also, the Greeks miscigenated for the bad with North Africans…”
I’ve seen no evidence for this assertion.
I would’ve thought if the Greeks mixed with anyone, it would’ve overwhelmingly been with Anatolians and peoples from the Balkans who would’ve been very close to them genetically.
Therefore very little attenuation of gene combinational fitness would’ve occurred from the standpoint of the ancient Greeks, and certainly less than that suffered by the Jewish ancestors of the Ashkenazi.
“Also, the Greeks miscigenated for the bad with North Africans…”
I’ve seen no evidence for this assertion.
Reginald Thompson is correct. There is no evidence for this. In fact if you travel throughout Europe and the US you will notice that it is mostly Nordic women who are miscegenating with Africans. I’m not sure why but I think Nordic men have been pretty weak in defending their women against Africans.
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/7.html
Refuting Racial Myths: Ancient Greece and racial change
Canarian says:
Reginald Thompson is correct. There is no evidence for this. In fact if you travel throughout Europe and the US you will notice that it is mostly Nordic women who are miscegenating with Africans. I’m not sure why but I think Nordic men have been pretty weak in defending their women against Africans.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-certain-s-euros-obsess-about.html
“Why certain S. Euros obsess about supposed rampant miscegenation by N. Euro women”
Racial Type of the Ancient Hellenes:
http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/hellenes/
http://www.white-history.com/earlson/hfk/reoehchap8b.htm
Hans F. K. Günther, The Racial Elements of European History
Chapter VIII The Nordic Race in Prehistory and in History
Chapter VIII – Part Two – The Hellenes
http://www.white-history.com/earlson/hellas.htm
Nordic Hellas by Karl Earlson
Color terms are notoriously relative; xanthos may only be taken to mean the fair end of the Greek hair continuum, not blond. This impression is enhanced by the descriptions of northern European hair as polios (gray, usually of old people) or leukon (white) to be found in Greek literature (Diodorus Siculus, Adamantius Judaeus).
Well, here we go again with the 1000th replay (in, as usual, an unrelated thread) of the never-ending ‘Nord-Med’ debate.
How utterly tiring.
Well, here we go again with the 1000th replay (in, as usual, an unrelated thread) of the never-ending ‘Nord-Med’ debate.
How utterly tiring.
It’s tiring because insecure Nord types don’t want to face facts. Travel around Europe and you’ll see the Nordic women shacking up with Africans or increasingly noticing Southern European men defending Whites and Europe much more vigorously.
Readers and moderators should note that this debate began with a comment by Chechar (a Mexican, not a Northern European), a response by Reginald (a virulently anti-“WASP,” anti-Nordish Southern European), and an attack on Northern Europeans by “Canarian.”
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2902#post2902
I did a survey of 14 threads on which intra-European differences have been debated on this blog. I found that nine were started by opponents of Northern European racial preservation or with attacks against “WASPs,” founding Americans, Anglo-Americans, and Northern Europeans. Only one was started by a supporter of Northern European racial preservation. (Two posts themselves had to do with Northern European preservation and intra-European differences; one started out of a discussion over whether the woman in the post was Sicilian or mestizo; and one started by Randy Garver, an opponent of white nationalism, asking who is white).
It is clear that supporters of Northern European racial preservation are not the ones who are starting these debates. Despite all the whining, wailing, and crying about how “Nordicists” are supposedly obsessed with the topic and supposedly bring it up all the time, the reality is exactly the opposite.
The typical pattern of these exchanges: Someone like “Canarian” (who seems to have appeared out of nowhere – is this is a sockpuppet?) denigrates Northern Europeans. A Northern European responds. The discussion continues. Then we get gnashing of teeth about how mean, nasty “Nordicists” incite so much conflict and whining and complaining about “off-topic discussions.”
If those who whine and complain so much about “off-topic discussion” and about discussion of intra-European differences really want to cut down on such discussions, they should focus their efforts on reducing the attacks against Northern Europeans, since that is the cause of most of these debates.
In response to the assertions of “Canarian”:
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-data-on-racial-mixing.html
What I hope is that some here hurry up and start relaxing more with their posts and stop with the idea that they have to WOW! everybody with each post trying to resemble a Ph.d dissertation in its meticulous attention to citations, italics, etc.
Guys, it is only a blog. Save the pedantics for your published, peer reviewed material. You do not have to prove anything to people.
What I hope is that some here hurry up and start relaxing more with their posts and stop with the idea that they have to WOW! everybody with each post trying to resemble a Ph.d dissertation in its meticulous attention to citations, italics, etc.
Guys, it is only a blog. Save the pedantics for your published, peer reviewed material. You do not have to prove anything to people.
Yep. Nordicist sociopaths like MGLS have to nerd it up with their citations and pedantics because they’re so insecure. There’s a reason why single Nordic females flock to Southern European beaches in droves to vacation alone, and they just can’t stand it.
How many times do we have to tell people to debate Nordicism on the forum?
“Canarian,” have you posted on this site under any other name(s)? If so, what name(s)?
I ask “Amerikaner” the same questions.
How many times do we have to tell people to debate Nordicism on the forum?
I have shown that the debates about “Nordicism” on this blog are overwhelmingly started by attacks against Northern Europeans or “WASPs.” Observe “Canarian” (whoever he is) on this thread. If you want to stop the debates about “Nordicism,” the best way to do so is to find a way to curtail the anti-Northern European comments. Without the venomous anti-Northern European attacks, most of the debates about “Nordicism” would not have materialized.
Instead of bemoaning the fact that these “off-topic” debates about “Nordicism” continually recur, those who dislike “off-topic” debates about “Nordicism” on this blog should focus on the culprits and instigators: those who incessantly engage in unprovoked attacks against “WASPs” and Northern Europeans.
Brutus: Harley riders aren’t Alphas, they just want to be seen as Alphas. Mostly they’re butch homos trying to impress some sissy boy. Real Alphas ride British iron, Triumph, Norton, BSA, and especially Royal Enfield.
Seriously, an awful lot of Harley riders are middle-aged tubbies playing out a second adolescence, post divorce. Ape hanger handlebars and fringed saddlebags are not the choice of experienced riders, they are the affectations of Gammas and Deltas. You’re more likely to find Alphas among those crazed boys on the rice rockets or Ducatis.
It is to be expected that prevaricators who spout unsupported and untrue assertions would deride as “pedantic” and “insecure” a desire for fact, detail, and accuracy.
The most recent comment by “Canarian” demonstrates what I have said about the similarity between opponents of white nationalism and white nationalist opponents of Northern European preservation.
Change a few words, and “Canarian”‘s comment could have come out of the mouth of a Jew, black, or leftist attacking white nationalists:
“Yep. Racist sociopaths like Jared Taylor have to nerd it up with their citations and pedantics because they’re so insecure. There’s a reason why single white females flock to Caribbean beaches in droves to vacation alone, and they just can’t stand it.”
The mentality and “arguments” of the anti-white leftist and the opponent of Northern European racial preservation are remarkably similar.
If you want to stop the debates about “Nordicism,” the best way to do so is to find a way to curtail the anti-Northern European comments. Without the venomous anti-Northern European attacks, most of the debates about “Nordicism” would not have materialized.
You sound just like a Jew, black, or leftist trying to shut out any rational criticism of Nordicist sociopaths like yourself.
You sound just like a Jew, black, or leftist trying to shut out any rational criticism of Nordicist sociopaths like yourself.
Are you able to comprehend conditional sentences? Perhaps they are too nuanced and “pedantic” for you to understand. Note the word “If.” I merely observed that if someone wanted to stop such debates, the logical thing to do would be to reduce the venomous anti-Northern European attacks, since anti-Northern European comments have been the overwhelming cause of the debates about “Nordicism.”
I did not request for criticism to be shut down. Nor did I say that I wished for venomous anti-Northern European comments to be stopped.
Personally, I don’t mind the debates about “Nordicism.” The more hostility people like you display toward Northern Europeans, the better. Such animosity helps show Northern Europeans that there are significant and important conflicts and differences among whites.
I will ask again: Have you posted on this site under any other name(s)? If so, what name(s)?
Personally, I don’t mind the debates about “Nordicism.” The more hostility people like you display toward Northern Europeans, the better. Such animosity helps show Northern Europeans that there are significant and important conflicts and differences among whites.
I’m not hostile to nor do I have any animosity towards Northern Europeans. Your negative attitude shows that Nordicists are a bunch of sociopaths who aren’t really interested in supporting and defending Whites. Southern Europeans and non-Nordicists will do far more for White interests than nutty Nordicists like yourself.
I’m not going to indulge your sociopathic paranoia and answer your foolish and disrespectul request.
I’m not hostile to nor do I have any animosity towards Northern Europeans.
Would you oppose the creation of a Nordish ethnostate (along with a Mediterranean ethnostate and ethnostates for all other racial groups) in North America? If you would deny separation to Northern Europeans, then you are hostile to them.
I’m not going to indulge your sociopathic paranoia and answer your foolish and disrespectul request.
You appeared out of the blue but seem to be quite familiar with this site and those who comment here. Since you refuse to answer the question, presumably the answer is yes, you have posted on this site under other name(s). What is/are the other name(s) you have used on this site?
http://www.preservationist-books.com/21.htm
A review of Richard McCulloch’s The Nordish Quest in the September 1989 issue of Instauration talks about how the Nordish race may be “loved to death” by those who would deny it separation.