Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Return Of The Living White Patriarchal Society...

Sometimes even the dimmest of bulbs begin to notice the obvious.....even if they don't like what it reveals.

Earlier this year, I published an article in City Journal called “Child-Man in the Promised Land.” The piece elicited a roaring flood of mailed and blogged responses, mostly from young men who didn’t much care for its title (a reference to Claude Brown’s 1965 novel Manchild in the Promised Land) or its thesis: that too many single young males (SYMs) were lingering in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood, shunning marriage and children, and whiling away their leisure hours with South Park reruns, marathon sessions of World of Warcraft, and Maxim lists of the ten best movie fart scenes.

It would be easy enough to hold up some of the callow ranting that the piece inspired as proof positive of the child-man’s existence. But the truth is that my correspondents’ objections gave me pause. Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood—one wife, two kids, three bathrooms—not because he’s immature but because he’s angry. He’s angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He’s angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.

But who, exactly, are we talking about here?
Marriage and fertility rates for Hispanics and Asians remains at a constant as does the out-of-wedlock pregnancies and fatherless homes for blacks.

So who in the world could the article be speaking of?
What demographic is left?
The reason for all this anger, I submit, is that the dating and mating scene is in chaos. SYMs of the postfeminist era are moving around in a Babel of miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations that are alternately proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional.

Again, the courting rituals and marriage habits of blacks, Hispanics and Asians have not fluctuated significantly in the past century, so what demographic are we talking about here?

Today, though, there is no standard scenario for meeting and mating, or even relating. For one thing, men face a situation—and I’m not exaggerating here—new to human history. Never before have men wooed women who are, at least theoretically, their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually.

"New to human history", in regards to social structures, is just a roundabout way of saying, "f**king with mother nature".
And that is ill advised as Nature is not an equalizer.

This attraction to bad boys is by far guys’ biggest complaint about contemporary women. Young men grew up hearing from their mothers, their teachers, and Oprah that women wanted sensitive, kind, thoughtful, intelligent men who were in touch with their feminine sides, who shared their feelings, who enjoyed watching Ally McBeal rather than Beavis and Butt-Head.

But then juxtapose the above with the following quote,
Adding to the bitterness of many SYMs is the feeling that the entire culture is a you-go-girl cheering section. When our guy was a boy, the media prattled on about “girl power,” parents took their daughters to work, and a mysterious plague seemed to have killed off boys, at least white ones, from school textbooks. To this day, male-bashing is the lingua franca of situation comedies and advertising: take the dimwitted television dads from Homer Simpson to Ray Romano to Tim Allen...

And so, at last, we get the question answered as to who it is that the article is speaking of. Who it is that is being targeted for ridicule and debasement in the media (Homer, Ramano and Tim Allen all portray White Men). Who it is that is casting off the society that cast them off first. Who it is whose actions (or lack of actions) are having such a profound effect upon society........The White Male!

Darwinian mores, or anti-mores, also explain the brutal status jockeying that pervades the contemporary dating scene and that makes the high school cafeteria look like a feminist utopia. Check out, a matchmaking website “created exclusively for beautiful, desirable people.” Members rank your picture on a scale of one to five and vote on whether to let you join their honored ranks or throw you into the slush pile of “saggy,” “hairy,” “sweaty,” “nerdy” rejects.

No, the problem with the Darwinian tenor of the Menaissance is neither antipathy to women’s equality nor a misguided reading of female nature. It is an uncompromising biological determinism that makes no room for human cultivation. We are animals, the new Darwinians seem to say; get used to it. They define manhood as alpha-style toughness and unsentimental promiscuity. And in that spirit, they cultivate manipulation, calculation, and naked (in both the literal and metaphorical sense) self-interest. “Nature doesn’t care about hurting people’s feelings,” explains dating coach Mike Pilinski. “It cares ONLY about reproductive success.”

But human beings rely on culture to tame natural selfishness. After all, we have prohibitions against grabbing a neighbor’s steak off the grill or kidnapping his daughter, to give just two examples of behavior about which Nature also doesn’t care. For this reason, successful human cultures expect far more of their men than muscle and promiscuity.

And to that, below is an exert from a review of Prof. Michael Levin's book, 'Why Race Matters' by Jared Taylor,
Prof. Levin is at his most original and provocative when he sets aside well-established data on intelligence and takes up the even more controversial question of morality. Other researchers have suggested that blacks differ from whites in ways other than IQ, but have not followed this argument very far.

For example, the widely used Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which subdivides personality into a number of categories, shows consistent differences in how blacks and whites evaluate themselves. Blacks, for example, hold themselves in higher regard than whites (or, in today’s jargon, have “higher self-esteem”). They are consistently more likely to agree with statements like:

I am an important person.
I am entirely self-confident.
If given the chance I could make a good leader of people.
I have often had to take orders from someone who did not know as much as I did.

The common assumption that blacks are “taught to hate themselves” is wrong; blacks are quite pleased with themselves. At the same time, they consistently score higher than whites on the MMPI scales for such things as Hypomania, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia, and Masculinity, which are precisely the traits that distinguish incarcerated criminals from the rest of us. They tend to agree, for example, with statements like:

Most people are honest chiefly through fear of being caught.
Most people make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them.
Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an advantage rather than lose it.
It is not hard for me to ask help from my friends even though I cannot return the favor.

Another finding is that blacks are more impulsive or present-oriented than whites. Given a choice between a small candy bar today and a big one tomorrow, black children are more likely than white children to want the small one today.

Finally, even within races, moral reasoning is closely associated with intelligence. Intelligence does not guarantee good behavior, but a certain level is necessary for self-knowledge and the comprehension of moral distinctions.

Prof. Levin does not flinch from drawing what may appear to be an unkind conclusion: Given the crime rates, social irresponsibility, lack of foresight, impulsiveness, and general self-centeredness of black behavior, blacks probably have a different inherent capacity and appreciation for morality.

He proposes that this difference can be explained by the environments in which blacks and whites (and Asians) evolved. In a warm climate where food can be gathered year-round, people do not need to develop habits of cooperation and planning in order to get through the winter. In the north, it took mutual trust and cooperation for groups of men to bring down large game, so reciprocal morality evolved along with intelligence.

Climate and terrain could also have influenced sexual behavior. Since African women could gather food for themselves and their children even if a mate abandoned them, there was less pressure to insist that men support their children. For the same reason, there was less evolutionary pressure on fathers to stick around. In the north, a man who abandoned his children might well leave no descendants to behave in like manner. And in fact, the family habits of Africans and transplanted blacks are extremely loose by white standards.

What we think of as moral behavior, including sexual morality, is now known to be heavily influenced by genes. As Prof. Levin points out, there is no biological reason to expect different populations to have evolved exactly the same distribution of morality-influencing genes. Therefore it is likely that “the races have … evolved divergent evaluations of cooperativeness, aggression, rule-following, and concern with the future.”

That blacks care less about others and worry less about the future is suggested in virtually every area of behavior. Crime is only the most obvious example, nor is it the expression of wretchedness and self-loathing that excuse-making whites pretend it to be. Prof. Levin notes that “the criminal behavior of young black males just does not look like an expression of despair. In account after account, these individuals come across as full of themselves and unrepentant.” He might have added that if blacks were really reduced to hopelessness by white oppression, they would presumably have high suicide rates, whereas in every age group blacks kill themselves at only one half to one quarter the white rate.

The other prominent black deviation from white morality is reckless procreation, but other traits are just as striking: unwillingness to do volunteer work, support charities, donate organs, volunteer as medical test subjects, keep quiet in theaters, recycle trash, save money, exercise, or keep houses in good repair. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to smoke, drink, and take drugs during pregnancy, even when doctors tell them not to. Blacks between ages 15 and 24 are ten times as likely to have fatal gun accidents as whites of the same age even when gun availability is controlled for. By white standards, black behavior is impulsive, shiftless, and inconsiderate.

People respond better to norms their ancestors evolved than to norms imposed on them by strangers. This may explain why black children get into trouble when held to standards of classroom decorum not “natural” to African societies. It may also explain current calls for “respecting the black learning style” or for Afrocentric curricula, but it is hardly fair of blacks to insist that the rules be changed to suit them after pushing their way unbidden into white institutions.


That (so called) "racist, misogynist, patriarchal, intolerant, White Male Dominated" civilization -Western Civilization- that we have so carelessly tossed aside over the last several decades was tens of thousands of years in the making.

It was, and remains, an organic product of biological evolution.

And it is beyond ironic that the feminist ideology espoused by the author of the article at the City Journal, are opinions that are only tolerated in......racist, misogynist, patriarchal, intolerant, White Male Dominated Western Civilization!

What's more, the woman writing the article is not so much complaining/lamenting about White Male actions, but rather, in-actions.

The White Men, having been asked to leave the party, are not resorting to counter attacks, but are instead obliging. Standing back and watching things fall apart.

Race is not a social construct. Society is a racial construct. Cultures are not simply setting around waiting for a group of Homo sapiens to come along and assimilate to their various materialistic realities.

Civilizations, Cultures, Societies -"Environments", are all organic and biological. They are sustained by one generation passing on their DNA to another.

Remove the White Man from Western Civilization and Western Civilization will collapse.

Ask him to step aside, and Western Civilization will collapse.

And considering the relative lack of people flocking to African, Asian or Middle Eastern nations, it's safe to assume that White people prefer White Civilization.

But with the White Man being pushed to the side, it's no wonder that America and other Western nations are mutating into something resembling a cross between North Korea/Mogadishu and Afghanistan/Ethiopia.

And all of this confusion and suffering comes from the ill advised and nature-renouncing dogma of Equality.

The pursuit of gender equality is what has caused the angst among young women of today.

The pursuit of racial equality in housing is what has caused the current economic recession.

The pursuit of equality in education is what has dumbed down an entire generation of Whites who saw their text books treated to "diversity" in an attempt to assuage the feelings and standards of lower IQ non-Whites.

Nature in no way promotes or tolerates Equality. And as the various races are a part of nature, trying to equalize them artificially will only result in a hideous catastrophe.

The final outcome however is as predictable as it is inevitable.

The title of this blog entry spells it out...